From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 15-AUG-2003 12:27:20.17 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: communications with dogs, et.al. >> I have excellent two way communication with my coyotes and my dogs. > > A study published last year found that domestic dogs possess greater > abilities at reading human communications than do wolves or > chimpanzees. I don't believe that coyotes were studied. I am absolutely not surprised re wolves. Wolves don't get our body language and in fact, it is often responsible for unfortunate accidents with tamed wolves. Coyotes are the same, but seem a bit less "worried" about our ambiguity in communication. In my experience, they respond a bit less dramatically than wolves to the tone of voice, especially when the low tones (in Morton's theory, the "threatening" range) are used. SG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 15-AUG-2003 13:21:28.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Applied-ethology format, etc. Thank you Nora for pointing out what I and perhaps others have been missing (even though it should be blindingly obvious each and every time we read an A-E message). It is this: Joe, you are a complete star. Thank you. - Moira --- Nora Lewis wrote: > Joe, > > I wonder how much thanks you get for running this > website. It is so > valuable. > > Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. > > Nora > > Joseph M. Stookey wrote: > > >Hi Everyone, > > > >I have been receiving various messages concerning > the high volume of > >traffic from A-E and have been given lots of advice > on what should be > >done about it. Here are a few comments and > restrictions about our > >system that you should keep in mind. > > > >1) This system was set up in 1993 and comes with > all the horns and > >whistles that were available at that time - which > means essentially > >there are no frills. I can not send you a digest > form, I can not group > >messages according to topic, I can not run this > like a chat line, etc. > >I can't even add a signature to the bottom of all > of the messages > >telling everyone how to subscribe and unsubscribe. > Believe me, I tried. > >Folks, we have the bare bones, antique version of > communicating via > >e-mail! Sorry. > > > >2) I don't have the time, support or money to > change it. > > > >3) Just as I had to admit to myself that I don't > have time for all of > >the messages, I encourage all of you to learn how > to use the delete > >button if you think there are too many messages > that do not interest > >you. > > > >4) Just because some of us are not interested in > shock collar > >discussions, you have to admit that the topic has > drifted and evolved > >into other areas that may appeal to other > individuals. So I think the > >lesson here is a bit like our weather. Stick > around long enough and it > >will change. > > > >5) You are always welcome to introduce topics or > start discussions that > >interest you! > > > >6) I will not remove someone from the list (unless > their e-mail address > >is bouncing error messages). > > > >7) Keeping in mind that some people are tired of > some discussions, we > >should all refrain from sending every thought that > comes to our mind > >when reading another message. A good rule of thumb > might be to draft a > >response and then sit on it for awhile, check it > again later to see if > >you really want to send that to everyone. Some > messages may be better > >served by sending them to the original person and > not to the entire > >list. > > > >8) Above all have fun, learn lots, be kind and be > honest. > > > >Joe > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ 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" 15-AUG-2003 13:51:51.14 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! The private email I sent to Margory was as follows. Judge for yourself whether it is a personal attack or a restrained response to what was a gross defamation: I am very surprised by what you posted, and immensely offended by it. Not a week ago we were commended by others on the list for our lack of side when discussing difficult topics. Such remarks are beneath you. Jon On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 01:09 pm, margory cohen wrote: > Jon Bowen: > >> If some of my later emails have become 'testy' it is with good reason. >> I am sick of spiteful remarks being directed at anyone who does not >> support shock collars. >> >> I am very disappointed that you chose to make such defamatory remarks >> against me, and resent immensely any criticism of my professionalism >> or >> care for animals and client. >> >> You have stepped a long way over the line. > > margory cohen: > > Jon, > Kindly immediately stop sending me private email that sends insult and > intended offense. Not another one. At the outset of the debate here, > you > sent me private email as well -- including a quick follow-up to one > saying > that I shouldn't take offense at your tone. Why then write in such a > way? > You are hardly a 'victim' in this discussion, Jon. I would say you > have a > full blown role in this -- and not just by your blasts at me. You will > remember that I said publicly and privately that in the past we could > disagree without becoming disagreeable. That has been damaged. > > I disagree with some of your points; even more, I disagree with your > method > of delivering them, and I will not be subject to gratuitous attack or > volunteer for abusive distortion. It is inappropriate for you to > speak to > me as you think you can and do, publicly or privately, and privately, > you > are not welcome. This ill-serves any position and reflects more of the > speaker than of the person insulted. > > In actual fact, I >drew< a line, I drew a line early on in this > discussion > that marks a willingness to discuss on point, and NOT have this turn > into > personal assault with anyone -- anyone, not just you, Jon. > > &&&&&& > > A general note: I can't be alone in thinking that some of the > exchanges in > this particular line of conversation reflect some of the same confusion > about methods of training and working between humans and creatures; > the same > confusion comes up between people but it appears amongst people, that > abusive comments are acceptable as defense of rudeness and meanness. > > It's been an illuminating time. > I'm obliged for public and private notes that have clarified or offered > additional information -- but mostly -- kept a line of communication > open so > that the intent of the forum is not compromised. > -margory cohen > San Francisco From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 15-AUG-2003 14:02:43.48 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fancifulcriticisms! Thanks Diana, for reinterpreting what I said and hopefully making it clearer. The other point I have been trying to make is that there is no agreement on an objective and reliable measure of the aversive effects of the collar when the level is being set. There have been criticisms from the pro-shock collar side, of both physiological and behavioural indicators, and there are clearly differences in both individual and species responses to pain which both sides agree on. Also, as was pointed out by someone else that dogs may mask pain responses in certain situations. I would also argue that just because a dog is capable of ignoring the pain from a shock [because it is engaged in self defence or predatory behaviour for example] does not mean that it is not suffering. It just means that its immediate priorities require it to concentrate on something else. One other collar design may have an additional relevance to Diane's point about rising punishment levels. There are popular collars which automatically increase the shock level if repeatedly activated. This might encourage increasing pain tolerance, but also takes away the control over the aversive stimulus that users of collars require. Are these designs acceptable in use or are they more of a problem? Jon On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 11:50 am, Diane Lee wrote: >> I promised myself that I would just lurk, but I can't!! > > "Testing it on one's dog is precisely how one correctly determines the > appropriate setting. One starts with settings that are too low (that > the > dog doesn't notice), and moves up in small increments until the correct > setting is found. > >> Nobody cares as long as the dog gets trained. It doesn't matter what >> the >> dog goes through. > > I would appreciate it if you would cease with these ad hominem > attacks." > > Two things: Based on Laura's explanation that one starts with settings > that are > too low and moves up in small increments, one assumes that a number of > shocks are > given at any one setting prior to moving up to the next, immediate > level. Given > that the dog is said to be 'ignoring' the lower level, how do we know > that the > dog becomes conditioned to the stimulus of the shock, i.e. by moving > up in small > increments, the dog learns to tolerate the shock on a higher and > higher level, > meaning that in fact a shock greater than is actually needed is in > danger of > being used, as the increments move from discomfort to pain? I would > use the > analogy here of us stepping into a hot bath. You run a luke warm one, > get in and > turn on the hot tap. I guarantee that you would 'tolerate' a much > higher > temperature than if you stepped into the hot bath rather than 'moving > up in > increments of temperatures'. So, are e-collar users doing more than is > necessary, > regardless of the argument for/against?!? > > The second is this. I don't believe that Jon is being personal at all. > Let me try > to reword what he has said (and correct me Jon if this does not > reflect your > views). When Mr Public goes out to buy one of these fandabidosy > gadgets (collar > or otherwise) it is normally based on advertising, personal > recommendation or a > buzz in his circles about the gadget. It is sadly the exception in my > experience > that such items are bought after thorough research, the study of > dog/animal > behaviour or the trial/implementation of any one training technique, > whether that > be +R, -R or +Punishment. In other words, it is without thought. A > work colleague > of my other half has bought an e-collar because a 'dog-trainer' told > him to. He > wouldn't know the behavioural terms if they slapped him in the face > with a wet > kipper! he doesn't know why he is using it, or how it works. He has > done it > without thought and I bet he hasn't tried it on his own neck. So I > would rephrase > that as:- > > 'Nobody THINKS, as long as the dog gets trained. Nobody GIVES THOUGHT > to what the > dog goes through.' In my opinion, if nobody (Mr Public) thinks, then > how can they > care? Not personal at all. Fact. You can only care about something in > conscious > thought after all. For this reason I too believe that regulation is > desperately > needed in this and other areas of training. It's all very well > trainers arguing > for/against enforcements of regulations, but it's the PUBLIC who in > the main part > are buying these items without having made an informed decision > regarding the > method of training they are about to undertake. > From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 15-AUG-2003 14:09:52.12 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : punishment/appeasement Dear all, it is undisputed that very young foals perform mouth-clapping towards stallions and other horses; it is widely accepted by horse behaviourists as being an appeasing gesture. People do it all the time too, towards their own species. It becomes cross-special when a dog or horse is domesticated perhaps? I never did say anything about their enjoying it or not; I would not know. it is just an honest observation. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Diane Lee [mailto:D.Lee@mcri.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:37 PM To: R. Rodd Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: : punishment/appeasement Ian Dunbar says that there are three > species on this earth that display appeasement to their punisher, that > they are hardwired to do so. Those three species are: humans, domestic > dogs, and horses. Now that's a whole new can of worms. Notably, all Ian Dunbar's examples are animals highly dependent on social interaction. I think it's important to point out that in the case of horses (and dogs) they generally are in captivity and therefore it is in their best interests to 'appease' whoever is punishing them, for survival. I doubt they enjoy it or do it out of choice. From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 15-AUG-2003 14:19:17.24 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : punishment/appeasement Thanks for your input. Appreciated. I did not necessarily take Ian Dunbars comments as unassailable. Just thought it was worth sharing. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting Australia -----Original Message----- From: R. Rodd [mailto:rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 12:29 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: : punishment/appeasement Quick literature search on appeasement pulls up: Sicotte P The function of male aggressive displays towards females in mountain gorillas PRIMATES 43 (4): 277-289 OCT 2002 (female gorillas appease dominant male) Ord TJ, Evans CS Interactive video playback and opponent assessment in lizards BEHAV PROCESS 59 (2): 55-65 AUG 30 2002 (lizards appease opponents that don't back off) Coss RG, Marks S, Ramakrishnan U Early environment shapes the development of gaze aversion by wild bonnet Macaques (Macaca radiata) PRIMATES 43 (3): 217-222 JUL 2002 (young macaques appease older ones) Weinandy R, Hofmann S, Gattermann R The oestrus of female gerbils, Meriones unguiculatus, is indicated by locomotor activity and influenced by male presence FOLIA ZOOL 51 (1): 145-155 Suppl. 1 2002 (male gerbils appease females but get beaten up anyway) Which supports the notion of appeasement being something done where the appeaser can't/won't either leave the vicinity of the threatening/punishing animal or fight it but not that it's special to Dunbar's trio of species. On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Diane Lee wrote: > Ian Dunbar says that there are three > > species on this earth that display appeasement to their punisher, that > > they are hardwired to do so. Those three species are: humans, domestic > > dogs, and horses. > > Now that's a whole new can of worms. Notably, all Ian Dunbar's examples are > animals highly dependent on social interaction. I think it's important to > point out that in the case of horses (and dogs) they generally are in > captivity and therefore it is in their best interests to 'appease' whoever is > punishing them, for survival. I doubt they enjoy it or do it out of choice. > > ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 15-AUG-2003 14:24:36.30 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : punishment/appeasement I do not know exactly what he meant. I only wish he could provide some details. I know that foals perform mouth clapping to appease, and this is an unlearned behaviour. Perhaps he meant HARDWIRED appeasement. Ie unlearned. Maybe these other species only do it after learning it whereas horse dogs and people have it hardwired. Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: R. Rodd [mailto:rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:06 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: : punishment/appeasement I'm puzzled what Ian Dunbar meant by this statement - unless he was trying to get across the thought that it's necessary to make a distinction between situations where one animal "accepts" mild negative behaviour from another (e.g. male rabbit responds to a nip from his mate by moving away and letting her have an especially good piece of food) and one where there is a fight (e.g. two male rabbits start sparring and it escalates until one of them is either dead or driven away). Is the distinction he's trying to convey the difference between "punishing" an animal who believes you are both parts of the same social group and "starting a fight" with one who *doesn't* see you as a group member (so will either run away or fight)? On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Geiger wrote: > moves away from it. The horse whisperers do not use R+ at all! The idea > of appeasing the punisher is not meant to be an emotive one. It is meant > to be an honest behavioural concept. Horses do come back for more when > punished. So do dogs. So do humans. Maybe this explains why horses and > dogs have been mans closest animal companions, that they have this > appeasement in common. Is it sick? Twisted? I do not know. Perhaps it is > a survival technique expressed by a group animal dependant on others for > survival. Perhaps it just is. Perhaps it just is not. > Jackie Perkins > GOOD DOG [...] > with him based on my observations. Ian Dunbar says that there are three > species on this earth that display appeasement to their punisher, that > they are hardwired to do so. Those three species are: humans, domestic > dogs, and horses. Again, my observations allow me to agree with this > ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 15-AUG-2003 14:45:53.04 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Simon, I think there may be a reference out there and shall pass one on when and if I should find one. But if you do not mind I will share the sorts of observations I have made. Male and female dogs do appear to have separate hierarchies. Females get away with rather a lot of cheek (rule infractions) with males, even dominant males. The male, usually the dominant one of a male female pair, he puts up with sooo very much most people think the female is the dominant one. But they would be mistaken. The male puts her in her place just every now and then, then she goes quiet for a few days and shows him more respect (ie does not break so many rules with him). That is a good male leader in action. A less good male leader may be constantly correcting others and may appear to be a bully. Also supporting the idea that there are separate sex hierarchies: inter female aggression is the worst kind and more difficult to treat than any other kind. Why? Females have different rules for their hierarchy. Their rules are not as clear or stereotyped as the rules for a male hierarchy. They are "bitchy"! They snipe one another constantly, and occasionally it leads to overt attack. When it does they do not hold back like males do, they mercilessly rip into each other. Two bitches from the same litter, or even mother and daughter are the worst combination. I may be reading too much into what I have seen, I do not claim to be right, just giving my observations. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:33 PM To: Geiger Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning We may not be agreeing on the terms here. Ian Dunbar's argument is in line with many comments (including mine 40 e-mails ago) that domestication changed wolves radically during domestication and were "molded" to our needs. Again, the Belyaev studies show this can be done with red foxes within 20 years only by selecting for tamability or docility. The whole inter-species interaction pattern changed in those foxes (including tail wagging at the approach of the handlers). Appeasement to punisher: I would agree with Dunbar. That they "expect" to be allowed infractions: it would surprise me that this "cognitive foresight" would have been allowed during the process of domestication. But who knows. As for separate hierarchies in female/male dogs: what is the reference? Thanks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 00:34 Canada/Atlantic, Geiger wrote: Hi Simon et al, dogs do appear to expect to be permitted social infractions with people and other dogs. And dogs and bitches do appear to have separate hierarchies, at least Ian Dunbar says so and I agree with him based on my observations. Ian Dunbar says that there are three species on this earth that display appeasement to their punisher, that they are hardwired to do so. Those three species are: humans, domestic dogs, and horses. Again, my observations allow me to agree with this claim. This is why punishment works well on those three species (unfortunate or not?) hence one must be careful not to use it in preference to the more effective R+, when that will work. I'll be away for the next week at the behaviour conferences in beautiful Caloundra, just 1.5 hours drive away. I have asked my husband to just delete messages if the inbox becomes too clogged in my absence. Heading for the surf and sea and behaviour edification, yours truly, Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:46 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: 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%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 15-AUG-2003 15:07:27.35 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: communications with dogs, et.al. Hi Simon, Forgive me for jumping into the conversation but something you said prompted me out of "lurk mode." In my opinion anyway, wolves may be socialized, even trained, but never truly tamed. I have no doubt that some of the unfortunate incidents you refer to may have come about as a direct result of wolves misunderstanding human body language but I also think that, to a great extent, many unfortunate incidents with socialized wolves are a direct result of the humans involved mistakenly thinking the wolf or wolves they are handling are tame. Vivian _____ Vivian Singer-Ferris Executive Director Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. www.kerwoodwolf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Gadbois To: Laura Sanborn Cc: Applied ethology Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 1:27 PM Subject: Re: communications with dogs, et.al. I have excellent two way communication with my coyotes and my dogs. A study published last year found that domestic dogs possess greater abilities at reading human communications than do wolves or chimpanzees. I don't believe that coyotes were studied. I am absolutely not surprised re wolves. Wolves don't get our body language and in fact, it is often responsible for unfortunate accidents with tamed wolves. Coyotes are the same, but seem a bit less "worried" about our ambiguity in communication. In my experience, they respond a bit less dramatically than wolves to the tone of voice, especially when the low tones (in Morton's theory, the "threatening" range) are used. SG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 15-AUG-2003 16:38:28.72 To: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: communications with dogs, et.al. Hi Vivian I certainly don't disagree. I know very few mammals than can be truly=20 tamed. The papers from Fentress and Woolpy and Ginsburg I gave as a=20 reference many e-mails ago support that as well. I do agree 100% that people's mistake is to think that wild animals=20 that went through any level of taming (and we could go on an on about=20 the definition) will just act like domestic animals. I may be wrong in my use of the term "taming"; in French,=20 "apprivoisement" (taming) refers to any familiarization between a wild=20= animal and us. The process so poetically described in "Le Petit Prince"=20= of Saint-Exup=E9ry (please, don't flame me for this comment) although I=20= interacted with foxes that tamed as well... (smile). So, I think we agree completely. Another can of worms: it is a the=20 chore of the problem with wolf-dog hybrids. But let's not go there. :-) SG Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 16:51 Canada/Atlantic, Kerwood Wolf=20 Education Centre Inc. wrote: > Hi Simon, > =A0 > Forgive me for jumping into the conversation but something you said=20 > prompted me out of "lurk mode." In my opinion anyway, wolves may be=20 > socialized, even trained, but never truly tamed. I have no doubt that=20= > some of the unfortunate incidents you refer to may have come about as=20= > a direct result of wolves misunderstanding human body language but I=20= > also think that, to a great extent, many unfortunate incidents=20 > with=A0socialized wolves are a direct result of the humans involved=20 > mistakenly thinking the wolf or wolves they are handling are=A0tame. > =A0 > Vivian > _____ > =A0 > Vivian Singer-Ferris > Executive Director > Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. > www.kerwoodwolf.com > =A0 > =A0 > > =A0 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Simon Gadbois > To: Laura Sanborn > Cc: Applied ethology > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 1:27 PM > Subject: Re: communications with dogs, et.al. > > I have excellent two way communication with my coyotes and my dogs. > > > A study published last year found that domestic dogs possess greater=20= > abilities at reading human communications than do wolves or=20 > chimpanzees. I don't believe that coyotes were studied. > > > > I am absolutely not surprised re wolves. Wolves don't get our body=20 > language and in fact, it is often responsible for unfortunate=20 > accidents with tamed wolves. Coyotes are the same, but seem a bit less=20= > "worried" about our ambiguity in communication. In my experience, they=20= > respond a bit less dramatically than wolves to the tone of voice,=20 > especially when the low tones (in Morton's theory, the "threatening"=20= > range) are used. From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 15-AUG-2003 17:44:47.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces Hi Derek - I am taking dung samples from horses on a daily basis - from groups of up to 22 individuals. There is said to be some difference depending on time of day but I have found that watching herd activity will suggest a 'best time slot' for collection, which can then be kept to in each case. I'm not so sure about cattle (although I think there is a similarity) but horses tend to dung either before moving off after a 'rest break' or very shortly thereafter - I start my collection at 1.30pm to catch the end of the break - and will very often be finished collecting a sample from each animal by 3.45 - depending on weather and group size. Going by the 'cattle camps' (where cattle group to rest and chew cud after grazing sessions) that I see here it looks as if there is a similar dynamic that might be convenient for sampling. Hope this is of 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: Derek Haley [mailto:haleyderek@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2003 5:32 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Cortisol metabolites in feces Dear All, I have many questions about measuring cortisol metabolites in the feces of cattle. Let me start with a methodological question about sampling. An obvious way to sample would be to watch and wait, and then to watch and wait some more, and then finally to swoop down off your perch to the freshly plopped pattie below. Do you worry about this method resulting in samples being collecting from animals at different points in time throughout the day? What about putting the animals through a chute and sampling directly from the rectum instead? How soon would any stress caused by handling be likely to show up in their feces? The cattle would be from a research farm and be fairly used to handling, which is done quietly and they could also be handled in small groups to reduce the time between initial handling and sampling? Can shomeone shed shome light on this shituation? Derek _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 15-AUG-2003 22:58:51.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Training rabbits This may be considered "chat" but, I wanted all those folks out there who train dogs, horses etc. to know about this deaf companion rabbit (now 6 years old). She interprets hand signals. "Mommy thinks I am an extremely intelligent and well trained bunny. Even though I can't hear, I've learned to respond to mommy's handle signals." http://princessblackie.homestead.com/ From: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 16-AUG-2003 00:14:31.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning From the hammock! Unsubscribing only stops me writing in (spare me any jubilation!) I still receive everything and must learn to delete as Joe regularly However, this is irresistible. For what it is worth (heaven help Science), I consider bitches to be rather different to a degree. My Police Dog handlers appreciated their bitches (after some hesitation. They seemed to be beguiled by the extra 'edge' of vocal ferocity what I imagine I also could see. It was as if the female GSD invested more energy in threat and was quicker to dart in and withdraw. To me this seemed an adaptive strategy for a female with her extended duties in the reproductive area. Another bitch trait I imagined I saw was the compulsion to rush and nip "pack" members who left the group on walks (mostly on their return). My Labradors, Jack Russells and Border Terriers certainly seemed to do this. To me it seemed that the female was "reprimanding" the freelance activity. I think it is also important to recognize the phenomenon of implacable bitch fighting. This I do believe is a mechanism for pack splitting among some canids, which might be a "population density" issue and have adaptive value for a social creature. Human attempts to override this mechanism within the artificial confines of domestic arrangements can entail severe problems. Note my disciplined resistance of any outrageous extrapolation into another species. "Geiger" may kill this 'idea' puppy or pass it to group at her discretion. Robin Walker -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: 15 August 2003 21:45 To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Simon, I think there may be a reference out there and shall pass one on when and if I should find one. But if you do not mind I will share the sorts of observations I have made. Male and female dogs do appear to have separate hierarchies. Females get away with rather a lot of cheek (rule infractions) with males, even dominant males. The male, usually the dominant one of a male female pair, he puts up with sooo very much most people think the female is the dominant one. But they would be mistaken. The male puts her in her place just every now and then, then she goes quiet for a few days and shows him more respect (ie does not break so many rules with him). That is a good male leader in action. A less good male leader may be constantly correcting others and may appear to be a bully. Also supporting the idea that there are separate sex hierarchies: inter female aggression is the worst kind and more difficult to treat than any other kind. Why? Females have different rules for their hierarchy. Their rules are not as clear or stereotyped as the rules for a male hierarchy. They are "bitchy"! They snipe one another constantly, and occasionally it leads to overt attack. When it does they do not hold back like males do, they mercilessly rip into each other. Two bitches from the same litter, or even mother and daughter are the worst combination. I may be reading too much into what I have seen, I do not claim to be right, just giving my observations. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:33 PM To: Geiger Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning We may not be agreeing on the terms here. Ian Dunbar's argument is in line with many comments (including mine 40 e-mails ago) that domestication changed wolves radically during domestication and were "molded" to our needs. Again, the Belyaev studies show this can be done with red foxes within 20 years only by selecting for tamability or docility. The whole inter-species interaction pattern changed in those foxes (including tail wagging at the approach of the handlers). Appeasement to punisher: I would agree with Dunbar. That they "expect" to be allowed infractions: it would surprise me that this "cognitive foresight" would have been allowed during the process of domestication. But who knows. As for separate hierarchies in female/male dogs: what is the reference? Thanks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 00:34 Canada/Atlantic, Geiger wrote: Hi Simon et al, dogs do appear to expect to be permitted social infractions with people and other dogs. And dogs and bitches do appear to have separate hierarchies, at least Ian Dunbar says so and I agree with him based on my observations. Ian Dunbar says that there are three species on this earth that display appeasement to their punisher, that they are hardwired to do so. Those three species are: humans, domestic dogs, and horses. Again, my observations allow me to agree with this claim. This is why punishment works well on those three species (unfortunate or not?) hence one must be careful not to use it in preference to the more effective R+, when that will work. I'll be away for the next week at the behaviour conferences in beautiful Caloundra, just 1.5 hours drive away. I have asked my husband to just delete messages if the inbox becomes too clogged in my absence. Heading for the surf and sea and behaviour edification, yours truly, Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:46 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: 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%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 16-AUG-2003 02:23:52.63 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning from Robin Walker -----Original Message----- From: Robin Walker [mailto:robin@coape.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:14 PM To: Applied Ethology Network Subject: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning >From the hammock! Unsubscribing only stops me writing in (spare me any jubilation!) I still receive everything and must learn to delete as Joe regularly However, this is irresistible. For what it is worth (heaven help Science), I consider bitches to be rather different to a degree. My Police Dog handlers appreciated their bitches (after some hesitation. They seemed to be beguiled by the extra 'edge' of vocal ferocity what I imagine I also could see. It was as if the female GSD invested more energy in threat and was quicker to dart in and withdraw. To me this seemed an adaptive strategy for a female with her extended duties in the reproductive area. Another bitch trait I imagined I saw was the compulsion to rush and nip "pack" members who left the group on walks (mostly on their return). My Labradors, Jack Russells and Border Terriers certainly seemed to do this. To me it seemed that the female was "reprimanding" the freelance activity. I think it is also important to recognize the phenomenon of implacable bitch fighting. This I do believe is a mechanism for pack splitting among some canids, which might be a "population density" issue and have adaptive value for a social creature. Human attempts to override this mechanism within the artificial confines of domestic arrangements can entail severe problems. Note my disciplined resistance of any outrageous extrapolation into another species. "Geiger" may kill this 'idea' puppy or pass it to group at her discretion. Robin Walker -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: 15 August 2003 21:45 To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Simon, I think there may be a reference out there and shall pass one on when and if I should find one. But if you do not mind I will share the sorts of observations I have made. Male and female dogs do appear to have separate hierarchies. Females get away with rather a lot of cheek (rule infractions) with males, even dominant males. The male, usually the dominant one of a male female pair, he puts up with sooo very much most people think the female is the dominant one. But they would be mistaken. The male puts her in her place just every now and then, then she goes quiet for a few days and shows him more respect (ie does not break so many rules with him). That is a good male leader in action. A less good male leader may be constantly correcting others and may appear to be a bully. Also supporting the idea that there are separate sex hierarchies: inter female aggression is the worst kind and more difficult to treat than any other kind. Why? Females have different rules for their hierarchy. Their rules are not as clear or stereotyped as the rules for a male hierarchy. They are "bitchy"! They snipe one another constantly, and occasionally it leads to overt attack. When it does they do not hold back like males do, they mercilessly rip into each other. Two bitches from the same litter, or even mother and daughter are the worst combination. I may be reading too much into what I have seen, I do not claim to be right, just giving my observations. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:33 PM To: Geiger Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning We may not be agreeing on the terms here. Ian Dunbar's argument is in line with many comments (including mine 40 e-mails ago) that domestication changed wolves radically during domestication and were "molded" to our needs. Again, the Belyaev studies show this can be done with red foxes within 20 years only by selecting for tamability or docility. The whole inter-species interaction pattern changed in those foxes (including tail wagging at the approach of the handlers). Appeasement to punisher: I would agree with Dunbar. That they "expect" to be allowed infractions: it would surprise me that this "cognitive foresight" would have been allowed during the process of domestication. But who knows. As for separate hierarchies in female/male dogs: what is the reference? Thanks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 00:34 Canada/Atlantic, Geiger wrote: Hi Simon et al, dogs do appear to expect to be permitted social infractions with people and other dogs. And dogs and bitches do appear to have separate hierarchies, at least Ian Dunbar says so and I agree with him based on my observations. Ian Dunbar says that there are three species on this earth that display appeasement to their punisher, that they are hardwired to do so. Those three species are: humans, domestic dogs, and horses. Again, my observations allow me to agree with this claim. This is why punishment works well on those three species (unfortunate or not?) hence one must be careful not to use it in preference to the more effective R+, when that will work. I'll be away for the next week at the behaviour conferences in beautiful Caloundra, just 1.5 hours drive away. I have asked my husband to just delete messages if the inbox becomes too clogged in my absence. Heading for the surf and sea and behaviour edification, yours truly, Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:46 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: 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%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 16-AUG-2003 02:35:49.31 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: definitions Kace, you have a publication in terminology...I just realized after reading your correspondence. Good stuff. The definitions supplied in your Email are very nice and succinct. It must be a good book. Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: kcover [mailto:synalia@synalia.com] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:53 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re:definitions Operant conditioning definition of punishment: stimulus which decreases the frequency of the behavior it immediately follows. (A reinforcer increases the frequency of the behavior it immediately follows.) This definition specifically avoids any intent for retribution, or any assumption that the animal experiences such a response. It looks only at the effect on behavior. For example, according to these definitions, a person who repeatedly responds to "insults" was reinforced, hence they repeat the action which brought insults. Conversely, those who unsubscribed upon being exposed to this type of correspondance were punished, as evidenced by the fact that they removed themselves from future exposure to that consequence. As with animals, many find discord, and excitement, more reinforcing than accord and peace. For example, an option to obviate physical punishment was presented. It received NO comment, while the opportunity to disagree vehemently on e-collars has resulted in a books worth of writing. Back to irrational animals: Punishment need be immediate. In general, if the opportunity to punish "in progress" is missed, the animal is not punished, that trial. Agreed that it is most effective to communicate to the animal the requirements for success, and the consequences for abandoning success, before physical punishment is brought into play. I.e., the animal should be taught what ensures success, before it is punished for failing. For more information on terminology of training and operant conditioning, see: Cover,K. 2003. Terminology glossaries in "An Introduction to Bridge and Target Technique". Syn Alia Training Systems. Norfolk, VA. Hurley, J. and Scaramozzino,J.(eds) 1998. I.M.A.T.A. Glossary (of terminology). International Association of Marine Animal Trainer's Association. Chicago, IL. Reynolds, G.S., 1972? A Primer in Operant Conditioning. not sure of publisher, but he was at UCSD at the time. Best, and back on the road, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Andy Beck wrote: > Punish: Inflict a penalty on as retribution for an offence > > Punishment is conceptual and relies on both parties to the act of punishment > understanding the concept of retribution and the particular offence > committed. There is also an implied time delay between the act and the > consequential retribution. From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 16-AUG-2003 03:48:37.01 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: My 1.5 cents on shock collars The term 'shock collar' has been accepted for scientific publications,=20= government consultation exercises and in text books. It is widely used and not pejorative. There is not difference between 'static corrections', 'static shocks'=20 and 'shocks' delivered by collars, if the method of delivery is to pass=20= a current through a part of the body using a pair of electrodes. If you=20= think differently then please provide a proper reference supporting=20 your position, and don't resort to petty abuse. Jon On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 08:41 am, Geiger wrote: > There is a clear technical difference between shock and static. If you > do not like me making that difference that is your problem. To = continue > to use the term shock when it clearly is not, is just progagandising.=20= > We > do not have shock collars available in Australia to the best of my > knowledge, just static. And you are a prize example of a belligerent > collar luddite; whoever was criticising the collar camp for being > attacking: take note! If you can not make intelligent contributions,=20= > why > are you here? > Jackie Perkins > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 5:11 PM > To: Geiger > Cc: Michalchik@aol.com; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: My 1.5 cents on shock collars > > I am sorry, but I still do not accept your description of a future > filled with death for all dogs not lucky enough to have a shock collar > applied to them. > Earlier on you were also very adamant about the design and function of > electric shock cevices, saying that they deliver a static correction > etc. > This too is not true. > Both of the collars I have produce a shock that it nothing like = static, > either in terms of the discomfort caused or actual electrical > properties. > The use of terms like 'static correction', 'stimulation' etc are just > euphemisms. > Ironically I have no difficulty using the word 'punishment' when that > is what I am using. > Likewise 'shock' is an honest description of what is being delivered > via the electrodes of the collar, and there is no reason why we cannot > all use this term. > > Your statement about anti-bark collars is interesting. The vibration > triggering method is more reliable than those which rely on sound, but > actually both are dependent on vibration. Acoustic transmission = through > solids is vibration. I have seen vibration activated gas collars go = off > when dogs scratch, when they play fight and once when the owner = slapped > his dog on the shoulder. > To say that they are immune to false triggering is not accurate. > > Additionally, you are placing your trust in a device based on its > design. Since there is no requirement for all anti-bark collars to be > made this way there is nothing to stop a company designing and selling > a cheap collar that is based upon a sound detector. Nothing to stop = it. > Since yo obviously have an opinion on this, how would you feel if such > collars flooded the market? > Perhaps then you would want more controls? > > Jon > > > On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 04:34 am, Geiger wrote: > >> I see many similar cases regularly. Some need medication and/or >> training >> too, perhaps this dog would have benefited form some. But to make >> static >> pulse collars of the bark control variety , prescription only, would >> vastly increase expense and lead to many more dogs being euthansed. I >> have seen epi otic ear cleaning drops misued and causing much more > pain >> and disease than static pulse collars. Anyway just to clear up a >> misconception about how static pulse collars are triggered: they are >> not >> triggered by ambient noise. They are triggered by the vibration of = the >> wearing dog hence are not prone to false triggering. They can not be >> triggered by eating or drinking. Small vocalizations do not even >> trigger >> them. There is even one model which is triggered by a combination of >> vibration and noise which I use for dogs regularly using a dog flap >> because a good hard hit of the collar just may false trigger it. >> Jackie Perkins >> =A0 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:30 PM >> To: hmcmurra@elp.rr.com; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >> Subject: My 1.5 cents on shock collars >> =A0 >> 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: >> >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1) My perception of the dogs aggression may have = changed when >> the >> earsplitting barks were quelled. >> >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 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. >> >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 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. >> >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 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%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 16-AUG-2003 04:01:52.49 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: definitions In learning theory the definitions of punishment and reinforcement are definitely in terms of future expression of behaviour. Absolutely right, and I don't see any potential for disagreement on that. This does not mean that the effects of punishment are confined to the single behaviour that is being punished, however, as there are undoubtedly specific emotional and physical effects that arise from different kinds of punishment. The argument over shock collars and other aversive methods is not about whether they are punishers, but whether their use is acceptable or productive in certain situations, and whether there is a moral obligation to use non-aversive methods in all situations where this may be possible. Shock collars are not marketed for the minority of situations to prevent a very determined dog from chasing livestock, they are sold as a standard training tool for use in conventional training situations and we have had testimony to that effect. Jon On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 09:35 am, Geiger wrote: > Kace, you have a publication in terminology...I just realized after > reading your correspondence. Good stuff. The definitions supplied in > your Email are very nice and succinct. It must be a good book. > Jackie Perkins > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant > Australia > > -----Original Message----- > From: kcover [mailto:synalia@synalia.com] > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:53 PM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re:definitions > > Operant conditioning definition of punishment: stimulus which decreases > the frequency of the behavior it immediately follows. > > (A reinforcer increases the frequency of the behavior it immediately > follows.) > > This definition specifically avoids any intent for retribution, or any > assumption that the animal experiences such a response. It looks only > at > > the effect on behavior. For example, according to these definitions, a > person who repeatedly responds to "insults" was reinforced, hence they > repeat the action which brought insults. Conversely, those who > unsubscribed upon being exposed to this type of correspondance were > punished, as evidenced by the fact that they removed themselves from > future exposure to that consequence. > > As with animals, many find discord, and excitement, more reinforcing > than accord and peace. For example, an option to obviate physical > punishment was presented. It received NO comment, while the > opportunity > > to disagree vehemently on e-collars has resulted in a books worth of > writing. > > Back to irrational animals: Punishment need be immediate. In general, > if > > the opportunity to punish "in progress" is missed, the animal is not > punished, that trial. > > Agreed that it is most effective to communicate to the animal the > requirements for success, and the consequences for abandoning success, > before physical punishment is brought into play. I.e., the animal > should > > be taught what ensures success, before it is punished for failing. > > For more information on terminology of training and operant > conditioning, see: > > Cover,K. 2003. Terminology glossaries in "An Introduction to Bridge and > Target Technique". Syn Alia Training Systems. Norfolk, VA. > > Hurley, J. and Scaramozzino,J.(eds) 1998. I.M.A.T.A. Glossary (of > terminology). International Association of Marine Animal Trainer's > Association. Chicago, IL. > > Reynolds, G.S., 1972? A Primer in Operant Conditioning. not sure of > publisher, but he was at UCSD at the time. > > Best, and back on the road, > Kayce > > Kayce Cover > Syn Alia Training Systems > http://www.synalia.com > > Andy Beck wrote: > > >> Punish: Inflict a penalty on as retribution for an offence >> >> Punishment is conceptual and relies on both parties to the act of > punishment >> understanding the concept of retribution and the particular offence >> committed. There is also an implied time delay between the act and the >> consequential retribution. > > > > > From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 16-AUG-2003 06:20:21.09 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Punishers / reinforceers Jon, who basically insisted that I respond to the body of his arguements, writes: In learning theory the definitions of punishment and reinforcement are definitely in terms of future expression of behaviour. Absolutely right, and I don't see any potential for disagreement on that. Tony comments: Very well, then ... we have a starting point of agreement. But to be perfectly clear: A 'punisher' decreases the liklihood of behaviour in the future; whereas A 'reinforcer' increases the liklihood of behaviour in the future. Are you ->sure<- we agree on that Jon? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 16-AUG-2003 07:53:05.14 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Hello Hello everyone! my name is Hilit and i'm writing my M.Sc thesis these days on the control of stray cats using the TNR method, in Israel. Here in Israel, the subject of applied ethology is so rarely addressed, and my professor is almost the only person studying issues of applied ethology (Prof. Joseph Terkel). I have recently started looking into areas of interest for a Ph.D thesis. I am especially interested in pet welfare and the relationship between welfare, cognition and stress. If anyone is looking for a Ph.D student in these fields of interest, or can give new ideas or directions, i will be sincerely gratefull to him/her. Best wishes, and hoping to here from you, Hilit Finkler From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 16-AUG-2003 08:36:31.44 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Limiting the top end Limiting the top end of the collar is a step in the wrong direction. It was done before and the results were less than satisfactory. Back in 1977, was the first time that you could change and 'fix' the top end of the collar. This was done with a set of resistors that, once plugged into the collar, effectively limited the output. The thinking was that it would prevent the handler from over correcting the dog, it did not. The problem was (and remains) that the sensitivity of the individual dog increases and decreases 1) with the situation, and 2) varies SIGNIFICANTLY with the situation itself - yes, even with the individual dog. In 1985, knowing that those of us in the field were uncomfortable with not having any means to vary the top end to match the situation AND their variables, the manufactures came up with a way to 1) Set the top end, and 2) vary the stim level to match the situation. Still, we demanded more from them. We wanted a way to vary the top end too. In 1990, the manufactures delivered us a collar that gave us the ability to 1) Vary the top end, 2) vary the stim to match the situation, and 3) choose between momentary (1/10th of a second) stim, or continuous stim (up to 10 seconds). This flexibility allowed us (professionals in the field) to use the collar, not only as a punisher (decreases the likelihood of behaviour in the future) but as a reinforcer as well (increases the likelihood of behaviour in the future). We are now demanding that the physical size of the collar be made smaller so that it can be used with smaller dogs. (The current models, imo, are not suitable for dogs under 7 pounds - though some trainers are trying). I submit that any further advancement on the aspect of output will be on the lower end of the collar ... giving us then, the ability to change commands (e.g. directional work) while the dog is away from us and on task. We already have the ability to limit the top end. We could set it, and remove the dial. Or, the manufactures could simply key lock the dial, and we could set it and not give the key to the end user. So why don't we do this? Because the top end must change with the situation ... because the sensitivity of the dog changes with each situation and varies SIGNIFICANTLY with the situation itself ... yes - even with the individual dog. You see folks ... trying to limit (or 'fix') the top end is actually a step backwards to 1977. E-collar stim levels: There are exactly three stim levels to be concerned with. I don't care if the collar we are discussing has a bazillion different settings ... there are only three that count. 1: Not enough (will not produce the desired result); 2: More than enough (may produce an unintended and undesirable result); and 3: Just enough (produces the desired result, now and in the future). Those professional users of the device understand that as the intensity of the situation changes, so must the intensity of the correction. ->They also know that as the novelty of the situation (unconditioned stimulus) becomes (with experience) a discriminative stimulus (conditioned stimulus), that the type of correction will be different. And the professional understands that in any given situation, a dynamic may change and he must have the flexibility to change with it at his fingertips.<- Today's collars offer them the flexibility in both design and function. Anyone reading this that understands what I'm talking about will concur. Those that do not, should not try using the device without comprehensive instruction from an experienced professional. If tabled for discussion was the need for the manufacturers to print, in 10 point bold, an admonishment to the purchaser to seek professional instruction from an experienced trainer before using the product ... I would have no problem climbing on the soap box with you. But, I would like to see every manufacturer of every training aid required to do the very same thing. Bottom line, asking the manufacturers to step backward to 1977 is just plain dumb, and it shouldn't take strict scientific observation or citation to figure that one out. As to the 'morality' of using aversives ... I leave that discussion to those of you that have yet to break any of the Ten Commandments. I ain't qualified (I once stole a cookie from the cookie jar). But on that note ... I'll bet that establishing the moral criterion is as difficult a topic as the e-collar discussion itself. Except, of course, for those able to cast the first stone. Who wants to go first? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 16-AUG-2003 10:14:57.00 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fancifulcriticisms! <> I don't know there is much of a pro-shock collar side; I have not seen a post advocating the use of shock collars by either the general public or even a post pushing for the use of shock collars by experienced trainers. It seems to me you have set up a false set of positions, that one must either be working toward the banning of shock collars from the planet or one must be trying to put a shock collar into the hands of every dog owner on earth. In actuality there are positions between those extremes, such as the many posts from experienced trainers pointing out the uses of shock collars as an effective and humane tool enabling the dog to live happily among with his or her human family. Since someone else quoted from The Little Prince I must say I do believe humans are in fact responsible for teaching dogs the skills they need to live among humans. I am very happy for those who train using exclusively positive reinforcement, the only problem I see is when a dog does not respond to the positive reinforcement method of choice the purely positive trainers often chose to blame the dog, "he is unstable/has a bad temperament/poor breeding" or whatever, then kill the dog for the dogs alleged defects rather than try another method. It doesn't take much effort to look into pedagogy and andragogy to see that the learning style of the student impacts on the ability of the student to respond to certain types of teaching. For instance, tactile learners have a very hard time in a traditional classroom. Then there are differences in teaching among ages, and differences in teaching children and adults. I assume many of the list posters teach classes of humans, and imagine most would agree that one size fits all teaching will leave a certainly percentage of students behind. I submit that dogs too have learning styles, and the good trainer, the ethical trainer, must consider what other method might work when the method of choice is not working for the dogs at hand. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 16-AUG-2003 13:01:43.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: new member INTRODUCTION I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Mary Doran and I live in the UK where I train border collies in obedience and keep and breed parrots from conures to orange winged amazons. I've been keeping and rehabilitation problem pet parrots for about 10 years. I also teach piano and flute and so am familiar with positive learning methods and have been using them on people AND animals for the last 10 years. Among my methods I use clicker training which I was given very sound training in by Mary Ray the expert Dog handler and multiple winner of crufts supreme obedience champion. I am hoping to make animal behaviour a bigger part of my life and am about to embark on a 3 year course in animal welfare and veterinary studies leading to an Honours Bsc. I am hoping that it will help to equip me better to deal with the requests I am getting from people to help them with their animals and problems they have. Particularly with dogs and exotic birds. I beleive that there is soon to be a stricter code of practise for animal behaviourists (is that the correct term) in the UK and Europe. I basically would like to know what other behaviourists think of this course I am abut to take and if it will be useful and recognised in the field of animal therapy which i hope to go into. After taking the HND (2 years) http://www.moulton.ac.uk/course.asp?iid=321&cat=1001 then the Bsc top up year http://www.moulton.ac.uk/course.asp?iid=322&cat=1001 I would like to specialise in acupuncture and chiropracty so that it will be a useful skill I can employ to diminish long term pain/discomfort and serious aggression. As I wont be a qualified vet though...will this course enable me to go on to further courses that ARE recognised so I can practise these alternative methods legally? I am willing to top up my 3 year course with any specialist courses that exist ie in chiropracty or acupunture if they exist and I KNOW will be recognised in Europe and particular in the UK where I will be working. Many thanks in advance for all advice. Mary Doran From: IN%"anna.johnson@porkboard.org" "Anna Johnson" 16-AUG-2003 14:11:49.91 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Wood shavings Dear All, I have been asked if there is any research that has been completed or is on going on wood shavings as a bedding material for swine. The question pertains to how are the shavings treated (chemically or otherwise), how widely used is wood shavings as a bedding and how do pigs "like" wood shavings over other substrates. Any leads on this would be great. Thanks Anna Anna Johnson PhD Director of Animal Welfare National Pork Board P.O. Box 9114 Des Moines, Iowa 50306 Phone: (515) 223-3533 Fax: (515) 223-2646 Mobile: (515) 991-1776 E-mail: anna.johnson@porkboard.org copyright 2001: all rights reserved From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 16-AUG-2003 14:14:33.24 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Limiting the top end Tony Ancheta: > Limiting the top end of the collar is a step in the wrong direction. It was > done before and the results were less than satisfactory. > // > You see folks ... trying to limit (or 'fix') the top end is actually a step > backwards to 1977. > > E-collar stim levels: > > There are exactly three stim levels to be concerned with. I don't care if > the collar we are discussing has a bazillion different settings ... there > are only three that count. > > 1: Not enough (will not produce the desired result); > 2: More than enough (may produce an unintended and undesirable result); and > 3: Just enough (produces the desired result, now and in the future). and Tony Ancheta also wrote: And those that want to learn how to use one, those that want to learn how to instruct in their use, those that need a management bridge between a problem and a solution ... need to be able to get the information they need to do it right. margory cohen sent in: Most obliged for this, for the background as as well as clear information, information needed not only as in prior post of yours I included here, for the "need to do it right," but also for the possibilities and chance to focus again on that. -margory cohen San Francisco From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 16-AUG-2003 14:14:35.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Robin Walker: > My Police Dog handlers appreciated their bitches (after some hesitation. > They seemed to be beguiled by the extra 'edge' of vocal ferocity what I > imagine I also could see. It was as if the female GSD invested more > energy in threat and was quicker to dart in and withdraw. To me this > seemed an adaptive strategy for a female with her extended duties in the > reproductive area. > Another bitch trait I imagined I saw was the compulsion to rush and nip > "pack" members who left the group on walks (mostly on their return). My > Labradors, Jack Russells and Border Terriers certainly seemed to do > this. To me it seemed that the female was "reprimanding" the freelance > activity. > > I think it is also important to recognize the phenomenon of implacable > bitch fighting. This I do believe is a mechanism for pack splitting > among some canids, which might be a "population density" issue and have > adaptive value for a social creature. Human attempts to override this > mechanism within the artificial confines of domestic arrangements can > entail severe problems. margory cohen: Interested here too, so if Jackie Perkins or Simon Gadbois or Robin Walker or another have something on this, I too would be obliged. I can't find at the moment and if the author is here, please excuse me; -- I recollect a relatively recent beagles in hunting study and I forget if and gender appeared in to that report. Anecdotally, I know some who prefer a bitch for coursing and, in experience that I'll never forget, I too have been witness to pack bitches with difference of opinion. Mr. Darwin wrote of gender in writing about >size<, which of course I'd love and remember, because he used the Deerhound as an example. To the current topic, however, at that time, it's often the bigger males who appear in old hunt tales, the bitches not being paid quite the same attention. Perhaps John Burchard if his time allows would have more on this. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 16-AUG-2003 15:53:18.04 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" Subj: Dear Jon Dear Jon, I am copying this to the list so that all know that I have extended the offer, I hope you will accept. I can get you onto a trainer's discussion list to express your views about the need for performance standards for e-collars. You may be met with resistance, or you may be met with open arms. But either way, you will be making your case to the right people. Along with professional, vocational, and apprentice trainers from around the world, this list has in its membership key representatives for TriTronics, Dogtra, Pet Safe, and Innotek (which includes Invisible Fence). If it looks like your position is valid, then I will be glad to recommend you to an organization that has as in it's membership the Presidents for three of those companies. You will have to apply for membership to the org. to get access to their discussion list ... but it could serve your cause well. I will stay out of the discussion, you will have the freedom to present your case any way you want. What say you? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 08:44:38.49 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Why should this be a point of argument? On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 01:20 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Jon, who basically insisted that I respond to the body of his > arguements, > writes: > In learning theory the definitions of punishment and reinforcement are > definitely in terms of future expression of behaviour. > Absolutely right, and I don't see any potential for disagreement on > that. > > Tony comments: > Very well, then ... we have a starting point of agreement. But to be > perfectly clear: > > A 'punisher' decreases the liklihood of behaviour in the future; > whereas > A 'reinforcer' increases the liklihood of behaviour in the future. > > Are you ->sure<- we agree on that Jon? > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 17-AUG-2003 08:58:08.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Jon asked: Why should this be a point of argument? Tony comments: It shouldn't. Do you agree, then, that a punisher decreases the frequency of behaviour, and a reinforcer increases the frequency? Yes or No? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 09:12:44.45 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Limiting the top end Thanks for that Tony. I agree with the comments about variable sensitivity of dogs. What I would propose is that limits be applied to all products intended for sale to the general public. I know this would limit usefulness, but it would also limit the risk of harm if the product is used incorrectly. As many have stated on the list, the biggest problem is with the person pressing the button. However, the risk of abuse, accidental or deliberate, is great with these devices. I would consider it greater than with almost any other training method. early attempts to limit the power of shock collars were not effective but far more is now known about the design of the shock, thanks to the development of TENs and other devices that must minimise painfulness. IF shock collars are to continue to be sold then what kinds of limits would I like to see? 1. Standards on the reliability of the devices [shock-shock repeatability, false triggering etc]. 2. Standards for supplied manuals, handbooks etc. 3. Mandatory warnings for the kinds of situations the collar should and should not be used for. 4. Fixed, standardised maximum shock level, paying attention to waveform of the shock [which has a significant effect on painfulness]. 5. A ban on devices that, like the very poor early designs, apply an increasing voltage to break down surface resistance. These are the ones which used to cause neck burns. Not made any more by the main companies but nothing to stop someone making the same mistake again. 6. A maximum shock duration [possibly 0.1-0.2 seconds]. 7. A standard for the maximum delay between the depression of the shock trigger and the delivery of a shock. 8. Encrypted handsets to prevent false triggering by other users and other radio devices. 9. A maximum number of shocks that can be delivered over a prescribed period. These design limitations also apply to other electronic training aids, as I can think of at least one gas collar that has such a long delay between button depression and the gas squirt that in the hands of a lay person it is useless. I don't think that continuous stimulation collars should be available to the general public, especially those having high top shock levels because these offer the greatest risk of misuse of all. The average member of the general public would not be able to understand or apply the kind of negative reinforcement methods that continuous shock is used for. It is hard to see how they could be used safely. Jon On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 03:34 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Limiting the top end of the collar is a step in the wrong direction. > It was > done before and the results were less than satisfactory. > > Back in 1977, was the first time that you could change and 'fix' the > top end > of the collar. This was done with a set of resistors that, once > plugged > into the collar, effectively limited the output. The thinking was > that it > would prevent the handler from over correcting the dog, it did not. > The > problem was (and remains) that the sensitivity of the individual dog > increases and decreases 1) with the situation, and 2) varies > SIGNIFICANTLY > with the situation itself - yes, even with the individual dog. > > In 1985, knowing that those of us in the field were uncomfortable with > not > having any means to vary the top end to match the situation AND their > variables, the manufactures came up with a way to 1) Set the top end, > and 2) > vary the stim level to match the situation. Still, we demanded more > from > them. We wanted a way to vary the top end too. > > In 1990, the manufactures delivered us a collar that gave us the > ability to > 1) Vary the top end, 2) vary the stim to match the situation, and 3) > choose > between momentary (1/10th of a second) stim, or continuous stim (up to > 10 > seconds). This flexibility allowed us (professionals in the field) > to use > the collar, not only as a punisher (decreases the likelihood of > behaviour in > the future) but as a reinforcer as well (increases the likelihood of > behaviour in the future). > > We are now demanding that the physical size of the collar be made > smaller so > that it can be used with smaller dogs. (The current models, imo, are > not > suitable for dogs under 7 pounds - though some trainers are trying). > > I submit that any further advancement on the aspect of output will be > on the > lower end of the collar ... giving us then, the ability to change > commands > (e.g. directional work) while the dog is away from us and on task. > > We already have the ability to limit the top end. We could set it, and > remove the dial. Or, the manufactures could simply key lock the dial, > and > we could set it and not give the key to the end user. So why don't we > do > this? Because the top end must change with the situation ... because > the > sensitivity of the dog changes with each situation and varies > SIGNIFICANTLY > with the situation itself ... yes - even with the individual dog. > > You see folks ... trying to limit (or 'fix') the top end is actually a > step > backwards to 1977. > > E-collar stim levels: > > There are exactly three stim levels to be concerned with. I don't > care if > the collar we are discussing has a bazillion different settings ... > there > are only three that count. > > 1: Not enough (will not produce the desired result); > 2: More than enough (may produce an unintended and undesirable > result); and > 3: Just enough (produces the desired result, now and in the future). > > Those professional users of the device understand that as the > intensity of > the situation changes, so must the intensity of the correction. > ->They also > know that as the novelty of the situation (unconditioned stimulus) > becomes > (with experience) a discriminative stimulus (conditioned stimulus), > that the > type of correction will be different. And the professional > understands that > in any given situation, a dynamic may change and he must have the > flexibility to change with it at his fingertips.<- Today's collars > offer > them the flexibility in both design and function. Anyone reading this > that > understands what I'm talking about will concur. Those that do not, > should > not try using the device without comprehensive instruction from an > experienced professional. > > If tabled for discussion was the need for the manufacturers to print, > in 10 > point bold, an admonishment to the purchaser to seek professional > instruction from an experienced trainer before using the product ... I > would > have no problem climbing on the soap box with you. But, I would like > to see > every manufacturer of every training aid required to do the very same > thing. > > Bottom line, asking the manufacturers to step backward to 1977 is just > plain > dumb, and it shouldn't take strict scientific observation or citation > to > figure that one out. > > As to the 'morality' of using aversives ... I leave that discussion to > those > of you that have yet to break any of the Ten Commandments. I ain't > qualified (I once stole a cookie from the cookie jar). But on that > note ... > I'll bet that establishing the moral criterion is as difficult a topic > as > the e-collar discussion itself. Except, of course, for those able to > cast > the first stone. Who wants to go first? > > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 09:25:38.84 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before makingfancifulcriticisms! Hi Vicki, I would rather have not used the term 'pro-shock collar side' but it is clear that there are those for and against, and it is hard to make any sensible discussion without recognising that. It should not be taken as a pejorative term. I think you look more carefully what I have said and how this discussion has diverged. I have not demanded any outright ban, but this argument has gone off at so many tangents about whether these are shock collars, what a shock is, whether animals feel pain, etc that the overall argument gets lost or twisted. A summary of my position is this: The devices are shock collars, and that euphemisms are unnecessary, especially on this forum. The use of shock collars carries a risk of causing problem behaviour which may be very serious. The use of shock collars carries a significant risk of harming the welfare of the dogs that they are used on. Other methods of training are equally, or more, effective in almost all situations. This limits the range of situations in which shock collars might legitimately be used. To use them at other times is to cause unnecessary suffering, which is unacceptable. If shock collars are to remain on open sale then they must be designed in such a way that the risk of doing harm is minimised. In my opinion this means imposing the standards described elsewhere. If more powerful collars are to be used then these should only be used by trained and licensed individuals. I would not be upset by a ban on shock collars, but I did not call for one here. Elsewhere I have been described as a luddite, which I must say would amuse anyone who knows what a complete gadget freak I am. I have regularly put together electronic devices for helping to do training, such as a gently vibrating collar to alert a deaf dog to its owner's presence. I have no fear of technology at all. Jon On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 04:07 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: > < physiological and behavioural indicators, and there are clearly > differences in both individual and species responses to pain which both > sides agree on.>> > > I don't know there is much of a pro-shock collar side; I have not seen > a > post advocating the use of shock collars by either the general public > or > even a post pushing for the use of shock collars by experienced > trainers. It seems to me you have set up a false set of positions, > that > one must either be working toward the banning of shock collars from the > planet or one must be trying to put a shock collar into the hands of > every dog owner on earth. In actuality there are positions between > those extremes, such as the many posts from experienced trainers > pointing out the uses of shock collars as an effective and humane tool > enabling the dog to live happily among with his or her human family. > > Since someone else quoted from The Little Prince I must say I do > believe > humans are in fact responsible for teaching dogs the skills they need > to > live among humans. I am very happy for those who train using > exclusively positive reinforcement, the only problem I see is when a > dog > does not respond to the positive reinforcement method of choice the > purely positive trainers often chose to blame the dog, "he is > unstable/has a bad temperament/poor breeding" or whatever, then kill > the > dog for the dogs alleged defects rather than try another method. > > It doesn't take much effort to look into pedagogy and andragogy to see > that the learning style of the student impacts on the ability of the > student to respond to certain types of teaching. For instance, tactile > learners have a very hard time in a traditional classroom. Then there > are differences in teaching among ages, and differences in teaching > children and adults. I assume many of the list posters teach classes > of > humans, and imagine most would agree that one size fits all teaching > will leave a certainly percentage of students behind. > > I submit that dogs too have learning styles, and the good trainer, the > ethical trainer, must consider what other method might work when the > method of choice is not working for the dogs at hand. > > Vicki Magnus > From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 17-AUG-2003 09:26:24.30 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" Subj: RE: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Hi, When I mentioned that wolves have separate dominance hierarchies based on sex (thanks by the way to point out that female dogs do to; I honestly never asked myself that question and never saw any work on this), in wolves, interestingly, females can show as much aggression as males... if not more. Overall, during the 25 years of the Canadian Centre for Wolf Research here in Nova Scotia, I was told by the old timers that females are often more aggressive than males: in frequency, duration, intensity. These trends are often "circumstantial", e.g., because of an unbalance of the hierarchy that year... Only longitudinal studies on many other packs would confirm this trend. We (McLeod, Fentress, Ryon, myself) are currently working on a paper entitled "Distribution of aggression in a pack of wolves" (or something like that, I forget the exact wording). It should be out early next year. It addresses (implicitly) the myth that males are the leaders of a pack and that females have a passive role in the dominance hierarchy. As mentioned many e-mails ago, that is not true. I am not a domestic dog specialist, so I won't say more, but I may be remembering some mentions of male/female dominance/aggression issues in James Serpell's excellent book on the domestic dog; the book in question is somewhere in one of my 25 or so unpacked box... Anybody remembers that specific reference? (it was a chapter by one of the contributors)? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ > > margory cohen: > > Interested here too, so if Jackie Perkins or Simon Gadbois or Robin > Walker > or another have something on this, I too would be obliged. > I can't find at the moment and if the author is here, please excuse > me; -- I > recollect a relatively recent beagles in hunting study and I forget if > and > gender appeared in to that report. > > Anecdotally, I know some who prefer a bitch for coursing and, in > experience > that I'll never forget, I too have been witness to pack bitches with > difference of opinion. > Mr. Darwin wrote of gender in writing about >size<, which of course > I'd love > and remember, because he used the Deerhound as an example. To the > current > topic, however, at that time, it's often the bigger males who appear > in old > hunt tales, the bitches not being paid quite the same attention. > Perhaps John Burchard if his time allows would have more on this. > -margory cohen > Scottish Deerhounds > San Francisco From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 17-AUG-2003 10:24:49.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning margory cohen replied -- sorry, Simon to write above yours; formatting in email makes this so. By chance in James Serpell's book _The Domestic Dog_ ( Serpell, James (editor) and Barrett, Priscilla. The Domestic Dog. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1995.) are you referring to Chapter 5, "Analysing breed and gender differences in behaviour," by Benjamin L. Hart? (The references for this chapter and a quick skim this morning after Simon's, by chance, the first name I fell upon was Daniel Tortora, this time the worked sited, _The Right Dog for You_.) James Serpell long ago was in this list. I can't take this book from my shelf and not look through it, so Simon, I don't know to thank you for the reminder of this chapter, or the light touch it takes to redirect my attention from what I'm already reading. -margory cohen San Francisco ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Gadbois Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning I am not a domestic dog specialist, so I won't say more, but I may be remembering some mentions of male/female dominance/aggression issues in James Serpell's excellent book on the domestic dog; the book in question is somewhere in one of my 25 or so unpacked box... Anybody remembers that specific reference? (it was a chapter by one of the contributors)? From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 17-AUG-2003 10:39:18.14 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" Subj: RE: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Yes, that's the one! Thanks, I was starting to un-pack boxes furiously=20= to find it... SG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 13:21 Canada/Atlantic, margory cohen wrote: > margory cohen replied -- sorry, Simon to write above yours; formatting=20= > in email makes this so. > =A0 > By chance in James Serpell's book _The Domestic Dog_ (=A0Serpell, = James=20 > (editor) and Barrett, Priscilla.