From: IN%"Petra.Mertens@lrz.uni-muenchen.de" 16-DEC-1996 01:18:58.35 To: IN%"mike@m-tay.demon.co.uk" "Mike Taylor", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: e-shock collars Dear Mike, electric shock collars have been banned in an number of countries for welfare reasons. It is believed that the use of electric shock in dog training is causing potential harm for the dog. In Germany, people intend to bann not only the electric shock devices, but also the so-called Citronella collars (Abistop). I believe that the problem is not always the punisher (el. shock)- but the trainer !!!! Petra _________ Dr. Petra A. Mertens Institute for Ethology and Animal Welfare Schwere-Reiter-Str. 9 80797 Muenchen Germany petra.mertens@lrz.uni-muenchen.de From: IN%"CHolm@ZI.KU.DK" "Holm, Christine {ZI-APB}" 16-DEC-1996 07:04:07.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-error" CC: Subj: RE: what is nature? >From: applied-ethology-error >To: T. Warren >Cc: Patricia Mcconnell; applied-ethology >Subject: Re: what is nature? >Date: 13. December 1996 11.44 > >Colleen Moulton wrote: > >On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, T. Warren wrote: > >> At 15:06 12.12.96 -0600, Patricia Mcconnell wrote: >> >> >I hear this assumption made often: that anything that humans have a hand >> >in is "man-made" and therefore "not natural". Exactly what does that make >> >us, then? I argue that since humans are animals and that since we are >> >still a part of a living ecosystem, that we too are "natural". Different >> >yes, but still "natural". Domestication is not "unnatural", it's just >> >different... > > Do you mean to imply that since we are animals and part of an >ecosystem that everything we do is natural?! Producing immense amounts of >non biodoegradable items, building skyscrapers, producing cars that emit >pollution into the air, manipulating genes of our species and others...is >this all natural? This argument has been brought up in the past, and many >politicians these days would agree. But I think there is a definite need >to make a distinction between what is natural and what is not in order to >deal with the pressing environmental problems of today. You can say >everything is natural, so whatever we do is ok, or we can say everything is unnatural >and it doesnt matter what we do. Does it follow just like that? Who says that everything that is natural is good? >Either way, nothing gets done. [snip] I agree. But I think that as long as we mix good and bad up with natural or unnatural, nothing gets done. Curing diseases is unnatural. Killing aphids off crops is unnatural. Even if we decide that all human activity is "unnatural", what are we to do then? Destroy ourselves? We are a part of nature because we are living, breathing creatures. We have as much right to be here as other creatures: no more, but certainly no less. But we are also different from the rest of nature because we can shape it to our own liking and even destroy it if we want. We have a power over (the rest of) nature that is unique and with that power comes a unique responsibility not to destroy it. We have a choice. No other creature does. Therefore the discussion must needs be: what kind of world do we want, and how do we create it. And in this discussion the question of what is natural and unnatural is meaningless. Instead we should ask what we should do and not do to make the kind of world we want. We have removed ourselves from nature by civilization, but let's not forget that we did this because it was necessary, because nature is a horrible place, where you are cold and hungry and get eaten by other animals. We can't go back, and we wouldn't want to. Clothes are as natural to us as fur is to an animal, and tools are as natural as the teeth and claws we lack. Let's forget about natural and unnatural. Diversity is good. We want to be here and we want the others to be here too. (Most of them, at least, except homicidal maniacs and colorado beetles and cholera germs.) This is the starting point. And as far as I am concerned, we can remove the word "natural" from the dictionary, because it has lost its meaning. Yours unnaturally, Christine Holm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Christine Holm, M. Sc. Ph.D. student Dept. of Population Biology ----------------------------------- University of Copenhagen Time flies like the wind Denmark Fruit flies like bananas Tel. +45 35 32 12 93 ----------------------------------- E-mail: cholm@zi.ku.dk Fax: +45 35 32 12 99 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: IN%"PLXCMLN@pln1.life.nottingham.ac.uk" "CHARLOTTE.M.L.NEVISON" 16-DEC-1996 08:35:07.