From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 18-AUG-2006 09:44:36.06 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Posting to applied-ethology HI Everyone, Those of you having trouble posting to applied-ethology should try using a new e-mail address for the list: applied-ethology@usask.ca See if that helps. Cheers, Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Professor of Applied Ethology Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5B4 Tel 306-966-7154 Fax 306-966-7159 From: IN%"psimonet@petalk.org" "Patricia Simonet" 18-AUG-2006 09:59:38.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: The future of the list Hello All, I too would like to see the list continue. Even when the battle between shock collar proponents and opponents waged, I thought how lucky we were to have such a wonderful group of scientists willing to educate outside the classroom. I learned patience. I also enjoy the discussions on species with which I am less familiar. Please, let us continue. Patricia Simonet Spokane, WA From: IN%"LyndhurstPark@aol.com" 18-AUG-2006 10:15:07.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Has Applied Ethology served its time Dear Professor, I echo the many sentiments. As a mature student doing a degree in Canine Ethology. I find the site an excellent resource - it allowes me access to fellow practitioners world-wide who kindly proffered me advice and assistance by directing me to previously unknown research pathways. If you were to close this highly valuable resource, it would deny many practitioners the opportunity to enter into academic dialogue world-wide with co professionals they never new existed. Regards Gordon Butcher From: IN%"big866@163.com" "lizheng" 19-AUG-2006 18:59:50.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-req... " CC: Subj: help HELP Hello everone: I am a post-graduate student in China.My major is applied animal behavior science. Now,I want to study somgthing about piglet,like solid food.I want to know what colour and shape does piglet like?I need some sources about these.I hope who can help me,thanks very much! Li zheng From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 21-AUG-2006 04:39:31.64 To: IN%"psimonet@petalk.org" "Patricia Simonet", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Dear Patricia, At the risk of possibly incurring wrath from some quarters, I would like to point out that not everybody engaged in the discussions on electric shock collars was a scientist. That is partly why this list has become what it is and why so many of the scientists have left. Chris --On 18 August 2006 08:58 -0700 Patricia Simonet wrote: > Hello All, > > > I too would like to see the list continue. > > > Even when the battle between shock collar proponents and opponents waged, > I thought how lucky we were to have such a wonderful group of scientists > willing to educate outside the classroom. I learned patience. > > > I also enjoy the discussions on species with which I am less familiar. > > > Please, let us continue. > > > Patricia Simonet > Spokane, WA > > > ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 21-AUG-2006 05:45:49.78 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list CeAnn, I'm afraid they did speak up and were promptly criticised both publicly and privately in ways that were unprofessional and in some cases rude. That is why they left. Chris --On 21 August 2006 04:41 -0700 Cecilia Lambert wrote: > > Dear Chris > Instead of the scientists leaving for that reason, couldn't they have > spoken up for alternative training techniques. If just one trainers mind > could be changed by offering an alternative, just think of how much > suffering an animal could have been spared. > Just look at what Wolf Park is able to do with wolves and coyotes. No > shock collars and no choke chains. Just patience and understanding of > behavior. > CeAnn > > "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" > wrote: > > Dear Patricia, > > At the risk of possibly incurring wrath from some quarters, I would like > to > point out that not everybody engaged in the discussions on electric shock > collars was a scientist. That is partly why this list has become what it > is and why so many of the scientists have left. > > Chris > > --On 18 August 2006 08:58 -0700 Patricia Simonet > wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> >> I too would like to see the list continue. >> >> >> Even when the battle between shock collar proponents and opponents waged, >> I thought how lucky we were to have such a wonderful group of scientists >> willing to educate outside the classroom. I learned patience. >> >> >> I also enjoy the discussions on species with which I am less familiar. >> >> >> Please, let us continue. >> >> >> Patricia Simonet >> Spokane, WA >> >> >> > > > > ---------------------- > Chris Sherwin > Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare > Division Clinical Veterinary Science > University of Bristol > Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > Phone 0117 928 9486 > > > > > > CeAnn Lambert > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > www.coyoterescue.org > > Please visit our gift shop @ > www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"randihelene@fjellanger.net" "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole)" 21-AUG-2006 06:40:28.94 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: The future of the list Dear everyone, I would like to see the list continue. I agree that some of the discussions on the board might not be of the best quality (especially when it comes to subjects that people tend to take personally), although I hope that most are. At the same time I find the discussions interesting because it has given me a sort of cultural insight into how people of different professions look at the world. That helped me choose a theme for my master thesis and helps me discuss arguments that the different people use for methodology (in for instance dog training). Although my master was I dog behaviour I am interested in that the list continues, because it covers ALL species. We have many lists that covers only dog behaviour, and they tend to be flooded by non-scientists. Yours, Randi Helene Tillung M.Sc Canine Ethology Norway From: IN%"randihelene@fjellanger.net" "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole)" 21-AUG-2006 06:46:01.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Abstract: "Reward is suitable to achieve an obedient dog" Dear everyone, I would like to share with you the abstract of my master thesis in ethology at The Norwegian University of Life Sciences. I have not had time to translate the full thesis from Norwegian yet, so I apologise that you will not have the possibility yet to discuss methods and tools. I want to be able to do this later, but would like to publish this abstract for discussion. For your information I included questionnaires developed by Serpell (C-BARQ) and Rohner & Khaleque (PARTheory). I have been inspired by my participation in dog training and education, and by the questions raised by Elly Hiby et al in their article earlier discussed on this list (Hiby, EF., Rooney, NJ. & Bradshaw, JWS. (2004): Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim. Welfare. 13, 63-69.). In my thesis I have been critical about some of the training methods used and advised by dog trainers, using examples from books and advice given on the internet. The title is inspired by the book written by Johan B. Steen (professor in biology) and Erik Wilsson (Ph.D zoology/ethology) which claims that "reward is not suitable to achieve an obedient dog". See abstract below. Yours, Randi Helene Tillung M. Sc Ethology -------------------------------------------------------- Title: Reward is suitable to achieve an obedient dog Abstract Traditionally dogs have been trained with methods involving aversives (here: punishment). In recent times modern methods with more use of rewards have become popular, amongst them clickertraining have gained success. Research has shown that aversives can induce training problems and put the dog's welfare at risk. We analysed 821 replies to an online open questionnaire covering four topics; demographics, the owner's control (permissiveness-strictness, regulation of the dog's behaviour) and attitude, the owner's training methods (punishment and reward) and the dog's behaviour (obedience and behaviour problems). Several links between training methods, control, obedience, training problems and other behaviour problems were found. We compared the owner's control score and training methods with the dog's behaviour, and found that the use of punishment (i.e. frequency, harshness, number of methods) and the use of aversive techniques, like putting the dog to the ground, popping the leash and the use of different training collars (prong, remote shock), were associated with lower obedience and more training problems. There was a significant correlation between higher control score and more use of punishment, but only control was related to higher obedience and trainability.Reward-based methods were associated with higher obedience and trainability. Men and women trained their dogs differently. Cluster analysis showed that the majority of men (93%) punished and controlled their dogs more and rewarded them less, while the majority of women (69,9%) rewarded the dogs more, punished them less and used moderate control. These women's dogs were more obedient, with less training problems and behaviour problems. A smaller group of women (28,8%) were relatively more permissive with their dogs, and used punishment and reward close to the mean score. Their dogs were disobedient and had training problems. Control seems to be an important tool to achieve an obedient dog. We propose that modern methods built on knowledge of behaviour analysis and ethology are promising in relation to ethical concerns, animal welfare and for achieving a more obedient and balanced dog. From: IN%"psimonet@petalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 21-AUG-2006 07:27:58.86 To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: The future of the list Hello Chris, Yes, I am well aware that many were not scientist. I nearly signed- off as well. I was referring to the patience of the scientists to the vociferous proponents of shock collars. Patricia Simonet Spokane, WA On Aug 21, 2006, at 3:36 AM, CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry wrote: > Dear Patricia, > > At the risk of possibly incurring wrath from some quarters, I would > like to point out that not everybody engaged in the discussions on > electric shock collars was a scientist. That is partly why this > list has become what it is and why so many of the scientists have > left. > > Chris > > --On 18 August 2006 08:58 -0700 Patricia Simonet > wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> >> I too would like to see the list continue. >> >> >> Even when the battle between shock collar proponents and opponents >> waged, >> I thought how lucky we were to have such a wonderful group of >> scientists >> willing to educate outside the classroom. I learned patience. >> >> >> I also enjoy the discussions on species with which I am less >> familiar. >> >> >> Please, let us continue. >> >> >> Patricia Simonet >> Spokane, WA >> >> >> > > > > ---------------------- > Chris Sherwin > Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare > Division Clinical Veterinary Science > University of Bristol > Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 21-AUG-2006 07:46:23.09 To: IN%"psimonet@petalk.org" "Trisha Simonet", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: The future of the list Hi Patricia, Sorry, I did not realise that, but can now see it on re-reading your=20 message. All the best, Chris --On 21 August 2006 06:27 -0700 Trisha Simonet wrote: > Hello Chris, > > > Yes, I am well aware that many were not scientist. I nearly signed-off as > well. I was referring to the patience of the scientists to the vociferous > proponents of shock collars. > > > Patricia Simonet > Spokane, WA > > > > > On Aug 21, 2006, at 3:36 AM, CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry > wrote: > > > Dear Patricia, > > > At the risk of possibly incurring wrath from some quarters, I would like > to point out that not everybody engaged in the discussions on electric > shock collars was a scientist.=A0 That is partly why this list has become > what it is and why so many of the scientists have left. > > > Chris > > > --On 18 August 2006 08:58 -0700 Patricia Simonet > wrote: > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > I too would like to see the list continue. > > > > > Even when the battle between shock collar proponents and opponents waged, > I thought how lucky we were to have such a wonderful group of scientists > willing to educate outside the classroom. I learned patience. > > > > > I also enjoy the discussions on species with which I am less familiar. > > > > > Please, let us continue. > > > > > Patricia Simonet > Spokane, WA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------- > Chris Sherwin > Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare > Division Clinical Veterinary Science > University of Bristol > Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > Phone 0117 928 9486 > > > > ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"tricia_b@comcast.net" "Tricia Breen" 21-AUG-2006 09:14:25.31 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: The future of the list At the risk of sounding rational, may I please submit that science is not some untouchable idol that can only be practiced by those who have shown that they can jump through academic hoops, use the proper font for theses, and keep their advisor happy long enough to be granted a degree. Science is a quest for knowledge and in fact, if done properly, is a quest that can usually only rule out and can never prove affirmatives. And in the life sciences when studying something as complicated as behavior, it is rare that anything can actually be ruled out! I don't mean to step on sacred cows but if this list is useful it is because there are thoughtful, critical thinking people on board. If it isn't useful, it is because there are people on board who are wedded to their own perspective and not open to others. The 'scientist vs. 'non-scientists' arguments tend to make me believe it might be the latter, regardless of number of degrees among the participants. Tricia Breen From: IN%"tricia_b@comcast.net" "Tricia Breen" 21-AUG-2006 09:16:30.23 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: The future of the list At the risk of sounding rational, may I please submit that science is not some untouchable idol that can only be practiced by those who have shown that they can jump through academic hoops, use the proper font for theses, and keep their advisor happy long enough to be granted a degree. Science is a quest for knowledge and in fact, if done properly, is a quest that can usually only rule out and can never prove affirmatives. And in the life sciences when studying something as complicated as behavior, it is rare that anything can actually be ruled out! I don't mean to step on sacred cows but if this list is useful it is because there are thoughtful, critical thinking people on board. If it isn't useful, it is because there are people on board who are wedded to their own perspective and not open to others. The 'scientist vs. 'non-scientists' arguments tend to make me believe it might be the latter, regardless of number of degrees among the participants. Tricia Breen From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 21-AUG-2006 09:24:46.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Tethering Good morning, everyone: We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Regards and thanks in advance, Gail Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"randihelene@tillung.no" "Randi Helene Tillung" 21-AUG-2006 10:17:13.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Requests: Abstract: "Reward is suitable to achieve an obedient dog" For those of you who are able to read Norwegian you can find the full thesis, and the online questionnaire, at my website www.tillung.no. Yours, Randi Helene Tillung From: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 21-AUG-2006 10:46:42.90 To: IN%"tricia_b@comcast.net" "Tricia Breen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: The future of the list I am sorry, when (years ago) I joined this list I thought it was an =20 academic list. Excuse my error. Patricia Simonet Spokane, WA On Aug 21, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Tricia Breen wrote: > > At the risk of sounding rational, may I please submit that science =20 > is not some untouchable idol that can only be practiced by those =20 > who have shown that they can jump through academic hoops, use the =20 > proper font for theses, and keep their advisor happy long enough to =20= > be granted a degree. > > Science is a quest for knowledge and in fact, if done properly, is =20 > a quest that can usually only rule out and can never prove =20 > affirmatives. And in the life sciences when studying something as =20 > complicated as behavior, it is rare that anything can actually be =20 > ruled out! > > I don=92t mean to step on sacred cows but if this list is useful it =20= > is because there are thoughtful, critical thinking people on board. =20= > If it isn=92t useful, it is because there are people on board who are =20= > wedded to their own perspective and not open to others. The =20 > =91scientist vs. =91non-scientists=92 arguments tend to make me = believe =20 > it might be the latter, regardless of number of degrees among the =20 > participants. > > Tricia Breen From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 21-AUG-2006 10:48:09.32 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering http://news.seppalasleddogs.com/blog/000031.html at the risk of offering non scientific information based on the experience of decades of working with and breeding sled dogs, J Jeffrey Bragg's post on his blog about tethering and sled dogs vs. 'humane' pens and runs might be useful here. Also a number of bull or molosser breeders and trainers state the same type of results. These dogs appear more content on 20' tethers than when in runs or pens. especially runs that do not give enough space between them. One trainer/breeder of American bulldogs and German shepherds has found that his GSDs are fine in kennels and seldom fence fight but that the AB's whose personal space has different tolerances are constantly annoyed by seeing other same sex dogs in such close proximity. visual barriers help but that decreases sensory enrichment. Within an urban environment, tethering vs. fencing has another aspect. And that is to keep stray animals and people away from the dogs, not simply to keep dogs from roaming. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Tethering Good morning, everyone: We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Regards and thanks in advance, Gail Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"psimonet@petalk.org" "Patricia Simonet" 21-AUG-2006 10:54:46.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Academic? Hello Tricia, I am sorry, when (years ago) I joined this list I thought it was an =20 academic list. Excuse my error. Patricia Simonet Spokane, WA On Aug 21, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Tricia Breen wrote: At the risk of sounding rational, may I please submit that science is =20= not some untouchable idol that can only be practiced by those who =20 have shown that they can jump through academic hoops, use the proper =20 font for theses, and keep their advisor happy long enough to be =20 granted a degree. Science is a quest for knowledge and in fact, if done properly, is a =20 quest that can usually only rule out and can never prove =20 affirmatives. And in the life sciences when studying something as =20 complicated as behavior, it is rare that anything can actually be =20 ruled out! I don=92t mean to step on sacred cows but if this list is useful it is =20= because there are thoughtful, critical thinking people on board. If =20 it isn=92t useful, it is because there are people on board who are =20 wedded to their own perspective and not open to others. The =20 =91scientist vs. =91non-scientists=92 arguments tend to make me believe = it =20 might be the latter, regardless of number of degrees among the =20 participants. Tricia Breen From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 21-AUG-2006 11:01:01.67 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? ________________________________ From: Clare [mailto:clare@hughes.net] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:42 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Tethering http://news.seppalasleddogs.com/blog/000031.html at the risk of offering non scientific information based on the experience of decades of working with and breeding sled dogs, J Jeffrey Bragg's post on his blog about tethering and sled dogs vs. 'humane' pens and runs might be useful here. Also a number of bull or molosser breeders and trainers state the same type of results. These dogs appear more content on 20' tethers than when in runs or pens. especially runs that do not give enough space between them. One trainer/breeder of American bulldogs and German shepherds has found that his GSDs are fine in kennels and seldom fence fight but that the AB's whose personal space has different tolerances are constantly annoyed by seeing other same sex dogs in such close proximity. visual barriers help but that decreases sensory enrichment. Within an urban environment, tethering vs. fencing has another aspect. And that is to keep stray animals and people away from the dogs, not simply to keep dogs from roaming. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Tethering Good morning, everyone: We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Regards and thanks in advance, Gail Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"SBowers@rfmd.com" "Sue Bowers" 21-AUG-2006 11:32:33.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Are the two incompatible? Personally, I would love to be witness to a list where experienced people from "both sides" (scientific researchers and experienced animal handlers 'without the piece of paper') are present. I find that study + frequent application under a variety of circumstances = a better understanding of the animal in question. My main focus is canids (dogs, wolves, coyotes) and canid behaviour, but I do enjoy reading and learning about other animals' psychology and behaviour, as well...including human animals. ;) If applied-ethology members prefer this list to be 'members with papers' only, then perhaps some here would be willing to lend their insights to an alternate forum, as well. (?) Otherwise, I hope to see the list continue. I do tend to keep my observations and experiences to myself, for the most part, as I've never been sure if non-academic hands-on experience was welcome. ~Sue! ________________________________ From: Trisha Simonet [mailto:PSimonet@PeTalk.org] Sent: Mon 8/21/2006 12:36 PM To: Tricia Breen Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca; applied-ethology@usask.ca Subject: Re: The future of the list I am sorry, when (years ago) I joined this list I thought it was an academic list. Excuse my error. Patricia Simonet Spokane, WA On Aug 21, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Tricia Breen wrote: At the risk of sounding rational, may I please submit that science is not some untouchable idol that can only be practiced by those who have shown that they can jump through academic hoops, use the proper font for theses, and keep their advisor happy long enough to be granted a degree. Science is a quest for knowledge and in fact, if done properly, is a quest that can usually only rule out and can never prove affirmatives. And in the life sciences when studying something as complicated as behavior, it is rare that anything can actually be ruled out! I don't mean to step on sacred cows but if this list is useful it is because there are thoughtful, critical thinking people on board. If it isn't useful, it is because there are people on board who are wedded to their own perspective and not open to others. The 'scientist vs. 'non-scientists' arguments tend to make me believe it might be the latter, regardless of number of degrees among the participants. Tricia Breen From: IN%"LyndhurstPark@aol.com" 21-AUG-2006 11:37:36.48 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Academic or not.... that is the question? Hi all, I personally think that the question lies not with how academic a forum or association bestows itself, but in how 'professional' the members are. Anyone with immense experiences, whether through academia or practice knowledge can contribute, providing various viewpoints to a given topic or issue. Academics can always learn 'something' from professional individuals with massive practical experience and visa versa. I think what has caused the Professor to flag up the searching question - is that there has been correspondence by some where a shortfall in 'professionalism' and decorum has prevailed. Yes, on occasions the topic matter has been slightly dilettante for some, but that does not mean that it was unsuitable as a single topic within a multitude of subject matter being thrown into the forum's discussion pot. If we were to be flooded with say, issues on electrical dog collars, then yes for many of us the forum would no longer provide the interest we first joined up for. I would like to think there is a place in the forum for academics and non-scientific 'professional' behaviourists? Maybe we should look at developing a future framework that would be beneficial to all 'professionals' alike? Just a thought. Regards Gordon Butcher Mature student From: IN%"FoodFarm@aol.com" 21-AUG-2006 11:43:08.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Another idea about the list's future - let's pay for it! Dear All, Would it be profane to suggest a small subscription payment for access to this useful network? 1. This would ensure that only the only those really intersted long-term would use the service. 2. The cash could be used to create a website with a selection of mail lists on particular subjects e.g. Pigs Horses. Dogs, Cats, etc 3. Interested correspondents would then access the website, click their particular subject and then communicate. 4. That way we would not have the electric dog collar friends/fiends bothering the equestrian fans with their verbal abuse and so on. 5. Alternatively the interested lay persons (like myself) could sample all, or just some, of the mail lists. Of course this means extra work for the long-suffering Dr Stookey and his team. But if we are all serious anough about the future of this valuable network I think enough regular cash would come in to hire an agency to create and service the website - and maybe even pull in the odd advert to further help with costs. Am I being realistic? I would certainly pay and I think many "serious" ethologists would come back if guaranteed access with a selection of mail lists. Norman Dunn FoodFarm Communications Germany From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 21-AUG-2006 13:22:09.63 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering Perhaps I was unclear. I am a big fan of secure fencing for any dog owner. This is to keep stray dogs and humans away from the dog as well as providing a barrier to keep a dog at home. Underground fencing is also insufficient for those purposes. There are human nutcases who would like to either harm or steal a dog and a fence is going to make it at least some what harder than tethering. And a fence also provides passersby a visual assurance that a dog can not reach them. A few years ago, I heard of an incident with underground fencing where a police officer approaching a home to ask if the residents if they had seen an accident on the street, shot the family dog, I think it was an Australian cattle dog, not too large but with serious attitude, who ran around the corner barking aggressively. The officer did not know the underground fencing would have stopped the dog before the walkway. In another case, an elderly woman was frightened by a dog that ran barking towards her, again underground fencing, she slipped and fell, resulting in broken bones. Had there been a fence, she might have been startled by the barking but not try to hurry away and lose her balance. Both fencing and tethering can cause frustration if visual frustrations persist. Perhaps a good question would be the advisability of having any urban dog outside for extended periods without the owners presence. This would help protect the dog from those who would tease, poison, injure or steal the dog as well as help keep neighbors from having to listen to as much barking. Yes, I know some dogs will bark more from this. And that leads to the larger area of companion animal management in today's urban lifestyle. Cats are usually capable of coping well with owners who are gone long hours. Many family dogs can also do fine if the family does something with them when they are home. And some owners simply do not have either the time or inclination to do so and would be better off with a stuffed or robotic dog. I do not know if Jeffrey Bragg has exterior fencing due to his remote location but the breeders and trainers who do tether dogs instead of using runs or fenced yards all have a perimeter fence to keep unwanted animals, human and non human out as well as ensuring that the times a dog does get loose that it is unable to leave the property. A belt and suspenders attitude. In some cases, urban dog owners have resorted to double fencing to ensure that humans can not get close enough to their dogs to reach through and try to touch it, feed it or toss foreign objects into the yard. Fencing out humans is as important as fencing in dogs. And a tether is insufficient for this, but combined with a perimeter fence could help achieve the same end. It might be that for some dogs, such an arrangement might be less stress on the dog than a small but affordable inner pen and a secure fenced yard to exercise in when supervised by an owner. When unsupervised, having a 20' radius or a long overhead cable that keeps it away from the perimeter could provide more freedom of movement than a 6' run. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Clare [mailto:clare@hughes.net] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:42 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Tethering http://news.seppalasleddogs.com/blog/000031.html at the risk of offering non scientific information based on the experience of decades of working with and breeding sled dogs, J Jeffrey Bragg's post on his blog about tethering and sled dogs vs. 'humane' pens and runs might be useful here. Also a number of bull or molosser breeders and trainers state the same type of results. These dogs appear more content on 20' tethers than when in runs or pens. especially runs that do not give enough space between them. One trainer/breeder of American bulldogs and German shepherds has found that his GSDs are fine in kennels and seldom fence fight but that the AB's whose personal space has different tolerances are constantly annoyed by seeing other same sex dogs in such close proximity. visual barriers help but that decreases sensory enrichment. Within an urban environment, tethering vs. fencing has another aspect. And that is to keep stray animals and people away from the dogs, not simply to keep dogs from roaming. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Tethering Good morning, everyone: We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Regards and thanks in advance, Gail Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 21-AUG-2006 13:35:05.25 To: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering Thanks for your more detailed response. Most of your comments dovetail with our experience and existing recommendations. One thing that we are principally interested in at this point is what the basis is (i.e. data) for specific recommendations regarding type of tether, length, and acceptable duration of confinement using this approach? We've seen lots of recommendations in ordinances and commentaries on tethering, but so far no one has been able to produce the corresponding data to support those recommendations. My suspicion is that the recommendations are based more on what "seems reasonable" then on actual data. ________________________________ From: Clare [mailto:clare@hughes.net] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 2:21 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Tethering Perhaps I was unclear. I am a big fan of secure fencing for any dog owner. This is to keep stray dogs and humans away from the dog as well as providing a barrier to keep a dog at home. Underground fencing is also insufficient for those purposes. There are human nutcases who would like to either harm or steal a dog and a fence is going to make it at least some what harder than tethering. And a fence also provides passersby a visual assurance that a dog can not reach them. A few years ago, I heard of an incident with underground fencing where a police officer approaching a home to ask if the residents if they had seen an accident on the street, shot the family dog, I think it was an Australian cattle dog, not too large but with serious attitude, who ran around the corner barking aggressively. The officer did not know the underground fencing would have stopped the dog before the walkway. In another case, an elderly woman was frightened by a dog that ran barking towards her, again underground fencing, she slipped and fell, resulting in broken bones. Had there been a fence, she might have been startled by the barking but not try to hurry away and lose her balance. Both fencing and tethering can cause frustration if visual frustrations persist. Perhaps a good question would be the advisability of having any urban dog outside for extended periods without the owners presence. This would help protect the dog from those who would tease, poison, injure or steal the dog as well as help keep neighbors from having to listen to as much barking. Yes, I know some dogs will bark more from this. And that leads to the larger area of companion animal management in today's urban lifestyle. Cats are usually capable of coping well with owners who are gone long hours. Many family dogs can also do fine if the family does something with them when they are home. And some owners simply do not have either the time or inclination to do so and would be better off with a stuffed or robotic dog. I do not know if Jeffrey Bragg has exterior fencing due to his remote location but the breeders and trainers who do tether dogs instead of using runs or fenced yards all have a perimeter fence to keep unwanted animals, human and non human out as well as ensuring that the times a dog does get loose that it is unable to leave the property. A belt and suspenders attitude. In some cases, urban dog owners have resorted to double fencing to ensure that humans can not get close enough to their dogs to reach through and try to touch it, feed it or toss foreign objects into the yard. Fencing out humans is as important as fencing in dogs. And a tether is insufficient for this, but combined with a perimeter fence could help achieve the same end. It might be that for some dogs, such an arrangement might be less stress on the dog than a small but affordable inner pen and a secure fenced yard to exercise in when supervised by an owner. When unsupervised, having a 20' radius or a long overhead cable that keeps it away from the perimeter could provide more freedom of movement than a 6' run. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? ________________________________ From: Clare [mailto:clare@hughes.net] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:42 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Tethering http://news.seppalasleddogs.com/blog/000031.html at the risk of offering non scientific information based on the experience of decades of working with and breeding sled dogs, J Jeffrey Bragg's post on his blog about tethering and sled dogs vs. 'humane' pens and runs might be useful here. Also a number of bull or molosser breeders and trainers state the same type of results. These dogs appear more content on 20' tethers than when in runs or pens. especially runs that do not give enough space between them. One trainer/breeder of American bulldogs and German shepherds has found that his GSDs are fine in kennels and seldom fence fight but that the AB's whose personal space has different tolerances are constantly annoyed by seeing other same sex dogs in such close proximity. visual barriers help but that decreases sensory enrichment. Within an urban environment, tethering vs. fencing has another aspect. And that is to keep stray animals and people away from the dogs, not simply to keep dogs from roaming. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Tethering Good morning, everyone: We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Regards and thanks in advance, Gail Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 21-AUG-2006 15:20:21.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Please put this on the ethology list The sender of this message requested that I post this message. Joe ---------------------- From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 21-AUG-2006 15:25:36.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: tethering Wouldn't tethering a dog make the dog more territorial and wouldn't that make for a dangerous situation? Especially in a yard frequented by children who run, play, fall down and cry near the dog. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"k9ruler@gmail.com" "Christina Le Breton" 21-AUG-2006 16:45:35.93 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list I would also like to see the list continue, and, like Randi, I too have majored in Canine Behavior. This list has taught me alot of more "educational" things pertaining to animal behavior, and for that I am grateful. Christina Le Breton On 8/21/06, Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole) < randihelene@fjellanger.net> wrote: > > Dear everyone, > > > > I would like to see the list continue. I agree that some of the > discussions on the board might not be of the best quality (especially when > it comes to subjects that people tend to take personally), although I hope > that most are. > > Yours, > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > M.Sc Canine Ethology > > Norway From: IN%"k9ruler@gmail.com" "Christina Le Breton" 21-AUG-2006 16:51:59.45 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: tethering Allow me to point out a website on this issue. www.doggonesafe.com A tied dog is considered to be more dangerous then one that is loose in it's yard. Because the dog is tethered, it does not mean that the dog cannot simply snap the lead and take off after anyone. That site is an excellent learning tool, and I do highly suggest everyone take a look :) There are also videos on there too. Christina Le Breton On 8/21/06, Cecilia Lambert wrote: > > Wouldn't tethering a dog make the dog more territorial and wouldn't that > make for a dangerous situation? Especially in a yard frequented by children > who run, play, fall down and cry near the dog. > CeAnn > > > CeAnn Lambert > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > www.coyoterescue.org > > Please visit our gift shop @ > www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"dogtrainr@blueridge.net" "brock" 21-AUG-2006 16:59:16.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list (snip by Brock) > If applied-ethology members prefer this list to be 'members with papers' > only, then perhaps some here would be willing to lend their insights to an > alternate forum, as well. (?) Otherwise, I hope to see the list continue. > I do tend to keep my observations and experiences to myself, for the most > part, as I've never been sure if non-academic hands-on experience was > welcome. > ~Sue! > At the risk of sounding rational, may I please submit that science is not > some untouchable idol that can only be practiced by those who have shown > that they can jump through academic hoops, use the proper font for theses, > and keep their advisor happy long enough to be granted a degree. > > Science is a quest for knowledge and in fact, if done properly, is a quest > that can usually only rule out and can never prove affirmatives. And in > the life sciences when studying something as complicated as behavior, it > is rare that anything can actually be ruled out! > > I don't mean to step on sacred cows but if this list is useful it is > because there are thoughtful, critical thinking people on board. If it > isn't useful, it is because there are people on board who are wedded to > their own perspective and not open to others. The 'scientist vs. > 'non-scientists' arguments tend to make me believe it might be the latter, > regardless of number of degrees among the participants. > > Tricia Breen ========================================================== Coming out of deep lurkdom to say that I couldn't agree more with the statements by the members quoted above. I have the 'papers' but in the field of human psychology so I wouldn't qualify as an academic for the purposes of this list. Sans papers, I have 40 years of experience breeding and training dogs. I know that I am more experienced in domestic dog behavior than even the average vet, who has a different focus and works under different conditions and I suspect that handling canids in arenas that lack strict control can provide insights not generated in lab situations. I also have the utmost respect for those who blaze trails into animal behavior within the structured millieu of a lab. I've greatly enjoyed learning from those who work with wild canids or non-canids. I can only say 'thanks' to those who have been so willing to teach and those who do it so very well. If the list dies, I wanted you to know how much you matter to me. I, also, have not contributed because my perception was that comments from 'practical ethologists' were not encouraged. I've simply spent several years mining the gold and tossing the slag over my shoulder. But I just wanted to say that town 'n gown is the quintessence of passé and I'm surprised that anyone would actually admit to such outmoded elitism. I hope the list continues but, if not, the Net is both wide and deep. If a person wants to learn, there are many, many buffets available where one can feed. One need not starve. Brock From: IN%"k9ruler@gmail.com" "Christina Le Breton" 21-AUG-2006 17:25:48.79 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list I've been on this list for a couple of years now, and I for one would be upset if I got "kicked" off. Though I can see why some are upset over the current content. This list has always been more about farm animals and the occasional aquatics then anything else, however, I do use it as a research tool and as an educational type of material. Although I could go on and on and on and on about Canine Behavior and training, I do not. I for one would like to stay a member of this list, and I would be ALL FOR having a domestic/wild animal list as well (say pertaining to felids and canids). I own/breed English Bull Terriers & Weims (don't breed them yet, but I own one. My guy is only 6 months) and I am a certified trainer/behavior therapist. So, a domestic area would obviously greatly interest me. HOWEVER, the reason I joined this discussion board to begin with is to learn APPLIED ETHOLOGY of all animals, and I would like to see the board continue so that *I* personally ( as well as many others) may continue learning. I thank those whom have been a great help to me in the past, and I do look forward to learning more from you. Christina Le Breton From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 21-AUG-2006 17:57:01.47 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering I suspect the details on length of tether and duration will vary a great = deal from type to type. Chain link and inexpensive fencing are recent = innovations in dog management compared to a long history of existing = with humans tethered by leather, cordage, chain or fenced highly = expensive and difficult to construct wooden or stone enclosures. Roaming = free or tied up have a longer history than fencing. Stables and barns = still need dog proof areas, not as easy as confining most livestock.=20 Jeffrey Bragg's experience with his sled dogs and their needs for = exercise and human interaction might be quite different from a bulldog = or mastiff type dog. His description of the type of materials used for = tethering the dogs and how fencing and gates are in the way when the = snow flies are real life examples of the upside of tie outs for THESE = DOGS. The historical use of bulldogs to catch livestock for butchering, ear = notching, castration and other farm needs or to hunt wild hogs is = intermittent high intensity work combined with long periods of waiting. = American bulldogs had a history of being guardians in rural areas where = the threat might be human intruders but also wild hogs and other animals = that could pose a danger to family members. A desire to be around their = people, being protective of them, and also the same short intense work = with long inactivity. Fencing materials might not have been practical. = Another point is that with the bull breeds and molosser types from the = responsible breeders I've heard from, any aggression to the family is = simply not tolerated, such a dog would be killed. And a dog killed at = the first sign of aggression to a child. One bulldog breeder's personal = dog lets his 4 year old daughter hang off her ears. very high pain = tolerance and the dog will solicit the attention. Overall tolerance to = any child is high, once adolescence is reached, a strange teen may be = treated with appropriate warnings but a well bred bulldog is a very = sensible dog with high fool factor tolerance.=20 Steven Lindsay described the neurochemical differences in breeds such as = herding dogs vs. livestock guardian dogs. Herding breeds are more easily = aroused and probably have more need for novelty and arousal. LGD's also = have periods of high intensity when confronting a predator and may = stroll along for miles with flocks as they move from one grazing area to = another. But there are long periods of little human contact and simply = watching the flocks. About as exciting as watching paint dry. I don't = recall the Coppingers mentioning anything about traditional herders = either tying or kenneling the dogs. But on a migration, I don't think = the herders carry portable runs. If they do restrict the dogs, tethering = of some sort is the only option. They might like to hang out with people = but long periods of only sheep for company is just fine with them. Now compare that to a GSD that might have to trot for long periods = keeping sheep out crops and on the pasture. High vigilance, high = attention to the handler as well as the stock and much longer periods of = fast exercise. I don't know if the dogs would have been left in the barn = with the stock, tied up, in a pen, in the house or loose during the = period of the breeds development and currently with the remaining sheep = herders in Europe. This type of dog is wired for different levels of = exercise, both mental and physical and long periods of interactions with = a handler. Some lines have handler aggression. And this may be directly = linked to their function for police and military work. The very high end = dogs such as the malinois in an infamous video clip of a European swat = team training for a hostage situation, often bite the handler. the link = no longer works, if anyone would like to see it I can send it to them, I = think its about a 3 meg clip. The dog was not disciplined for it, the = handler was believed to have erred. Yet all the bulldog people I've = heard from who use their dogs for controlling hogs and hog hunting--the = hog is usually killed with a knife while the dog/dogs hold it as they do = not want to shoot the dogs, never and they insist never ever, are bitten = by the dogs either in error or deliberately. So a bulldog on a chain may = be far happier and safer than a GSD or other herding dog who might need = a kennel and a lot more time with the owner getting some mental = exercise.=20 Comparing the two types of dogs and how long they can stay on a tether = and stay sane may show that generalization is difficult. A small dog on = a 20' line will have far more body lengths to cover to reach the end = than a large dog. Perhaps a small dog could get plenty of exercise on a = 10' line. But perhaps that isn't the most important factor. The picture = from Jeff's website, = http://www.seppalasleddogs.com/sssd_images/wintknl2.jpg shows how the = dogs can trot in a circular pattern, much the way circular pools for sea = lions and polar bears can permit uninterrupted swimming and prevent = stereotypic behaviors common in straight walled cages where the animal = must stop and turn back or make very sharp turns.I just noticed he does = have a perimeter fence, looks like double height hog wire, perhaps 8' = high. I don't know how any of this could be generalized effectively to urban = situations with many dogs left alone for long hours, and of many = different types with different needs mentally and physically. And how = could data be collected from various average dog owners? From breeders = and trainers yes. They have a significant number of dogs to compare and = can discuss it with others who also have significant numbers of dogs. = Comparing notes on how hounds, sled dogs, bull breeds, terriers, bird = dogs and guardian breeds handle different types of management practices = could be useful. For it to be scientific, there needs to be enough = consistency with enough dogs to see patterns of response, both good or = bad, and observed by someone who can detail it. The average pet owner = often is not a good enough observer and has little experience to compare = to.=20 Some dogs can do quite well spending long periods of time on a tie out = and some dogs can't tolerate even left in a large yard with toys but no = social interaction for even a hour. Yet might happily spend that hour = flopped out on the floor next to an owner. Another dog might require = several hours of intense exercise or work to be sane.=20 Would it be useful to have a checklist of behaviors like stereotypic = pacing, tail chasing, or frustration behaviors like barking, self = mutilation and lunging to evaluate an individual dog's welfare rather = than stating a run or tie out must have this minimum dimension. Temple = Grandin set up a short list to check for welfare that pointed to = problems rapidly rather than a long list that was confusing and might = miss the critical point. As in chickens with broken legs meaning that = the lights were not off long enough at night. No need to try to monitor = the power usage. How can a simple short list that is effective be = compiled and tested? Clare ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dr. Gail Golab=20 To: Clare ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:32 PM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks for your more detailed response. Most of your comments dovetail = with our experience and existing recommendations. =20 One thing that we are principally interested in at this point is what = the basis is (i.e. data) for specific recommendations regarding type of = tether, length, and acceptable duration of confinement using this = approach? We've seen lots of recommendations in ordinances and = commentaries on tethering, but so far no one has been able to produce = the corresponding data to support those recommendations. My suspicion is = that the recommendations are based more on what "seems reasonable" then = on actual data. =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Clare [mailto:clare@hughes.net]=20 Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 2:21 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Tethering =20 Perhaps I was unclear. I am a big fan of secure fencing for any dog = owner. This is to keep stray dogs and humans away from the dog as well = as providing a barrier to keep a dog at home.=20 Underground fencing is also insufficient for those purposes. There are = human nutcases who would like to either harm or steal a dog and a fence = is going to make it at least some what harder than tethering. And a = fence also provides passersby a visual assurance that a dog can not = reach them. A few years ago, I heard of an incident with underground = fencing where a police officer approaching a home to ask if the = residents if they had seen an accident on the street, shot the family = dog, I think it was an Australian cattle dog, not too large but with = serious attitude, who ran around the corner barking aggressively. The = officer did not know the underground fencing would have stopped the dog = before the walkway. In another case, an elderly woman was frightened by = a dog that ran barking towards her, again underground fencing, she = slipped and fell, resulting in broken bones. Had there been a fence, she = might have been startled by the barking but not try to hurry away and = lose her balance.=20 Both fencing and tethering can cause frustration if visual = frustrations persist. Perhaps a good question would be the advisability = of having any urban dog outside for extended periods without the owners = presence. This would help protect the dog from those who would tease, = poison, injure or steal the dog as well as help keep neighbors from = having to listen to as much barking.=20 Yes, I know some dogs will bark more from this. And that leads to the = larger area of companion animal management in today's urban lifestyle. = Cats are usually capable of coping well with owners who are gone long = hours. Many family dogs can also do fine if the family does something = with them when they are home. And some owners simply do not have either = the time or inclination to do so and would be better off with a stuffed = or robotic dog.=20 I do not know if Jeffrey Bragg has exterior fencing due to his remote = location but the breeders and trainers who do tether dogs instead of = using runs or fenced yards all have a perimeter fence to keep unwanted = animals, human and non human out as well as ensuring that the times a = dog does get loose that it is unable to leave the property. A belt and = suspenders attitude.=20 In some cases, urban dog owners have resorted to double fencing to = ensure that humans can not get close enough to their dogs to reach = through and try to touch it, feed it or toss foreign objects into the = yard. Fencing out humans is as important as fencing in dogs. And a = tether is insufficient for this, but combined with a perimeter fence = could help achieve the same end. It might be that for some dogs, such an = arrangement might be less stress on the dog than a small but affordable = inner pen and a secure fenced yard to exercise in when supervised by an = owner. When unsupervised, having a 20' radius or a long overhead cable = that keeps it away from the perimeter could provide more freedom of = movement than a 6' run.=20 regards Clare =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dr. Gail Golab=20 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering =20 Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information.=20 =20 In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of = you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have = been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury = prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within = animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that = section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog.=20 =20 Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that = tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, = unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional = kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not = keeping people and dogs out)?=20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- From: Clare [mailto:clare@hughes.net]=20 Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:42 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Tethering =20 http://news.seppalasleddogs.com/blog/000031.html at the risk of = offering non scientific information based on the experience of decades = of working with and breeding sled dogs, J Jeffrey Bragg's post on his = blog about tethering and sled dogs vs. 'humane' pens and runs might be = useful here. Also a number of bull or molosser breeders and trainers state the = same type of results. These dogs appear more content on 20' tethers than = when in runs or pens. especially runs that do not give enough space = between them. One trainer/breeder of American bulldogs and German = shepherds has found that his GSDs are fine in kennels and seldom fence = fight but that the AB's whose personal space has different tolerances = are constantly annoyed by seeing other same sex dogs in such close = proximity. visual barriers help but that decreases sensory enrichment.=20 Within an urban environment, tethering vs. fencing has another = aspect. And that is to keep stray animals and people away from the dogs, = not simply to keep dogs from roaming.=20 regards Clare ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dr. Gail Golab=20 To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Tethering =20 Good morning, everyone: =20 We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have = or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or = restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you = aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. = We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am = trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would = very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. =20 Regards and thanks in advance, =20 Gail =20 Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 21-AUG-2006 18:19:01.