=A0The Domestic Dog.=A0Cambridge, UK,=20= > Cambridge University Press, 1995.) are you referring to Chapter 5,=20 > "Analysing breed and gender differences in behaviour," by Benjamin L.=20= > Hart? > (The references for this chapter and a quick skim this morning after=20= > Simon's, by chance, the first name I fell upon was Daniel Tortora,=20 > this time the worked sited, _The Right Dog for You_.) > James Serpell long ago was in this list. > I can't take this book from my shelf and not look through it, so=20 > Simon, I don't know to thank you for the reminder of this chapter,=A0or=20= > the light touch it takes to redirect my attention from what I'm=20 > already reading. > -margory cohen > San Francisco > =A0 > =A0 > =A0 > =A0 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Simon Gadbois > =A0 > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 8:25 AM > Subject: Re: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and=20 > learning > > I am not a domestic dog specialist, so I won't say more, but I may be=20= > remembering some mentions of male/female dominance/aggression issues=20= > in James Serpell's excellent book on the domestic dog; the book in=20 > question is somewhere in one of my 25 or so unpacked box... Anybody=20 > remembers that specific reference? (it was a chapter by one of the=20 > contributors)? From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 17-AUG-2003 11:02:55.24 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"margory@rcn.com" "'margory cohen'" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology Network'" Subj: RE: hierarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning I have rummaged Serpell and on page 122 (Chap. 8, Bradshaw and Nott, "Social and communication rehaviour of companion dogs" I find "Females establish pair wise relationships on the basis of vocalizations and threats, which could again indicate wither an underlying social structure or simply assessments of each others abilities to obtain and defend resources" That sounds like the bitches I have known! The next sentence on p123 has "Hierarchies constructed on the basis of the outcome of these contests tend to be linear in the more aggressive breeds but, in less aggressive breeds, several individuals can appear to hold the same rank." This last observation bleeds from earlier discussion of hierarchical contests in males although it does remind me of many of the wonderful women I used to employ Robin -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: 17 August 2003 16:26 To: margory cohen Cc: Applied Ethology Network Subject: Re: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Hi, When I mentioned that wolves have separate dominance hierarchies based on sex (thanks by the way to point out that female dogs do to; I honestly never asked myself that question and never saw any work on this), in wolves, interestingly, females can show as much aggression as males... if not more. Overall, during the 25 years of the Canadian Centre for Wolf Research here in Nova Scotia, I was told by the old timers that females are often more aggressive than males: in frequency, duration, intensity. These trends are often "circumstantial", e.g., because of an unbalance of the hierarchy that year... Only longitudinal studies on many other packs would confirm this trend. We (McLeod, Fentress, Ryon, myself) are currently working on a paper entitled "Distribution of aggression in a pack of wolves" (or something like that, I forget the exact wording). It should be out early next year. It addresses (implicitly) the myth that males are the leaders of a pack and that females have a passive role in the dominance hierarchy. As mentioned many e-mails ago, that is not true. I am not a domestic dog specialist, so I won't say more, but I may be remembering some mentions of male/female dominance/aggression issues in James Serpell's excellent book on the domestic dog; the book in question is somewhere in one of my 25 or so unpacked box... Anybody remembers that specific reference? (it was a chapter by one of the contributors)? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ margory cohen: Interested here too, so if Jackie Perkins or Simon Gadbois or Robin Walker or another have something on this, I too would be obliged. I can't find at the moment and if the author is here, please excuse me; -- I recollect a relatively recent beagles in hunting study and I forget if and gender appeared in to that report. Anecdotally, I know some who prefer a bitch for coursing and, in experience that I'll never forget, I too have been witness to pack bitches with difference of opinion. Mr. Darwin wrote of gender in writing about >size<, which of course I'd love and remember, because he used the Deerhound as an example. To the current topic, however, at that time, it's often the bigger males who appear in old hunt tales, the bitches not being paid quite the same attention. Perhaps John Burchard if his time allows would have more on this. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 17-AUG-2003 11:09:22.69 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"margory@rcn.com" "'margory cohen'" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology Network'" Subj: RE: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning For wither read either (groan) -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: 17 August 2003 17:39 To: margory cohen Cc: Applied Ethology Network Subject: Re: heirarchies -- was Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Yes, that's the one! Thanks, I was starting to un-pack boxes furiously to find it... SG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi Fox" 17-AUG-2003 11:36:48.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology Network'" CC: Subj: punishment question Can a sufficiently strong aversive (P+) decrease or extinguish a fixed action pattern response to a species specific stimulus? (citations welcome) In other words, does punishment override a response to stimulus that is "hard-wired"? OBi Fox From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 17-AUG-2003 12:59:34.27 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Tony, You sly dog! Were you the captain of your debate team? The semantics of the term punisher have fueled much of this dramatic debate. Semantics: 3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings Punish: 1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation 2 a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on : Main Entry: di·min·ish Pronunciation: d&-'mi-nish Function: verb Etymology: Middle English deminishen, alter. of diminuen, from Middle French diminuer, from Late Latin diminuere, alteration of Latin deminuere, from de- + minuere to lessen -- more at MINOR Date: 15th century transitive senses 1 : to make less or cause to appear less 2 : to lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation of : BELITTLE 3 : to cause to taper intransitive senses 1 : to become gradually less (as in size or importance) : DWINDLE 2 : TAPER synonym see DECREASE - di·min·ish·able /-ni-sh&-b&l/ adjective - di·min·ish·ment /-m&nt/ noun Kayce Cover not too long ago mentioned that the term diminisher was being used more in operant conditioning than punisher. It is a more accurate term without the emotional overtones. It is simply a consequence that diminished the occurrence of a behavior. It need not be painful, shameful, fearful, or injurious. It functions by interrupting a behavior, frequently a practiced and entrenched behavior. An NRM, no reward maker, can function as a +D diminisher. Cessation of an intermediate bridge can function as a -D diminisher. These might also classify as auditory and emotionally neutral aversives as they can function to help train the subject to avoid an object or specific behavior. In the post I forwarded about +A or -A, I also tried to side step the overtones of punishment and substitute consequences that are desirable to acquire +A or to avoid -A. Life is made up of both. When driving, I wish to generally drive down the center of my lane, +A, by looking at where I want to go. I also need to reserve a portion of my attention to what I want to avoid such hazards as potholes, -A, by detecting the hazard and seeking a safe path around it, again +A. The overtones of the term punisher, with a technical meaning for operant conditioning quite different that meant in common usage, seem to have stirred up conditioned emotional responses on both sides of the debate about using aversives. In teaching a dog to heel backwards for a few steps, my husband will bring a dog at heel close to a door that opens inward, open the door slowly while backing up himself and the dog naturally backs up to avoid the dog. This is to some degree an aversive--dog avoids the moving door. Is it punitive? The dogs don't seem to think so. It is a real life occurrence that appears to make sense to the dog. Heeling dogs around the house, outside in crowed conditions etc. in a playful interactive manner seems to show them the reason for heeling is so both partners can move through the environment as team, navigating around obstacles smoothly. To list members who are emotionally caught up in this debate, ask yourselves how the term diminisher changes your response? do you respond as emotionally or more logically? Which term seems more accurate to you? Julie Alexander with credit to Kayce Cover for clarifying the terms to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Ancheta" To: Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 7:58 AM Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers > Jon asked: > Why should this be a point of argument? > > Tony comments: > It shouldn't. Do you agree, then, that a punisher decreases the frequency > of behaviour, and a reinforcer increases the frequency? Yes or No? > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 17-AUG-2003 13:48:13.68 To: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi Fox" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology Network'" Subj: RE: punishment question On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 15:32 Canada/Atlantic, OBi Fox wrote: > Can a sufficiently strong aversive (P+) decrease or extinguish a fixed=20= > action pattern response to a species specific stimulus?=A0 (citations=20= > welcome)=A0 In other words, does punishment override a response to=20 > stimulus that is "hard-wired"? > =A0 > OBi Fox > Oh my... that is quite an issue in ethology. The main argumentation here would be based on how "fixed" the FAP is...=20= and Barlow as well as others, would point out that very few previously=20= identified FAP's fit the criteria and that the better term is MAP=20 (modal action pattern). It seems to me that there is a hierarchy of=20 behaviour patterns from very "fixed", to less "fixed" to very loose=20 (stochastic). Something like this (from deterministic, to almost=20 random): FAP --> MAP --> Natural action sequence. The MAP model was suggested to account for the possibility of=20 developmental (including via learning) modulations of a behaviour=20 pattern. Does that help? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 17-AUG-2003 13:53:54.48 To: IN%"sgadbois@dal.ca" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers > Tony comments: > It shouldn't. Do you agree, then, that a punisher decreases the > frequency > of behaviour, and a reinforcer increases the frequency? Yes or No? What if you are reinforcing a dog to stay calm and stay down at your feet? Here the reinforcer (whatever that would be) decreases the frequency of, let's say, moving around. No? It seems to me that the definition above is a bit restrictive... Agree? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 17-AUG-2003 14:02:24.37 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Sorry, I have to review my point: what I meant is that you can't really argue that it "increases" the FREQUENCY (not yelling) of a behaviour. It decreases the frequency of any behaviour. SG On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 16:53 Canada/Atlantic, Simon Gadbois wrote: >> Tony comments: >> It shouldn't. Do you agree, then, that a punisher decreases the >> frequency >> of behaviour, and a reinforcer increases the frequency? Yes or No? > > What if you are reinforcing a dog to stay calm and stay down at your > feet? Here the reinforcer (whatever that would be) decreases the > frequency of, let's say, moving around. No? It seems to me that the > definition above is a bit restrictive... Agree? > > > Simon Gadbois From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 15:09:14.89 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers I am not sure why this is such a significant point? The definitions of punishment and reinforcement as specific technical=20 terms within learning theory are well known and accepted, and do not=20 have any bearing on points that have been made about the use of =20 aversive methods in the previous debates about shock collars etc. We=20 all know what we are talking about surely? I think it is a shame if terms such as punisher get ditched in favour=20 of other terms such as diminisher because the scientific terms are well=20= understood by those who use them. Jon On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 05:28 pm, Julie Alexander wrote: > Tony, > You sly dog! Were you the captain of your debate team? The semantics = of > the term punisher have fueled much of this dramatic debate. > Semantics: > 3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of=20 > signs; > especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in > advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an > audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual=20 > meanings > Punish: > 1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to > inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or > retaliation > 2 a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on : > Main Entry: di=B7min=B7ish > Pronunciation: d&-'mi-nish > Function: verb > Etymology: Middle English deminishen, alter. of diminuen, from Middle > French diminuer, from Late Latin diminuere, alteration of Latin > deminuere, from de- + minuere to lessen -- more at MINOR > Date: 15th century > transitive senses > 1 : to make less or cause to appear less > 2 : to lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation of : BELITTLE > 3 : to cause to taper > intransitive senses > 1 : to become gradually less (as in size or importance) : DWINDLE > 2 : TAPER > synonym see DECREASE > - di=B7min=B7ish=B7able /-ni-sh&-b&l/ adjective > - di=B7min=B7ish=B7ment /-m&nt/ noun > > Kayce Cover not too long ago mentioned that the term diminisher was > being used more in operant conditioning than punisher. It is a more > accurate term without the emotional overtones. It is simply a > consequence that diminished the occurrence of a behavior. It need not=20= > be > painful, shameful, fearful, or injurious. It functions by interrupting=20= > a > behavior, frequently a practiced and entrenched behavior. An NRM, no > reward maker, can function as a +D diminisher. Cessation of an > intermediate bridge can function as a -D diminisher. These might also > classify as auditory and emotionally neutral aversives as they can > function to help train the subject to avoid an object or specific > behavior. > > In the post I forwarded about +A or -A, I also tried to side step the > overtones of punishment and substitute consequences that are desirable > to acquire +A or to avoid -A. Life is made up of both. When driving, I > wish to generally drive down the center of my lane, +A, by looking at > where I want to go. I also need to reserve a portion of my attention = to > what I want to avoid such hazards as potholes, -A, by detecting the > hazard and seeking a safe path around it, again +A. > > The overtones of the term punisher, with a technical meaning for=20 > operant > conditioning quite different that meant in common usage, seem to have > stirred up conditioned emotional responses on both sides of the debate > about using aversives. In teaching a dog to heel backwards for a few > steps, my husband will bring a dog at heel close to a door that opens > inward, open the door slowly while backing up himself and the dog > naturally backs up to avoid the dog. This is to some degree an > aversive--dog avoids the moving door. Is it punitive? The dogs don't > seem to think so. It is a real life occurrence that appears to make > sense to the dog. Heeling dogs around the house, outside in crowed > conditions etc. in a playful interactive manner seems to show them the > reason for heeling is so both partners can move through the = environment > as team, navigating around obstacles smoothly. > To list members who are emotionally caught up in this debate, ask > yourselves how the term diminisher changes your response? do you=20 > respond > as emotionally or more logically? Which term seems more accurate to=20 > you? > Julie Alexander with credit to Kayce Cover for clarifying the terms to > me. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Ancheta" > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 7:58 AM > Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers > > >> Jon asked: >> Why should this be a point of argument? >> >> Tony comments: >> It shouldn't. Do you agree, then, that a punisher decreases the > frequency >> of behaviour, and a reinforcer increases the frequency? Yes or No? >> >> >> Tony Ancheta, NBR >> www.koehlerdogtraining.com >> Westpoint, California >> Action->Memory->Desire >> > > > From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 17-AUG-2003 15:39:25.94 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Jon wrote: I am not sure why this is such a significant point? The definitions of punishment and reinforcement as specific technical terms within learning theory are well known and accepted, and do not have any bearing on points that have been made about the use of aversive methods in the previous debates about shock collars etc. Tony comments: Trust me, Jon ... their is bearing. Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour; Do we agree (and now accept)? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 15:45:49.03 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Why not throw in definitions of positive and negative punishment and reinforcement too? Then we can all be happy. Jon On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 10:37 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > I am not sure why this is such a significant point? > > The definitions of punishment and reinforcement as specific technical > terms within learning theory are well known and accepted, and do not > have any bearing on points that have been made about the use of > aversive methods in the previous debates about shock collars etc. > > Tony comments: > Trust me, Jon ... their is bearing. > > Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; > Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour; > Do we agree (and now accept)? > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 17-AUG-2003 16:01:17.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers As you wish ... Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour. You are going a long way around not answering a simple yes or no question, Jon. Do you agree and accept the terms and descriptions above? Allow me to remind you what you wrote: " The definitions of punishment and reinforcement as specific technical terms within learning theory are well known and accepted, and do not have any bearing on points that have been made about the use of aversive methods in the previous debates about shock collars etc." Lohn Bowen At 10:45 PM 8/17/03 +0100, you wrote: > >Why not throw in definitions of positive and negative punishment and >reinforcement too? >Then we can all be happy. > >Jon > > >On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 10:37 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > >> I am not sure why this is such a significant point? >> >> >> Tony comments: >> Trust me, Jon ... their is bearing. >> >> Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; >> Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour; >> Do we agree (and now accept)? >> >> >> >> >> Tony Ancheta, NBR >> www.koehlerdogtraining.com >> Westpoint, California >> Action->Memory->Desire >> > Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 16:05:04.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Dear Tony, +P= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that decreases future expression of a behaviour [response]. e.g. addition of a shock stimulus. -P= removal of a stimulus [appetitive] that decreases future expression of a behaviour [response]. e.g. withholding of an anticipated food reward. +R= addition of a stimulus [appetitive] that increases future expression of a behaviour [response] . e.g. addition of a food reward. -R= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that increases future expression of a behaviour [response]. e.g. cessation of a [continuous] shock. The precise timing relationship between events needs also to be defined. The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. Is that acceptable, bearing in mind that there are lots more ways to refine of rephrase such definitions; these are summaries of the facts not the facts themselves. The arguments over whether... aversive methods are necessary, e-collars are the same as shock collars, shock collars may cause pain and suffering, static corrections are still shocks, shock collars may be misused, etc, etc, do not revolve around definitions of punishment and reward. I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on looking words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. I don't regard this issue as a game. Jon From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 17-AUG-2003 16:13:51.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Jon wrote: I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on looking words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. I don't regard this issue as a game. Tony comments: Nor do I Jon; and this is becoming tedious. Either you agree with these terms and discriptions or you don't; Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour. Yes or no ... a one word answer is all we are waiting for. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 17-AUG-2003 16:19:16.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Jon wrote: The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. Tony comments: This, btw, is not strictly true. But we can get into that later. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 17-AUG-2003 16:26:06.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Just to check these definitions are universally accepted and we have common ground now. Case: A child throws a tantrum - the response from the parent is to ignore the child until the behavior ceases. During my tertiary teacher training this was presented as negative reinforcement, specifically with regard to how one might deal with a student who is constantly seeking to be the focus of attention - but that would seem not to be the case from the definitions offered. 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:05 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers Dear Tony, +P= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that decreases future expression of a behaviour [response]. e.g. addition of a shock stimulus. -P= removal of a stimulus [appetitive] that decreases future expression of a behaviour [response]. e.g. withholding of an anticipated food reward. +R= addition of a stimulus [appetitive] that increases future expression of a behaviour [response] . e.g. addition of a food reward. -R= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that increases future expression of a behaviour [response]. e.g. cessation of a [continuous] shock. The precise timing relationship between events needs also to be defined. The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. Is that acceptable, bearing in mind that there are lots more ways to refine of rephrase such definitions; these are summaries of the facts not the facts themselves. The arguments over whether... aversive methods are necessary, e-collars are the same as shock collars, shock collars may cause pain and suffering, static corrections are still shocks, shock collars may be misused, etc, etc, do not revolve around definitions of punishment and reward. I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on looking words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. I don't regard this issue as a game. Jon From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 16:30:15.28 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers I was very pleased to take up your offer to go into the lion's den on the balanced trainers list. If you have a point please make it now, because I am not going to get cornered into agreeing with your simplified definitions just so you can surprise us all with some amusing little conundrum. Jon On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 11:19 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Jon wrote: > The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. > > Tony comments: > This, btw, is not strictly true. > > But we can get into that later. > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 17-AUG-2003 16:46:26.82 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: The lion's den Jon wrote: I was very pleased to take up your offer to go into the lion's den on the balanced trainers list. If you have a point please make it now, because I am not going to get cornered into agreeing with your simplified definitions just so you can surprise us all with some amusing little conundrum. Tony comments: The lion's den? I assure you, there are more than a few there that will agree with you ... and I promise to alert you when you are walking into a trap. So far, of those responding to you ... one is a writer, journalist and dog-trainer, another is the great-grandson of the man who once presented a legal arguement with this sentence "A dog, this man's best friend ..." (which of course later became "A dog is a man's best friend"), becoming a dog trainer was as natural for him as becoming an attorney was for his greatgrandfather. A conundrum, Jon? I have little time for philosophical diversion. If you'll answer yes or no to the terms and definitions you yourself say we agree and accept, I'll move on. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 16:48:28.07 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Hi Andy, In this situation the tantrum is negatively punished through loss of attention, with the aim that the current tantrum ends more quickly than otherwise and future tantrums are less probable. The return to acceptable behaviour is, presumably, positively reinforced through the return of attention, so that good behaviour is more likely in the future. I suspect that most teachers wish it were that simple... As with all punishments, there is often a temporary increase in the expression or intensity of a behaviour, if that response has previously been rewarded. For example, frustration of non-reward can also produce aggressive responses, and children who have previously been rewarded with attention when throwing a tantrum and who expect the strategy to work again may throw an even bigger one. The problem is that this 'super tantrum' often gets the child what it wanted, as the parent gives attention in a desperate attempt to stop what has frequently become a public humiliation for them. Some breeds of dog seem to react particularly badly to frustration, in my experience, and will react by becoming more active, aroused and irritable. Certain types of terriers spring to mind. This kind of reaction to punishment is just one reason for qualifying any agreement to a simple set of rules on punishment and reinforcement. Best wishes, Jon On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 11:24 pm, Andy Beck wrote: > Just to check these definitions are universally accepted and we have > common > ground now. > > Case: A child throws a tantrum - the response from the parent is to > ignore > the child until the behavior ceases. > > During my tertiary teacher training this was presented as negative > reinforcement, specifically with regard to how one might deal with a > student > who is constantly seeking to be the focus of attention - but that > would seem > not to be the case from the definitions offered. > > 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:05 a.m. > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers > > Dear Tony, > > +P= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that decreases future expression > of a behaviour [response]. e.g. addition of a shock stimulus. > -P= removal of a stimulus [appetitive] that decreases future expression > of a behaviour [response]. e.g. withholding of an anticipated food > reward. > +R= addition of a stimulus [appetitive] that increases future > expression of a behaviour [response] . e.g. addition of a food reward. > -R= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that increases future expression > of a behaviour [response]. e.g. cessation of a [continuous] shock. > > The precise timing relationship between events needs also to be > defined. > The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. > > Is that acceptable, bearing in mind that there are lots more ways to > refine of rephrase such definitions; these are summaries of the facts > not the facts themselves. The arguments over whether... aversive > methods are necessary, e-collars are the same as shock collars, shock > collars may cause pain and suffering, static corrections are still > shocks, shock collars may be misused, etc, etc, do not revolve around > definitions of punishment and reward. > > I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on looking > words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. > I don't regard this issue as a game. > > Jon > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 16:57:41.47 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: The lion's den That was a joke, by the way. I am very pleased to get their input, and don't consider it a lion's den...for now! I am not going to agree any limited definition, because as you obviously understand there is more to this subject than a handful of sentences. I am not going to drag myself into a circular argument about learning theory, because there are still remaining points that you continue to dispute without justification, such as the definition of shock and e-collars. My argument is about welfare and this current diversion is leading away from that. If you have a point then just get to it, because unless you do this will be my last response to this line of argument...much as I do enjoy talking to you. Best wishes, Jon On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 11:46 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Jon wrote: > I was very pleased to take up your offer to go into the lion's den on > the balanced trainers list. > If you have a point please make it now, because I am not going to get > cornered into agreeing with your simplified definitions just so you can > surprise us all with some amusing little conundrum. > > Tony comments: > The lion's den? I assure you, there are more than a few there that > will > agree with you ... and I promise to alert you when you are walking > into a trap. > > So far, of those responding to you ... one is a writer, journalist and > dog-trainer, another is the great-grandson of the man who once > presented a > legal arguement with this sentence "A dog, this man's best friend ..." > (which of course later became "A dog is a man's best friend"), > becoming a > dog trainer was as natural for him as becoming an attorney was for his > greatgrandfather. > > A conundrum, Jon? I have little time for philosophical diversion. If > you'll answer yes or no to the terms and definitions you yourself say > we > agree and accept, I'll move on. > > > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 17-AUG-2003 17:05:00.90 To: IN%"haleyderek@hotmail.com" "Derek Haley", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces Derek What's the purpose of examining cortisol? Are you looking for something related to chronic or acute stress? If the latter, then you'll need to time the taking of the sample to reflect when the stressor occurred - because of the time for the cortisol to show up in the faeces (so, in response to your question, the restraint for taking samples per rectum will not show up in the sample). If you are applying a procedure to an individual or individuals then you'll obviously need to know the ID of the animal giving the sample. If you are looking at a group treatment, then you can just collect the faeces of the ground. Suggest you take a look at: Mostl et al 2002. Vet Res Comm 26, 127-139 (Measurement of cortisol metabolites in faces of ruminants). Palme et al 2000. Vet Rec 146, 108-109 (Transport stress in cattle as reflected by an increase in faecal cortisol....) Palme et al 1999. Wien Tierarztl Mschr, 86, 237-241 (Measurements of faecal cortisol metabolites in ruminants...) Also a young lass with Lindsay Matthews (just can't recall her name at present - Cathy? Morrow) was working on urinary cortisol too - so you might like to contact Lindsay to see if they've done anything on faecal. 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: Derek Haley [mailto:haleyderek@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2003 3:32 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Cortisol metabolites in feces Dear All, I have many questions about measuring cortisol metabolites in the feces of cattle. Let me start with a methodological question about sampling. An obvious way to sample would be to watch and wait, and then to watch and wait some more, and then finally to swoop down off your perch to the freshly plopped pattie below. Do you worry about this method resulting in samples being collecting from animals at different points in time throughout the day? What about putting the animals through a chute and sampling directly from the rectum instead? How soon would any stress caused by handling be likely to show up in their feces? The cattle would be from a research farm and be fairly used to handling, which is done quietly and they could also be handled in small groups to reduce the time between initial handling and sampling? Can shomeone shed shome light on this shituation? Derek _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ********************************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%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 17-AUG-2003 17:09:15.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Thank you Nancy and Jon - so it seemed to me. But I think what it underlines is the very common misuse. Is it me alone - or do others also have a poor instinctive response to the 'cold' feel of technical learning theory? I'm certainly not defending it, but I would like to know more about what its root might be if anyone has any suggestions. 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:48 a.m. To: wheep@igrin.co.nz Cc: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers Hi Andy, In this situation the tantrum is negatively punished through loss of attention, with the aim that the current tantrum ends more quickly than otherwise and future tantrums are less probable. The return to acceptable behaviour is, presumably, positively reinforced through the return of attention, so that good behaviour is more likely in the future. I suspect that most teachers wish it were that simple... As with all punishments, there is often a temporary increase in the expression or intensity of a behaviour, if that response has previously been rewarded. For example, frustration of non-reward can also produce aggressive responses, and children who have previously been rewarded with attention when throwing a tantrum and who expect the strategy to work again may throw an even bigger one. The problem is that this 'super tantrum' often gets the child what it wanted, as the parent gives attention in a desperate attempt to stop what has frequently become a public humiliation for them. Some breeds of dog seem to react particularly badly to frustration, in my experience, and will react by becoming more active, aroused and irritable. Certain types of terriers spring to mind. This kind of reaction to punishment is just one reason for qualifying any agreement to a simple set of rules on punishment and reinforcement. Best wishes, Jon On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 11:24 pm, Andy Beck wrote: > Just to check these definitions are universally accepted and we have > common > ground now. > > Case: A child throws a tantrum - the response from the parent is to > ignore > the child until the behavior ceases. > > During my tertiary teacher training this was presented as negative > reinforcement, specifically with regard to how one might deal with a > student > who is constantly seeking to be the focus of attention - but that > would seem > not to be the case from the definitions offered. > > 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:05 a.m. > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers > > Dear Tony, > > +P= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that decreases future expression > of a behaviour [response]. e.g. addition of a shock stimulus. > -P= removal of a stimulus [appetitive] that decreases future expression > of a behaviour [response]. e.g. withholding of an anticipated food > reward. > +R= addition of a stimulus [appetitive] that increases future > expression of a behaviour [response] . e.g. addition of a food reward. > -R= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that increases future expression > of a behaviour [response]. e.g. cessation of a [continuous] shock. > > The precise timing relationship between events needs also to be > defined. > The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. > > Is that acceptable, bearing in mind that there are lots more ways to > refine of rephrase such definitions; these are summaries of the facts > not the facts themselves. The arguments over whether... aversive > methods are necessary, e-collars are the same as shock collars, shock > collars may cause pain and suffering, static corrections are still > shocks, shock collars may be misused, etc, etc, do not revolve around > definitions of punishment and reward. > > I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on looking > words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. > I don't regard this issue as a game. > > Jon > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 17-AUG-2003 17:26:47.46 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Hi Andy, Learning theory does appear cold at first, but it is a fantastically interesting subject. The definitions used are precise, and are not the same as those in common use; which offers all sorts of opportunities for confusion and obfuscation. As a discipline learning theory is highly internally consistent, because the definitions have been derived to make it so and there is a strong basis in propositional logic... ... but it is also important to see that the definitions do not function in isolation; a deliberate misinterpretation or selective application of a single rule, can lead to an inescapable circular argument. Best wishes, Jon P.S. An excellent book to start with is David Lieberman's book 'Learning, Behavior and Cognition'. The definitions and examples he uses are very clear. On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 12:08 am, Andy Beck wrote: > Thank you Nancy and Jon - so it seemed to me. But I think what it > underlines > is the very common misuse. > > Is it me alone - or do others also have a poor instinctive response to > the > 'cold' feel of technical learning theory? I'm certainly not defending > it, > but I would like to know more about what its root might be if anyone > has any > suggestions. > > 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:48 a.m. > To: wheep@igrin.co.nz > Cc: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers > > Hi Andy, > > In this situation the tantrum is negatively punished through loss of > attention, with the aim that the current tantrum ends more quickly than > otherwise and future tantrums are less probable. > The return to acceptable behaviour is, presumably, positively > reinforced through the return of attention, so that good behaviour is > more likely in the future. > > I suspect that most teachers wish it were that simple... > As with all punishments, there is often a temporary increase in the > expression or intensity of a behaviour, if that response has > previously been rewarded. > For example, frustration of non-reward can also produce aggressive > responses, and children who have previously been rewarded with > attention when throwing a tantrum and who expect the strategy to work > again may throw an even bigger one. The problem is that this 'super > tantrum' often gets the child what it wanted, as the parent gives > attention in a desperate attempt to stop what has frequently become a > public humiliation for them. > > Some breeds of dog seem to react particularly badly to frustration, in > my experience, and will react by becoming more active, aroused and > irritable. Certain types of terriers spring to mind. > > This kind of reaction to punishment is just one reason for qualifying > any agreement to a simple set of rules on punishment and reinforcement. > > Best wishes, > > Jon > > > On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 11:24 pm, Andy Beck wrote: > >> Just to check these definitions are universally accepted and we have >> common >> ground now. >> >> Case: A child throws a tantrum - the response from the parent is to >> ignore >> the child until the behavior ceases. >> >> During my tertiary teacher training this was presented as negative >> reinforcement, specifically with regard to how one might deal with a >> student >> who is constantly seeking to be the focus of attention - but that >> would seem >> not to be the case from the definitions offered. >> >> 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] >> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:05 a.m. >> To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >> Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers >> >> Dear Tony, >> >> +P= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that decreases future expression >> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. addition of a shock stimulus. >> -P= removal of a stimulus [appetitive] that decreases future >> expression >> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. withholding of an anticipated food >> reward. >> +R= addition of a stimulus [appetitive] that increases future >> expression of a behaviour [response] . e.g. addition of a food reward. >> -R= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that increases future expression >> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. cessation of a [continuous] shock. >> >> The precise timing relationship between events needs also to be >> defined. >> The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. >> >> Is that acceptable, bearing in mind that there are lots more ways to >> refine of rephrase such definitions; these are summaries of the facts >> not the facts themselves. The arguments over whether... aversive >> methods are necessary, e-collars are the same as shock collars, shock >> collars may cause pain and suffering, static corrections are still >> shocks, shock collars may be misused, etc, etc, do not revolve around >> definitions of punishment and reward. >> >> I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on looking >> words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. >> I don't regard this issue as a game. >> >> Jon >> > From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 17-AUG-2003 17:58:47.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers That may perhaps explain part of the problem - it very often seems as if the theory is manipulated to serve as a justification for practices that I find questionable in a welfare/ethical sense. I also feel that your comments on isolation are important - it is the isolation from impact that makes me uneasy - so you may get the scenario in which the theory is used to achieve a logical response - but in doing so raises ethical concerns. That of course does not mean that it won't work - the practice may be very functional, in fact more so than a 'fuzzier' method that might perhaps be kinder. I'm also worried by the practice of the theory being used to cover the poor ethics that may often be at the root of the problem - where that is the case it seems to do little more than act as a band-aid when it is the 'sore' underneath that requires dealing with - and surely our failure to address the illness rather than the symptoms means that we are doomed to repeat the process ad infinitum (and perhaps ad nauseum!) 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 11:26 a.m. Cc: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers Hi Andy, Learning theory does appear cold at first, but it is a fantastically interesting subject. The definitions used are precise, and are not the same as those in common use; which offers all sorts of opportunities for confusion and obfuscation. As a discipline learning theory is highly internally consistent, because the definitions have been derived to make it so and there is a strong basis in propositional logic... ... but it is also important to see that the definitions do not function in isolation; a deliberate misinterpretation or selective application of a single rule, can lead to an inescapable circular argument. Best wishes, Jon P.S. An excellent book to start with is David Lieberman's book 'Learning, Behavior and Cognition'. The definitions and examples he uses are very clear. On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 12:08 am, Andy Beck wrote: > Thank you Nancy and Jon - so it seemed to me. But I think what it > underlines > is the very common misuse. > > Is it me alone - or do others also have a poor instinctive response to > the > 'cold' feel of technical learning theory? I'm certainly not defending > it, > but I would like to know more about what its root might be if anyone > has any > suggestions. > > 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:48 a.m. > To: wheep@igrin.co.nz > Cc: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers > > Hi Andy, > > In this situation the tantrum is negatively punished through loss of > attention, with the aim that the current tantrum ends more quickly than > otherwise and future tantrums are less probable. > The return to acceptable behaviour is, presumably, positively > reinforced through the return of attention, so that good behaviour is > more likely in the future. > > I suspect that most teachers wish it were that simple... > As with all punishments, there is often a temporary increase in the > expression or intensity of a behaviour, if that response has > previously been rewarded. > For example, frustration of non-reward can also produce aggressive > responses, and children who have previously been rewarded with > attention when throwing a tantrum and who expect the strategy to work > again may throw an even bigger one. The problem is that this 'super > tantrum' often gets the child what it wanted, as the parent gives > attention in a desperate attempt to stop what has frequently become a > public humiliation for them. > > Some breeds of dog seem to react particularly badly to frustration, in > my experience, and will react by becoming more active, aroused and > irritable. Certain types of terriers spring to mind. > > This kind of reaction to punishment is just one reason for qualifying > any agreement to a simple set of rules on punishment and reinforcement. > > Best wishes, > > Jon > > > On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 11:24 pm, Andy Beck wrote: > >> Just to check these definitions are universally accepted and we have >> common >> ground now. >> >> Case: A child throws a tantrum - the response from the parent is to >> ignore >> the child until the behavior ceases. >> >> During my tertiary teacher training this was presented as negative >> reinforcement, specifically with regard to how one might deal with a >> student >> who is constantly seeking to be the focus of attention - but that >> would seem >> not to be the case from the definitions offered. >> >> 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] >> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:05 a.m. >> To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >> Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers >> >> Dear Tony, >> >> +P= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that decreases future expression >> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. addition of a shock stimulus. >> -P= removal of a stimulus [appetitive] that decreases future >> expression >> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. withholding of an anticipated food >> reward. >> +R= addition of a stimulus [appetitive] that increases future >> expression of a behaviour [response] . e.g. addition of a food reward. >> -R= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that increases future expression >> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. cessation of a [continuous] shock. >> >> The precise timing relationship between events needs also to be >> defined. >> The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. >> >> Is that acceptable, bearing in mind that there are lots more ways to >> refine of rephrase such definitions; these are summaries of the facts >> not the facts themselves. The arguments over whether... aversive >> methods are necessary, e-collars are the same as shock collars, shock >> collars may cause pain and suffering, static corrections are still >> shocks, shock collars may be misused, etc, etc, do not revolve around >> definitions of punishment and reward. >> >> I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on looking >> words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. >> I don't regard this issue as a game. >> >> Jon >> > From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 17-AUG-2003 18:43:30.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology@Skyway.Usask.Ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Andy Beck: > Is it me alone - or do others also have a poor instinctive response to the > 'cold' feel of technical learning theory? I'm certainly not defending it, > but I would like to know more about what its root might be if anyone has any > suggestions. margory: - not sure even of "instinctive response" she wrote kind of teasingly -- Well, er - ah - you >know< that I am going to have trouble with this. And not even as Devil's Advocate, as it were. For very simple practical reasons: (1) even today I learned of a dog put to death because of theory; if that dog and owner were together in some real training, that dog would be breathing still; and (2) more and more access for dogs and owners is lost when common sense is replaced by 'theory.' The law in the US and I am sure in other countries as well often came/comes under attack, up for criticism, because of legalisms, legal terms, writing and I'm not talking about Latin phrases* in court papers; people claim they sign things they didn't understand. Some of my job (my day job being in a law office) is in translating between counsel and client. I know a bilingual dog who is more fluent than some others who postulate and pose in claims of understanding of this dog. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco */Latin -- Poor Latin. I'm not Catholic but I do remember when Mass was in Latin. That it wasn't required, that I didn't get to study this even as an English major, I wonder if that was the beginning of a major slip ...... From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 17-AUG-2003 20:00:22.17 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare > 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*. Nancy How sad you've worked mostly with the poor examples of these breeds. But I'll also state that most dogs bred in North America are poor examples of the breeds. There are 4 main types of breeders. Working breeders, including those who breed for obedience or simply good companion traits, conformation breeders, puppy mills and ignorant breeders. There is some overlap but I'd say most of the dogs bred are turned by ignorant breeders and sold to ignorant owners. There can be the jewels of serendipity turned out this way but working with dogs chosen for the job they are meant to do and those chosen just because they are AKC registered has shown in Dobermans to have a huge split in results. You couldn't pay us to take most Dobermans bred in North America. Perhaps the good ones of these breeds are already working with either the breeders or the trainers the breeders recommend. If you're seeing the dregs it may not have much in common with the ability of the best. I recently saw a K9 Pro sports trial video and saw several Bull breeds, Bandogs and a Dogo doing very good jobs in both obedience and protection work. And in the past 2 weeks I have done 2 sessions with a 4 month old APBT bitch puppy. Nancy, I'm going to assume that you are equating +P with something harsh. I don't. I equate it with the term Diminisher which doesn't mean punitive. In working with this puppy, I several times used mild +D diminishers but the puppy wasn't upset in the least with them. Verbal interrupters such as ACK! and ENH! along with NO! no, careful, easy and leave it are technically +P as they are added to the dog's experience to diminish the frequency of a behavior. For some dogs, a loud NO! is more upsetting and punitive than a bump from a leash. For others, a time out is very upsetting and can lead to resentment. Here are some details. Puppy is outgoing, friendly, curious, bold and overly excited. She's been permitted to jump on people, pull non-stop on leash and play non-stop with a young adult male most of the day. Both are overly excitable and have tuned out the owners verbal cues when distracted at all. Both dogs seem sane and well bred, just permitted to tune-out the owners and focus only on each other. Verbal admonishments and praise are both ignored. Session one. The Pit bull puppy Sassy, was briefly taught to be more attentive to my voice by using a food reward and setting a verbal bridge and hand target. I'd cue with her name and use an intermediate bridge as she came to the hand target. Food was alternated with copious praise and petting. She had been on a nylon martingale collar and habituated to the feel of it. As her visual and auditory sensory systems were habitually overfocused on anything but whoever was at the other end of the leash I put on a properly fitting prong collar and used a vibration of the leash to send a signal she could detect down to the collar. Her kinesthetics were easier to communicate with than her ears at this point. Once I stood up she bolted towards a toy nearby. I called CAREFUL just before she hit the end of the leash to start setting either a conditioned aversive or a considerate warning depending on your point of view or choice of terms. It was a +P or +D according to terminology. She did not pull and when I called her name she looked at me. I extended a hand target and bridged her for coming towards it. Rewarded with food. I started to move away from the toy, extending a hand target and using an IB--intermediate bridge when she came along. Praise and calm petting seemed like higher value rewards than food. As I moved near toys, she would start to tighten the leash. If she bolted, she'd hit the end before she could react to careful, ENH! or ACK! She was IB'd for turning towards me or giving slack. If she didn't give slack, I vibrated the leash and prong collar with a flutter of the leash over my little finger. A +D meant to diminish along with a -R to signal when she was on track. As soon as she gave slack, she was IB'd and offered a hand target with a terminal bridge and alternating rewards for touching her nose to my hand. Within minutes she stopped pulling, was following me attentively and when distracted, a vibration cued her to refocus on me. She was given a break and we did a few more cycles with another dog working nearby as a stronger distraction. At the end I dropped the leash and moved off. To the owner's astonishment, Sassy moved along wagging her tail and grinning at me. Elapsed time for both sets of cycles, perhaps 10 minutes. The owner and 4 other observers all commented on how calm yet curious she seemed and that she showed no signs of stress when she hit the end of the leash or felt the slight vibration. She remained attentive to my voice even in the presence of the other dog. Session two. This time at the owners' home. Sassy was again overly excited and oblivious visually or auditorally to humans while playing with another dog or even alone in the yard. She was getting too wound up playing and I took hold of her collar and gave it a mild shake. She looked up, grinned and sat wagging while I did some calming deep massage and ear stroking. She melted down with a sigh. I was verbally bridging and using her name to raise the importance of listening to humans. When released she lay there for several moments before I moved off. She resumed play but stopped when I called her. I put the prong collar on again and headed for the door. She darted forward and almost stopped in time when I called careful! She followed me without a leash cue and was bridged enthusiastically and rewarded with more massage. Sassy was now becoming aware that eye contact had something of value to her as listening to a voice had become an indication that she could prevent something unpleasant and predict something good. She actively nudged me, made eye contact to solicit the deep slow massage. While I don't want her to push this too far, she was choosing human attention over playing with the other dog. She followed me on a loose leash looking up at me, tail wagging harder when I looked and smiled. Elapsed time again about 10 minute. Could I have gotten similar results without using a conditioned auditory +D or a mild +D/-R leash vibration? Perhaps but why? I used her sense of touch to bypass the modalities that were focused elsewhere. I told her with voice, touch and facial expression when she was doing good and when she was off track. The use of +D/P was information to her not punitive. She rapidly learned how to control herself and use the verbal and tactile cues to her own advantage. As opposed to using a much more limited method like simply not moving forward, she learned without stress, in a short period of time and the owner when taught how to use a leash vibration is rapidly getting similar results. I think it is better training. With our protection dogs, in a high state of excitement when first starting bite work, we use stronger but similar physical signals to get through to them. As the dogs progress, much more subtle cues suffice as the dogs learn to keep a split awareness between the handler and bite trainer as well as others observing. Highly excited states lead to tunnel vision, auditory distortion and decreased sense of pain/touch. When trained for it, dogs and humans can maintain the attention to the outside world needed for safety. And we will continue to use the physical +D feedback they need to develop this split awareness. Julie Alexander http://talismandogs.homestead.com/ From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 18-AUG-2003 00:40:39.74 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: communications with dogs, et.al. Only guessing: This may also go into the other direction - thus beeing a bidirectional communication. Talking about accidents with wolves there might be a sequence: The sequence might be started by the wolf misunderstanding human body language or by the researcher misunderstandig of a wolf staying tuned by whatever. - being alarmed/tuned at the human side (FFS) - RIGHT understandig of human body signals (human is feared, alarmed, ready for activ/passiv defence) on the wolf side, which afterwards reacts = on it in a wolf specific way. This is not as likely to be happen with coyotes as they are smaller and human researcher wont tend to be alarmed (or feared) by any of their actio= ns. Hope, i made clear what i suggested ? Andreas Date sent: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:27:05 -0300 From: Simon Gadbois Subject: Re: communications with dogs, et.al. To: Laura Sanborn Copies to: Applied ethology > >> I have excellent two way communication with my coyotes and my dogs. > > > > A study published last year found that domestic dogs possess greater > > abilities at reading human communications than do wolves or > > chimpanzees. I don't believe that coyotes were studied. > > > I am absolutely not surprised re wolves. Wolves don't get our body > language and in fact, it is often responsible for unfortunate accidents > with tamed wolves. Coyotes are the same, but seem a bit less "worried" > about our ambiguity in communication. In my experience, they respond a > bit less dramatically than wolves to the tone of voice, especially when > the low tones (in Morton's theory, the "threatening" range) are used. > > SG > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Dalhousie University > Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. > Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. > http://www.Gadbois.org/ > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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" 18-AUG-2003 01:52:06.72 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare Julie, There is no need to replace the word punishment with the word diminisher. You are absolutely right that +P has an enormous range. Human vocalisations like 'ACK' are usually conditioned punishers because the dog has earned to associated them with some other punishing stimulus [a tug on the collar, loss of attention, or as in your example hitting the end of the leash whilst wearing a prong collar], but they are still punishers if they produce the effects we are talking about within the definition of punishment. The effect of conditioned punishers depends upon what they are conditioned with: they need not be harmless or mild if the stimulus they are associated with is a very aversive one. Rather than argue about what punishment is or is not, it might be better if we address Nancy's intended point, which is regarding the use of strongly aversive +P. This sounds like something you perhaps don't agree with either, in which case we may be able to agree? Jon > >> 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*. > > Nancy > How sad you've worked mostly with the poor examples of these breeds. > But > I'll also state that most dogs bred in North America are poor examples > of the breeds. There are 4 main types of breeders. Working breeders, > including those who breed for obedience or simply good companion > traits, conformation breeders, puppy mills and ignorant breeders. There > is some overlap but I'd say most of the dogs bred are turned by > ignorant > breeders and sold to ignorant owners. There can be the jewels of > serendipity turned out this way but working with dogs chosen for the > job > they are meant to do and those chosen just because they are AKC > registered has shown in Dobermans to have a huge split in results. You > couldn't pay us to take most Dobermans bred in North America. > > Perhaps the good ones of these breeds are already working with either > the breeders or the trainers the breeders recommend. If you're seeing > the dregs it may not have much in common with the ability of the best. > I > recently saw a K9 Pro sports trial video and saw several Bull breeds, > Bandogs and a Dogo doing very good jobs in both obedience and > protection > work. And in the past 2 weeks I have done 2 sessions with a 4 month old > APBT bitch puppy. > > Nancy, I'm going to assume that you are equating +P with something > harsh. I don't. I equate it with the term Diminisher which doesn't mean > punitive. In working with this puppy, I several times used mild +D > diminishers but the puppy wasn't upset in the least with them. Verbal > interrupters such as ACK! and ENH! along with NO! no, careful, easy and > leave it are technically +P as they are added to the dog's experience > to > diminish the frequency of a behavior. For some dogs, a loud NO! is more > upsetting and punitive than a bump from a leash. For others, a time out > is very upsetting and can lead to resentment. > > Here are some details. Puppy is outgoing, friendly, curious, bold and > overly excited. She's been permitted to jump on people, pull non-stop > on > leash and play non-stop with a young adult male most of the day. Both > are overly excitable and have tuned out the owners verbal cues when > distracted at all. Both dogs seem sane and well bred, just permitted to > tune-out the owners and focus only on each other. Verbal admonishments > and praise are both ignored. > > Session one. > The Pit bull puppy Sassy, was briefly taught to be more attentive to my > voice by using a food reward and setting a verbal bridge and hand > target. I'd cue with her name and use an intermediate bridge as she > came > to the hand target. Food was alternated with copious praise and > petting. > > She had been on a nylon martingale collar and habituated to the feel of > it. As her visual and auditory sensory systems were habitually > overfocused on anything but whoever was at the other end of the leash I > put on a properly fitting prong collar and used a vibration of the > leash > to send a signal she could detect down to the collar. Her kinesthetics > were easier to communicate with than her ears at this point. Once I > stood up she bolted towards a toy nearby. I called CAREFUL just before > she hit the end of the leash to start setting either a conditioned > aversive or a considerate warning depending on your point of view or > choice of terms. It was a +P or +D according to terminology. She did > not pull and when I called her name she looked at me. I extended a hand > target and bridged her for coming towards it. Rewarded with food. I > started to move away from the toy, extending a hand target and using an > IB--intermediate bridge when she came along. Praise and calm petting > seemed like higher value rewards than food. As I moved near toys, she > would start to tighten the leash. If she bolted, she'd hit the end > before she could react to careful, ENH! or ACK! She was IB'd for > turning > towards me or giving slack. If she didn't give slack, I vibrated the > leash and prong collar with a flutter of the leash over my little > finger. A +D meant to diminish along with a -R to signal when she was > on > track. As soon as she gave slack, she was IB'd and offered a hand > target > with a terminal bridge and alternating rewards for touching her nose to > my hand. > Within minutes she stopped pulling, was following me attentively and > when distracted, a vibration cued her to refocus on me. She was given a > break and we did a few more cycles with another dog working nearby as a > stronger distraction. At the end I dropped the leash and moved off. To > the owner's astonishment, Sassy moved along wagging her tail and > grinning at me. Elapsed time for both sets of cycles, perhaps 10 > minutes. The owner and 4 other observers all commented on how calm yet > curious she seemed and that she showed no signs of stress when she hit > the end of the leash or felt the slight vibration. She remained > attentive to my voice even in the presence of the other dog. > > Session two. This time at the owners' home. Sassy was again overly > excited and oblivious visually or auditorally to humans while playing > with another dog or even alone in the yard. She was getting too wound > up > playing and I took hold of her collar and gave it a mild shake. She > looked up, grinned and sat wagging while I did some calming deep > massage > and ear stroking. She melted down with a sigh. I was verbally bridging > and using her name to raise the importance of listening to humans. When > released she lay there for several moments before I moved off. She > resumed play but stopped when I called her. I put the prong collar on > again and headed for the door. She darted forward and almost stopped in > time when I called careful! She followed me without a leash cue and was > bridged enthusiastically and rewarded with more massage. > > Sassy was now becoming aware that eye contact had something of value to > her as listening to a voice had become an indication that she could > prevent something unpleasant and predict something good. She actively > nudged me, made eye contact to solicit the deep slow massage. While I > don't want her to push this too far, she was choosing human attention > over playing with the other dog. She followed me on a loose leash > looking up at me, tail wagging harder when I looked and smiled. Elapsed > time again about 10 minute. > > Could I have gotten similar results without using a conditioned > auditory > +D or a mild +D/-R leash vibration? Perhaps but why? I used her sense > of > touch to bypass the modalities that were focused elsewhere. I told her > with voice, touch and facial expression when she was doing good and > when > she was off track. The use of +D/P was information to her not punitive. > She rapidly learned how to control herself and use the verbal and > tactile cues to her own advantage. As opposed to using a much more > limited method like simply not moving forward, she learned without > stress, in a short period of time and the owner when taught how to use > a > leash vibration is rapidly getting similar results. I think it is > better > training. > > With our protection dogs, in a high state of excitement when first > starting bite work, we use stronger but similar physical signals to get > through to them. As the dogs progress, much more subtle cues suffice as > the dogs learn to keep a split awareness between the handler and bite > trainer as well as others observing. Highly excited states lead to > tunnel vision, auditory distortion and decreased sense of pain/touch. > When trained for it, dogs and humans can maintain the attention to the > outside world needed for safety. And we will continue to use the > physical +D feedback they need to develop this split awareness. > > Julie Alexander > http://talismandogs.homestead.com/ > > From: IN%"M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl" "Matthijs Schilder" 18-AUG-2003 02:56:02.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: assessment in dogs: a forgotten principle? At 06:09 14-8-03 -0700, you wrote: >Jon Bowen: > > > Lastly, the people I meet who use shock collars and other aversive > > methods in the UK appear completely ignorant of what other non-aversive > > methods of trainig can achieve. I would not generalise this but I often > > hear comments like 'food rewards don't work, you are just bribing the > > dog' and 'I don't believe in clicker training, its just a gimmick'. > > These people are a disaster. They should not have shock collars and > > they should not be training dogs at all. > > > > The fact is that until the use of shock collars is controlled there > > will be a high risk of problems associated with them. > >margory cohen: > >Actually, I hear that on both sides of the argument. >And can testify to, in the last 6 years, with a proliferation of alleged >'positive' training, a rise in the numbers of ill-mannered and untrained >dogs I have encountered, and others confirm this in other areas and >countries. That's not just in my town. >I know a canine chiropractor who would like to see the likes of the Gentle >Leader outlawed as well. >And there has been already in England at least one case where a flexi-lead >manufacturer was sued when a woman lost the tip of her finger(s). > >In place of all the proposed legislation, I seldom see any proposals for >broad educational effort. >It's not equipment that trains dogs. >"Fanciful criticisms" are at work on all fronts. >-margory cohen >Scottish Deerhounds >San Francisco, CA Dear Margony and others, I think a main reason, why there are still ill-mannered dogs in spite of positive training , is that positive training does not take into account a major process, that occurs in many if not all hierarchic animals, that is an assessment proces. Assessment takes place whenever two individuals meet and involves assessment of relative strength, figting power, or recourse holding potential. It serves to prevent unnecessary damage through physical conflict. In humans it is known that such assessment may take about 0.1 second. I would estimate that in dogs assessment may be an equally quick process, provided there is enough asymmetry (with regards to resource holding potential) to be discovered. When the subordinate-to-be recognizes its relative submission and submits, then the conflict mostly is over. However, when the subordinate-to-be makes another estimate that the winner-to-be- and refuses to submit (as many small terriers breed do), then a physical conflict becomes more likely. A physical conflict is likely to be of a long duration, when the individuals involved do not differ much, also. This is why in dogs fights tend to be intense and of a long duration, when two individuals of the same sex, status, and age are in conflict. Being hierarchical and therefore opportunistic nimals, some dogs tend to make use of signals that convey weakness in other dogs. The same sort of thing happens between man and dog. The following example (one of many) bears this out. A lady was walking 3 rotweilers, which strained on the leash. The woman strumbled and fell. Thereupon, two of the three Rotweilers turned about and attacked her. In perspective of the dogs, the lady gave a signal of weakness, which was immediately exploited. A very quick assessment of a wak moment indeed. Using positive training, a dog never has the opportunity to assess the real strength of a person. They only learn tricks in order to get a reward. This is why in these dogs, that were previously trained positively (with only negative punishment like withholding of attention), application of physical punishment may come as a big surprise to the dog, who then may learn how powerfull the person really is. A very soft and friendly owner of a dog, that had bitten her on several occasions (the first being when she was sitting on her knees!) got so angry at her dog when it bit her again, that she hit it for the very first time, to her own surprise. She reported me that this dog did not growl at her for two whole days (but then attacked again..., she being the weaker of the two and not able to maintain a more forcefull behaviour). This is not to say that application punishment is THE method, because there are risks involved: some dogs simply again make another estimate and retaliate! Often it needs a second person with a second leash attached to the dog, to make punishment safe. What I am trying to say is: physical punishment should not be banned a priori: dogs use it with good results themselves!! greetings, 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%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 18-AUG-2003 03:00:12.99 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Hi Andy, Once again you raise a very interesting point. I think the reason for the cold language is something that can be understood and allowed for. The behaviourist movement attempted to find a way to subject behaviour to scientific, logical investigation at a time when many attempts to do this were frustrated by a lack of any means to get at what was actually happening in the mind of the subject [human or animal]. The behaviorists wanted to see if they could understand and predict behaviour simply from observable responses to events. Theirs was an attempt to deduce a simple set of rules, which were independent of other complicating factors. So they wanted to avoid anything that could not be tested. In particular they did not want their explanations to to depend upon an understanding of what was going on in the animal's head, either emotionally or neuro-physiologically, because this was mostly beyond experimental technology. If a behaviour could be explained through simple processes of associative learning then they would apply the principle of parsimony [Occam's razor] and restrict their explanation to that. They did a very fine job, and so we end up with a specialised field of science with its own terminology, which was born with a specific agenda and in an era when animal welfare was not of the importance that it has today. However, learning theory is just that...a theory. The actual explanations for why animals behave in certain ways are still being investigated, and things move on all the time. Ethics and our understanding of welfare have also changed and most people agree that animals do experience pain and suffering. This has shaped our legislative process with stricter rules on experimental licensing [in the UK] for example. So whenever we talk about a learning theory explanation for behaviour we must always remember that we are not dealing with a machine. the subject of what we are doing has emotions and feelings. This is why I object to the notion that as long as the dog's behaviour is changed then it does not matter much what methods are used. As Laura stated in relation to the choice of whether to use aversive methods to train dogs, when other equally successful non-aversive methods might be used: "If the training is done "equally well", then there is no welfare issue, since by definition they are equal." The application of learning theory for dog training is fine, but unless we remember the ethical, emotional and welfare dimensions then we risk making a big mistake. Errors due to the conversion of scientific theory into practical application have happened in the past. Darwinism, as an explanation of the evolutionary order, was extrapolated into 'Social Darwinism', which was an attempt to impose similar forces on the lives of human beings. Learning theory, or behaviorism, may be extrapolated in a similar way, also with negative consequences. By applying the behaviorist agenda to the practical control of animal behaviour we must not also be seduced by its apparent exclusion of emotion, which gives us power to do as we wish [without consideration for the animal]. So, by invoking learning theory as an explanation and justification for the methods we are using we are not describing everything about what is happening when a dog is trained, regardless of how. Best wishes, Jon On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 12:57 am, Andy Beck wrote: > That may perhaps explain part of the problem - it very often seems as > if the > theory is manipulated to serve as a justification for practices that I > find > questionable in a welfare/ethical sense. I also feel that your > comments on > isolation are important - it is the isolation from impact that makes me > uneasy - so you may get the scenario in which the theory is used to > achieve > a logical response - but in doing so raises ethical concerns. That of > course > does not mean that it won't work - the practice may be very > functional, in > fact more so than a 'fuzzier' method that might perhaps be kinder. I'm > also > worried by the practice of the theory being used to cover the poor > ethics > that may often be at the root of the problem - where that is the case > it > seems to do little more than act as a band-aid when it is the 'sore' > underneath that requires dealing with - and surely our failure to > address > the illness rather than the symptoms means that we are doomed to > repeat the > process ad infinitum (and perhaps ad nauseum!) > > > 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 11:26 a.m. > Cc: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers > > Hi Andy, > > Learning theory does appear cold at first, but it is a fantastically > interesting subject. > The definitions used are precise, and are not the same as those in > common use; which offers all sorts of opportunities for confusion and > obfuscation. > As a discipline learning theory is highly internally consistent, > because the definitions have been derived to make it so and there is a > strong basis in propositional logic... > ... but it is also important to see that the definitions do not > function in isolation; a deliberate misinterpretation or selective > application of a single rule, can lead to an inescapable circular > argument. > > Best wishes, > > Jon > > P.S. An excellent book to start with is David Lieberman's book > 'Learning, Behavior and Cognition'. > The definitions and examples he uses are very clear. > > > On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 12:08 am, Andy Beck wrote: > >> Thank you Nancy and Jon - so it seemed to me. But I think what it >> underlines >> is the very common misuse. >> >> Is it me alone - or do others also have a poor instinctive response to >> the >> 'cold' feel of technical learning theory? I'm certainly not defending >> it, >> but I would like to know more about what its root might be if anyone >> has any >> suggestions. >> >> 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] >> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:48 a.m. >> To: wheep@igrin.co.nz >> Cc: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >> Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> In this situation the tantrum is negatively punished through loss of >> attention, with the aim that the current tantrum ends more quickly >> than >> otherwise and future tantrums are less probable. >> The return to acceptable behaviour is, presumably, positively >> reinforced through the return of attention, so that good behaviour is >> more likely in the future. >> >> I suspect that most teachers wish it were that simple... >> As with all punishments, there is often a temporary increase in the >> expression or intensity of a behaviour, if that response has >> previously been rewarded. >> For example, frustration of non-reward can also produce aggressive >> responses, and children who have previously been rewarded with >> attention when throwing a tantrum and who expect the strategy to work >> again may throw an even bigger one. The problem is that this 'super >> tantrum' often gets the child what it wanted, as the parent gives >> attention in a desperate attempt to stop what has frequently become a >> public humiliation for them. >> >> Some breeds of dog seem to react particularly badly to frustration, in >> my experience, and will react by becoming more active, aroused and >> irritable. Certain types of terriers spring to mind. >> >> This kind of reaction to punishment is just one reason for qualifying >> any agreement to a simple set of rules on punishment and >> reinforcement. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Jon >> >> >> On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 11:24 pm, Andy Beck wrote: >> >>> Just to check these definitions are universally accepted and we have >>> common >>> ground now. >>> >>> Case: A child throws a tantrum - the response from the parent is to >>> ignore >>> the child until the behavior ceases. >>> >>> During my tertiary teacher training this was presented as negative >>> reinforcement, specifically with regard to how one might deal with a >>> student >>> who is constantly seeking to be the focus of attention - but that >>> would seem >>> not to be the case from the definitions offered. >>> >>> 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: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] >>> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2003 10:05 a.m. >>> To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >>> Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforceers >>> >>> Dear Tony, >>> >>> +P= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that decreases future >>> expression >>> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. addition of a shock stimulus. >>> -P= removal of a stimulus [appetitive] that decreases future >>> expression >>> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. withholding of an anticipated food >>> reward. >>> +R= addition of a stimulus [appetitive] that increases future >>> expression of a behaviour [response] . e.g. addition of a food >>> reward. >>> -R= addition of a stimulus [aversive] that increases future >>> expression >>> of a behaviour [response]. e.g. cessation of a [continuous] shock. >>> >>> The precise timing relationship between events needs also to be >>> defined. >>> The behaviour [response] must precede the reinforcer or punisher. >>> >>> Is that acceptable, bearing in mind that there are lots more ways to >>> refine of rephrase such definitions; these are summaries of the facts >>> not the facts themselves. The arguments over whether... aversive >>> methods are necessary, e-collars are the same as shock collars, shock >>> collars may cause pain and suffering, static corrections are still >>> shocks, shock collars may be misused, etc, etc, do not revolve around >>> definitions of punishment and reward. >>> >>> I don't want to get into some silly semantic argument based on >>> looking >>> words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting definitions. >>> I don't regard this issue as a game. >>> >>> Jon >>> >> > From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 18-AUG-2003 03:29:43.77 To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" CC: IN%"haleyderek@hotmail.com" "Derek Haley", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces Derek, You might also consider trying to examine cort. from hair as a measure of chronic stress. I don't know if this would be suitable for the study you are thinking of, but it's ease of collection and avoiding the rear end of the cow might make it seem a little more attractive! All the best, Chris ............................................................. 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 On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:04:37 +1000 "Petherick, Carol" wrote: > Derek > What's the purpose of examining cortisol? Are you looking for something related to > chronic or acute stress? If the latter, then you'll need to time the taking of the > sample to reflect when the stressor occurred - because of the time for the cortisol > to show up in the faeces (so, in response to your question, the restraint for > taking samples per rectum will not show up in the sample). If you are applying a > procedure to an individual or individuals then you'll obviously need to know the ID > of the animal giving the sample. If you are looking at a group treatment, then you > can just collect the faeces of the ground. > > Suggest you take a look at: > Mostl et al 2002. Vet Res Comm 26, 127-139 (Measurement of cortisol metabolites in > faces of ruminants). > Palme et al 2000. Vet Rec 146, 108-109 (Transport stress in cattle as reflected by > an increase in faecal cortisol....) > Palme et al 1999. Wien Tierarztl Mschr, 86, 237-241 (Measurements of faecal > cortisol metabolites in ruminants...) > > Also a young lass with Lindsay Matthews (just can't recall her name at present - > Cathy? Morrow) was working on urinary cortisol too - so you might like to contact > Lindsay to see if they've done anything on faecal. > > > > 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: Derek Haley [mailto:haleyderek@hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2003 3:32 AM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Cortisol metabolites in feces > > Dear All, > > I have many questions about measuring cortisol metabolites in the feces of > cattle. Let me start with a methodological question about sampling. > > An obvious way to sample would be to watch and wait, and then to watch and > wait some more, and then finally to swoop down off your perch to the freshly > plopped pattie below. Do you worry about this method resulting in samples > being collecting from animals at different points in time throughout the > day? > > What about putting the animals through a chute and sampling directly from > the rectum instead? How soon would any stress caused by handling be likely > to show up in their feces? The cattle would be from a research farm and be > fairly used to handling, which is done quietly and they could also be > handled in small groups to reduce the time between initial handling and > sampling? > > Can shomeone shed shome light on this shituation? > > Derek > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > ********************************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%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 18-AUG-2003 03:54:00.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces (saliva?) Dear Derek and all, Don't cattle often foam at the mouth? Is it possible to look at salivary cortisol? I know it can be done in pigs (another big animal that tends to dribbble) ... but is there some basic physiological difference between ruminants and non-ruminants that would preclude its use in cows? Best wishes, - Moira Harris ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"D.Lexer@gmx.at" "Daniela Lexer" 18-AUG-2003 03:55:31.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: marking technique for piglets Dear all, I have to observe piglet´s behaviour indirectly by video during a period of some weeks (from birth onward; breed: White Large X Pietrain). To identify the piglets individually I have to mark them. Therefore I´m looking for a good long lasting marking technique. Stamping ink doesn´t work, because after 3 days almost everything is gone. Would be great if anyone has a brilliant idea! Best regards, Daniela Lexer -- Institut für Tierhaltung und Tierschutz Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien A-1210 Wien COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test -------------------------------------------------- 1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger! 2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger! 3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. e-Post From: IN%"pdic@btclick.com" "Pig Disease Information Centre UK" 18-AUG-2003 04:22:45.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology Posting" CC: Subj: RE: Swine bedding - Wood shavings Hi Anna There are two health problems that have linked to wood shavings as bedding for pigs: Navel Bleeding ------------------ see: http://www.pighealth.com/News99/NAVEL.HTM and also "A Severe Navel Bleeding Problem" by D.S. JENNINGS, T.J.L. ALEXANDER The Pig Veterinary Society Proceedings Vol.6 p.86-88. Klebsiella mastitis ---------------------- I can't give you any references off the top of my head, but basically Klebsiella mastitis became a severe problem in the UK in the 1970s as wood shavings became popular for bedding farrowing crates. Klebsiella was found in wood shavings and unless they were replaced regularly, they acted like blotting paper, soaking up urine and birth fluids and keeping teats wet, such that both provided a breeding ground for Klebsiella bacteria. As with human and animal foods, materials and housing systems often get labelled as "good" or "bad", "safe" or "unsafe", but such attributes are very situational - much depends on the source and the way in which they are used. Hope this helps Mike Meredith *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~ Sunflower Health ~ Incorporating The Pig Disease Information Centre Stress & Healing Consultancy - Meditation Training 4 New Close Farm Business Park, Lolworth Cambridgeshire CB3 8DS United Kingdom Emails: enquiries@stress-counselling.co.uk mail@pighealth.com - WEBSITES - "Farm Animal Health" : www.pighealth.com "Stress Management" : www.stress-counselling.co.uk "Path of Healing" : www.lovehealth.org *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anna Johnson" To: Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 9:11 PM Subject: Wood shavings > Dear All, > > I have been asked if there is any research that has been completed or is on going on wood shavings as a bedding material for swine. > > The question pertains to how are the shavings treated (chemically or otherwise), how widely used is wood shavings as a bedding and how do pigs "like" wood shavings over other substrates. > > Any leads on this would be great. > Thanks > Anna > Anna Johnson PhD > Director of Animal Welfare > National Pork Board > P.O. Box 9114 > Des Moines, Iowa 50306 > Phone: (515) 223-3533 > Fax: (515) 223-2646 > Mobile: (515) 991-1776 > E-mail: anna.johnson@porkboard.org > copyright 2001: all rights reserved From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 18-AUG-2003 04:55:52.09 To: IN%"D.Lexer@gmx.at" "Daniela Lexer", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: marking technique for piglets Couldn't you use collars in different colours? Another method is dyeing a small part of the fur with colour (hair colour), a different colour for each individual. How many piglets do you have? Hilit -----Original Message----- From: Daniela Lexer [mailto:D.Lexer@gmx.at] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:55 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: marking technique for piglets Dear all, I have to observe piglet´s behaviour indirectly by video during a period of some weeks (from birth onward; breed: White Large X Pietrain). To identify the piglets individually I have to mark them. Therefore I´m looking for a good long lasting marking technique. Stamping ink doesn´t work, because after 3 days almost everything is gone. Would be great if anyone has a brilliant idea! Best regards, Daniela Lexer -- Institut für Tierhaltung und Tierschutz Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien A-1210 Wien COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test -------------------------------------------------- 1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger! 2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger! 3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. e-Post From: IN%"jlgehman@sbcglobal.net" "Jeff Gehman" 18-AUG-2003 06:06:53.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Thank you for the dose of common sense. Quite often common sense is traded for an education and that is one of the worst mistakes one could ever make. I work with a bunch of PhD's and I'm sad to say that I think their is a negative correlation between a person's level of common sense and academic education. I'll admit I have no scientific research to back that assertion, but I see it everyday through personal observation. And yes, your definitions are correct. Jeff Gehman, BS, DDH Houston, TX --- Tony Ancheta wrote: > Jon wrote: > I don't want to get into some silly semantic > argument based on looking > words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting > definitions. > I don't regard this issue as a game. > > Tony comments: > Nor do I Jon; and this is becoming tedious. Either > you agree with these > terms and discriptions or you don't; > > Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; > Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour. > > Yes or no ... a one word answer is all we are > waiting for. > > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 18-AUG-2003 06:19:58.31 To: IN%"jlgehman@sbcglobal.net" "Jeff Gehman" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers hmmm...many contributors to this list are academics and have PhD's. We do have common sense, enough to leave this list after comments like that, and give our input where it is more respected. Yours Chris Sherwin On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Jeff Gehman wrote: > Thank you for the dose of common sense. > > Quite often common sense is traded for an education > and that is one of the worst mistakes one could ever > make. > > I work with a bunch of PhD's and I'm sad to say that I > think their is a negative correlation between a > person's level of common sense and academic education. > I'll admit I have no scientific research to back that > assertion, but I see it everyday through personal > observation. > > And yes, your definitions are correct. > > Jeff Gehman, BS, DDH > Houston, TX > > --- Tony Ancheta wrote: > > Jon wrote: > > I don't want to get into some silly semantic > > argument based on looking > > words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting > > definitions. > > I don't regard this issue as a game. > > > > Tony comments: > > Nor do I Jon; and this is becoming tedious. Either > > you agree with these > > terms and discriptions or you don't; > > > > Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; > > Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour. > > > > Yes or no ... a one word answer is all we are > > waiting for. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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%"jlgehman@sbcglobal.net" "Jeff Gehman" 18-AUG-2003 06:50:39.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers I must have hit a real nerve. Say it isn't so!!! All I ask is to take a look at yourself in everyday situations. The common sense I am referring to is street sense. This is the behavior that you learn through the process of living your life. This knowledge is survival which translates into everyday behavior which you exhibit everyday, like it or not. When you bring in education, you rationalize your common sense into the mold of your academic education and sometimes, personal observation, I see a massive loss of just standard common sense. Those with massive amounts of education remove the knowledge from younger years and replace it with their academic knowledge. Don't get me wrong. I love education. However, please don't lose your standard everyday common sense. Cheers! Jeff --- Chris Sherwin wrote: > > hmmm...many contributors to this list are academics > and have PhD's. We do have > common sense, enough to leave this list after > comments like that, and give our > input where it is more respected. > > Yours > > Chris Sherwin > > > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Jeff Gehman > wrote: > > > Thank you for the dose of common sense. > > > > Quite often common sense is traded for an > education > > and that is one of the worst mistakes one could > ever > > make. > > > > I work with a bunch of PhD's and I'm sad to say > that I > > think their is a negative correlation between a > > person's level of common sense and academic > education. > > I'll admit I have no scientific research to back > that > > assertion, but I see it everyday through personal > > observation. > > > > And yes, your definitions are correct. > > > > Jeff Gehman, BS, DDH > > Houston, TX > > > > --- Tony Ancheta > wrote: > > > Jon wrote: > > > I don't want to get into some silly semantic > > > argument based on looking > > > words up in dictionaries or deliberately > twisting > > > definitions. > > > I don't regard this issue as a game. > > > > > > Tony comments: > > > Nor do I Jon; and this is becoming tedious. > Either > > > you agree with these > > > terms and discriptions or you don't; > > > > > > Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; > > > Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour. > > > > > > Yes or no ... a one word answer is all we are > > > waiting for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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%"D.Lexer@gmx.at" "Daniela Lexer" 18-AUG-2003 06:56:08.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: marking technique for piglets Sorry, I forgot: I only have black -and-white cameras! The small group consists of one litter (about 8 to 14 piglets), the large group consists of four litters (28 to 48 piglets). But I think I´ll observe just some focus animals (about 4 each litter). Daniela Dear all, > > I have to observe piglet´s behaviour indirectly by video during a period > of > some weeks (from birth onward; breed: White Large X Pietrain). To identify > the piglets individually I have to mark them. > Therefore I´m looking for a good long lasting marking technique. > Stamping ink doesn´t work, because after 3 days almost everything is gone. > Would be great if anyone has a brilliant idea! > > Best regards, > Daniela Lexer Couldn't you use collars in different colours? > Another method is dyeing a small part of the fur with colour (hair > colour), > a different colour for each individual. > How many piglets do you have? > Hilit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniela Lexer [mailto:D.Lexer@gmx.at] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:55 AM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: marking technique for piglets > > > Dear all, > > I have to observe piglet´s behaviour indirectly by video during a period > of > some weeks (from birth onward; breed: White Large X Pietrain). To identify > the piglets individually I have to mark them. > Therefore I´m looking for a good long lasting marking technique. > Stamping ink doesn´t work, because after 3 days almost everything is gone. > Would be great if anyone has a brilliant idea! > > Best regards, > Daniela Lexer > > > -- > Institut für Tierhaltung und Tierschutz > Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien > A-1210 Wien > > COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test > -------------------------------------------------- > 1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger! > 2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger! > 3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. > e-Post > -- Institut für Tierhaltung und Tierschutz Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien A-1210 Wien COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test -------------------------------------------------- 1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger! 2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger! 3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. e-Post From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 18-AUG-2003 08:25:55.98 To: IN%"D.Lexer@gmx.at" "Daniela Lexer", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: marking technique for piglets Oops, then, maybe you can dye (with oxygen and a blonder, like you dye to blond) a different mark (star, circle, number etc.) on each one? -----Original Message----- From: Daniela Lexer [mailto:D.Lexer@gmx.at] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 2:56 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: marking technique for piglets Sorry, I forgot: I only have black -and-white cameras! The small group consists of one litter (about 8 to 14 piglets), the large group consists of four litters (28 to 48 piglets). But I think I´ll observe just some focus animals (about 4 each litter). Daniela Dear all, > > I have to observe piglet´s behaviour indirectly by video during a period > of > some weeks (from birth onward; breed: White Large X Pietrain). To identify > the piglets individually I have to mark them. > Therefore I´m looking for a good long lasting marking technique. > Stamping ink doesn´t work, because after 3 days almost everything is gone. > Would be great if anyone has a brilliant idea! > > Best regards, > Daniela Lexer Couldn't you use collars in different colours? > Another method is dyeing a small part of the fur with colour (hair > colour), > a different colour for each individual. > How many piglets do you have? > Hilit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniela Lexer [mailto:D.Lexer@gmx.at] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:55 AM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: marking technique for piglets > > > Dear all, > > I have to observe piglet´s behaviour indirectly by video during a period > of > some weeks (from birth onward; breed: White Large X Pietrain). To identify > the piglets individually I have to mark them. > Therefore I´m looking for a good long lasting marking technique. > Stamping ink doesn´t work, because after 3 days almost everything is gone. > Would be great if anyone has a brilliant idea! > > Best regards, > Daniela Lexer > > > -- > Institut für Tierhaltung und Tierschutz > Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien > A-1210 Wien > > COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test > -------------------------------------------------- > 1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger! > 2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger! > 3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. > e-Post > -- Institut für Tierhaltung und Tierschutz Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien A-1210 Wien COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test -------------------------------------------------- 1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger! 2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger! 3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. e-Post From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 09:54:49.20 To: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: communications with dogs, et.al. No doubt that it is bi-directional. I thought that was clear from the=20 wording. As for your species explanation: wolf researchers interacting with=20 hand-raised wolves have no fear whatsoever. Or you simply don't=20 interact with them. So I don't think that the "size" of wolves or=20 anticipations of humans are a factor. Coyotes are simply less likely=20 (in my experience) to react aggressively to a mis-communication. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 04:39 Canada/Atlantic, Andreas Briese wrote: > Only guessing: > This may also go into the other direction - thus beeing a = bidirectional > communication. > > Talking about accidents with wolves there might be a sequence: > The sequence might be started by the wolf misunderstanding human body > language or by the researcher misunderstandig of a wolf staying tuned=20= > by > whatever. > - being alarmed/tuned at the human side (FFS) > - RIGHT understandig of human body signals (human is feared, alarmed, > ready for activ/passiv defence) on the wolf side, which afterwards=20 > reacts on it > in a wolf specific way. > > This is not as likely to be happen with coyotes as they are smaller = and > human researcher wont tend to be alarmed (or feared) by any of their=20= > actions. > > Hope, i made clear what i suggested ? > > Andreas > > > Date sent: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:27:05 -0300 > From: Simon Gadbois > Subject: Re: communications with dogs, et.al. > To: Laura Sanborn > Copies to: Applied ethology = > >>>> I have excellent two way communication with my coyotes and my=20 >>>> dogs. >>> >>> A study published last year found that domestic dogs possess greater >>> abilities at reading human communications than do wolves or >>> chimpanzees. I don't believe that coyotes were studied. >> >> >> I am absolutely not surprised re wolves. Wolves don't get our body >> language and in fact, it is often responsible for unfortunate=20 >> accidents >> with tamed wolves. Coyotes are the same, but seem a bit less = "worried" >> about our ambiguity in communication. In my experience, they respond=20= >> a >> bit less dramatically than wolves to the tone of voice, especially=20 >> when >> the low tones (in Morton's theory, the "threatening" range) are used. >> >> SG >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor >> Dalhousie University >> Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. >> Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. >> http://www.Gadbois.org/ >> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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=20= > 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=20 > attachments!) > andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 10:27:30.42 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Well, as somebody with both the experimental psychology and ethology training, I have to comment on Jon's message; Behaviourism as a school of thought is gone, no doubt, but the learning principles of Guthrie, Tolman, Skinner, etc. are still alive and well especially after the wave of criticism from other psychologists and ethologists that pointed out the limitations brought by the "biological constraints" on learning. Nobody in academia (biologists or psychologists) will deny that the 100 years of "Learning Psychology" contributed to a solid set of learning principles that work in many cases. Learning theory is not behaviourism!! Learning theory was proposed by that movement in the 30's and 40's and is still used and applied in many fields to this day and not only with animals. Learning theory does not mean "the animal is a machine"; in fact, behaviour therapy with humans (as well as cognitive therapy, often merged into Behavioural-Cognitive Therapy of CBT) is the only form of therapy that actually has scientific bases and was scientifically demonstrated to work. This is why it is often the only therapy offered in Clinical Psychology Departments that have the researcher-practitioner model. My wife (a pediatric psychologist) works with kids at the regional children's hospital. From pill swallowing problems to simple biofeedback to desensitization for very complex and painful procedures, she applies learning principles because they are the only ones that work, and that is well known in the field. As an ethologist, I keep in mind the Breland and Breland's and their many examples of failures to teach pigs or raccoons seemingly simple tasks, and the related learning preparedness issue (from the 60's) all brought to us by psychologists, themselves quite aware of the limits of learning principles. And then came comparative (or animal) cognition, also initiated by psychologists, many of which were looking for explanations for the more complex behaviours observed in the mammals and birds they were studying. But for simple behaviours, if able to be modulated by the environment (social or physical), learning theory is still very much alive. Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how little some know about modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists are not among us. There is no agenda. Please, get the facts straight before you make statements like this!!! As for the study of the neurophysiological AND emotional bases of behaviour (animal or human), this is actually what modern psychology is doing the most, on both side of the Atlantic. Psychologists started the "affective neuroscience" and "social neuroscience" areas (e.g., Panksepp) and they are, with biologists, at the centre of the movement to reform experimentations on animals. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 05:59 Canada/Atlantic, Jon Bowen wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Once again you raise a very interesting point. > > I think the reason for the cold language is something that can be > understood and allowed for. The behaviourist movement attempted to > find a way to subject behaviour to scientific, logical investigation > at a time when many attempts to do this were frustrated by a lack of > any means to get at what was actually happening in the mind of the > subject [human or animal]. The behaviorists wanted to see if they > could understand and predict behaviour simply from observable > responses to events. Theirs was an attempt to deduce a simple set of > rules, which were independent of other complicating factors. So they > wanted to avoid anything that could not be tested. In particular they > did not want their explanations to to depend upon an understanding of > what was going on in the animal's head, either emotionally or > neuro-physiologically, because this was mostly beyond experimental > technology. If a behaviour could be explained through simple processes > of associative learning then they would apply the principle of > parsimony [Occam's razor] and restrict their explanation to that. > > They did a very fine job, and so we end up with a specialised field of > science with its own terminology, which was born with a specific > agenda and in an era when animal welfare was not of the importance > that it has today. > > However, learning theory is just that...a theory. The actual > explanations for why animals behave in certain ways are still being > investigated, and things move on all the time. > Ethics and our understanding of welfare have also changed and most > people agree that animals do experience pain and suffering. > This has shaped our legislative process with stricter rules on > experimental licensing [in the UK] for example. > > So whenever we talk about a learning theory explanation for behaviour > we must always remember that we are not dealing with a machine. the > subject of what we are doing has emotions and feelings. This is why I > object to the notion that as long as the dog's behaviour is changed > then it does not matter much what methods are used. As Laura stated in > relation to the choice of whether to use aversive methods to train > dogs, when other equally successful non-aversive methods might be > used: "If the training is done "equally well", then there is no > welfare issue, since by definition they are equal." > > The application of learning theory for dog training is fine, but > unless we remember the ethical, emotional and welfare dimensions then > we risk making a big mistake. Errors due to the conversion of > scientific theory into practical application have happened in the > past. > Darwinism, as an explanation of the evolutionary order, was > extrapolated into 'Social Darwinism', which was an attempt to impose > similar forces on the lives of human beings. > Learning theory, or behaviorism, may be extrapolated in a similar way, > also with negative consequences. By applying the behaviorist agenda to > the practical control of animal behaviour we must not also be seduced > by its apparent exclusion of emotion, which gives us power to do as we > wish [without consideration for the animal]. > > So, by invoking learning theory as an explanation and justification > for the methods we are using we are not describing everything about > what is happening when a dog is trained, regardless of how. > > Best wishes, > > Jon From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 10:29:07.13 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" CC: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol", IN%"haleyderek@hotmail.com" "Derek Haley", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces Cortisol and hair: this is a good reference to start Koren, L., Mokady, O., Karaskov, T., Klein, J., Koren, G., & Geffen, E. (2002). A novel method using hair for determining hormonal levels in wildlife. Animal Behaviour, 63, 403-406. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 06:27 Canada/Atlantic, Chris Sherwin wrote: > > Derek, > > You might also consider trying to examine cort. from hair as a measure > of chronic > stress. I don't know if this would be suitable for the study you are > thinking of, > but it's ease of collection and avoiding the rear end of the cow might > make it seem > a little more attractive! > > All the best, > > Chris > > ............................................................. > 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 > > > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:04:37 +1000 "Petherick, Carol" > wrote: > >> Derek >> What's the purpose of examining cortisol? Are you looking for >> something related to >> chronic or acute stress? If the latter, then you'll need to time the >> taking of the >> sample to reflect when the stressor occurred - because of the time >> for the cortisol >> to show up in the faeces (so, in response to your question, the >> restraint for >> taking samples per rectum will not show up in the sample). If you >> are applying a >> procedure to an individual or individuals then you'll obviously need >> to know the ID >> of the animal giving the sample. If you are looking at a group >> treatment, then you >> can just collect the faeces of the ground. >> >> Suggest you take a look at: >> Mostl et al 2002. Vet Res Comm 26, 127-139 (Measurement of cortisol >> metabolites in >> faces of ruminants). >> Palme et al 2000. Vet Rec 146, 108-109 (Transport stress in cattle >> as reflected by >> an increase in faecal cortisol....) >> Palme et al 1999. Wien Tierarztl Mschr, 86, 237-241 (Measurements of >> faecal >> cortisol metabolites in ruminants...) >> >> Also a young lass with Lindsay Matthews (just can't recall her name >> at present - >> Cathy? Morrow) was working on urinary cortisol too - so you might >> like to contact >> Lindsay to see if they've done anything on faecal. >> >> >> >> 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: Derek Haley [mailto:haleyderek@hotmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2003 3:32 AM >> To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca >> Subject: Cortisol metabolites in feces >> >> Dear All, >> >> I have many questions about measuring cortisol metabolites in the >> feces of >> cattle. Let me start with a methodological question about sampling. >> >> An obvious way to sample would be to watch and wait, and then to >> watch and >> wait some more, and then finally to swoop down off your perch to the >> freshly >> plopped pattie below. Do you worry about this method resulting in >> samples >> being collecting from animals at different points in time throughout >> the >> day? >> >> What about putting the animals through a chute and sampling directly >> from >> the rectum instead? How soon would any stress caused by handling be >> likely >> to show up in their feces? The cattle would be from a research farm >> and be >> fairly used to handling, which is done quietly and they could also be >> handled in small groups to reduce the time between initial handling >> and >> sampling? >> >> Can shomeone shed shome light on this shituation? >> >> Derek >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* >> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail >> >> >> ********************************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%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 10:31:05.30 To: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "Moira Harris" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces (saliva?) Yes, salivary cortisol is actually quite a common method with humans and we tested with canids as well. It is quite unpleasant to work with. I would rather process faeces any time! Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 06:53 Canada/Atlantic, Moira Harris wrote: > Dear Derek and all, > Don't cattle often foam at the mouth? Is it possible > to look at salivary cortisol? I know it can be done > in pigs (another big animal that tends to dribbble) > ... but is there some basic physiological difference > between ruminants and non-ruminants that would > preclude its use in cows? > > Best wishes, > - Moira Harris > > _______________________________________________________________________ > _ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 10:38:58.36 To: IN%"jlgehman@sbcglobal.net" "Jeff Gehman" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers There you go, more insults! NO, "frequency" is the wrong term. As an ethologist, this MATTERS! You can reinforce a dog to stay still. It does not increase the FREQUENCY of the behaviour (staying still). Maybe the duration but not its frequency. Ethology is based on semantics. It is NOT A GAME, and is certainly very serious. Ethology would not have survived long if we had not taken some time in our choices of terms and defining them. It is not a question of common sense, but a question of knowing what you are talking about. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 09:06 Canada/Atlantic, Jeff Gehman wrote: > Thank you for the dose of common sense. > > Quite often common sense is traded for an education > and that is one of the worst mistakes one could ever > make. > > I work with a bunch of PhD's and I'm sad to say that I > think their is a negative correlation between a > person's level of common sense and academic education. > I'll admit I have no scientific research to back that > assertion, but I see it everyday through personal > observation. > > And yes, your definitions are correct. > > Jeff Gehman, BS, DDH > Houston, TX > > --- Tony Ancheta wrote: >> Jon wrote: >> I don't want to get into some silly semantic >> argument based on looking >> words up in dictionaries or deliberately twisting >> definitions. >> I don't regard this issue as a game. >> >> Tony comments: >> Nor do I Jon; and this is becoming tedious. Either >> you agree with these >> terms and discriptions or you don't; >> >> Punishers decrease the frequency of behaviour; >> Reinforcers increase the frequency of behaviour. >> >> Yes or no ... a one word answer is all we are >> waiting for. >> >> >> >> >> >> Tony Ancheta, NBR >> www.koehlerdogtraining.com >> Westpoint, California >> Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 18-AUG-2003 10:54:21.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: Intro and a question Hi everyone: Want to introduce myself - I just joined last week. I'm looking forward to all the insights this group will have to offer. Does anyone know of any comparative studies on the effect of early versus later weaning of equine foals? On another list I belong to there is a current debate among some long-term breeders about weaning as early as 4 months, or as late as 6 months or later. Personally, it seems to me that later weaning is better - allowing for proper socialization of the equine in the herd - but I've got no experience to back that up, it's just a hunch from what I've read. If anyone knows of any solid studies on that it would be nice to be able to present. I'm also interested because I'm currently putting together the story of a rejected mini donkey foal. His is a sad story and he's become very hostile to humans. I'm trying to unravel the possible causes, and studies on foal rejection and early weaning would be interesting. I'm excited to be here and looking forward to learning from all of you. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 18-AUG-2003 11:17:42.83 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers <> Frequency is the correct word. If you would like to learn about operant conditioning, you may start with the following two sources: The book "How Dogs Learn", by Mary Burch PhD and Jon Bailey PhD which has a detailed explanation of operant conditioning and how this applies specifically to dog training. This web site might help you understand the terminology: http://www.victoriawebpages.com/classes/genlpsy/davispalladino/ch06bdp.htm An internet search on "operant conditioning" would also turn up numerous sources, or you could call one of your local universities and perhaps arrange a meeting with one of the professors working in a operant conditioning laboratory can assist you in understanding the terms, or you can reread this explanation which was previously posted: http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/#Consequences Technical Terms The technical terms for "start or be presented" is positive, since it's something that's added to the animal's environment. The technical terms for "end or be taken away" is negative, since it's something that's subtractedfrom the animal's environment. Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a reinforcer. Often, an animal (or person) will perceive "starting Something Good" or "ending Something Bad" as something worth pursuing, and they will repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these consequences. These consequences will increase the behaviors that lead to them they are reinforcers. These are consequences the animal will work to attain, so they strengthen the behavior. Anything that decreases a behavior - makes it occur less frequently, makes it weaker, or makes it less likely to occur - is termed a punisher. Often, an animal (or person) will perceive "ending Something Good" or "starting Something Bad" as something worth avoiding, and they will not repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these consequences. These consequences will decrease the behaviors that lead to them they are punishers. Applying these terms to the Four Possible Consequences, you get: Something Good can start or be presented, so behavior increases = Positive Reinforcement (R+) Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavoir decreases = Negative Punishment (P-) Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior decreases = Positive Punishment (P+) Something Bad can end or be taken away, so behavior increases = Negative Reinforcement (R-) Vicki Magnus From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 11:35:10.65 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Hi, 1. First, I am a prof. in a psychology/neuroscience department teaching animal behaviour and behavioural endocrinology. 2. Unless you refer me to scientific pages, I will reserve myself the right to comment on the terminology. 3. Some of what you cite below comes almost directly from one of my former posts that was sent to clarify the use of "positive" and "negative". 4. I actually teach that stuff, and the word "frequency" as YOUR own text below points out, is too restrictive. The term used in all textbooks on animal learning I own is "probability". A reinforcer increases to PROBABILITY of a behaviour which may be expressed as "FREQUENCY", "DURATION", "OCCURRENCE", etc. 5. My first year of Ph.D was in animal learning (operant conditioning and animal cognition with Werner K. Honig); was yours? Drop the attitude and please admit that frequency is not the most appropriate term. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 14:17 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus wrote: > < NO, "frequency" is the wrong term. As an ethologist, this MATTERS! You > can reinforce a dog to stay still. It does not increase the FREQUENCY > of > the behaviour (staying still). Maybe the duration but not > its frequency. Ethology is based on semantics. It is NOT A GAME, and is > certainly very serious. Ethology would not have survived long if we had > not taken some > time in our choices of terms and defining them. > It is not a question of common sense, but a question of knowing what > you > are talking about.>> > > > Frequency is the correct word. If you would like to learn about > operant > conditioning, you may start with the following two sources: > > The book "How Dogs Learn", by Mary Burch PhD and Jon Bailey PhD which > has a detailed explanation of operant conditioning and how this applies > specifically to dog training. > > This web site might help you understand the terminology: > http://www.victoriawebpages.com/classes/genlpsy/davispalladino/ > ch06bdp.htm > > An internet search on "operant conditioning" would also turn up > numerous > sources, or you could call one of your local universities and perhaps > arrange a meeting with one of the professors working in a operant > conditioning laboratory can assist you in understanding the terms, or > you can reread this explanation which was previously posted: > > http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/#Consequences > > Technical Terms > > The technical terms for "start or be presented" is positive, since it's > something that's added to the animal's environment. > > The technical terms for "end or be taken away" is negative, since it's > something that's subtractedfrom the animal's environment. > > Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, > makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a > reinforcer. Often, an animal (or person) will perceive "starting > Something Good" or "ending Something Bad" as something worth pursuing, > and they will repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these > consequences. These consequences will increase the behaviors that lead > to them they are reinforcers. These are consequences the animal will > work to attain, so they strengthen the behavior. > > Anything that decreases a behavior - makes it occur less frequently, > makes it weaker, or makes it less likely to occur - is termed a > punisher. Often, an animal (or person) will perceive "ending Something > Good" or "starting Something Bad" as something worth avoiding, and they > will not repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these consequences. > These consequences will decrease the behaviors that lead to them they > are punishers. > > Applying these terms to the Four Possible Consequences, you get: > > Something Good can start or be presented, so behavior increases = > Positive Reinforcement (R+) > > Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavoir decreases = > Negative Punishment (P-) > > Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior decreases = > Positive Punishment (P+) > > Something Bad can end or be taken away, so behavior increases = > Negative > Reinforcement (R-) > > > Vicki Magnus From: IN%"dogtrainr@blueridge.net" "brock" 18-AUG-2003 11:39:07.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers > hmmm...many contributors to this list are academics and have PhD's. We do have > common sense, enough to leave this list after comments like that, and give our > input where it is more respected. > > Yours > > Chris Sherwin Chris, I've been lurking on this list for a while, now, and I'd just like to interject this thought. If the academics leave the list because of an inane comment, how will those of us who are NOT academics but who delight in learning from you go on learning? I'm a dog trainer with 35 years of professional experience. I am really enjoying this list and I'm learning a lot. My "applied ethology saved" folder is bulging and I cannot say enough good things about this list. I enjoy the point/counterpoint because I think that it helps me to clarify my own thinking and I would hate to see the list be diminished because the academics leave it. Sandy Brock From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 11:45:23.98 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Vicki, I think you may benefit yourself from reading the major textbook in the field "The Principles of Learning and Behavior" by Michael Domjan (2003). You may then see my point, that a change in "frequency" of a behaviour is only one possible effect of it being reinforced or punished. If you don't like my tone, note that I am only matching yours. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 14:17 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus wrote: > < NO, "frequency" is the wrong term. As an ethologist, this MATTERS! You > can reinforce a dog to stay still. It does not increase the FREQUENCY > of > the behaviour (staying still). Maybe the duration but not > its frequency. Ethology is based on semantics. It is NOT A GAME, and is > certainly very serious. Ethology would not have survived long if we had > not taken some > time in our choices of terms and defining them. > It is not a question of common sense, but a question of knowing what > you > are talking about.>> > > > Frequency is the correct word. If you would like to learn about > operant > conditioning, you may start with the following two sources: > > The book "How Dogs Learn", by Mary Burch PhD and Jon Bailey PhD which > has a detailed explanation of operant conditioning and how this applies > specifically to dog training. > > This web site might help you understand the terminology: > http://www.victoriawebpages.com/classes/genlpsy/davispalladino/ > ch06bdp.htm > > An internet search on "operant conditioning" would also turn up > numerous > sources, or you could call one of your local universities and perhaps > arrange a meeting with one of the professors working in a operant > conditioning laboratory can assist you in understanding the terms, or > you can reread this explanation which was previously posted: > > http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/#Consequences > > Technical Terms > > The technical terms for "start or be presented" is positive, since it's > something that's added to the animal's environment. > > The technical terms for "end or be taken away" is negative, since it's > something that's subtractedfrom the animal's environment. > > Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, > makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a > reinforcer. Often, an animal (or person) will perceive "starting > Something Good" or "ending Something Bad" as something worth pursuing, > and they will repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these > consequences. These consequences will increase the behaviors that lead > to them they are reinforcers. These are consequences the animal will > work to attain, so they strengthen the behavior. > > Anything that decreases a behavior - makes it occur less frequently, > makes it weaker, or makes it less likely to occur - is termed a > punisher. Often, an animal (or person) will perceive "ending Something > Good" or "starting Something Bad" as something worth avoiding, and they > will not repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these consequences. > These consequences will decrease the behaviors that lead to them they > are punishers. > > Applying these terms to the Four Possible Consequences, you get: > > Something Good can start or be presented, so behavior increases = > Positive Reinforcement (R+) > > Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavoir decreases = > Negative Punishment (P-) > > Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior decreases = > Positive Punishment (P+) > > Something Bad can end or be taken away, so behavior increases = > Negative > Reinforcement (R-) > > > Vicki Magnus From: IN%"Rexxie1@aol.com" 18-AUG-2003 11:58:22.03 To: IN%"dogtrainr@blueridge.net", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: how to kill a list I agree with Sandy Brock that it is counterproductive to everyone on this list for knowledgeable people to leave the list. However, while the point counterpoint discussions are useful and interesting, even when the discussion gets heated, the many expressions of personal pique at real and imagined slights are not -- they are painful to have to read and could just as well be left to the personal conversations between two offended parties off list rather than transmitted to the whole list. It would be really refreshing for a change to have opinions presented without expressions of personal pique and without personal insult to others. Dr. Stookey's netiquette advice is very good and would streamline the discussion and make it more pleasant for the rest of us to bear. Marlene Halverson From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 18-AUG-2003 12:02:25.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers <> I have the 1998 edition of that text, can you point me to the section where the author reinforces your belief that the term frequency is being misused by those discussing operant conditioning, (as in your statement: "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term"). I do not recall the author making such an assertion, but will await your citation. I am sure if you give me the chapter and section I can adjust for the pagination difference between editions. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 18-AUG-2003 12:03:46.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers <> I have the 1998 edition of that text, can you point me to the section where the author reinforces your belief that the term frequency is being misused by those discussing operant conditioning, (as in your statement: "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term"). I do not recall the author making such an assertion, but will await your citation. I am sure if you give me the chapter and section I can adjust for the pagination difference between editions. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"dogtrainr@blueridge.net" "brock" 18-AUG-2003 12:10:24.37 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: how to kill a list > I agree with Sandy Brock that it is counterproductive to everyone on this > list for knowledgeable people to leave the list. However, while the point > counterpoint discussions are useful and interesting, even when the discussion gets > heated, the many expressions of personal pique at real and imagined slights are > not -- they are painful to have to read and could just as well be left to the > personal conversations between two offended parties off list rather than > transmitted to the whole list. ...> Marlene Halverson > Well, since I've started, I might as well jump in with both feet. I agree with Marlene. A list IS more enjoyable if personal pique is avoided. OTOH, we are all human and we are sometimes passionate in defense of our points of view. I've been "on the Net" almost since its inception and I've learned to gather the pearls while ignoring the swine muck. My purely personal opinion is "Have at it." as long as you keep teaching me something. Sandy Brock From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 12:14:12.26 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Page 58: the "key term" section at the end of chapter 2: Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly following a response increases the future probability of that response. Anybody knowing about measures of behaviour (see Martin and Bateson, 1993, "Measuring Behaviour") would agree that "frequency" is more limitative than "probability", explaining the choice of words from Domjan and most other learning specialists. See your own terminology: "Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a reinforcer" From this excerpt, we can see that even you agree that frequency does not cover all of the "increase" in a behaviour. in fact, some reinforcers may influence only the "intensity" (what you call "stronger") of a behaviour without changing its frequency. So I think that we agree Vicki, frequency is not the whole thing. Intensity (your "stronger") applies as well. :-) Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 15:01 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus wrote: > < the field "The Principles of Learning and Behavior" by Michael Domjan > (2003).>> > > I have the 1998 edition of that text, can you point me to the section > where the author reinforces your belief that the term frequency is > being > misused by those discussing operant conditioning, (as in your > statement: > "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term"). > > I do not recall the author making such an assertion, but will await > your > citation. I am sure if you give me the chapter and section I can > adjust > for the pagination difference between editions. > > Vicki Magnus From this excerpt, we can see that even you agree that frequency does not cover all of the "increase" in a behaviour. in fact, some reinforcers may influence only the "intensity" (what you call "stronger") of a behaviour without changing its frequency. So I think that we agree Vicki, frequency is not the whole thing. Intensity (your "stronger") applies as well. :-) Simon Gadbois From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 12:26:11.20 To: IN%"Rexxie1@aol.com" CC: IN%"dogtrainr@blueridge.net", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: how to kill a list Hi, I agree with your comment. I've contributed to the recent exchanges=20 quite a bit (mainly from an ethological perspective) and I was very=20 happy to have managed to stay away from the insults. I commented this=20 morning on somebody's criticism of scientists with an opening "There=20 you go, more insults!" and that opened the flood gate in my direction=20 and in no time I was matching the tone of the e-mails I was getting. I=20= am very disappointed in myself. I apologize to the list for "fouling"=20 the tone of the conversation. But being told to go consult an operant=20 conditioning specialist when I actually teach this material and know it=20= pretty well just pushed some buttons. Self-control is not my thing,=20 maybe it is the French Canadian blood. I enjoy tremendously the input=20 from dog trainers, that I respect greatly. I am surprised to see that=20= the respect is not bi-directional. I think ethologists/animal=20 psychologists can learn from the experience of trainers and their=20 inspiring anecdotes, and I think that they can learn from our=20 theoretical but also very practical input (field studies, lab=20 experimentations). Terminology is more important to scientists than to other people.=20 Trainers borrowed the instrumental conditioning terminology, but like=20 some web sites suggested to us recently, not always correctly or with=20 some important nuances missing. If the scientists on this list can't=20 contribute in pointing out these incorrect uses, well, what are we=20 doing here? I agree that trainers may have developed their own parallel =20 vocabulary, divergent from ours, but don't come and tell us we are=20 wrong or not understanding learning theory! Please! This is just=20 suggesting to me (for the first time) that maybe I don't belong here=20 anymore. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 14:57 Canada/Atlantic, Rexxie1@aol.com=20 wrote: > I agree with Sandy Brock that it is counterproductive to everyone on=20= > this list for knowledgeable people to leave the list.=A0 However, = while=20 > the point counterpoint discussions are useful and interesting, even=20 > when the discussion gets heated, the many expressions of personal=20 > pique at real and imagined slights are not -- they are painful to have=20= > to read and could just as well be left to the personal conversations=20= > between two offended parties off list rather than transmitted to the=20= > whole list.=A0 It would be really refreshing for a change to have=20 > opinions presented without expressions of personal pique and without=20= > personal insult to others.=A0 Dr. Stookey's netiquette advice is very=20= > good and would streamline the discussion and make it more pleasant for=20= > the rest of us to bear. > Marlene Halverson From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 18-AUG-2003 12:56:37.85 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers I must agree with Simon on this one! Frequency should only be used when speaking of an action done per units of time, which is not the case here. Best use occurrence or incidence. (Bare in mind that i'm not so high on the academic ladder, so maybe i still have some common sense left... hahaha...) Hilit -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:14 PM To: Vicki Magnus Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforcers Page 58: the "key term" section at the end of chapter 2: Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly following a response increases the future probability of that response. Anybody knowing about measures of behaviour (see Martin and Bateson, 1993, "Measuring Behaviour") would agree that "frequency" is more limitative than "probability", explaining the choice of words from Domjan and most other learning specialists. See your own terminology: "Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a reinforcer" >From this excerpt, we can see that even you agree that frequency does not cover all of the "increase" in a behaviour. in fact, some reinforcers may influence only the "intensity" (what you call "stronger") of a behaviour without changing its frequency. So I think that we agree Vicki, frequency is not the whole thing. Intensity (your "stronger") applies as well. :-) Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 15:01 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus wrote: <> I have the 1998 edition of that text, can you point me to the section where the author reinforces your belief that the term frequency is being misused by those discussing operant conditioning, (as in your statement: "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term"). I do not recall the author making such an assertion, but will await your citation. I am sure if you give me the chapter and section I can adjust for the pagination difference between editions. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 18-AUG-2003 13:20:50.36 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare I said: >>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*. You said: >>How sad you've worked mostly with the poor examples of these breeds. But >>I'll also state that most dogs bred in North America are poor examples >>of the breeds. >>Julie Alexander Julie, My point was that I work with these breeds - the ones you say are "hard" and "don't train the way European breeds do" (and, by implication, require the use of aversives). In my experience with both well-bred and poorly-bred dogs of these breeds (and I have worked with both), they do not respond well to the use of aversives, period. In my experience training and rehabilitating, Dogos and AB's using strictly +R, -P (except for the remote corrections using very mild aversives like Snappy Trainers that I noted previously), the result has consistently been durable, easily-transferable behaviors/skills. Nancy From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 13:26:30.07 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers As suggested by a member of this list, I just consulted with a colleague (2 office doors away): Vin LoLordo (abundantly cited in Domjan, by the way, see his picture on page 225). Dr. LoLordo is a "real" animal learning specialist with an international reputation in the field (a former student of Rescorla). He agrees with me and added a number of examples to "reinforce" the idea that "frequency" is too restrictive. First, he pointed out that some animal learning specialists actually reinforce the "variability" of a behaviour, not its frequency, occurrence, intensity, etc... Second, he pointed out that we must be clear about the description of the learning setting we are evoking. For instance, is it a discrete trial or not ? (where my example of reinforcing a dog to stay still does not increase any frequency, only the duration of the behaviour). Third, he points out that, as I mentioned a number of time already, "frequency" (or "occurrences" for that matter) are only one manifestation of the probability of a behaviour being increased or decreased. Finally, from talking to Vin, I was reminded of a few conceptual issues: 1. ethologists and animal learning psychologists do not necessarily use the term "intensity" the same way. Pyschologists often use it as "rate" of behaviour (akin to frequency, often a measure of the "hurried-up" nature of a behaviour) and ethologists use it as "amplitude" of behaviour: bar pressing hard, does not mean bar pressing more. I can punch somebody 5 times but with little "strength" (to use Vicki's term) or 5 times with great strength and the CONSEQUENCE of the punching will be dramatically different. 2. occurrences of behaviour (or "counts") are not the same as frequency (this was just pointed out by somebody else, Finkler I think). Frequency is a measure of behaviour PER UNIT OF TIME. Occurrences are not dependent on time. This is discussed in Martin and Bateson's excellent book on "measuring behaviour" (cited in a previous e-mail). Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 16:56 Canada/Atlantic, Hilit Finkler wrote: > I must agree with Simon on this one! > Frequency should only be used when speaking of an action done per > units of time, > which is not the case here. > Best use occurrence or incidence. > (Bare in mind that i'm not so high on the academic ladder, so maybe i > still have some common sense left... hahaha...) > Hilit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:14 PM > To: Vicki Magnus > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Punishers / reinforcers > > Page 58: the "key term" section at the end of chapter 2: > > Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly following a response > increases the future probability of that response. > > Anybody knowing about measures of behaviour (see Martin and Bateson, > 1993, "Measuring Behaviour") would agree that "frequency" is more > limitative than "probability", explaining the choice of words from > Domjan and most other learning specialists. See your own terminology: > > "Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, > makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a > reinforcer" > > >From this excerpt, we can see that even you agree that frequency does > not cover all of the "increase" in a behaviour. > > in fact, some reinforcers may influence only the "intensity" (what you > call "stronger") of a behaviour without changing its frequency. > > So I think that we agree Vicki, frequency is not the whole thing. > Intensity (your "stronger") applies as well. > > :-) > > Simon Gadbois > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Dalhousie University > Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. > Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. > http://www.Gadbois.org/ > > > > > On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 15:01 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus wrote: > > < the field "The Principles of Learning and Behavior" by Michael Domjan > (2003).>> > > I have the 1998 edition of that text, can you point me to the section > where the author reinforces your belief that the term frequency is > being > misused by those discussing operant conditioning, (as in your > statement: > "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term"). > > I do not recall the author making such an assertion, but will await > your > citation. I am sure if you give me the chapter and section I can adjust > for the pagination difference between editions. > > Vicki Magnus From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 13:35:45.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fancifulcriticisms! Written last Thursday, I've been struggling with computer problems, apologies .. Heather McMurray wrote: > 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. I think Tony's point is valid, that the only way to determine an animal's response is to observe the animal's response. Anything else is subjective and open to enormous errors of interpretation. The devices with which I'm familiar (from catalogs etc., I've never used one) are perhaps "mass marketed" but they are also expensive enough that most people would give the matter some thought before acquiring one. AFAIK also the more reputable manufacturers provide some kind of instruction in the use of the devices they sell. I know I would certainly want to study the subject thoroughly before using such a device - whose usefulness in appropriate circumstances I do not doubt - and suspect most "pet" owners would feel the same. There are of course ham-fisted idiots who can and will abuse any training tool; those people are going to abuse their dogs no matter what. Kicks and blows are also abusive. Most people will, however, be reluctant to "hurt" their dog, and will probably approach the matter more cautiously. If the device appears to be hurting the animal, the setting is too high. That is a simple concept readily understandable to the average layperson. So also is the concept that you start with the lowest possible setting, increase it only to the point of getting the animal's attention, and in a different situation again start from below. The difficult part, I am sure, is not finding the correct setting for any given context, but - as with all training methods, including e.g. food rewards - finding the correct timing. Timing is crucial in *any* training exercise, and that is the point where inexperienced trainers most often fail. That and failure to "read" the animal adequately, so you can apply a correction or distraction *before* it goes e.g. into full attack mode. > This is interesting, that some dogs become hardened to pain when in drive; and would appreciate an additional reference or citation. I'm sure there are references, but one's own personal experience of "pain" should suffice to establish the reality of the phenomenon. Dogs in "drive" do not "become hardened to pain" but perceive it differently, or not at all. "Pain" is a highly subjective matter, for humans as well as for animals. A moment's introspection should convince anyone that our own perception of and response to "pain" can vary enormously according to circumstances and context. In an adrenalin-charged situation humans too tend to ignore "pain" and indeed not to perceive it. "Contact sports" are the obvious example, but there are others, not all associated with positive emotions. People rescued from the clutches of a lion or tiger, for example, regularly report having felt no pain during the attack, in spite of very serious injuries. Failure to appreciate the readily observed fact that pain is a subjective phenomenon is one of the things which IMO has poisoned this discussion to an unnecessary degree. Fear is BTW equally subjective. The lion or tiger victims also reported feeling no fear. That is all somewhat understandable biologically. Fear and pain serve primarily to keep us out of dangerous situations, to trigger escape while that is still possible, or to reinforce learning about such situations. Once the disaster has happened they serve no useful purpose and might indeed interfere with subsequent effective action. So shutting them off is biologically useful. I will once again request that you post in plain text, not in HTML, and please also blank out the "Reply-to:" setting in your E-mail program, so replies to your messages will go to the list rather than to you privately. A "Reply-to:" setting is necessary only if the address at which you receive mail is different from the one from which you are sending messages to the list. If you do not leave that item blank, it will override the list default and anyone attempting to reply to your list messages will find themselves replying to you privately instead, unless they are very alert and change the "To:" line in their reply. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 13:35:55.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: breeds and extinction Heather McMurray wrote (again in HTML, grrr): 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 That depends perhaps on your perspective. Both are irrevocable. You cannot "re-create" a species, nor can you "re-create" a domestic breed, though you may (or may not) be able to create something more or less similar (the prospects depend largely on the degree of specialization of the breed for particular functions). As a zoologist I tend to think that - other things being equal, which they seldom are - a species has more "value" than a domestic breed. I do not, however, like to witness the extinction of either one. Human beings are in the process of causing one of the most far-reaching global extinctions in the history of our planet. I can't avoid bearing witness to that, but I don't have to like it. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 13:39:49.41 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Behaviourism and learning theory hi all, Just to mention that through a private exchange with Jon, it was determined that I did not correctly interpret his comment on Behaviourism and learning theory. I should just say, in my defence, that it is relatively common to see people (including other scientists, e.g., linguists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc.) criticising the work off clinical and experimental (incl. animal) psychologists by accusing them of being "behaviourists". I should have asked for precisions instead of assuming my interpretation was right. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 13:44:41.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Geiger wrote: > Hi Simon et al, dogs do appear to expect to be permitted social > infractions with people and other dogs. And dogs and bitches do appear > to have separate hierarchies, at least Ian Dunbar says so and I agree > with him based on my observations. Ian Dunbar says that there are three > species on this earth that display appeasement to their punisher, that > they are hardwired to do so. Those three species are: humans, domestic > dogs, and horses. Again, my observations allow me to agree with this > claim. This is why punishment works well on those three species > (unfortunate or not?) hence one must be careful not to use it in > preference to the more effective R+, when that will work. > I'll be away for the next week at the behaviour conferences in beautiful > Caloundra, just 1.5 hours drive away. I have asked my husband to just > delete messages if the inbox becomes too clogged in my absence. > Heading for the surf and sea and behaviour edification, yours truly, I hate to disagree with the good Dr. Dunbar, but appeasement in the face of aggressive behavior is very common in many social species. There is for example an extensive literature on ritualized appeasement gestures in Cichlid fishes (which I myself studied for a good many years). In non-social species (or those with highly dispersed societies, perhaps a more accurate way of putting it) one animal being attacked can either fight back, or flee; there is no benefit to sticking around if you are defeated. In social species another factor enters the equation, which is the benefit of being or becoming a member of a pair or group. There are many examples of fishes in which the males are territorial, and females use more or less complex appeasement gestures, often combined with specific aggression-inhibiting colors or markings, to penetrate a male's territory without being driven off. The classical, much published example is the Three-Spined Stickleback, made famous by Tinbergen, van Iersel and others, but there are many others, including nearly all Cichlidae. Enjoy the surf. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 13:45:31.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: collar Laura Sanborn wrote: > At 05:26 PM Thursday 8/14/2003, you wrote: > > >Could I ask how the dog was able to choose without first being corrected and > >experiencing the discomfort/pain/sensation caused? > > As the dog started to pull at the end of the leash, the pinch collar > started to close. The dog reached some point of discomfort, so the dog > chose to stop pulling. Self correcting, if you wish to call it that. I can't comment on Laura's dog, but I have seen the same thing many times in sighthounds (notoriously headstrong, and notorious pullers) in the hunting field. One might be tempted to think, oh, the animal hurts itself with the prong collar, and then stops pulling. That's not the case, at least not in my experience. A dedicated "puller" will lean into a flat collar, or even often a choke collar, to the point of partial strangulation and obvious discomfort, and will *continue* to do so regardless of the discomfort, causing itself significant distress and the handler significant fatigue and risk of injury (these animals are *strong*). With a prong collar that does not occur. It's not that the animal hits the end of the lead, gives itself a painful "correction" and thereupon stops pulling. The animal (presuming it has never seen a prong collar before) starts to lean into the collar, notices already at slight pressure "hey, this isn't going to work" and thereupon stops leaning. On later occasions even that does not happen, because of course the animal recognizes the prong collar - and as Laura mentions, recognizes it as a signal that something very good is about to happen. If you want to see my hounds jumping six feet into the air in sheer joyous exuberance, all you have to do is walk through the house carrying such an item in your hand. Or any other item of coursing equipment. There are also a number of words which cannot be used in ordinary conversation, because even out of context they may start a small riot . And I don't even USE prong collars on my hounds (but I have plenty of experience handling the hounds of others who do use them). John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 13:46:01.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: : punishment/appeasement Jackie Perkins wrote (of Ian Dunbar): > I do not know exactly what he meant. I only wish he could provide some > details. I know that foals perform mouth clapping to appease, and this > is an unlearned behaviour. Perhaps he meant HARDWIRED appeasement. Ie > unlearned. Maybe these other species only do it after learning it > whereas horse dogs and people have it hardwired. I would suggest that appeasement gestures are "hard wired" in the behavior of a very wide range of social species. I can readily think of examples in fishes, lizards, and birds as well as in mammals other than those mentioned. Aggression and territoriality are nearly universal features of animal behavior and social species generally have ways of "defusing" aggression so an encounter can develop along other lines. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 13:47:35.56 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Jackie Perkins wrote: > Simon, I think there may be a reference out there and shall pass one on > when and if I should find one. But if you do not mind I will share the > sorts of observations I have made. Male and female dogs do appear to > have separate hierarchies. Females get away with rather a lot of cheek > (rule infractions) with males, even dominant males. The male, usually > the dominant one of a male female pair, he puts up with sooo very much > most people think the female is the dominant one. But they would be > mistaken. The male puts her in her place just every now and then, then > she goes quiet for a few days and shows him more respect (ie does not > break so many rules with him). That is a good male leader in action. A > less good male leader may be constantly correcting others and may appear > to be a bully. > Also supporting the idea that there are separate sex hierarchies: inter > female aggression is the worst kind and more difficult to treat than any > other kind. Why? Females have different rules for their hierarchy. Their > rules are not as clear or stereotyped as the rules for a male hierarchy. > They are "bitchy"! They snipe one another constantly, and occasionally > it leads to overt attack. When it does they do not hold back like males > do, they mercilessly rip into each other. Two bitches from the same > litter, or even mother and daughter are the worst combination. > I may be reading too much into what I have seen, I do not claim to be > right, just giving my observations. My own observations during more than 30 years of interaction with Salukis - a somewhat less than fully domesticated dog breed - agree very largely with Jackie's in all the above mentioned points. I would add only that a good male leader often respects a high-ranking female's "space" to the point that you might never see him putting her in her place. He will in fact go out of his way to avoid confrontation with her. That kind of "respect" has continued in my pack even when the female in question had become old and tottery and no longer capable of engaging in a serious fight. A less secure male is indeed apt to bully the junior males ... and they are apt to provoke him incessantly, which they will not do with a really secure pack leader. The paradoxical result is that an insecure pack leader is much more likely to inflict actual bites on the junior males than a really secure leader, who seldom has to make even so much as a threatening gesture to maintain respect. "The female is more dangerous than the male" in the way Jackie has so well described ... females tend to lack the bite inhibitions which allow ritualized fighting among males. That is not something invented by dogs, nor even by mammals. It is at least equally true for example of the Cichlid fishes whose behavior I studied for many years. Male fights are ceremonial. Female fights are less common, but when they occur are also less ritualized and cause more damage. Males may spend many minutes posturing with spread fins, and directing jets of water at one another with strokes of their tail ("tail beating"), before facing off and locking jaws - if indeed things get to that point before one of them backs down. Females largely dispense with such preliminaries and proceed immediately to biting one another in the flank. I think this may have an evolutionary explanation in terms of the relative importance of what's at stake for a male and for a female. In certain "dwarf Cichlid" species the "tail beat" water jet is so powerful it can blast the opponent a dozen body lengths away, tumbling tail over head. Two evenly matched males may sometimes spend hours trying to blow each other away like that, without ever progressing to more damaging actions. These are polygynous species whose males, triple the size of the females, establish very large territories in which half a dozen smaller female territories may exist. Once her eggs have been fertilized, a female will no longer allow the male into the center of her mini-territory. He provides "perimeter defense" against predatory fishes of all kinds, however, and also against intruding males of his own species . Females, defending their eggs or young fry, are aposematically colored, bright yellow and black, and are incredibly aggressive for their size. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 18-AUG-2003 13:53:56.26 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare And I say that using the mild aversives that I do get the job done faster, are less stressful to owner and dog by not having to hang around for days waiting for the dog to realize that the owner won't budge unless the leash is slack. By vibrating the leash, teaching the dog that enh, no and other conditioned aversives means the dog can avoid a stronger aversive and by telling the dog no not that way and showing the dog yes this way, I don't confuse the dog, frustrate the dog or owner and give a better quality of life to both faster than if I didn't use mild aversives. Our Beaucerons don't train like a Doberman but more like a Doberman than our livestock guardians. What is an aversive to one dog can be fun to another--one chases a hose squirt, another hates getting wet. At times for different dogs, using different aversives gets the job done better. An epal just described how a prong collar immediately allowed her Dogo to walk to the dog park with her after a month of returning to the car had simply made her want to scream and was harming the relationship with the dog. Another list described how someone who refused to use aversives had made only moderate progress resolving some aggression after 2 years. What a waste of the owner and dog's time and life! The owner must tippy toe around and she must manage the dog and restrict its life. It's possible that aversives won't make a difference in this particular dog. But after 2 years, perhaps trying some under the guidance of a trainer familiar with them would. I use positive reinforcements as much as I deem prudent. The nothing in life is free method is quite restrictive. On another list one advocate of this expressed surprise that our dogs are allowed to come up and nudge gently for attention. He did not permit his dogs this at all. We however can let the dogs do this because they understand the word no and do not get upset by it. Restricting a dog from social interactions instead of teaching them that some things are not permitted seems harsh to us. Our dogs are permitted on furniture and know that they must leave when told. They do get things for free but must follow rules. At times, the job can get done better and faster to improve things for both dog and owner by using some aversives, intensity depends on the dog and situation. I have more choices for training than you do. And am probably far less restrictive. Julie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy" To: Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:21 PM Subject: Re: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare > I said: > > >>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*. > > You said: > > >>How sad you've worked mostly with the poor examples of these breeds. But > >>I'll also state that most dogs bred in North America are poor examples > >>of the breeds. > >>Julie Alexander > > Julie, > > My point was that I work with these breeds - the ones you say are "hard" > and "don't train the way European breeds do" (and, by implication, require > the use of aversives). In my experience with both well-bred and > poorly-bred dogs of these breeds (and I have worked with both), they do not > respond well to the use of aversives, period. In my experience training > and rehabilitating, Dogos and AB's using strictly +R, -P (except for the > remote corrections using very mild aversives like Snappy Trainers that I > noted previously), the result has consistently been durable, > easily-transferable behaviors/skills. > > Nancy > > From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 14:05:34.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Robin Walker wrote: > >From the hammock! > > Unsubscribing only stops me writing in (spare me any jubilation!) I still > receive everything and must learn to delete as Joe regularly > However, this is irresistible. If you are still receiving the messages, you are not unsubscribed - although a few participants in the acrimony have - unfortunately - taken to sending their messages privately as well as to the list. > For what it is worth (heaven help Science), I consider bitches to be > rather different to a degree. Vive la difference! and besides, that is a real phenomenon, as old as vertebrates and quite possibly older yet. You can make the same observations in fishes . The investment of the female in reproduction is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from that of the male. Perhaps therein lies an explanation? > My Police Dog handlers appreciated their bitches (after some hesitation. > They seemed to be beguiled by the extra 'edge' of vocal ferocity what I > imagine I also could see. It was as if the female GSD invested more > energy in threat and was quicker to dart in and withdraw. To me this > seemed an adaptive strategy for a female with her extended duties in the > reproductive area. Bitches are often also "tougher" in the hunting field. That was the opinion of my Bedouin friends in Arabia, and in 32 years of onward breeding from their stock I have seen nothing to contradict it . > Another bitch trait I imagined I saw was the compulsion to rush and nip > "pack" members who left the group on walks (mostly on their return). My > Labradors, Jack Russells and Border Terriers certainly seemed to do > this. To me it seemed that the female was "reprimanding" the freelance > activity. > > I think it is also important to recognize the phenomenon of implacable > bitch fighting. This I do believe is a mechanism for pack splitting > among some canids, which might be a "population density" issue and have > adaptive value for a social creature. Human attempts to override this > mechanism within the artificial confines of domestic arrangements can > entail severe problems. I don't know whether it's a mechanism for pack splitting (quite possibly, just haven't thought about it enough) but it certainly is a reality. To ignore it in making "domestic arrangements" is perilous. It would be nice not to have an ENTIRE "tail" of previous messages appended to yours . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"dogtrainr@blueridge.net" "brock" 18-AUG-2003 14:34:32.25 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: how to kill a list I agree with your comment. I've contributed to the recent exchanges quite a bit (mainly from an ethological perspective) and I was very happy to have managed to stay away from the insults. I commented this morning on somebody's criticism of scientists with an opening "There you go, more insults!" and that opened the flood gate in my direction and in no time I was matching the tone of the e-mails I was getting. I am very disappointed in myself. I apologize to the list for "fouling" the tone of the conversation. Simon, you are one of the people from whom I'm learning a lot. Please keep it up! Sandy From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 15:38:29.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's replyre: species heather mcmurray wrote: > 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? You are reading insult where none was intended or implied. My statements did not apply to you specifically, but in general to incautious pronouncements. I disagree vividly, as detailed below, with your statements about speciation and about the possibility of recreating extinct breeds or species. It's important to distinguish between statements about an opinion and statements about the person who expressed that opinion. > 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. It's important not to confuse "do not interbreed" with "cannot interbreed." A species is reproductively isolated. There we agree. That is not, however, the same thing as hybrid sterility, let alone the inability to produce viable hybrids. There are many examples of perfectly good species which can hybridize regularly under certain conditions, usually in captivity, though they do not do so in the wild, at least not unless their habitats are grossly disturbed by human intervention. For example, all or nearly all species of falcon (Falco spp, family Falconidae) can readily be hybridized in captivity, resulting in the production of multi-species hybrid products, e.g. (Merlin x Peregrine) x Prairie Falcon. I have seen many such hybrids. Most species of dabbling ducks (Anas spp and near relatives, tribe Anatini of family Anatidae) can hybridize. Those are nevertheless perfectly valid species. Similar examples could be multiplied ad infinitum. It follows that hybrid sterility or inviability are not necessary for species distinctness. What normally occurs during speciation - a gradual process which does not happen in some single moment of time - is that two parts of a population become separated by some kind of barrier to gene exchange - Ernst Mayr (with whom BTW I had the good fortune to discuss such matters in person on several occasions) said "geographical" but there are cases, perhaps, in insects which "imprint" on specific food plants, where speciation could occur sympatrically - that has been a topic of debate ever since the early days of evolutionary biology. While separated the population genomes diverge enough that when they meet again the cross-population matings produce individuals less well adapted than either parent. That amounts to selection against cross-population mating (the descendants of such matings being less likely to leave their genes for posterity) and results in the evolution of "isolating mechanisms." Isolating mechanisms may be of many kinds - behavioral, physiological, anatomical in the cases of insects or spiders with their complicated genitalia, and so on. The selective advantage of an isolating mechanism is that it reduces the probability of cross-population mating, i.e. the probability that gametes will be wasted in the production of individuals without a genetic future. Note that hybrid sterility (or the production of non-viable hybrid offspring) does not meet that criterion, because it acts after the gametes have already been expended. I am arguing that by the time the genomes have become so different that hybrids are sterile, never mind inviable, isolating mechanisms will ordinarily already have evolved to prevent such matings. The well known examples of hybrid sterility, e.g. mule, result from chromosomal mismatches between the two parent species, of sufficient severity that they disrupt the orderly process of meiosis. Matings between those species do not happen in nature (not least because as wild animals they did not inhabit the same regions) so that example is not really germane to the mechanism of speciation. It is of course conceivable that two populations could be isolated from one another for so long that when they met again their genomes were incompatible at the chromosomal level, while because of continuous separation they might not have evolved any isolating mechanisms. In that case hybrid sterility or inviability would indeed be the driving force of selection pressure leading to the evolution of isolating mechanisms of the more usual sort. Hybrid sterility or inviability is, even in that case, not an isolating mechanism, but simply an extreme manifestation of the selective disadvantage of population mixing, which causes the evolution of isolating mechanisms. A subtle point, perhaps, but IMO an important one. I have read too often, again recently and not only on this list, that hybrid sterility or inviability are *necessary* criteria of species distinctness, so if two populations can interbreed and produce viable fertile offspring, they are necessarily the same species. If they DO interbreed in nature, I agree, they are the same species. There are however many perfectly good species which CAN interbreed under certain conditions, especially in captivity, but which in practice never or practically never do so in nature. Therefore, once again, hybrid sterility is "neither a necessary consequence nor a valid criterion of species distinctness" as I wrote. I do choose my words carefully, on occasion . Interesting that the Web site you mention is devoted to the species concept in bacteria, which being prokaryotes do not have the kind of sexual reproduction, with orderly segregation of homologous genetic material, familiar to us in eukaryotes, on which the definition of things like "reproductive isolation" is based. At first thought it seems peculiar that we can in fact readily identify "species" among bacteria and other prokaryotes, in the absence of the cell machinery which makes the concept of an interbreeding population meaningful. We must therefore seek another explanation. I think that explanation probably lies in the concept of "adaptive peaks and valleys" discussed by Simpson in "Tempo and Mode in Evolution" and "The Major Features of Evolution" and discussed more recently (using a somewhat different vocabulary) by (among others) Stephen Jay Gould. Some "lifestyles" are more efficient than others, and evolution drives even asexually reproducing organisms to cluster around those "adaptive peaks." I need no persuasion of the reality of bacterial species. Long ago I spent most of one summer helping to identify an elusive pathogen of reptiles - in the days before DNA and electron microscopes, when "Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology," Petri dishes containing specialized media, and endless rows of fermentation tubes were the main weapons in a bacteriological taxonomist's arsenal . > 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). The wild horse of Asia is the Przewalski wild horse, which is thought to have became extinct in the wild in the 1970s but continues to exist in a number of captive herds. It does not have to be "reverse engineered" as you put it ... but it does have a restoration-oriented breeding program, such as are in place around the world for many endangered species. The situation is perhaps somewhat comparable to that of the Arabian Oryx, which was extinct in the wild but has since been reintroduced in its original habitat. From another post to this list I gather that reintroductions have already taken place. The wild horse of Europe, the Tarpan, was a different case. When reconstruction breeding began, there were apparently no more unmixed individuals alive, either in the wild or in captivity. Around 1960 I lived for several years near Munich, and became rather familiar with the herd of "reconstructed" Tarpans in the zoo there, as well as with the herd of Przewalski horses in a nearby enclosure. They also had a "reconstructed" version of the Aurochs, the wild ox of Europe, which by that time had been extinct for at least a couple of centuries. Those "reconstructed" animals represented faithfully the appearance of their extinct "prototypes" to the remarkable extent that skilled breeders and experienced zoologists could achieve in the pre-DNA days. They are a testimonial to what skilled, intelligent, knowledgeable and highly motivated people can achieve. They were and are, however, not genetically identical with their wild namesakes, and if behavioral comparison were possible (of course it's not) I have no doubt significant differences would emerge. I have no doubt that applying the latest DNA technology would provide more information than was available to the reconstructionists in those days, and so permit a closer approximation to the original. Until such time as we can actually re-synthesize a complete genome, however, evolution will remain a time-bound, one-way process in which you can approximate but never actually achieve the restoration of some previous state. As for 6000 years, the dog is apparently a very plastic species, as witness the extraordinary changes in phenotype which have been produced, in certain breeds, by a few decades of show ring selection . In those terms, 6000 years is a very long time indeed to maintain a constant or nearly constant phenotype. It is, as I noted, nearly half the entire "lifespan" (according to Savolainen) of the dog to date. If that gene pool were to disappear tomorrow, I have no doubt that the dog fancy could, if it wished, create something similar looking out of other sighthound breeds. It would not, however, have certain remarkable physiological and behavioral features, not found in other sighthound breeds, which make the Saluki functionally distinct from other sighthounds. To restore those you would have to go live in the desert and subject your "reconstructed" population to the same kinds of selection pressures as produced the original (in an environment where because of rapidly increasing human population that is really no longer possible). I wouldn't want to guess how long that would take, centuries at least. My point is really that there are literally hundreds of features which cannot be observed from outside the animal, but only tested in the field, over a long period of time and under a great variety of conditions. An exquisitely adapted animal is not a Tinkertoy, and recreating something lost is a vastly more difficult task than just assembling a few likely parts and breeding the result for "conformity to a standard." It is, I'm sorry to say, naive to think that you can create or even maintain any working breed by following a written standard. The evolution of dog breeds in which that is being attempted, i.e. those which have lost their function, provides sufficiently drastic evidence that such a procedure simply doesn't work. They do not stay the same, and they do not remain functional. The GSD and the Bulldog are perhaps the most striking examples, but they are not alone. If you have some current references to the horse restoration projects, I would be most interested. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 15:54:38.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: rabbit stuff (for John Burchard) Heather McMurray wrote: > "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. Thanks for the interesting information. Actually, I already knew many of those things. Rabbits can be very aggressive - I have watched, by the hour, wild Desert Cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii) fighting. Each fight is very brief, but they keep coming back for more . We had a couple of territorial bucks in our front yard, who went at it daily during the breeding season in spring. I wonder a little about rabbits killing snakes. In this country, snakes prey heavily on wild rabbits. I have watched a large Bull Snake swallowing an adult Desert Cottontail, and rattlesnakes in the same location (southern Arizona) take a steady toll of juveniles and unwary adults. Maybe O. cuniculus has different behavior. There are no rattlesnakes in Iberia, and the vipers which do occur there probably aren't large enough to include rabbits in their regular bill of fare (though they could still be dangerous to a rabbit which tried to confront them). I don't remember offhand whether any of the large rat snakes (Elaphe spp) occur in Iberia. They are perhaps the only European snakes large enough to prey on rabbits. O. cuniculus is slow compared with hares, but extremely agile, and very clever about using its knowledge of terrain to reach the safety of a burrow. I am wondering about the Iberian Lynx, which in my experience is primarily a montane species (maybe that just means that the last undisturbed habitats in Iberia are in the mountains ). There are other predators in Iberia ... I'm not sure about stoats (never saw one, which doesn't mean they aren't there) but how about polecats? Then there is the Genet, the Ichneumon (a large mongoose), the European Wildcat, not to mention various birds of prey - Buteo buteo, the common Buzzard (similar to our Redtail but smaller and less powerful) is, I believe, the principal predator of rabbits in Britain where of course the rabbit is an introduced species but has been there for a long time. Anyway Buteo buteo is found throughout Europe. Wild Goshawks take many rabbits, which are their most important mammalian prey and might make up as much as 10% of the diet in some situations. Iberia is home to several species of eagles including Bonelli's which is a variant of the African Hawk Eagle and a very competent predator of mid-size game in open or semi-open country. I'm sure I've left some out ... In the "North woods" the Lynx does appear to specialize heavily in preying on the Snowshoe Hare (in the New World) or the similar Varying Hare (in the Old World) both of which are rather rabbit-like in size and habitat, though they don't live in burrows. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"storrey@uoguelph.ca" "Stephanie Torrey" 18-AUG-2003 16:07:50.02 To: IN%"D.Lexer@gmx.at" "Daniela Lexer" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: marking techniques for piglets We have also used a series of stripes across different locations of the piglets' bodies. I have had success with this for up to 10 piglets/pen using different combinations of stripes. At Guelph, we actually use Herbal Essences black hair dye on the piglets. Its ammonia free so it doesn't sting their skin and other than slightly gray miscellaneous piglet body parts that touch a recently dyed pig, it works well. And lasts about 2-3 weeks. Good luck! Stephanie -- ******************************************* Stephanie Torrey Ph.D. Candidate, Animal Behaviour Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences University of Guelph Guelph, ON, N1G2W1 Canada (519) 824 4120 x56226 ******************************************* From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 18-AUG-2003 16:15:16.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Intro and a question Hi - I'm not able to cite any studies of 4 month weaning versus 6 month weaning - however I think this is in any case a moot point. The question = is why wean at all? (and by wean I mean force-wean by physical separation) Arguments against weaning? - a variety, first of which, but perhaps = least often considered, is that weaning terminally disrupts the development of culture. In fact we have historically practiced the removal of young (whether in animals or, more notoriously, in human groups such as the = 'lost generation' of native Australians) with the destruction or disruption of = the native culture in mind. Yet in equines a developed group culture can = assist greatly in producing well balanced, mannered and disciplined young = horses. Not only can the foal continue to learn from its dam, but can also learn from stallion and older siblings. There is some evidence to suggest that stallions fulfil a similar psychological role to human fathers in that = the paradigm of social interaction with other horses (not mum or direct siblings)is learnt from them.=20 The benefits of natural weaning (by which I mean allowing the mare to = wean the foal without interference) within a family group that is broadly analogous to nature (rather than a fully free ranging 'natural' group) = are many, so here is a short, but by no means complete, list: 1. Neither foal nor dam suffer the recorded trauma of separation. = (trauma that has been linked to the development of learned helplessness and, as = a consequence, poor future learning) =20 2. Foals are able to learn by unrestricted social facilitation from both = dam and older siblings. 3. Foals experience mating behavior at close quarters, and are able to observe a paradigm for sexual behavior(sex education if you like to view = it that way). Filly foals raised in this way do not have the all too common fear of stallions (many having never seen one until being confined in a service area for the first time) nor the increasingly common fear (often leading to rejection) of their own foal later on. (witness the = increasing number of 'orphan foal'rearing facilities in N.America - with all the implied extra costs to breeders) 4. Fillies can remain in the group until around two years old, giving = them a chance to interact with their own younger full siblings or those of = other mares within the social group. This presents an opportunity for 'baby-sitting' - a role that is carried out by both sisters and brothers = - and that allows the mare much more time to herself during the all = important first few months when her feed intake requirement is at a maximum. = Obviously the foal also benefits from being able to rest in the care of older = sibling, and importantly begins to associate with other foals in a controlled and monitored environment. Equally if there are no siblings one mare will = often look after both her foal and that of another mare - who will at other = times take her turn. As you can imagine the foal is learning a number of = social interactions that feature co-operative behavior, and can be expected to = be more co-operative in a general sense later on. It might be fair to add = that there has recently been a number of papers/books etc suggesting that = these social 'trade-offs' are at the root of the development of morality - an = idea that raises issues about later behavior. 5. Colt foals/yearlings have ample scope for the important (some might = say essential) expression of play. But instead of the 'free-for-all' common = to weaned groups of colts, and in which lower status animals will often do badly, this occurs under the watchful eyes of older brother/sisters and other higher status individuals whose protection can be sought at need, = or whose intervention may occur in the case of an overly aggressive = episode. (anyone who has read 'Lord of the Flies' can very easily imagine the = logical results of unsupervised juvenile groups in species where this is not supported in the ethogram). Colts raised in family groups in this way do = not present the same tendency to bite handlers, and are much better mannered generally. Socialisation with people can begin with the foal observing = the group stallion being handled and, given that there is a good = relationship between handler/s and the sire the paradigm will be readily learnt and copied. Against this has to be set the reasons for forced weaning - but I'm = entirely uncertain what they actually might be, having a distinct feeling that = there are no benefits which cannot also be achieved with free-weaning, and = with better welfare and long term product in a commercial sense by not doing = so - the practice being based on customs that have their foundation in ideas = that are well past their 'best use by' date. It would not be difficult to write a further couple of thousand words on = the subject - but I hope this is enough to begin with!=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: Virginia Bowen [mailto:vbowen@bowenconsulting.net]=20 Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 4:54 a.m. To: Applied Ethology List Subject: Intro and a question Hi everyone: =A0 Want to introduce myself=A0- I just joined last week.=A0 I'm looking = forward to all the insights this group will have to offer.=A0=20 =A0 Does anyone know of any comparative studies on the effect of early = versus later weaning of equine foals?=A0=A0On another list I belong=A0to there = is a current debate=A0among some=A0long-term breeders about weaning as early = as 4 months, or as late as 6 months or later.=A0 =A0 =A0 Personally, it seems to me that later weaning is better - allowing for proper socialization of the equine in the herd - but I've got no = experience to back that up, it's just a hunch from what I've read.=A0 If anyone = knows of any solid studies on that it would be nice to be able to present.=A0=20 =A0 I'm also interested because I'm currently putting together the story of = a rejected mini donkey foal.=A0 His is a sad story and he's become very = hostile to humans.=A0 I'm trying to unravel the possible causes, and studies on = foal rejection and early weaning would be interesting.=A0=20 =A0 I'm excited to be here and looking forward to learning from all of you. =A0 Virginia Murrieta, CA =A0 "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter.=A0 They gleam in the = sun and bray in the night." =A0 From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 18-AUG-2003 16:22:59.30 To: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "Moira Harris", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces (saliva?) Moira Yes, it is possible to measure salivary cortisol in cattle - I have a German paper that investigated plasma and salivary cortisol in calves. I don't read German, but the abstract appears to say that plasma and salivary cortisols are correlated. Also, work on this was being explored in NSW by Lloyd Fell and co-workers. Lloyd has now moved out of ethology, so I'm not sure what became of the work, but don't think it has been published yet. 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: Monday, 18 August 2003 7:54 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces (saliva?) Dear Derek and all, Don't cattle often foam at the mouth? Is it possible to look at salivary cortisol? I know it can be done in pigs (another big animal that tends to dribbble) ... but is there some basic physiological difference between ruminants and non-ruminants that would preclude its use in cows? Best wishes, - Moira Harris ________________________________________________________________________ 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%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 16:44:48.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Hi again Vicki, You may want to check Neuringer's work on reinforcing response variability. It is actually discussed in Domjan's book (page 138 of the 2003 edition). It makes a clear point that defining reinforces (or punishers) based only on "frequency" is too limiting. The author, by the way, is not "reinforcing my belief", he is simply defining operant conditioning and reinforcer/punisher the way it should be. I never wrote that Domjan was specifically saying "frequency" was not the right term. It is simply obvious to us, animal behaviour people. Maybe YOU should consult your operant conditioning specialist in your local university before you get so rude with the ones on this list. Simon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Psychology/Neuroscience Dalhousie University Halifax, NS Canada, B3H 4J1 902-494-8848 On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 15:03 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus wrote: > I have the 1998 edition of that text, can you point me to the section > where the author reinforces your belief that the term frequency is > being > misused by those discussing operant conditioning, (as in your > statement: > "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term"). > > I do not recall the author making such an assertion, but will await > your > citation. I am sure if you give me the chapter and section I can > adjust > for the pagination difference between editions. > > Vicki Magnus From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 18-AUG-2003 17:23:28.52 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare Julie, Are you deliberately ignoring my point, or do you truly not realize that my last several posts on this topic have been in the specific context of Dogo Argentinos, American Bulldogs, Presa Canarios and other "tough minded bull and molosser breeds"? You said: "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?" You appear to be saying "you have to use aversives to train these dogs, they can't be trained any other way and if you don't use aversives dogs will die." That simply based on breed, these dogs are best trained using aversives. Your experience with these breeds is....? Based on my personal experience working with these breeds, I disagree heartily with your position. I have, lying atop my feet this very moment, a 2-year old deaf male Dogo Argentino who was trained using aversives, and who, when surrendered by his owners to a municipal pound (along with his prong collar), was out of control, ill-mannered, an escape artist and a runner, and was well on his way to being aggressive. Were it not for an animal control officer with a soft spot for big, brash, muscular dogs, he would have been euthanized immediately; instead, the ACO called me (the deaf dog rescuer) and I went and pulled the dog from the pound. I have never used any aversive whatsoever in rehabilitating him, ONLY positive reinforcement and negative punishment in conjunction with a consistent routine. He began to respond almost immediately though it took him a couple of weeks to truly catch on to what I expected of him, but now he walks on a loose lead with fingertip control (taught in a week or so of twice-daily 10-minute sessions, using a flat collar and a 15-food lead and no, I didn't just stand still and wait for him to realize I wouldn't budge if he was pulling), does not try to leave the yard (and won't run even if he IS out of the yard off-leash), is obedient, attentive, well-mannered, learns new things with amazing speed, and loves to train. (I love working with him, too, I can read his every thought on his face and it's a joy to watch him figure things out.)fd (The only thing I have not been able to "fix" - and haven't tried to - is his fear of watermelon. Not the whole melon, just slices. When I cut a watermelon he runs and hides in his crate. *shrug*) This list is not the place for a discussion of the pros and cons of different training methods, this whole discussion came about as a question of the ethics of the routine use of an electronic collar in training dogs. But there are several points in your last e-mail I must respond to: >And I say that using the mild aversives that I do get the job done >faster, are less stressful to owner and dog by not having to hang around >for days waiting for the dog to realize that the owner won't budge >unless the leash is slack. By vibrating the leash, teaching the dog that >enh, no and other conditioned aversives means the dog can avoid a >stronger aversive and by telling the dog no not that way and showing the >dog yes this way, I don't confuse the dog, frustrate the dog or owner >and give a better quality of life to both faster than if I didn't use >mild aversives. The end justifies the means? You are using enh and no as conditioned punishers - threats, if you will. "Stop what you're doing or something unpleasant will happen." Why not teach and proof the correct behavior outside the context where the incorrect behavior occurs, then substitute the correct behavior for the incorrect behavior in context and reinforce the correct behavior? What would you do if the dog could not hear your conditioned punishers, let him discover the unpleasant consequences on his own? >An epal just described how a prong collar immediately allowed >her Dogo to walk to the dog park with her after a month of returning to >the car had simply made her want to scream and was harming the >relationship with the dog. No responsible Dogo owner I know (and I know several dozen Dogo owners including a number of well-respected breeders) would be foolish enough to take his or her Dogo to an off-leash dog park. Dogos, once past early adolescence, do not belong in off-leash dog parks, period. That's just asking for tragedy, as many Dogos are dog-aggressive and even those who won't start a fight will finish it if challenged. I can't help but wonder about the competence of your e-pal in using non-aversive training methods given her obvious ignorance of the breed. Further, the prong collar merely allowed her to control her Dogo, it did not train the Dogo to walk on a loose lead. This is a clear example of a training tool being used not to train, but to control. >The nothing in >life is free method is quite restrictive. This is a non-sequitur - did somebody mention NILIF? >On another list one advocate >of this expressed surprise that our dogs are allowed to come up and >nudge gently for attention. He did not permit his dogs this at all. We >however can let the dogs do this because they understand the word no and >do not get upset by it. Restricting a dog from social interactions >instead of teaching them that some things are not permitted seems harsh >to us. Our dogs are permitted on furniture and know that they must leave >when told. They do get things for free but must follow rules. >At times, the job can get done better and faster to improve things for >both dog and owner by using some aversives, intensity depends on the dog >and situation. I am confused - instead of establishing a clear, consistent social structure, you will permit the dogs to take liberties in some situations ("get things for free", nudge for attention), but punish them ("using some aversives") for taking liberties in others? If I am confused, I can only imagine how confusing it must be for the dogs! If infractions aren't permitted from the very beginning, remediation (using aversives, of course) wouldn't be necessary. >I have more choices for training than you do. And am >probably far less restrictive. You would be wrong, on both counts. Nancy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Nancy" >To: >Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:21 PM >Subject: Re: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare > > > > I said: > > > > >>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*. > > > > You said: > > > > >>How sad you've worked mostly with the poor examples of these breeds. >But > > >>I'll also state that most dogs bred in North America are poor >examples > > >>of the breeds. > > >>Julie Alexander > > > > Julie, > > > > My point was that I work with these breeds - the ones you say are >"hard" > > and "don't train the way European breeds do" (and, by implication, >require > > the use of aversives). In my experience with both well-bred and > > poorly-bred dogs of these breeds (and I have worked with both), they >do not > > respond well to the use of aversives, period. In my experience >training > > and rehabilitating, Dogos and AB's using strictly +R, -P (except for >the > > remote corrections using very mild aversives like Snappy Trainers that >I > > noted previously), the result has consistently been durable, > > easily-transferable behaviors/skills. > > > > Nancy > > > > From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 18-AUG-2003 18:39:24.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: RE: Intro and a question Thank you! That's actually most helpful, and I think helps me firm up my own thoughts on this subject. I have taken a quick look at your site and will be joining shortly to take a further look. Seems like a very, very interesting project. This approach makes so much more sense to me, but does raise another question. What, if any, is the impact on the mare of allowing her to wean the foal? Does it take any further toll on her health by allowing the foal to nurse longer? I'm taking my questions back to the list that spawned my original question here and now asking them how many (if any) allow their equine to wean naturally and leave the mares or jennies with the sires after foaling. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 3:12 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Intro and a question Hi - I'm not able to cite any studies of 4 month weaning versus 6 month weaning - however I think this is in any case a moot point. The question is why wean at all? (and by wean I mean force-wean by physical separation) Arguments against weaning? - a variety, first of which, but perhaps least often considered, is that weaning terminally disrupts the development of culture. In fact we have historically practiced the removal of young (whether in animals or, more notoriously, in human groups such as the 'lost generation' of native Australians) with the destruction or disruption of the native culture in mind. Yet in equines a developed group culture can assist greatly in producing well balanced, mannered and disciplined young horses. Not only can the foal continue to learn from its dam, but can also learn from stallion and older siblings. There is some evidence to suggest that stallions fulfil a similar psychological role to human fathers in that the paradigm of social interaction with other horses (not mum or direct siblings)is learnt from them. The benefits of natural weaning (by which I mean allowing the mare to wean the foal without interference) within a family group that is broadly analogous to nature (rather than a fully free ranging 'natural' group) are many, so here is a short, but by no means complete, list: 1. Neither foal nor dam suffer the recorded trauma of separation. (trauma that has been linked to the development of learned helplessness and, as a consequence, poor future learning) 2. Foals are able to learn by unrestricted social facilitation from both dam and older siblings. 3. Foals experience mating behavior at close quarters, and are able to observe a paradigm for sexual behavior(sex education if you like to view it that way). Filly foals raised in this way do not have the all too common fear of stallions (many having never seen one until being confined in a service area for the first time) nor the increasingly common fear (often leading to rejection) of their own foal later on. (witness the increasing number of 'orphan foal'rearing facilities in N.America - with all the implied extra costs to breeders) 4. Fillies can remain in the group until around two years old, giving them a chance to interact with their own younger full siblings or those of other mares within the social group. This presents an opportunity for 'baby-sitting' - a role that is carried out by both sisters and brothers - and that allows the mare much more time to herself during the all important first few months when her feed intake requirement is at a maximum. Obviously the foal also benefits from being able to rest in the care of older sibling, and importantly begins to associate with other foals in a controlled and monitored environment. Equally if there are no siblings one mare will often look after both her foal and that of another mare - who will at other times take her turn. As you can imagine the foal is learning a number of social interactions that feature co-operative behavior, and can be expected to be more co-operative in a general sense later on. It might be fair to add that there has recently been a number of papers/books etc suggesting that these social 'trade-offs' are at the root of the development of morality - an idea that raises issues about later behavior. 5. Colt foals/yearlings have ample scope for the important (some might say essential) expression of play. But instead of the 'free-for-all' common to weaned groups of colts, and in which lower status animals will often do badly, this occurs under the watchful eyes of older brother/sisters and other higher status individuals whose protection can be sought at need, or whose intervention may occur in the case of an overly aggressive episode. (anyone who has read 'Lord of the Flies' can very easily imagine the logical results of unsupervised juvenile groups in species where this is not supported in the ethogram). Colts raised in family groups in this way do not present the same tendency to bite handlers, and are much better mannered generally. Socialisation with people can begin with the foal observing the group stallion being handled and, given that there is a good relationship between handler/s and the sire the paradigm will be readily learnt and copied. Against this has to be set the reasons for forced weaning - but I'm entirely uncertain what they actually might be, having a distinct feeling that there are no benefits which cannot also be achieved with free-weaning, and with better welfare and long term product in a commercial sense by not doing so - the practice being based on customs that have their foundation in ideas that are well past their 'best use by' date. It would not be difficult to write a further couple of thousand words on the subject - but I hope this is enough to begin with! 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 From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 18-AUG-2003 18:40:47.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: FW: Intro and a question Hi Lucy: Thanks for the welcome. 18 months to 2 years is a huge difference from most breeders I've encountered!! As mentioned in my response to Andy Beck, I'm taking a question back to that other list on how many breeders allow natural weaning. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: lucy GRAY [mailto:lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 3:22 PM To: vbowen@bowenconsulting.net Subject: Re: Intro and a question Hi Virginia and welcome to the list! I am usually very quiet here and just lurk but was interested in your question regarding weaning. Studies have shown that feral horses will wean their young at approx. 18mths to 2yrs, a lot will depend on when the mares next foal is due and usually this process is very gradual unlike current weaning practices which generally tend to be quite abrupt. I am not sure how much work has been done on the sensitive phase of a foal but I believe it is about six months. I think this is the time when a lot of learning occurs and they are less fearful of their surroundings.(Perhaps someone can help me out on this point!) It seems to me that even at six months old, foals are really not ready to be weaned. I guess this comes down to money again and the fact that early abrupt weaning is the accepted norm. I don't remember any references off hand but if you want more info. I am happy to oblige! Lucy. ----- Original Message ----- From: Virginia Bowen To: Applied Ethology List Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:53 PM Subject: Intro and a question Hi everyone: Want to introduce myself - I just joined last week. I'm looking forward to all the insights this group will have to offer. Does anyone know of any comparative studies on the effect of early versus later weaning of equine foals? On another list I belong to there is a current debate among some long-term breeders about weaning as early as 4 months, or as late as 6 months or later. Personally, it seems to me that later weaning is better - allowing for proper socialization of the equine in the herd - but I've got no experience to back that up, it's just a hunch from what I've read. If anyone knows of any solid studies on that it would be nice to be able to present. I'm also interested because I'm currently putting together the story of a rejected mini donkey foal. His is a sad story and he's become very hostile to humans. I'm trying to unravel the possible causes, and studies on foal rejection and early weaning would be interesting. I'm excited to be here and looking forward to learning from all of you. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 18-AUG-2003 19:14:55.17 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Intro and a question I think the question of mare condition has been a consideration of the practice - the notions being that a suckling mare wont get back in foal, that some stallions will refuse mares that 'smell of milk' (very subjective sounding to me) and that mares can't regain their condition as well without being subjected to the forced weaning process. From my experience here I would say that none of these are justified. But the question of getting a foal each year has to be looked at I guess - and the commercially driven breeder who is intent on maximum foal numbers will no doubt have a problem with the fact that how often a mare foals depends in part on her status within the group - not just on her condition. It also seems to me - (and I should hasten to add that this work needs a lot more independent study elsewhere in order to tell to what degree it may be common throughout equines) that head mares and top-status-mares have fewer foals and generally 'nurture' colt foals for at least two years - also that these colts appear to retain good dealings with their sire as late as three years old. (I now have a colt in this type of situation and am intending to leave separation until there is sign of intolerance on the part of the stallion - whenever that might be). My hypothesis is that this breeding strategy of high rank mares may be a successful evolutionary alternative to the most common strategy of popping one out after another. (perhaps someone might be aware of such strategies in other species?) Quantity versus Quality might be a reasonable way of putting it. It also seems as if colt foals (and fillies also) from this type of mare are much more likely to become high status individuals in the groups they move to after leaving the natal band. So while a breeder might claim to lose in terms of numbers they should certainly gain in terms of quality of product - it is also the case that his breeding stock are likely to last longer if they are given at least one year in three to recuperate? The Irish tradition was to breed from young mares - as foals from older mares were not thought to be as good. But if the mares are allowed to become exhausted then clearly they are very likely to die earlier - in theory it should even out so that the benefits to a commercial breeder might well outweigh the losses. 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: Virginia Bowen [mailto:vbowen@bowenconsulting.net] Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2003 12:38 p.m. To: Applied Ethology List Subject: RE: Intro and a question Thank you! That's actually most helpful, and I think helps me firm up my own thoughts on this subject. I have taken a quick look at your site and will be joining shortly to take a further look. Seems like a very, very interesting project. This approach makes so much more sense to me, but does raise another question. What, if any, is the impact on the mare of allowing her to wean the foal? Does it take any further toll on her health by allowing the foal to nurse longer? I'm taking my questions back to the list that spawned my original question here and now asking them how many (if any) allow their equine to wean naturally and leave the mares or jennies with the sires after foaling. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 3:12 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Intro and a question Hi - I'm not able to cite any studies of 4 month weaning versus 6 month weaning - however I think this is in any case a moot point. The question is why wean at all? (and by wean I mean force-wean by physical separation) Arguments against weaning? - a variety, first of which, but perhaps least often considered, is that weaning terminally disrupts the development of culture. In fact we have historically practiced the removal of young (whether in animals or, more notoriously, in human groups such as the 'lost generation' of native Australians) with the destruction or disruption of the native culture in mind. Yet in equines a developed group culture can assist greatly in producing well balanced, mannered and disciplined young horses. Not only can the foal continue to learn from its dam, but can also learn from stallion and older siblings. There is some evidence to suggest that stallions fulfil a similar psychological role to human fathers in that the paradigm of social interaction with other horses (not mum or direct siblings)is learnt from them. The benefits of natural weaning (by which I mean allowing the mare to wean the foal without interference) within a family group that is broadly analogous to nature (rather than a fully free ranging 'natural' group) are many, so here is a short, but by no means complete, list: 1. Neither foal nor dam suffer the recorded trauma of separation. (trauma that has been linked to the development of learned helplessness and, as a consequence, poor future learning) 2. Foals are able to learn by unrestricted social facilitation from both dam and older siblings. 3. Foals experience mating behavior at close quarters, and are able to observe a paradigm for sexual behavior(sex education if you like to view it that way). Filly foals raised in this way do not have the all too common fear of stallions (many having never seen one until being confined in a service area for the first time) nor the increasingly common fear (often leading to rejection) of their own foal later on. (witness the increasing number of 'orphan foal'rearing facilities in N.America - with all the implied extra costs to breeders) 4. Fillies can remain in the group until around two years old, giving them a chance to interact with their own younger full siblings or those of other mares within the social group. This presents an opportunity for 'baby-sitting' - a role that is carried out by both sisters and brothers - and that allows the mare much more time to herself during the all important first few months when her feed intake requirement is at a maximum. Obviously the foal also benefits from being able to rest in the care of older sibling, and importantly begins to associate with other foals in a controlled and monitored environment. Equally if there are no siblings one mare will often look after both her foal and that of another mare - who will at other times take her turn. As you can imagine the foal is learning a number of social interactions that feature co-operative behavior, and can be expected to be more co-operative in a general sense later on. It might be fair to add that there has recently been a number of papers/books etc suggesting that these social 'trade-offs' are at the root of the development of morality - an idea that raises issues about later behavior. 5. Colt foals/yearlings have ample scope for the important (some might say essential) expression of play. But instead of the 'free-for-all' common to weaned groups of colts, and in which lower status animals will often do badly, this occurs under the watchful eyes of older brother/sisters and other higher status individuals whose protection can be sought at need, or whose intervention may occur in the case of an overly aggressive episode. (anyone who has read 'Lord of the Flies' can very easily imagine the logical results of unsupervised juvenile groups in species where this is not supported in the ethogram). Colts raised in family groups in this way do not present the same tendency to bite handlers, and are much better mannered generally. Socialisation with people can begin with the foal observing the group stallion being handled and, given that there is a good relationship between handler/s and the sire the paradigm will be readily learnt and copied. Against this has to be set the reasons for forced weaning - but I'm entirely uncertain what they actually might be, having a distinct feeling that there are no benefits which cannot also be achieved with free-weaning, and with better welfare and long term product in a commercial sense by not doing so - the practice being based on customs that have their foundation in ideas that are well past their 'best use by' date. It would not be difficult to write a further couple of thousand words on the subject - but I hope this is enough to begin with! 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 From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 18-AUG-2003 21:20:49.06 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: Male and Female Dogs At 01:03 PM Monday 8/18/2003, you wrote: > > My Police Dog handlers appreciated their bitches (after some hesitation. > > They seemed to be beguiled by the extra 'edge' of vocal ferocity what I > > imagine I also could see. It was as if the female GSD invested more > > energy in threat and was quicker to dart in and withdraw. To me this > > seemed an adaptive strategy for a female with her extended duties in the > > reproductive area. > >Bitches are often also "tougher" in the hunting field. That was the >opinion of >my Bedouin friends in Arabia, and in 32 years of onward breeding from their >stock I have seen nothing to contradict it . A large majority of police service dogs (PSDs, the ones who do bitework) are male. One can see the same thing in schutzhund training or trials as well, where most of the strongest dogs in the protection phase are male. Male GSDs and male malinois usually have more "fight drive" (also called "fighting drive") than females of these breeds. Pet and show bloodline dogs of these breeds, of either gender, nearly always have very little fight drive. Fight drive is a shorthand term used by protection dog trainers, and in this context has nothing to do with dog on dog aggression. In this context it refers to the dog's motivation to engage with a human combatant. In his book "Advanced Schutzhund" Ivan Balabanov describes it this way: "fighting drive is shown through the dog's desire to overpower and dominate his opponent". The primary drive that these dogs use when engaged in combat with a human is NOT a perceived threat (defense drive) nor do they mainly just want to bite and win the tug / bite sleeve / bite suit (prey drive). They enjoy the physical and mental combat with a worthy adversary, and in observing these dogs it's hard not to think of humans who engage in rough contact sports... also mostly male. Many protection dog trainers believe that male dogs neutered before they are 18-36 months old (depending on who one asks) never fully develop their fight drive. A long time breeder and trainer of police service dogs (PSDs) told me that female dogs typically will bark and snap ("dart in and withdraw", as stated above) instead of enthusiastically going right in for the fight as a male would do, as she said females are generally more defensive in nature. The powerful intensity of defensive aggression in these breeds is very impressive looking, but actually it's less useful in a PSD than aggression stemming from fight drive because a dog who is primarily in defense drive experiences considerable stress due to his/her perception of a serious threat. This stress makes these dogs less controllable. They are also less reliable in a tough fight apprehending a felony suspect as the dog may become overwhelmed with stress and switch into flight. This trainer also said that when one finds a good female PSD though, they tend to make outstanding police dogs... as good as the best males. An example of high fight drive occurred when a decoy who hadn't had much experience working my husband's high fight drive schutzhund GSD objected to this dog's tendency to plant his front feet on the decoy's chest and pull backwards while biting the decoy's "bite sleeve". So to correct the dog, the decoy struck the dog's front feet several times with the padded stick. This works as a correction with most schutzhund dogs, most will remove their feet. However, this dog did not remove his feet from the decoy, and when ordered to "out" (release his bite from the sleeve) by his handler, the dog came roaring off with very rapid, loud, deep barking inches from decoy's face, and the dog repeatedly banged his chest hard into the decoy's bite sleeve. Much more intense than his usual barking guarding. When the decoy then backed away in actual fear, the dog had "won". At that point, and indeed for weeks thereafter whenever he was near this decoy, this dog had his tail up, and a lively spring in his step strut that appeared suspiciously like descriptions I've read of alpha male wolves. IMO, there's a strong element of dominance aggression in fight drive. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 18-AUG-2003 21:33:54.47 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: Male and Female Dogs Hi, I was told a few years ago by a dog trainer working for the police (and I believe, a member of this list) that very few GSD/Belgian Malinois blood lines were suitable for police work in North America. It really surprised me. If I remember well the comment, only 2 or 3 breeders in Canada are (were) actually providing dogs for the Police in this country. Is it the case in the US and UK? What are the criteria? Are they strictly behavioural? At the time, we were discussing a side interest of mine: olfactory learning and perception. The point was made that good trackers are very rare and again, only a few lines were considered for screening for such an ability. Does that seem to be true elsewhere? By the way, Bill Grimmer (from Scoudouc, NB), are you still on this list? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 00:25 Canada/Atlantic, Laura Sanborn wrote: > At 01:03 PM Monday 8/18/2003, you wrote: > >> > My Police Dog handlers appreciated their bitches (after some >> hesitation. >> > They seemed to be beguiled by the extra 'edge' of vocal ferocity >> what I >> > imagine I also could see. It was as if the female GSD invested more >> > energy in threat and was quicker to dart in and withdraw. To me this >> > seemed an adaptive strategy for a female with her extended duties >> in the >> > reproductive area. >> >> Bitches are often also "tougher" in the hunting field. That was the >> opinion of >> my Bedouin friends in Arabia, and in 32 years of onward breeding from >> their >> stock I have seen nothing to contradict it . > > A large majority of police service dogs (PSDs, the ones who do > bitework) are male. One can see the same thing in schutzhund training > or trials as well, where most of the strongest dogs in the protection > phase are male. > > Male GSDs and male malinois usually have more "fight drive" (also > called "fighting drive") than females of these breeds. Pet and show > bloodline dogs of these breeds, of either gender, nearly always have > very little fight drive. > > Fight drive is a shorthand term used by protection dog trainers, and > in this context has nothing to do with dog on dog aggression. In this > context it refers to the dog's motivation to engage with a human > combatant. In his book "Advanced Schutzhund" Ivan Balabanov describes > it this way: "fighting drive is shown through the dog's desire to > overpower and dominate his opponent". The primary drive that these > dogs use when engaged in combat with a human is NOT a perceived threat > (defense drive) nor do they mainly just want to bite and win the tug / > bite sleeve / bite suit (prey drive). They enjoy the physical and > mental combat with a worthy adversary, and in observing these dogs > it's hard not to think of humans who engage in rough contact sports... > also mostly male. > > Many protection dog trainers believe that male dogs neutered before > they are 18-36 months old (depending on who one asks) never fully > develop their fight drive. > > A long time breeder and trainer of police service dogs (PSDs) told me > that female dogs typically will bark and snap ("dart in and withdraw", > as stated above) instead of enthusiastically going right in for the > fight as a male would do, as she said females are generally more > defensive in nature. The powerful intensity of defensive aggression > in these breeds is very impressive looking, but actually it's less > useful in a PSD than aggression stemming from fight drive because a > dog who is primarily in defense drive experiences considerable stress > due to his/her perception of a serious threat. This stress makes > these dogs less controllable. They are also less reliable in a tough > fight apprehending a felony suspect as the dog may become overwhelmed > with stress and switch into flight. This trainer also said that when > one finds a good female PSD though, they tend to make outstanding > police dogs... as good as the best males. > > An example of high fight drive occurred when a decoy who hadn't had > much experience working my husband's high fight drive schutzhund GSD > objected to this dog's tendency to plant his front feet on the decoy's > chest and pull backwards while biting the decoy's "bite sleeve". So > to correct the dog, the decoy struck the dog's front feet several > times with the padded stick. This works as a correction with most > schutzhund dogs, most will remove their feet. However, this dog did > not remove his feet from the decoy, and when ordered to "out" (release > his bite from the sleeve) by his handler, the dog came roaring off > with very rapid, loud, deep barking inches from decoy's face, and the > dog repeatedly banged his chest hard into the decoy's bite sleeve. > Much more intense than his usual barking guarding. When the decoy > then backed away in actual fear, the dog had "won". At that point, > and indeed for weeks thereafter whenever he was near this decoy, this > dog had his tail up, and a lively spring in his step strut that > appeared suspiciously like descriptions I've read of alpha male > wolves. IMO, there's a strong element of dominance aggression in > fight drive. > > Laura Sanborn From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 23:23:35.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Simon Gadbois wrote: > > Well, as somebody with both the experimental psychology and ethology training, I have to comment on Jon's message; > Behaviourism as a school of thought is gone, no doubt, but the learning principles of Guthrie, Tolman, Skinner, etc. are still alive and well especially after the wave of criticism from other psychologists and ethologists that pointed out the limitations brought by the "biological constraints" on learning. Nobody in academia (biologists or psychologists) will deny that the 100 years of "Learning Psychology" contributed to a solid set of learning principles that work in many cases. Learning theory is not behaviourism!! Learning theory was proposed by that movement in the 30's and 40's and is still used and applied in many fields to this day and not only with animals. > Learning theory does not mean "the animal is a machine"; in fact, behaviour therapy with humans (as well as cognitive therapy, often merged into Behavioural-Cognitive Therapy of CBT) is the only form of therapy that actually has scientific bases and was scientifically demonstrated to work. This is why it is often the only therapy offered in Clinical Psychology Departments that have the researcher-practitioner model. My wife (a pediatric psychologist) works with kids at the regional children's hospital. From pill swallowing problems to simple biofeedback to desensitization for very complex and painful procedures, she applies learning principles because they are the only ones that work, and that is well known in the field. > As an ethologist, I keep in mind the Breland and Breland's and their many examples of failures to teach pigs or raccoons seemingly simple tasks, and the related learning preparedness issue (from the 60's) all brought to us by psychologists, themselves quite aware of the limits of learning principles. And then came comparative (or animal) cognition, also initiated by psychologists, many of which were looking for explanations for the more complex behaviours observed in the mammals and birds they were studying. But for simple behaviours, if able to be modulated by the environment (social or physical), learning theory is still very much alive. > Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how little some know about modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists are not among us. There is no agenda. Please, get the facts straight before you make statements like this!!! > As for the study of the neurophysiological AND emotional bases of behaviour (animal or human), this is actually what modern psychology is doing the most, on both side of the Atlantic. Psychologists started the "affective neuroscience" and "social neuroscience" areas (e.g., Panksepp) and they are, with biologists, at the centre of the movement to reform experimentations on animals. Thank you (from an old school ethologist, no less!) for this excellent summary. I think however that while behaviorism as such may be gone from serious science, it is not quite gone from the parascientific fringe areas , nor perhaps even from the understanding of academics in other fields. The Brelands' 1961 paper on "The Misbehavior of Animals" is IMO still a classic. At the time I'm sure many ethologists, had they been aware of it, would have thought "I told you so!" but I think and hope in the meantime the divergent schools have become more receptive to one another's perspectives. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 23:26:15.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Some requests I have three requests to make of list members: 1. If you are going to send a message to the list as well as privately to several list members, please put the list address as the "To:" address, and the private addresses as "cc:". Then anyone who uses filters to control the distribution of messages (which I presume is most of us) will see those messages going into the proper folder. As it is, I have to move nearly 40 messages each day from my private Inbox to the Applied Ethology folder. The "cc:" habit seems to have caught on during the great shock collar debate and has now become widespread on the list. I don't know why - I for one don't need duplicate copies of a message, which I only have to delete. 2. Please post in plain text and not in HTML. I have a perfectly HTML-capable mail system, but in order to reply in plain text, which I do out of courtesy to other list members and as a matter of principle, I have to copy and paste the content of your message into my reply, which is a PITA. It is an even greater PITA to switch back and forth between the plain text editor and the HTML editor, according to the format (or lack thereof) of each incoming message. 3. Please do not append the entire chain of previous messages on a topic, as a "tail" to your reply to the most recent one. The easiest way to remember to do that is to set your mail program so your reply is typed *after* the quoted message to which you are replying, instead of *before* it. If you reply "before" you may not even be aware that a half dozen or more earlier messages are appended as a "tail" to the one to which you are replying, and will be, unless you trim them off, faithfully passed on in *your* reply in turn. Thanks, John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 23:28:12.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: how to kill a list Marlene Halverson wrote: > I agree with Sandy Brock that it is counterproductive to everyone on this list > for knowledgeable people to leave the list. However, while the point > counterpoint discussions are useful and interesting, even when the discussion > gets heated, the many expressions of personal pique at real and imagined > slights are not -- they are painful to have to read and could just as well be > left to the personal conversations between two offended parties off list > rather than transmitted to the whole list. It would be really refreshing for > a change to have opinions presented without expressions of personal pique and > without personal insult to others. Dr. Stookey's netiquette advice is very > good and would streamline the discussion and make it more pleasant for the > rest of us to bear. All that is really necessary, even in discussion of very emotion-laden topics, is for people to distinguish clearly between attacking (criticizing or disagreeing with) an idea, and attacking the person who expressed the idea. That distinction must of course be made on the receiving as well as on the giving end of every exchange. If I disagree with your ideas, even vehemently, I am not attacking you personally (unless I pepper my disagreement with personal insults). Similarly, I must not construe your disagreement with my ideas as a personal insult (unless you take pains to add personal insults to your disagreement). I am an academic, Ph.D. and all, so if I agree that sometimes the academic approach seems to lack common sense, I hope I won't be misunderstood . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 18-AUG-2003 23:30:54.81 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Simon Gadbois wrote: > Page 58: the "key term" section at the end of chapter 2: > > Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly following a response increases the future probability of that response. > > Anybody knowing about measures of behaviour (see Martin and Bateson, 1993, "Measuring Behaviour") would agree that "frequency" is more limitative than "probability", explaining the choice of words from Domjan and most other learning specialists. See your own terminology: > > "Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, > makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a > reinforcer" > > >From this excerpt, we can see that even you agree that frequency does not cover all of the "increase" in a behaviour. > > in fact, some reinforcers may influence only the "intensity" (what you call "stronger") of a behaviour without changing its frequency. Not only learning specialists confront that difficulty, I think. One of the problems that arises in experimental ethology is how to determine the "readiness" of an animal to perform a given activity, before presenting the animal with a stimulus expected to change that readiness and increase or decrease the expression of the activity. Some activities are discrete and can be counted - pecking of a chicken for instance - and for those "frequency" might be adequate though - if the truth be told - such activities often occur in "bouts" and in that case even "frequency" becomes a loaded word, so you are better off simply reporting the data ("frequency" has an implication of continuity in time which may or may not be appropriate). "Duration" and "intensity" are other terms which in some cases may appear to apply as straightforward parameters of what is happening, but in other cases introduce some not very obvious assumptions into the picture. We can also say we are measuring and/or influencing the "probability" of a certain behavior ... that is the conceptual context I certainly prefer ... but even there a certain wariness is in order: what exactly do we mean by the "probability" of a behavior which in general will have a more or less definite beginning, a more or less definite end and a more or less definite shape or pattern while it is going on ... very few of the things that are really interesting to measure are as simple as the pecking of a chicken (or rather, as simple as the pecking of a chicken *appears* to be ). John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"jlgehman@sbcglobal.net" "Jeff Gehman" 19-AUG-2003 06:17:28.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: how to kill a list My common sense comment wasn't a point of insult, it was a point of observation in everyday behavior. The PhD's I work with (of course, not all of them) seem to think that their education earns them respect. Sorry, it doesn't. It's the ability to use knowledge or pass it on to your students/peers is what gets respect. My comments were aimed at those individuals who seem to think respect comes with the degree. Again, it doesn't. Although, getting that degree does take an enormous amount of time, effort and money. For that alone I commend anyone with an extended education. But it doesn't earn respect, just congratulations for sticking with it and accomplishing a personal goal. Don't forget, getting a PhD also says you had the opportunity. Just think of all those people who don't have the opportunity due to 'life happenings' and to think of all the great things they could do if they just had the same opportunity we had. This is my request. Let's use our knowledge to improve each of our situations. My comments were to commend the person who injected some basic common sense back into the argument that started with the shock collars and to hopefully take the discussion to the next step. However, I think the next step is to go to another discussion unrelated to shock collars. Let's move on. Jeff Gehman, BS, DDH Houston, TX --- John Burchard wrote: > Marlene Halverson wrote: > > > I agree with Sandy Brock that it is > counterproductive to everyone on this list > > for knowledgeable people to leave the list. > However, while the point > > counterpoint discussions are useful and > interesting, even when the discussion > > gets heated, the many expressions of personal > pique at real and imagined > > slights are not -- they are painful to have to > read and could just as well be > > left to the personal conversations between two > offended parties off list > > rather than transmitted to the whole list. It > would be really refreshing for > > a change to have opinions presented without > expressions of personal pique and > > without personal insult to others. Dr. Stookey's > netiquette advice is very > > good and would streamline the discussion and make > it more pleasant for the > > rest of us to bear. > > All that is really necessary, even in discussion of > very emotion-laden topics, > is for people to distinguish clearly between > attacking (criticizing or > disagreeing with) an idea, and attacking the person > who expressed the idea. > That distinction must of course be made on the > receiving as well as on the > giving end of every exchange. If I disagree with > your ideas, even vehemently, I > am not attacking you personally (unless I pepper my > disagreement with personal > insults). Similarly, I must not construe your > disagreement with my ideas as a > personal insult (unless you take pains to add > personal insults to your > disagreement). > > I am an academic, Ph.D. and all, so if I agree that > sometimes the academic > approach seems to lack common sense, I hope I won't > be misunderstood . > > John > -- > Dr. John Burchard > Tepe Gawra Salukis > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"jlgehman@sbcglobal.net" "Jeff Gehman" 19-AUG-2003 06:18:54.58 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois", IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Good answer, Simon. --- Simon Gadbois wrote: > Page 58: the "key term" section at the end of > chapter 2: > > Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly > following a response > increases the future probability of that response. > > Anybody knowing about measures of behaviour (see > Martin and Bateson, > 1993, "Measuring Behaviour") would agree that > "frequency" is more > limitative than "probability", explaining the choice > of words from > Domjan and most other learning specialists. See your > own terminology: > > "Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur > more frequently, > makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur > - is termed a > reinforcer" > > From this excerpt, we can see that even you agree > that frequency does > not cover all of the "increase" in a behaviour. > > in fact, some reinforcers may influence only the > "intensity" (what you > call "stronger") of a behaviour without changing its > frequency. > > So I think that we agree Vicki, frequency is not the > whole thing. > Intensity (your "stronger") applies as well. > > :-) > > Simon Gadbois > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Dalhousie University > Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. > Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. > http://www.Gadbois.org/ > > > > > On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 15:01 Canada/Atlantic, > Vicki Magnus wrote: > > > < the major textbook in > > the field "The Principles of Learning and > Behavior" by Michael Domjan > > (2003).>> > > > > I have the 1998 edition of that text, can you > point me to the section > > where the author reinforces your belief that the > term frequency is > > being > > misused by those discussing operant conditioning, > (as in your > > statement: > > "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term"). > > > > I do not recall the author making such an > assertion, but will await > > your > > citation. I am sure if you give me the chapter > and section I can > > adjust > > for the pagination difference between editions. > > > > Vicki Magnus > > > > > > > From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 19-AUG-2003 08:02:39.47 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"jlgehman@sbcglobal.net" "Jeff Gehman" Subj: RE: how to kill a list Hello Jeff, Remarkably well, you've said what I have been thinking all along - and didn't want to say because I am too busy to answer a zillion responses after being flamed. I know quite a number of people with PhD's and usually, I receive very good advice from them. On occasion, I have received some very bad advice and it turned out that I knew better. I think that for the most part, it is difficult for those of us without post-graduate degrees to gain the same respect as those that do have a higher education. This of course, makes sense, because well-educated people normally DO know what they are talking about. What's sad is that those of us that haven't bothered (for the various reasons you pointed out) to obtain PhD's are often ignored or given only minimal acknowledgement - even though many of us have devoted our lives and are well-experienced in the same area of interest. Vivian _____ Vivian Singer-Ferris Executive Director Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. www.kerwoodwolf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Gehman" To: "Applied ethology list" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:17 AM Subject: Re: how to kill a list > My common sense comment wasn't a point of insult, it > was a point of observation in everyday behavior. > > The PhD's I work with (of course, not all of them) > seem to think that their education earns them respect. > Sorry, it doesn't. It's the ability to use knowledge > or pass it on to your students/peers is what gets > respect. > > My comments were aimed at those individuals who seem > to think respect comes with the degree. Again, it > doesn't. Although, getting that degree does take an > enormous amount of time, effort and money. For that > alone I commend anyone with an extended education. > But it doesn't earn respect, just congratulations for > sticking with it and accomplishing a personal goal. > > Don't forget, getting a PhD also says you had the > opportunity. Just think of all those people who don't > have the opportunity due to 'life happenings' and to > think of all the great things they could do if they > just had the same opportunity we had. > > This is my request. Let's use our knowledge to > improve each of our situations. > > My comments were to commend the person who injected > some basic common sense back into the argument that > started with the shock collars and to hopefully take > the discussion to the next step. However, I think the > next step is to go to another discussion unrelated to > shock collars. > > Let's move on. > > Jeff Gehman, BS, DDH > Houston, TX From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 19-AUG-2003 08:12:02.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers <> Here is your post about the use of the word frequency in predicting a behavior: "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term. As an ethologist, this MATTERS! You can reinforce a dog to stay still. It does not increase the FREQUENCY of the behaviour (staying still). Maybe the duration but not its frequency. Ethology is based on semantics. It is NOT A GAME, and is certainly very serious. Ethology would not have survived long if we had not taken some time in our choices of terms and defining them. It is not a question of common sense, but a question of knowing what you are talking about." Using Domjan, in Chapter 5 in his explanation of positive reinforcement he writes: "Positive reinforcement produces an increase in the rate of responding" (page 134 in the 2003 edition). While I would agree no one word is a complete synonym for another word, "rate of response" and "frequency of response", (as in the numerous lab journals instruction students to "note the frequency of the response), are not deserving of the vehement "NO" put forth in your posting. Further, "frequency" is in fact the term used in classical operant conditioning tests. For example: "Positive reinforcement refers to the increase in the frequency of a response that is followed by a favorable event (positive reinforcer)." Behavior Modification in Applied Settings, Alan E. Kazdin, (1989 p. 31). To go to the source, here is a quote from B.F. Skinner: "The only way to tell whether or not a given event is reinforcing to a given organism under given circumstances is to make a direct test. We observe the frequency of a selected response, then make an event contingent upon it and observe any change in frequency. If there is a change, we classify the event as reinforcing." Science and Human Behavior, B.R. Skinner, (1953, pp. 72-73) So "frequency" as a term may not make you happy, but in classical operant conditioning it is in fact a perfectly acceptable term, as you can read above. Perhaps you would care to reread your original post on this, (cited above), and admit that "frequency" was in fact a correct usage in a discussion on classical operant conditioning. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 19-AUG-2003 08:22:57.