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: selection. Hi all, I've been really interested in the debate as to what is `natural' as it is something I've tossed around in my head for a while. I think definitions are important here. I know its a pain, I've had to weed out so many words out of my vocabulary that its sometimes difficult to express myself! However, as is evident here, `natural' can mean different things to different people! We are talking about the effects of natural selection and artificial selection on genomes. Domestic animals (plants etc...) are ultimately derived from wild stock that evolved for many thousands of years under natural selection. Behaviourally and physiologically they show the basic rules of response that adapt them to the natural environment (and may be inappropriate in the domestic environment). In addition, subtle changes in response may have occured as a byproduct of the artificial selection process. So are domesticated animals natural or not? I would say they are products of natural selection processes and artificial selection processes. As far as our influence as humans on species in the wild goes, all species have an influence on each other, thats ecology! True, our influence may be disproportionate, but its not the only influence. Charlotte. From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 16-DEC-1996 08:38:09.66 To: IN%"cmoulton@warren-wilson.edu" "Colleen E. Moulton" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: what is nature? At 05:19 PM 12/13/96 -0500, you wrote: > FOr one thing, the white moths did not turn black and sooty. [snip] oh well. my poor attempts at humor were poorer than i thought. sorry bout that. no disrespect intended, just trying to keep things on the light side (a character flaw of mine..) the point is (albeit poorly made) that intense selection pressures can and do occur in 'nature' all the time. industrial melanism (in the case of Biston betularia ... the peppered moth) occurred sometime between 1850 and 1895, and i felt it was a well documented, popular, nonvertebrate example. there was considerable argument in the early 1900's as to the cause -- differential predation or increased mutation rate due to pollution of soot (lead content, as i recall). Kettlewell performed the experiment that settled the issue, demonstrating differential predation. Owen and Wickler (at different times) summarized the preponderance of data regarding industrial melanism in moths and have pointed out that by the mid 1960's 70 of 780 species of moth in England were exhibiting signs of industrial melanism. curiously, the mode of inheritance of darker coloration patterns are not the same among all species, nor is the viability of the allelic variations. at any rate, now that i've gone off tangent again..... as others have pointed out, there is little genetic difference between 'natural', 'artificial' and/or 'unconscious' selection. and it was NOT nature that changed the moth, but rather an indirect result of mans societal changes during that period of time. it is true, however, that since among domestic animal species that humans make conscious breeding decisions, that they also have an intrinsic responsibility to the health and wellbeing of the animal. the answer to the that responsibility is emphatically NOT to abrogate a 10,000+ (in some cases) year old relationship with domestic animals, but, rather, to understand the inheritance patterns of both economically, physiologically, and behaviorally important traits in an effort to create an optimum for humans and animals alike. cheers, gfb //// G. F. Barbato Phone: (814)-865-4481 < * ) Dept. Poultry Science FAX: (814)-865-5691 \ \__/// Penn State University Lab: (814)-865-3189 ( --- ) University Park, PA 16802 Email: gfb1@psu.edu \/ \/ **** URL: http://ps235.cas.psu.edu/ **** InterCollege Graduate Program in Genetics **** URL: http://ps240.cas.psu.edu/ **** From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 16-DEC-1996 09:19:03.03 To: IN%"gadagkar@is2.dal.ca" "Sudhindra Gadagkar" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: "Natural" busybodies is who we are! At 04:42 PM 12/13/96 -0400, you wrote: >Hello all, >Haven't been following this debate all too closely, but a couple of >postings impying that domestication is just another environment that >animals have to contend with, and that it shouldn't be such a big deal, >prompted me to reply. I'm sorry, but I think domestication is a big deal. >Offhand the only other instance that comes to mind where one species >deliberately grows another in a unique environmnent that it provides, is >the fungal "gardens" of ants (or is it termites?). I'm assuming that the >fungi actually reproduce there and that there is some form of selection >going on that "domesticates" the fungi to the environment provided by the >ant/termite. If that isn't the