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: This list... ... is clearly alive and well! Rick Bogle Madison From: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane" 21-AUG-2006 18:25:50.74 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: The future of the list IMHO it is not the diversity of the membership that is the problem so much as the willingness of people to descend into methods of expression that are hostile and disrespectful. I am quite willing to wade through discussions that do not interest me to find those that do (although moving to something like a yahoogroup would make that easier)--but when members are snarky, snide or downright rude I *do* start to lose interest in the whole endeavour. Perhaps a simple rule would help correct our course. One personal insult = a warning, two = dropped from the list no matter who you are. regards, Emily From: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane" 21-AUG-2006 18:25:51.03 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" Subj: RE: The future of the list IMHO it is not the diversity of the membership that is the problem so much as the willingness of people to descend into methods of expression that are hostile and disrespectful. I am quite willing to wade through discussions that do not interest me to find those that do (although moving to something like a yahoogroup would make that easier)--but when members are snarky, snide or downright rude I *do* start to lose interest in the whole endeavour. Perhaps a simple rule would help correct our course. One personal insult = a warning, two = dropped from the list no matter who you are. regards, Emily From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 21-AUG-2006 18:27:57.21 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: AniBeMa List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AniBeMa/ "A list for discussion of issues of animal behavior and management with perspectives ranging from the scientific to the purely applied. All disciplines are welcome. Rational, respectful interaction required." Here is another forum that is devoted to applied ethology issues, since 2003. Some good resources and members are welcome to add resources to the files. I am on both lists. Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 21-AUG-2006 21:53:05.30 To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering Here in Nashville, TN I was recently contacted about a proposed bill to introduce legislation prohibiting tethering of dogs. They wanted my backing as I am often on TV discussing such issues. The big plan was to have Emmy Lou Harris present the bill to our council. (This IS music city after all.) My reply was that I certainly hoped our city council would not be swayed by Emmy Lou Harris! My suggestion was that they contact the CDC for bite statistics, the HSUS (Humane Society of The US) for examples of other city ordinances and the ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) for case law. To my surprise they did just that. They got great info from the CDC. Kids don't pay attention to boundaries the way adults do so often walk across yards and are bit by chained dogs. The HSUS gave lots of info on city ordinances that had been successful plus provided info on the psychological effects of tethering on a dog, and they included info obtained from those who "fight" dogs. (Tethering is a big part of bringing up a dogs fight drive.) The ALDF is always a good source and this time proved no different coming up with a variety of case law. Belatedly, I thought of contacting home insurance companies for their statistics. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 21-AUG-2006 21:59:03.37 To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering Oh, and I should have added that one of the concerns here was that recently a few dogs were found dead at the end of chains due to heat. Several places in Florida recently banned tethering dogs outside during certain hot hours of the day for the same reasons. Health. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 21-AUG-2006 23:13:50.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering What is the connection? Being dead due to heat doesn't necessarily relate to being on a chain. It may be due to lack of shade, insufficient water, etc. but could just as easily happen in a kennel run with no shade or insufficient water. How do you link the chain with the heat? Even on the program K9 boot camp, the US military had dogs collapsing from heat even under the guidance of experienced supervisors. This sounds like stupid owners. How many dogs have died of heat while in fenced yards or kennel runs? and what kind of dogs, heavy coated Nordic dogs that shouldn't be out in any hot humid climate? insufficient data here to conclude that the chain was the culprit and not simply human stupidity. This is illogical and unsubstantiated. ----- Original Message ----- From: Zen Trainer To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Oh, and I should have added that one of the concerns here was that recently a few dogs were found dead at the end of chains due to heat. Several places in Florida recently banned tethering dogs outside during certain hot hours of the day for the same reasons. Health. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 21-AUG-2006 23:21:23.15 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: Tethering and frustration from a fence boundary doesn't increase drives? then why do so many dogs fence fight? the purpose of a fence is to keep everyone, 2 footed or 4 footed from physically being able to be foolish as children can be or to indulge their overexcited unthinking urges. Perhaps there should be fences to keep football fans away from the field so they can't tear down goal posts after their team wins or loses a game. And anyone who engaged in the illegal act of fighting dogs would be most foolish to converse with the HSUS, this sounds bogus. ----- Original Message ----- From: Zen Trainer To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:52 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Here in Nashville, TN I was recently contacted about a proposed bill to introduce legislation prohibiting tethering of dogs. They wanted my backing as I am often on TV discussing such issues. The big plan was to have Emmy Lou Harris present the bill to our council. (This IS music city after all.) My reply was that I certainly hoped our city council would not be swayed by Emmy Lou Harris! My suggestion was that they contact the CDC for bite statistics, the HSUS (Humane Society of The US) for examples of other city ordinances and the ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) for case law. To my surprise they did just that. They got great info from the CDC. Kids don't pay attention to boundaries the way adults do so often walk across yards and are bit by chained dogs. The HSUS gave lots of info on city ordinances that had been successful plus provided info on the psychological effects of tethering on a dog, and they included info obtained from those who "fight" dogs. (Tethering is a big part of bringing up a dogs fight drive.) The ALDF is always a good source and this time proved no different coming up with a variety of case law. Belatedly, I thought of contacting home insurance companies for their statistics. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"clager@c.dk" "Christina Lager" 22-AUG-2006 00:46:52.43 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: [Fwd: Re: The future of the list] mvh Christina Lager From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 22-AUG-2006 06:10:32.00 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Dear All, I fear that many of your recent messages are falling on deaf ears. This list was initially set up to serve the purposes of the International Society For Applied Ethology. One of the aims of ISAE is b. to provide an international forum in which scientists can communicate and discuss the results of the above research. This can be achieved by organising or encouraging scientific meetings and by encouraging scientific publications; When non-scientists joined this list, the scientific nature of the debate was often shifted, and in many cases, people became rude and abusive. As a list primarily for members of a professional society, this was intolerable to many and they have left this list. In talking to my ISAE colleagues, there are very, very few who are still subscribed, let alone willing to take part in these discussions. ISAE now has it's own highly active discussion board which is open to members only, thereby providing the function this list was originally intended to serve. So, I fear that calls for scientists to stay on the list are perhaps too late. Please note this is not an attack on non-scientists - it is simply a message of clarification. Don't shoot the messenger! Chris ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 22-AUG-2006 06:10:32.11 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Dear All, I fear that many of your recent messages are falling on deaf ears. This list was initially set up to serve the purposes of the International Society For Applied Ethology. One of the aims of ISAE is b. to provide an international forum in which scientists can communicate and discuss the results of the above research. This can be achieved by organising or encouraging scientific meetings and by encouraging scientific publications; When non-scientists joined this list, the scientific nature of the debate was often shifted, and in many cases, people became rude and abusive. As a list primarily for members of a professional society, this was intolerable to many and they have left this list. In talking to my ISAE colleagues, there are very, very few who are still subscribed, let alone willing to take part in these discussions. ISAE now has it's own highly active discussion board which is open to members only, thereby providing the function this list was originally intended to serve. So, I fear that calls for scientists to stay on the list are perhaps too late. Please note this is not an attack on non-scientists - it is simply a message of clarification. Don't shoot the messenger! Chris ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 22-AUG-2006 07:38:43.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Dear All, In reading the messages regarding the future of the list I have to second all the calls for courtesy and respect in messaging. I am one of the few ISAE scientists that Chris Sherwin mentioned and at times I have been tempted to withdraw from the list as well. However, my interests in companion animal behavior and behavior and welfare in general have prompted me to stay so far because there are some fascinating things that pop up. I don't question the ability of non-scientists to contribute to discussions or to the body of information. I don't question the ability of scientists to help inform discussions in areas where we have done the controlled research. We can all benefit from the different perspectives. Science should ultimately be useful in the real world. I do hope that we can all agree to disagree respectfully when we do have different points of view. Disagreement and dissension are valuable parts of the learning process and so should not leave the conversation but should be used constructively rather than destructively. Cheers, Janice Janice Siegford, MS, PhD, CAAAB Research Assistant Professor Animal Behavior and Welfare Group 1287C Anthony Hall Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax From: IN%"tricia_b@comcast.net" "Tricia Breen" 22-AUG-2006 07:41:53.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list If that was it's original purpose and it has been hijacked, then it should go or be redefined. I was merely reacting to the reverence with which science seems to be held. The best scientists know that there are many mistakes along the path for answers. More and more I see an unquestioning religious-like acceptance of all that is named "science", which is pretty scary. Tricia -----Original Message----- From: CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry [mailto:Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:10 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca; applied-ethology@usask.ca Subject: Re: The future of the list Dear All, I fear that many of your recent messages are falling on deaf ears. This list was initially set up to serve the purposes of the International Society For Applied Ethology. One of the aims of ISAE is b. to provide an international forum in which scientists can communicate and discuss the results of the above research. This can be achieved by organising or encouraging scientific meetings and by encouraging scientific publications; When non-scientists joined this list, the scientific nature of the debate was often shifted, and in many cases, people became rude and abusive. As a list primarily for members of a professional society, this was intolerable to many and they have left this list. In talking to my ISAE colleagues, there are very, very few who are still subscribed, let alone willing to take part in these discussions. ISAE now has it's own highly active discussion board which is open to members only, thereby providing the function this list was originally intended to serve. So, I fear that calls for scientists to stay on the list are perhaps too late. Please note this is not an attack on non-scientists - it is simply a message of clarification. Don't shoot the messenger! Chris ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 22-AUG-2006 07:47:14.89 To: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Our President has divided us as a nation. Now it seems to trickle down in other aspects of our lives. Even on an online list. I am not a scientist,but do think they have something to teach me. If I am not wanted on this list because I am not a scientist, even tho I do have years of esperience with behavior in coyotes and wolves, I will leave. CeAnn Janice M Siegford wrote: Dear All, In reading the messages regarding the future of the list I have to second all the calls for courtesy and respect in messaging. I am one of the few ISAE scientists that Chris Sherwin mentioned and at times I have been tempted to withdraw from the list as well. However, my interests in companion animal behavior and behavior and welfare in general have prompted me to stay so far because there are some fascinating things that pop up. I don't question the ability of non-scientists to contribute to discussions or to the body of information. I don't question the ability of scientists to help inform discussions in areas where we have done the controlled research. We can all benefit from the different perspectives. Science should ultimately be useful in the real world. I do hope that we can all agree to disagree respectfully when we do have different points of view. Disagreement and dissension are valuable parts of the learning process and so should not leave the conversation but should be used constructively rather than destructively. Cheers, Janice Janice Siegford, MS, PhD, CAAAB Research Assistant Professor Animal Behavior and Welfare Group 1287C Anthony Hall Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 22-AUG-2006 08:08:44.64 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Dear CeAnn, YOUR president might have divided YOU as a nation, but there are plenty of people on this site that are not from your country. Nobody is asking anyone to leave this list so far as I can see, certainly not me. The point I was trying to make was that the function of this list as was initially envisaged is now fulfilled by another list, to which the vast majority of the scientists have now gone. Therefore, it is rather late to be calling for the scientists to stay, irrespective of the reasons for their leaving. Chris --On 22 August 2006 06:46 -0700 Cecilia Lambert wrote: > > Our President has divided us as a nation. Now it seems to trickle down > in other aspects of our lives. Even on an online list. I am not a > scientist,but do think they have something to teach me. If I am not > wanted on this list because I am not a scientist, even tho I do have > years of esperience with behavior in coyotes and wolves, I will leave. > CeAnn > Janice M Siegford wrote: > > Dear All, > In reading the messages regarding the future of the list I have to second > all the calls for courtesy and respect in messaging. I am one of the few > ISAE scientists that Chris Sherwin mentioned and at times I have been > tempted to withdraw from the list as well. However, my interests in > companion animal behavior and behavior and welfare in general have > prompted > me to stay so far because there are some fascinating things that pop up. > > I don't question the ability of non-scientists to contribute to > discussions > or to the body of information. I don't question the ability of scientists > to > help inform discussions in areas where we have done the controlled > research. > We can all benefit from the different perspectives. Science should > ultimately be useful in the real world. > > I do hope that we can all agree to disagree respectfully when we do have > different points of view. Disagreement and dissension are valuable parts > of > the learning process and so should not leave the conversation but should > be > used constructively rather than destructively. > > Cheers, > Janice > > Janice Siegford, MS, PhD, CAAAB > Research Assistant Professor > Animal Behavior and Welfare Group > 1287C Anthony Hall > Department of Animal Science > Michigan State University > East Lansing, MI 48824 > 517-432-8212 office > 517-432-1396 lab > 517-353-1699 fax > > > > > > > > CeAnn Lambert > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > www.coyoterescue.org > > Please visit our gift shop @ > www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 22-AUG-2006 08:36:03.94 To: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering Thanks for your post, Tracy. One of the problems that I'm having with these ordinances is my inability to locate actual research that documents what the real physical or mental consequences are of tethering. I've seen calls to regulate tethering on various Websites, including those of groups like the HSUS and ALDF...what I haven't seen (with the exception of the CDC on bite statistics) is the data that leads the authors of the material on those sites to their conclusions. Without that data, it appears their conclusions are not that far removed from speculation...some of which is probably logical and reasonable, some maybe not? I find it intriguing (although maybe not all that surprising) that there's sufficient interest in the subject to write ordinances, but not sufficient interest to develop much in the way of associated research projects (a very few do exist as previous postings on this list have suggested). Anyway...my thanks for everyone's comments and assistance...and, this gives me a chance to put a plug in for this list. As someone who spends her days working in the area of animal welfare science, ethics, and policy, I believe this list provides an important opportunity for people who might not usually speak to each other to get together. And here's my soapbox...I see science of having very little value if it cannot be parlayed to improve society's approach to issues of interest. Doing that requires that scientists speak to nonscientists. Similarly, public opinion is great, but if uninformed by science, it has the potential to quickly take society down a path that is unlikely to be productive. Any opportunity to marry science and society should be seized...this list, in my mind, is one such opportunity. Again...thank you VERY much for your help. It is appreciated! Gail Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare AVMA ________________________________ From: Zen Trainer [mailto:ZenTrainer@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:52 PM To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Subject: Re: Tethering Here in Nashville, TN I was recently contacted about a proposed bill to introduce legislation prohibiting tethering of dogs. They wanted my backing as I am often on TV discussing such issues. The big plan was to have Emmy Lou Harris present the bill to our council. (This IS music city after all.) My reply was that I certainly hoped our city council would not be swayed by Emmy Lou Harris! My suggestion was that they contact the CDC for bite statistics, the HSUS (Humane Society of The US) for examples of other city ordinances and the ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) for case law. To my surprise they did just that. They got great info from the CDC. Kids don't pay attention to boundaries the way adults do so often walk across yards and are bit by chained dogs. The HSUS gave lots of info on city ordinances that had been successful plus provided info on the psychological effects of tethering on a dog, and they included info obtained from those who "fight" dogs. (Tethering is a big part of bringing up a dogs fight drive.) The ALDF is always a good source and this time proved no different coming up with a variety of case law. Belatedly, I thought of contacting home insurance companies for their statistics. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com We're seeing an increase in the number of municipalities that have or are exploring the introduction of ordinances either prohibiting or restricting tethering of dogs. Has anyone on the list done or are you aware of a comprehensive literature review regarding tethering of dogs. We have some isolated (actually very isolated) references, but I am trying to make sure that our review is as complete as possible. We would very much appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare American Veterinary Medical Association From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 22-AUG-2006 08:39:19.75 To: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering But...wasn't the problem having the dogs outside in the heat where they could not get to water and shade...not the tether per se? The same situation could have occurred had the dogs been penned without access to water or shade. I've not completely made up my own mind yet under what situations tethering may or may not be appropriate...and that may, indeed, be the answer...the correct answer to this question is likely very situation- (and owner-) dependent. Gail C. Golab ________________________________ From: Zen Trainer [mailto:ZenTrainer@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:59 PM To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Subject: Re: Tethering Oh, and I should have added that one of the concerns here was that recently a few dogs were found dead at the end of chains due to heat. Several places in Florida recently banned tethering dogs outside during certain hot hours of the day for the same reasons. Health. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? ________________________________ From: IN%"psimonet@petalk.org" "Patricia Simonet" 22-AUG-2006 09:40:12.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Tethering/chaining Hello All, The often cited study regarding chained dogs being more likely to bite is available at the CDC site. Journal citation is: Gersham, K.A., Sacks, J.J. & Wright, J.C. (1994). Which Dogs Bite? A Case Control Study of Risk Factors. Pediatrics, 93: 6. CDC site for copy of the study http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog3.pdf. This is the famous study that suggests chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained dogs. Patricia Simonet Spokane, WA From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 22-AUG-2006 10:20:34.00 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering/chaining I wouldn't interpret it this way. That implies the chain caused the bite when in reality the lack of a fence might be the critical factor and the same dogs that bit when chained might well have bitten the same person, adult or child, had they been together with the dog unchained. The article itself states that the chaining might not be the cause of the biting. Other high risk dogs that never bite may simply be fenced away from foolish people. And some people are so foolish they climb over fences at zoos to pet the animals. Such as the woman who was bitten by a polar bear. Fencing can help protect fools from themselves but some are so determined that little can stop them. Perhaps we could say that fencing causes bears to bite zoo visitors and that moats inhibit bears from doing so. The statistics show that more people are bitten by chained dogs than unchained. Not that the chained dogs are more likely to bite. The statistics might be interpreted to show that taking down a dog prevents bites as the non biting dogs had 8% disciplined by a take down but the biting dogs only had 3 percent. Many other factors appear far more indicative of increasing the odds of the dog biting. Compare the statistics of biting dogs with households having one or more children compared to non biting dogs. 57% of biting dogs compared to 30% of non biting dogs were in households with children. Technically, the statistics show that twice as many dogs that were chained bit people vs. chained dogs that didn't bite people. 