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Intro and a question On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Andy Beck wrote: > I think the question of mare condition has been a consideration of the > practice - the notions being that a suckling mare wont get back in foal, > that some stallions will refuse mares that 'smell of milk' (very subjective > sounding to me) and that mares can't regain their condition as well without > being subjected to the forced weaning process. > Do you have any views on the implications for welfare of semi-feral native ponies? Here in the UK it is generally frowned upon for foals to be left with the mare beyond the autumn of their first year because it's considered that her condition is likely to suffer during the following winter if weaning is not enforced. There's also a serious welfare problem of over-production of low-value native pony foals and their possible export overseas for meat. Anything which tends to encourage production of fewer, but better-quality (more saleable for riding purposes) ponies would seem to have welfare benefits. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 19-AUG-2003 09:07:55.38 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Vicki, My, my, my! I don't understand what you don't understand. The point of all of my postings was to say that "frequency" is too restrictive. LoLordo agrees with this, Neuringer gives a great example of it. Operant conditioning, I case you have not noticed, has progressed considerably since Skinner. So I still say that a COMPLETE, EXACT definition of operant conditioning and reinforcement and punishment CANNOT restrict itself to the very limited parameter of FREQUENCY of a response. See the postings by other members of this list that agree on this. YOURSELF described it as "a response getting stronger", which frequency, in ethology or animal psychology, cannot fully cover conceptually. Now if you insist on adopting a restrictive definition of reinforcer/punishment, fine with me, but as an animal behaviour specialist, give me the freedom to point out that it is considered by most of us, too limiting. As for rate of responding: in operant conditioning, local rate (the amount of actions per unit of time spent performing the action) is determined by the following formula (see Roper, 1984): local rate = total # of occurrences/(t1+t2+t3+...+tn) (t for each occurrence) It is, as Martin and Bateson point out, a measure of intensity, or, as I mentioned earlier "intensity" or "the speeded-up or hurried nature of intense behaviour" (page 65). This is still beyond and above FREQUENCY as used by both animal (and learning) psychologists and ethologists. But I guess you know all of this, but still think that a restrictive definition of punishment/reinforcement is better; suit yourself, but don't come teach me instrumental conditioning! All I did is voice a quite universal opinion and you send me to popular dog training web sites to get educated!!! That kind of arrogance is misplaced and unjustified. If you don't respect the opinion of scientists (and I understand you are one yourself, a mathematician) in their own field, maybe you should at least keep this opinion to yourself or register on a pop animal psychology listserv. There is nothing wrong in wanting animal behaviour sciences to be rigourous and improve conceptually. That is what scientific inquiry is about. Lots of people on this list want to learn (I am one of them) from other's specialities. Please respect the process (including accepting corrections and or improvements on definitions), Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 11:11 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus wrote: > < variability. It is actually discussed in Domjan's book (page 138 of the > 2003 edition). It makes a clear point that defining reinforces (or > punishers) based only on "frequency" is too limiting. The author, by > the > way, is not "reinforcing my belief", he is simply > defining operant conditioning and reinforcer/punisher the way it > should > be. I never wrote that Domjan was specifically saying "frequency" was > not the right term. It is simply obvious to us, animal behaviour > people. Maybe YOU should consult your operant conditioning specialist > in > your local university before you get so rude with the ones on this > list.>> > > Here is your post about the use of the word frequency in predicting a > behavior: > > "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term. As an ethologist, this MATTERS! You > can reinforce a dog to stay still. It does not increase the FREQUENCY > of > the behaviour (staying still). Maybe the duration but not > its frequency. Ethology is based on semantics. It is NOT A GAME, and is > certainly very serious. Ethology would not have survived long if we had > not taken some > time in our choices of terms and defining them. > It is not a question of common sense, but a question of knowing what > you > are talking about." > > Using Domjan, in Chapter 5 in his explanation of positive reinforcement > he writes: "Positive reinforcement produces an increase in the rate of > responding" (page 134 in the 2003 edition). While I would agree no one > word is a complete synonym for another word, "rate of response" and > "frequency of response", (as in the numerous lab journals instruction > students to "note the frequency of the response), are not deserving of > the vehement "NO" put forth in your posting. Further, "frequency" is > in > fact the term used in classical operant conditioning tests. For > example: > > "Positive reinforcement refers to the increase in the frequency of a > response that is followed by a favorable event (positive reinforcer)." > > Behavior Modification in Applied Settings, Alan E. Kazdin, (1989 p. > 31). > > To go to the source, here is a quote from B.F. Skinner: > > "The only way to tell whether or not a given event is reinforcing to a > given organism under given circumstances is to make a direct test. We > observe the frequency of a selected response, then make an event > contingent upon it and observe any change in frequency. If there is a > change, we classify the event as reinforcing." > > Science and Human Behavior, B.R. Skinner, (1953, pp. 72-73) > > So "frequency" as a term may not make you happy, but in classical > operant conditioning it is in fact a perfectly acceptable term, as you > can read above. Perhaps you would care to reread your original post on > this, (cited above), and admit that "frequency" was in fact a correct > usage in a discussion on classical operant conditioning. > > Vicki Magnus From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 19-AUG-2003 09:16:50.77 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Narrative Terms Simon wrote: My, my, my! I don't understand what you don't understand. The point of all of my postings was to say that "frequency" is too restrictive. LoLordo agrees with this, Neuringer gives a great example of it. Operant conditioning, I case you have not noticed, has progressed considerably since Skinner. Tony comments: I'm okay with the term expressed as 'probability of occurance.' Can we also agree, as you provide reason to above, that narrative terms should progress with better understanding as well? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 19-AUG-2003 09:36:14.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Gsus I just entered the forum a few days ago. What are you doing people? Fighting over terminology, and insulting each other so much over it? I come from a very aggressive society (Israel), believe you me, but the last place i expected to see these kinds of childish fightings was in a forum where people are supposed to be more enlightened (wether they do or dont own postgraduate degrees...) because they are people who try to help animals. Hope this was a one-timer... Hilit From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 19-AUG-2003 10:33:36.99 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: assessment in dogs: a forgotten principle? Dr. Schilder, Many thanks for this! It clarified what we have always considered as "who is in charge here?" I can see how this applies not only to animals that are actively aggressive but passively aggressive. How many dogs ignore their owners in a training class but as soon as the instructor takes the leash, the dog not only complies but does so with attentiveness and eagerness. Our first Doberman bitch came to us as a trained 2 year old. We signed up for an obedience course to learn how to handle her but had to wait a few weeks. While over all well mannered, she was playing deaf, slow to sit and overall testing us to see what we'd let her get away with. I had also gone to the library to get various books on training. I started with play training, tried some of it and was skeptical. I read Koehler's book and one sit correction changed her attitude significantly. The training class was illuminating. The instructor pointed out when she was complying and when she was testing us to see if we really meant it. When we learned how to raise our status, and she knew we would enforce the rules, she complied and we could use more praise and food rewards. We've seen this many times since then. Once the issue of who is in charge is settled, the handler can give more rewards and privileges without being repeatedly tested. General conclusion, she and many other animals, humans included, may confuse kindness with weakness. Once the animal understands that the handler is capable of enforcing requests and will be fair about it, the kind rewards are not viewed as paying the strong Huns not to attack a weak Rome but as pay from a boss that is strong enough to be kind without losing authority. Using nothing in life is free restrictions is a covert form of power--resource controlling potential. At times the human may control access to resources and gain some compliance but not present a congruently strong 'command presence'--being in charge. If the control over resources fails and the animal notices this, it may then challenge the trainer much to his/her surprise. I know I'm restating what Dr. Schilder stated clearly but wanted to add in that the power to restrict access is a form of power but not generally considered as such. When there is congruency with power to restrict access and with power to insist, restricting access is both more effective and less necessary. Yes! We see our dogs teach puppies what is acceptable and what is not using physical +P to teach conditioned aversives so that a hard look, lifted lip, low growl or snap stops behaviors cold. The aversive serves as a warning so that the puppy can control the consequences of what happens. A verbal warning is still a +P or +D but no longer needs the harsher consequences. But knowing it is still a possibility stops a dog from attempting to convert a privilege like nudging for attention into a demand. Many thanks again and for your permission to crosspost! Julie Alexander From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 19-AUG-2003 10:41:37.79 To: IN%"beauceron@surfbest.net" "Sue Remsberg", IN%"vomeisentor@earthlink.net" "Shigenori Matsumot", IN%"personal-protectionk9@yahoogroups.com", IN%"incling@juno.com" "matt and Aaron", IN%"lorralee56@yahoo.com" "lorrie hansen", IN%"I2YQ@aol.com" "Lynn CC: Subj: assessment in dogs: a forgotten principle? Hi all, This started on the applied ethology list as a debate on using e collars and then aversives +P in general. With the usual condemnation and criticism from both sides. Dr. Schilder pointed out something that seems to be overlooked not only by the general public but as the heated debate among the experts with lots of letters after their names, also by those educated in animal behavior. This is the first clear explanation of how and when some forms of +P--could be mild, are not only needed but better training than -P, +-R. Remember he is not condoning excessive +P, but describing the underlying social behaviors that humans are often unaware of. Julie Alexander Dr. Schilder's post is crossposted with his permission. I have a reply at the bottom. Dear Margony and others, I think a main reason, why there are still ill-mannered dogs in spite of positive training , is that positive training does not take into account a major process, that occurs in many if not all hierarchic animals, that is an assessment process. Assessment takes place whenever two individuals meet and involves assessment of relative strength, figting power, or recourse holding potential. It serves to prevent unnecessary damage through physical conflict. In humans it is known that such assessment may take about 0.1 second. I would estimate that in dogs assessment may be an equally quick process, provided there is enough asymmetry (with regards to resource holding potential) to be discovered. When the subordinate-to-be recognizes its relative submission and submits, then the conflict mostly is over. However, when the subordinate-to-be makes another estimate that the winner-to-be- and refuses to submit (as many small terriers breed do), then a physical conflict becomes more likely. A physical conflict is likely to be of a long duration, when the individuals involved do not differ much, also. This is why in dogs fights tend to be intense and of a long duration, when two individuals of the same sex, status, and age are in conflict. Being hierarchical and therefore opportunistic nimals, some dogs tend to make use of signals that convey weakness in other dogs. The same sort of thing happens between man and dog. The following example (one of many) bears this out. A lady was walking 3 rotweilers, which strained on the leash. The woman strumbled and fell. Thereupon, two of the three Rotweilers turned about and attacked her. In perspective of the dogs, the lady gave a signal of weakness, which was immediately exploited. A very quick assessment of a wak moment indeed. Using positive training, a dog never has the opportunity to assess the real strength of a person. They only learn tricks in order to get a reward. This is why in these dogs, that were previously trained positively (with only negative punishment like withholding of attention), application of physical punishment may come as a big surprise to the dog, who then may learn how powerfull the person really is. A very soft and friendly owner of a dog, that had bitten her on several occasions (the first being when she was sitting on her knees!) got so angry at her dog when it bit her again, that she hit it for the very first time, to her own surprise. She reported me that this dog did not growl at her for two whole days (but then attacked again..., she being the weaker of the two and not able to maintain a more forcefull behaviour). This is not to say that application punishment is THE method, because there are risks involved: some dogs simply again make another estimate and retaliate! Often it needs a second person with a second leash attached to the dog, to make punishment safe. What I am trying to say is: physical punishment should not be banned a priori: dogs use it with good results themselves!! greetings, Matthijs dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 Dr. Schilder, Many thanks for this! It clarified what we have always considered as "who is in charge here?" I can see how this applies not only to animals that are actively aggressive but passively aggressive. How many dogs ignore their owners in a training class but as soon as the instructor takes the leash, the dog not only complies but does so with attentiveness and eagerness. Our first Doberman bitch came to us as a trained 2 year old. We signed up for an obedience course to learn how to handle her but had to wait a few weeks. While over all well mannered, she was playing deaf, slow to sit and overall testing us to see what we'd let her get away with. I had also gone to the library to get various books on training. I started with play training, tried some of it and was skeptical. I read Koehler's book and one sit correction changed her attitude significantly. The training class was illuminating. The instructor pointed out when she was complying and when she was testing us to see if we really meant it. When we learned how to raise our status, and she knew we would enforce the rules, she complied and we could use more praise and food rewards. We've seen this many times since then. Once the issue of who is in charge is settled, the handler can give more rewards and priviledges without being repeatedly tested. General conclusion, she and many other animals, humans included, may confuse kindness with weakness. Once the animal understands that the handler is capable of enforcing requests and will be fair about it, the kind rewards are not viewed as paying the strong Huns not to attack a weak Rome but as pay from a boss that is strong enough to be kind without losing authority. Using nothing in life is free restrictions is a covert form of power--resource controlling potential. At times the human may control access to resources and gain some compliance but not present a congruently strong 'command presence'--being in charge. If the control over resources fails and the animal notices this, it may then challenge the trainer much to his/her surprise. I know I'm restating what Dr. Schilder stated clearly but wanted to add in that the power to restrict access is a form of power but not generally considered as such. When there is congruency with power to restrict access and with power to insist, restricting access is both more effective and less necessary. Yes! We see our dogs teach puppies what is acceptable and what is not using physical +P to teach conditioned aversives so that a hard look, lifted lip, low growl or snap stops behaviors cold. The aversive serves as a warning so that the puppy can control the consequences of what happens. A verbal warning is still a +P or +D but no longer needs the harsher consequences. But knowing it is still a possibility stops a dog from attempting to convert a priveledge like nudging for attention into a demand. Many thanks again and for your permission to crosspost! Julie Alexander From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 19-AUG-2003 10:50:50.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Narrative Terms On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 12:16 Canada/Atlantic, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Simon wrote: > My, my, my! I don't understand what you don't understand. > The point of all of my postings was to say that "frequency" is too > restrictive. LoLordo agrees with this, Neuringer gives a great example > of it. Operant conditioning, I case you have not noticed, has > progressed considerably since Skinner. > > Tony comments: > I'm okay with the term expressed as 'probability of occurance.' > > Can we also agree, as you provide reason to above, that narrative terms > should progress with better understanding as well? > Yes, I would hope so, that is what I was trying to do. But it seems that if you clarify terms here, you get flamed. That was simply out of line. All I expected (and this is not directed towards you) was some respect for my views that are not, by the way, at all uncommon, but on the contrary, shared by most operant conditioning specialists. I'm done with this anyway. It makes me angry that to avoid being flamed I have to let misconceptions or less precise definitions of important concepts go by. It should not be that way. Thanks to all of you that e-mailed and saw the value in the clarifications I was trying to offer. SG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 19-AUG-2003 11:06:50.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Narrative Terms Tony comments: I'm okay with the term expressed as 'probability of occurance.' Can we also agree, as you provide reason to above, that narrative terms should progress with better understanding as well? Simon wrote: Yes, I would hope so, that is what I was trying to do. But it seems that if you clarify terms here, you get flamed. That was simply out of line. Tony comments: Good. Sometimes you have to do some raking before you find the common ground. We can now agree on what punishers do, and what reinforcers do, and that narrative terms must change for the clarity of understanding to be useful. I will attempt later today to clarify, further, one more matter to discuss before I can explain why e-collars and shock collars are not synonimous. The matter to clarify is the use of the general term "punishment" to describe any and all forms of discomfort. That just isn't so. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 19-AUG-2003 11:10:10.96 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Electrophysiological devices Hi all, Fresh new topic: Years ago, at the 1997 International Neuroscience Conference in New Orleans, a few companies were show-casing electrophysiological devices to record autonomic nervous system activity (psychophysiological measures such as GSR, heart rate, etc.). The main issue with some of these very unobtrusive devices (often quite small skin implants) was the range. Most of them (all?) were designed to transmit data from animal to computer in a laboratory setting. I was wondering if any of you knew of new technologies allowing for a better range, not necessarily huge distances, but a few hundred feet. The transmission would also have to be done from outdoors to indoors (ideally). Thanks. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 19-AUG-2003 12:21:39.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers <<> Let's not be disingenuous. At no time did the original poster say that the definition of positive reinforcement was the only possible definition, rather you asserted the poster was completely incorrect in using the word "frequency". I have again cited your post at the end of this email. It doesn't read to me as a collegial attempt to rework an accepted definition, but if you are now saying that is the spirit in which it was offered of course I accept that. Doubtless you have seen some of the rather pejorative language used to dismiss many of the works in cognitive ethology. Men of science can clearly disagree; it's the "you don't know what you are talking about" dismissivenss that can be annoying, or at least it annoys me. There is also at times a tendency to dismiss those outside of the academic as unimportant, again, perhaps dismissively written off as "popularisers". Someone who thinks the Skinner school of Behaviorism is no more might be surprised to find the Skinner school of Behaviorism is alive and well, and growing daily, in dog training circles. There are large numbers of dog trainers who adhere to the position that dogs learn solely through operant conditioning, many of the so called "purely positive trainers" adhere to the belief that dogs are merely conditioned in the Skinner Behaviorism model; they dismiss any possibility of cognition playing a role in a dogs ability to learn. Many of the "purely positive" dog trainers arrived at their dogmatic view after reading The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson. A slew of books followed that one, all stuck in Skinner's stimulus/response conditioning model as the only possible way dogs can be taught. What I would consider an outdated and incorrect view of how animals learn is being preached in training classes every day, to great effect. Vicki Magnus Your original post: "NO, "frequency" is the wrong term. As an ethologist, this MATTERS! You can reinforce a dog to stay still. It does not increase the FREQUENCY of the behaviour (staying still). Maybe the duration but not its frequency. Ethology is based on semantics. It is NOT A GAME, and is certainly very serious. Ethology would not have survived long if we had not taken some time in our choices of terms and defining them. It is not a question of common sense, but a question of knowing what you are talking about." From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 19-AUG-2003 13:12:07.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Behaviourist (was Re: Punishers / reinforceers) At 13:26 18/08/03 -0300, Simon Gadbois wrote: >Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how little some know about >modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists are not among us. There is no agenda. However, I presume that when someone calls themself an "equine behaviourist" or a "canine behaviourist", no behaviourism is implied. The inclusion of a qualifying adjective nullifies any such connotation, apparently. I do find that slightly odd, but then language is often a rum business. :-) Francis From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 19-AUG-2003 13:29:08.28 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers There is some positive stuff here, delete or read along, I think we=20 will wrap this up soon! > Let's not be disingenuous. At no time did the original poster say = that > the definition of positive reinforcement was the only possible > definition, rather you asserted the poster was completely incorrect in > using the word "frequency". I have again cited your post at the end = of > this email. It doesn't read to me as a collegial attempt to rework an > accepted definition, but if you are now saying that is the spirit in > which it was offered of course I accept that. O.k., let's call this a misunderstanding from both sides. > Doubtless you have seen some of the rather pejorative language used to > dismiss many of the works in cognitive ethology. Men of science can > clearly disagree; it's the "you don't know what you are talking about" > dismissivenss that can be annoying, or at least it annoys me. Yes, it annoys me too, including coming from you. That's why I reacted. > There is also at times a tendency to dismiss those outside of the > academic as unimportant, again, perhaps dismissively written off as > "popularisers". True. I do it sometimes myself when I see wrong or incomplete info=20 promulgated and diffused by some people without training BUT, at the=20 same time, I do learn a lot from trainers here, field technicians and=20 animal technicians in my research, and I always value their input. In=20 fact, along with students, they often come up with the ideas that make=20= the career of some scientists, let's face it. Undergraduate and=20 graduate students often get no-recognition in the same way and I am the=20= first to find this disgusting and horrifying. > Someone who thinks the Skinner school of Behaviorism is > no more might be surprised to find the Skinner school of Behaviorism = is > alive and well, and growing daily, in dog training circles. There are > large numbers of dog trainers who adhere to the position that dogs=20 > learn > solely through operant conditioning, many of the so called "purely > positive trainers" adhere to the belief that dogs are merely=20 > conditioned > in the Skinner Behaviorism model; they dismiss any possibility of > cognition playing a role in a dogs ability to learn. Many of the > "purely positive" dog trainers arrived at their dogmatic view after > reading The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson. A slew of books followed > that one, all stuck in Skinner's stimulus/response conditioning model=20= > as > the only possible way dogs can be taught. What I would consider an > outdated and incorrect view of how animals learn is being preached in > training classes every day, to great effect. Thanks for pointing this out. Well, that is sad. Cognitive ethology and=20= animal cognitive psychology have now a good solid 30 years of history=20 and data... most from species not even as sophisticated as dogs (e.g.,=20= pigeons and rats). They should read the great work by Fran=E7ois Dor=E9 = and=20 more recently his former student, Sylvain Fiset on cognitive processes=20= in cats and dogs (starting with object permanence). So the world of dog trainers needs its own cognitive revolution, 30=20 years after the original one. I was honestly oblivious to that state of=20= affair. Thanks, Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 19-AUG-2003 15:51:33.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers Hi Simon, Simon Gadbois wrote: > As an ethologist, I keep in mind the Breland and Breland's and their > many examples of failures to teach pigs or raccoons seemingly simple > tasks, and the related learning preparedness issue (from the 60's) all > brought to us by psychologists, themselves quite aware of the limits of > learning principles. They did not fail to teach the pigs these simple tasks. Rather, these learned tasks spontaneously disintegrated. The Brelands offered an explanation of why this happened (see "The Misbehavior of Organisms", http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Breland/misbehavior.htm) saying in essence that conditioned behavior tends to drift towards instinctual behavior. The Brelands called for a revision of learning theory, based on their experience as animal trainers. They also stated that ethology helped them more than operant conditioning research did, at that point. However, animal trainers cross instincts all the time, as anyone who rides a stallion in the vicinity of estrous mares, or teaches a sea lion not to steal fish from a bucket, or a child to allow a blood sample, will testify. Some do this through the use of punishment. I do it through a cognitive process, and I believe that the reason the Breland's behaviors broke down is because the animals were not consciously aware of them, and the Brelands had no way to "tell" the animal what needed fixing for the animal to resume being successful. I have not had the problem the Brelands describe. By the way, Breland and Breland also stated that you cannot get a cow to run by training, except through punishment (Keller,B. and Keller, M, 1966. Animal Behavior: The Critical Issues in Psychology Series, Melvin H. Marx (ed). The MacMillan Company, New York. page 75). At the University of Maryland, we had a bunch of running cows, motivated by a chance to choose food, or a five minute date with "Tresspasser", our bull. Our cows also often ran in the fields, without being threatened or chased. > Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how little > some know about modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists are not > among us. There is no agenda. Please, get the facts straight before you > make statements like this!!! There are many behaviorists out there, but I have addressed that elsewhere. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 19-AUG-2003 16:14:34.12 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Vicki > There are large numbers of dog trainers who adhere to the position > that dogs learn > solely through operant conditioning, many of the so called "purely > positive trainers" adhere to the belief that dogs are merely > conditioned > in the Skinner Behaviorism model; they dismiss any possibility of > cognition playing a role in a dogs ability to learn. Many of the > "purely positive" dog trainers arrived at their dogmatic view after > reading The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson. A slew of books followed > that one, all stuck in Skinner's stimulus/response conditioning model > as > the only possible way dogs can be taught. What I would consider an > outdated and incorrect view of how animals learn is being preached in > training classes every day, to great effect. The application of operant conditioning or what you describe as a 'skinner behaviorism model' does not have any specific connection with 'purely positive' dog training. Operant conditioning is concerned with the effect of both punishment and reinforcement on future expression of behaviour. Jon From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 19-AUG-2003 18:43:50.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: about terms, authority, frequency, intensity and duration Hi all, There needs to be a lexicon of terminology with citations for the originators and the influencers. Whoever originates a term should be the authority on what its definition is. If Skinner defines a term and Domjan changes it, that may mean that Domjan needs to make a new term, rather than simply change the meaning of an established term. It certainly does not make Domjan the final authority in this subspecialty, just because he is influential in the field. In short, if I name my children, you may come up with prettier names, or even prettier children, but you cannot rename mine! In standard language dictionaries, many definitions may be listed for a single term, and they are ranked according to popularity of usage. A subsequent use does not invalidate a previous use. Hence, I have tried to be clear that the terms I offer are in the context of training. While experimental psychologists may have the upper hand in investigating many basic parameters of operant conditioning and learning theory, trainers may certainly have the upper hand in sophistication and complexity of applications, as well as in repeatability of such applications in real life settings. We also often test our results in less forgiving situations. While I do not often record data from my training sessions, if my training is not reliable, my life, and the lives of animals and other people may be at stake. Further, to a trainer, a behavior is not considered trained at 67% cuability. We like things more in the 95-100% range- at least for critical behaviors. So, our basic idea of training is fundamentally different than the concept of training in academia. And, in training, training is different than learning. Learning implies a transfer of knowledge, while training infers a transfer of behavioral compliance. (An animal may understand perfectly well what a trainer wants, but may not do the thing requested. That is not a trained animal.) There is more detail below, but I respectfully submit that increases in intensity and duration are indeed increases in frequency, and that the unit upon which the frequency is based is relative to units of time, but rather to units of cuing. A trained animal has a greater frequency of offering a behavior upon being cued, than it would otherwise. So, frequency is not referenced to time, but rather to eliciting stimulus (cue). See below for details. Simon Gadbois wrote: > As suggested by a member of this list, I just consulted with a colleague > (2 office doors away): Vin LoLordo (abundantly cited in Domjan, by the > way, see his picture on page 225). Dr. LoLordo is a "real" animal > learning specialist with an international reputation in the field (a > former student of Rescorla). > He agrees with me and added a number of examples to "reinforce" the idea > that "frequency" is too restrictive. > First, he pointed out that some animal learning specialists actually > reinforce the "variability" of a behaviour, not its frequency, > occurrence, intensity, etc... I disagree with Dr. LoLordo then. "A" behavior, is not the same thing as "behavior". "A" behavior implies an arbitrarily defined subset of behavior (in training, always under stimulus control). Thus, to an animal trainer, it is meaningless to talk about training the ""variability" of a behavior." A variation on a behavior is a different behavior, not another instance of the same thing. (In daily life, we often talk of behaviors and their parameters, such as intensity, distractions, duration, etc - so there is a core behavior, which is modified by various "parameters") In other words, spontaneously emmitted behavior occurs in a continuum, not in discrete quantums of behavior. The divisions are arbitrarily defined, and named, by people, when they are put on cue, or defined for observation, etc. Once a behavior is defined, then we may get discrete instances of the defined behavior, occurring amidst the continuum of spontaneously emmitted behavior. Worded slightly differently: Once a trainer names a behavior and requests it, then the animal may emit that specific behavior, as defined arbitrarily by the trainer, in discrete quantums, bounded by its spontanous continuum of behavior. > Second, he pointed out that we must be clear about the description of > the learning setting we are evoking. For instance, is it a discrete > trial or not ? (where my example of reinforcing a dog to stay still does > not increase any frequency, only the duration of the behaviour). > Third, he points out that, as I mentioned a number of time already, > "frequency" (or "occurrences" for that matter) are only one > manifestation of the probability of a behaviour being increased or > decreased. An extended duration of a behavior is actually a summation of a series of instances of that behavior. If we view an instance of behavior as a single occurrence, then a protracted down-stay is a series of instantaneous occurrences of the down-stay, continuous in time. This is the same way physicists look at areas under a curve, and the instigation for the tool, calculus. A down-stay (or whatever you like to call a stay, wait, steady, etc) is not an absence of behavior. It is an animal staying in contact with a set reference, or "target" point. An extended down-stay is a summation of all the contiguous instances of that behavior (upon a cue). Therefore, extending a duration can be regarded as increasing the frequency of a behavior. > Finally, from talking to Vin, I was reminded of a few conceptual issues: > > 1. ethologists and animal learning psychologists do not necessarily use > the term "intensity" the same way. Pyschologists often use it as "rate" > of behaviour (akin to frequency, often a measure of the "hurried-up" > nature of a behaviour) and ethologists use it as "amplitude" of > behaviour: bar pressing hard, does not mean bar pressing more. > I can punch somebody 5 times but with little "strength" (to use Vicki's > term) or 5 times with great strength and the CONSEQUENCE of the punching > will be dramatically different. Animal trainers (in my experience) use the term intensity in much the same way as ethologists do, it appears. However, we regard intensity as a parameter of a behavior which (must be defined and gotten under stimulus control (through reinforcement in order to be intensified). So, before we can get an animal to run faster, or longer, or more off balance, we must be able to get the animal to run, on cue. The run is the behavior, the intensity, duration, etc are parameters of the run. However, intensity can be regarded as the incidence of a more "intense" instance of a behavior, and increasing the "intensity" means increasing the frequency of "more intense" incidences. Again, the paradox melts away. > 2. occurrences of behaviour (or "counts") are not the same as frequency > (this was just pointed out by somebody else, Finkler I think). Frequency > is a measure of behaviour PER UNIT OF TIME. Occurrences are not > dependent on time. This is discussed in Martin and Bateson's excellent > book on "measuring behaviour" (cited in a previous e-mail). Well, it seems that the scientists who originated the terms were not quite consistent in forming the terminology, as I pointed out with the adherence to the term punisher, which is totally inconsistent with the reasoning which prompted use of the term "reinforcer", over the term "reward". Was it you who argued that we should go ahead and use the inconsistent term punisher because people understand it so well? In that case, it is inconsistent to quibble over the bad framing of the original definition of reinforcement. Further, while I might agree that frequency may be better used in reference to a standard unit of time, the unit of comparison may be considered to be the animals entire lifespan. So, with reinforcement, the animal repeats a cued behavior at a greater rate, overall, than he would have prior to training. However, my understanding of this use of frequency, is that the implied unit of comparison is not relative to time, but rather to requesting stimulus. In other words, reinforcement increases the frequency of the behavior when cued (by the trainer or other precipitating events.) And, we know nothing of the future probability until the behavior occurs. We can not "count" a "potential" or probability. Hence, we must confine ourselves to looking at frequency, incidences or occurrences, as indicated by Hilit. So, I respectfully submit that it is not very meaningful to talk about hypothetically increasing the probability of a behavior. We either have an increase when cued or we do not. > Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly following a response > increases the future probability of that response. > > Anybody knowing about measures of behaviour (see Martin and Bateson, > 1993, "Measuring Behaviour") would agree Faulty assumption. I know about measures of behavior and do not agree. > that "frequency" is more > limitative than "probability", explaining the choice of words from > Domjan and most other learning specialists. See your own terminology: > > "Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, > makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a > reinforcer" This last definition may be Vicki's. In any case, I respectfully suggest that we cannot define a reinforcer in any way (meaningful to learning theory or training) without the time relatedness term. In other words, a reinforcer increases the frequency of the behavior it immediately follows (not just any behavior). Sex (engaged in by parents) definitely increases the frequency of the behavior of the children it produces, but it is not a reinforcer for the behavior of those children - certainly not in any way useful to trainers and managers of the behavior of the children. A tidal wave may increase the occurrence and the intensity of running in beach residents, but it is not a reinforcer for running. It is a punisher for being too near the beach and, if they got away, a negative reinforcer for the alarm that instigated the run. Increasing the intensity of a behavior is increasing the rate of more intense instances of the original behavior, so it is still an increase in frequency. So, the apparent paradoxes in "increasing the frequency" of a behavior versus increasing the intensity, speed, pitch, etc of a behavior, if you start looking at cued, reinforced or otherwised manipulated behavior as little instances, or quantums, of a defined behavior, and a prolonged behavior as a summation of a bunch of occurrences of a behavior. Also, the appearance of nothing, in a stay, for example, is actually due to an animal agreeing to stay in contact with a target point, for a set of instances, as requested by the trainer, rather than an absence of behavior. By the way, the concentration required for such compliance can be very exhausting to an animal, and he may sleep as if he had been involved in heavy physical activity. Best, Kayce, back from travel Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 19-AUG-2003 18:44:15.77 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: state of the art in animal training Hi Vicki, Your information matches mine. And, you stated things so clearly. I appreciated your skillful articulation. Next: Simon Gadbois wrote: > There is also at times a tendency to dismiss those outside of the > academic as unimportant, again, perhaps dismissively written off as > "popularisers". > > > True. I do it sometimes myself when I see wrong or incomplete info > promulgated and diffused by some people without training BUT, at the > same time, I do learn a lot from trainers here, field technicians and > animal technicians in my research, and I always value their input. In > fact, along with students, they often come up with the ideas that make > the career of some scientists, let's face it. Undergraduate and graduate > students often get no-recognition in the same way and I am the first to > find this disgusting and horrifying. Just because someone comes from a different school of endeavor (training vs ethology), and the terminology has evolved differently, does not make one correct and the other incorrect. Neither does it mean that trainers, for instance, are not trained in ethology, psychology or other sciences. And I am but one example of many. > Someone who thinks the Skinner school of Behaviorism is > no more might be surprised to find the Skinner school of Behaviorism is > alive and well, and growing daily, This is certainly correct - and not just in dog training circles. Bob and Marian Bailey, to name two well respected adherents. > Thanks for pointing this out. Well, that is sad. Cognitive ethology and > animal cognitive psychology have now a good solid 30 years of history > and data... most from species not even as sophisticated as dogs (e.g., > pigeons and rats). They should read the great work by François Doré and > more recently his former student, Sylvain Fiset on cognitive processes > in cats and dogs (starting with object permanence). > > So the world of dog trainers needs its own cognitive revolution, 30 > years after the original one. I was honestly oblivious to that state of > affair. Well don't be too sad for us. That revolution has been underway for well over thirty years in the animal training community. Just because some are behaviorists, does not mean that we all are. I describe bridge and target training as operant communication, and we teach all kinds of vocabulary and concepts which the animals can combine in novel situations without rehearsal. We can give the animals information in sentences with syntax. You may have encountered the work of Louis Herman and Ron Schusterman (marine mammal language acquisition). In my work training monkeys to aid quadriplegics, I communicated the training goals, encouraging the animals to contribute technical suggestions and extrapolate from the basic trained situations. Lots of animal training routinely relies on cognition based, two-way communication, between the animal and trainer - as in scent detection work, search and rescue, physiology research support (sea lions trained to lie still for over an hour for the collection of basal metabolic rates, with no food or direct contact with the trainer- for one example), the Navy's open ocean marine mammal program (dolphin tells handler what is going on and what he needs and the handler acts as the dolphin's assistant). We routinely teach dogs to tell us what they want, what is approaching (not just that something approaches, but whether it is human or animal, for example), and much more. At the University of Maryland, we taught cows to tell us if they wanted food or a five minute date with a bull. In that case, I was glad to be the trainer and not the chaperone! If ethology is the study of the spontaneously emitted behavior of animals, then animal training is the field of elicitation of the possible range and development of behavior in animals (beyond what just spontaneously occurs). Besides the efforts of professionals, there have been significant contributions by lay people. You might enjoy catching up on the state of the art in animal training. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 19-AUG-2003 19:10:56.83 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: new world order - Re: Punishers / reinforcers Simon Gadbois: So the world of dog trainers needs its own cognitive revolution, 30 years after the original one. I was honestly oblivious to that state of affair. margory: Well, that would be why, or at least a contributing reason why, I often write to some of the things that I do. Because I do see a serious disconnect and picking up a reference I think Vicki Magnus wrote to nicely, with the comment for instance about the Donaldson book, I find it problematic when applications are carried over from human study to be applied to creatures. I use "creatures" specifically, because I personally find "non-human" a description I don't use. This for me is very difficult week. A dog I know, who deserved a better chance, was put down rather than trained. So all the internet discussion and argument and emotional flurry in this forum recently and that I'm sure we've all seen in others, for me, came in over my phone line. Because the practice and real life application is often a matter of life or death, there has to be a willingness to find a way to discuss the differences. -margory cohen San Francisco, CA, US From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 19-AUG-2003 19:29:28.83 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Intro and a question Hi - somewhere in my files I have a copy of a study carried out in the Prior Mountain feral herd that has direct bearing on this - but my search has failed to turn it up so far - perhaps an Internet search might find the resource? It is impossible at this stage to be certain, as the study is far from complete, but I would offer the following as a current working hypothesis. On an innate level there is an evolutionary drive to produce such progeny as are needed to underwrite continued group viability - conditional on, and heavily influenced by, the level of essential resources. Under conditions of either insufficient or falling resource levels a number of mares will refuse the stallion (in which they may well be co-operatively supported by other mares) An indicator of this might be an increase in bites to the crest of the neck as the resident stallion/s attempt to insist. (these bites can be quite severe and may need some intervention - so there is a welfare concern) One of the two harem groups here was in this type of situation last spring/summer. I removed two mares plus their yearlings and foals - both of which I had observed to be moving onto the periphery of the group under the threat of further demands from the stallion - and had crest bites - in one case that needed daily treatment for a week or so due to the threat of 'fly-strike'. The stallion was quite agreeable to their removal - I was simply able to lead them away on a lead rope during which he rounded up the rest of the group and kept them apart. Once these two trios had gone the social integration of the group returned to the level at which it had previously been - but continued observations did not show any increase in mating behavior. I am now waiting for foaling season to start in that group - usually late September/early October - to see what reduction in foal numbers will result from this. Best guess from appearances only would be that only 3 of the 9 remaining mares will foal this year - and that there will be 5 rising two year olds that will have to be removed due to the rising intolerance of both sire and dam. Thus group size will be further reduced. If, for the sake of argument, we proceed on the basis that this might offer a replicable population control mechanism then it should also be possible to extrapolate - so: Removing foals at yearling stage would tend to disrupt this mechanism completely - and might well be thought to add directly to the problem of higher numbers of low quality/financial viability herd progeny. The herd becomes engaged in a desperate attempt to achieve long term viability in which innate behaviors tend to operate against the best welfare interests of both herd and owners/managers (and perhaps also there is a negative impact on both pasture species and an increased level of parasite infection that would tend to make things a good 20% worse than they might otherwise be?). I would not be surprised to also see an element of increased aggression in mating from the stallion - who in theory might well be triggered into continuous high-drive - to the detriment of all. Observations might be carried out to reveal the higher status mares who could be expected to foal less often - an initial reduction in the number of low status mares might well be necessary - and I think this can probably best be done in 'easy stages' by assessing group integration levels and stopping removal at an agreed level of high social integration - or perhaps a proportion of these LS mares might receive contraception at least one year in every three (Prior Mountain Herd study gives some detail on how this can be done and results I believe). The removal of too many might well trigger a rise in foal numbers also - in extreme cases even to the point where the stallion will begin serving his own two year old daughters under 'urgency' to get group size up above a theoretical level of critical viability - rather than ejecting them from the herd as is usual.(exogamy) I hope this is of some use, and apologise for the slightly 'rambling' nature of the posting - time constraints prevent any of the editing work I would normally try to do before sending! Regards to all - may the non-adversarial paradigm rule! 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: R. Rodd [mailto:rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2003 2:23 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Intro and a question On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Andy Beck wrote: > I think the question of mare condition has been a consideration of the > practice - the notions being that a suckling mare wont get back in foal, > that some stallions will refuse mares that 'smell of milk' (very subjective > sounding to me) and that mares can't regain their condition as well without > being subjected to the forced weaning process. > Do you have any views on the implications for welfare of semi-feral native ponies? Here in the UK it is generally frowned upon for foals to be left with the mare beyond the autumn of their first year because it's considered that her condition is likely to suffer during the following winter if weaning is not enforced. There's also a serious welfare problem of over-production of low-value native pony foals and their possible export overseas for meat. Anything which tends to encourage production of fewer, but better-quality (more saleable for riding purposes) ponies would seem to have welfare benefits. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 20-AUG-2003 04:35:25.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" "Joseph M. Stookey" Subj: OT and a bit techie (was Re: Some requests) At 22:22 18/08/03 -0700, John Burchard wrote: >I have three requests to make of list members: All requests seconded! When I pressed REPLY just now, the reply address was yours, not the list's (necessitating an annoying flurry of cuts and pastes to rearrange the addresses). However, this was because my email client used the "From:" field, not the "Reply-To:" field, which was absent. Other mailing lists -- such as Andy Beck's Equine Behavior list -- are set up to reply to the list rather than the sender, by the list adding its own "Reply-To:" field. I believe this is the more sensible default. Perhaps Joseph Stookey could look into the possibility of getting the default for Applied Ethology changed? (Joe - This would be greatly appreciated. If it's not possible, or too much hassle, it's no biggie - I can live with it.) >1. If you are going to send a message to the list as well as privately to >several list members, please put the list address as the "To:" address, and the >private addresses as "cc:". Then anyone who uses filters to control the >distribution of messages (which I presume is most of us) will see those messages >going into the proper folder. As it is, I have to move nearly 40 messages each >day from my private Inbox to the Applied Ethology folder. It may be that you can tell your email client to filter based on "cc:" field as well. For example, in Eudora I have the rule: Any header containing "applied-ethology" goes into the app-eth folder. >2. Please post in plain text and not in HTML. I have a perfectly HTML-capable >mail system, but in order to reply in plain text, which I do out of courtesy to >other list members and as a matter of principle, I have to copy and paste the >content of your message into my reply, which is a PITA. It is an even greater >PITA to switch back and forth between the plain text editor and the HTML editor, >according to the format (or lack thereof) of each incoming message. Yes, it is. Those who sympathize with this argument and wish to change but don't know how to go about it can find instructions at: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html >3. Please do not append the entire chain of previous messages on a topic, as a >"tail" to your reply to the most recent one. It can also obscure who is replying to whom. There was a message posted here recently that seemed to consist ONLY of previous messages! An additional benefit of posting in plain text is that clear, easy-to-follow quoting of replied-to text is facilitated. I am sure we all wish to communicate our views, opinions and knowledge as clearly as possible! Francis -- Dr Francis Burton University of Glasgow -- 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%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 20-AUG-2003 05:29:11.09 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist (was Re: Punishers / reinforceers) >At 13:26 18/08/03 -0300, Simon Gadbois wrote: > >Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how little >some know about >modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists are not >among us. Do you mean this literally? I am a (radical) behaviourist among 'us' -- and there are a few others on the list that would openly own some kind of behaviourist philosophy... I am also aware that many of the so-called evils of behaviourism are 'boogie-man' myths that most sensible behaviourists could not be accurately accused of, myself included. It was always a broad group of philosophies that was no more innately foolish than any other approach -- Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 20-AUG-2003 05:41:45.14 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Behaviourist (was Re: Punishers / reinforceers) When you say that you are a behaviourist, are you an experimental psychologist or someone who works in behavioural therapy or training of animals? Jon On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:29 pm, emily patterson wrote: > >> At 13:26 18/08/03 -0300, Simon Gadbois wrote: >> >Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how >> little some know about >modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists >> are not among us. > > Do you mean this literally? I am a (radical) behaviourist among 'us' > -- and there are a few others on the list that would openly own some > kind of behaviourist philosophy... I am also aware that many of the > so-called evils of behaviourism are 'boogie-man' myths that most > sensible behaviourists could not be accurately accused of, myself > included. It was always a broad group of philosophies that was no > more innately foolish than any other approach -- > > Emily > SAC > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 20-AUG-2003 07:22:14.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforceers > They did not fail to teach the pigs these simple tasks. Rather, these > learned tasks spontaneously disintegrated. SG: By the way, in the example I had in mind with the pigs (and dropping the coin in the piggy bank), and this is confirmed by the text you forwarded to me, they could not get the pig to drop the coin in the piggy bank. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"jgardner@chicken.ca" "Jennifer Gardner" 20-AUG-2003 07:31:47.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: air quality monitors I am looking for information on air quality monitors for use in poultry barns. I am primarily interested in monitors that measure ammonia and carbon dioxide. If anyone has any information they could share it would be greatly appreciated. Jennifer Gardner Animal Care Coordinator/Coordonnatrice - Programme de soins aux animaux Chicken Farmers of Canada/Les Producteurs de poulet du Canada 350 Sparks Street, Suite 1007 Ottawa, ON K1R 7S8 Tel: (613) 566-5921 Fax: (613) 241-5999 From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 20-AUG-2003 07:41:21.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Behaviourist Pride I am an experimental psychologist -- a post-doctoral researcher in animal welfare science. I could 'out' half a dozen other similar professionals on the list too ;) -- Behaviourists are not extinct, we just changed our vocabulary. I can slip 'cognitve' into a sentence with the best of them; I can say 'memory' when I mean 'performance after a delay'. There is nothing about being a behaviourist that hobbles me as an animal welfare scientist. It is only admiting to being a behaviourist that can prove a hurdle. Thus I learned how to cunningly disguise myself as an ethologist (swapping my white coat for an anorak). I reckon behaviourism must be alive and well, or it wouldn't requires so much criticism? I also reckon it's time the diversity of philosophy was appreciated over the pre-postmodern hope of discovering 'the one true way'. Emily Scottish Agricultural College >When you say that you are a behaviourist, are you an experimental >psychologist or someone who works in behavioural therapy or training of >animals? > > >Jon > >On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:29 pm, emily patterson wrote: > >> >>>At 13:26 18/08/03 -0300, Simon Gadbois wrote: >>> >Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how little >>>some know about >modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists are not >>>among us. >> >>Do you mean this literally? I am a (radical) behaviourist among 'us' -- >>and there are a few others on the list that would openly own some kind of >>behaviourist philosophy... I am also aware that many of the so-called >>evils of behaviourism are 'boogie-man' myths that most sensible >>behaviourists could not be accurately accused of, myself included. It was >>always a broad group of philosophies that was no more innately foolish >>than any other approach -- >> >>Emily >>SAC >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* >>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail >> > _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 20-AUG-2003 07:47:52.47 To: IN%"sgadbois@dal.ca" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: about terms, authority, frequency, intensity and duration On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 16:50 Canada/Atlantic, kcover wrote: > Hi all, > > There needs to be a lexicon of terminology with citations for the > originators and the influencers. Whoever originates a term should be > the authority on what its definition is. If Skinner defines a term and > Domjan changes it, that may mean that Domjan needs to make a new term, > rather than simply change the meaning of an established term. It > certainly does not make Domjan the final authority in this > subspecialty, just because he is influential in the field. SG: Right, except that all animal learning textbooks on my book shelf use the modern terminology, not Skinner's. That was my point. Domjan was just mentioned once and stuck here for whatever reason. Fortunately, science can change and improve, including concepts... In other words, what you call an "established" term, is not the most current use of it. Views on operant conditioning from 50 years ago, have, I would hope changed. My graduate courses in animal learning certainly suggested it did. > While experimental psychologists may have the upper hand in > investigating many basic parameters of operant conditioning and > learning theory, trainers may certainly have the upper hand in > sophistication and complexity of applications, as well as in > repeatability of such applications in real life settings. SG: I would suggest this is another dangerous generalization; psychologists are behind behaviour therapy (highly complex field of application) and some, like my wife, a pediatric psychologist, uses it daily in situations that I suspect are slightly more complex than with dogs. But I understand what you are suggesting. From rats and pigeons to dogs and then to kids, there is a world. This is why most operant psychologists, as pointed out by Vicki, as they were exploring more complex species, moved to "animal cognition". > We also often test our results in less forgiving situations. While I > do not often record data from my training sessions, if my training is > not reliable, my life, and the lives of animals and other people may > be at stake. Further, to a trainer, a behavior is not considered > trained at 67% cuability. We like things more in the 95-100% range- > at least for critical behaviors. So, our basic idea of training is > fundamentally different than the concept of training in academia. SG: Fundamentally different? Trish Cole here at Dalhousie training parrots and crows would fundamentally disagree with you. I think this is an oversimplification of what animal psychologists are now doing (different, certainly, 30 years ago). > > Simon Gadbois wrote: > >> As suggested by a member of this list, I just consulted with a >> colleague (2 office doors away): Vin LoLordo (abundantly cited in >> Domjan, by the way, see his picture on page 225). Dr. LoLordo is a >> "real" animal learning specialist with an international reputation in >> the field (a former student of Rescorla). >> He agrees with me and added a number of examples to "reinforce" the >> idea that "frequency" is too restrictive. >> First, he pointed out that some animal learning specialists actually >> reinforce the "variability" of a behaviour, not its frequency, >> occurrence, intensity, etc... > > > I disagree with Dr. LoLordo then. SG: Well, that is a bold thing to do; I admire your confidence! > > "A" behavior, is not the same thing as "behavior". "A" behavior > implies an arbitrarily defined subset of behavior (in training, always > under stimulus control). Thus, to an animal trainer, it is > meaningless to talk about training the ""variability" of a behavior." > A variation on a behavior is a different behavior, not another > instance of the same thing. (In daily life, we often talk of behaviors > and their parameters, such as intensity, distractions, duration, etc - > so there is a core behavior, which is modified by various > > "parameters") SG: Then you disagree with Neuringer as well... Actually, the variablility was in the sequencing of the same behaviour. So ethologists would agree with psychologists here that Neuringer is o.k. to use such a term. When we train "a" behaviour, at first we reinforce any approximations of that behaviour until we get exactly the form of that behaviour that we want (including the correct amplitude for instance). Now you can reinforce "variations" of that behaviour. It is still the same behaviour, but with some parameters changing: velocity? amplitude of the movement? etc. For that one, I have to say ethologists and psychologists are on the same page. > > In other words, spontaneously emmitted behavior occurs in a continuum, > not in discrete quantums of behavior. The divisions are arbitrarily > defined, and named, by people, when they are put on cue, or defined > for observation, etc. Once a behavior is defined, then we may get > discrete instances of the defined behavior, occurring amidst the > continuum of spontaneously emmitted behavior. SG Exactly, a continuum of the same behaviour, but NOT necessarily different terms. Here I disagree. Here at least ethologists are very careful not to make that mistake. This is the challenge of describing behaviour and coming up with solid ostensive definitions. >> Second, he pointed out that we must be clear about the description of >> the learning setting we are evoking. For instance, is it a discrete >> trial or not ? (where my example of reinforcing a dog to stay still >> does not increase any frequency, only the duration of the behaviour). >> Third, he points out that, as I mentioned a number of time already, >> "frequency" (or "occurrences" for that matter) are only one >> manifestation of the probability of a behaviour being increased or >> decreased. > > > An extended duration of a behavior is actually a summation of a series > of instances of that behavior. If we view an instance of behavior as > a single occurrence, then a protracted down-stay is a series of > instantaneous occurrences of the down-stay, continuous in time. This > is the same way physicists look at areas under a curve, and the > instigation for the tool, calculus. A down-stay (or whatever you like > to call a stay, wait, steady, etc) is not an absence of behavior. It > is an animal staying in contact with a set reference, or "target" > point. An extended down-stay is a summation of all the contiguous > instances of that behavior (upon a cue). Therefore, extending a > duration can be regarded as increasing the frequency of a behavior. SG Maybe in physics, but I never saw in animal psychology or ethology that conceptualization of frequency. I can guarantee you that animal behaviour academia people agree on this. I am not saying your point is not arguable in physics, but our conventions, for parsimony, do not see it that way. You seem to have a very idiosyncratic view of the concept. In observational studies, "sitting immobile" is certainly not "a series of instances of that behavior"; it is scored as one instance of "sitting". See the concept of "bout" in observational research. > >> Finally, from talking to Vin, I was reminded of a few conceptual >> issues: >> 1. ethologists and animal learning psychologists do not necessarily >> use the term "intensity" the same way. Pyschologists often use it as >> "rate" of behaviour (akin to frequency, often a measure of the >> "hurried-up" nature of a behaviour) and ethologists use it as >> "amplitude" of behaviour: bar pressing hard, does not mean bar >> pressing more. >> I can punch somebody 5 times but with little "strength" (to use >> Vicki's term) or 5 times with great strength and the CONSEQUENCE of >> the punching will be dramatically different. > > > Animal trainers (in my experience) use the term intensity in much the > same way as ethologists do, it appears. However, we regard intensity > as a parameter of a behavior which (must be defined and gotten under > stimulus control (through reinforcement in order to be intensified). > So, before we can get an animal to run faster, or longer, or more off > balance, we must be able to get the animal to run, on cue. The run is > the behavior, the intensity, duration, etc are parameters of the run. SG: It is a parameter of behaviour for psychologists and ethologists as well; why the "however"? > > However, intensity can be regarded as the incidence of a more > "intense" instance of a behavior, and increasing the "intensity" means > increasing the frequency of "more intense" incidences. Again, the > paradox melts away. SG: This is the local rate of psychologists that i mentioned in a previous e-mail. And you ignore the issue of behavioural bouts (see above). >> 2. occurrences of behaviour (or "counts") are not the same as >> frequency (this was just pointed out by somebody else, Finkler I >> think). Frequency is a measure of behaviour PER UNIT OF TIME. >> Occurrences are not dependent on time. This is discussed in Martin >> and Bateson's excellent book on "measuring behaviour" (cited in a >> previous e-mail). > > > Well, it seems that the scientists who originated the terms were not > quite consistent in forming the terminology, as I pointed out with the > adherence to the term punisher, which is totally inconsistent with the > reasoning which prompted use of the term "reinforcer", over the term > "reward". > > Was it you who argued that we should go ahead and use the inconsistent > term punisher because people understand it so well? In that case, it > is inconsistent to quibble over the bad framing of the original > definition of reinforcement. SG No, I had nothing to do with that argumentation, and, honestly, did not understand it (and did not put too much effort in doing so). I really just joined this debate (oh God help me!) only a few days ago. > And, we know nothing of the future probability until the behavior > occurs. SG: Do you know anything of its frequency before it occurs??? Or its duration? C'mon! This is twisting words just for the fun of it! > We can not "count" a "potential" or probability. Hence, we must > confine ourselves to looking at frequency, incidences or occurrences, > as indicated by Hilit. So, I respectfully submit that it is not very > meaningful to talk about hypothetically increasing the probability of > a behavior. We either have an increase when cued or we do not. SG: ??!! O.k., here, we are not at all on the same page. If what you say is true, then the whole field of sequential analysis of behaviour (applications of Markovian models and Information theory to the sequential flow of behaviour) is an illusion... Ethologists have been fooling themselves studying FAP's, MAP's and natural action sequences for over 60 years. We can certainly measure how "stochastic" or "probabilistic" (as opposed to "deterministic") a sequence of behaviour is. Instrumental psychologists measure the consequences of S-R contingencies and performance of behaviour. When the behaviour is completed (and only then) can we extract its frequency, intensity, duration, sequencing, etc. and then analyze its stochastic nature. > >> Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly following a response >> increases the future probability of that response. >> Anybody knowing about measures of behaviour (see Martin and >> Bateson, >> 1993, "Measuring Behaviour") would agree > > Faulty assumption. I know about measures of behavior and do not agree. SG: Well, then you disagree with the two major textbooks in the field, Domjan for animal learning, and Martin & Bateson for ethological measures (as well as Colgan's, "Quantitative Ethology", another classic). Can you expand on this and give me references? If I may ask without insulting you, from where do you know about measures of behaviour? Because here you disagree with a whole lot of people. > >> that "frequency" is more >> limitative than "probability", explaining the choice of words from >> Domjan and most other learning specialists. See your own >> terminology: >> "Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more >> frequently, >> makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a >> reinforcer" > > SG: O.k., I read what's below. I disagree and I respectfully say this: I understand your point of view and conceptualisation. After many graduate courses and seminars in animal learning (part of my training in animal behaviour) I can say that it does not represent the mainstream conceptualisations of the field. I am not saying that what you submit is nonsense, simply that it is does not follow the conventions of the field. Terminology and conceptualisations of behaviour: quite a challenge. Good ostensive and operational definitions of behaviour: even more difficult, some say impossible. > This last definition may be Vicki's. In any case, I respectfully > suggest that we cannot define a reinforcer in any way (meaningful to > learning theory or training) without the time relatedness term. In > other words, a reinforcer increases the frequency of the behavior it > immediately follows (not just any behavior). SG: Exactly! The definition by Domjan of a reinforcer (Reinforcer: a stimulus whose delivery shortly following a response increases the future probability of that response) that you dismissed two paragraphs above!!! :-) Nobody said it was "just any behaviour"; that is the principle of contiguity that is so fundamental to operant conditioning. > Sex (engaged in by parents) definitely increases the frequency of the > behavior of the children it produces, but it is not a reinforcer for > the behavior of those children - > certainly not in any way useful to trainers and managers of the > behavior of the children. A tidal wave may increase the occurrence > and the intensity of running in beach residents, but it is not a > reinforcer for running. It is a punisher for being too near the beach > and, if they got away, a negative reinforcer for the alarm that > instigated the run. SG: Are you serious with these analogies? Now that is twisting things! You forget the cornerstones of operant conditioning: contingency and contiguity. Now if you ignore contingency or contiguity, I agree with you, we can have fun destroying operant psychology together! From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 20-AUG-2003 08:04:43.73 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Hi Emily, My perception on this may be a North American one. Dalhousie University used to be a bed rock of Canadian Behaviourism, but none of the Faculty in the area that are or were here (Honig, LoLordo, Dunham, Mackintosh [now "yours" I believe], Moore) would have labelled themselves Behaviourists after the cognitive revolution. Even the term "neo-Behaviourist" is never heard here. I was told that when Hebb moved back to Dalhousie, when he retired from McGill (late 70's I believe), commented that the Mind at taken over for good. I think you may be right though, that for many traditional learning psychologists (the few hard core ones left), only the vocabulary changed. But my point is that if you use "memory" (Honig), "attention" (Mackintosh), etc. you admit that cognitive processes exist, that "something" between the S and the R is going on. In that sense, it is not classical Behaviourism. Agree? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Psychology/Neuroscience Dalhousie University Halifax, NS Canada, B3H 4J1 902-494-8848 On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 10:41 Canada/Atlantic, emily patterson wrote: > I am an experimental psychologist -- a post-doctoral researcher in > animal welfare science. > > I could 'out' half a dozen other similar professionals on the list too > ;) -- Behaviourists are not extinct, we just changed our vocabulary. > I can slip 'cognitve' into a sentence with the best of them; I can say > 'memory' when I mean 'performance after a delay'. There is nothing > about being a behaviourist that hobbles me as an animal welfare > scientist. It is only admiting to being a behaviourist that can prove > a hurdle. Thus I learned how to cunningly disguise myself as an > ethologist (swapping my white coat for an anorak). > > I reckon behaviourism must be alive and well, or it wouldn't requires > so much criticism? I also reckon it's time the diversity of > philosophy was appreciated over the pre-postmodern hope of discovering > 'the one true way'. > > Emily > Scottish Agricultural College > > >> When you say that you are a behaviourist, are you an experimental >> psychologist or someone who works in behavioural therapy or training >> of animals? >> >> >> Jon >> >> On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:29 pm, emily patterson wrote: >> >>> >>>> At 13:26 18/08/03 -0300, Simon Gadbois wrote: >>>> >Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how >>>> little some know about >modern experimental psychology. >>>> Behaviourists are not among us. >>> >>> Do you mean this literally? I am a (radical) behaviourist among >>> 'us' -- and there are a few others on the list that would openly own >>> some kind of behaviourist philosophy... I am also aware that many >>> of the so-called evils of behaviourism are 'boogie-man' myths that >>> most sensible behaviourists could not be accurately accused of, >>> myself included. It was always a broad group of philosophies that >>> was no more innately foolish than any other approach -- >>> >>> Emily >>> SAC >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* >>> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail >>> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"emma.jones@bbsrc.ac.uk" "emma jones (RI)" 20-AUG-2003 08:06:15.55 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: air quality Jennifer I did my PhD on the effects of ammonia on poultry behaviour. The easiest way of measuring ammonia is with diffusion tubes, which have a reagent in them that changes colour when in contact with ammonia gas. The amount of reagent that changes gives you the ammonia concentration. The tubes are made by a company called Draeger. I have a UK address if you need a supplier. The reading is time dependent, so you need to note what time the tubes are placed in the barns and the time that they are removed, I left them up for 2 to 8 hours. A couple of warnings, firstly, they have a best before date-they give spurious results after this date and secondly, there can be a high degree of between observer variation if you are not careful. They are not the most accurate measurement devices (taking the above into account, accuracy should be plus or minus 2-3 p.p.m), but the cheapest and easiest. If you need a more accurate measurement let me know and I can send you more details. The same company may be able to help you with Hope this is helpful Emma The information contained in this e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and is intended for the use of the addressee only. The opinions expressed within this e-mail (including any attachments) are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute those of Roslin Institute (Edinburgh) ("the Institute") unless specifically stated by a sender who is duly authorised to do so on behalf of the Institute. -------------------------------------------- Dr Emma K M Jones Roslin Institute Roslin Midlothian EH25 9PS Tel 0131 527 4438 Fax 0131 440 0434 -------------------------------------------- From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 20-AUG-2003 08:21:32.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers <> I agree with you that it doesn't have any basis in fact, yet many are selling books and charging for training based directly on Skinner's "science". I tried arguing that the science is being misrepresented, not to mention the many advances in scientific understanding, yet "operant conditioning", stimulus/response ala Skinner, (though focusing only on +R and -R), is being sold to dog owners as the only way dogs can learn. The American Pet Dog Trainers Association, (APDT), training list would probably surprise you, as the majority of trainers on the list insist not only dogs learn through solely through classical and operant conditioning, but that humans also learn only via classical and operant conditioning. Skinner's black box lives on. The APDT has a committee studying the "science" of dog training, and they are stuck in the distant years of the past century. I do realize it's hard to believe without seeing it, but I promise this is not hyperbole. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 20-AUG-2003 08:49:30.56 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride >My perception on this may be a North American one. Dalhousie University >used to be a bed rock of Canadian Behaviourism, but none of the Faculty in >the area that are or were here (Honig, LoLordo, Dunham, Mackintosh [now >"yours" I believe], Moore) would have labelled themselves Behaviourists >after the cognitive revolution. The perception varies by geography and many other things. But as a person trained at university during 1990-1999 (post-revolution) I am, and call myself, a radical behaviourist -- for the simple reason that I subscribe to the central aspects of that philosophy of psychology. The importance of this may not be so great, given that I can easily translate my research into 'ethologist' , 'general biologist' or 'layperson' dialect -- and generally publish it in biology-dominated journals. I don't think science should necessarily try to make windows into men's minds so long as what is coming out of their mouths is useful and coherent. . But my point is that if you use "memory" (Honig), >"attention" (Mackintosh), etc. you admit that cognitive processes exist, >that "something" between the S and the R is going on. In that sense, it is >not classical Behaviourism. Agree? Depends what you means by classical. Behaviourist is a perspective, not a filter. It may change the apparent shape and centrality of things, but does not cause them to disappear, wholesale. The cognitive revolution did not suddenly cause animals to have new abilities, or suddenly cause us to notice those abilities. Animal have always had all of those abilities and we have always studied them (over the last 100 years as experimental psychologists), only the way we describe them has changed. 