case, and if the fungi die off and have to >brought afresh each time they die, then humans, I think, remain the sole >species that plays God, so to speak, in deciding who mates with whom >among his stock of animals, and shapes the subsequent generations to suit >his needs. sorry. domestic animals did not just appear in cages/pens/housing/etc. current domestic animal housing is nothing like the conditions during the history of the domestic animal. the interactions between the animals and man have coevolved over many years (20,000+ in the case of the dog -- about 1,000 in the case of the domestic turkey -- about 100 for the Norway rat) as have the animals and their housing conditions. >The criteria used in domestication selection are always focussed on what >WE are seeking from the animal, not what's best for it. to some degree that has been true (hence early definitions of domestic processes as being related to economics), though i have to admit that i'm not sure how to define the phrase 'what's best for it'. there are all sorts of interpretations of this and to the concept of 'God', though i suspect we'll leave theodicy(s) out of this discussion for the time being ... >How else can we >explain breeds of dogs, for instance, that require constant care? Is the >environment provided to commercially produced chicken simply "different" >- when they do not ever see even the light of day? I'm not implying that >all domestication is evil; indeed, I myself am working on domestication of >fish. But not acknowledging that the environment we provide during >domestication may have nothing to do with the environment that the species >would normally be exposed to (sans the influence of man), is glossing over >an extremely important difference. Incidentally, I don't have a problem >with what "natural" means - sunlight is natural, fluorescent or >incandescent lights are not; an animal competing for, and getting to mate >with another of its choice is natural, another species deciding who is to >mate with whom, in effect, directing the course of evolution, is not. it seems to me that, in the above paragraph, the term 'normal' is defined as whatever a particular human will define as normal. there are a wide variety of norms acceptable by a wide range of people and we will have less a chance of agreeing here than with 'natural'..... perhaps the true term we're looking for, as suggested by BCampbell, is 'pristine'. though the American Heritage College dictionary adds an interesting subtext to the discussion; pristine -- 1a. ... uncorrupted by civilization .... hmmmm DRichards was right. thats another discussion. now for some professional curiousity what about your fish?? what kind of fish? what kind of housing? why? is your sole purpose to domesticate fish? what do you think of Belyaev's work? does it have relavence for you? how does it relate to the current work on catfish going on in Mississippi (USA)? cheers, gfb //// G. F. Barbato Phone: (814)-865-4481 < * ) Dept. Poultry Science FAX: (814)-865-5691 \ \__/// Penn State University Lab: (814)-865-3189 ( --- ) University Park, PA 16802 Email: gfb1@psu.edu \/ \/ **** URL: http://ps235.cas.psu.edu/ **** InterCollege Graduate Program in Genetics **** URL: http://ps240.cas.psu.edu/ **** From: IN%"richards@hula.net" 16-DEC-1996 15:11:12.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: selection Charlotte wrote: >So are domesticated animals natural or not? I would say they are products >of >natural selection processes and artificial selection processes. I wholeheartedly concur. After all, are climatic changes and demographic disequilibrium any different than human intervention? I don't think so. And in defining domesticates, I think that domestication is more than the breeding control and selective mating that creates new gene pools and new selective pressures. What about tameness and behavioral changes, including changes in seasonal migrations, and in herd composition or size? Charlotte also wrote: >As far as our influence as humans on species in the wild goes, all >species have an influence on each other, thats ecology! True, our >influence may be disproportionate, but its not the only influence. Again, I agree. Enforced juxtaposition probably promoted that sort of symbiosis between human and animals implied in the word "domestication." Perhaps water sources isolated by arid tracts forced the two to live close together; perhaps stubble from harvested fields attracted animals; if so, the manure they left behind might have fertilized the fields, making settled humans more dependent on animals. Animals in turn supplied secondary products such as milk, skins and wool, and some meat as well. So, humans certainly benefitted. But animals benefitted as well. Close proximity to humans enabled them to live in marginal environments, provided them with a more dependable food source, and protection from wild predators. Dawn From: IN%"Heeler@aol.com" 16-DEC-1996 15:24:07.