32% of biting dogs bit people vs. 16% of non biting dogs that were chained. Other factors like owners being responsible enough to vaccinate for rabies, take the dog to obedience class, the dog's score in obedience and do it yourself at home training that can all be owner influenced, might point to human factors not equipment factors as being paramount. Chaining may well be causative with some dogs or some breeds/types. But not all dogs or breeds/types. Remember that for a long time, chaining /tethering was the only possible method of restricting a dog's movement. It might be possible that in some types of dogs, those who would become aggressive or unduly stressed were removed from the gene pool. Poor genetics and mishandling may well be the major factors in dog bites. ----- Original Message ----- From: Patricia Simonet To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:39 AM Subject: Tethering/chaining Hello All, The often cited study regarding chained dogs being more likely to bite is available at the CDC site. Journal citation is: Gersham, K.A., Sacks, J.J. & Wright, J.C. (1994). Which Dogs Bite? A Case Control Study of Risk Factors. Pediatrics, 93: 6. CDC site for copy of the study http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog3.pdf. This is the famous study that suggests chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained dogs. Patricia Simonet Spokane, WA From: IN%"brayowc@earthlink.net" "Barbara Ray" 22-AUG-2006 11:01:31.15 To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering -----Original Message----- >From: "Dr. Gail Golab" >Sent: Aug 22, 2006 10:34 AM > >One of the problems that I'm having with these ordinances is my >inability to locate actual research that documents what the real >physical or mental consequences are of tethering. You might try contacting UKC and the Coonhound division about doing a survey with them. There are 250,000 registered coonhounds, the largest breed registry of any in the United States. (I think labrador retrievers in AKC have about 150,000 registered dogs). So it is a LARGE pool of dogs, all largely managed in similar ways. I think you will find the majority of hunting hounds either are kenneled or live indoors. Tethering is a dangerous proposition (even though coonhounds take to tethering just fine, and does not seem to affect their mental or emotional well being if their needs are met) since a tethered dog is a captive target for coyote. If you could get the statistics alone on hounds injured and killed by coyote, that might be a start. And since urban coyote live in more dense populations and in close proximity to domestic dogs, with no sign of coyote planning to leave the cities to which they have adapted, there will be more and more human/wildlife conflict of this nature. We record increasing numbers of coyote sightings by the public and reports of interaction with domestic dogs in our area alone. Stan Gehrt (Ohio State University) has one of the most comprehensive studies on-going about the habits of urban coyote, so he might be a great resource to begin with, as far as dog-coyote interaction and the risks. A neighbor recently tethered his lab/pitbull mix in his yard for a brief time as part of a "time out" training regimen, and the dog was killed by a coyote last week, so this risk is fresh on my mind. Coyote are relatively intolerant of other canids in their hunting and breeding grounds, and even will launch a defense against a large hound in the forest. They tend to launch their bites directed at the inside thigh and genitalia, sometimes inflicting mortal wounds by severing a vein, and at the least, incapacitating the offending dog suitably enough to drive him out of their territory. We work our tracking hounds in groups of two or three for safety when we do our wildlife biosurveys, as one of our dogs was bitten 3 times last spring (one bite to inner thigh, one bite punctured both testes and one bite to the hock) when we happened upon an unknown densite in a new survey area we hadn't previously scoped out and he was working alone. (We try to avoid disturbing coyote, especially in pup season) Coyote are less likely to launch a defense against two or three 80lb dogs. Obviously, bites and fatal injuries are to be expected occasionally, when humans purposely put hounds in coyote territories. What many folks may not realise, is a tethered dog is a sitting duck for a couple coyote bent on defending their territory, which may include your backyard and any canids in it. Most likely, not enough dogs are killed annually by coyote for humans to much care about the risk, the overall risk is probably some insignificant statistic compared to the numbers of dogs tethered. However, there are dog owners of thousands of hounds who will kennel, but not tether, to avoid this risk, however minsicule it might be. It is huge when it is your dog and it happens to him or her. As far as tethering "laws," since many people use tethering to basically abandon the dog to the back forty, rather than as a management tool with a clear purpose and monitering of the dog's behavior (enrichment, no stereotypey being exhibited, repetitive barking and any other chronic stress symptoms), I can see why communities wish to institute them, rather like the seatbelt laws. Maybe we are "smart enough" to know to choose a seatbelt, but since many people don't otherwise, the law is an attempt to protect people who would not otherwise choose to protect themselves. Humans can and do neglect companion animals in lots of ways besides tethering, and many humans use tethering as a useful and humane management tool. Ascribing regulation to it will help some dogs and hurt others. Ironically, those dogs that are tethered with monitoring and responsible use of this management tool, are not going to be the "problem" dogs. One does not tether a dog unsupervised, as the restraint alone is a safety risk for a dog and/or other beings around him or her, because we can never predict EXACTLY what an animal will do when presented with a certain challenge or trigger, even if we have never observed a "problem" from such animal. We know much of the range of response tethered dogs can offer. We can't predict when and where and what stimulus will elicit the reactions that bring harm to the dog or others. Tethering, thus, as a way of life, is an "agreement" that whatever measurable fallout occurs is acceptable in our society, whether the fallout is welfare of the individual dog, or of harm that may come to the dog or others. Barbara Ray Ohio Wildlife Center Conservation Education and Wildlife Health 614.734.WILD " It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know of wonder and humility." ~~Rachel Carson From: IN%"chris.redenbach@gmail.com" "Chris Redenbach" 22-AUG-2006 11:40:27.74 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering I wonder if it would be productive to contact the animal control dept's in areas that have instituted anti-tethering laws and see what overall changes, before and after, there are in the number of dogs in the area, the number of dogs picked up as strays, the number of owner turn-ins and their reasons, the number of dog bites and any available info on how they happened, the number of calls to animal control reporting tethered or loose dogs, the number of owners ticketed for violation of the tethering law. This may illuminate somewhat the results of such laws in terms of population stats. However, there may be many things to measure in terms of the actual welfare aspects of tethering regarding the physical surroundings where dogs are tethered: how exposed to visual of passers-by, how close to passers-by, what other visual threats or temptations, how long on tether and, the biggest of all in my mind --how long the tether is...is someone who gets close enough for the dog to reach automatically within a fight vs flight zone so that the dog doesn't perceive avoidance as an option? Admittedly, a dog who is accustomed to lunging at the end of a tether may be quite protective of its space even if the space is larger than the fight/defense zone. But these elements should not be overlooked. Another aspect is the dog's temperament and the environmental pressures. So many people report to me about teasing from children in their neighborhood (children of any age apparently since many adults are the culprits too). I usually advise them to consult their legal counsel about some means to create a paper trail so that the teasing will have been previously documented in the event of a bite. This teasing has been reported to me about dogs who are inside fences, either electronic or barrier, since it is rare for one of my clients to tether their dog. However, I have done K-5 humane education and have listened to the kids report their stories about teasing dogs who are tethered. So many communities now have covenants that don't allow fences or that are so stringent that a simple fence around part of the yard will cost thousands because only certain very pricey options are permitted. These people usually invest in electronic fences which are arguably even more dangerous to passers by than tethers. (For another discussion.) Many low income people cannot afford a fence and millions of dogs need homes. This is a tough question. I'm glad you're looking into it. Chris Redenbach The Balanced Dog Atlanta, GA On 8/22/06, Barbara Ray wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Dr. Gail Golab" > >Sent: Aug 22, 2006 10:34 AM > > > > >One of the problems that I'm having with these ordinances is my > >inability to locate actual research that documents what the real > >physical or mental consequences are of tethering. > > You might try contacting UKC and the Coonhound division about doing a > survey with them. There are 250,000 registered coonhounds, the largest > breed registry of any in the United States. (I think labrador retrievers in > AKC have about 150,000 registered dogs). > > So it is a LARGE pool of dogs, all largely managed in similar ways. I > think you will find the majority of hunting hounds either are kenneled or > live indoors. Tethering is a dangerous proposition (even though coonhounds > take to tethering just fine, and does not seem to affect their mental or > emotional well being if their needs are met) since a tethered dog is a > captive target for coyote. > > If you could get the statistics alone on hounds injured and killed by > coyote, that might be a start. And since urban coyote live in more dense > populations and in close proximity to domestic dogs, with no sign of coyote > planning to leave the cities to which they have adapted, there will be more > and more human/wildlife conflict of this nature. We record increasing > numbers of coyote sightings by the public and reports of interaction with > domestic dogs in our area alone. Stan Gehrt (Ohio State University) has one > of the most comprehensive studies on-going about the habits of urban coyote, > so he might be a great resource to begin with, as far as dog-coyote > interaction and the risks. > > A neighbor recently tethered his lab/pitbull mix in his yard for a brief > time as part of a "time out" training regimen, and the dog was killed by a > coyote last week, so this risk is fresh on my mind. Coyote are relatively > intolerant of other canids in their hunting and breeding grounds, and even > will launch a defense against a large hound in the forest. They tend to > launch their bites directed at the inside thigh and genitalia, sometimes > inflicting mortal wounds by severing a vein, and at the least, > incapacitating the offending dog suitably enough to drive him out of their > territory. > > We work our tracking hounds in groups of two or three for safety when we > do our wildlife biosurveys, as one of our dogs was bitten 3 times last > spring (one bite to inner thigh, one bite punctured both testes and one bite > to the hock) when we happened upon an unknown densite in a new survey area > we hadn't previously scoped out and he was working alone. (We try to avoid > disturbing coyote, especially in pup season) Coyote are less likely to > launch a defense against two or three 80lb dogs. > > Obviously, bites and fatal injuries are to be expected occasionally, when > humans purposely put hounds in coyote territories. > > What many folks may not realise, is a tethered dog is a sitting duck for a > couple coyote bent on defending their territory, which may include your > backyard and any canids in it. Most likely, not enough dogs are killed > annually by coyote for humans to much care about the risk, the overall risk > is probably some insignificant statistic compared to the numbers of dogs > tethered. > > However, there are dog owners of thousands of hounds who will kennel, but > not tether, to avoid this risk, however minsicule it might be. It is huge > when it is your dog and it happens to him or her. > > As far as tethering "laws," since many people use tethering to basically > abandon the dog to the back forty, rather than as a management tool with a > clear purpose and monitering of the dog's behavior (enrichment, no > stereotypey being exhibited, repetitive barking and any other chronic stress > symptoms), I can see why communities wish to institute them, rather like the > seatbelt laws. Maybe we are "smart enough" to know to choose a seatbelt, > but since many people don't otherwise, the law is an attempt to protect > people who would not otherwise choose to protect themselves. Humans can and > do neglect companion animals in lots of ways besides tethering, and many > humans use tethering as a useful and humane management tool. Ascribing > regulation to it will help some dogs and hurt others. > > Ironically, those dogs that are tethered with monitoring and responsible > use of this management tool, are not going to be the "problem" dogs. > > One does not tether a dog unsupervised, as the restraint alone is a safety > risk for a dog and/or other beings around him or her, because we can never > predict EXACTLY what an animal will do when presented with a certain > challenge or trigger, even if we have never observed a "problem" from such > animal. We know much of the range of response tethered dogs can offer. We > can't predict when and where and what stimulus will elicit the reactions > that bring harm to the dog or others. Tethering, thus, as a way of life, is > an "agreement" that whatever measurable fallout occurs is acceptable in our > society, whether the fallout is welfare of the individual dog, or of harm > that may come to the dog or others. > > > Barbara Ray > Ohio Wildlife Center > Conservation Education and Wildlife Health > 614.734.WILD > > " It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the > earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know of wonder and > humility." > ~~Rachel Carson From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 22-AUG-2006 12:07:29.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Applied-ethology guidelines, membership and survey Hi Everyone, Just a few points to clear up. 1) The discussions about whether the list should split, charge fees, screen messages, restrict membership, discipline rudeness, etc. are all very interesting discussions, but in the end the applied-ethology network is a lot like a feral species, constantly evolving without any imposed management or artificial selection. I have no intention of charging fees, restricting the group membership, splitting the list, screening messages or kicking individuals off the list (though sometimes a subscriber is removed if their e-mail address keeps bouncing error messages). This list always has and always will attract and keep those individuals who find it "useful". All subscribers have some "responsibility" to contribute to its usefulness, either in our silence or our written word. 2) There are some suggested guidelines regarding our behaviour. The welcome message, which all subscribers receive, encourages users to treat each other with respect and appreciate each other's viewpoints. Insensitivity and rudeness are as unwelcome here as they are everywhere in life. Oversensitivity can be just as troublesome, so we all need to guard against reading too much into other people's replies. 3) Today, not all the ISAE members or the scientists who were original subscribers to the list are gone, despite the fact that many have come and gone over the years. The original applied-ethology network in 1994 was 100% ISAE members, not because it was restricted to them, but because we physically subscribed the entire ISAE membership once the network was up and running. I recall many ISAE members who wanted off the list the moment they found themselves subscribed, and it had nothing to do with the composition of the group. Taking an informal poll of your colleagues today may provide you with a glimpse of who is still on and who has left applied-ethology, but I can assure you that the applied-ethology lists still has ISAE members. 4) I do think it is an interesting question about the makeup of the subscribers on this list and how it has evolved over the years. I have started drafting a survey, and in the near future I hope to send you a survey (or a link to a survey), to help determine the demographics of the applied-ethology subscribers. I think it would be interesting for all of us to know the makeup of this group, your level of "use" of this list, your primary species of interest, your level of education, country of residence, etc., etc.. I have a fair number of questions already, but I would be curious to hear your suggestions on questions you would like to have surveyed. The survey results would be in the form of percentages of the group that fall into specific categories. If you have any questions that you think should be asked or polled from this group, please feel free to send me your suggestions. I will not offer any guarantees that I will use your specific questions, but I am open to your suggestions. Sincerely, Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Professor of Applied Ethology Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5B4 Tel 306-966-7154 Fax 306-966-7159 From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Gooddog" 22-AUG-2006 16:01:25.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Discussion List" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering I believe it is inhumane to tether a dog for anything but temporary and short term purposes i.e. 1 hour or so, or under animal behaviourist instructions. The exception might be a limited number of breeds that seem to tolerate tethering better than other forms of confinement e.g. sled dogs. I would like to see level 1 research done before exempting breeds, then it would only be purebreds. Nothing in canine ethology or my experience and understanding supports tethering as a long term answer to confinement, and it is statistically linked to dogs that become aggressive and kill people. Jackie Dr Jacqueline Perkins BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA Research PhD candidate University of Queensland Veterinary Behaviour Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: Zen Trainer To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:58 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Oh, and I should have added that one of the concerns here was that recently a few dogs were found dead at the end of chains due to heat. Several places in Florida recently banned tethering dogs outside during certain hot hours of the day for the same reasons. Health. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Gooddog" 22-AUG-2006 16:59:28.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Discussion List" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering I should clarify my comment: there are occasions when, in behaviour modification, I require a client to tether. These occasions are specific and rare eg recalcitrant toilet training where the owner may be required to trap the leash under the leg of the couch with the dog's toilet accessible (where the dog lives in a high rise unit, and crating has already failed to assist toilet training); an elderly couple adopted a pretty nasty Rottweiler (not under my instructions) and initially managed it by tethering it inside the home when they went out so it wouldn't eat them when they returned. This was strictly short term and once the dog bonded with them, it no longer required tethering. They were experienced with dogs of this type. I would have suggested crating instead of tethering, but anyway they had foreseen and managed the problem ahead of contacting me, and I condone what they did. Laws should not prevent behaviour professionals from prescribing tethering or any other technique, under supervision. Jackie Dr Jacqueline Perkins BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA Research PhD candidate University of Queensland Veterinary Behaviour Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: Gooddog To: Applied Ethology Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: Tethering I believe it is inhumane to tether a dog for anything but temporary and short term purposes i.e. 1 hour or so, or under animal behaviourist instructions. The exception might be a limited number of breeds that seem to tolerate tethering better than other forms of confinement e.g. sled dogs. I would like to see level 1 research done before exempting breeds, then it would only be purebreds. Nothing in canine ethology or my experience and understanding supports tethering as a long term answer to confinement, and it is statistically linked to dogs that become aggressive and kill people. Jackie Dr Jacqueline Perkins BVSc hons MACVSc (animal behaviour) BA Research PhD candidate University of Queensland Veterinary Behaviour Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: Zen Trainer To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:58 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Oh, and I should have added that one of the concerns here was that recently a few dogs were found dead at the end of chains due to heat. Several places in Florida recently banned tethering dogs outside during certain hot hours of the day for the same reasons. Health. Tracy B Ann http://www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" http://www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: Tethering Thanks, Clare. I appreciate the information. In general, we're looking at mostly urban areas, although as many of you will be aware, there have been some rural areas where these have been proposed. Most proposals result from concerns about dog bite injury prevention, although language is often proposed to be inserted within animal control ordinances in sections where the primary purpose of that section is to ensure the humane confinement of the dog. Although it certainly curtails dogs from roaming, I'm not aware that tethering necessarily keeps other animals and people away from dogs, unless the area is also within the confines of a fence (the traditional kind, not electric, since the latter presents the same issue about not keeping people and dogs out)? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 22-AUG-2006 21:23:45.33 To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering I don't think it was the tether. It was really the heat. The ordinance may have been more wide sweeping than that. I think they may have banned dogs from being outside at all (unattended for long periods of time). It's 110 in the shade so all the water in the world wouldn't help, especially for older dogs and for young pups who can't handle extreme temperatures well. Now, I do have my concerns about that as well. I know people who don't allow their dogs in the house so they are outside or in the garage. Garages with no heat or air... Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com But.wasn't the problem having the dogs outside in the heat where they could not get to water and shade.not the tether per se? The same situation could have occurred had the dogs been penned without access to water or shade. I've not completely made up my own mind yet under what situations tethering may or may not be appropriate.and that may, indeed, be the answer.the correct answer to this question is likely very situation- (and owner-) dependent. Gail C. Golab ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 22-AUG-2006 21:43:44.22 To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering One of the problems that I'm having with these ordinances is my inability to locate actual research that documents what the real physical or mental consequences are of tethering. I've seen calls to regulate tethering on various Websites, including those of groups like the HSUS and ALDF.what I haven't seen (with the exception of the CDC on bite statistics) is the data that leads the authors of the material on those sites to their conclusions. Without that data, it appears their conclusions are not that far removed from speculation.some of which is probably logical and reasonable, some maybe not? I find it intriguing (although maybe not all that surprising) that there's sufficient interest in the subject to write ordinances, but not sufficient interest to develop much in the way of associated research projects (a very few do exist as previous postings on this list have suggested). Again.thank you VERY much for your help. It is appreciated! Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare AVMA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am of two minds on this. One is that the research is there, you just have to ask. Use the contact info on the websites and ask for specifics - you will get them. The websites are for the general public. My other mind says do we really need research to tell us that it may not be the healthiest thing for a dog to be tethered unattended for long periods of time? We know enough anatomy to know that muscles need to move to be healthy. Most 6th graders know about the fight or flight syndrome. When you can't flee (as in you're tied up) there is nothing left to do but fight. Ethics and humane treatment aside it just seems like common sense that it might not be the best thing for dogs to be tied up for prolonged periods of time, let alone their whole lives. I'm reminded of tests done on monkeys who were taken from their mothers and without touch failed to thrive. Add in even a stuffed mother and they at least lived if not thrived. Now, did that study really have to take place? I swear that if someone had just asked 10 mothers in any country anywhere in the world they could have explained how important touch is for the survival of an infant. Which fits a bit also with the subject of the fate of this list. Should it be for scientists or laypeople? I agree with you Gail, that the two working together make for the best of both worlds. I would also invite Western Scientists to embrace the importance of anecdotal evidence. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 22-AUG-2006 22:05:33.97 To: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering ----- Original Message ----- From: Clare To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:20 AM Subject: Fw: Tethering and frustration from a fence boundary doesn't increase drives? then why do so many dogs fence fight? the purpose of a fence is to keep everyone, 2 footed or 4 footed from physically being able to be foolish as children can be or to indulge their overexcited unthinking urges. Perhaps there should be fences to keep football fans away from the field so they can't tear down goal posts after their team wins or loses a game. And anyone who engaged in the illegal act of fighting dogs would be most foolish to converse with the HSUS, this sounds bogus. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LOL! I am thinking there are football teams (and many other sports teams) who probably wish there were fences. And in some sports there are fences. I'm not sure who to address this to, there is no signature, but have you seen the wonderful footage of dogs fence fighting? It is from an English work. Pieces of the fence were removed. The dogs ran up and down the fence as usual and when they came face to face where the fence had been removed they froze. They resumed their "fence fighting" up and down the fence only now they stopped just before the fence did. At any time they could have "got" to each other but they didn't. It wasn't a part of the game. It might excite them and bring up arousal but I don't see how fence fighting can affect a dogs fight or flight drive as they can flee at any time. It's a lot like dogs on a leash. Drop the leash and the aggression drops also. Why? I suspect partly because without a leash or even inside a fence, a dog can get away. They can choose flight instead of fight. (I can probably find a source for this study for you.) And the HSUS has agents who work undercover exposing dog fighting and there are people who have "seen the light" and stopped fighting dogs and talked not only to HSUS but to mainstream media, so bogus as it may sound, it is indeed true. The New York Times had a guy go undercover and write an amazing piece on dog fighting. Jon Katz references training dogs to fight as well, in his book "The New Work of Dogs". Tying dogs down on increasingly shorter tethers is a part of this type of training. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 22-AUG-2006 22:15:08.94 To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: The future of the list Ok, now, I have to say that this post cracked me up!! Are you saying that the new discussion board is a pillar of decorum?? I sit in meetings with scientists all the time, sometimes specifically with the goal of keeping the peace between two factions. I am sometimes awed at the esoteric level of insults that are hurled at these meetings and I also sometimes have to duck when pencils are hurled. I don't think this is science or non science, this is whenever more than two humans are gathered. (Don't even get me going on when I am in a meeting with two different religious groups! Aiy, yai yai!) Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com When non-scientists joined this list, the scientific nature of the debate was often shifted, and in many cases, people became rude and abusive. As a list primarily for members of a professional society, this was intolerable to many and they have left this list. In talking to my ISAE colleagues, there are very, very few who are still subscribed, let alone willing to take part in these discussions. ISAE now has it's own highly active discussion board which is open to members only, thereby providing the function this list was originally intended to serve. So, I fear that calls for scientists to stay on the list are perhaps too late. Please note this is not an attack on non-scientists - it is simply a message of clarification. Don't shoot the messenger! Chris ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 22-AUG-2006 23:41:07.54 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering but have you seen the wonderful footage of dogs fence fighting? It is from an English work. Hi Tracy, Would you supply me with references to the above please? John L. New Zealand From: IN%"FoodFarm@aol.com" 22-AUG-2006 23:45:10.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: (Kein Thema) My goodness! Chris' generalisation about scientists being better behaved in argument compared with others really takes the biscuit. I do hope Dr Sherwin meant it as a tongue in cheek comment! As a journalist specialising in livestock production and therefore interested in ethology I've attended hundreds of meetings over the years and believe me, the insults only really start flying when the scientists are on the ball. Interested lay people are nearly always more inclined to listen to one anothers' opinions I have found. Norman Dunn FoodFarm Communications From: IN%"FoodFarm@aol.com" 22-AUG-2006 23:46:50.