'Stimulus control' may seem like a very different thing to 'attention' yet the form of the experiments has not changed much, nor even the fundamental structure of the theories (ditto frustration, choice, memory, learning etc etc). All of these 'cognitive' topics have histories and aspects that are partly ostensibly 'behaviourist'. When behaviourism was dominant there was always some researchers around who used the 'cognitive' words. In the strictest sense 'attention' still does not exist as a physical object -- it is a label we give a certain pattern of behaviour -- one may use the verbal short cut of acting as if 'attention' is a noun, but it is still affectively label for a collection of verbs. That is the basic point of behaviourism and it remains valid today. Cognitive sciences is more of a useful conservatory than a new mansion... I specified radical behaviourism to signal that I am not and S-R connectionist -- although such creatures do also exist in the more out of the way academic niches. Skinner was always most emphatic that behaviour was located in the animal -- he just preferred to deal with the organism as a whole rather than breaking it down into physical or cognitive parts. This is also still a legitimate approach -- most useful in animal welfare where we sometimes cannot see the pig for the hypocampus (i.e. forest/tree). Hypocampi do not have 'welfare' nor does cortisol, belly-nosing or 'startegies'. The whole animal has welfare and so that is the level I work on. My behaviourist definition of 'welfare' is serveral paragraphs long -- and so I use the verbal short-cut that the single word provides. In the end philosophy has less effect than we might think... it just pays to have people around with a range of approaches to avoid mistaking 'group think' for consensus or even 'truth'. If the revoltuion had really put all of the behaviourists against the wall it would have made the 'classical' revoltuionary mistake... actually it did the more usual thing of changing a few names but keeping the infrastructure. Behaviourists get the message that we can exist so long as we teach the stats course and don't laugh at the emporer's new clothes. Viva la counter-revolution I say -- Sorry about the rant. Emily _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 20-AUG-2003 09:01:34.79 To: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" CC: Subj: Default settings for A-E In case you were wondering: Fracis Burton asked why the default on the "Reply-To:" field is set to the person who posted the message and not back to the entire list. The default field was set intentionally to send replies back to the person instead of to the entire list. The intent was to save many of us the embarrassing mistake of sending private messages across the entire list. Back in 1993 when we set up applied-ethology there were other list servers, such as Primate-talk, where I witnessed devastating errors. One individual, thinking he was replying to the person who posted a message, mistakenly replied to the entire network and indicate he had just finished his interview at ------- University and thought they were all a bunch of --------! He remarked that he wasn't certain if he would accept the position if they offered it to him. My guess is that they never did! There were other examples of embarrassing mistakes, but that one in particular left a memorable impression. Therefore, we decided it was best to have people make a conscious effort to send their messages to the entire group. It was also intended to help people send comments such as, "Nice job" or "I agree" back to the individual and not to the entire list. Hope this helps explain the history, reasons for the setting, and why I will keep the default settings as they are currently programed in the system. Cheers, 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%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 20-AUG-2003 09:28:06.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: behaviourist pride >My perception on this may be a North American one. Dalhousie University >used to be a bed rock of Canadian Behaviourism, but none of the Faculty in >the area that are or were here (Honig, LoLordo, Dunham, Mackintosh [now >"yours" I believe], Moore) would have labelled themselves Behaviourists >after the cognitive revolution. The perception varies by geography and many other things. But as a person trained at university during 1990-1999 (post-revolution) I am, and call myself, a radical behaviourist -- for the simple reason that I subscribe to the central aspects of that philosophy of psychology. The importance of this may not be so great, given that I can easily translate my research into 'ethologist' , 'general biologist' or 'layperson' dialect -- and generally publish it in biology-dominated journals. I don't think science should necessarily try to make windows into men's minds so long as what is coming out of their mouths is useful and coherent. . But my point is that if you use "memory" (Honig), >"attention" (Mackintosh), etc. you admit that cognitive processes exist, >that "something" between the S and the R is going on. In that sense, it is >not classical Behaviourism. Agree? Depends what you means by classical. Behaviourist is a perspective, not a filter. It may change the apparent shape and centrality of things, but does not cause them to disappear, wholesale. The cognitive revolution did not suddenly cause animals to have new abilities, or suddenly cause us to notice those abilities. Animal have always had all of those abilities and we have always studied them (over the last 100 years as experimental psychologists), only the way we describe them has changed. 'Stimulus control' may seem like a very different thing to 'attention' yet the form of the experiments has not changed much, nor even the fundamental structure of the theories (ditto frustration, choice, memory, learning etc etc). All of these 'cognitive' topics have histories and aspects that are partly ostensibly 'behaviourist'. When behaviourism was dominant there was always some researchers around who used the 'cognitive' words. In the strictest sense 'attention' still does not exist as a physical object -- it is a label we give a certain pattern of behaviour -- one may use the verbal short cut of acting as if 'attention' is a noun, but it is still affectively label for a collection of verbs. That is the basic point of behaviourism and it remains valid today. Cognitive sciences is more of a useful conservatory than a new mansion... I specified radical behaviourism to signal that I am not and S-R connectionist -- although such creatures do also exist in the more out of the way academic niches. Skinner was always most emphatic that behaviour was located in the animal -- he just preferred to deal with the organism as a whole rather than breaking it down into physical or cognitive parts. This is also still a legitimate approach -- most useful in animal welfare where we sometimes cannot see the pig for the hypocampus (i.e. forest/tree). Hypocampi do not have 'welfare' nor does cortisol, belly-nosing or 'startegies'. The whole animal has welfare and so that is the level I work on. My behaviourist definition of 'welfare' is serveral paragraphs long -- and so I use the verbal short-cut that the single word provides. In the end philosophy has less effect than we might think... it just pays to have people around with a range of approaches to avoid mistaking 'group think' for consensus or even 'truth'. If the revoltuion had really put all of the behaviourists against the wall it would have made the 'classical' revoltuionary mistake... actually it did the more usual thing of changing a few names but keeping the infrastructure. Behaviourists get the message that we can exist so long as we teach the stats course and don't laugh at the emporer's new clothes. Viva la counter-revolution I say -- Anyway -- on a serious note -- philosophy is like nationality. A given town may be part of Germany in one period of history and part of Austria in another. The landscape doesn't change -- but there are implications for the way, and extent to which the town develops. The cognitive approach revitilised certain areas, and stunted others -- clarified some issues and blurred others. For my approach to my research subject, behaviourism is best -- I make no judgements about others choices and hope to receive the same consideration in return so long as I remain a useful and productive researcher. Sorry about the rant. Emily _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"topnotchdog@mindspring.com" "Barbara Shumannfang" 20-AUG-2003 09:33:42.48 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Hi all, I am a dog trainer and behavior consultant, and I'm finding this discussion just fascinating and very helpful. If you had to name one text that would bring up to speed on cognitive psychology those who may not know about this "30 year gap," what would it be? Many thanks, Barbara Barbara Shumannfang www.TopNotchDog.com -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:01 AM To: rattitude@angelfire.com Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Behaviourist Pride Hi Emily, My perception on this may be a North American one. Dalhousie University used to be a bed rock of Canadian Behaviourism, but none of the Faculty in the area that are or were here (Honig, LoLordo, Dunham, Mackintosh [now "yours" I believe], Moore) would have labelled themselves Behaviourists after the cognitive revolution. Even the term "neo-Behaviourist" is never heard here. I was told that when Hebb moved back to Dalhousie, when he retired from McGill (late 70's I believe), commented that the Mind at taken over for good. I think you may be right though, that for many traditional learning psychologists (the few hard core ones left), only the vocabulary changed. But my point is that if you use "memory" (Honig), "attention" (Mackintosh), etc. you admit that cognitive processes exist, that "something" between the S and the R is going on. In that sense, it is not classical Behaviourism. Agree? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Psychology/Neuroscience Dalhousie University Halifax, NS Canada, B3H 4J1 902-494-8848 On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 10:41 Canada/Atlantic, emily patterson wrote: I am an experimental psychologist -- a post-doctoral researcher in animal welfare science. I could 'out' half a dozen other similar professionals on the list too ;) -- Behaviourists are not extinct, we just changed our vocabulary. I can slip 'cognitve' into a sentence with the best of them; I can say 'memory' when I mean 'performance after a delay'. There is nothing about being a behaviourist that hobbles me as an animal welfare scientist. It is only admiting to being a behaviourist that can prove a hurdle. Thus I learned how to cunningly disguise myself as an ethologist (swapping my white coat for an anorak). I reckon behaviourism must be alive and well, or it wouldn't requires so much criticism? I also reckon it's time the diversity of philosophy was appreciated over the pre-postmodern hope of discovering 'the one true way'. Emily Scottish Agricultural College When you say that you are a behaviourist, are you an experimental psychologist or someone who works in behavioural therapy or training of animals? Jon On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:29 pm, emily patterson wrote: At 13:26 18/08/03 -0300, Simon Gadbois wrote: >Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how little some know about >modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists are not among us. Do you mean this literally? I am a (radical) behaviourist among 'us' -- and there are a few others on the list that would openly own some kind of behaviourist philosophy... I am also aware that many of the so-called evils of behaviourism are 'boogie-man' myths that most sensible behaviourists could not be accurately accused of, myself included. It was always a broad group of philosophies that was no more innately foolish than any other approach -- Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 20-AUG-2003 10:16:57.63 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: behaviourist pride > Anyway -- on a serious note -- philosophy is like nationality. A > given town may be part of Germany in one period of history and part of > Austria in another. The landscape doesn't change -- but there are > implications for the way, and extent to which the town develops. The > cognitive approach revitilised certain areas, and stunted others -- > clarified some issues and blurred others. For my approach to my > research subject, behaviourism is best -- I make no judgements about > others choices and hope to receive the same consideration in return so > long as I remain a useful and productive researcher. SG: I was not judging you or Behaviourists Emily; as I mentioned in a previous post, before I started working with wolves, I was a student of Werner Honig and took courses with him and Vin LoLordo. I think that Honig was the kind of Behaviourist that you are talking about, although, again, he would not have labelled himself that way. I think we are simply talking about the "existence" of Behaviourists. > > Sorry about the rant. > SG: No apologies needed; It is not a rant (or I did not think so); for me, in a large psychology department, it is an eye opener; I was not aware of the Behaviourist micro-culture in the UK. Unless the closets are themselves hidden, it would be a small minority in the academic circles of North America. What is your research about, by the way? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology & animal behaviour. Behaviour of wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 20-AUG-2003 10:58:32.22 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org", IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: behaviourist pride >me, in a large psychology department, it is an eye opener; I was not aware >of the Behaviourist micro-culture in the UK. Unless the closets are >themselves hidden, it would be a small minority in the academic circles of >North America. Yes, a minority -- perhaps at time a defensive one ;). I have taught Behavioural psychology in New Zealand, America and Scotland. The micro-culture is a fairly wide-spread minority rather than a regional population in a specific philosophical 'micro-climate'. Some psychology departments continue to include the behaviourist approach along side others (cogitive, feminist, social etc) -- whilst others are more 'mono-philosophy'. >What is your research about, by the way? Currently I study correlations between physiology, behaviour and human judgements of animal expression -- specifically in pigs, to contribute to an understanding of their welfare. This is part of Francoise Wemelsfelders research into 'Quantitative Assessment'. Previously I was working on Environmental Enrichment for rats in the laboratory, and visual abilities in hens. I think that part of my drift from psychology to agriculture and animal welfare has related to these more applied areas being rather indifferent to philosophy. Many psychology departments prefer to replace their retiring Behaviourists with a new Cognitive or neurological model ... but perhaps that is just the unjustified bitterness of an, as yet, untenured academic ;) Emily _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 20-AUG-2003 11:44:23.60 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: behaviourist pride > Currently I study correlations between physiology, behaviour and human=20= > judgements of animal expression -- specifically in pigs, to contribute=20= > to an understanding of their welfare. This is part of Francoise=20 > Wemelsfelders research into 'Quantitative Assessment'. Previously I=20= > was working on Environmental Enrichment for rats in the laboratory,=20 > and visual abilities in hens. > Interesting stuff. Fran=E7oise! If I am not wrong, her and I had e-mail discussions in the=20= past on the choice of words in ostensive definitions and how they often=20= badly translate between languages. We were talking about "continua"=20 that can be well covered by English, but not by French and vice versa=20 (in English, you often have more words to describe different degrees or=20= intensities of a behaviour or variations of a behaviour, as well as=20 many more synonyms and pseudo-synonyms as we do in French) . All of=20 this was fascinating: basically, we were saying that ethograms can't=20 always be translated adequately. I ran into that problem once, trying=20 to translate into French one of the ethograms I was using to score=20 aggressive and affiliative behaviour in our wolves. French just did not=20= have the words for some "zones" of the behavioural continua I was=20 trying to cover. It reminded me of Julien (Julian) Greene: an=20 American, member of the Academy Fran=E7aise, and like Beckett, writing = in=20 both French and English. He often pointed out (e.g., "Le langage et son=20= double", "Language and Its Double") that the challenge in English was=20 to choose the right word among tons of options (well reflected in the=20 huge size of English Thesauri compared to French's) and that the=20 challenge of French, was to find the word... Now, I feel I will be labelled a Whorfian... Oh well. The=20 phenomenology of ethology is fascinating. Simon Gadbois From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 20-AUG-2003 12:36:56.87 To: IN%"topnotchdog@mindspring.com" "Barbara Shumannfang" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Hi, =46rom the animal psychology point of view: Roberts, William (1997). Principles of Animal Cognition. McGraw-Hill. =20= Decent book. Vauclair, Jacques (1997?). Animal Cognition: An Introduction to Modern=20= Comparative Psychology I can't remember the editor. Roitblatt (1987). Introduction to Comparative Cognition [this was my=20 introduction to the field]. Roitblatt, Beaver, Terrace (editors) (1987) Animal cognition. Laurence=20= Erlbaum [quite advanced] Many more. =46rom the cognitive ethology perspective: All of Griffin's books. Bekoff, Allen, Burchardt (2002). The Cognitive Animal; Empirical and=20 Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition. MIT Press. Reader, Simon (2003). Animal Innovation. Can't remember the Publisher.=20= Many contributors (by chapters). Ristau, Carolyn (1991).=A0 Cognitive Ethology, The Minds of Other=20 Animal.=A0 Laurence Erlbaum. Many more. I am sure others on the list will have other suggestions. Simon Gadbois On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 12:32 Canada/Atlantic, Barbara=20 Shumannfang wrote: > Hi all, > > =A0 > > I am a dog trainer and behavior consultant, and I=92m finding this=20 > discussion just fascinating and very helpful. If you had to name one=20= > text that would bring up to speed on cognitive psychology those who=20 > may not know about this =9330 year gap,=94 what would it be? > > =A0 > > Many thanks, > > =A0 > > Barbara > > =A0 > > BarbaraShumannfang > > www.TopNotchDog.com > > =A0 > > =A0 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:01 AM > To: rattitude@angelfire.com > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Behaviourist Pride > > =A0 > > > Hi Emily, > My perception on this may be a North American one. Dalhousie=20 > University used to be a bed rock of Canadian Behaviourism, but none of=20= > the Faculty in the area that are or were here (Honig, LoLordo, Dunham,=20= > Mackintosh [now "yours" I believe], Moore) would have labelled=20 > themselves Behaviourists after the cognitive revolution. Even the term=20= > "neo-Behaviourist" is never heard here. I was told that when Hebb=20 > moved back to Dalhousie, when he retired from McGill (late 70's I=20 > believe), commented that the Mind at taken over for good. > I think you may be right though, that for many traditional learning=20 > psychologists (the few hard core ones left), only the vocabulary=20 > changed. But my point is that if you use "memory" (Honig), "attention"=20= > (Mackintosh), etc. you admit that cognitive processes exist, that=20 > "something" between the S and the R is going on. In that sense, it is=20= > not classical Behaviourism. Agree? > > Simon Gadbois > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Psychology/Neuroscience > Dalhousie University > Halifax, NS > Canada, B3H 4J1 > 902-494-8848 > > > On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 10:41 Canada/Atlantic, emily patterson=20= > wrote: > > I am an experimental psychologist -- a post-doctoral researcher in=20 > animal welfare science. > > I could 'out' half a dozen other similar professionals on the list too=20= > ;) -- Behaviourists are not extinct, we just changed our vocabulary. I=20= > can slip 'cognitve' into a sentence with the best of them; I can say=20= > 'memory' when I mean 'performance after a delay'. There is nothing=20 > about being a behaviourist that hobbles me as an animal welfare=20 > scientist. It is only admiting to being a behaviourist that can prove=20= > a hurdle. Thus I learned how to cunningly disguise myself as an=20 > ethologist (swapping my white coat for an anorak). > > I reckon behaviourism must be alive and well, or it wouldn't requires=20= > so much criticism? I also reckon it's time the diversity of philosophy=20= > was appreciated over the pre-postmodern hope of discovering 'the one=20= > true way'. > > Emily > Scottish Agricultural College > > When you say that you are a behaviourist, are you an experimental=20 > psychologist or someone who works in behavioural therapy or training=20= > of animals? > > > Jon > > On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:29 pm, emily patterson wrote: > > =A0 > > At 13:26 18/08/03 -0300, Simon Gadbois wrote: > >Suggesting that behaviourists are still among us is showing how=20 > little some know about >modern experimental psychology. Behaviourists=20= > are not among us. > > > Do you mean this literally? I am a (radical) behaviourist among 'us'=20= > -- and there are a few others on the list that would openly own some=20= > kind of behaviourist philosophy... I am also aware that many of the=20 > so-called evils of behaviourism are 'boogie-man' myths that most=20 > sensible behaviourists could not be accurately accused of, myself=20 > included. It was always a broad group of philosophies that was no more=20= > innately foolish than any other approach -- > > Emily > SAC > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*=20 > http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail > > =A0 > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.=20 > http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 20-AUG-2003 12:49:40.78 To: IN%"topnotchdog@mindspring.com" "Barbara Shumannfang" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride The topics covered by the books I cited previously go from a cognitive interpretation of conditioning (classical or instrumental) to the study of memory and attentional processes in animals (e.g., foraging memory of corvids, chickadees), to problem solving and communication (in cetaceans, pinnipeds, primates, psittacids, etc.). The topic of acculturation and innovation is becoming trendy as well (from primatology mainly), e.g., Reader's book on "Animal Innovation". Tool use in corvids is getting a lot of media attention recently (e.g., http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0808_020808_crow.html) and lab studies are flourishing in this area. Everybody heard of Alex, the Gray parrot (Sarah Shettleworth' project) and the countless "standard" chimps, bonobos and gorillas studied in the past 50 years. Roitblatt and Roberts 's books cover those classical areas very well. SG From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 20-AUG-2003 14:04:38.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride <> For only one text I would say Shettleworth's excellent book, Cognition, Evolution and Behavior. Of course there is not a lot of cognitive research with dogs, though you can find a few interesting things here: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~bosthaus/research.html This article gives references to a study of object permanence and dogs: http://www.akc.org/pubs/gazette/Behavior/0200behavior.cfm And Lindsay references a study of observational learning in puppies on page 272 in his Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training. I say this work is a must have for any dog trainer. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"m.dierendonck@planet.nl" 21-AUG-2003 03:19:40.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Intro and a question Virginia, If you look in the normal literature databases you can find all literature you need. I include a few: Apter, R.C. & Householder, D.D. (1996). Weaning and Weaning Management of Foals: a Review and Some Recommendations. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 16 (10): 428-435. Coleman, R.J., Mathison, G.W. & Burwash, L. (1999). Growth and Condition at Weaning of Extensively Managed Creep- Fed Foals. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 19 (1): 45-50. Cook, C.J. (1999). Patterns of Weaning and Adult Response to Stress. Physiology & Behavior 67 (5): 803-808. Dusek, J. & Skalicky, J. (1990). Some Physiological-Aspects of Reaction of Foals in the 1st 3 Days After Their Weaning. Berliner Und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 103 (10): 348-351. Dusek, J. & Skalicky, J. (1990). Water-Consumption for Drinking of Foals During Weaning. Zivocisna Vyroba 35 (11): 1017-1022. Gibbs, P. G. and Cohen, N. D.Early management of race-bred weanlings and yearlings on farms. JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE 21[6], 279-283. 2001. Heleski, C.R., Shelle, A.C., Nielsen, B.D. & Zanella, A.J. (2002). Influence of Housing on Weanling Horse Behavior and Subsequent Welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78 (2-4): 291-302. Heleski, C. R., Shelle, A. C., Nielsen, B. D., and Zanella, A. J.Influence of housing on weanling horse behavior and subsequent welfare. APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE 78[2-4], 291-302. 2002. Hoffman, R.M., Kronfeld, D.S., Holland, J.L. & Greiwecrandell, K.M. (1995). Preweaning Diet and Stall Weaning Method Influences on Stress- Response in Foals. Journal of Animal Science 73 (10): 2922-2930. Mal, M.E., Mccall, C.A., Cummins, K.A. & Newland, M.C. (1994). Influence of Preweaning Handling Methods on Post-Weaning Learning-Ability and Manageability of Foals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40 (3-4): 187-195. Mccall, C. A., Potter, G. D., and Kreider, J. L.Locomotor, vocal and other behvioural responses to varying methods of weaning foals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14, 27-35. 85. Muhonen, S., Lonn, M., and Rundgren, M.The behaviour of foals before and afer weaning in group. Proceedings of 36th ISAE conference in Egmond aan zee August 6-10, 2002, The Netherlands , 215. 2002. Warren, L.K., Lawrence, L.M., Parker, A.L., Barnes, T. & Griffin, A.S. (1998). The Effect of Weaning Age on Foal Growth and Radiographic Bone Density. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 18 (5): 335-+. Waters, A. J.; Nicol, C. J., and French, N. P. Factors Influencing the Development of Stereotypic and Redirected Behaviours in Young Horses: Findings of a Four Year Prospective Epidemiological Study. Equine Veterinary Journal. 2002 Sep; 34(6):572-579. It is depending about the cirucumstances, but in general the later the weaning and the more gradual the weaning the better. Machteld ========================================= Machteld van Dierendonck, EurProBiol Equid ethologist University: private: Utrecht University Equus research / FIRE Faculty of Veterinary sciences Tolnegenweg 39-41 Dept. Animal & Society / Equine sciences 3776 PT Stroe Ethology & Welfare group The Netherlands Yalelaan 17 / PO box 80168 tel +31-342.401.502 3508 TD Utrecht fax +31-342.475.656 The Netherlands Tel +31-30-253.2446 (Tuesdays) or 2615 (secretary) m.dierendonck@planet.nl -----Original Message----- From: Virginia Bowen [mailto:vbowen@bowenconsulting.net] Sent: maandag 18 augustus 2003 18:54 To: Applied Ethology List Subject: Intro and a question Hi everyone: Want to introduce myself - I just joined last week. I'm looking forward to all the insights this group will have to offer. Does anyone know of any comparative studies on the effect of early versus later weaning of equine foals? On another list I belong to there is a current debate among some long-term breeders about weaning as early as 4 months, or as late as 6 months or later. Personally, it seems to me that later weaning is better - allowing for proper socialization of the equine in the herd - but I've got no experience to back that up, it's just a hunch from what I've read. If anyone knows of any solid studies on that it would be nice to be able to present. I'm also interested because I'm currently putting together the story of a rejected mini donkey foal. His is a sad story and he's become very hostile to humans. I'm trying to unravel the possible causes, and studies on foal rejection and early weaning would be interesting. I'm excited to be here and looking forward to learning from all of you. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." _____ Deze e-mail is door E-mail VirusScanner van Planet Internet gecontroleerd op virussen. Op http://www.planet.nl/evs staat een verwijzing naar de actuele lijst waar op wordt gecontroleerd. From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 21-AUG-2003 05:38:51.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: re info database access Are there any websites that list scientific essays and make them availible in their entirity to the public? Or do they mostly require payment? Access to any free sites would be very much appreciated. From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 21-AUG-2003 06:43:52.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride To add to Vicki's excellent suggestions, the work of Fran=E7ois Dor=E9=20= (Universit=E9 Laval) opened the tradition in the early 80's of cognitive=20= studies of dogs (and cats), and Sylvain Fiset (Universit=E9 de Moncton)=20= more recently. It started with object permanence and expanded from there, often=20 following Piagetian tasks. Very original work. Simon Gadbois On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 17:04 Canada/Atlantic, Vicki Magnus=20 wrote: > < discussion just fascinating and very helpful. If you had to name one > text that would bring up to speed on cognitive psychology those who = may > not know about this "30 year gap," what would it be?>> > > For only one text I would say Shettleworth's excellent book, = Cognition, > Evolution and Behavior. > > Of course there is not a lot of cognitive research with dogs, though=20= > you > can find a few interesting things here: > > http://www.ex.ac.uk/~bosthaus/research.html > > This article gives references to a study of object permanence and = dogs: > > http://www.akc.org/pubs/gazette/Behavior/0200behavior.cfm > > And Lindsay references a study of observational learning in puppies on > page 272 in his Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training. I say > this work is a must have for any dog trainer. > > Vicki Magnus > > > From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 21-AUG-2003 06:51:01.53 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"M.Haskell@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Sorry! My mistake! Yes, Alex is a subject of Irene Pepperberg. My apology! Sara Shettleworth (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~shettle/ sararsch.html#compfoodstorersnonstorers) did plenty of work on avian cognition as well. Thanks to Marie Haskell for pointing this out. Simon Gadbois From: IN%"topnotchdog@mindspring.com" "Barbara Shumannfang" 21-AUG-2003 09:08:05.54 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"M.Haskell@ed.sac.ac.uk" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Many thanks for all these wonderful references! I have already had interested colleagues ask me about them (and this list) so I'll be sure to pass it all along. I appreciate you taking the time to point out the various resources. Barbara Top Notch Dog -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 7:51 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Cc: M.Haskell@ed.sac.ac.uk Subject: Re: Behaviourist Pride Sorry! My mistake! Yes, Alex is a subject of Irene Pepperberg. My apology! Sara Shettleworth (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~shettle/ sararsch.html#compfoodstorersnonstorers) did plenty of work on avian cognition as well. Thanks to Marie Haskell for pointing this out. Simon Gadbois From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 21-AUG-2003 13:27:18.88 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Emily, Simon et al Could you explain to a common mortal ethologist like myself what behaviourism in the sense that you see and engage in it today is, and in what way it differs from the approach taken by other researchers in applied ethology? Anna Olsson Dr Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal behaviour and welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto Portugal From: IN%"todd.trann@usask.ca" "Todd Trann" 21-AUG-2003 15:11:28.76 To: IN%"uofs_computer_lab_mgrs@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Departmental Contacts Hello Contrary to what I had believed, About-US does not contain the information I was looking for in regards to a "departmental contact". Therefore, I would like to ask for this information from you, where appropriate. What I need: - for each college - for each department in that college - who will be entering class instructor data? (name and NSID, phone # if available) Please send this information directly to me. I will then grant these people the permission to view the class instructor assignment page that I demoed in the LMF yesterday. Thank you in advance, Todd ------------------------------------------ Todd Trann, B.E., B.Sc. Information Technology Services University of Saskatchewan Ph. (306) 966-2610 Fax (306) 966-4938 From: IN%"swilkins@idx.com.au" "Susan Wilkins" 21-AUG-2003 16:13:00.37 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Hi Vicki, That all of APDT's focus is Skinnerism..... that may not be quite right . If you seek a little further you'll find others such eminent speakers such as Dr. Patricia McConnell an ethologist from the U of Wisconsin, are guest speakers at every APDT annual conference (as well as others on this list Dr. Suzanne Hetts and so forth).. Dr. MCConnell's field of study is canine lupus familiaris, although I'm sure there are ethologists who would find this area rather peculiar. Recently Dr. MConnell conducted a seminar at the APDT Australia annual conference in Sydney and her first words were that behaviour is not simply 'stimulus/response' (or similar)... > I agree with you that it doesn't have any basis in fact, yet many are > selling books and charging for training based directly on Skinner's > "science". In the absence of information that may be useful to dog trainers, these books will proliferate. Most of the new work being studied seems to be going in circles amongst the academics, and not getting to the people working with dogs. Such as the paper presented recently to a vet conference in Sydney where a veterinary neurobiologist informed the vets present that the olfactory senses of the dog were the most important in that they were processed through the limbic system. Now this information for vets is relatively unimportant, but for trainers it is of great importance, but how do they get to hear about it? Fortunately we were able to arrange for a group of APDT Australia trainers to attend the IVBM conference in Qld, a step in the right direction. >>I tried arguing that the science is being misrepresented, > not to mention the many advances in scientific understanding, "All the information in the world is lost if you are unable to impart it and it is not disseminated to the people that need to know". That's one of my favorite phrases! Perhaps you should have presented your information in a format that included examples of what you were trying to impart. I belong to the APDT USA email list but don't recall any of your posts, perhaps you could email me privately with information. I am founding member of the APDT in Australia and my prime objective was to provide the most up to date educational material to dog trainers, i.e.to those working daily with dogs in training and behavioural modification. One of the most difficult areas has been to bridge the gap between veterinarians and dog trainers, to form a symbiotic relationship. the next step is to access the data circulating in academia and get it out to the dog trainer in layman's language. >> The APDT has a > committee studying the "science" of dog training, and they are stuck in > the distant years of the past century. I do realize it's hard to > believe without seeing it, but I promise this is not hyperbole. Perhaps Vicki, you need to present your ideas in a perhaps less critical format, and look at the reasons why some of "your ideas" may not be accepted as the definitive word. Alternatives need to be proven, OC & CC are still used not only by trainers but by experienced veterinary behaviourists, Dr. Karen Overall et al in behavioural modification techniques, so you are taking on Goliath. If you want your ideas accepted you have to present viable alternatives that trainers can apply successfully. I for one would be very interested in reading them. cheers, Susan Wilkins, Sydney Australia --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 21-AUG-2003 17:22:30.77 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Check the APDT archives for last fall; it was quite a debate on learning theory and whether or not dogs can learn by any method other than CC/OC. I was shocked to realize so many were firmly convinced dogs could only be conditioned and that dogs could NOT learn by any other method. Dr. McConnell is not on the APDT list and her excellent work The Other End of the Leash clearly shows she is not among the "dogs learn only via CC/OC" camp. Karen Pryor, also not on the APDT list, clearly recognizes that animals learn via cognitive functions. Both of these authors were mentioned on the APDT list, didn't make a dent in the believe systems of the Skinner/Bailey adherents. I do agree it's hard to believe, only parallel I can think of is the flat earth society. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"sheila@scallywags.force9.co.uk" "Sheila Harper" 21-AUG-2003 17:31:14.16 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before makingfancifulcriticisms! -----Original Message----- From: Vicki Magnus To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Date: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:15 PM Subject: Re: shock collar; do some homework first before makingfancifulcriticisms! <> I don't know there is much of a pro-shock collar side; I have not seen a post advocating the use of shock collars by either the general public or even a post pushing for the use of shock collars by experienced trainers. It seems to me you have set up a false set of positions, that one must either be working toward the banning of shock collars from the planet or one must be trying to put a shock collar into the hands of every dog owner on earth. In actuality there are positions between those extremes, such as the many posts from experienced trainers pointing out the uses of shock collars as an effective and humane tool enabling the dog to live happily among with his or her human family. Since someone else quoted from The Little Prince I must say I do believe humans are in fact responsible for teaching dogs the skills they need to live among humans. I am very happy for those who train using exclusively positive reinforcement, the only problem I see is when a dog does not respond to the positive reinforcement method of choice the purely positive trainers often chose to blame the dog, "he is unstable/has a bad temperament/poor breeding" or whatever, then kill the dog for the dogs alleged defects rather than try another method. It doesn't take much effort to look into pedagogy and andragogy to see that the learning style of the student impacts on the ability of the student to respond to certain types of teaching. For instance, tactile learners have a very hard time in a traditional classroom. Then there are differences in teaching among ages, and differences in teaching children and adults. I assume many of the list posters teach classes of humans, and imagine most would agree that one size fits all teaching will leave a certainly percentage of students behind. I submit that dogs too have learning styles, and the good trainer, the ethical trainer, must consider what other method might work when the method of choice is not working for the dogs at hand. Vicki Magnus Whilst it's true that there are different learning styles, as a teacher or trainer there are enough methods available for one not to have to revert to the use of such instruments as those collars under discussion - or indeed the misuse of any other equipment. In 22 years of teaching children I have never needed to use a shock collar as I have had other methods at my disposal. In the many years I have been training dogs (and yes, I do have a great number presenting with "aggression" problems) I have never needed to revert to using such methods. In the main where I see these in use trainers are dealing only with the symptoms and not with the underlying cause of the problem behaviour. Why not? Because it takes too much time to find out why the dog / child / animal is behaving in this way. Sheila Harper From: IN%"paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au" "Paul McGreevy" 21-AUG-2003 20:07:18.76 To: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Essays Dear Mary Every year, third year veterinary science students at the University of Sydney undertake a challenge to describe scientific reports published within the previous 12 months that have the potential to improve the welfare of a single animal species. Once the essays have been assessed by two veterinary academics, the best of them are made available on the web. Although some of their content represents the opinions of the authors, the essays chiefly provide a valuable source of abstracted information from applied ethology laboratories around the world. You can find the essays at http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Essays/index.html >Are there any websites that list scientific essays and make them >availible in their entirity to the public? >Or do they mostly require payment? >Access to any free sites would be very much appreciated. > -- Paul McGreevy, BVSc, PhD, MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour Faculty of Veterinary Science Room 206, Gunn Building (B19) Regimental Crescent University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Phone: 61 2 9351 2810 Fax: 61 2 9351 3957 email: paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au web page: http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/pmcgreevy.shtml VEIN page: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/behaviour.html From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 21-AUG-2003 20:09:43.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers <> Of course OC/CC are used in training, the "argument" is whether or not OC/CC is ALL there is to training. I will include two posts I put forth on the APDT training list, and these are not "my" ideas, just the work of many fields of science that have built upon the Behaviorists early work. Here 's a site to a paper on learning theories: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#The%20Basic\ s%20of%20Cognitivism I've excerpted a small section on cognitivism, which briefly discusses some of the holes in the behaviorist theories. Doesn't mean you have discard the entire theory, but not all behavior can be explained by behaviorism. The Basics of Cognitivism As early as the 1920's people began to find limitations in the behaviorist approach to understanding learning. Edward Tolman found that rats used in an experiment appeared to have a mental map of the maze he was using. When he closed off a certain portion of the maze, the rats did not bother to try a certain path because they "knew" that it led to the blocked path. Visually, the rats could not see that the path would result in failure, yet they chose to take a longer route that they knew would be successful (Operant Conditioning [On-line]). Behaviorists were unable to explain certain social behaviors. For example, children do not imitate all behavior that has been reinforced. Furthermore, they may model new behavior days or weeks after their first initial observation without having been reinforced for the behavior. Because of these observations, Bandura and Walters departed from the traditional operant conditioning explanation that the child must perform and receive reinforcement before being able to learn. They stated in their 1963 book, Social Learning and Personality Development, that an individual could model behavior by observing the behavior of another person. This theory lead to Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (Dembo, 1994). ------------- Mind: The day is her, in part. Even as I write this scientists are working on "mapping the brain", actually looking at what goes on in the brain as thoughts are processed. While the current state of mapping the brain has even more fascinating discovers, I'd suggest "The Decade of the Brain" project as a place to start. Here's a link:http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/. For an update on the neuroscience: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/neuroinformatics/index.cfm I watched a very interesting presentation where using an MRI one could see what areas of the brain were being used for various types of activities. Body: Medical science is studying the biological processes which occur with dogs. I'm sure you've seen the study which found that petting your dog lowered your blood pressure. Medical researchers are also looking at the positive effect therapy dogs have on patients. I just give one news story here, lots of alternate sources for this information on the net: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0808_020808_therapydogs.html. Measurable biochemical changes are happening during the interaction of man and dog. All sorts of possibilities out there, fascinating things going on, (measurable, observable things). Cognitive Neuroscience is a real science too. :) Vicki Magnus From: IN%"paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au" "Paul McGreevy" 21-AUG-2003 23:58:59.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Resources Dear Mary, PubMed is a free version of the Medline database - it has some articles in full text attached to it. AGRICOLA can also be used to find scientific papers but you will find the article citation only on the database. ScienceDirect is another one worth checking out. You will find links to these sources and others at: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/databases/community.html If you contact your local Library they can obtain articles for you from anywhere in the world. You can also do this through the Veterinary Education and Information Network http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/ There are some links to free journal archives at: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/elibrary/journal.html Many papers can also be found using other information gateways - there are some listed at: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/search/gateways.html Best wishes, Paul -- Paul McGreevy, BVSc, PhD, MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour Faculty of Veterinary Science Room 206, Gunn Building (B19) Regimental Crescent University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Phone: 61 2 9351 2810 Fax: 61 2 9351 3957 email: paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au web page: http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/pmcgreevy.shtml VEIN page: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/behaviour.html From: IN%"swilkins@idx.com.au" "Susan Wilkins" 22-AUG-2003 00:40:37.86 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Hi Vicki, thanks for the update and clarification .. > Check the APDT archives for last fall; it was quite a debate on learning > theory and whether or not dogs can learn by any method other than CC/OC. > I was shocked to realize so many were firmly convinced dogs could only > be conditioned and that dogs could NOT learn by any other method. That is disheartening. Unfortunately I don't think those who contribute subjects to the list necessarily reflect what the APDT represents nor the policies of the BoD of APDT, as I've found the APDT Annual conference does cover quite advanced subjects and new topics and several ethologists/applied animal behaviourists are guest speakers, including Dr. McConnell and Dr. S. Hetts, so there are people involved in the education and conference organising who do have a grasp of subjects beyond CC/OC (or so it seems...). Perhaps those that write to the list have never attended the annual conference. > Dr. McConnell is not on the APDT list and her excellent work The Other > End of the Leash clearly shows she is not among the "dogs learn only via > CC/OC" camp. Karen Pryor, also not on the APDT list, clearly > recognizes that animals learn via cognitive functions. Both of these > authors were mentioned on the APDT list, didn't make a dent in the > believe systems of the Skinner/Bailey adherents. Well, that is the nature of lists, not always the most informed contribute to them, nor do they necessarily reflect the policies of the association. . I am rather surprised Bailey added to the debate given his late wife co-wrote The Misbehaviour of Organisms, that showed how OC could fall apart. And one only has to read any of Lindsay's work to find out more about constraints on learning. > I do agree it's hard to believe, only parallel I can think of is the flat earth society. That must have been frustrating, just as well I missed the debate at the time! . cheers, Susan Wilkins, Sydney, Australia --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 From: IN%"swilkins@idx.com.au" "Susan Wilkins" 22-AUG-2003 00:54:43.02 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Punishers / reinforcers Hi Vicki, many thanks for those links. I am surprised that your ideas were rejected by the email list, but I would have thought that the APDT BoD and their education committee would be interested. as these could be subjects for an Annual Conference. I will send the links to our APDT list in Australia if that's ok. Thanks, cheers, Susan Wilkins, Sydney Australia > Of course OC/CC are used in training, the "argument" is whether or not > OC/CC is ALL there is to training. I will include two posts I put forth > on the APDT training list, and these are not "my" ideas, just the work > of many fields of science that have built upon the Behaviorists early > work. > Here 's a site to a paper on learning theories: > http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#The%20B asic\ > s%20of%20Cognitivism --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03 From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 22-AUG-2003 05:54:56.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Another thread on cognition In addition to the previous cites, here is more recent thread about cognition in animals. The post that I made to start the thread (number 42888, May 19th): I saw a television show which I believe was titled Miracle Pets. In the show a man walking with his dog fell through the ice on a river. He had a shotgun with him and managed to place it across the broken ice to keep from going under, but could not pull himself out. He was weak from the fall and the water and couldn't call out to his dog. The dog barked and then ran off, found a human, barked and pulled at the human to get his attention, got the human to follow him, then led the human back to the river, where upon the dogs master was rescued. I had seen a similar show where a tractor fell on a man, and the dog performed as above, only in that case the human he went to threw things at him and kicked at him to drive him off, yet finally in the face of the dogs persistence followed the dog and again a human was rescued. Think of what occurred in those events: the dog recognized the human was in trouble, knew that another human was needed for help, went and found another human, managed to get the human to pay attention, managed to get the human to follow the dog, and led the human back to a fallen master. I have zero doubt that those whose construct of learning is strictly OC/CC will find nothing remarkable in the above real life examples, strict stimulus/response, no cognition involved. For those who have room for more than the OC/CC model, here are some books on animal cognition: Advances in Psychology 13; Animal Cognition and Behavior. (1983) Edited by Roger L. Mellgren (Fascinating article on Conditioned Defensive Burying: A Biological and Cognitive Approach to Avoidance Learning) Contemporary animal learning theory. (1980) Anthony Dickenson (Good introduction with examples of weaknesses in Behaviorism) Animal Learning and Cognition. (1985) Charles F. Flahert (See page 347 and 348) Principles of Animal Learning and Motivation. (1982). Roger M. Tarpy (Study of learned helplessness in an experiment with dogs page 338-339) Situated Cognition, Social, Semiotic and Psychological Perspectives. (1997) Edited by David Kirshner and James A. Whitson (How do humans acquire knowledge, very interesting) I just picked the first few books on the shelf, much more research is being done every day. To quote Paul Simon, "these are the days of miracles and wonders". Some of the responses in the thread: 44150 43959 43948 43909 Vicki Magnus From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 22-AUG-2003 08:05:00.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride >Could you explain to a common mortal ethologist like myself what >behaviourism in the sense that you see and engage in it today is, and in >what way it differs from the approach taken by other researchers in applied >ethology? Essentially ethology is a division of biology based on partly on subject (behaviour) and partly on theory (Tinbergen etc), while Behaviourism is a division of psychology based on philosophy (e.f. radical behaviourism as espoused by the late BF Skinner) but also partly on subject as non-behavioural psychologists rarely study animals. To some extent that's apples and pears -- two completely different things. In another sense this difference doesn't matter at all. As a Behaviourist I might I tend to focus on causes of behaviour such as the immediate environment, while an ethologist might give more weight to species specific behaviour. Actually I would hope that most researchers would be well aware of environment and biology, and their interactions -- and be able to discuss this in terms of intervening cognition where this is helpful. Afterall, all of these factors are likely to be important and there is no a priori way of telling which will be most crucial to any particular problem. From a more post modern perspective these are just two overlapping communities of researchers that find it easier to talk 'within discipline' than 'between discipline' even when the topic at hand belongs equally in both domains (e.g. animal behaviour). Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 22-AUG-2003 08:18:53.18 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition I have zero doubt that those whose construct of learning is strictly OC/CC will find nothing remarkable in the above real life examples, strict stimulus/response, no cognition involved. For those who have room for more than the OC/CC model, here are some books on animal cognition: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Statements like this frustrate me as they suggest that behaviourists deny the existance of thought and emotion. Skinner himself devoted long book chapters to each of these phenomena. The difference is that a behaviourist is onclined to see thinking as a behaviour that an animal does, not a possession that it keeps in its mind. i.e. are thoughts something we *do* or something we *have*. Somehow this is consistently interpreted as meaning that behaviourist deny the exitsence of thought rather than merely see them exclusivelt as verbs not nouns. After all, what person could deny the existence of something they do every waking moment of the day -- what kind of idiots would follow such a philosophy? Now there was a historical tendency for behaviourists to focus (perhaps too much) on the immediate environment when this dogs behaviour might owe more to its innate behaviours, early learning and ability to generalise -- but the idea that an animals' abilities to do clever things is a fatal blow to the behavioural approach seems unduly patronising to sophisticated and useful philosophy -- akin to me saying that the existence of reflexes proves the inadequacy of cognitive science. Emily (again) _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 22-AUG-2003 09:20:04.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition <> The audience for that was a group of dog trainers who firmly believe that dogs learn ONLY via CC/OC, life for dogs is a series of offering random behaviors then keeping the ones that "work" for the dog. If there is any thinking or cognition (mentalism), it can not be directly observed and thus it has no impact on training. A corollary to this is that training a chicken is training a dog is training a cat, conditioning is conditioning, etc. I can appreciate your frustration, frustrates me too, and worse frustrates many a dog many a dog as well. Radical Behaviorism can not explain all behavior, and as I have hopefully pointed out in the citations in previous posts scientific inquiry as well as technology has come a long way since Skinner. I would imagine there are few Radical Behaviorists around the universities, but many dog trainers attend chicken training seminars, which is all very good to learn and appreciate operant conditioning, but perhaps is not the complete sum and substance of the knowledge and experience one needs to train other animals. There is a very well written book, Handbook of Behaviorism, edited by William O'Donohue and Richard Kitchener, that does an outstanding job of tracing the development of Behaviorism over the years. It's a wonderful read of the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. I think there is a wonderful little insight on page 171: Skinner's radical behaviorist project for a scientific epistemology might well be epitomized by remarks that in fact inspired and shaped it. Bertrand Russell(1927) remarks: "The word 'knowledge', like the word 'memory', is avoided by the behaviorist. Nevertheless, there is a phenomenon commonly called 'knowledge' which is tested behavioristically in examinations. I want to consider this phenomenon . . . with a view to deciding whether there is anything in it that the behaviorist cannot deal with adequately.(p 88)" Skinner (1979 p. 10) acknowledges reading and being inspired by the book in which this quotation appears. The quotation can serve as a brief characterization of both the promise and the problems of radical behaviorist epistemology as well as the tensions between radical behaviorism and traditional views of knowledge and knowing. These tensions emerge along several dimensions. And of course that is not to even consider the idea of a whether truly neutral observation is easily done, or of perception problems or gestalt theory, etc. There is a work Punished by Rewards, (1999) by Alfie Kohn which has an interesting interview between the author and B.F. Skinner in appendix A. Kohn theorizes that "Skinnerian theory basically codified and bestows solemn scientific names on something familiar to all of us: 'Do this and you'll get that' will lead an organism to do 'this' again (5). Kohn then examines how radical behaviorist ideas have been detrimental to the school systems. Always interesting to see how the theories work outside of the university. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"santa@kersur.net" "Gwenyth Santagate" 22-AUG-2003 09:33:06.66 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition I've been skimming many of these posts basically because I didn't want to read all the personal attacks. However, in the bits and pieces I've read there's been one thought that has been crossing my mind each and every time ... that is, put a behaviorist or an egotist in a small, enclosed area with a horse and the human will find out more about "conditioned" behaviors vs. cognition, thinking and emotions than with any other animal I know. That is, as long as the person has a semi-opened mind. *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: Vicki Magnus [mailto:vickim@csmd.edu] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:20 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Another thread on cognition <> I wasn't discounting Behaviorist theory, just responding to those saying "show me one thing dogs do that isn't SOLEY the result of CC/OC. What is the OC explanation for the behaviors? Oh, just that the dog ramdomly "offered behaviors" and they were somehow "reinforced". Works such as The Culture Clash, (whose message there are NOT legion numbers of unstable dogs is completely ignored), were a reaction to the Disney myth that dogs understand English and that only bad dogs do bad things. Like many reactions the pendulum simply swung to the other extreme. If you're interested in reading this for yourself email me at vickim@csmd.edu and I will ask the list master if you might be given permission to do so. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 22-AUG-2003 09:53:42.19 To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 16:26 Canada/Atlantic, Anna Olsson wrote: > Emily, Simon et al > > Could you explain to a common mortal ethologist like myself what > behaviourism in the sense that you see and engage in it today is, and > in > what way it differs from the approach taken by other researchers in > applied > ethology? > > Anna Olsson > > Dr Anna Olsson > Postdoctoral research fellow > Animal behaviour and welfare - Bioethics > > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > 4150-180 Porto > Portugal > > > Hi, I am not a Behaviourist (Skinnerian, Hullian or other) and was actually surprised to see so claims that Behaviourists were still very present in academia; it is not my experience, at least on this side of the Atlantic. Cognitivism seem to have taken over in psychology departments and behavioural biology departments. With the exceptions mentioned by other members of the list. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology & animal behaviour. Behaviour of wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 22-AUG-2003 10:55:43.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Pack theory There was some dicussion about wolves and dominance, finally where I'd routed this: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/alstat/alstat.htm Vicki Magnus From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 22-AUG-2003 10:59:32.81 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Thank you for this explanation. I'm learning so much so quickly in this group. Very glad I joined! So which "label" would be most accurate in communicating with other professionals to describe the approach taking all factors into account? Wholistic ethologist? ;-) Sounds to me a lot like my immediately previous career, computer repair/technician. When you say "I'm a computer tech" programmers and some other computer folk interpret you as having said "I repair hardware." OTOH, laypeople interpret it as "I repair software." The reality is "I repair both hardware and software," but all techs are going to skew toward whichever of the two they are most comfortable with. Meaning, when faced with a new, previously unexperienced problem, some will look immediately to software, while others will pop open the case right away. Both will solve the problem eventually, and approximately half the time they will nail the problem on the first try. They just approach from different angles. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: emily patterson [mailto:rattitude2@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 7:05 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Behaviourist Pride >Could you explain to a common mortal ethologist like myself what >behaviourism in the sense that you see and engage in it today is, and >in what way it differs from the approach taken by other researchers in >applied ethology? Essentially ethology is a division of biology based on partly on subject (behaviour) and partly on theory (Tinbergen etc), while Behaviourism is a division of psychology based on philosophy (e.f. radical behaviourism as espoused by the late BF Skinner) but also partly on subject as non-behavioural psychologists rarely study animals. To some extent that's apples and pears -- two completely different things. In another sense this difference doesn't matter at all. As a Behaviourist I might I tend to focus on causes of behaviour such as the immediate environment, while an ethologist might give more weight to species specific behaviour. Actually I would hope that most researchers would be well aware of environment and biology, and their interactions -- and be able to discuss this in terms of intervening cognition where this is helpful. Afterall, all of these factors are likely to be important and there is no a priori way of telling which will be most crucial to any particular problem. >From a more post modern perspective these are just two overlapping communities of researchers that find it easier to talk 'within discipline' than 'between discipline' even when the topic at hand belongs equally in both domains (e.g. animal behaviour). Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 22-AUG-2003 12:10:28.87 To: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Hi. How about "Eclectic animal behaviour specialist" :-) I don't know, the new trend now is to avoid the labels: animal psychologist, comparative psychologist, ethologist, behavioural ecologist, sociobiologist and to simply use very generic terms. Most textbooks in animal behaviour are labelled with "Animal Behaviour" (e.g., Alcock; Drickamer et al; Goodenough et al; Papini; etc.), unless they specifically focus on the techniques and traditional approaches of one field. I usually label my self "ethologist" and/or "animal psychologist" as I have both backgrounds and the animal behaviour people in my department (psychology) are mostly biologists... (showing, I believe, the eclectism of the field). I believe that "ethology" defines what I do best as I do a lot of direct observations of behaviour, have an interest in natural action sequences and the physiological substrates, and do field behavioural endocrinology; a clear focus in the "proximate" causes or factors of behaviour as opposed to behavioural ecologists that are more focussed on the "ultimate" causes or factors (evolution, adaptive function). I think I told the story before that when I go to wolf conferences, you can identify two camps: the psychologists/ethologists, clearly focussed on social behaviour (interactions), developmental studies, physiological correlated and used to direct, systematic observations in the field or semi-captivity and the behavioural ecologists/sociobiologists, rarely in close proximity to wolves unless they capture them to collar them and follow their movements by satellite. It is, obviously, an oversimplification of the differences, but they often divide the conference in two distinct groups. Simon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology & animal behaviour. Behaviour of wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Friday, Aug 22, 2003, at 13:57 Canada/Atlantic, Virginia Bowen wrote: > Thank you for this explanation. I'm learning so much so quickly in > this > group. Very glad I joined! > > So which "label" would be most accurate in communicating with other > professionals to describe the approach taking all factors into account? > Wholistic ethologist? ;-) > > Sounds to me a lot like my immediately previous career, computer > repair/technician. When you say "I'm a computer tech" programmers and > some other computer folk interpret you as having said "I repair > hardware." OTOH, laypeople interpret it as "I repair software." The > reality is "I repair both hardware and software," but all techs are > going to skew toward whichever of the two they are most comfortable > with. Meaning, when faced with a new, previously unexperienced > problem, > some will look immediately to software, while others will pop open the > case right away. Both will solve the problem eventually, and > approximately half the time they will nail the problem on the first > try. > They just approach from different angles. > > > Virginia > Murrieta, CA From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 22-AUG-2003 12:27:54.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition >The audience for that was a group of dog trainers who firmly believe >that dogs learn ONLY via CC/OC, I consider conditioning and learning to be synonyms. Thus 'learning is only conditioning' seems a truism. Thinking *cannot* be directly observed -- only behaviours associated with thinking. And no behaviourist that I have studied or worked with has ever said thinking as no impact on learning. Thinking, like any behaviour, may act as a stimulus, a behaviour or a consequence within the learning situation. The behaviourist position is that thinking has no special place -- but is a behaviour like barking, tachycardia or feeling sad, each of which may also serve as S, B or C. life for dogs is a series of offering >random behaviors then keeping the ones that "work" for the dog. If Just as simple variation and selection can lead to the evolution of all creatures on this planet, cannot variation and selection (learning) lead to the complex and subtle personalities of ourselves and our animals. I feel no need for a God-the-creator to make our ecosystems any more than a Mind-our-creator to be behind my thoughts. This is of course and individual matter of belief. But my very materialist philosophy does not seem to handicap me as a researcher into, amongst others things, animal emotion and welfare -- and why should it? >there is any thinking or cognition (mentalism), it can not be directly >observed and thus it has no impact on training. A corollary to this is No. Skinner said we *must* study thought and emotion, and that indeed this was very important -- a position on which he differed from Watson. Skinner was merely extremely critical about the techniques we have for doing this. A degree of skepticism is still called for when you look at how easily people accept, for example, that surveys of verbal attitudes reflect actual behaviour. >that training a chicken is training a dog is training a cat, >conditioning is conditioning, etc. I can appreciate your frustration, >frustrates me too, and worse frustrates many a dog many a dog as well. Having work very closely with chickens I hope you are not suggesting they are necessarily lower on some hierarchy than dogs? Yes Skinner did tend to emphasis the degree to which animals are equivalent, unlike cognitive psychologist who often defend humans as having a special elite status. Post-Skinnerian behaviourists have moved to a more balanced approach to species-specific behaviour. It is an evolving field. >Radical Behaviorism can not explain all behavior, and as I have >hopefully pointed out in the citations in previous posts scientific >inquiry as well as technology has come a long way since Skinner. I believe it can, to that extent that any approach can. Certainly I do not find myself bemused by animal behaviour and more or less often than my non-behaviourist friends... Behaviourism has also progressed. Although apparently the contemporary Behaviourists are nowhere near as well know as those no longer with us. >which is all very good to learn and appreciate operant conditioning, but >perhaps is not the complete sum and substance of the knowledge and >experience one needs to train other animals. Animal training is possible for someone whose knowledge begins and ends with operant conditioning, and one how knows nothing at all about this approach. Animal training is an application and behaviourism is a philosophy -- one can mix and match applications and philosophies to an enormous degree. In the end each individual... ummm, tends to go with those startegies that bring them rewarding consequences. I know a fair number of trainers who find operant approaches more than sufficient -- others are better suited to other perspectives. Skinner siad 'there are as many sciences as scientists'. No doubt the same could and should be said of trainers and trainings methods. We should all thoughtfully develop the approach that suits us best -- and perhaps avoid openly disdaining the approaches chosen by others. >"The word 'knowledge', like the word 'memory', is avoided by the >behaviorist. Nevertheless, there is a phenomenon commonly called >'knowledge' which is tested behavioristically in examinations. Doesn't this make my point that Behaviourists study those thing that we now call cognitions, just without using that exact word... Hence the existence of the things we now call cognitions can in no way be used as evidence that the behavioural philosophy is defunct. Behaviourism will never again dominate the mainstream, but it exists as part of the spectrum of possible approaches to animal behaviour -- including the study of what we now called thought, emotion, motivation, well-being etc. The cognitive sciences have done a valuable thing in reclaiming a more intuitive vocabulary for the study of these behaviours, but to my mind we have sacrificed a degree of precision in our terms and clarity in our thinking as part of this trade-off. Anyway, my point is that some of us in the Behaviourist minority *do* study the private experiences of animals, and tend to insist on objecting when some one suggests that this is somehow impossible. As a card carrying Behaviourist I feel well-placed to say something about how restrictive the behaviourist approach is -- or *isn't* -- for a person who wants to acknowledge, study and improve the subjective experience of animals . Honesty I will try and not subject the whole list to any more of my defenses of my behaviourism... but the belittling of all behaviourists with claims that we cannot apprecaite of work with the inner-life aspect of animals is an inaccurate prejudice that people get away with only because it is safe and fashionable to belittle Behaviourism, without necessarily understanding it. Emily (yet again) _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 22-AUG-2003 12:38:22.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition I haven't noticed any personal attacks, just a lot of anti-Behaviourist prejudice where egotist and Behaviouriost are equated. I will make one last attempt at getting my point across. I work with large pigs in small spaces I study animal emotion I am a behaviourist Are you beginning to understand why I object to the statement 'Behaviourists think animals don't have emotions' ? I am a behaviourist -- I know people and other animals have emotions -- I have devoted my life to improving animal welfare and was inspired to do so by two lecturers, both behaviourists. I solemnly swear that I shall make any further rebuttals off list. Dr E. G. Patterson-Kane Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh >From: Gwenyth Santagate >To: Vicki Magnus , applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >Subject: RE: Another thread on cognition >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:46:17 -0400 > >I've been skimming many of these posts basically because I didn't want to >read all the personal attacks. However, in the bits and pieces I've read >there's been one thought that has been crossing my mind each and every time >... that is, put a behaviorist or an egotist in a small, enclosed area with >a horse and the human will find out more about "conditioned" behaviors vs. >cognition, thinking and emotions than with any other animal I know. That >is, as long as the person has a semi-opened mind. > >*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: Vicki Magnus [mailto:vickim@csmd.edu] >Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:20 AM >To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >Subject: Re: Another thread on cognition > > ><deny the existence of thought and emotion. Skinner himself devoted long >book chapters to each of these phenomena. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 22-AUG-2003 13:24:45.83 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: RE: Behaviourist Pride Dear All I was trained as an ethologist, and as the term 'behaviourist' has a formal meaning, which doesn't fit me, I have never called myself that and feel uncomfortable when someone else does so. I use the term 'behaviouralist', but as I've rarely seen it elsewhere I'm not sure if I invented it or not! In explaining the difference between ethology and behaviourism to students, I used to show them the following table (tongue in cheek, I hasten to add): Respectable Unrespectable Behaviouralist Behaviourist Naturalist Naturist For people whose first language isn't English, it may be necessary to explain that 'naturist' is another term for nudist. Best wishes Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org From: IN%"santa@kersur.net" "Gwenyth Santagate" 22-AUG-2003 13:28:13.52 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition OK, what would be the proper "label", if it were, for someone who studies equine behavior AND emotions then attempts to teach others how to work with it??? I use the title "Equine Behavioral Specialist" for lack of anything else. Is there a more apropos label/term/title? *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: emily patterson [mailto:rattitude2@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:38 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Another thread on cognition I haven't noticed any personal attacks, just a lot of anti-Behaviourist prejudice where egotist and Behaviouriost are equated. I will make one last attempt at getting my point across. I work with large pigs in small spaces I study animal emotion I am a behaviourist Are you beginning to understand why I object to the statement 'Behaviourists think animals don't have emotions' ? I am a behaviourist -- I know people and other animals have emotions -- I have devoted my life to improving animal welfare and was inspired to do so by two lecturers, both behaviourists. I solemnly swear that I shall make any further rebuttals off list. Dr E. G. Patterson-Kane Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh >From: Gwenyth Santagate >To: Vicki Magnus , applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >Subject: RE: Another thread on cognition >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:46:17 -0400 > >I've been skimming many of these posts basically because I didn't want to >read all the personal attacks. However, in the bits and pieces I've read >there's been one thought that has been crossing my mind each and every time >... that is, put a behaviorist or an egotist in a small, enclosed area with >a horse and the human will find out more about "conditioned" behaviors vs. >cognition, thinking and emotions than with any other animal I know. That >is, as long as the person has a semi-opened mind. > >*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: Vicki Magnus [mailto:vickim@csmd.edu] >Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:20 AM >To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >Subject: Re: Another thread on cognition > > ><deny the existence of thought and emotion. Skinner himself devoted long >book chapters to each of these phenomena. _________________________________________________________________ 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" 22-AUG-2003 15:36:43.