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Re Chris Sherwin's generalisation My goodness! Chris' generalisation about scientists being better behaved in argument compared with others really takes the biscuit. I do hope Dr Sherwin meant it as a tongue in cheek comment! As a journalist specialising in livestock production and therefore interested in ethology I've attended hundreds of meetings over the years and believe me, the insults only really start flying when the scientists are on the ball. Interested lay people are nearly always more inclined to listen to one anothers' opinions I have found. Norman Dunn FoodFarm Communications From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 23-AUG-2006 02:04:30.46 To: IN%"FoodFarm@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Re Chris Sherwin's generalisation Dear Norman, It was not in fact a generalization I was making but a specific comment about the behaviour of some (a few vociferous individuals) specifically on this site. Chris --On 23 August 2006 01:46 -0400 FoodFarm@aol.com wrote: > > > My goodness! > Chris' generalisation about scientists being better behaved in argument > compared with others really takes the biscuit. I do hope Dr Sherwin meant > it as a tongue in cheek comment! > As a journalist specialising in livestock production and therefore > interested in ethology I've attended hundreds of meetings over the years > and believe me, the insults only really start flying when the scientists > are on the ball. Interested lay people are nearly always more inclined to > listen to one anothers' opinions I have found. > Norman Dunn > FoodFarm Communications ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 23-AUG-2006 02:21:39.21 To: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: The future of the list Dear Zen, I suggest you join ISAE, engage in the discussion board and make up your own mind about whether this is 'a pillar of decorum'. I'm glad my posting allowed you to crack up. Chris --On 22 August 2006 23:14 -0500 Zen Trainer wrote: > > > Ok, now, I have to say that this post cracked me up!! Are you saying that > the new discussion board is a pillar of decorum?? I sit in meetings with > scientists all the time, sometimes specifically with the goal of keeping > the peace between two factions. I am sometimes awed at the esoteric level > of insults that are hurled at these meetings and I also sometimes have to > duck when pencils are hurled. I don't think this is science or non > science, this is whenever more than two humans are gathered. (Don't even > get me going on when I am in a meeting with two different religious > groups! Aiy, yai yai!) > > Tracy B Ann > www.zenpaws.com > "The Politics of Dogs" > www.radiofreenashville.org > http://zenpaws.blogspot.com > > > When non-scientists joined this list, the scientific nature of the debate > was often shifted, and in many cases, people became rude and abusive. As > a > list primarily for members of a professional society, this was > intolerable > to many and they have left this list. In talking to my ISAE colleagues, > there are very, very few who are still subscribed, let alone willing to > take part in these discussions. ISAE now has it's own highly active > discussion board which is open to members only, thereby providing the > function this list was originally intended to serve. So, I fear that > calls > for scientists to stay on the list are perhaps too late. > > Please note this is not an attack on non-scientists - it is simply a > message of clarification. Don't shoot the messenger! > > Chris > ---------------------- > Chris Sherwin > Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare > Division Clinical Veterinary Science > University of Bristol > Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > Phone 0117 928 9486 > ---------------------- Chris Sherwin Senior Research Fellow in Animal Behaviour and Welfare Division Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk Phone 0117 928 9486 From: IN%"zoe@hugegroupuk.com" "Zoe Allman" 23-AUG-2006 03:04:50.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: The future of the list Dear All, =20 As I said before, I would love this list to continue and I find it very valuable. What I do not find valuable is when people on the list find = the need to make statements that are obviously going to rile other people on = the list. This list should not be about anybodies bitterness or past = feelings. I can greatly appreciate the fact that nasty discussions have gone on in = the past, but what is the point in bringing them to life again? I am = training as a scientist, and I feel upset that scientists and =91non scientists=92 = appear to think of each other on different levels. It is simply not about that. =20 I feel that this list could be such a minefield of knowledge and new thinking. I know that eventually a sensitive topic would arise that = people would feel strongly about; it is just up to each individual to express = their feelings with the expected decorum of a professional and not let their feelings get in the way of their valid argument. I can feel a lot of misgivings and people holding onto hurt that is damaging the list, and I believe we can move on from it.=20 =20 Zo=EB Allman University of Chester=20 BSc Animal Behaviour From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 23-AUG-2006 05:11:37.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fence fighting My coyotes do some fence fighting. Over the years, there has only been two serious incidents. Those occured when there was more than one coyotes on one side of the fence with just one coyote on the other. Otherwise, it was ritualized and appeared to be just a way of interacting with each other. I have two that interact in this way twice a day. At about three in the afternoon and nine at night. One of those is in a smaller pen than I like for the coyotes, but I hesitate to move her, because she would not have that interaction anymore. There was a study done at Wolf Park years ago that showed that a fence was like having a 15 ft. boundary. Of course there were some exceptions. My new pens are built with a three ft corridor between them. The coyotes on both sides of the corridors still do the ritualized fence fighting. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"daisyberthoud@yahoo.com" "daisy berthoud" 23-AUG-2006 05:58:40.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: looking for nina hagelund (spelling?) dear list members, i am looking for nina hagelund, if you read this message, please contact me privately. thank you very much and sorry to bother all others, daisy berthoud __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 23-AUG-2006 13:04:15.34 To: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering And...attempting to get data is why I posted the inquiry in the first place...so far I've gotten very interesting and very valuable information from the posts (thank you all again for your time and interest), but minimal to no specific data. Looks like some believe dogs shouldn't be tethered, whereas other believe that tethering should be allowed under certain conditions. That still leaves me (us?...guess it depends on how interested you are in this subject :-)) with the problem that various municipalities are specifying engineering standards when pretty much what everyone on this list seems to support is performance standards for tethering. As Steve has pointed out, performance standards are sometimes harder to interpret and enforce, but is enforcing a bad (do we even know that that is, when basic data seems to be so thin?) engineering standard any better? What happens to the person who has their Chihuahua on a 9.5-foot lead when the standard is 10 feet? Contrast that to the person who has their Malamute on a 10-foot lead and meets the standard? Tethering is simply an example...and the debate over engineering versus performance is an old one. So...that leads me to my next question...does anyone have performance standards for tethering that they would recommend as being appropriate? Gail ________________________________ From: Zen Trainer [mailto:ZenTrainer@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:43 PM To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Subject: Re: Tethering One of the problems that I'm having with these ordinances is my inability to locate actual research that documents what the real physical or mental consequences are of tethering. I've seen calls to regulate tethering on various Websites, including those of groups like the HSUS and ALDF...what I haven't seen (with the exception of the CDC on bite statistics) is the data that leads the authors of the material on those sites to their conclusions. Without that data, it appears their conclusions are not that far removed from speculation...some of which is probably logical and reasonable, some maybe not? I find it intriguing (although maybe not all that surprising) that there's sufficient interest in the subject to write ordinances, but not sufficient interest to develop much in the way of associated research projects (a very few do exist as previous postings on this list have suggested). Again...thank you VERY much for your help. It is appreciated! Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare AVMA ________________________________ I am of two minds on this. One is that the research is there, you just have to ask. Use the contact info on the websites and ask for specifics - you will get them. The websites are for the general public. My other mind says do we really need research to tell us that it may not be the healthiest thing for a dog to be tethered unattended for long periods of time? We know enough anatomy to know that muscles need to move to be healthy. Most 6th graders know about the fight or flight syndrome. When you can't flee (as in you're tied up) there is nothing left to do but fight. Ethics and humane treatment aside it just seems like common sense that it might not be the best thing for dogs to be tied up for prolonged periods of time, let alone their whole lives. I'm reminded of tests done on monkeys who were taken from their mothers and without touch failed to thrive. Add in even a stuffed mother and they at least lived if not thrived. Now, did that study really have to take place? I swear that if someone had just asked 10 mothers in any country anywhere in the world they could have explained how important touch is for the survival of an infant. Which fits a bit also with the subject of the fate of this list. Should it be for scientists or laypeople? I agree with you Gail, that the two working together make for the best of both worlds. I would also invite Western Scientists to embrace the importance of anecdotal evidence. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 23-AUG-2006 14:11:55.50 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Tethering ----- Original Message ----- From: Clare To: Dr. Gail Golab Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Gail, Some factors to consider might be body length to tether ratio. Others might be is this a fixed tether or overhead cable where the distance is greater. Yet these may not be pertinent factors as the dog on a fixed tether who trots in a circle may not be as frustrated as a dog that goes back and forth even if it can track from side to side and have more square feet to cover. Round pen work with a horse seems to have a different effect than the same type of work in a straight sided pen. Perhaps contacting Jeffrey Bragg at his email jjeffrey@seppalasleddogs.com would be a start. His ability to check email is erratic with his remote location but he is very helpful. With world wide connections, he may know of people with enough dogs of other types to be useful samples. With your permission I can forward this to some trainers and breeders with several types of dogs and use tethering for some and runs for others. Performance standards might also be a bit difficult to interpret accurately. As in, is the sled dog who trots in circles for an hour simply self exercising or showing stereotypic behavior? Having those qualified to respond list what they check for to see if a dog is well off or needs something could reveal if there are any common factors across the board for all dogs or how it is specific for the various types of dogs. And Dr. Burchard with his world wide experience may also be able to direct you. Plus his own extensive observations alone as valued data, anecdotal stories he posts of tribal breeding and management of Salukis are probably more valuable than a formal study by many researchers. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Gail Golab To: Zen Trainer Cc: Ethics List Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: RE: Tethering And.attempting to get data is why I posted the inquiry in the first place.so far I've gotten very interesting and very valuable information from the posts (thank you all again for your time and interest), but minimal to no specific data. Looks like some believe dogs shouldn't be tethered, whereas other believe that tethering should be allowed under certain conditions. That still leaves me (us?...guess it depends on how interested you are in this subject J) with the problem that various municipalities are specifying engineering standards when pretty much what everyone on this list seems to support is performance standards for tethering. As Steve has pointed out, performance standards are sometimes harder to interpret and enforce, but is enforcing a bad (do we even know that that is, when basic data seems to be so thin?) engineering standard any better? What happens to the person who has their Chihuahua on a 9.5-foot lead when the standard is 10 feet? Contrast that to the person who has their Malamute on a 10-foot lead and meets the standard? Tethering is simply an example.and the debate over engineering versus performance is an old one. So.that leads me to my next question.does anyone have performance standards for tethering that they would recommend as being appropriate? Gail ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Zen Trainer [mailto:ZenTrainer@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:43 PM To: Dr. Gail Golab Cc: Ethics List Subject: Re: Tethering One of the problems that I'm having with these ordinances is my inability to locate actual research that documents what the real physical or mental consequences are of tethering. I've seen calls to regulate tethering on various Websites, including those of groups like the HSUS and ALDF.what I haven't seen (with the exception of the CDC on bite statistics) is the data that leads the authors of the material on those sites to their conclusions. Without that data, it appears their conclusions are not that far removed from speculation.some of which is probably logical and reasonable, some maybe not? I find it intriguing (although maybe not all that surprising) that there's sufficient interest in the subject to write ordinances, but not sufficient interest to develop much in the way of associated research projects (a very few do exist as previous postings on this list have suggested). Again.thank you VERY much for your help. It is appreciated! Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM Associate Director, Animal Welfare AVMA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am of two minds on this. One is that the research is there, you just have to ask. Use the contact info on the websites and ask for specifics - you will get them. The websites are for the general public. My other mind says do we really need research to tell us that it may not be the healthiest thing for a dog to be tethered unattended for long periods of time? We know enough anatomy to know that muscles need to move to be healthy. Most 6th graders know about the fight or flight syndrome. When you can't flee (as in you're tied up) there is nothing left to do but fight. Ethics and humane treatment aside it just seems like common sense that it might not be the best thing for dogs to be tied up for prolonged periods of time, let alone their whole lives. I'm reminded of tests done on monkeys who were taken from their mothers and without touch failed to thrive. Add in even a stuffed mother and they at least lived if not thrived. Now, did that study really have to take place? I swear that if someone had just asked 10 mothers in any country anywhere in the world they could have explained how important touch is for the survival of an infant. Which fits a bit also with the subject of the fate of this list. Should it be for scientists or laypeople? I agree with you Gail, that the two working together make for the best of both worlds. I would also invite Western Scientists to embrace the importance of anecdotal evidence. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 23-AUG-2006 16:06:42.59 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Tethering First of all, my name is in the from field of the email. it's redundant to keep re-signing. I have not seen a video but have read Lorenz's account of his dog and a neighbor's who suddenly stopped when reaching a gap in the fence while it was being repaired. At no point did Lorenz assume that because these 2 dogs had a conditioned response interrupted by the sudden lack of an environmental conditioned stimulus, that other dogs would not eagerly take advantage of the chance to engage in a serious fight. Your broad generalities such as "a dogs fight drive", "dogs on a leash" and "drop the leash and the aggression drops also" are appalling to me as it can mislead inexperienced and too trusting individuals into doing foolish things such as dropping a leash and ending up with a dog fight. ALL dogs? please come back out of the ozone and down to earth. Not all breeds are pack breeds. A fair number of breeds are dog aggressive in general or same sex aggressive. Others may be aggressive to strange dogs but not those they cohabitate with, some may be aggressive in some situations but not in others. How can fence fighting affect a dog's fight drive? Very simply, the factors may have little or nothing to do with the fence but other more universal factors such as distance. The dogs can get face to face and be conditioned to arousal, barking, snarling, biting the fence, biting each other through the fence, be conditioned to the visual stimulus of the other dog, as well as conditioned to the sounds and odors. All of these factors may be more important than the presence or lack of a fence. How many times are dogs injured when a gate gets left open or a dog jumps or digs under a fence and does get a chance to attack another dog? Which dogs, what sex, breed, age, intact or desexed, in estrus or around another dog in estrus, experience with other dogs and quality of that experience, all of these can effect the outcome. Not to mention the very important factors of training and handling. Anything that increases frustration can increase the desire to do something. That something can be useful or undesirable. Useful as in increasing enthusiasm for flyball, agility, weight pulling, lure coursing, fetch games, search and rescue, police/military work and other endeavors. Undesirable as in increasing the odds of inappropriate aggression to humans or other animals, destructiveness, excessive barking, escape behaviors and separation problems to name a few common ones. Fence fighting is not limited to dogs. Fish in subdivided aquariums will posture and strike the glass if they are aggressive nature. And if the divider slips, will fight often to the death. Horses do not always get along well and can try to attack each other through fencing or break it down to get at each other. Do you think that these horses would not fight if the fence was not there? In wild conditions they may have a choice to never enter the territory to begin with and never intrude on each others' fight or flight distance. But in the artificial conditions of stable management, they are close together and the constant irritation of the others' presence may increase their aggression to humans and even other horses they usually buddy up with. A Livestock guardian dog that is inside a secure fence with a flock at night may fence fight with a stray dog or become frenzied and charge up and down the fence if a coyote or other predator is outside the fence. Do you really think if that dog suddenly did not have the fence there that it would not attack a coyote or stray dog? If so, the rancher better get a new dog. The critical factor for that type of dog is the proximity of any unknown potential threat to its flock. A good LGD will kill a coyote if it can get close enough or there are several dogs to tag team it. But if the coyote leaves fast enough the dog should break off pursuit and return to the flock in case other dangers are waiting for the chance to snatch a lamb. Much the same as cichilds defending eggs or babies. If the threat leaves, they break off the fight as further pursuit leaves the young vulnerable. This is not the case in dogs selected to hunt and kill prey or even as with bullmastiffs bred to track down and immobilize poachers. They are not supposed to stop until they get their prey. Police dogs might also fit under this category. Prey drive and fight drive are both aspects of these working dogs. The fight is brought to the quarry, not aborted if the threat leaves. Even if the dogs were more in a mock fight mode, sudden access to each other could trigger a tragedy. Perhaps the size difference is great and the small dog when suddenly face to face with the large dogs, lets out a yelp and runs, triggering prey drive, is caught and shaken like a rat. Or isn't smart enough to try to back off, bites the bigger dog who attacks in anger. A fair amount of research often quoted was done on pack type or very social breeds like sporting breeds and excluded dog aggressive breeds that would have killed each other and ended the observations. The Coppingers observations on village dogs who calmly wait to breed a female and they seldom fight over anything is quite different than a description posted on Anatolians where the males have to fight for the right to breed. Jan Koler-Matznick has indicated that New Guinea Singers are very same sex aggressive, parents drive off the same sex offspring when the female goes into estrus. She described one time a male pup was nearly castrated by his father even though the containment area was quite large. The only area that managed to keep a group at all was a zoo with a very large area and enough stuff in it to provide several territories, visual and sound barriers. http://www.canineworld.com/ngsdcs/ this website indicates that keeping singers with other dogs of the same sex or even small dogs is inadvisable. Generalizing about dogs when dogs have such a wide range of breed specific behaviors and physical traits makes about as much sense as generalizing about gardening. The water, soil and temperature requirements of tomatoes to set fruit is different from onions. What is right for my sage plant will kill my aloe. All may need water, sunlight, and NPK plus micronutrients but in different amounts. The best use of a loose leash is as an indicator that a dog is well trained enough and has an attentive human at the other end so that the leash never tightens. Such a team is unlikely to provoke a fight and avoid many potential ones. Dropping a leash when 2 dogs are showing aggression seems as sensible as letting 2 children loose who are straining, name calling and trying to swat each other. That included very tall children old enough to vote. Getting them far enough away from each other so that they are not triggering aggression and using the situation as training in self control seems more suitable. For both the 2 footed and 4 footed. Clare I'm not sure who to address this to, there is no signature, but have you seen the wonderful footage of dogs fence fighting? It is from an English work. Pieces of the fence were removed. The dogs ran up and down the fence as usual and when they came face to face where the fence had been removed they froze. They resumed their "fence fighting" up and down the fence only now they stopped just before the fence did. At any time they could have "got" to each other but they didn't. It wasn't a part of the game. It might excite them and bring up arousal but I don't see how fence fighting can affect a dogs fight or flight drive as they can flee at any time. It's a lot like dogs on a leash. Drop the leash and the aggression drops also. Why? I suspect partly because without a leash or even inside a fence, a dog can get away. They can choose flight instead of fight. (I can probably find a source for this study for you.) And the HSUS has agents who work undercover exposing dog fighting and there are people who have "seen the light" and stopped fighting dogs and talked not only to HSUS but to mainstream media, so bogus as it may sound, it is indeed true. The New York Times had a guy go undercover and write an amazing piece on dog fighting. Jon Katz references training dogs to fight as well, in his book "The New Work of Dogs". Tying dogs down on increasingly shorter tethers is a part of this type of training. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 23-AUG-2006 17:24:52.03 To: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 23-AUG-2006 17:32:45.04 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering No, it's more possession related as the flocks move, if it were territorial, the dogs would stay home, not go with the flock. This is were labels become distractions. Using the words territorial or possessive may mean one thing to you and another to me. What is important that if the flock moves, the dogs go with the flock. I repeat, proximity to the flock is the trigger to start and also end the behavior. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Clare wrote: The critical factor for that type of dog is the proximity of any unknown potential threat to its flock The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 23-AUG-2006 17:41:41.57 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering No, it's more possession related as the flocks move, if it were territorial, the dogs would stay home, not go with the flock. This is where labels become distractions. Using the words territorial or possessive may mean one thing to you and another to me. What is important that if the flock moves, the dogs go with the flock. I repeat, proximity to the flock is the trigger to start and also end the behavior. Without the bonding behavior there would be no LGDs. The Coppingers described the long twice yearly migrations of many flocks and livestock guardians. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Clare wrote: The critical factor for that type of dog is the proximity of any unknown potential threat to its flock The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 23-AUG-2006 17:41:49.83 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering No, it's more possession related as the flocks move, if it were territorial, the dogs would stay home, not go with the flock. This is where labels become distractions. Using the words territorial or possessive may mean one thing to you and another to me. What is important that if the flock moves, the dogs go with the flock. I repeat, proximity to the flock is the trigger to start and also end the behavior. Without the bonding behavior there would be no LGDs. The Coppingers described the long twice yearly migrations of many flocks and livestock guardians. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Clare wrote: The critical factor for that type of dog is the proximity of any unknown potential threat to its flock The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 23-AUG-2006 17:42:48.24 To: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering You are incorrect. I checked with Dr Klinghammer before posting. Twenty three years ago, I was at Wolf Park when the first LGD's were brought to the park. CeAnn Clare wrote: No, it's more possession related as the flocks move, if it were territorial, the dogs would stay home, not go with the flock. This is were labels become distractions. Using the words territorial or possessive may mean one thing to you and another to me. What is important that if the flock moves, the dogs go with the flock. I repeat, proximity to the flock is the trigger to start and also end the behavior. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Tethering The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 23-AUG-2006 18:08:59.23 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering and what did that prove? were there sheep that the dogs were bonded to? a rancher whose pastures I used to drive past some years ago had a large Anatolian male that was so aggressive that if the sheep were near the fence, he'd try to bite the tires on vehicles. if the sheep were not near the fence, he didn't care. If you drove near the house, he'd become very busy running towards your vehicle to prevent you from getting out, then checking on the flock and keeping an eye on you. if his owners appeared and permitted you to get out, he'd return to the flock. Any sensible LGD understands that allowing a potential threat to hang around is unwise. He'd do his best to drive you off with threatening your tires but without prey drive type attempts to bite and stop the vehicle from moving. If you left, he'd return to the flock, always the center of his vigilance. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Tethering You are incorrect. I checked with Dr Klinghammer before posting. Twenty three years ago, I was at Wolf Park when the first LGD's were brought to the park. CeAnn Clare wrote: No, it's more possession related as the flocks move, if it were territorial, the dogs would stay home, not go with the flock. This is were labels become distractions. Using the words territorial or possessive may mean one thing to you and another to me. What is important that if the flock moves, the dogs go with the flock. I repeat, proximity to the flock is the trigger to start and also end the behavior. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Clare wrote: The critical factor for that type of dog is the proximity of any unknown potential threat to its flock The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 23-AUG-2006 18:34:13.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering and how is this different from what I said? I don't know what you mean by being territorial to you. I do understand that they probably warned you off with aggressive behavior. and that if the sheep moved, and you stayed behind, that they probably went with the sheep once the sheep were far enough away from you that you were unlikely to get to the sheep before the dogs could stop you at which point the dogs should return to the sheep. call it territorial if you want, the presence of the sheep is the critical factor, not which pasture they were in. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Yes, there were sheep. The dogs came as puppies with their mother. We were not allowed to interact with them. They became very territorial even with us. At the same time, they bonded with the sheep. We had two territories for the dogs and the sheep. Once a week they were moved so the sheep would have fresh grass. It was a very interesting year. I was there the day we did an experiment with one LGD and a wolf. It was determined that two LGD's would be needed to guard against a wolf. LOL There was one puppy that wanted human interaction. Ray determined that it wouldn't make a good guarding dog, so it was given to one of the volunteers at the park. CeAnn Clare wrote: and what did that prove? were there sheep that the dogs were bonded to? a rancher whose pastures I used to drive past some years ago had a large Anatolian male that was so aggressive that if the sheep were near the fence, he'd try to bite the tires on vehicles. if the sheep were not near the fence, he didn't care. If you drove near the house, he'd become very busy running towards your vehicle to prevent you from getting out, then checking on the flock and keeping an eye on you. if his owners appeared and permitted you to get out, he'd return to the flock. Any sensible LGD understands that allowing a potential threat to hang around is unwise. He'd do his best to drive you off with threatening your tires but without prey drive type attempts to bite and stop the vehicle from moving. If you left, he'd return to the flock, always the center of his vigilance. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Tethering You are incorrect. I checked with Dr Klinghammer before posting. Twenty three years ago, I was at Wolf Park when the first LGD's were brought to the park. CeAnn Clare wrote: No, it's more possession related as the flocks move, if it were territorial, the dogs would stay home, not go with the flock. This is were labels become distractions. Using the words territorial or possessive may mean one thing to you and another to me. What is important that if the flock moves, the dogs go with the flock. I repeat, proximity to the flock is the trigger to start and also end the behavior. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Clare wrote: The critical factor for that type of dog is the proximity of any unknown potential threat to its flock The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"big866@163.com" "lizheng" 23-AUG-2006 23:42:22.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-req... " CC: Subj: piglet hello all I am a post-graduate student in China.My major is applied animal behavior science. Now,I want to study somgthing about piglet,like solid food.I want to know what colour and shape does piglet like?I need some literature review about these.I hope who can help me,thanks very much! Li zheng From: IN%"big866@163.com" "lizheng" 24-AUG-2006 01:56:59.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-req... " CC: Subj: I need some references about slick block of piglets I need some references about slick block of piglets,but I can not find it. Who can help,thank you very much! From: IN%"hgreen@miamiwabashpaper.com" "Heidi Green" 24-AUG-2006 07:20:58.01 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "'Cecilia Lambert'", IN%"clare@hughes.net" "'Clare'", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering CeAnn, Are you saying the flock is the territory? Where ever the flock is at that is the LGD's territory? Like Clare, What good would a LGD be if it were a mile or two away within it's "territory" like I am thinking you are interpreting it to be? The proximity of the potential threat could vary. It is true that it would not be a livestock guarding dog if it were not guarding the livestock? The territory the livestock can roam in can be extensive. CeAnn, from what you are saying it sounds as if the LGD's are guarding the territory and not the livestock. IMHO. Heidi Laymen who loves canine behaviour. -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:42 PM To: Clare; applied-ethology@usask.ca Subject: Re: Tethering You are incorrect. I checked with Dr Klinghammer before posting. Twenty three years ago, I was at Wolf Park when the first LGD's were brought to the park. CeAnn Clare wrote: No, it's more possession related as the flocks move, if it were territorial, the dogs would stay home, not go with the flock. This is were labels become distractions. Using the words territorial or possessive may mean one thing to you and another to me. What is important that if the flock moves, the dogs go with the flock. I repeat, proximity to the flock is the trigger to start and also end the behavior. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cecilia Lambert To: Clare ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Tethering Clare wrote: The critical factor for that type of dog is the proximity of any unknown potential threat to its flock The critical factor for a LGD is it's territorial behavior. It is guarding it's territory. Because they are bonded to the flock, the flock also gets guarded. Without the territorial behavior, I don't think there would be LGD's. CeAnn CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 24-AUG-2006 07:53:16.43 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fwd: RE: Tethering Note: forwarded message attached. CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"pdezabu1@dancris.com" "Peggy Duezabou" 24-AUG-2006 08:09:13.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Tethering & LGDs -----Original Message----- From: Peggy Duezabou [mailto:pdezabu1@dancris.com] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26 AM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Tethering & LGDs Any chance we can change the heading on this one. I nearly missed the conversation, and--having sheep, herding dogs, and a LGD--I am very interested. Ce Ann-- Could you please describe briefly the experiment conducted at Wolf Park? Thanks, Peggy Shunick Duezabou From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 24-AUG-2006 09:07:12.23 To: IN%"pdezabu1@dancris.com" "Peggy Duezabou", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Tethering & LGDs It was twenty years ago, so it will be brief. Ray Coppinger brought one of his LGD's. I forget which one. I think the dog was put in the bison pasture first and let roam for a while. Then one of the wolves was brought in. The ensuing fight went on until both animals appeared to be getting exhausted. They were separated by being called off. Neither animal was injured. They were just exhausted. Ray said " I think we need more than one dog." My memory isn't that great anymore. That is all I remember. I was very new at the park at that time. I just came across the picture that we all posed for after that interaction. CeAnn Peggy Duezabou wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Peggy Duezabou [mailto:pdezabu1@dancris.com] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:26 AM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Tethering & LGDs Any chance we can change the heading on this one. I nearly missed the conversation, and--having sheep, herding dogs, and a LGD--I am very interested. Ce Ann-- Could you please describe briefly the experiment conducted at Wolf Park? Thanks, Peggy Shunick Duezabou CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 24-AUG-2006 09:27:53.40 To: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" Subj: RE: Tethering Clare, I don't know who you are, or what your experience is. I have been training and boarding (cage free) dogs for a living for 12 years. ALL of the ordinances involving tethering of dogs address tethering dogs unattended ONLY. Tethering a dog for management while attended is a common practice for behaviorists, trainers and in dog day cares. I know of no ordinance or law which prohibits this. Your reply is a prime example of the ill mannered type that does make people leave a list whether they are scientist or no. There are polite ways to disagree and to question statements. If you would like to read some studies on these type of positive communication styles please let me know. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Clare To: Zen Trainer Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Tethering deal with it. I found your posts to be flagrantly spin doctoring of your own biased and unsubstantiated beliefs and your logic full of holes. I've seen far too much in the way of injured dogs and people plus the grief caused when someone followed cyberspace experts advice rather than getting hands on experience. would you suggest anyone learn to drive from a book? or from a live in the vehicle instructor? btw your posts on tethering would indicate you do not think there is ever a reason to do so yet from your website there is this 3. Watch Like A Hawk - Never let a pup out of your sight. Keep your puppy in a crate (plastic), outside in a safe area or in your sight at all times. Use a leash to tether your dog to a stationary object such as the couch, while you watch TV and give him 5 or 6 toys to play with. you're a hypocrite, had you initially stated in a post that there is a time and place where tethering is useful, you would not be. Several people had descriptions of the conditions under which they considered tethering useful or acceptable. you're welcome to the last word, you're not worth replying to either on or off list ----- Original Message ----- From: Zen Trainer To: Clare Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Tethering ~~First of all, my name is in the from field of the email. it's redundant to keep re-signing. ~~ please come back out of the ozone and down to earth. ~~ Generalizing about dogs when dogs have such a wide range of breed specific behaviors and physical traits makes about as much sense as generalizing about gardening. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These are a few examples of what I consider "rudeness". Now this doesn't have to do with science or not. It's a matter of etiquette. Generally on a discussion list it's up to the moderator to police this. On un moderated lists (which often implode) members are free to react as they like. I choose not to engage. Life is too short. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org http://zenpaws.blogspot.com From: IN%"simone@dogsintune.com" "Simone T. Cooper" 24-AUG-2006 09:44:31.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) Hi all, Just clarifying for myself: the sheep guarding behavior sounds more like what we call "resource guarding" in pet dogs -- they'll guard a toy or person or piece of food whereever it is found, rather than only in one place. But Klinghammer suggests that sheep guarding is specifically location-based? Can anyone out there provide a list of articles or peer-reviewed resources on this, one way or the other? At 06:52 AM 8/24/2006 -0700, Cecilia Lambert wrote: > > Note: forwarded message attached. > > CeAnn Lambert > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > www.coyoterescue.org > Please visit our gift shop @ > www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue > > Received: from [4.225.20.157] by web38909.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, > 24 Aug 2006 06:48:45 PDT > Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:48:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: Cecilia Lambert > Subject: RE: Tethering > In-reply-to: <018c01c6c788$335eac40$c802a8c0@HEIDI> > To: Heidi Green > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="Boundary_(ID_iRkvgYgDkXcYnaFY6sE/eg)" > Content-length: 804 > > > > Dr. Klinghammer says. They are guarding their territory. Because, they are > bonded to the sheep, the sheep also get guarded. It is the territorial > behavior of the LGD's that is utilized to also guard the sheep. > CeAnn > > Heidi Green wrote: >> >> CeAnn, >> >> CeAnn, from what you are saying it sounds as if the LGD's are guarding the >> territory and not the livestock. IMHO. >> >> Heidi >> >> >> >> CeAnn Lambert >> Indiana Coyote Rescue Center >> www.coyoterescue.org >> Please visit our gift shop @ >> www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue > > Simone T. Cooper, BA, MST CPDT; CGC Evaluator President, Board of Directors - CCPDT Dogs in Tune, Portland, Oregon (503) 283-0542 / simone@dogsintune.com private and group training for your family dog From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 25-AUG-2006 12:49:11.80 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels ---- "Simone T. Cooper" wrote: > Hi all, > > Just clarifying for myself: the sheep guarding behavior sounds more like what > we call "resource guarding" in pet dogs -- they'll guard a toy or person or > piece of food whereever it is found, rather than only in one place. But > Klinghammer suggests that sheep guarding is specifically location-based? > > Can anyone out there provide a list of articles or peer-reviewed resources on > this, one way or the other? Hi Simone and all, I have followed this thread with interest thank you all I also look forward to the type of references Simone asks for. As a side issue: I think Claire mentioned it early in the conversation but this thread really highlights the potential for misunderstanding when we use labels/constructs rather than describing behaviour doesn't it? John L. From: IN%"randihelene@tillung.no" "Randi Helene Tillung" 26-AUG-2006 16:38:38.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels I worked with LGD's during May to September for two years ('98 and '99) = and studied 4 dogs behaviour pattern while free ranging in mountain areas = with approx 500 sheep. Amongst other things I found that the LGDs "sleep" = (i.e lie with their head to the ground and eyes shut) 70-80% of the time.=20 I can not remember Coppinger or anybody else say much about territorial behaviour in their writing. They might of course have, but at least this = is not emphasised. What Coppinger does say is that any dog can be a LGD as long as it has = three important traits. Those are in short that the dog must be trustworthy = (not attack or play with sheep), protective (towards the sheep) and attentive (staying with the sheep, not stray). The last mentioned is based on that = the dog is socialized with sheep during the critical period of puppyhood. = Some breeds will have a better prognosis of fitting into these traits, = especially those breeds with a longer critical period. As far as I have understood, attentiveness is the most important trait = and if this trait is in place the two others usually follow, with the = commonly used breeds. I have the understanding that LGD's usually does not directly attack a predator, but interrupt or disturb their hunting patterns. This was the = case when I witnessed a bear attack during the night in July '98. The three = dogs on duty barked and ran to and from between the sheep and the bear. They never directly confronted the bear but held a distance of 10-20 meters. = At the time of the attack I noticed that the dogs were wagging their tail = in an upright position. The wagging was not very stiff, as I know it from dog aggression, but quite loose. I was very frightened during the attack, = and I remember this frightening me even more as I thought that the dogs did = not take the attack serious. A silly thought in retrospect, but an = interesting observation. I still think about it. Underneath you will find a list of literature. This has not been updated since 2002, so I am sure more valuable knowledge has come since then. Today, Norway does not use LGD's effectively although we have bear, = wolves, lynx and wolverine, and political will to increase the carnivores' = numbers. The main reason I think is that wages are high in Norway, but consumers = are not willing to pay a lot more for the meat. Hiring people for herding = the sheep would be very costly. Another thing is that our sheep does not = travel in flocks but spread out in the mountain. That is due to the climate as = the new and fresh grass come up in small spots where the snow has melted. = The sheep need to roam to find these nutritious spots. Sheep in Norway usually range free in the mountains and are looked after only sporadically during the summer. This makes the production cheaper. Sheep more likely die from insects or falling, than from carnivores in Norway. Yours, Randi Helene Tillung M.Sc in Ethology -------------------------- List of literature: Andelt, W.F., 1992. Effectiveness of livestock guardian dogs for = reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 20: 55-62. Christiansen, F., 1989: Vokterhund som forebyggende middel for =E5 = reduserer konflikten mellom husdyr og rovdyr. En guide. (Livestock Guarding Dogs as a Measure = to reduce Predator =96 Livestock Conflicts. A Guidance). NTF-notat 1998:9. Christiansen, F., 2000: Predatory behaviour of hunting dogs towards = grazing sheep (Jakthunders predatoratferd overfor sau i utmark). Doktor scient.-avhandling. Institutt for husdyrfag, Norges Landbruksh=F8gskole, = =C5s. Coppinger, R., Lorenz, J., Glendinning, J. & Pinardi, P., 1983. Attentiveness of guarding dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Jour. of Range Manag. 36, = 275-279. Coppinger, R., Glendinning, J., Torop, E., Matthay, C., Sutherland, M., Smith, C., 1987. Degree of behavioral neoteny differentiates canid polymorphs. Ethology = 75, 89-108. Coppinger, R., Coppinger, L., Langeloh, G., Gettler, L. & Lorenz, J., = 1988. A Decade of use of Livestock Guardian Dogs. Proc. Vertrebr. Pest Conference, University = of California, 13: 209-214. Coppinger, R. & Coppinger, L. 1993: "Dogs for herding and guarding livestock". I: T. Grandin, red., Livestock Handling and Transport, pp 179-196. = Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Coppinger, R. & Coppinger, L., 1995: "Interaction between livestock = guarding dogs and wolves". I: L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts og D.R Seips, red., Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Alberta, Edmonton: Can. Circ. Inst., Univ. Green, J.S. & Woodruff, R.A., 1988. Breed Comparisons and = Characteristics of Use of Livestock Guarding Dogs. J. Range Manage., 41: 249-250. Green, J.S. & Woodruff, R.A., 1990: "Livestock guarding dogs: protecting sheep from predators". Agriculture Information Bulletin No 588. U.S Department of Agriculture. Hansen, I., 1995: "Bruk av vokterhund i Israel. Erfaringer og inntrykk = fra studietur til Israel 25.02.=9615.03.95". Sau og Geit 3/95:144-146. Hansen, I. & Christiansen, F., 2001: Tilpasset bruk av vokterhund =96 erfaringer fra enkeltbesetninger. Statusrapport 2000. Gr=F8nn forskning 06/2001. Hansen, I. & Christiansen, F., 2002: Tilpasset bruk av vokterhund =96 erfaringer fra enkeltbesetninger. Statusrapport 2001. Planteforsk Gr=F8nn forskning = 11/2002. Hansen, I., M. Smith & =D8. Trondsen, 1997. Bruk av vokterhund og andre forebyggende tiltak mot rovdyrskader p=E5 bufe. Erfaringer fra USA. Planteforsk Gr=F8nn = forskning nr 10/97. Krogstad, S., Christiansen, F., Smith, M.E., R=F8ste, O.C., Aanesland, = N., Tillung, R.H. & Thorud, L., 2000: Forebyggende tiltak mot rovviltskader p=E5 sau. = Gjeting og bruk av vokterhund i Lierne. Sluttrapport 2000. NINA fagrapport 041, Trondheim. Linnell, J.D.C., Smith, M.E., Odden, J., Kaczensky, P. & Swenson, J.E., 1996: Rovvilt og sauen=E6ring i Norge (Carnivores and Sheep Farming in Norway). 4. = Strategies for the reduction of Carnivore =96 Livestock Conflicts: A Review. NINA = oppdragsmelding 443. Lorenz, J.R. & Coppinger, R., 1986: Raising and training a livestock-guarding dog. Oregon State University Extension Service, Cirkular Number 1238/April 1986. Lorenz, J.R , 1989: Introducing livestock-guarding dogs. Oregon State University Extension Service, Cirkular Number 1224. Milj=F8verndepartementet, 1996. Stortingsmelding nr 35 (1996-97) Om rovviltforvaltning. Rings=F8, A., Staaland, T. & Hansen, I., 2000. Vokterhund i kombinasjon = med tilsyn =96 evaluering av tre =E5rs utpr=F8ving i Hattfjelldal. Rapport 03/2000, = Planteforsk Tj=F8tta fagsenter. Rauma kommune, 2001. Forebyggende tiltak rovvilt i Rauma kommune. Rauma kommune, n=E6ringsetaten, 2001. Scott, J.P. &, Fuller, J.C., 1965. Dog Behavior. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sims, D.E. & Dawydiak, O., 1990: Livestock Protecting Dogs. Selection, = Care and Training. OTR Publications. Smith, M.E., Linnell, J.D.C., Odden, J. & Swenson, J.E., 2000. Methods = for reducing livestock losses to predators: A . Livestock guardian animals. Acta = Agric. Scand., 50: 279- 290. Wikan, S. (1994): Bruk av Pyren=E8erhund mot bj=F8rn. Erfaringer fra = Pasvik 1994. Rapport nr. 23. Kirkenes: Svanhovd milj=F8senter. From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 26-AUG-2006 17:20:51.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels I have an intern staying here who attended a seminar given by Ray Coppinger at Wolf Park last Nov. Would anyone like to hear what she was told by Ray? CeAnn Randi Helene Tillung wrote: I worked with LGD's during May to September for two years ('98 and '99) and studied 4 dogs behaviour pattern while free ranging in mountain areas with approx 500 sheep. Amongst other things I found that the LGDs "sleep" (i.e lie with their head to the ground and eyes shut) 70-80% of the time. I can not remember Coppinger or anybody else say much about territorial behaviour in their writing. They might of course have, but at least this is not emphasised. What Coppinger does say is that any dog can be a LGD as long as it has three important traits. Those are in short that the dog must be trustworthy (not attack or play with sheep), protective (towards the sheep) and attentive (staying with the sheep, not stray). The last mentioned is based on that the dog is socialized with sheep during the critical period of puppyhood. Some breeds will have a better prognosis of fitting into these traits, especially those breeds with a longer critical period. As far as I have understood, attentiveness is the most important trait and if this trait is in place the two others usually follow, with the commonly used breeds. I have the understanding that LGD's usually does not directly attack a predator, but interrupt or disturb their hunting patterns. This was the case when I witnessed a bear attack during the night in July '98. The three dogs on duty barked and ran to and from between the sheep and the bear. They never directly confronted the bear but held a distance of 10-20 meters. At the time of the attack I noticed that the dogs were wagging their tail in an upright position. The wagging was not very stiff, as I know it from dog aggression, but quite loose. I was very frightened during the attack, and I remember this frightening me even more as I thought that the dogs did not take the attack serious. A silly thought in retrospect, but an interesting observation. I still think about it. Underneath you will find a list of literature. This has not been updated since 2002, so I am sure more valuable knowledge has come since then. Today, Norway does not use LGD's effectively although we have bear, wolves, lynx and wolverine, and political will to increase the carnivores' numbers. The main reason I think is that wages are high in Norway, but consumers are not willing to pay a lot more for the meat. Hiring people for herding the sheep would be very costly. Another thing is that our sheep does not travel in flocks but spread out in the mountain. That is due to the climate as the new and fresh grass come up in small spots where the snow has melted. The sheep need to roam to find these nutritious spots. Sheep in Norway usually range free in the mountains and are looked after only sporadically during the summer. This makes the production cheaper. Sheep more likely die from insects or falling, than from carnivores in Norway. Yours, Randi Helene Tillung M.Sc in Ethology -------------------------- List of literature: Andelt, W.F., 1992. Effectiveness of livestock guardian dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 20: 55-62. Christiansen, F., 1989: Vokterhund som forebyggende middel for å reduserer konflikten mellom husdyr og rovdyr. En guide. (Livestock Guarding Dogs as a Measure to reduce Predator – Livestock Conflicts. A Guidance). NTF-notat 1998:9. Christiansen, F., 2000: Predatory behaviour of hunting dogs towards grazing sheep (Jakthunders predatoratferd overfor sau i utmark). Doktor scient.-avhandling. Institutt for husdyrfag, Norges Landbrukshøgskole, Ås. Coppinger, R., Lorenz, J., Glendinning, J. & Pinardi, P., 1983. Attentiveness of guarding dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep. Jour. of Range Manag. 36, 275-279. Coppinger, R., Glendinning, J., Torop, E., Matthay, C., Sutherland, M., Smith, C., 1987. Degree of behavioral neoteny differentiates canid polymorphs. Ethology 75, 89-108. Coppinger, R., Coppinger, L., Langeloh, G., Gettler, L. & Lorenz, J., 1988. A Decade of use of Livestock Guardian Dogs. Proc. Vertrebr. Pest Conference, University of California, 13: 209-214. Coppinger, R. & Coppinger, L. 1993: "Dogs for herding and guarding livestock". I: T. Grandin, red., Livestock Handling and Transport, pp 179-196. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Coppinger, R. & Coppinger, L., 1995: "Interaction between livestock guarding dogs and wolves". I: L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts og D.R Seips, red., Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Alberta, Edmonton: Can. Circ. Inst., Univ. Green, J.S. & Woodruff, R.A., 1988. Breed Comparisons and Characteristics of Use of Livestock Guarding Dogs. J. Range Manage., 41: 249-250. Green, J.S. & Woodruff, R.A., 1990: "Livestock guarding dogs: protecting sheep from predators". Agriculture Information Bulletin No 588. U.S Department of Agriculture. Hansen, I., 1995: "Bruk av vokterhund i Israel. Erfaringer og inntrykk fra studietur til Israel 25.02.–15.03.95". Sau og Geit 3/95:144-146. Hansen, I. & Christiansen, F., 2001: Tilpasset bruk av vokterhund – erfaringer fra enkeltbesetninger. Statusrapport 2000. Grønn forskning 06/2001. Hansen, I. & Christiansen, F., 2002: Tilpasset bruk av vokterhund – erfaringer fra enkeltbesetninger. Statusrapport 2001. Planteforsk Grønn forskning 11/2002. Hansen, I., M. Smith & Ø. Trondsen, 1997. Bruk av vokterhund og andre forebyggende tiltak mot rovdyrskader på bufe. Erfaringer fra USA. Planteforsk Grønn forskning nr 10/97. Krogstad, S., Christiansen, F., Smith, M.E., Røste, O.C., Aanesland, N., Tillung, R.H. & Thorud, L., 2000: Forebyggende tiltak mot rovviltskader på sau. Gjeting og bruk av vokterhund i Lierne. Sluttrapport 2000. NINA fagrapport 041, Trondheim. Linnell, J.D.C., Smith, M.E., Odden, J., Kaczensky, P. & Swenson, J.E., 1996: Rovvilt og sauenæring i Norge (Carnivores and Sheep Farming in Norway). 4. Strategies for the reduction of Carnivore – Livestock Conflicts: A Review. NINA oppdragsmelding 443. Lorenz, J.R. & Coppinger, R., 1986: Raising and training a livestock-guarding dog. Oregon State University Extension Service, Cirkular Number 1238/April 1986. Lorenz, J.R , 1989: Introducing livestock-guarding dogs. Oregon State University Extension Service, Cirkular Number 1224. Miljøverndepartementet, 1996. Stortingsmelding nr 35 (1996-97) Om rovviltforvaltning. Ringsø, A., Staaland, T. & Hansen, I., 2000. Vokterhund i kombinasjon med tilsyn – evaluering av tre års utprøving i Hattfjelldal. Rapport 03/2000, Planteforsk Tjøtta fagsenter. Rauma kommune, 2001. Forebyggende tiltak rovvilt i Rauma kommune. Rauma kommune, næringsetaten, 2001. Scott, J.P. &, Fuller, J.C., 1965. Dog Behavior. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sims, D.E. & Dawydiak, O., 1990: Livestock Protecting Dogs. Selection, Care and Training. OTR Publications. Smith, M.E., Linnell, J.D.C., Odden, J. & Swenson, J.E., 2000. Methods for reducing livestock losses to predators: A . Livestock guardian animals. Acta Agric. Scand., 50: 279- 290. Wikan, S. (1994): Bruk av Pyrenèerhund mot bjørn. Erfaringer fra Pasvik 1994. Rapport nr. 23. Kirkenes: Svanhovd miljøsenter. CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 27-AUG-2006 03:41:07.89 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels ---- Cecilia Lambert wrote: > I have an intern staying here who attended a seminar given by Ray Coppinger at Wolf Park last Nov. Would anyone like to hear what she was told by Ray? > CeAnn Certainly CeAnn I would and I am sure others would. John L. From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 27-AUG-2006 03:58:01.61 To: IN%"randihelene@tillung.no" "Randi Helene Tillung", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels ---- Randi Helene Tillung wrote in part: > I worked with LGD's during May to September for two years ('98 and '99) and > studied 4 dogs behaviour pattern while free ranging in mountain areas with > approx 500 sheep. Amongst other things I found that the LGDs "sleep" (i.e > lie with their head to the ground and eyes shut) 70-80% of the time. ......................................................................................................................... Thank you Randi, For a really excellent post giving lots of valuable anecdotal experience, descriptions of behaviour followed with a really full list of references. Regards John L. New Zealand From: IN%"pdezabu1@dancris.com" "Peggy Duezabou" 27-AUG-2006 07:39:51.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels >> Thank you Randi, For a really excellent post giving lots of valuable anecdotal [snip] AMEN!!! I am currently raising an Akbash Dog (born March 15), a Shetland Sheepdog (born March 31), and a Border Collie (born April 2). LGDs DO sleep a great deal! I have raised herding dogs since 1969, but Azor (the Akbash) is my first LGD. By way of contrast, herding dogs are light sleepers; they are busy dogs. Here are two observations of early (presumed guarding) behavior in my 5-month-old Akbash Dog. The stories were originally shared with owners of Azor's littermates. Like Randi's experience, there is no overt aggression. OBSERVATION #1. Last night at puppy class, Azor gave an unrehearsed demonstration of Livestock Guardian Dog behavior. There is a combination younger/older puppy class meeting in my duck arena right now. Two Laborador Retrievers and a young German Wirehaird Pointer have joined the herding puppy/Bull Terrier class. Hazel (the GWP) is extremely zoomie, and she can go from VERY fast to stop-point-freeze in fractions of a second. Azor was keeping a close eye on this one. The duck arena borders a large field (+/- 8 acres) that falls off toward a stream/pond at the very back of my property. Twenty-three lambs were grazing unseen in the low area at the back while we were in puppy class. Azor had just galloped the length of the arena (100 feet) to a sit in front of me for a recall. I popped him a treat and returned to the rest of the class, leaving Azor off lead. As best as Diane (Hazel's owner) and I can recall, here is the sequence of what happened next. Hazel was beside her owner who was seated in a chair. Hazel lifted her head and scented the air. A lamb sauntered across the back field at some distance--perhaps 300 feet. A large white THING performed a flying leap, landing on the outside of Hazel and Diane. The white blob made a purposeful turn sideways, blocking the line from Hazel to the lamb. Azor--the white blob, of course--pulled himself into an alert stand and woo-wooed, hairs stiffly raised on his back. Diane (a world class wolf biologist) and I just looked at each other with open mouths. Okey-dokey, Azor is moving out of that magical open socialization period. What a dramatic reminder that our puppies are growing up. OBSERVATION #2. I admit to wondering (before Azor arrived) exactly what LGDs do. Sure, I'd seen photos of big dogs hanging out with livestock; and I'd read some of the available literature. But, the psych major in me kept nagging. What do they DO? What behavior would this guy utilize to convince intruders they should walk on by this property or this flock or this individual sheep? Azor gave me another glimpse last week. One of the Collies that played with Azor when he was first in Montana was here to work sheep. Sasha was learning to push sheep off a bucket of grain--a skill he needs to 'lift' stock in an upcoming competition. It was not an easy lesson for him. As I held the bucket and sheep swarmed around me, Sasha became agitated. His owner only allowed him to 'walk up' quietly on a long line. In other words, if he lunged at the sheep or tried to circle them, the line prevented him from doing so. Sasha was FRUSTRATED. He lunged; he barked. He tried to move left, then right. He barked and BARKED!!! until he got the lesson right. Sheep are moved here for training into either of two arenas or a round pen from an alleyway. From my position, I had a clear view of the alley. As Sasha's frustration escalated, Azor took action. He slipped under the gate at the top of the alley and walked slowly up and down through the sheep. Woolies swirled calmly as he passed through. Here is confirmation again for Diane's (Azor's breeder) understanding that Akbash Dogs do not like disharmony. Azor is attending to sheep when other dogs are too hyper, when their activity level is elevated. Margaret A (Peggy) Shunick (Duezabou) BA, BA, MS (Tufts Center for Animals & Public Policy), ABD (University of Montana) From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 27-AUG-2006 12:53:56.15 To: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels Hi, my name is Jami. I am an intern at the coyote rescue center and a former intern at Wolf Park. While I interned at Wolf Park, I attended a Ray Coppinger seminar on dog behavior. I learned from him that dogs raised with sheep aren't so much protective of the sheep as they are of their territory. Dogs are territorial by nature, and when raised with sheep become a pack animal. In the act of defending their territory, the livestock guarding dogs therefore protect the sheep. But if sheep wander off their territory, it has been found that the dog won't defend it as readily if it were to be attacked by an outside animal. Jami k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz wrote: ---- Cecilia Lambert wrote: > I have an intern staying here who attended a seminar given by Ray Coppinger at Wolf Park last Nov. Would anyone like to hear what she was told by Ray? > CeAnn Certainly CeAnn I would and I am sure others would. John L. CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 27-AUG-2006 17:58:58.82 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels without Ray available to ask for more details, it sounds like he's = describing a weak nerved dog who needs a home court advantage. Some = LGD's might be acceptable dogs with this trait but I wonder what the = best dogs are like off their home turf, how much breeds vary and what he = found about this trait while following the long migrations. The link to = the Pasvik project testing Pyrs against Brown Bears no longer works, but = the three dogs did very well in unknown areas and responded to the = presence of the bears. There was one mention of a strange location with = livestock, I think sheep, but not ones they were bonded to. The dogs at = one point charged the sheep in a get home type manner, not in a herding = dog manner and kept between them and the bear. At least one active = encounter with the dogs trying to bite at the bears was observed, and = one dog nearly bitten, the others charged in and distracted the bear. = The dog had green saliva on its fur indicating the bear had touched its = coat but no injuries. On at least one other night time non observed = occasion, an incident was heard, dogs barking, and a dog returned with = green saliva on its fur. The dogs were actively engaging the bears at = close distance. Breed specific difference might come into play. Caucasian Ovtcharkas are = a breed gaining in popularity for better and for worse. These very large = LGDs can be more dog aggressive and aggressive to strange humans than = some of the other breeds. And more difficult to manage safely. At least = one owner is obedience and protection training a year old female. He's = not reported any decrease in nerve in public. He's experienced with many = breeds and expects good manners and consistent response out of dogs. So = far the dog is looking like a good family protector. Other lines might = be far to hard to control for this application. I've heard reports that = Akbash and Maremmas stay with the flocks to a greater degree than other = breeds like Pyrs used in N. America. And are not as likely to threaten = humans as Anatolians or Komondors. Breeds might vary depending on how = nomadic the original herding conditions were. If flocks were moved = frequently due to seasonal or sparse grazing conditions, dogs that were = not assertive except for the rare times they were on familiar ground = might well be selected against. But if the pasture is rich enough that = the flocks are always within specific limits, the trait might not be = selected against or simply never be tested for. Taking the dog and a = flock off their normal pasture would be a significant effort to test for = something that is an abnormal condition. Regional variations in the = landrace types could be significant. One rancher I spoke to, got a 4 month old lgd bitch puppy. She'd been = there 2 nights, sleeping in the barn. Lambing season just started. The = rancher walked in to check the animals and the pup was growling at him, = braced up against the wall with a newborn lamb behind her. She seemed = quite aware that her job was the sheep, not the barn. =20 Police and personal protection dogs need to be tested off their home = turf to see if they are bold at home and weak in new areas. This is a = fault but regrettably happens often enough that a fair number of dogs = wash out even from good breeding programs.=20 I'm surprised to hear Ray Coppinger describe this so vaguely. But I was = also surprised to hear of him bringing in a dog to confront a wolf in = such an artificial manner. If this situation had been set up by most = individuals it would be considered a staged fight violating state or = federal laws. Had this been a breeder setting up a realistic test = instead of a scientist would probably not have altered the legal = aspects. What safety measures to stop the fight had either the dog or = wolf been in danger of injury or death were there? or were they muzzled? = was someone standing by with a tranquilizer gun? The wolf was more or = less on its home turf, a bison pasture that it can smell from its normal = area suddenly had an intruding carnivore. The wolf may have been = defending its home and the dog confronting an enemy. Did either animal = attempt to leave and was unable to do so because it was attacked from = the rear? That Ray Coppinger had not observed wolf and dog interactions = in real life situations enough not to need this test was disappointing. = Was this an ethical test to set up? If PETA were to hear of this staged = fight, would not the hue and cry of dog fighting be raised? If someone = suggested this test now, would list members condone or criticize it?=20 I understand that at times extreme tests are needed. The conditions = described do not seem useful enough to warrant the danger or draw = conclusions. Had a wolf been brought near a flock with a bonded dog and = turned loose, the wolf's determination to fight the dog in order to get = a chance to snatch a lamb might have been better tested. The dog doesn't = have to kill a wolf to be effective, only prevent predation. A wolf has = to eat prey to survive but doing so while risking great injury isn't a = survival trait. This sounds more like a test of the nerve and = determination of the wolf defending its home than testing a dog's = effectiveness against predation by a single wolf. Clare ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Cecilia Lambert=20 To: k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz ; applied-ethology@usask.ca=20 Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:53 AM Subject: Re: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels Hi, my name is Jami. I am an intern at the coyote rescue center and a = former intern at Wolf Park. While I interned at Wolf Park, I attended a = Ray Coppinger seminar on dog behavior. I learned from him that dogs = raised with sheep aren't so much protective of the sheep as they are of = their territory. Dogs are territorial by nature, and when raised with = sheep become a pack animal. In the act of defending their territory, the = livestock guarding dogs therefore protect the sheep. But if sheep wander = off their territory, it has been found that the dog won't defend it as = readily if it were to be attacked by an outside animal. =20 Jami k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz wrote: ---- Cecilia Lambert wrote:=20 > I have an intern staying here who attended a seminar given by Ray = Coppinger at Wolf Park last Nov. Would anyone like to hear what she was = told by Ray? > CeAnn Certainly CeAnn I would and I am sure others would. John L. CeAnn Lambert=20 Indiana Coyote Rescue Center=20 www.coyoterescue.org=20 Please visit our gift shop @=20 www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue= From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 27-AUG-2006 20:07:12.94 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels I asked about what measures were taken to ensure their safety. No = injuries does not mean no risk of injury. Siegfried and Roy had how many = performances without incident before having a major injury. If no one = had done such a test before, no could promise that there would be no = injuries.=20 That neither animal was injured seems to indicate they were not out to = injure each other but drive the other off. On one yahoo list, goats and = livestock dogs, one rancher and breeder of LGDs had a bitch that was the = single most effective LGD she ever had. And the bitch killed 2 female = pyrs she lived with when they approached her flock in the pasture. And = killed other stray dogs that came near the pasture.=20 In reading the book Dogs, the Coppingers indicated that the use of = several dogs, sometimes ranging from full adult to young adults and = puppies was common. They were not right on everything. They stated there = was no direct evidence that LGDs ever actively engaged predators = although the herders claimed to have evidence that the dogs at times = injured or killed wolves. Yet the Pasvik project indicates that yes the = dogs would engage in actual contact with bears. As well as reports from = ranchers that they have found dead coyotes and dogs. That a single dog = might well do fine with coyotes or jackals but not wolves, bears or = cougar and sheep seems like common sense. And if sheep continue to be = lost with only one dog on duty in wolf habitat, then trying multiple = dogs rather than risk either single animal under unnatural conditions. = Subjecting a captive wolf to fight a dog brought into is home is not the = same as a wild wolf taking its chances in choosing the easier prey of = sheep instead of deer or elk. And if this pasture is one that this wolf = was used to being in with bison, it might well consider the dog an = intruder on its hunting grounds and fight much harder than it would = under other conditions. Distracting a well fed wolf from large strong prey in a herd is not the = same as breaking up a fight between 2 competing predators. I recently = saw a video clip of hyenas pestering lions into surrendering a kill that = ended with a male lion charging, catching and killing a lone hyena. That = the lions might squabble but rarely seriously fight within their pride = doesn't mean that males won't seriously injure each other over females = or kill competing predators. This sounds like something that could = create permanent distrust between either the wolf and its handlers or = the dog and its handlers. I just spoke to a trainer who brought a = Malinois puppy and an Australian shepherd to a livestock dog event. 2 = Pyrs saw him carrying the Mal puppy which appeared too much like a = coyote for their satisfaction and they charged him. His Aussie didn't = provoke any particular interest. Later he passed the Pyrs without the = puppy and they were holding a grudge, they still charged at him. = Fortunately they were well restrained. Had their owner brought the Mal = puppy or a coyote in near their flock, I can imagine it damaging their = trust in the owner, to bring the enemy in with an escort. Ray Coppinger may have extensive credentials but he like everyone else = is fallible. Doctors in the 1920's believed that irradiating infants' = thymus gland would prevent sudden infant death. They were wrong.=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Cecilia Lambert=20 To: Clare=20 Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:28 PM Subject: Re: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels This was done very early on when LGD's were first being used in the = US. People were still losing livestock to wolves, even tho they had an = LGD. After this interaction, was when Ray said, I think we need to have = more than one LGD to guard livestock. Wolf Park does many interactions = with animals and wolves where an animal is never hurt. Every Sunday, = they have a wolf-bison demonstration where three or four wolves are = turned loose with the bison to show people how wolves test their prey = for vulnerability. No animal has ever been hurt. Even during calving = season. The staff at Wolf Park is very experienced with the wolves. = They are very knowledgeable about wolf behavior and very adept at = distraction and manipulation of the wolves in dangerous situations. No visitor to the park has ever been injured by a Wolf Park animal. = Even tho hundreds a year are allowed to meet a wolf through their = adoption program. They have been doing these things for thirty five = years. I said in my first email that neither animal was injured in any way. = Why do you choose to ignore that part of the email. CeAnn Clare wrote: I'm surprised to hear Ray Coppinger describe this so vaguely. But I = was also surprised to hear of him bringing in a dog to confront a wolf = in such an artificial manner. If this situation had been set up by most = individuals it would be considered a staged fight violating state or = federal laws. Had this been a breeder setting up a realistic test = instead of a scientist would probably not have altered the legal = aspects. What safety measures to stop the fight had either the dog or = wolf been in danger of injury or death were there? or were they muzzled? = was someone standing by with a tranquilizer gun? The wolf was more or = less on its home turf, a bison pasture that it can smell from its normal = area suddenly had an intruding carnivore. The wolf may have been = defending its home and the dog confronting an enemy. Did either animal = attempt to leave and was unable to do so because it was attacked from = the rear? That Ray Coppinger had not observed wolf and dog interactions = in real life situations enough not to need this test was disappointing. = Was this an ethical test to set up? If PETA were to hear of this staged = fight, would not the hue and cry of dog fighting be raised? If someone = suggested this test now, would list members condone or criticize it?=20 CeAnn Lambert=20 Indiana Coyote Rescue Center=20 www.coyoterescue.org=20 Please visit our gift shop @=20 www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue= From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 08:50:53.09 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering Dr. Gail Golab wrote: > Thanks for your more detailed response. Most of your comments dovetail > with our experience and existing recommendations. > > > > One thing that we are principally interested in at this point is what > the basis is (i.e. data) for specific recommendations regarding type > of tether, length, and acceptable duration of confinement using this > approach? We've seen lots of recommendations in ordinances and > commentaries on tethering, but so far no one has been able to produce > the corresponding data to support those recommendations. My suspicion > is that the recommendations are based more on what "seems reasonable" > then on actual data. I suspect you are correct . I also suspect that there are sufficient variables that a "one size fits all" recommendation, leading to legislation or regulation, is unrealistic and undesirable. I have recent experience of legislative proposals to limit or regulate dog tethering. They were too far-reaching and would ultimately have had the opposite of the purportedly intended effect. I say "purportedly" because the real intention was all too obviously something different, i.e. making it impossible to keep dogs at all, one step at a time. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 08:52:05.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: The future of the list Zoe Allman wrote: > As I said before, I would love this list to continue and I find it > very valuable. What I do not find valuable is when people on the list > find the need to make statements that are obviously going to rile > other people on the list. This list should not be about anybodies > bitterness or past feelings. I can greatly appreciate the fact that > nasty discussions have gone on in the past, but what is the point in > bringing them to life again? I am training as a scientist, and I feel > upset that scientists and 'non scientists' appear to think of each > other on different levels. It is simply not about that. You are absolutely right. It is also not about political postures. Animal welfare is an area which easily and quickly stirs strong feelings. Scientific objectivity may easily be seen as "distance" and in the heat of advocacy (which many animal welfare contexts seem to call for) it is easy to think "distance" is inappropriate. Maybe it is - but that's no reason to lose objectivity. > I feel that this list could be such a minefield of knowledge and new > thinking. I know that eventually a sensitive topic would arise that > people would feel strongly about; it is just up to each individual to > express their feelings with the expected decorum of a professional > and not let their feelings get in the way of their valid argument. I > can feel a lot of misgivings and people holding onto hurt that is > damaging the list, and I believe we can move on from it. I believe and hope the same. I believe we need to be upfront about our feelings, but also to recognize what are feelings and what is science. The two are not necessarily incompatible (in fact they should not be incompatible at all) but confusing them is fatal to understanding. Perhaps you mean "gold mine" of knowledge. Minefields are dangerous places . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 08:55:49.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Tethering Clare wrote: > Some factors to consider might be body length to tether ratio. Others > might be is this a fixed tether or overhead cable where the distance > is greater. Yet these may not be pertinent factors as the dog on a > fixed tether who trots in a circle may not be as frustrated as a dog > that goes back and forth even if it can track from side to side and > have more square feet to cover. Round pen work with a horse seems to > have a different effect than the same type of work in a straight > sided pen. I should think so! Captive breeding of falcons, for later use as hunting birds, provides some insight here. Birds are typically reared in square or rectangular pens. However spacious, these promote "back and forth" flying patterns. Birds from such a background take a conspicuously long time to figure out how "the real world works." One breeder acquaintance uses, instead, a very large round pen. In this pen the young birds self-exercise ... and come out quite normal, behaviorally unlike their "square-pen" colleagues. Long ago at Seewiesen, a colleague (Wolfdietrich Kühme, later I believe Director of the Zoo in Köln, Germany) made similar observations of fishes, using a specially constructed octagonal "doughnut shaped" aquarium ... "Directionality" bears serious thinking. Zoo animal welfarists ... listening? > Perhaps contacting Jeffrey Bragg at his email > jjeffrey@seppalasleddogs.com would be a start. His ability to check > email is erratic with his remote location but he is very helpful. > With world wide connections, he may know of people with enough dogs > of other types to be useful samples. With your permission I can > forward this to some trainers and breeders with several types of dogs > and use tethering for some and runs for others. > Performance standards might also be a bit difficult to interpret > accurately. As in, is the sled dog who trots in circles for an hour > simply self exercising or showing stereotypic behavior? Having those > qualified to respond list what they check for to see if a dog is well > off or needs something could reveal if there are any common factors > across the board for all dogs or how it is specific for the various > types of dogs. And Dr. Burchard with his world wide experience may > also be able to direct you. Plus his own extensive observations alone > as valued data, anecdotal stories he posts of tribal breeding and > management of Salukis are probably more valuable than a formal study > by many researchers. You do me too much credit ... but nevertheless ... I am tempted to repeat the old saw, that the plural of "anecdote" is "data" ... people reading Lorenz papers have sometimes been misled by the "anecdotal" style into underestimating the enormous amount of observational "data" underlying the "anecdotes" ... here is not the place, perhaps, to divagate into "what is the scientific method" except to point out that the classical "hypothetico-deductive" model is a spectacular bowdlerization of the actual mental processes of cutting edge scientists . The really interesting stuff is what went on before the hypothesis. For what comes after that, we have graduate students . Please have tolerance for my light-heartedness about very very serious matters . I have to agree with Dr. Golab's conclusion, as I understand it, that "tethering" is not and cannot be "one size fits all" and that attempts to regulate it by any kind of doctrinaire rulemaking are ill conceived. Beware of unintended consequences - which may not be so "unintended" by some of the participants in these debates. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 08:57:20.02 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Another idea about the list's future - let's pay for it! Norman Dunn wrote: > Would it be profane to suggest a small subscription payment for > access to > this useful network? > 1. This would ensure that only the only those really intersted > long-term > would use the service. > 2. The cash could be used to create a website with a selection of > mail lists > on particular subjects > e.g. Pigs > Horses. > Dogs, > Cats, etc > 3. Interested correspondents would then access the website, click > their > particular subject and then communicate. > 4. That way we would not have the electric dog collar friends/fiends > bothering the equestrian fans with their verbal abuse and so on. Please provide one example of the above. I can provide several of the converse ... FWIW I am not a user of electronic dog collars in any form. It does appear to me that they have legitimate uses in certain contexts. Like any other tool they can be abused (even treat training can be abused). Perhaps they can be abused more easily than some other tools. > 5. Alternatively the interested lay persons (like myself) could > sample all, > or just some, of the mail lists. > Of course this means extra work for the long-suffering Dr Stookey and > his > team. But if we are all serious anough about the future of this > valuable > network I think enough regular cash would come in to hire an agency > to create and service the website - and maybe even pull in the odd > advert to further help > with costs. Am I being realistic? I would certainly pay and I think > many "serious" ethologists would come back if guaranteed access with > a selection of mail lists. I'm afraid I don't think this is such a good idea. Do you really think access to this list should be limited to "serious" ethologists? If so, how do you propose to define that group? ISAE membership? That's only one aspect of ethology. In science it is very often illuminating to throw a problem out for examination by people coming from a variety of different disciplines and perspectives. That often produces insights that might not have arisen had discussion been confined to the "insider group" of a particular discipline. It was the physicist George Gamow who proposed (in a memorable lecture, which I had the good fortune to attend) the "triplet code" by which DNA base sequences are converted to amino acid sequences in protein synthesis. That's a spectacular example of interdisciplinary "cross-fertilization" but of course there are many more. When someone comes on this list and throws out something which at first glance seems alien to the world of "scientific applied ethology" perhaps our first impulse should be to fall upon it, not with the idea of deconstructing and refuting it, but with the idea of seeing whether perhaps some new insight might be derived from it . I know my own insight into areas of my interest (e.g. social signaling systems in fishes) has been enriched by contributions from fields as far removed as, for instance, musicology ... . I learned valuable things about perception while chasing driver ant colonies around the African bush with a couple of barely literate local assistants - they showed me in the most graphic way that you see what you are looking for . I learned enormously valuable things about the way wild animals organize their living space from hunting with highly skilled Bedouin trackers in the deserts of Arabia. They spoke no English, and I at first not much Arabic, but I learned a great deal from them, not only about animal tracks but about why you find them where you do, and from there about the "fine structure" of an animal's life. I also learned an enormous amount, again about the way animals organize time and space, by hunting with trained hawks, and observing at point blank range, so to speak, how a young bird constructs a coherent and ecologically functional "world image" out of a succession of specific experiences. The hawks of course knew no language at all, but their actions spoke volumes . It's all about understanding. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 08:59:48.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: tethering Cecilia Lambert wrote: > Wouldn't tethering a dog make the dog more territorial and wouldn't > that make for a dangerous situation? Especially in a yard > frequented by children who run, play, fall down and cry near the dog. The answer to that, as to most similar questions, is "sometimes." Perhaps even "often." It does however depend on the details of the situation, and that is the problem with trying to regulate such things in any categorical way. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 09:00:10.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Re Chris Sherwin's generalisation Chris Sherwin wrote: > Dear Norman, > > It was not in fact a generalization I was making but a specific > comment about the behaviour of some (a few vociferous individuals) > specifically on this site. I was present on this list during those discussions and still have a complete archive of the messages. Perhaps you do too. If you consult your own archive you may discover that many rude and heated messages came from the academic side. Unfortunate but true. If you doubt, I can cite chapter and verse, though I personally think it unprofitable (or worse) to rekindle one of the list's less edifying episodes. FWIW I am a dog owner and dog breeder, but not a "dog trainer" (a label which received a lot of not always merited abuse during the above mentioned discussions) and look back on a 45 year career as academic ethologist and ecologist. I do not think I have to be ashamed of my academic background (Ph.D. Princeton, postdoctoral years with Konrad Lorenz, etc.) and was dismayed to find incivility on the academic side ... as if people felt threatened. I submit there was and is no need to feel threatened. The list "hijacked by dog trainers" ... please. At that point there was, I believe, one professional dog trainer on the list, a man with a formidable reputation in that field (to put it mildly), who carefully refrained from being drawn into the fray. Given the potential importance of understanding the full gambit of training methods available as tools for bettering the welare of animals, I found all that ideological polarization repugnant. I fear that the question of "tethering" is likely to lead to a similar ideological conflict. Science, as I understand it (and please, I do know a bit about what science is and is not, I was a physicist before becoming a biologist and Princeton in the 1950s was, er, an interesting place for physics ) is about keeping an open mind ... John -- John E. Burchard, Ph.D. Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 09:00:10.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Academic? Patricia Simonet wrote: > Hello Tricia, > > I am sorry, when (years ago) I joined this list I thought it was an > academic list. Excuse my error. I am a lifelong academic, but I did not find Tricia's comment offensive. On the contrary. If we are fortunate, academic status may give us some insights beyond what's available to the lay public, but that is not automatic, and often enough the shoe is on the other foot. Sometimes those who do practical work with animals understand things that we academics do not. It is a pity when doctrinaire thinking prevents us from noticing that. I followed the discussions of "shock collars" etc. with interest. They generated, regrettably, more heat than light. Many of the rude and disparaging posts came, to my dismay, from the academic side. I think we would do well not to rekindle those flames here now. John -- John E. Burchard, Ph.D. Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 09:07:03.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: SV: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) /labels Cecilia Lambert wrote: > Hi, my name is Jami. I am an intern at the coyote rescue center and > a former intern at Wolf Park. While I interned at Wolf Park, I > attended a Ray Coppinger seminar on dog behavior. I learned from him > that dogs raised with sheep aren't so much protective of the sheep as > they are of their territory. Dogs are territorial by nature, and > when raised with sheep become a pack animal. In the act of defending > their territory, the livestock guarding dogs therefore protect the > sheep. But if sheep wander off their territory, it has been found > that the dog won't defend it as readily if it were to be attacked by > an outside animal. Jami Hm, I have to wonder how that works for nomadic peoples, who are literally never in the same place twice (even when revisiting "the same" place you don't camp on top of the rubbish from your last visit ). During the migratory grazing season, camp is probably moved every four or five days on average ... Curiously enough that is about the same migration interval I found among nomadic "driver ants" (Anomma sp) in West Africa! John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 29-AUG-2006 09:44:08.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) Simone T. Cooper wrote: > Just clarifying for myself: the sheep guarding behavior sounds more > like what we call "resource guarding" in pet dogs -- they'll guard a > toy or person or piece of food whereever it is found, rather than > only in one place. But Klinghammer suggests that sheep guarding is > specifically location-based? > > Can anyone out there provide a list of articles or peer-reviewed > resources on this, one way or the other? LGDs are commonly found guarding the sheep of nomadic or seminomadic people. The sheep are on the move more or less constantly, in search of fresh grazing. The dogs are not guarding any specific bit of real estate, but are guarding the flock itself. You could say the flock is their "territory" if you insist on calling this "territorial" behavior. The observation, which anyone can make in those parts of the world where nomadic pastoralism is a common way of life, is that the dogs are aggressive around the flock - and usually also around the tents, gers, yurts etc. of the shepherds - but not particularly elsewhere (though indeed they will hardly be found elsewhere). I have seen that myself at some length in Anatolia, and also in Saudi Arabia where I lived for a number of years and spent much time among the Bedouin. I also see it here in California, where LGDs are commonly used to protect sheep flocks from coyotes. This is a case (one of many ) in which it is preferable simply to describe the behavior, rather than relying on the magical power of a particular label (like "territorial") to predict and define its characteristics . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"tricia_b@comcast.net" "Tricia Breen" 29-AUG-2006 12:09:44.12 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology list'" CC: Subj: RE: Academic? It certainly wasn't my intention to be offensive. The academic world is, by nature, very conservative and slow to change. And there is often a lack of interdisciplinary approach to thought, so getting oneself outside of one's own discipline to see ideas from a different perspective is important and valuable in advancing thought. And of course, there are numerous examples of academics taking things personally and losing objectivity. I believe Frans De Waal has had things thrown at him? R.A. Fisher engaged in wars with others of his time. The list goes on and on. Humans are humans after all.... Anyway I appreciate this list, whether reading the stuff from the know-it-alls or anyone else. So thanks for keeping it going. Tricia -----Original Message----- From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:08 PM To: Applied Ethology list Subject: Re: Academic? Patricia Simonet wrote: > Hello Tricia, > > I am sorry, when (years ago) I joined this list I thought it was an > academic list. Excuse my error. I am a lifelong academic, but I did not find Tricia's comment offensive. On the contrary. If we are fortunate, academic status may give us some insights beyond what's available to the lay public, but that is not automatic, and often enough the shoe is on the other foot. Sometimes those who do practical work with animals understand things that we academics do not. It is a pity when doctrinaire thinking prevents us from noticing that. I followed the discussions of "shock collars" etc. with interest. They generated, regrettably, more heat than light. Many of the rude and disparaging posts came, to my dismay, from the academic side. I think we would do well not to rekindle those flames here now. John -- John E. Burchard, Ph.D. Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"tricia_b@comcast.net" "Tricia Breen" 29-AUG-2006 14:26:56.91 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology list'" CC: Subj: RE: Academic? I should have added that the conservative nature is useful and necessary. Otherwise, every new half-baked theory would become part of the scientific literature. -----Original Message----- From: Tricia Breen [mailto:tricia_b@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:07 AM To: 'Applied Ethology list' Subject: RE: Academic? It certainly wasn't my intention to be offensive. The academic world is, by nature, very conservative and slow to change. And there is often a lack of interdisciplinary approach to thought, so getting oneself outside of one's own discipline to see ideas from a different perspective is important and valuable in advancing thought. And of course, there are numerous examples of academics taking things personally and losing objectivity. I believe Frans De Waal has had things thrown at him? R.A. Fisher engaged in wars with others of his time. The list goes on and on. Humans are humans after all.... Anyway I appreciate this list, whether reading the stuff from the know-it-alls or anyone else. So thanks for keeping it going. Tricia -----Original Message----- From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:08 PM To: Applied Ethology list Subject: Re: Academic? Patricia Simonet wrote: > Hello Tricia, > > I am sorry, when (years ago) I joined this list I thought it was an > academic list. Excuse my error. I am a lifelong academic, but I did not find Tricia's comment offensive. On the contrary. If we are fortunate, academic status may give us some insights beyond what's available to the lay public, but that is not automatic, and often enough the shoe is on the other foot. Sometimes those who do practical work with animals understand things that we academics do not. It is a pity when doctrinaire thinking prevents us from noticing that. I followed the discussions of "shock collars" etc. with interest. They generated, regrettably, more heat than light. Many of the rude and disparaging posts came, to my dismay, from the academic side. I think we would do well not to rekindle those flames here now. John -- John E. Burchard, Ph.D. Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"pdezabu1@dancris.com" "Peggy Duezabou" 30-AUG-2006 08:29:10.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) -----Original Message----- Simone T. Cooper wrote: > Just clarifying for myself: the sheep guarding behavior sounds more > like what we call "resource guarding" in pet dogs -- they'll guard a From: John Burchard >>> LGDs are commonly found guarding the sheep of nomadic [snip] The dogs are not guarding any specific bit of real estate, but are guarding the flock itself. THERE'S A LOVELY LITTLE CONCEPT FROM DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY THAT MIGHT CLARIFY (if there were research on dogs instead of children) THE BEHAVIOR WE'RE TRYING TO DESCRIBE. AFTER BABIES ATTACH/bond (pick your label, but the literature is found under 'attachment') to caregivers, they branch out. That is, they form attachments to objects which--because of comforting associations--take on importance for regulating arousal levels. Just imagine a toddler that can relax when s/he has a bottle or a favorite blanket to cuddle. Attachment Objects (like sheep) have value over Real Estate because they are mobile. Wouldn't it be exciting to think that LGDs form attachments to objects which they desire highly and defend with great passion? ...that they identify objects and value them differentially? I say recruit those pet dogs into a well designed study and move forward from vilifying normal behavior in pets :-) Margaret A (Peggy) Shunick (Duezabou) BA, BA, MS (Tufts Center for Animals & Public Policy), ABD (University of Montana) From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 30-AUG-2006 09:16:16.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Attachment John Have you seen attachment disorder in dogs? We see a lot of it in children, these days. Our society here in the US seems to be growing sociopaths at an alarming rate. As children, they are diagnosed as having attachment disorder. They can't have a diagnosis of sociopathic disorder until they reach the age of 18. Very strange. CeAnn Note: forwarded message attached. CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"rachele.fuzzati@epfl.ch" "Rachele Fuzzati" 30-AUG-2006 10:25:54.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Muzzling? Hello, A couple of weeks ago, as a result of the last pitbull attack directed towards a child, the Geneva Canton has decided to oblige all the dog owners to muzzle their dogs when walking in public parcs and green areas (no matter the size or the breed of the dog). Of course, many people in Switzerland are debating this very strict measure and many are wondering if the fact of being muzzled won't in fact increase aggressiveness in dogs. Has anybody made any experience on this? Do you have any reference? Thank you, Rachele From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 30-AUG-2006 12:07:06.44 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Muzzling? This isn't quite breed specific but it is type specific. Protection breeds competing in rings sport are required to perform obedience routines and sometimes an object guard exercise while muzzled. Muzzle training for some type of guardian work are common with police, military and civilian protection work. They are not used to increase aggressiveness but to test a dog when the trainer is not heavily padded and looking odd. Having the dog associate the muzzle only with bite work is a fault, see third link for some details. The US military uses muzzles for routine vet care and at times when multiple dogs are in one area. There was a program called K9 Boot Camp with several scenes of dogs wearing the muzzles. While this was probably for safety, there was no sign that the muzzles were triggering aggression to either dogs or handlers. Properly fitted and trained, these dogs do not seem to become more aggressive when muzzled. But tactile sensitivity is one area where dogs can vary significantly. Some breeds, types or individuals might not adjust well. On another list there was discussion of a litter of Golden Retrievers bred for Guide dog work that could not tolerate the harness. The dogs had been bred to be very compliant for handlers who might be elderly and needed a dog very responsive to a weak touch. The litter did wonderfully through the initial on leash training but fell apart when the harness was added. Perhaps more tactile stimulation than their nervous system could tolerate? http://www.cal.net/~pamgreen/muzzle_it.html http://fraboontario.tripod.com/id17.html http://www.finographics.com/schutzhund/protection/muzzle-training.html With Europe having many sport training clubs and fine military dog programs, trainers experienced with this type of muzzle work should be easy to find. While their information may not help predict what other breeds and types will do, the training method they use to adjust dogs to a muzzle could be a useful starting place. An uncomfortable muzzle suddenly forced on a dog taken in public is might stress some dogs with unskilled owners enough to trigger aggression or at least anxiety. Careful training with enough time to allow the dog to adjust to a well fitted muzzle might show that most dogs don't find it disagreeable. If the dog enjoys going out in public, a conditioned response to eagerness to put the muzzle on might quickly occur. Many dogs tolerate head halters well, some do not seem to tolerate them well. This might prove to be the same. It may not make some dogs more aggressive but could stress them significantly. Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachele Fuzzati" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:21 AM Subject: Muzzling? > Hello, > > A couple of weeks ago, as a result of the last pitbull attack directed > towards a child, the Geneva Canton has decided to oblige all the dog > owners to muzzle their dogs when walking in public parcs and green areas > (no matter the size or the breed of the dog). > Of course, many people in Switzerland are debating this very strict > measure and many are wondering if the fact of being muzzled won't in fact > increase aggressiveness in dogs. > > Has anybody made any experience on this? Do you have any reference? > > Thank you, > Rachele From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 30-AUG-2006 13:05:52.55 To: IN%"jkoler@ccountry.net" "Janice Koler-Matznick", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Attachment Thank you Jan Have you ever known a dog like this? Could the attachment disorder ever be reversed? CeAnn Janice Koler-Matznick wrote: CeAnn, . I believe in dogs generalized attachment disorder could only occur if a dog was raised from eye opening without contact with any living being. Attachment to people of course can be disrupted by lack of socialization to humans during the sensitive period, and some dogs that are hand-raised without conspecifics are detached from desiring social interaction with other dogs and have, like detached children, inability to follow social rules. Jan Koler-Matznick CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 30-AUG-2006 13:10:25.52 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fwd: Re: Dog emotions article Cindy is having a problem posting to the list and has asked me to post this. CeAnn Note: forwarded message attached. CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 30-AUG-2006 14:00:50.80 To: IN%"jkoler@ccountry.net" "Janice Koler-Matznick", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Attachment Can there be degrees of detachment disorder? Here is my reason for asking. I have two coyotes. One is three years old and one is four months old. Both of them came to me with MBD at about 16 days old. The three year old, Morrell had two broken bones when she arrived at about 16 days old. She did not get any interaction with my dogs. She laid beside me in my bed and was really pampered, because she was in danger of getting more bones broken. Her bones were very fragile. She improved, medically, but I noticed when she did go to live outside and I introduced her to a puppy the next year, she had a very difficult time reading the coyote puppies signals. And it was a big adjustment for her to interact with her own kind. With Jack, the puppy that I have now (he had one break) I am letting him have interaction with the two dogs in the house, even tho he is still in danger of getting a broken bone. His ability to follow social rules is going to be better than Morrell's. But, I realize it is a fine line I am walking with him. Morrell's ability to follw social rules is very low and I also wonder if that could be why she is aggressive towards me. Could this be a lesser degree of attachment disorder? CeAnn Janice Koler-Matznick wrote: CeAnn, I did not look up the definition, but as I remember attachment disorder in humans includes inability/difficulty in following social rules and in forming emotional bonds with other humans. Detached people can still form bonds with animals unless they have additional deep psychological problems. Dogs, like so many mammals including humans, can develop social bonds with many species during thier socialization period. I believe in dogs generalized attachment disorder could only occur if a dog was raised from eye opening without contact with any living being. Attachment to people of course can be disrupted by lack of socialization to humans during the sensitive period, and some dogs that are hand-raised without conspecifics are detached from desiring social interaction with other dogs and have, like detached children, inability to follow social rules. Jan Koler-Matznick CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.coyoterescue.org Please visit our gift shop @ www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 30-AUG-2006 19:03:08.77 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List" CC: Subj: RE: Muzzling Many trainers allow aggressive dogs in their classes only if wearing muzzles. My experience is that it does increase a dogs agitation/aggression....but...at least they can't do as much harm with the muzzle on. My suspicion is that they feel more vulnerable and less confident. Regardless, I don't use muzzles in my classes. (Even when a dog is slowly desensitized to the muzzle by getting tidbits of chicken cooked in garlic while wearing the muzzle.) I do teach some clients to muzzle their dogs for vet visits if the vet insists. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 31-AUG-2006 06:04:43.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: LGDs (was RE: Tethering) Peggy Duezabou wrote: > -----Original Message----- > > Simone T. Cooper wrote: > >> Just clarifying for myself: the sheep guarding behavior sounds more >> like what we call "resource guarding" in pet dogs -- they'll guard a > > From: John Burchard >>>> LGDs are commonly found guarding the sheep of nomadic [snip] > The dogs are not guarding any specific bit of real estate, but are > guarding the > flock itself. > > > THERE'S A LOVELY LITTLE CONCEPT FROM DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY THAT > MIGHT CLARIFY (if there were research on dogs instead of children) > THE BEHAVIOR WE'RE TRYING TO DESCRIBE. AFTER BABIES ATTACH/bond (pick > your label, but the literature is found under 'attachment') to > caregivers, they branch out. That is, they form attachments to > objects which--because of comforting associations--take on importance > for regulating arousal levels. Just imagine a toddler that can relax > when s/he has a bottle or a favorite blanket to cuddle. Attachment > Objects (like sheep) have value over Real Estate because they are > mobile. Um, er, they are also living beings, with all that implies not only in the "philosophical" sense (which may not interest the dog so much ) but in the very practical sense which may indeed be crucial for the dog ... A sheep (or a flock of sheep) is not an "object" except in the most abstract sense ... The attachment of children to "Ersatzobjekte" is also not hard to understand from a biological perspective. Do not, BTW, underestimate the importance of olfaction in those behaviors ... > Wouldn't it be exciting to think that LGDs form attachments to > objects which they desire highly and defend with great passion? > ...that they identify objects and value them differentially? I say > recruit those pet dogs into a well designed study and move forward > from vilifying normal behavior in pets :-) Who was vilifying it? Highly bred LGDs might not make good pets for folks who don't understand what they are or what they are bred to do, and who have no livestock with which they could interact ... but that is not a fault IMHO ... John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ From: IN%"clare@hughes.net" "Clare" 31-AUG-2006 12:27:07.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" CC: Subj: muzzles, outline for humane use Since all dogs would be required to wear a muzzle, this would not apply only to aggressive dogs. A format to introduce all dogs to a muzzle so that it is no more distressing than wearing a collar could be easily posted in the regulations, newspapers, handouts and websites. In addition to the police, military and ringsport applications, racing dogs routinely wear muzzles. Introduced properly, all these dogs adjust to a muzzle well. For veterinary care, teaching all dogs to wear a muzzle for at least short periods of time might be sensible. And your veterinarian may require it. 1. proper fit and style must allow for open mouth breathing and adequate air flow styles permitting the dog to drink or receive tidbits may be preferable must be comfortable, not too heavy, no sharp edges, or pressure points. muzzles made of plastic or metal might need padding must not have an odor disagreeable to the dog straps and buckles should be easy to adjust yet provide a secure fit 2, proper training for aggressive dogs, start training in a context not conditioned to the aggression for aggressive and non aggressive dogs, make the context one not conditioned with any stress here is one article on how to train whippets to wear a muzzle as needed when racing http://www.whippetracing.org/Information/AlternateMuzzleTraining.htm http://www.ospca.on.ca/pdf/FactSheet_Muzzle_Web.pdf#search=%22muzzle%20training%22 an article with information both on training and fitting a muzzle http://www.morrco.com/trdogtowemu.html a link with a good point, when the dog shows eagerness for the muzzle, training is going well http://www.awesomedogs.ca/articles-howtomuzzle.htm importance of high level rewards to create a positive association with the muzzle and that aggression is a state of arousal indicating underlying issues need to be addressed and training for modification, the muzzle is not a cure, only a safety measure until the dog has learned control http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=1&Number=4161037&page=0&fpart=all this thread has a discussion of protection dogs and muzzle work, and the importance of not using the muzzle only in situations the dog would respond to with aggression. As an integral part of living, 70% of the dog's training with the muzzle is not related to any protection work or situation where there would be reason for dog to dog aggression. Preventing unpleasant associations with a muzzle as with so many things is important. Putting a flat collar on a puppy can be uneventful or traumatic depending on how well it was introduced. As can be halter training a horse or having it accept a bit in its mouth or a saddle on its back. While some dogs may be so sensitive that they are upset by the feel of the muzzle, most dogs capable of wearing a collar, head halter or harness without upset are probably capable of adjusting to a muzzle if the owner takes some time and care into proper fitting and introduction. Problems associated with the muzzle seem far more likely to owners errors than the muzzle itself. Owner errors are probably the root cause of the aggression problems leading to a law requiring all dogs to be muzzled. Regrettably the same owners are unlikely to introduce a muzzle well. A recipe for failure would be to take a dog with aggression issues, wrestle a muzzle onto it and fasten it tightly so that it jams cheek and nose, then force it into a situation with other dogs or people where it normally would be aggressive and only put the muzzle on the dog under these conditions. Any reasonably intelligent dog is going to hate the muzzle and become more aggressive. Any dog whose owner can teach the dog to wear a muzzle without issue probably will never need the muzzle in public. Would it be possible to exempt dogs that pass a test similar to the Canine Good Citizen test, an obedience trial or other test showing the dog can behave around other dogs, people and distractions? For all dogs not to be able to play a game of fetch in public seems drastic. However merchants supplying muzzles might be delighted with such a law. Clare