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition <> We agree and disagree; I do see areas where Radical Behaviorism can not explain behavior. I did not intend to malign current Behaviorists theories which I agree have progressed far beyond the "black box". In fact I didn't intend to malign Skinner, he contributed greatly to science and we are all in his debt. I was reacting to the belief that the study of learning ended with Skinner's applications of operant conditioning, and the belief that cognitive sciences have no application to learning. As for chickens and dogs, I wasn't making a moral judgement, just pointing out that conditioning chickens does not necessarily translate into an ability to teach dogs. As the Brelands pointed out over 40 years ago: All this, of course, is not to disparage the use of conditioning techniques, but is intended as a demonstration that there are definite weaknesses in the philosophy underlying these techniques. The pointing out of such weaknesses should make possible a worthwhile revision in behavior theory. and In spite of our early successes with the application of behavioristically oriented conditioning theory, we readily admit now that ethological facts and attitudes in recent years have done more to advance our practical control of animal behavior than recent reports from American "learning labs." http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Breland/misbehavior.htm Vicki Magnus From: IN%"ENeunteufel@gc.cuny.edu" "Neunteufel, Evelyn" 22-AUG-2003 15:47:33.09 To: IN%"rattitude2@hotmail.com" "'emily patterson '", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca '" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition Thank you for your explanatory email, Emily. After reading so many of the recent emails, I was beginning to wonder whether I had any real understanding of behaviorism, since so many of the comments contradicted my beliefs of what "behaviorism" is. Your email confirmed that I do comprehend it correctly. I have had several undergraduate psychology courses, an ethology course (in Vienna), 2 graduate animal behavior courses and several recent cognition courses (in New York). I have therefore had much exposure to comments on behaviorism. One of the cognition courses was taught by a young behaviorist named Bertram Ploog. (I believe his father is an ethologist.) Betram Ploog did a wonderfully precise experiment, in which he showed that pigeons have a certain expectation of the type of reward they are to receive. (Many would probably expect a behaviorist to study only "responses", not "expectations".) I admire his clear-cut methodology with which he was able to demonstrate something as elusive as an "expectation". (Of course the "expectation" was shown in the response to a stimulus, as is always the case with behaviorist experiments.) As a graduate student of biology (ecology, evolution and behavior program), I am interested in cognition, but I don't consider myself a behaviorist. Neither am I a neuroscientist or an ecologist. (I have noticed that some, who study cognition, call themselves behavioral ecologists, but I'm not sure why "ecologist." I still have to decide what to call myself.) Yet, I believe behaviorism, like all these fields, has important contributions to make to the study of behavior. I do admire the precision of behaviorist experiments and I hope these will continue to contribute so much knowledge to animal behavior. Evelyn Neunteufel -----Original Message----- From: emily patterson To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: 8/22/2003 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Another thread on cognition >The audience for that was a group of dog trainers who firmly believe >that dogs learn ONLY via CC/OC, I consider conditioning and learning to be synonyms. Thus 'learning is only conditioning' seems a truism. Thinking *cannot* be directly observed -- only behaviours associated with thinking. And no behaviourist that I have studied or worked with has ever said thinking as no impact on learning. Thinking, like any behaviour, may act as a stimulus, a behaviour or a consequence within the learning situation. The behaviourist position is that thinking has no special place -- but is a behaviour like barking, tachycardia or feeling sad, each of which may also serve as S, B or C. life for dogs is a series of offering >random behaviors then keeping the ones that "work" for the dog. If Just as simple variation and selection can lead to the evolution of all creatures on this planet, cannot variation and selection (learning) lead to the complex and subtle personalities of ourselves and our animals. I feel no need for a God-the-creator to make our ecosystems any more than a Mind-our-creator to be behind my thoughts. This is of course and individual matter of belief. But my very materialist philosophy does not seem to handicap me as a researcher into, amongst others things, animal emotion and welfare -- and why should it? >there is any thinking or cognition (mentalism), it can not be directly >observed and thus it has no impact on training. A corollary to this is No. Skinner said we *must* study thought and emotion, and that indeed this was very important -- a position on which he differed from Watson. Skinner was merely extremely critical about the techniques we have for doing this. A degree of skepticism is still called for when you look at how easily people accept, for example, that surveys of verbal attitudes reflect actual behaviour. >that training a chicken is training a dog is training a cat, >conditioning is conditioning, etc. I can appreciate your frustration, >frustrates me too, and worse frustrates many a dog many a dog as well. Having work very closely with chickens I hope you are not suggesting they are necessarily lower on some hierarchy than dogs? Yes Skinner did tend to emphasis the degree to which animals are equivalent, unlike cognitive psychologist who often defend humans as having a special elite status. Post-Skinnerian behaviourists have moved to a more balanced approach to species-specific behaviour. It is an evolving field. >Radical Behaviorism can not explain all behavior, and as I have >hopefully pointed out in the citations in previous posts scientific >inquiry as well as technology has come a long way since Skinner. I believe it can, to that extent that any approach can. Certainly I do not find myself bemused by animal behaviour and more or less often than my non-behaviourist friends... Behaviourism has also progressed. Although apparently the contemporary Behaviourists are nowhere near as well know as those no longer with us. >which is all very good to learn and appreciate operant conditioning, but >perhaps is not the complete sum and substance of the knowledge and >experience one needs to train other animals. Animal training is possible for someone whose knowledge begins and ends with operant conditioning, and one how knows nothing at all about this approach. Animal training is an application and behaviourism is a philosophy -- one can mix and match applications and philosophies to an enormous degree. In the end each individual... ummm, tends to go with those startegies that bring them rewarding consequences. I know a fair number of trainers who find operant approaches more than sufficient -- others are better suited to other perspectives. Skinner siad 'there are as many sciences as scientists'. No doubt the same could and should be said of trainers and trainings methods. We should all thoughtfully develop the approach that suits us best -- and perhaps avoid openly disdaining the approaches chosen by others. >"The word 'knowledge', like the word 'memory', is avoided by the >behaviorist. Nevertheless, there is a phenomenon commonly called >'knowledge' which is tested behavioristically in examinations. Doesn't this make my point that Behaviourists study those thing that we now call cognitions, just without using that exact word... Hence the existence of the things we now call cognitions can in no way be used as evidence that the behavioural philosophy is defunct. Behaviourism will never again dominate the mainstream, but it exists as part of the spectrum of possible approaches to animal behaviour -- including the study of what we now called thought, emotion, motivation, well-being etc. The cognitive sciences have done a valuable thing in reclaiming a more intuitive vocabulary for the study of these behaviours, but to my mind we have sacrificed a degree of precision in our terms and clarity in our thinking as part of this trade-off. Anyway, my point is that some of us in the Behaviourist minority *do* study the private experiences of animals, and tend to insist on objecting when some one suggests that this is somehow impossible. As a card carrying Behaviourist I feel well-placed to say something about how restrictive the behaviourist approach is -- or *isn't* -- for a person who wants to acknowledge, study and improve the subjective experience of animals . Honesty I will try and not subject the whole list to any more of my defenses of my behaviourism... but the belittling of all behaviourists with claims that we cannot apprecaite of work with the inner-life aspect of animals is an inaccurate prejudice that people get away with only because it is safe and fashionable to belittle Behaviourism, without necessarily understanding it. Emily (yet again) _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -----Original Message----- From: emily patterson To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: 8/22/2003 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Another thread on cognition >The audience for that was a group of dog trainers who firmly believe >that dogs learn ONLY via CC/OC, I consider conditioning and learning to be synonyms. Thus 'learning is only conditioning' seems a truism. Thinking *cannot* be directly observed -- only behaviours associated with thinking. And no behaviourist that I have studied or worked with has ever said thinking as no impact on learning. Thinking, like any behaviour, may act as a stimulus, a behaviour or a consequence within the learning situation. The behaviourist position is that thinking has no special place -- but is a behaviour like barking, tachycardia or feeling sad, each of which may also serve as S, B or C. life for dogs is a series of offering >random behaviors then keeping the ones that "work" for the dog. If Just as simple variation and selection can lead to the evolution of all creatures on this planet, cannot variation and selection (learning) lead to the complex and subtle personalities of ourselves and our animals. I feel no need for a God-the-creator to make our ecosystems any more than a Mind-our-creator to be behind my thoughts. This is of course and individual matter of belief. But my very materialist philosophy does not seem to handicap me as a researcher into, amongst others things, animal emotion and welfare -- and why should it? >there is any thinking or cognition (mentalism), it can not be directly >observed and thus it has no impact on training. A corollary to this is No. Skinner said we *must* study thought and emotion, and that indeed this was very important -- a position on which he differed from Watson. Skinner was merely extremely critical about the techniques we have for doing this. A degree of skepticism is still called for when you look at how easily people accept, for example, that surveys of verbal attitudes reflect actual behaviour. >that training a chicken is training a dog is training a cat, >conditioning is conditioning, etc. I can appreciate your frustration, >frustrates me too, and worse frustrates many a dog many a dog as well. Having work very closely with chickens I hope you are not suggesting they are necessarily lower on some hierarchy than dogs? Yes Skinner did tend to emphasis the degree to which animals are equivalent, unlike cognitive psychologist who often defend humans as having a special elite status. Post-Skinnerian behaviourists have moved to a more balanced approach to species-specific behaviour. It is an evolving field. >Radical Behaviorism can not explain all behavior, and as I have >hopefully pointed out in the citations in previous posts scientific >inquiry as well as technology has come a long way since Skinner. I believe it can, to that extent that any approach can. Certainly I do not find myself bemused by animal behaviour and more or less often than my non-behaviourist friends... Behaviourism has also progressed. Although apparently the contemporary Behaviourists are nowhere near as well know as those no longer with us. >which is all very good to learn and appreciate operant conditioning, but >perhaps is not the complete sum and substance of the knowledge and >experience one needs to train other animals. Animal training is possible for someone whose knowledge begins and ends with operant conditioning, and one how knows nothing at all about this approach. Animal training is an application and behaviourism is a philosophy -- one can mix and match applications and philosophies to an enormous degree. In the end each individual... ummm, tends to go with those startegies that bring them rewarding consequences. I know a fair number of trainers who find operant approaches more than sufficient -- others are better suited to other perspectives. Skinner siad 'there are as many sciences as scientists'. No doubt the same could and should be said of trainers and trainings methods. We should all thoughtfully develop the approach that suits us best -- and perhaps avoid openly disdaining the approaches chosen by others. >"The word 'knowledge', like the word 'memory', is avoided by the >behaviorist. Nevertheless, there is a phenomenon commonly called >'knowledge' which is tested behavioristically in examinations. Doesn't this make my point that Behaviourists study those thing that we now call cognitions, just without using that exact word... Hence the existence of the things we now call cognitions can in no way be used as evidence that the behavioural philosophy is defunct. Behaviourism will never again dominate the mainstream, but it exists as part of the spectrum of possible approaches to animal behaviour -- including the study of what we now called thought, emotion, motivation, well-being etc. The cognitive sciences have done a valuable thing in reclaiming a more intuitive vocabulary for the study of these behaviours, but to my mind we have sacrificed a degree of precision in our terms and clarity in our thinking as part of this trade-off. Anyway, my point is that some of us in the Behaviourist minority *do* study the private experiences of animals, and tend to insist on objecting when some one suggests that this is somehow impossible. As a card carrying Behaviourist I feel well-placed to say something about how restrictive the behaviourist approach is -- or *isn't* -- for a person who wants to acknowledge, study and improve the subjective experience of animals . Honesty I will try and not subject the whole list to any more of my defenses of my behaviourism... but the belittling of all behaviourists with claims that we cannot apprecaite of work with the inner-life aspect of animals is an inaccurate prejudice that people get away with only because it is safe and fashionable to belittle Behaviourism, without necessarily understanding it. Emily (yet again) _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 22-AUG-2003 15:55:15.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: OT and a bit techie (was Re: Some requests) Francis Burton wrote: > > At 22:22 18/08/03 -0700, John Burchard wrote: > >I have three requests to make of list members: > > All requests seconded! > > When I pressed REPLY just now, the reply address was yours, not the > list's (necessitating an annoying flurry of cuts and pastes to > rearrange the addresses). However, this was because my email client > used the "From:" field, not the "Reply-To:" field, which was absent. > Other mailing lists -- such as Andy Beck's Equine Behavior list -- > are set up to reply to the list rather than the sender, by the list > adding its own "Reply-To:" field. I believe this is the more sensible > default. Perhaps Joseph Stookey could look into the possibility of > getting the default for Applied Ethology changed? > > (Joe - This would be greatly appreciated. If it's not possible, or too > much hassle, it's no biggie - I can live with it.) Joe has just provided a to me completely convincing explanation for having the default the way it is. I am still puzzled, however, because when I reply to an Applied Ethology message the addressee does not *always* come up as the person who sent the message. Sometimes it comes up as the list address. It may be a picayune point, but I'd be interested to know why that is. BTW I do *not* have any "Reply-to:" set on my own E-mail client, to make things easier for members of the other 20 or so lists in which I am involved. > >1. If you are going to send a message to the list as well as privately to > >several list members, please put the list address as the "To:" address, and the > >private addresses as "cc:". Then anyone who uses filters to control the > >distribution of messages (which I presume is most of us) will see those messages > >going into the proper folder. As it is, I have to move nearly 40 messages each > >day from my private Inbox to the Applied Ethology folder. > > It may be that you can tell your email client to filter based on > "cc:" field as well. For example, in Eudora I have the rule: Any > header containing "applied-ethology" goes into the app-eth folder. Yes, of course I can do that. Filters are applied one at a time in order, going down a list until the program encounters a filter that fits the mail header. With 20 or so lists, juggling the filters and their correct sequence can get a bit tricky . Especially when you have three lists, and three folders, for different levels within the same organization - the general membership, the Board of Directors and the Officers . In my E-mail software (Netscape) I have to specify each header field separately. No problem, except that it makes for an unwieldy array of filters ... > >2. Please post in plain text and not in HTML. I have a perfectly HTML-capable > >mail system, but in order to reply in plain text, which I do out of courtesy to > >other list members and as a matter of principle, I have to copy and paste the > >content of your message into my reply, which is a PITA. It is an even greater > >PITA to switch back and forth between the plain text editor and the HTML editor, > >according to the format (or lack thereof) of each incoming message. > > Yes, it is. Those who sympathize with this argument and wish to > change but don't know how to go about it can find instructions at: > http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Thank you, I had forgotten that reference! John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 22-AUG-2003 16:10:28.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Electrophysiological devices Simon Gadbois wrote: > > Hi all, > Fresh new topic: > Years ago, at the 1997 International Neuroscience Conference in New Orleans, a few companies were show-casing electrophysiological devices to record autonomic nervous system activity (psychophysiological measures such as GSR, heart rate, etc.). The main issue with some of these very unobtrusive devices (often quite small skin implants) was the range. Most of them (all?) were designed to transmit data from animal to computer in a laboratory setting. I was wondering if any of you knew of new technologies allowing for a better range, not necessarily huge distances, but a few hundred feet. The transmission would also have to be done from outdoors to indoors (ideally). I will be very interested to see what comes out of this. Apart from some work by Taylor et al., who fitted racing Greyhounds with an automated blood-sampling device, I don't know of studies of key physiological parameters while the animals were actually engaged in some of the more extreme forms of physical activity. I am very interested in what happens with the long-distance coursing hounds (e.g. Salukis) who push the envelope of the physiologically possible both farther and in a different direction from what Greyhounds do. Limitations so far have been 1) I am unwilling to subject my hounds to procedures as invasive as those used by Taylor et al., which involved among other things the surgical relocation of a carotid artery, 2) these activities are carried out in the open air, in locations remote from any building and often remote from vehicles as well, so any equipment used must be backpack-portable, and 3) any telemetry device would have to be able to transmit data over distances of at least one mile, preferably more. Telemetry transmitters, weighing less than 10 grams and with a range of several miles, have been in routine use for locating falcons, etc., for decades now. These devices normally provide only location information (via a directional receiver) but in principle the encoding of any kind of sensor information for transmission over that kind of channel (with more sophisticated receiving equipment, to be sure) should present no insoluble problems. Designing sensors which will not be interfered with by the animal might be the most difficult part of the exercise. We are currently using falcon-style location transmitters mounted over the shoulders on a snug fitting Lycra jacket worn by hounds when coursing. This does not bother the animals at all and even when left to their own devices for several hours, as may occasionally happen, they don't interfere with the transmitters. Seems to me this would be a likely avenue to pursue for the telemetric transmission of data from sensors on or in the animal. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 22-AUG-2003 17:20:15.92 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: differing status (hierarchies) within gender groups of canids. Several days ago, a number of posts were relayed concerning separate status relationships within the two sexes in established groups of dogs. This concept has been thrown around for a while. However (although I may have missed it), does anyone have reference for this concept in dogs or wild canids. Thanks, 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" 22-AUG-2003 18:38:12.61 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Simon Hi Simon, please do not think of unsubscribing. I am on this list to benefit from people like you. I too am big enough to occasionally agree to disagree; essential for learning and progress. It was suggested to me recently by an esteemed Veterinary Behaviour Specialist (also on this list) that the medium of Email loses the non-verbal cues which would contextualize and defuse the written communication. Especially so given that most of us have never met the others hence have limited ways of interpreting their Emails.=20 I have just arrived back from the 4th International Veterinary Behaviour Conference hosted nearby at Caloundra. WOW! The standard of presentations was sky high. The next conference is scheduled to be in Europe I think, in 2005.=20 Simon, I have a question for you, since endocrinology is your area. What is the mechanism for exercise reducing anxiety? I often prescribe exercise in the form of daily walks, or for a difficult dog it is a good idea to require the owner takes the dog for a long walk before bringing it in for a veterinary examination. I would like a better understanding and justification of the apparent linkage between exercise and relaxation.=20 Also, where do you teach? Ie what part of the world.=20 Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org]=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:26 AM To: Rexxie1@aol.com Cc: dogtrainr@blueridge.net; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: how to kill a list Hi, I agree with your comment. I've contributed to the recent exchanges quite a bit (mainly from an ethological perspective) and I was very happy to have managed to stay away from the insults. I commented this morning on somebody's criticism of scientists with an opening "There you go, more insults!" and that opened the flood gate in my direction and in no time I was matching the tone of the e-mails I was getting. I am very disappointed in myself. I apologize to the list for "fouling" the tone of the conversation. But being told to go consult an operant conditioning specialist when I actually teach this material and know it pretty well just pushed some buttons. Self-control is not my thing, maybe it is the French Canadian blood. I enjoy tremendously the input from dog trainers, that I respect greatly. I am surprised to see that the respect is not bi-directional. I think ethologists/animal psychologists can learn from the experience of trainers and their inspiring anecdotes, and I think that they can learn from our theoretical but also very practical input (field studies, lab experimentations). Terminology is more important to scientists than to other people. Trainers borrowed the instrumental conditioning terminology, but like some web sites suggested to us recently, not always correctly or with some important nuances missing. If the scientists on this list can't contribute in pointing out these incorrect uses, well, what are we doing here? I agree that trainers may have developed their own parallel vocabulary, divergent from ours, but don't come and tell us we are wrong or not understanding learning theory! Please! This is just suggesting to me (for the first time) that maybe I don't belong here anymore. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 14:57 Canada/Atlantic, Rexxie1@aol.com wrote: I agree with Sandy Brock that it is counterproductive to everyone on this list for knowledgeable people to leave the list.=A0 However, while the point counterpoint discussions are useful and interesting, even when the discussion gets heated, the many expressions of personal pique at real and imagined slights are not -- they are painful to have to read and could just as well be left to the personal conversations between two offended parties off list rather than transmitted to the whole list.=A0 = It would be really refreshing for a change to have opinions presented without expressions of personal pique and without personal insult to others.=A0 Dr. Stookey's netiquette advice is very good and would streamline the discussion and make it more pleasant for the rest of us to bear. Marlene Halverson From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 22-AUG-2003 18:53:44.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Male and Female Dogs Here I go, some more controversial statements. In my experience using Ecollars as part of a bark control strategy, females are tougher than males and require higher settings on their bark control collars than males. Real or imagined, I do not know. Also, German Shepherd Dogs (GSD) are tougher than other breeds. I believe that yes, there are different bloodlines for protection work and for companion/showing. But occasionally a highly prey driven GSD pops up as a pet causing all sorts of problems for the owners and neighbours. These dogs do not respond to the bark control Ecollar....they would prefer to bark and chase pedestrians despite the collar. I recommend such dogs are donated to the services where they can be put to work to utilize their assets. There may be a few high prey drive genes still in the companion/show bloodlines. And the comment earlier about Maremmas and their lack of response to Ecollars....not in my experience. I have treated just 2 Maremmas (they are a less common breed in Brisbane) using Ecollars for bark control and both responded easily. Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:33 PM To: Laura Sanborn Cc: Applied ethology Subject: Re: Male and Female Dogs Hi, I was told a few years ago by a dog trainer working for the police (and I believe, a member of this list) that very few GSD/Belgian Malinois blood lines were suitable for police work in North America. It really surprised me. If I remember well the comment, only 2 or 3 breeders in Canada are (were) actually providing dogs for the Police in this country. Is it the case in the US and UK? What are the criteria? Are they strictly behavioural? At the time, we were discussing a side interest of mine: olfactory learning and perception. The point was made that good trackers are very rare and again, only a few lines were considered for screening for such an ability. Does that seem to be true elsewhere? By the way, Bill Grimmer (from Scoudouc, NB), are you still on this list? Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 00:25 Canada/Atlantic, Laura Sanborn wrote: At 01:03 PM Monday 8/18/2003, you wrote: > My Police Dog handlers appreciated their bitches (after some hesitation. > They seemed to be beguiled by the extra 'edge' of vocal ferocity what I > imagine I also could see. It was as if the female GSD invested more > energy in threat and was quicker to dart in and withdraw. To me this > seemed an adaptive strategy for a female with her extended duties in the > reproductive area. Bitches are often also "tougher" in the hunting field. That was the opinion of my Bedouin friends in Arabia, and in 32 years of onward breeding from their stock I have seen nothing to contradict it . A large majority of police service dogs (PSDs, the ones who do bitework) are male. One can see the same thing in schutzhund training or trials as well, where most of the strongest dogs in the protection phase are male. Male GSDs and male malinois usually have more "fight drive" (also called "fighting drive") than females of these breeds. Pet and show bloodline dogs of these breeds, of either gender, nearly always have very little fight drive. Fight drive is a shorthand term used by protection dog trainers, and in this context has nothing to do with dog on dog aggression. In this context it refers to the dog's motivation to engage with a human combatant. In his book "Advanced Schutzhund" Ivan Balabanov describes it this way: "fighting drive is shown through the dog's desire to overpower and dominate his opponent". The primary drive that these dogs use when engaged in combat with a human is NOT a perceived threat (defense drive) nor do they mainly just want to bite and win the tug / bite sleeve / bite suit (prey drive). They enjoy the physical and mental combat with a worthy adversary, and in observing these dogs it's hard not to think of humans who engage in rough contact sports... also mostly male. Many protection dog trainers believe that male dogs neutered before they are 18-36 months old (depending on who one asks) never fully develop their fight drive. A long time breeder and trainer of police service dogs (PSDs) told me that female dogs typically will bark and snap ("dart in and withdraw", as stated above) instead of enthusiastically going right in for the fight as a male would do, as she said females are generally more defensive in nature. The powerful intensity of defensive aggression in these breeds is very impressive looking, but actually it's less useful in a PSD than aggression stemming from fight drive because a dog who is primarily in defense drive experiences considerable stress due to his/her perception of a serious threat. This stress makes these dogs less controllable. They are also less reliable in a tough fight apprehending a felony suspect as the dog may become overwhelmed with stress and switch into flight. This trainer also said that when one finds a good female PSD though, they tend to make outstanding police dogs... as good as the best males. An example of high fight drive occurred when a decoy who hadn't had much experience working my husband's high fight drive schutzhund GSD objected to this dog's tendency to plant his front feet on the decoy's chest and pull backwards while biting the decoy's "bite sleeve". So to correct the dog, the decoy struck the dog's front feet several times with the padded stick. This works as a correction with most schutzhund dogs, most will remove their feet. However, this dog did not remove his feet from the decoy, and when ordered to "out" (release his bite from the sleeve) by his handler, the dog came roaring off with very rapid, loud, deep barking inches from decoy's face, and the dog repeatedly banged his chest hard into the decoy's bite sleeve. Much more intense than his usual barking guarding. When the decoy then backed away in actual fear, the dog had "won". At that point, and indeed for weeks thereafter whenever he was near this decoy, this dog had his tail up, and a lively spring in his step strut that appeared suspiciously like descriptions I've read of alpha male wolves. IMO, there's a strong element of dominance aggression in fight drive. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 22-AUG-2003 19:11:17.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition emily patterson wrote: > I consider conditioning and learning to be synonyms. Thus 'learning is > only conditioning' seems a truism. Hi Emily, I have really enjoyed learning from your posts on this subject. I have recently allied with a radical behaviorist to study some aspects of training, and we have found, through our work discussions, that semantics is the biggest obstacle (surprise, surprise ). The behaviorist, like you, sees all learning as operantly derived - including all acquisition of language. I have been exposed again and again to people (mis?)representing behaviorism who have decreed that thought is not required for learning, and that the repetition of reward for "success" as defined by the trainer, is what creates a behavior. They proceed to set up a situation in which an animal incidentally creates some behavior, they bridge and reward, and end up with an animal with an increased tendency to do that thing on cue, but with no conscious understanding of what they were doing. This is not useful to me and it is what the Brelands described as breaking down in "The Misbehavior of Organisms". What is useful to me, and what I work to cocreate with the animal, is a situation where the animal understands every required aspect of the behavior, what it is, and what it is not. So, a monkey does not just flip a light switch, it flips a light switch to get light. If light is not produced, the monkey goes back and tries again, compensating for a faulty switch, perhaps. The monkey learns that the object of phone retrieval upon the cue of the phone ringing is to get the phone into the correct position for the person to hear and speak, which can be different every trial, depending on their partner. A signal may cue a behavior, but the environment is always surveyed for information that modifies that behavior, so if I tell a dog to come, he is to modify that approach to avoid a collision with a car, or if I tell him to retrieve an object, and another dog interferes, the response is modified in a mutually understood (between me and the dog) and agreed way. In this ability of the animal to have a differential, novel response, depending on the immediate environment, I believe I see thought in action. Also, we work hard to teach the animals about threatening or scary events and things. We name these, teach a response to them, and develop a way to give the animal coordinates on them ("dog coming at 2 o'clock"). In return, we see animals immediately look in the direction indicated, and turn toward us to target our hand, a spontaneous (not taught) response to our information. It is as if they are saying, "thanks, I see it". Just sharing this information increases the animal's confidence in the trainer exponentially. I wonder if they are relieved to learn we can at least see, hear and smell SOMETHING, despite our meager abilities. As I work, we DO NOT WANT automatic responses. So, we work only till we get two to three correct responses and then build on a concept. We want an informed response, not a conditioned, or automatic, response. My behaviorist colleague says, "no problem, it is still conditioned" but this is not the use of the term in animal training as I have been exposed to it. I call what we do operant communication - we use the conditioning process, but emphasize tagging all behaviors, parts of behaviors, concepts, items, events, locations, situations etc with vocabulary so that we can refer to these things later. The animals are able to encounter novel situation and apply previously introduced ideas etc in the novel situations, with no rehearsal. Of course, my colleague says, it is still conditioning. So, I can concede that, but it is not a meaningful way to refer to this process amongst other trainers. Thinking *cannot* be directly > observed -- only behaviours associated with thinking. And no > behaviourist that I have studied or worked with has ever said thinking > as no impact on learning. Thinking, like any behaviour, may act as a > stimulus, a behaviour or a consequence within the learning situation. > The behaviourist position is that thinking has no special place -- but > is a behaviour like barking, tachycardia or feeling sad, each of which > may also serve as S, B or C. I understand the point here, but for the record, practically speaking, I disagree. I have observed a certain body language which signals that the animal is analyzing. People, horse, dogs and monkeys all share a version of this trait. What I have repeatedly found, is that, as we introduce new concepts, the animal will often pull their head back, get "distant-eyed" and slow in their responses. I am always excited to see this, as in my experience, it precedes a breakthrough in performance and understanding. Suddenly, the animal makes focussed eye contact with me, targets, thrusts its face forward, and fully engages with the training interaction. Inevitably, the animal shows a systematic understanding at a new level. For example, if an animal has been afraid or resistant to be touched, and I "explain" that we will not touch unless they allow but we are asking that they allow, the animal goes from shying away from the targets, to thrusting its head into the requested targets, with no intermediate steps, accompanied by a whole different attitude about being touched (as evidenced by willingness to be touched, body language when being touched, etc). > > life for dogs is a series of offering > >> random behaviors then keeping the ones that "work" for the dog. If > > > Just as simple variation and selection can lead to the evolution of all > creatures on this planet, cannot variation and selection (learning) lead > to the complex and subtle personalities of ourselves and our animals. I > feel no need for a God-the-creator to make our ecosystems any more than > a Mind-our-creator to be behind my thoughts. This is of course and > individual matter of belief. But my very materialist philosophy does > not seem to handicap me as a researcher into, amongst others things, > animal emotion and welfare -- and why should it? I see, in both humans and animals, an ability to extrapolate from past experiences, into new experiences. How is this explained? (In other words, there is no direct experience with the situation, or sometimes the environmental danger - such as a car). >> there is any thinking or cognition (mentalism), it can not be directly >> observed and thus it has no impact on training. A corollary to this is > > > No. Skinner said we *must* study thought and emotion, and that indeed > this was very important -- a position on which he differed from Watson. > Skinner was merely extremely critical about the techniques we have for > doing this. A degree of skepticism is still called for when you look at > how easily people accept, for example, that surveys of verbal attitudes > reflect actual behaviour. As Vicki describes, there are "behaviorists" out there who do not allow the above, and this was the major point of departure for me. As you point out, I also find that what people say and what they do are sometimes unrelated! >> that training a chicken is training a dog is training a cat, >> conditioning is conditioning, etc. I can appreciate your frustration, >> frustrates me too, and worse frustrates many a dog many a dog as well. For the record, I use exactly the same techniques and system to work with chickens, dolphins, people (now have someone using it for teaching violin students - with great success), monkeys, dogs, cows, etc, etc etc. This week I was working with dogs. The week before, it was lions, camels, elephants, bears, crabs... The chickens learned over 100 words of utilitarian vocabulary, which could be mixed and matched with syntax to get their cooperation (go to the bath, or get in the bath, go to your cage, get in your cage, were related but separate actions). The perception mode addressed (verbal vs visual vs lateral line pressure, for example) may change between animals, as well as the reinforcers and the spontaneous tendencies, but that is all superficial. The basic means of communication is the same, and it takes less than five minutes to teach a crab or a dolphin or a horse the basic communication signals. Very best, Kayce From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 22-AUG-2003 19:58:07.75 To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces Chris, I value your input. Please ignore the insults. Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk [mailto:Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 7:28 PM To: Petherick, Carol Cc: Derek Haley; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Cortisol metabolites in feces Derek, You might also consider trying to examine cort. from hair as a measure of chronic stress. I don't know if this would be suitable for the study you are thinking of, but it's ease of collection and avoiding the rear end of the cow might make it seem a little more attractive! All the best, Chris ............................................................. 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 On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:04:37 +1000 "Petherick, Carol" wrote: > Derek > What's the purpose of examining cortisol? Are you looking for something related to > chronic or acute stress? If the latter, then you'll need to time the taking of the > sample to reflect when the stressor occurred - because of the time for the cortisol > to show up in the faeces (so, in response to your question, the restraint for > taking samples per rectum will not show up in the sample). If you are applying a > procedure to an individual or individuals then you'll obviously need to know the ID > of the animal giving the sample. If you are looking at a group treatment, then you > can just collect the faeces of the ground. > > Suggest you take a look at: > Mostl et al 2002. Vet Res Comm 26, 127-139 (Measurement of cortisol metabolites in > faces of ruminants). > Palme et al 2000. Vet Rec 146, 108-109 (Transport stress in cattle as reflected by > an increase in faecal cortisol....) > Palme et al 1999. Wien Tierarztl Mschr, 86, 237-241 (Measurements of faecal > cortisol metabolites in ruminants...) > > Also a young lass with Lindsay Matthews (just can't recall her name at present - > Cathy? Morrow) was working on urinary cortisol too - so you might like to contact > Lindsay to see if they've done anything on faecal. > > > > 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: Derek Haley [mailto:haleyderek@hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2003 3:32 AM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Cortisol metabolites in feces > > Dear All, > > I have many questions about measuring cortisol metabolites in the feces of > cattle. Let me start with a methodological question about sampling. > > An obvious way to sample would be to watch and wait, and then to watch and > wait some more, and then finally to swoop down off your perch to the freshly > plopped pattie below. Do you worry about this method resulting in samples > being collecting from animals at different points in time throughout the > day? > > What about putting the animals through a chute and sampling directly from > the rectum instead? How soon would any stress caused by handling be likely > to show up in their feces? The cattle would be from a research farm and be > fairly used to handling, which is done quietly and they could also be > handled in small groups to reduce the time between initial handling and > sampling? > > Can shomeone shed shome light on this shituation? > > Derek > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > ********************************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%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 22-AUG-2003 20:54:07.49 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: differing status (hierarchies) within gender groups of canids. In wild canids: yes, many, starting with Mech and our group here in Nova Scotia (Fentress, McLeod, myself). As for domestic dogs, a number of people posted information regarding the possibility that this would be the case with dogs. I can send you references off list including sections of my Ph.D. thesis if you are interested. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology & animal behaviour. Behaviour of wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Friday, Aug 22, 2003, at 20:18 Canada/Atlantic, Gerflannigan@aol.com wrote: > Several days ago, a number of posts were relayed concerning separate > status > relationships within the two sexes in established groups of dogs. > This concept > has been thrown around for a while. However (although I may have > missed it), > does anyone have reference for this concept in dogs or wild canids. > Thanks, > 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" 22-AUG-2003 21:08:29.93 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: differing status (hierarchies) within gender groups of canids. Simon began this discussion. He is preparing material for publication on that subject in wolves or coyotes. James Serpell was also cited. Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Gerflannigan@aol.com [mailto:Gerflannigan@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: differing status (hierarchies) within gender groups of canids. Several days ago, a number of posts were relayed concerning separate status relationships within the two sexes in established groups of dogs. This concept has been thrown around for a while. However (although I may have missed it), does anyone have reference for this concept in dogs or wild canids. Thanks, 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" 22-AUG-2003 21:39:04.08 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: differing status (hierarchies) within gender groups of canids. Male/female independent dominance hierarchies in wolves: Fentress, J. C., Ryon, J., McLeod, P.J., & Havkin, G. Z. (1987). A multidimensional approach to agonistic behavior in wolves. In H. Frank (Ed.), Man and Wolf: advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk Publishers. McLeod, P. J., Moger, W. H., Ryon, J., Gadbois, S., Fentress, J. C. (1996). The relation between urinary cortisol levels and social behaviour in captive timber wolves. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74, 209-216. Gadbois, McLeod, Ryon, & Fentress, unpublished manuscript (to be submitted soon; e-mail me for details) Zimen, E. (1982). A wolf pack sociogram. In F. H. Harrington & P. C. Paquet (Eds.), Wolves of the World: Perspectives on Behaviour, Ecology, and Conservation. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publications. Male/female independent dominance hierarchies in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus): Estes, R. D. (1991). The Behavior Guide to African Mammals. Berkeley: University of California Press. van Lawick-Goodall, J. & van Lawick-Goodall, H. (1971). Innocent Killers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Reich, A. (1977). The wild dogs at Kruger Park. African Wildlife, 31, 12-15. On Saturday, Aug 23, 2003, at 00:08 Canada/Atlantic, Geiger wrote: > Simon began this discussion. He is preparing material for publication > on that subject in wolves or coyotes. James Serpell was also cited. > Jackie Perkins > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant > Australia > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerflannigan@aol.com [mailto:Gerflannigan@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 9:18 AM > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: differing status (hierarchies) within gender groups of canids. > > Several days ago, a number of posts were relayed concerning separate > status > relationships within the two sexes in established groups of dogs. This > concept > has been thrown around for a while. However (although I may have missed > it), > does anyone have reference for this concept in dogs or wild canids. > Thanks, > 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%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 23-AUG-2003 06:50:22.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition <> thanks for this post, very interesting and food for thought. I am uncertain if this is another semantic disconnect or a difference in theoretical underpinnings. I agree that once one understands operant conditioning principles they can be used with any organism, so the operant conditioning techniques used with the chicken can be transferred to the dog. The "but" is I find the ethological studies of dogs, (horses too), are invaluable to training and would even say to go beyond conditioning one must have some understanding about dogs. For example, reading The Other End of the Leash by Patricia McConnell would speak to why say hugging is not natural behavior for a dog, more importantly explain the dogs ability to read the most minute changes in body language to adapt their behaviors. Of course you don't have to read any one book to gain an understanding of dogs "in general", but training without the general knowledge base can lead to frustration all around. Thanks also for the excellent explanation of learning, I thought this one sentence "So, a monkey does not just flip a light switch, it flips a light switch to get light" was perfect illustration of the different approaches. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 23-AUG-2003 08:09:44.81 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: training across species, Vicki Hi Vicki, Thank you for your considered response. I understand your concern about the differences between species, which certainly exist. For example, an Orangutan (those I have met) welcomes eye contact and standing close, and the Gorrillas I know will charge upon eye contact (at least the males!). And, I find it extremely useful to know how to approximate a churf, when approaching tigers (or panthers), although it is useless with lions. However, although I am expert in reading a few types of animals, most I know little about. If I were to try to "speak" to them in their own language, I would be likely to "misspeak", possibly with terrible consequences. I simply cannot master the particulars of all the animals I work with, and if I did, would be likely to confuse them from time to time, as I do when I throw in a Spanish word when speaking French, or vice versa. So, instead, I use an efficient communication system to build a completely new way of cross communication - which is not centered on either species, which is the same for all the species worked. It literally takes less than five minutes. We build a zone of shared culture, where the meaning of each thing has been defined. We even start over a fence or wall, or through a cage side, so we do not intrude on the animal's space till some understanding has been built. Communion within this zone is by invitation and is completely voluntary. The only absolute rule is mutual respect and integrity. We do not sneak up on the animals or trick them, we do not advance targets once set. We do not impose our presence on them if they are not willing, but neither is any kind of disrespect or intrusion tolerated from them. Recently, we have started timing how long it takes to communicate things to the animals and have them demonstrate back that they are following the logic, by making correct choices as offered. For example, here is the beginning curriculum for (all) the animals: Bridges, intermediate and terminal Targetting, over distance, direction and duration (to 8 instants, or ibs) Three kinds of targets, their two names, their hierarchies (which to come to if both are present) Go to a remote target on a point Average time to cover this information: 7 minutes, starting with a green animal Then we focus on building vocabulary for awhile (body parts, location names, names of movements, concepts like left and right, over and under, up and down). As for having understanding of one another, we have a built in safety margin, because everything is by invitation, and totally voluntary. So, if I want to hug a dog (which I have no idea if it likes or not) I set up targets to show the dog exactly what I want. I then work him into these targets in progressive cycles, with rests between. Sea lions do not naturally like to be squeezed in chutes, but they learn to love it, when it is approached this way. It seems as if the compression is relaxing and enjoyable for them. However, they know that in our system, they control the squeeze. They do not GET to be squeezed, unless they move into it voluntarily. This makes a huge difference in how things go forward. For example, when we trained the pigs at UMCP for blood draw, once the pigs understood what we wanted, they all wanted to be first, and we had to stop and teach them to only come forward when their names were called. This is despite the fact that the way this sample is traditionally taken, with a snout loop, causes such protest and struggle from the pig, we thought it must be a painful procedure. Apparently, the pig objected to being manhandled, rather than to being pricked, and if asked, will stand completely still. If, however, you just stick them while they are eating, without asking, they protest, move away and may show retaliation (head swing, slashing motions). As we move along, the animal shows it its sensitivities, for example, to being touched on the jowls, in the case of pigs. They refuse to advance at the same rate, and we spontaneous take smaller steps and approach the situation from a number of directions, etc, etc. So, we do accommodate the differences, and we do encounter them, but each individual animal tells us what they are, as we go along. I am glad that I have proceeded this way. Every day I read people stating things as absolutes which I know from close experience are simply not so. The director of training at a major oceanarium stood before me and the membership of IMATA and declared that seals cannot be trained. I had been training seals for demanding tasks for years! Keller Breland said that you cannot get a cow to run on request. Mine ran. Tons of horse trainers patiently explain the behavior of horses in terms of their "preyness". Having worked extensively with carnivores (including bears, wolves, lions, tigers, dogs...) I see very little difference between working a horse and anything else. And for those who explain that horses crave dominance, I wonder how they reconcile that horses compete to dominate one another! So, I consult ethology (texts) in setting up enrichment and exhibits, in figuring out aptitudes, in looking for animals in the wild, and sometimes in choosing which perception mode to address. But, I do not use it in training, except possibly to read body language of animals, but usually, I rely on my own impression and experience here. I look forward to hearing how this approach might mesh with your practices with animals, and with your perception of them. Best, Kayce Vicki Magnus wrote: > < with chickens, dolphins, people (now have someone using it for teaching > violin students - with great success), monkeys, dogs, cows, etc, etc > etc. This week I was working with dogs. The week before, it was lions, > camels, elephants, bears, crabs... The chickens learned over 100 words > of utilitarian vocabulary, which could be mixed and matched with syntax > to get their cooperation (go to the bath, or get in the bath, go to your > cage, get in your cage, were related but separate actions). The > perception mode addressed (verbal vs visual vs lateral line pressure, > for example) may change between animals, as well as the reinforcers and > the spontaneous tendencies, but that is all superficial. The basic > means of communication is the same, and it takes less than five minutes > to teach a crab or a dolphin or a horse the basic communication > signals.>> > > thanks for this post, very interesting and food for thought. I am > uncertain if this is another semantic disconnect or a difference in > theoretical underpinnings. I agree that once one understands operant > conditioning principles they can be used with any organism, so the > operant conditioning techniques used with the chicken can be transferred > to the dog. The "but" is I find the ethological studies of dogs, > (horses too), are invaluable to training and would even say to go beyond > conditioning one must have some understanding about dogs. For example, > reading The Other End of the Leash by Patricia McConnell would speak to > why say hugging is not natural behavior for a dog, more importantly > explain the dogs ability to read the most minute changes in body > language to adapt their behaviors. Of course you don't have to read any > one book to gain an understanding of dogs "in general", but training > without the general knowledge base can lead to frustration all around. > > Thanks also for the excellent explanation of learning, I thought this > one sentence "So, a monkey does not just flip a light switch, it flips a > light switch to get light" was perfect illustration of the different > approaches. > > Vicki Magnus From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 23-AUG-2003 09:11:56.09 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: training across species, Vicki <> Just fascinating, I am looking forward to reading your Bridge and Target Technique manual. I am thinking that perhaps I am advocating the study of various ethology sources as a means of teaching the humans observation skills. So I agree that one need not have a preconception of what an ear flick means in absolute terms, but the trainer must recognise that the ear flick is the animal communicating something, and if I understand you correctly that communication should be respected, for lack of a better word. To give a dog training example, I will show portions of Turid Rugaas's video seminar tapes on "calming signals" to show an owner examples of how a dog communicates a state of stress. Say an owner gives some cue and the dog drops ears and tail and moves extremely slowly toward the owner. Rather than viewing this as some sort of "disobedience" on the dogs part I can explain that the dog is communicating with the owner and then we talk about how what the owner needs to do with that information. I am assuming that if you were working with the same owner reading the body language is addressed by this: "As for having understanding of one another, we have a built in safety margin, because everything is by invitation, and totally voluntary". Again, this is just so interesting, thank you again and I can't wait for the book to get here. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 23-AUG-2003 10:01:46.94 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: communication signals across species, Vicki Vicki Magnus wrote: > ... I am thinking that perhaps I am advocating the study > of various ethology sources as a means of teaching the humans > observation skills. So I agree that one need not have a preconception of > what an ear flick means in absolute terms, but the trainer must > recognise that the ear flick is the animal communicating something, and > if I understand you correctly that communication should be respected, > for lack of a better word. I agree that respect for everything the animal offers is quite important - communication, preferences, ideas, trust, cooperation. And, we do try to learn the communication specific to each type of animal - I just do not depend on trafficking in it myself, and I study it directly, not through someone else's interpretation. > To give a dog training example, I will show portions of Turid Rugaas's > video seminar tapes on "calming signals" to show an owner examples of > how a dog communicates a state of stress. Say an owner gives some cue > and the dog drops ears and tail and moves extremely slowly toward the > owner. Rather than viewing this as some sort of "disobedience" on the > dogs part I can explain that the dog is communicating with the owner and > then we talk about how what the owner needs to do with that information. Also, I would work to change that body language before going forward. Usually I can do this by encouraging them with an intermediate bridge. I do not want to try to work with an animal who is distracted from the information being offered by the trainer. > I am assuming that if you were working with the same owner reading the > body language is addressed by this: "As for having understanding of one > another, we have a built in safety margin, because everything is by > invitation, and totally voluntary". Yes. This covers the safety. The above covers efficiency of information transfer. > Again, this is just so interesting, thank you again and I can't wait for > the book to get here. Thanks Vicki. The manual is sent. Let me know how you get on. I really love this stuff, still after 30 years. Best, Kayce From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 23-AUG-2003 10:37:49.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition >(between me and the dog) and agreed way. In this ability of the animal to >have a differential, novel response, depending on the immediate >environment, I believe I see thought in action. Early behaviourist were hung up on the form of the response -- most would agree with you examples here, which show that function is generally more important and that animals easily move between functionally equivalent behaviours. >As I work, we DO NOT WANT automatic responses. Of course not. However the idea that 'conditioned' means 'robot-like' of automatic is an unfortunate fallacy. After all, behaviourism is a philosophy of human behaviour as much as for application to other species. I think it comes down to a misunderstanding about what Skinner meant when he said behaviour was 'determined'. He meant that we should not 'blame' people or animals for their behaviours -- but sewarch for what in thjeir environment caused them to choose to perform that behaviour. The saying he repeated so often was "the pigeon is *always* right" -- so when training is unsuccessful it is the trainer who had failed to understand the animal's perspective. So, we work only >till we get two to three correct responses and then build on a concept. We >want an informed response, not a conditioned, or automatic, response. Understand that in the intended sense, conditioned means learned, NOT automatic. People learn to right poetyr, love their children and give their lives for their country through conditioning -- conditioning is a beautiful think -- old women become wise through conditioning. When I say something is conditioning I am not calling it a 'low' form of learning, I am just calling it learning. I find your perspective informative and int he future I shall simply not use this term anymore. >so that we can refer to these things later. The animals are able to >encounter novel situation and apply previously introduced ideas etc in the >novel situations, with no rehearsal. As indeed, are we all. There is nothing entirely new under the sun -- or if there was we would be baffled by it -- but we and other animals have a wonderful ability to generalise learning based on abstract as well as concrete aspects of situations. >I understand the point here, but for the record, practically speaking, I >disagree. I have observed a certain body language which signals that the >animal is analyzing. People, horse, dogs and monkeys all share a version >of this trait. Did I disagree with this? I study human judgements of animal welfare and demonstrate their accuracy. not something I would do unless I agreed with your assertion. But body language is not thought. Though itself is perceptable only to the thinker -- by definition. >I see, in both humans and animals, an ability to extrapolate from past >experiences, into new experiences. How is this explained? It is called learning -- seriously -- what else can it be called? This is, to my mind, the very heart of behavioural psychology -- 'the modification of behaviour by experience' is a textbook behavioural definition of learning. This includes the fundamental process of generalisation where we transfer learning to equivalent (but not identical) situations. When the equivalence is quite abstract we sometimes call this 'insight'. If every stimulus had to be treated in isolation no animal would ever be able to cope with anything! We would know what a chair was just because it was painted a different colour... I think if we should ever work together the only difficulty would be establishing what we mean by various words and agreeing on a common vocab. Ovf course all species are in some ways similar, and in others different (as are individuals). Behaviours maye be automatic, or 'thoughtful'. The extent to which thoughfulness itself should be the focus of our efforts is debatable -- but not really all that important really when the pragmatic end goal is clear. I think issues come up when words I identify as technical terms invented by Behavioural psychology are not used according to their original defintions. i.e. conditioning means learning through experience -- not more or less. One of the advantages of Behaviourism was precision of language and accuracy of communication between Behaviourists -- Now even the word 'Behaviourist' itself is ambiguous! Emily _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 23-AUG-2003 11:38:52.63 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Simon <> I second this request; I too find your posts valuable, and appreciate your contributions to the list. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 23-AUG-2003 21:43:54.01 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: Police Dogs >-----Original Message----- >From: Simon Gadbois > >I was told a few years ago by a dog trainer working for the police (and >I believe, a member of this list) that very few GSD/Belgian Malinois >blood lines were suitable for police work in North America. It really >surprised me. I am not aware of any formal surveys that accurately quantify it, but no one in the "business" seems to dispute that the vast majority of the police service dogs (PSDs) in the USA were imported directly from Europe. These are mostly German shepherd dogs (GSDs) and Belgian Malinois, and in the case of Malinois are often not pure breeds. I asked one individual who runs a business evaluating and training dogs for police service work in America, who has been heavily involved with the "working side" of the GSD breed for 20+ years. He estimated that 99% of police service dogs in the USA were imported from Europe. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it is probably not too far off the mark. >If I remember well the comment, only 2 or 3 breeders in Canada are >(were) actually providing dogs for the Police in this country. Is it the >case in the US and UK? >What are the criteria? Are they strictly behavioural? It is difficult to breed dogs for modern police service work, especially the dual purpose PSD that is common in the USA. A dual purpose PSD is certified in both patrol work (building search, apprehension, and bitework) and scent detection work (typically narcotics detection, but this could be tracking/trailing, explosives detection, etc.). Young dogs typically 1-3 years of age are evaluated for PSD work. Very few police agencies maintain their own breeding programs... it's generally not cost effective. They are largely dependent on civilian hobby breeders, and brokers who locate and supply the dogs to police departments. The PSD candidate must excel in many character traits which are largely genetic in nature. The dog should have high courage, hardness, the right balance of drives (high fight drive, moderate to high prey drive, low to moderate defense drive, moderate to high hunt/search drive), extremely strong "nerves" (confidence & ability to work under stress), trainability, etc. He also must pass health screening tests. To breed PSD character traits with any sort of reasonable success rate, both dam and sire must come from bloodlines proven in either police work or some other "test" of the core working abilities. In practice, this is usually one of the European protection dogsports... schutzhund, IPO, KNPV, French Ring, Belgian Ring, Mondio Ring, etc. Of these, only schutzhund is well established in North America. But even Germany has roughly 10 times as many schutzhund clubs as much larger North America. If one counts all the dogs involved in protection dogsports in all of Europe, the scales are tilted much further. Europe breeds many more dogs suitable for police work mainly because protection dogsports are so much more common there than in North America. There are probably many more PSD caliber dogs bred in the Netherlands each year than in all of North America. Depending on whose standards one is applying, something on the order of 1 in 10 to 1 in 200 schutzhund bloodline GSDs who are evaluated for PSD work are suitable. The individual I spoke of above, who assesses dogs for PSD work, is also the most accomplished handler of schutzhund competition GSDs in America. He estimated that 1 in 10 competition schutzhund GSDs would make a good police service dog. In the much more common European showline GSDs (intermediate between a pure showdog and a working dog), the odds are much lower than in the bloodlines bred for excellence in a protection dogsport. In American pet and show bloodline GSDs, the odds are *much* lower still... so low, it's not worth even looking there for PSD candidates. There are relatively few GSDs and Malinois bred in America from working bloodlines. The GSD is a popular breed in North America, but nearly all are from pet or show bloodlines. These are dogs who are 10+ generations removed from selection testing for work. If working traits are not continually selected for by breeders, they are lost. Only fragments of working abilities remain. Just as one tiny example of what this means, genetic gun shyness is rare in working line GSDs. Yet it is common in America showline GSDs. Gun shyness is tested in the protection dogsports. >At the time, we were discussing a side interest of mine: olfactory >learning and perception. The point was made that good trackers are very >rare and again, only a few lines were considered for screening for such >an ability. Does that seem to be true elsewhere? Yes, very good tracking dogs are uncommon. In your country of Canada, the RCMP has very high standards for tracking dogs, standards that few dogs have the right genetics to meet. I know one of the breeders in Canada who breeds GSDs to meet RCMP standards. She puts extraordinary emphasis on "hunt/search" drive... the dog's desire to use his nose to follow scent. She looks deep into pedigrees for consistent strong scenting abilities. One of the weaknesses of the European protection dogsports is that they do not place high emphasis on nosework. While most (perhaps all) of these dogsports have some nosework tests, they are not sufficiently demanding tests of genetic scenting abilities to reliability separate the decent from the very good from the great dogs. These nosework abilities are both olfactory sensitivity AND hunt/search drive... these are not the same thing. Most experts I've heard from claim that is not olfactory sensitivity that usually distinguishes the best nosework dogs from the rest, but the dogs' genetic hunt/search drive... which anecdotal reports and at least one study has indicated can be magnified by early imprinting. Perhaps if dual purpose PSDs were as common in Europe as they are in America, the European protection dogsports would place greater emphasis on nosework. Single purpose PSDs are more common in Europe... GSDs and malinois, etc for patrol work, and spaniels, etc. for nosework. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"texaslexus@ev1.net" "Lex" 23-AUG-2003 22:18:40.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Another thread on cognition Not to worry folks. I endured that entire apdt discussion and many others and as hard as everyone on the list tried to get the same points across they had as much luck as you people are having here. Not one trainer claimed that dogs only learned by OC/CC although they got accused of stating just that until they gave up trying to explain their position because it was wasted effort. I hate to see the fine people on that list being misrepresented once again. Please do read the entire discussion if you have the stomach for it. Read it and weep. Kathleen Hannon From: IN%"lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk" "lucy GRAY" 24-AUG-2003 04:49:32.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Equine social heirarchies Can anyone point me in the direction of some good references for the social heirarchies of equines and anything on resource holding potential? all help greatly appreciated! Lucy. From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 25-AUG-2003 11:22:45.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot commerical meat breeders will cull any rabbit showing any aggression. the result is a rabbit like Christmas I guess, who is the most friendly people loving amiable wonderful new zealand white you've ever met. She's also very smart. These are the rabbits that some in the list are studying ways to factory farm as there is a big push from the United Nations FAO/AGAP to make rabbits the next chicken of this century. Rabbits like Christmas are raised to 3 months and slaughtered as fryers. If you ever have had a rabbit loose in your home 24 hrs a day as a companion you would realize how very inhumane the current backyard meat breeding and commercial racks of rabbits are. I am a meat eater but after ten years of having rabbits as companions, there is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not because of "easter rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize what dog and cat owners in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA owners don't raise St. Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are doing in China. Rabbits are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime companions die (some die, too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are playful inventive animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a stew pot anymore than the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because humans don't understand rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is wrong with us as a species when caring good people can line rabbits up on long production lines and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its equivalent -- the small pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the other. Or, what is wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for show, and kill/process the culls for the pot. Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what that human trait is, that lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit is a fryer" and separate our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; then, we might understand the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish peoples in Germany and slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the missing in Argentina...) early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the animal you were studying - it ensured emotional distance and objectivity, I was told. I don't know how many researchers actually believed this, though. I do know that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers supporting German policies) later hoped that their science might discover what it was inside people that allowed them to systematically mass murder other human beings. Heather From: IN%"Lorenz.Gygax@fat.admin.ch" 25-AUG-2003 11:22:52.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: PhD position on social behaviour of dairy cows PhD Position: Effects of housing conditions on social behaviour in dairy cows The Center for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs (Swiss Federal Veterinary Office), located in Taenikon, Switzerland, offers a 3.5 year position for a PhD student beginning in January 2004. Payment is = according to the Swiss National Science Foundation. In this project, the = influence of a variety of housing systems on social behaviour of milking cows will = be investigated. A recently developed automated system for locating = individual cows will be used for data collection. The aim of the study is = two-fold: (1) the automated system will be validated, i.e. data from the system will = be compared with data on social interactions from direct observations. = Methods to summarize and extract the relevant data from the system will be developed. (2) Based on automatically collected data, the influence of diverse aspects of housing conditions on social interactions will be evaluated. Aspects could include e.g. area/cow, number of cows per = feeding space, type of milking parlour, group size, etc. The development of the methods will mainly be conducted at our own facility (cubicle barn with about 50 cows). The comparison of housing conditions will be conducted = on a range of farms in Switzerland. German language skills are advantageous. For further information contact Lorenz Gygax (Dr. sc. nat.) by e-mail mailto:lorenz.gygax@fat.admin.ch or phone +41 52 368 33 84. Applicants are kindly requested to send their CV and a letter of = motivation no later than October 15 2003 to Lorenz Gygax, Center for Proper = Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, FAT, 8356 Taenikon, Switzerland or in pdf Format to mailto:lorenz.gygax@fat.admin.ch -=20 Lorenz Gygax Tel: +41 52 368 33 84 / lorenz.gygax@fat.admin.ch =20 Center for proper housing of ruminants and pigs Swiss Veterinary Office FAT, CH-8356 T=E4nikon / Switzerland Fax : +41 52 365 11 90 / Tel: +41 52 368 31 31 From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 25-AUG-2003 13:46:01.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot I think what Heather says about rabbits could be true of pigs and probably most if not all other production animals as well. Mindsets often change regarding use and welfare of animals once a person has had a pet-type relationship with animals traditionally used for human consumption, labor, or wool. The pigs I currently work with are smart, funny, playful, and affectionate as well. Janice Siegford Animal Behavior and Welfare Group Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax heather mcmurray writes: > commerical meat breeders will cull any rabbit showing any aggression. the > result is a rabbit like Christmas I guess, who is the most friendly people > loving amiable wonderful new zealand white you've ever met. She's also very > smart. These are the rabbits that some in the list are studying ways to > factory farm as there is a big push from the United Nations FAO/AGAP to make > rabbits the next chicken of this century. Rabbits like Christmas are raised > to 3 months and slaughtered as fryers. If you ever have had a rabbit loose > in your home 24 hrs a day as a companion you would realize how very inhumane > the current backyard meat breeding and commercial racks of rabbits are. > I am a meat eater but after ten years of having rabbits as companions, there > is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not because of "easter > rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize what dog and cat owners > in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA owners don't raise St. > Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are doing in China. Rabbits > are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime companions die (some die, > too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are playful inventive > animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a stew pot anymore than > the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because humans don't understand > rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is wrong with us as a > species when caring good people can line rabbits up on long production lines > and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its equivalent -- the small > pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the other. Or, what is > wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for show, and kill/process > the culls for the pot. > > Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what that human trait is, that > lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit is a fryer" and separate > our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; then, we might understand > the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish peoples in Germany and > slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the missing in Argentina...) > > early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the animal you were > studying - it ensured emotional distance and objectivity, I was told. I > don't know how many researchers actually believed this, though. I do know > that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers supporting German > policies) later hoped that their science might discover what it was inside > people that allowed them to systematically mass murder other human beings. > Heather > From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 25-AUG-2003 13:46:38.78 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot Heather, Your post has certainly gotten me pondering (once again) something that I have thought about on and off for quite some time. Let me relate two personal experiences. For those of you not interested or bored by this, please feel free to hit your delete key! We once "rescued" a pig, not a pot belly but a regular "farm hog." Some friends of ours are in the habit of purchasing very young ones at auction and then raising them for meat. They had a runt that would not grow and couldn't be bothered with him. We took him as a "pet." He grew well here and turned out to be big and very strong, well over 200 pounds. Although he'd been castrated he soon became unmanageable - at times becoming aggressive when forced to do something he didn't want to do - example: go back into his pen which he'd just broken out of. We tried EVERYTHING to contain him but due to his strength and intelligence, could not hold him for long (without spending a fortune to do so). The last straw was when he broke out of his pen and picked a fight with one of our wolves in her holding pen. He'd taken a disliking to her because she didn't like him. He rammed her holding pen and almost broke the entire thing down (cemented posts and all) in order to fight with her. We got him away in time but eventually, were forced to send him to the slaughter house. Absolutely no one we contacted wanted a pet pig of that size. Some of you may laugh at me but I don't care. I admit that I cried for days on end. I'd honestly grown to love him. Yet, strangely, I do eat pork (I couldn't eat him but gave him to a family I know to eat - if I'd been forced to bring him home I swear I would have buried him). Another incident. A nearby farmer donated a calf for our wolves to eat. They always arrive dead (stillborn, etc.). This one came alive but very ill. The farmer had told my volunteers who picked it up, "sure it's alive, but with the price of beef these days I'm not gonna struggle with something that'll cost more to save than it will get when I sell." He told us to put it into one of our wolf compounds to let the wolves finish her off. Of course I refused. Instead, I struggled to nurse her back to health, knowing she was very likely to die. Her medications cost me $12 and, if healthy, I might have gotten $5 - $10 for her at an auction. If I'd simply shot her my wolf food would have been entirely free. As I did for our pig, I cried. I couldn't bare to give her to our wolves. She was sent to our burn pit for cremation instead. Strangely (?), I do eat beef all the time. So, I am just as guilty as everyone else I suppose of the phenomenon that you've labelled "one as a pet, another for the pot." If I ever figure out the inconsistency within myself I will let you know! Vivian ----- Original Message ----- From: "heather mcmurray" To: Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:43 PM Subject: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 25-AUG-2003 14:53:49.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: early ethologists had hoped to uncover why humans war and kill Re: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and anotherfor the pot I just finished watching Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" documentary and he includes a lot of old black and white film clips of wars and people killing in general. He didn't get into humans systematically excluding and then killing whole groups of people for political/religious/cultural beliefs. But I really think that our ability as a species to do that is reduceable to our ability to say, "this rabbit is a pet" and "that rabbit is a fryer/dinner" and bop it on the head. We are able to assign our emotions and attachment to the one object and totally disengage our emotions from the other NO MATTER WHAT THAT ANIMAL COMMUNICATES/DOES. It totally bewilders me to learn that some show breeders of minilops and other cute pet rabbits are able to slaughter/butcher their culls. Almost 80% of the show breeders report that they do this. It is quite acceptable in society to do this. Farmers traditionally have allowed their kids to never slaughter/butcher the farm "pets" while the other animals were fair game for the butcher. Mafia are traditionally shown on TV (this is quite scientific ; ) ) to protect/love their family and murder other people quite horrifically. Somehow, humans are able to "disengage" themselves selectively from appeasement cues. What I am asking, since this is a thoughtful ethological/behavior group, is where this ability comes from and is it limited to our species? And, is it a good trait as society says (to not butcher the family farm animals is considered immature or unrealistic) or does it actually reflect a crack in our psychological health? Are the animal lovers out there who only eat vegies and could never kill, actually more sentient and emotionally balanced than we meat eaters are? Thoughtfully, h.m. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ceann lambert" To: "heather mcmurray" ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:11 PM Subject: Re: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and anotherfor the pot > Heather, > Those are such good questions. From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 25-AUG-2003 15:26:09.46 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot you are speaking about the nonverbal langauge of rabbits as a cause for not eating them. Having reached so far in your understanding - can't you make one more step towards the "nonverbal langauge" of cows, sheep, birds as a reasoning for not eating them as well? Pugs are considered pets in many countries - do you eat them? Sorry, but i can't find the reasoning here, Hilit -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 10:44 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot commerical meat breeders will cull any rabbit showing any aggression. the result is a rabbit like Christmas I guess, who is the most friendly people loving amiable wonderful new zealand white you've ever met. She's also very smart. These are the rabbits that some in the list are studying ways to factory farm as there is a big push from the United Nations FAO/AGAP to make rabbits the next chicken of this century. Rabbits like Christmas are raised to 3 months and slaughtered as fryers. If you ever have had a rabbit loose in your home 24 hrs a day as a companion you would realize how very inhumane the current backyard meat breeding and commercial racks of rabbits are. I am a meat eater but after ten years of having rabbits as companions, there is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not because of "easter rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize what dog and cat owners in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA owners don't raise St. Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are doing in China. Rabbits are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime companions die (some die, too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are playful inventive animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a stew pot anymore than the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because humans don't understand rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is wrong with us as a species when caring good people can line rabbits up on long production lines and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its equivalent -- the small pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the other. Or, what is wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for show, and kill/process the culls for the pot. Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what that human trait is, that lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit is a fryer" and separate our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; then, we might understand the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish peoples in Germany and slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the missing in Argentina...) early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the animal you were studying - it ensured emotional distance and objectivity, I was told. I don't know how many researchers actually believed this, though. I do know that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers supporting German policies) later hoped that their science might discover what it was inside people that allowed them to systematically mass murder other human beings. Heather From: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi Fox" 25-AUG-2003 16:27:23.88 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: early ethologists had hoped to uncover why humans war and kill A site you may want to peruse on the subject of human aggression/violence/war is: http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/dennen3.htm OBi Fox ----- Original Message ----- From: "heather mcmurray" To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: early ethologists had hoped to uncover why humans war and kill > Re: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and anotherfor > the pot > > I just finished watching Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" documentary > and he includes a lot of old black and white film clips of wars and people > killing in general. He didn't get into humans systematically excluding and > then killing whole groups of people for political/religious/cultural > beliefs. But I really think that our ability as a species to do that is > reduceable to our ability to say, "this rabbit is a pet" and "that rabbit is > a fryer/dinner" and bop it on the head. We are able to assign our emotions > and attachment to the one object and totally disengage our emotions from the > other NO MATTER WHAT THAT ANIMAL COMMUNICATES/DOES. > > It totally bewilders me to learn that some show breeders of minilops and > other cute pet rabbits are able to slaughter/butcher their culls. Almost > 80% of the show breeders report that they do this. It is quite acceptable > in society to do this. Farmers traditionally have allowed their kids to > never slaughter/butcher the farm "pets" while the other animals were fair > game for the butcher. Mafia are traditionally shown on TV (this is quite > scientific ; ) ) to protect/love their family and murder other people quite > horrifically. Somehow, humans are able to "disengage" themselves > selectively from appeasement cues. > > What I am asking, since this is a thoughtful ethological/behavior group, is > where this ability comes from and is it limited to our species? And, is it > a good trait as society says (to not butcher the family farm animals is > considered immature or unrealistic) or does it actually reflect a crack in > our psychological health? Are the animal lovers out there who only eat > vegies and could never kill, actually more sentient and emotionally balanced > than we meat eaters are? > > Thoughtfully, > h.m. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ceann lambert" > To: "heather mcmurray" ; > > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:11 PM > Subject: Re: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and > anotherfor the pot > > > > Heather, > > Those are such good questions. > > From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 25-AUG-2003 16:36:34.77 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot Heather I think we have to accept that we all have different standards, values and morals (hence my previous comments about the need for laws and regulations). Some people value a species as a pet, others value that same species as a source of food and income - and some people can do both at the same time. This is not a question of being 'right' or 'wrong' - just different - unless of course, laws are broken. There is a very good paper about the moral status of mice (research animal, pest, pet, food source) that you might like to look at that gives this message very clearly. It's called "The Moral Status of Mice" and is by HA Herzog (1988) American Psychologist 43: 473-474. 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: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 6:44 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot commerical meat breeders will cull any rabbit showing any aggression. the result is a rabbit like Christmas I guess, who is the most friendly people loving amiable wonderful new zealand white you've ever met. She's also very smart. These are the rabbits that some in the list are studying ways to factory farm as there is a big push from the United Nations FAO/AGAP to make rabbits the next chicken of this century. Rabbits like Christmas are raised to 3 months and slaughtered as fryers. If you ever have had a rabbit loose in your home 24 hrs a day as a companion you would realize how very inhumane the current backyard meat breeding and commercial racks of rabbits are. I am a meat eater but after ten years of having rabbits as companions, there is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not because of "easter rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize what dog and cat owners in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA owners don't raise St. Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are doing in China. Rabbits are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime companions die (some die, too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are playful inventive animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a stew pot anymore than the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because humans don't understand rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is wrong with us as a species when caring good people can line rabbits up on long production lines and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its equivalent -- the small pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the other. Or, what is wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for show, and kill/process the culls for the pot. Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what that human trait is, that lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit is a fryer" and separate our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; then, we might understand the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish peoples in Germany and slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the missing in Argentina...) early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the animal you were studying - it ensured emotional distance and objectivity, I was told. I don't know how many researchers actually believed this, though. I do know that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers supporting German policies) later hoped that their science might discover what it was inside people that allowed them to systematically mass murder other human beings. Heather ********************************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" 25-AUG-2003 16:40:38.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: SOBIG virus, please check your system Hi, I just got a failed email back. It contained the SOBIG subject, "approved" and was from me. Only, I never sent it. And my computer is not infected with SOBIG. http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sobig.f@mm.html The page above explains how SOBIG takes names from unprotected computers and uses them not only for the "send" feature in email, but the "FROM" feature in email. So, folks out there I don't know are now getting email from "me" with the SOBIG virus attached. Only, the messages AREN'T from me. So much for an email name uniquely identifying a person, huh. Please PLEASE run antivirus software on your computer. Symantec is good. There is the cost of the software and the subscription to keep it updated/time to download the updates, but I don't know any way around this in this day and age on the internet. If your antivirus software indicates that your computer is infected then the page above describes the removal steps. I am sending this to all the lists I am on, and not putting it in OT because it is so important. thanks, Heather From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 25-AUG-2003 17:06:26.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an ethics/values/standards question my question was ethologically-framed, not ethically. What behavioral mechanism in human beings allows them to detach from one animal (for the stew pot) and love the other (the show animal, the pet)? I did not want to frame this as a standards, value, or morals question. This is a *biological* question. An ethological one (looking at our evolutionary context). H. McMurray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petherick, Carol" To: "heather mcmurray" ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot > Heather > I think we have to accept that we all have different standards, values and morals (hence my previous comments about the need for laws and regulations). Some people value a species as a pet, others value that same species as a source of food and income - and some people can do both at the same time. This is not a question of being 'right' or 'wrong' - just different - unless of course, laws are broken. There is a very good paper about the moral status of mice (research animal, pest, pet, food source) that you might like to look at that gives this message very clearly. It's called "The Moral Status of Mice" and is by HA Herzog (1988) American Psychologist 43: 473-474. > > 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: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] > Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 6:44 AM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot > > commerical meat breeders will cull any rabbit showing any aggression. the > result is a rabbit like Christmas I guess, who is the most friendly people > loving amiable wonderful new zealand white you've ever met. She's also very > smart. These are the rabbits that some in the list are studying ways to > factory farm as there is a big push from the United Nations FAO/AGAP to make > rabbits the next chicken of this century. Rabbits like Christmas are raised > to 3 months and slaughtered as fryers. If you ever have had a rabbit loose > in your home 24 hrs a day as a companion you would realize how very inhumane > the current backyard meat breeding and commercial racks of rabbits are. > I am a meat eater but after ten years of having rabbits as companions, there > is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not because of "easter > rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize what dog and cat owners > in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA owners don't raise St. > Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are doing in China. Rabbits > are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime companions die (some die, > too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are playful inventive > animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a stew pot anymore than > the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because humans don't understand > rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is wrong with us as a > species when caring good people can line rabbits up on long production lines > and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its equivalent -- the small > pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the other. Or, what is > wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for show, and kill/process > the culls for the pot. > > Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what that human trait is, that > lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit is a fryer" and separate > our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; then, we might understand > the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish peoples in Germany and > slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the missing in Argentina...) > > early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the animal you were > studying - it ensured emotional distance and objectivity, I was told. I > don't know how many researchers actually believed this, though. I do know > that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers supporting German > policies) later hoped that their science might discover what it was inside > people that allowed them to systematically mass murder other human beings. > Heather > > ********************************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%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 25-AUG-2003 17:25:36.59 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an ethics/values/standards question Heather I think you cannot separate them - our values and morals are part of our evolutionary history - we are a social, cooperative species that has developed different cultures. Our biology has resulted in our cognitive development and our abilities to think through the consequences of our actions, and from that to develop our moral values and codes, so that we can live together. This is what makes us different to most other species - and explains why we can form attachments to some animals and/or eat them. I'm sorry if I'm missing the point of your question. 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: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2003 8:29 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an ethics/values/standards question my question was ethologically-framed, not ethically. What behavioral mechanism in human beings allows them to detach from one animal (for the stew pot) and love the other (the show animal, the pet)? I did not want to frame this as a standards, value, or morals question. This is a *biological* question. An ethological one (looking at our evolutionary context). H. McMurray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petherick, Carol" To: "heather mcmurray" ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot > Heather > I think we have to accept that we all have different standards, values and morals (hence my previous comments about the need for laws and regulations). Some people value a species as a pet, others value that same species as a source of food and income - and some people can do both at the same time. This is not a question of being 'right' or 'wrong' - just different - unless of course, laws are broken. There is a very good paper about the moral status of mice (research animal, pest, pet, food source) that you might like to look at that gives this message very clearly. It's called "The Moral Status of Mice" and is by HA Herzog (1988) American Psychologist 43: 473-474. > > 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: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] > Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 6:44 AM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot > > commerical meat breeders will cull any rabbit showing any aggression. the > result is a rabbit like Christmas I guess, who is the most friendly people > loving amiable wonderful new zealand white you've ever met. She's also very > smart. These are the rabbits that some in the list are studying ways to > factory farm as there is a big push from the United Nations FAO/AGAP to make > rabbits the next chicken of this century. Rabbits like Christmas are raised > to 3 months and slaughtered as fryers. If you ever have had a rabbit loose > in your home 24 hrs a day as a companion you would realize how very inhumane > the current backyard meat breeding and commercial racks of rabbits are. > I am a meat eater but after ten years of having rabbits as companions, there > is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not because of "easter > rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize what dog and cat owners > in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA owners don't raise St. > Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are doing in China. Rabbits > are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime companions die (some die, > too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are playful inventive > animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a stew pot anymore than > the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because humans don't understand > rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is wrong with us as a > species when caring good people can line rabbits up on long production lines > and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its equivalent -- the small > pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the other. Or, what is > wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for show, and kill/process > the culls for the pot. > > Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what that human trait is, that > lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit is a fryer" and separate > our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; then, we might understand > the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish peoples in Germany and > slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the missing in Argentina...) > > early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the animal you were > studying - it ensured emotional distance and objectivity, I was told. I > don't know how many researchers actually believed this, though. I do know > that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers supporting German > policies) later hoped that their science might discover what it was inside > people that allowed them to systematically mass murder other human beings. > Heather > > ********************************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. > ********************************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" 26-AUG-2003 00:20:03.95 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an ethics/values/standards question Hi Carol, Something lets humans (not in the grip of hunting behavior/mode) quietly kill a lop eared rabbit ("culled" from show rabbits) by either snapping its neck (takes 15 seconds for the rabbit to lose consciousness), whacking it on the head, or suffocating it by standing on a broomstick across its neck. The same people love rabbits. They raise them for show, maybe have them inside their homes as companions. What I want to know is what biological mechanism in the brain allows a person to "disassociate" from that act-of-killing emotionally. It is not done in hunting behavior, it is not done in anger, it is done in a rational reasoned manner. The rabbit is "screaming" cues right and left that it is afraid, it knows something terrible is about to happen. Some scream. Cues that slow down other rabbits from aggression ("appeasement" gestures) and that the human recognizes (because they love and have other rabbits as pets) are ignored. The most notable of human examples of people capable of ignoring HUMAN appeasement signals are in the system Hitler used for extermination of a people. It's only one example of many. Why, when another person (or animal) is in terror or in pain are we capable of not reacting to those communication signals? Other animals DO, at least in their own species. That act of ignoring is not a value judgement, not an ethics judgement, not a standards question. What you have there seems to be a biological mechanism that allows the person to tune out/not react to known appeasement signals. Do you know of any other animals that do this -- turn on and off their ability to react to appeasement signals? I think that it is not a cultural or learned behavior on peoples' parts. I think that learning to always listen to appeasement signals (keeping that switch ON) is learned. I think that the ability to switch it on and off is an inherited trait. I think it is a human species trait. And, because it may be biological in origin you are *not* dealing with ethics, values or standards -- unless you make a concerted effort to teach all human children these things. If this ability to switch on or off your own reaction to appeasement signals is a biological/inherited trait, then ---- how do you engage the ON switch? I don't expect an answer, but since this is something classic ethology was interested in and I have wondered about as I have learned about rabbits, I thought I'd throw it out for thought. Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petherick, Carol" To: "heather mcmurray" ; Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:10 PM Subject: RE: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an ethics/values/standards question > Heather > I think you cannot separate them - our values and morals are part of our evolutionary history - From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 26-AUG-2003 01:28:24.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot >I don't see the difference between moral grounds and ethological ones in >this specific topic A moral action is a choice or a learned action. If ethological, then we are considering a biological trait. It exists without learning or moral consideration. It just "is" and because it is a trait it may need different handling than moral/ethical argument or education. It would be nice to see brain scans (showing areas of the brain being used) for people interacting with pet rabbits and the same people going through the slaughter and butchering of culls (especially cute lop eared rabbit culls). Heather From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 26-AUG-2003 01:30:41.97 To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot > This is not a question of being 'right' or 'wrong' - > just different - unless of course, laws are broken. There is a very goo= d > paper about the moral status of mice (research animal, pest, pet, food > source) that you might like to look at that gives this message very > clearly. It's called "The Moral Status of Mice" and is by HA Herzog (198= 8) > American Psychologist 43: 473-474. > > Carol > Only for the semantics: Philosophically it is indeed a question of "right" or "wrong" and not of "lawful/unlawful" as law is not the source of (and sometimes contradictin= g) ethics or even morality. To claim for individual (a/o cultural) relativism might seem to be easier = first hand but in the end this theoretical founding is in itself contradictive e= ither (If every value lay in culture or the individual (universal "right" or "wrongs= " do not exist) then also values which are contradictive in an exclusiv form, have = to be accepted (i.e. my value is the only one; there are no others to be considered), coming to the paradox, that by priciple it is logically "righ= t", that the principle is "wrong". See?) An conflict avoiding strategy is to connect law and relativistic approach = like "freedom to do, what you want to, since law respected (nobody harmed)" but= adding up two approaches which are not sound is maybe not the best way to deal with the problem. Think of the many things which are lawful but moral= ly wrong (i.e. lying). Greetings Andreas +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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%"m.dierendonck@planet.nl" 26-AUG-2003 02:13:21.48 To: IN%"lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk" "'lucy GRAY'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Equine social heirarchies Lucy, George Warings book (the second edition is just out), the excellent book by Mills and Nankervis, Joel Bergers book, Budiansky's book (more popular written), Patrick Duncan's book and dozens of scientific articles to be found in the normal reference places. At the end of this year a book on the biology of horses will appear. Machteld ========================================= Machteld van Dierendonck Equid ethologist m.dierendonck@planet.nl -----Original Message----- From: lucy GRAY [mailto:lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: zondag 24 augustus 2003 12:45 To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Equine social heirarchies Can anyone point me in the direction of some good references for the social heirarchies of equines and anything on resource holding potential? all help greatly appreciated! Lucy. _____ Deze e-mail is door E-mail VirusScanner van Planet Internet gecontroleerd op virussen. Op http://www.planet.nl/evs staat een verwijzing naar de actuele lijst waar op wordt gecontroleerd. From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 26-AUG-2003 02:14:51.78 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an ethics/values/standards question At 12:19 AM 8/26/03 -0600, you wrote: Hi Heather, Perhaps you are looking at this question backwards. For thousands of years, humans existed as hunters. Killing a rabbit meant you had food tonight for you and your family. Killing it quickly might save the rabbit some trauma, but more likely was done for efficiency and so the rabbit for dinner didn't get away. It is the ability to empathize with animals, to concern ourselves with their feelings and to make them into pets, nurturing and fostering them much like children, that is probably a more recent development. From the way you phrased your question, I suspect you think that loving rabbits and yet being able to kill cull rabbits is something of a mental aberration. However realize that people living in traditional cultures might regard the empathy and creation of pets to be the aberrant behavior. And a woman homesteading on the prairies 150 years ago might have thought that feeding a cull rabbit, rather than feeding it to your family, would be a very aberrant behavior. It depends on your point of view and cultural norms. And how hungry you are and how steady is your food supply. Additionally I suspect that the ability to emotionally distance oneself is a necessary survival skill. For example, in an emergency, sometimes a person has to simply shut off all the overwhelming feelings of fear, hopelessness, panic etc and simply *act.* Or you might be overwhelmed with sorrow from the death of a loved one, but you still need to go out and find something to eat. The emotions have to be set aside to deal with what must be dealt with. In fact, I would say that the inability to at times tune out emotional or empathic responses, to not be able to emotionally distance one's self, would be quite crippling. Nor is it true that other animals always respond to the appeasement signals of their own species. As an example, in Mech's classic book on wolf behavior, there is the observation of a wolf which is happened upon in the territory of another pack by several pack members. The stranger wolf makes repeated appeasement and submissive gestures. The other wolves attack and eventually (if I remember the story correctly) kill it. In other words, animals kill other animals of their own species for as "simple" a reason as it not being a member of the group, even though that animal is using all the appeasement gestures at its disposal. I suspect that humans aren't all that different from many other animal species in their differential ability to respond to appeasement gestures. Janice Janice Willard, DVM, MS >Hi Carol, >Something lets humans (not in the grip of hunting behavior/mode) quietly >kill a lop eared rabbit ("culled" from show rabbits) by either snapping its >neck (takes 15 seconds for the rabbit to lose consciousness), whacking it on >the head, or suffocating it by standing on a broomstick across its neck. >The same people love rabbits. They raise them for show, maybe have them >inside their homes as companions. > >What I want to know is what biological mechanism in the brain allows a >person to "disassociate" from that act-of-killing emotionally. It is not >done in hunting behavior, it is not done in anger, it is done in a rational >reasoned manner. The rabbit is "screaming" cues right and left that it is >afraid, it knows something terrible is about to happen. Some scream. Cues >that slow down other rabbits from aggression ("appeasement" gestures) and >that the human recognizes (because they love and have other rabbits as pets) >are ignored. The most notable of human examples of people capable of >ignoring HUMAN appeasement signals are in the system Hitler used for >extermination of a people. It's only one example of many. Why, when >another person (or animal) is in terror or in pain are we capable of not >reacting to those communication signals? Other animals DO, at least in >their own species. > >That act of ignoring is not a value judgement, not an ethics judgement, not >a standards question. What you have there seems to be a biological >mechanism that allows the person to tune out/not react to known appeasement >signals. Do you know of any other animals that do this -- turn on and off >their ability to react to appeasement signals? I think that it is not a >cultural or learned behavior on peoples' parts. I think that learning to >always listen to appeasement signals (keeping that switch ON) is learned. I >think that the ability to switch it on and off is an inherited trait. I >think it is a human species trait. And, because it may be biological in >origin you are *not* dealing with ethics, values or standards -- unless you >make a concerted effort to teach all human children these things. > >If this ability to switch on or off your own reaction to appeasement signals >is a biological/inherited trait, then ---- how do you engage the ON switch? > >I don't expect an answer, but since this is something classic ethology was >interested in and I have wondered about as I have learned about rabbits, I >thought I'd throw it out for thought. >Heather > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Petherick, Carol" >To: "heather mcmurray" ; > >Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:10 PM >Subject: RE: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an >ethics/values/standards question > > >> Heather >> I think you cannot separate them - our values and morals are part of our >evolutionary history - > > > From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 26-AUG-2003 02:15:52.19 To: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot Janice wrote: > I think what Heather says about rabbits could be true of pigs and probab= ly most > if not all other production animals as well. Mindsets often change regar= ding use > and welfare of animals once a person has had a pet-type relationship wit= h > animals traditionally used for human consumption, labor, or wool. The pi= gs I > currently work with are smart, funny, playful, and affectionate as well.= > Central question seams to be, what in fact makes the difference between this "pet-like relationship" and the "animal-to-use relationship". Some argue, that the distance decreases if you name the animal individuall= y - therefore no names in clinic or experimentation. But i'm not shure if the= naming is essential. It also seams not to be related to spezies or to the outlook of the individual animal. And not related to the age or the (espec= ially good or bad) temperament of the animal. There are some publications about human-animal relationship but i can't remember if there is any about this certain moment of relationship change.= ? By the way, my family invented a kind of ritual to enlarge the distance to the to-be- slaughtered animal. We used to raise a handful of ducks each year. When slaugthertime came we met with two or three families who also had had ducks and after the killing put the corpse each in anonymous bags, from which we take our number away. Therefor everybody could be pretty shure it had not been his /her own little "donald" that comes to the table. Nonetheless my family only 3 or 4 years took part of this - afterwards we came back to the 100% anonymous supermarket duck. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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%"p.l.p.vanloo@las.vet.uu.nl" "Pascalle van Loo" 26-AUG-2003 02:45:54.04 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: naming animals and getting emotionally involved At 10:15 26-8-2003 +0100, Andreas Briese wrote: >Central question seams to be, what in fact makes the difference between >this "pet-like relationship" and the "animal-to-use relationship". >Some argue, that the distance decreases if you name the animal individually - > therefore no names in clinic or experimentation. But i'm not shure if the >naming is essential. It also seams not to be related to spezies or to the >outlook of the individual animal. And not related to the age or the (especially >good or bad) temperament of the animal. >There are some publications about human-animal relationship but i can't >remember if there is any about this certain moment of relationship change.? > Hi Andreas, I am also a member of the LAREF discussion list (Laboratory Animal Refinement and Enrichment Forum). and we had a discussion last year about whether or not to name your research animals, and getting emotionally involved. A summary of this discussion has been published in the Laboratory Primate Newsletter 2003, vol 42, page 14. It is online available at: http://www.brown.edu/Research/Primate/lpn42-1.html Kind regards, Pascalle Van Loo ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Dr. P.L.P. Van Loo Department of Laboratory Animal Science Utrecht University P.O. Box 80.166 3508 TD UTRECHT The Netherlands Tel: ** 31 30 2533818 / 2532033 Fax: ** 31 30 2537997 http://www.vet.uu.nl/site/viavet/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From: IN%"s0234219@sms.ed.ac.uk" "J O'Brien" 26-AUG-2003 06:11:50.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Mintab Stats Dear All, Iam a MSc student desperately trying to complete my thesis and am in a bit of a pickle with some stats trouble. I bassicially just need a few answers on how to get minitab to work for me, and am on a deadline (who isn't) and can't really find anyone who has can explain it here. Heres hoping someone can help Send me an email directly if you have experince with Mintab, sufficiently with PCA's and Factor analyses and Normality transfers and I will sent you the problem sticking point directly, as I didn't want to block up the whole list with them. Heres hoping someone can help Josie O'Brien From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 26-AUG-2003 06:25:11.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"m.dierendonck@planet.nl" Subj: RE: Equine social heirarchies At 10:12 26/08/03 +0200, m.dierendonck@planet.nl wrote: >Clean Clean DocumentEmail MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style >Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle->rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style->parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso->para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} No further comment. :-) >10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>George Warings book (the second edition is just >out), the excellent book by Mills and Nankervis, Joel Bergers book, Budianskys book >(more popular written), There is a list of equine behaviour books at: http://www.gla.ac.uk/external/EBF/booklist.html For the information sought, better bets would be the ones marked as "PURE", but you can also check if social organization is covered by looking at the "Contents" links. >Patrick Duncans book and dozens of scientific articles to be >found in the normal reference places. Would that be Duncan's "Horses and Grasses: A Study of Horses and Their Impact on the Camargue (Ecological Studies)"? > At the end of this year a book on the biology of horses will appear. Can you give us any more information about this please? Thanks! Francis From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 26-AUG-2003 07:23:45.16 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Eating rabbit meat vs. eating other kinds of dead animals Dear Heather and dear all, Heather, I'm curious why you think it's not OK to eat rabbit meat but OK to eat meat that comes from other dead animals? Do you think your feelings about this might change if you had (say) a pig, or a chicken -- both very intelligent animals capable of forming complex social relationships -- or a fish (pushing it here on the social relationships perhaps but no reason to suppose they are not intelligent and we know they can feel pain) living in your house? Why is a dog or cat a less appropriate form of obtaining animal protein (for those who like to partake of it in the form of once-live non-human animals) than a cow, sheep, goat, pig, chicken, fish ....? My own feeling is that it is only because 'we' like to think of some animals as pets, and some not. You are attached to your rabbits and would not consider eating them. Personally, I don't care for eating dead pig. Some people in Asian countries like to eat dog, cat, snake or other things I think of as a bit yucky. When I went to France I was a bit surprised to see 'burger de cheval' (horse meat) on the menu at Burger King ... but if I had been inclined to eat meat I might have tried it, simply since I don't have any particular pet-like attachment issues with horses. I suspect my willingness to publicly state that I have no problem with eating horse meat might be greeted with horror by some on this list, possibly including you. But .... why? Please explain. And could you also explain why the 'cuteness' or otherwise of a potential food animal is relevant? Thanks, - Moira > I am a meat eater but after ten years of having > rabbits as companions, there > is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not > because of "easter > rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize > what dog and cat owners > in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA > owners don't raise St. > Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are > doing in China. Rabbits > are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime > companions die (some die, > too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are > playful inventive > animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a > stew pot anymore than > the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because > humans don't understand > rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is > wrong with us as a > species when caring good people can line rabbits up > on long production lines > and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its > equivalent -- the small > pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the > other. Or, what is > wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for > show, and kill/process > the culls for the pot. > > Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what > that human trait is, that > lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit > is a fryer" and separate > our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; > then, we might understand > the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish > peoples in Germany and > slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the > missing in Argentina...) > > early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the > animal you were > studying - it ensured emotional distance and > objectivity, I was told. I > don't know how many researchers actually believed > this, though. I do know > that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers > supporting German > policies) later hoped that their science might > discover what it was inside > people that allowed them to systematically mass > murder other human beings. > Heather > > ********************************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. ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 26-AUG-2003 09:49:22.96 To: IN%"sgadbois@hfx.eastlink.ca" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Oversight: female/male dominance hierarchies It was pointed out to me that I forgot the following reference (thank you Matthijs Schilder): VAN HOOFF & WENSING: DOMINANCE AND ITS BEHAVIOURAL MEASURES IN A CAPTIVE WILF PACK. In H. Frank (Ed.), Man and Wolf: advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk Publishers. Which made me think of this one, addressing directly the issue of different styles of dominance: Derix, R., Van Hoof, J., DeVries, H. & Wensing, J. (1993). Male and female mating competition in wolves: female suppression vs. male intervention. Behaviour, 127, 141-174. --- Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dalhousie University Behavioural endocrinology & animal behaviour. Behaviour of wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 26-AUG-2003 10:28:23.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: early ethologists had hoped to uncover why humans war and kill On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, heather mcmurray wrote: > Re: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and anotherfor > the pot > > a fryer/dinner" and bop it on the head. We are able to assign our emotions > and attachment to the one object and totally disengage our emotions from the > other NO MATTER WHAT THAT ANIMAL COMMUNICATES/DOES. > > It totally bewilders me to learn that some show breeders of minilops and > other cute pet rabbits are able to slaughter/butcher their culls. Almost > 80% of the show breeders report that they do this. It is quite acceptable > in society to do this. Farmers traditionally have allowed their kids to > I think the difference between humans and (other) animals isn't that we are more aggressive to "outsiders" - in fact we're probably almost uniquely good at being prepared to meet complete strangers and not fight - but is a side-effect of our "theory of mind" capabilities. My two semi-tame wild rabbits would kill my domestic rabbit if I let him run loose in the garden with them. My cat wouldn't harm him because she's socialised to view him as another cat from the same group as her own. Unlike a human she isn't capable of one day rationalising that he's "only a rabbit" and eating him, although I wouldn't try the experiment of starving her to see how deep her socialisation goes. BUT if she catches a mouse she's likely to cause it extreme suffering quite innocently because she doesn't have any understanding that it is any different from one of her toys. Humans can be aware that they are inflicting harm and consciously decide to ignore it. They can also make a conscious decision to turn social behaviour on and off which is what I think is so disturbing about some of the situations where animals are petted at one point and killed later on. Arguably there is something unnatural about this because we were hunter-gatherers for a much longer part of our evolutionary history than we were farmers and wouldn't have been in a position to pet prey species. However Jane Goodall observed chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys even though young chimpanzees of the study group regularly played with and groomed young monkeys and she also observed chimpanzee canibalism and something very like warfare. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 26-AUG-2003 10:29:22.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: it is an ethological question H. McMurray wrote: my question was ethologically-framed, not ethically. What behavioral mechanism in human beings allows them to detach from one animal (for the stew pot) and love the other (the show animal, the pet)? I did not want to frame this as a standards, value, or morals question. This is a *biological* question. An ethological one (looking at our evolutionary context). I think it is a great question and one that I have often pondered. I do think there is a "biological mechanism" that allows us to become attached or detached to some species. I often thought it might be related to the numbers of the animals of a particular species we encounter. That seems especially true with species we consider pests. I can imagine many people on this list are capable of live-catching and releasing the odd mouse, spider, bird, bee, bat, etc. that invades our home. Now imagine not 1, but hundreds of the same species in your house and immediately we become capable of swatting, stomping, exterminating, etc. the entire lot. I think there may be some mechanism, as Heather states, that turns the switch from seeing some animals as rare, beautiful and fascinating to seeing many of the same species as devoid of individuality, consumable and expendable. I think there is something very biological in how that happens to us and it may have less to do with ethics, morals, etc. then we think. If such an innate program runs deep within us, it might explain why it is easier to eat pigs, cattle, sheep and chickens which are so abundant and at the same time form close attachments with individual animals. Though some on this list may find that rabbits make a wonderful pet, I suspect few Australians who have witnessed their fields stripped bare by millions of the same species would view them in the same light. So, I think there may be some sort of innate "numerical visual tolerance level" that we may have that tips our "attitude scale" in favor of or against certain species. Maybe culture, knowledge, experience, ethics and morals helps us adjust the set point along this continuum. Mabye we have the same mechanism for how we view and treat people, which explains why us country folk are so darn friendly (towards other people that is) even though we eat our livestock! What do you think? Cheers, 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%"espinay@bigpond.com" "Tracy" 26-AUG-2003 15:35:43.44 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: Re:: it is an ethological question - not meant to be an ethics/values/standards question << my question was ethologically-framed, not ethically. What behavioral mechanism in human beings allows them to detach from one animal (for the stew pot) and love the other (the show animal, the pet)?>> H. McMurray Takes me back to my university anthropology courses . I remember doing a paper on the role of 'naming' in human emotional attachment to animals - can't remember much now unfortunately although did manage to remember enough to do a quick literature search. Here are a few references which might be the sort of thing you are referring to? Diener P. 1978. The Dialectics of the Sacred Cow: Ecological Adaptation Versus Political Appropriation in the Origins of India's Cattle Complex. Dialectical Anthropology. 3(3):221-42. [taboo; sacred cow; ecology; politics; South Asia; India] Gade DW. 1976. Horsemeat As Human Food in France. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 5:1-11. [food use, horsemeat; Europe; France] Harris M; Ross E. 1978. How Beef Became King. Psychology Today. 12:88-94. [meat-eating; food use, beef; North America; United States] Pliner P; Pelchat M. 1991. Neophobia in Humans and the Special Status of Foods of Animal Origin. Appetite. 16(3):205-18. [meat eating; psychology of preference] Rozin P; Markwith M; Stoess C. 1997. Moralization and Becoming a Vegetarian: The Transformation of Preferences Into Values and the Recruitment of Disgust. Psychological Science. 8:67-73. [vegetarian; preference; taboo] Simoons F. 1978. Traditonal Use and Avoidance of Foods of Animal Origin: A Culture-historical View. Bioscience. 28:178-84. [taboo; meat] Tambiah SJ. 1969. Animals Are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit. Ethnology.5:423-59. [food taboos; meat-eating] http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bkimura/Food.htm Harris M. 1966. The Cultural Ecology of India's Sacred Cattle. Current Anthropology. 7:51-60. [taboo; beef eating; ecology; South Asia; India] Harris M. 1985. The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture. Simon and Schuster. originally titled and recently retitled, Good to eat. [taboos; materialist theory; ecology; cannibalism; meat-eating Harris M. 1998. Good to Eat. Waveland. previously titled, The sacred cow and the abominable pig. [materialist theory; taboos; ecology; food system; meat eating; cannibalism] McDonald D. 1977. Food Taboos: A Primitive Environmental Protection Agency. Anthropos. 72:734-48. [taboo; ecology] Ross E. 1978. Food Taboos in Amazon Cultural Ecology. Current Anthropology. 19(1):1-36. [taboo; ecology; South American Indian; Amazonia] Schiefenhoveal W. 1997. Good Taste and Bad Taste: Preferences and Aversions As Biological Principles. IN Food Preferences and Taste. H Macbeth (editor). 55-64. [disgust and aversion; physiology; ethology; ecology; Oceania; Trobriand Islands] Tracy Bassett Murrumbateman, Australia espinay@bigpond.com From: IN%"JDohner@aol.com" 26-AUG-2003 18:07:15.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: it is an ethological question Who was it that observed only those who are comfortably not starving enjoy the luxury of debating the eating of animals? I carefully nurture the baby chicks and turkeys in the brooder and then yes, sometime later I eat them. Ironically, we will not be able to preserve many endangered breeds of livestock unless we do eat them. Jan Dohner The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds Yale University Press, 2002 From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 26-AUG-2003 20:34:38.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: different topic: flip side/ veget. require less hectares/person, smaller ecological footprint "Who was it that observed only those who are comfortably not starving enjoy the luxury of debating the eating of animals?" - on the flip side of the argument, Vegetarians require less hectares per person to sustain them than meat eaters -- and a lot of our arable lands are going to meat production. I was interested to learn this as I grew up eating meat and still eat meat. http://www.tranquileye.com/clock/ Arable land is limited and shrinking fast http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update21.htm http://www.arena.org.nz/dustbowl.htm Ecological Footprints: http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/Veggie_Club/papers/veggie_capitalism_ecological_footprint.htm there is a great page on Ethiopia and farming - about how in that arid place gardens are possible. http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm Also good, http://www.hydrosource.com/web_clp/960901/w3clp9e2.jpg http://www.nativeseeds.org/v1/default.php http://www.seedsavers.org ----- Original Message ----- From: JDohner@aol.com To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 6:06 PM Subject: Re: it is an ethological question Who was it that observed only those who are comfortably not starving enjoy the luxury of debating the eating of animals? I carefully nurture the baby chicks and turkeys in the brooder and then yes, sometime later I eat them. Ironically, we will not be able to preserve many endangered breeds of livestock unless we do eat them. Jan Dohner The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds Yale University Press, 2002 From: IN%"JDohner@aol.com" 27-AUG-2003 06:30:40.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: different topic: flip side/ veget. require less hectares/person,smaller ecological footprint Sustainable agriculture practices would help answer this problem. Farmers once turned livestock out on crop waste -now it rots in the field. Livestock also enriched the land - now we use expensive fertilizer. Livestock can also make use of marginal land unsuitable for crops. The solution is an intelligent approach, not an absolute. -- Jan Dohner The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds, Yale Univ. Press www.rareonthefarm.com JDohner@aol.com From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 27-AUG-2003 06:54:39.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: it is an ethological question Joseph Stookey: > So, I think there may be some sort of innate "numerical visual tolerance > level" that we may have that tips our "attitude scale" in favor of or > against certain species. Maybe culture, knowledge, experience, ethics > and morals helps us adjust the set point along this continuum. Mabye we > have the same mechanism for how we view and treat people, which explains > why us country folk are so darn friendly (towards other people that is) > even though we eat our livestock! What do you think? margory cohen: Hello. Enjoyed reading yours. I don't know why country folk are so friendly. I should, coming from a small town surrounded by farm land. Would religious law fall into culture? Where dietary law prescribes not only who gets eaten but also how that is killed, cleaned and prepared. Thanks to Tracy Bassett for references. Michael Pollan's essay in the New York Times Magazine in November 2002, "An Animal's Place," was I thought a thoughtful piece to this also. My own ponderings to this always return to the disconnect between the Urban and the Country and even in the Country anymore, the split between agriculture and "social culture" for lack of a way to name cityslickers who've bought what used to be the local dairy and renovated it for entertaining. And when even for fresh fruit and vegetables, the notion of "seasons" is kaput what with stuff shipped in by the plane-ful. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 27-AUG-2003 14:21:23.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Jackie Perkins wrote: > Thanks for your fishy input. Where are you from? I mean what part of the > world. I am new to the list and have not had the benefit of intros. I am a U.S. American from Boston MA who lived and worked for altogether nearly 30 years in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I even managed a trip to Australia (a month as visiting scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences at Cape Ferguson near Townsville, unfortunately I never got to Brisbane ). I worked on Cichlid fishes in the U.S. as a distraction while doing my doctoral research on circadian rhythms, and later as a postdoctoral research fellow with Konrad Lorenz in Germany. From there I went to West Africa where I did both field and aquarium work on some of the same Cichlids at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. Since then I have moved more into community ecology (thus the marine biology "hat") but retain a strong interest in Cichlids and their behavior. I am currently living in southern California. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"Nora_Lewis@umanitoba.ca" "Nora Lewis" 28-AUG-2003 13:43:08.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot >My two cents worth, > I think that evolution has given us and animals the ability to categorise other living species into a number of groups: for same species possibly: babies, family, part of community, strangers and for other species possibly: prey, preditor, other like species (eg. in herds ruminants attend to the signals of other ruminants) and neutral. I think that evolution has given us certain ways of recognising these groups and a standard way of dealing with them which has benefits for the species. eg. birds may recognise preditors by the site of a bird in the mouth of the preditor or by learning from parents or through mobbing and this enhances the ability to survive. The category babies results in care-giving behaviour, tolerance of social mistakes, non-aggression etc.Where the problem comes in is that domestication/modern living has caused some crossing of these categories. Close contact in early childhood may turn another species from prey to family and is therefore treated this way. Pets may partially fall in the baby category because they evoke similar responses in us or trigger the baby category responses because they have round heads, small ears etc.. Evolution has only provided us with a limited number of categories and we can't add to them so we and our animals try to fit strange relationships into these evolved categories making for some strange associations and responses. We also seem to be able to move animals from one category to another based on the stimuli they represent and animals seem to do the same thing so my horses may see me as a horse when we are engaged in mutual grooming but as preditor-like when I am trying to catch them in the field. Comments welcome positive or negative. Nora From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 28-AUG-2003 20:02:49.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and another for the pot So Nora, if I understand you correctly you are making a case here for interaction between "nature" and "nurture." I do agree that evolution has created within us some innate responses to certain species, and, that our culture, society, etc. etc. can have an affect in altering our responses. But how does your argument explain our own very different responses to the same species, depending on the circumstances i.e.: one as a pet, the other for the pot as Heather has so aptly named this scenario? Vivian > I think that evolution has given us and animals the ability to > categorise other living species into a number of groups: for same > species possibly: babies, family, part of community, strangers and for > other species possibly: prey, preditor, other like species (eg. in herds > ruminants attend to the signals of other ruminants) and neutral. I think > that evolution has given us certain ways of recognising these groups and > a standard way of dealing with them which has benefits for the species. > eg. birds may recognise preditors by the site of a bird in the mouth of > the preditor or by learning from parents or through mobbing and this > enhances the ability to survive. The category babies results in > care-giving behaviour, tolerance of social mistakes, non-aggression > etc.Where the problem comes in is that domestication/modern living has > caused some crossing of these categories. Close contact in early > childhood may turn another species from prey to family and is therefore > treated this way. Pets may partially fall in the baby category because > they evoke similar responses in us or trigger the baby category > responses because they have round heads, small ears etc.. Evolution has > only provided us with a limited number of categories and we can't add to > them so we and our animals try to fit strange relationships into these > evolved categories making for some strange associations and responses. > We also seem to be able to move animals from one category to another > based on the stimuli they represent and animals seem to do the same > thing so my horses may see me as a horse when we are engaged in mutual > grooming but as preditor-like when I am trying to catch them in the field. > > Comments welcome positive or negative. > > Nora > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 29-AUG-2003 00:42:55.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: OT: Neutered rabbits - one account of maternal behavior [Joy is a spayed house rabbit. A stuffie is a stuffed animal] > Joy was forever building nests. Although spayed, we think they must have > missed some hormone-producing tissue, because she continued to cycle. > Nest building was just a part of life for her. > > There was one "ahhh"-type poignant moment. > > One evening she started building a nest. > > When I arose the next morning and looked at her completed work, I > discovered that she had moved her beloved toy dog stuffie into the middle > of it. > > It was always her *baby*, and I guess she figured that's where it belonged. for the rabbit growers on the list who believe that baby rabbits can be separated from their mothers at 4-5 weeks, take a look at this page: http://members.aol.com/bunster2/carla.htm (Simon's happy sound is the only rabbit sound in the British National Sound Archives that is not a scream or a thump) From: IN%"Knut.Niebuhr@vu-wien.ac.at" "Knut Niebuhr" 29-AUG-2003 02:44:11.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cages for laying hens, deflection plates, EU Dear all, 1) EU directive 1999/74 states in article 5 that as from 1.1.2003 conventional cages must provide 1. at least 550 cm² per hen of cage area, measured in a horizontal plane, which may be used without restriction, in particular not including non-waste deflection plates liable to restrict the area available. The last passage has been taken over from EU directive 88/166, and therefore applies in the EU since 1995. Seemingly the last passage regarding the area occupied by deflection plates is somhow interpreted differently in different member states, as mentioned already on page 16 of the report on the welfare of laying hens by the EU- scientific veterinary committee. My question would be, if anybody could give me information on: - how this is actually applied in other EU member states - if there is any literature available as to wether theses plates actually restrict the area available to the hens, how and why? - in case there is no literature: could people having worked on the welfare of lying hens in cages please give me there personal opinion under what circumstances (design and measurement of the plates in cages actually being used in practice) this area could be included or whether it must be excluded generally or partially and why? 2) The same directive requires claw-shortening devices also for conventional cages. As I have understood from Ragnar Tausons work, these were fitted along almost the whole deflector plate. Nevertheless in practice in many cases only a short strip of this device (e.g.15 cm,) is actually used, an article in pluimveehouderij by T. Fiks van Niekerk et al. came to the conclusion that this is enough for conventional cages. Seemingly only metal and ceramic or bakelit stripes worked well over a longer period Does anybody have additional information on that issue and how this is handled by the authorities throughout the EU. Does anybody have personal experience, especially also regarding brown medium sized hens? Thank you very much in advance Yours K.Niebuhr Dr. Knut Niebuhr Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare University for Veterinary Medicine Vienna Veterinaerplatz 1 A-1210 Wien Austria Tel. +43/1/25077-4906 Fax +43/1/25077-4990 From: IN%"Rexxie1@aol.com" 29-AUG-2003 11:34:24.82 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: New York Times article-What Makes Dogs Tick? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/19/science/19DOG.html SCIENCE DESK | August 19, 2003, Tuesday What Makes Dogs Tick? The Search for Answers By MARK DERR (NYT) 1387 words Late Edition - Final , Section F , Page 3 , Column 2 DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1387 WORDS - The demands on dogs have never been greater. ... Dogs now sniff out bombs, sarin, land mines, illegal drugs and other contraband, as well as money, firearms, traces of gasoline used in arson, underground gas and water leaks and termites. They serve people with disabilities and sometimes help improve the... From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 31-AUG-2003 10:45:43.91 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: it is an ethological question margory cohen wrote: > Enjoyed reading yours. I don't know why country folk are so friendly. I > should, coming from a small town surrounded by farm land. > > Would religious law fall into culture? Where dietary law prescribes not > only who gets eaten but also how that is killed, cleaned and prepared. > > Thanks to Tracy Bassett for references. > Michael Pollan's essay in the New York Times Magazine in November 2002, "An > Animal's Place," was I thought a thoughtful piece to this also. Available online at http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/010403_organic.cfm See also "This Steer's Life" at http://nehbc.org/pollan1.html > My own ponderings to this always return to the disconnect between the Urban > and the Country and even in the Country anymore, the split between > agriculture and "social culture" for lack of a way to name cityslickers > who've bought what used to be the local dairy and renovated it for > entertaining. And take a look at what passes for a "dairy" in the Central Valley of California these days. Thousands of animals, living on mountains of their own dung, exhaling enough methane to contribute significantly to a major air pollution problem (the air in the Valley is now worse than in Los Angeles). A long way indeed from the "Bossy" of my childhood (who would kick you into the gutter if you milked her maladroitly, but hey, nothing in life is free ). One of the fields in which we used to course jackrabbits was recently turned into a moonscape which when completed will become a "dairy" housing 30,000 cattle (yes, thirty thousand) on what I think is less than one square mile of land. It's the cheese . Not to mention "economies of scale." > And when even for fresh fruit and vegetables, the notion of "seasons" is > kaput what with stuff shipped in by the plane-ful. Best not to inquire too closely about the ecological effects of some of that. All these things are, in Michael Pollan's words, "floating on a sea of oil" - driven, to a much greater extent than most people realize, by the bizarre economics of unrealistically cheap fossil fuel. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 31-AUG-2003 10:45:57.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: different topic: flip side/ veget. require lesshectares/person,smaller ecological footprint Jan Dohner wrote: > Sustainable agriculture practices would help answer this problem. Farmers once turned livestock out on crop waste -now it rots in the field. Livestock also enriched the land - now we use expensive fertilizer. Livestock can also make use of marginal land unsuitable for crops. The solution is an intelligent approach, not an absolute. And the "smaller ecological footprint" is to a considerable extent a product of absolutist thinking, not an immutable fact. The "energy pyramid" is only part of the story. Nutrient recycling (which modern agriculture no longer does very well, because it's not "cost effective") is equally important. The ecological footprint of intensive beef production (in which ruminants, whose ecological specialty is converting low quality forage into animal protein, are fed a heavily supplemented grain ration high in protein and energy, and dosed with hormones and antibiotics, to bring them to market weight faster) is not a very valid model for this kind of comparison . It is, rather, a textbook example of "economics gone mad" . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 31-AUG-2003 10:46:49.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: what is it that lets humans designate one animal as a pet and anotherfor the pot heather mcmurray wrote: > commerical meat breeders will cull any rabbit showing any aggression. the > result is a rabbit like Christmas I guess, who is the most friendly people > loving amiable wonderful new zealand white you've ever met. She's also very > smart. These are the rabbits that some in the list are studying ways to > factory farm as there is a big push from the United Nations FAO/AGAP to make > rabbits the next chicken of this century. Rabbits like Christmas are raised > to 3 months and slaughtered as fryers. If you ever have had a rabbit loose > in your home 24 hrs a day as a companion you would realize how very inhumane > the current backyard meat breeding and commercial racks of rabbits are. > I am a meat eater but after ten years of having rabbits as companions, there > is no way I would ever touch rabbit meat. It is not because of "easter > rabbit syndrome" either -- it is because I recognize what dog and cat owners > in the USA recognize about their pets and why USA owners don't raise St. > Bernard dog hybrids as meat animals, like they are doing in China. Rabbits > are extremely smart, they grieve when lifetime companions die (some die, > too), they grieve when their human is sick, they are playful inventive > animals, and they don't deserve to be popped into a stew pot anymore than > the dog or cat sitting at your feet just because humans don't understand > rabbit nonverbal language cues. You wonder what is wrong with us as a > species when caring good people can line rabbits up on long production lines > and make photos showing a rabbit on one side and its equivalent -- the small > pile of feed required to raise it to fryer -- on the other. Or, what is > wrong with humans that allows them to raise lops for show, and kill/process > the culls for the pot. Nothing. See Janice Willard's excellent post. In my experience, hunting peoples do not necessarily find any contradiction in keeping some individuals of a species as pets, while hunting, killing and eating other individuals of the same species. I observed that among Nigerian villagers, and among the Arabian Bedouin with whom I spent a good deal of time. You find it described in some of Gerald Durrell's books. I myself, indeed, find no unbearable contradiction in so doing. Even my hounds live amicably at home with individuals of species which in a different context they would regard as prey. So that kind of context-contingent classification is by no means an exclusively human accomplishment. Still less is it something "wrong" or morally reprehensible. Bedouin are very conscious of the responsibility in killing. Death is, after all, ever present in the desert. One must always invoke God's name, whether slaughtering or hunting. They take a dim view of what we would call "mercy killing" - on the ground that it is God's prerogative, not man's, to decide when life should end. Killing for necessity, in order to eat, is sanctioned by God. Killing to end suffering apparently is not. In spite of what can only be called reckless hunting practices associated with access to modern firearms and all-terrain vehicles, some at least of them have a strongly developed sense of fairness in hunting. I remember a Bedouin hunter calling his hounds off the pursuit of a half-grown hare, saying it was not fair (few Europeans would be able to call sighthounds off a chase already begun, but this man did so). I remember also the visit of a Saudi Arabian prince to Europe. The man was a friend of mine, a neighbor, and companion of many hunting trips in the desert, whom I therefore knew to be an outstanding shot. Our European hosts invited us for a duck hunt, which involved walking along a series of ponds and shooting the ducks that took wing at our approach. My friend missed every one (and I did the same ). He said afterward, privately, only "I can't shoot Susies" meaning that in his view those ducks were not truly wild and hunting them was therefore unfair. He chose the embarrassment of a public display of ineptitude, rather than offend people who had gone to so much trouble on his behalf, and rather than do something he found repugnant. I have been a hunter since childhood. Being a hunter worthy of the name involves, IMO, a respect for the game which borders on veneration. That aspect is discussed at fascinating length in Barry Lopez's luminous if sometimes uncomfortable book "Of Wolves and Men." That kind of respect forbids frivolity. It begins, but does not end, with not killing anything one doesn't intend to use. > Sometimes I think that if we could figure out what that human trait is, that > lets us say "this rabbit is a pet" and "this rabbit is a fryer" and separate > our emotions from the rabbit destined for the pot; then, we might understand > the mechanism that allowed humans to separate Jewish peoples in Germany and > slaughter them (or the Armenians, the Laotians, the missing in Argentina...) Not really; the latter has to do with "us" and "them" - with tribalism if you like - which was probably also behind the wolf example Janice quoted from Mech. Lorenz among others has written cogently about that. I think, as Janice suggested, that your example is looking at things backward. The "pet" concept involves extending to some members of another species, and in varying degree, social and emotional responses whose "proper" place is in the social fabric of our own species. That is of course facilitated by the common heritage we share with other mammals - mammals are warm and furry, most of them appreciate body contact and/or social grooming, etc. Those things also make it very difficult to avoid anthropomorphizing our pets. There's no question that humans can form, using empathy and perception and on a foundation of instinctive commonality, profound relationships with various kinds of animals, wild as well as domestic. As a naturalist and practicing ethologist I've enjoyed my share of such. I've experienced with horses and with hounds the remarkable kind of intimacy that arises from cooperative effort toward a mutual goal. At the same time it's quite clear the bonds we form with other members of our own species are qualitatively as well as quantitatively different. That doesn't require any mystical or metaphysical explanation. We have, thanks to our evolutionary history and beyond the veneer of culture, more in common with other humans than with any non-human species, even with our closest relatives the chimpanzees and bonobos. Living at close quarters with a chimpanzee (as I had the opportunity to do in Africa) brings home in a very graphic way not only the closeness of our relationship, but also the essential otherness that nevertheless remains. A chimp is neither a caricature of a human being, nor an underendowed person; it is a chimpanzee, entire in itself and definitely *not* human - even though some taxonomists are now suggesting the genus Pan be merged into the genus Homo, a step with which I would not necessarily disagree (I wonder what the ancient Greeks might have thought. Pan was after all a god). The nub of the "speciesist" accusation ignores or overlooks that fact, and so is actually quite disrespectful of the marvels of evolution. Animal species are *not* equivalent or interchangeable, and for that we should be thankful. That does not imply that one species is more "valuable" than another, but only that they are all different. I am in fact vehemently opposed to the arrogance implicit in the "dominion of man" concept. We are, however, apparently the only species able by thinking to make profound changes in the nature of our interactions with our environment. We therefore bear a terrible responsibility, which we have not so far discharged very admirably. That is, however, the subject of a different discussion, in preparation for which I strongly recommend reading of Jonathan Kingdon's book "Self Made Man" . The rest of what I wanted to say here is expounded so well by Michael Pollan in his essay on "An Animal's Place" (already mentioned by Margory, and available online at http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/010403_organic.cfm) that I can do no better than recommend reading it. The exemplary Salatin farm, mentioned in the essay, was the subject of an article in "Smithsonian" magazine for July, 2000, describing Salatin's methods in some detail. An abstract can be seen at http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues00/jul00/farm.html. > early ethologists had a rule that you had to eat the animal you were > studying - it ensured emotional distance and objectivity, I was told. I > don't know how many researchers actually believed this, though. I do know > that people like Lorenz (who wrote many early papers supporting German > policies) later hoped that their science might discover what it was inside > people that allowed them to systematically mass murder other human beings. Now one greatly misunderstood paper (has anybody actually read it?) has become "many early papers" ... and thus the legend grows. BTW that was not a "rule" (can you imagine eating a stickleback??? or for that matter a Black-Headed Gull?) but originated in a semi-facetious remark by Lorenz that if you were going to select a group of organisms on which to conduct studies in comparative ethology (note the word "comparative") then you should try to pick a group which a) had many related species, so you could make useful phylogenetic comparisons; b) had some interesting and reasonably complex social behavior, so you had something to analyze the structure of; c) was beautiful to look at, so you would find staring at them for the necessary endless hours a pleasure instead of a burden; and d) was good to eat, so you had something constructive to do with the inevitable surplus. In spite of his usual solemn mien (born perhaps of watching his best student and close friend die of starvation in a Soviet prison camp, a death which all his efforts as physician - and nocturnal forager - were unable to prevent), the man did have a sense of humor. There is also more than a grain of truth in what he said. If you breed animals for research, you will sooner or later have a surplus of them. Dumping them back "into the wild" (if they are of wild species) is usually not a realistic or ethically acceptable option. So you have to think of something else. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 31-AUG-2003 16:00:02.37 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: different topic: flip side/ veget. require less hectares/person, smaller ecological footprint Hi Jackie Many in northern Australia would argue that Bos indicus cattle are the worst thing to ever happen to the country because they are very stress-resistant and as a consequence do not have the good grace to die during extended dry periods/drought - unlike the unadapted Bos Taurus-type cattle. As a consequence, it is argued that they have done untold damage to the land through over-grazing, resulting in erosion and other degradation. I appreciate that this is, ultimately, the fault of the producers who may over-stock their land (and before anybody jumps down my throat, I am not suggesting that we should keep cattle that do die, or even allow animals to struggle to survive in drought!). Some would say that hard-hoofed animals should not be on the fragile Australian pasture and soils, and that if we are going to farm anything here, then it should be the macropods (and I don't wish to get into the ethical debate of eating one of our national emblems either!!) 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: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Friday, 29 August 2003 9:51 AM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: FW: different topic: flip side/ veget. require less hectares/person, smaller ecological footprint That is so, but in Australia it has proved a mistake to attempt clearing for crop growing due to erosion and salinity problems. There is also insufficient water to grow crops in most of the country. Grass fed beef of the bos indicus (humped) variety is arguable the best use of much of the country. Also, humans are omnivorous and meant to eat a variety of foods including meat. I appreciate that vegetarians can be healthy but I have the impression it can be a struggle. Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behavior Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:33 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: different topic: flip side/ veget. require less hectares/person, smaller ecological footprint "Who was it that observed only those who are comfortably not starving enjoy the luxury of debating the eating of animals?" - on the flip side of the argument, Vegetarians require less hectares per person to sustain them than meat eaters -- and a lot of our arable lands are going to meat production. I was interested to learn this as I grew up eating meat and still eat meat. http://www.tranquileye.com/clock/ Arable land is limited and shrinking fast http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update21.htm http://www.arena.org.nz/dustbowl.htm Ecological Footprints: http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/Veggie_Club/papers/veggie_capitalism_ecologi cal_footprint.htm there is a great page on Ethiopia and farming - about how in that arid place gardens are possible. http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm Also good, http://www.hydrosource.com/web_clp/960901/w3clp9e2.jpg http://www.nativeseeds.org/v1/default.php http://www.seedsavers.org ----- Original Message ----- From: JDohner@aol.com To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 6:06 PM Subject: Re: it is an ethological question Who was it that observed only those who are comfortably not starving enjoy the luxury of debating the eating of animals? I carefully nurture the baby chicks and turkeys in the brooder and then yes, sometime later I eat them. Ironically, we will not be able to preserve many endangered breeds of livestock unless we do eat them. Jan Dohner The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds Yale University Press, 2002 ********************************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%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 31-AUG-2003 20:32:40.94 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: virus scare could be a hoax I received an Email from another contact claiming that this particular virus thing is a hoax that does the rounds occasionally. Me, I would not know, I am just the monkey pushing the buttons and do not understand the machine. Do we have a computer whiz amongst us who can clarify this situation? Regards, Jackie Perkins