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: what is nature?/domestication Anyone interested in the evolution of domesticated animals will enjoy THE COVENANT OF THE WILD by ? Bugliosi. The book is out of print now, but can probably be found in libraries. Cheers, Margie English, NY From: IN%"VerkerkG@drc.co.nz" "Verkerk, Gwyn" 16-DEC-1996 16:25:58.52 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Appl. Eth. network" CC: Subj: Another aspect to natural selection Just think how humans have evolved since the beginnings of our domestication of animals. The improved standards of living (principally as improved "capture" of food sources and nutrition) as we have developed our domestication technologies over the centuries has no doubt contributed to the further evolution of our own species. These changes undoubtedly contributed first to the increased availability of time to learn, think and invent, and secondly to enhanced intellectual development as a result of a more balanced diet. Since we have all evolved together and developed many interdependencies we cannot retrace the selection processes which have occurred and must all just agree to be "non-natural" (or should it be "non-pristine") together. Gwyneth Verkerk Veterinarian/Scientist Dairying Research Corporation Hamilton New Zealand From: IN%"James.Murphy-Amazona.Society@worldnet.att.net" "James Murphy" 16-DEC-1996 22:18:16.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Parrot agonistic behavior In popular pet bird magazines, there is the notion that the relative height position between the bird owner and the parrot forms underlying bases for the Human:Parrot relationship. It is said that if the bird is above the owner's eye height, the bird becomes dominate - because the 'flock leader' always assumes the highest perch in the tree relative to its followers. Thus, so the notion goes, the elevated bird assumes it is the leader and dominates the owner. When the bird is placed below eye-level, it then become subordinate and thus more controllable. This behavioral toggle switch is, apparently, genetically defined. Control and/or behavior modification is an important issue in pet bird literature and the above two 'facts' are accepted without question. I have a two related questions for list members. A) Is anyone aware of any reliable wild observations of monogamous birds developing flock leaders or a stable flock dominance heirarchy? B) If so, what selective reproductive advantage would a 'flock leader' have in a monogamous flock of parrots? (The vast majority of psittacines (parrots) nest in isolated cavities and form lasting pair bonds). Your comments are appreciated. James J. Murphy Avian Biologist, Editor: Amazona Quarterly Tl:(206) 847-1314 Fax: (206) 847-0833 Washington, USA From: IN%"PLXCMLN@pln1.life.nottingham.ac.uk" "CHARLOTTE.M.L.NEVISON" 17-DEC-1996 03:14:08.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Thankyou! Hi, Just a quick note to thank all of you who replied to my query about alternative methods of measuring corticosteroids. The references / discussions are much appreciated! Off to do all my reading now! Regards, Charlotte. From: IN%"MAPPLEBY@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 17-DEC-1996 04:19:31.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: (Fwd) Re: bulldogs I asked James Serpell for more info. about use of Caesarians in bulldogs. Here's his reply. Mike ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 16:33:33 +0000 To: "Mike Appleby" From: serpell@vet.upenn.edu (James Serpell) Subject: Re: bulldogs To Mike Appleby et al., It isn't often that I mistake English bulldogs for Belgian blue cattle, even in the dark after a night of heavy drinking! There is an extremely high risk of fatal birth complications in the bulldog. This is a consequence of selective breeding for abnormally large head size and exaggerated brachycephaly, combined with abnormally narrow hips. As a result, most bulldog breeders in the USA, and increasing numbers in Europe, prefer to have the puppies born by caesarian section. The procedure is so commonplace now that I am frankly surprised that Mike Appleby has never heard of it. A recent article by Thomson, K.S. 1996. American Scientist, vol. 84: 220-3 will confirm what I say for those who still doubt me. James Serpell ___________________________________________________________________ NB: PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: serpell@vet.upenn.edu ___________________________________________________________________ School of Veterinary Medicine, Dept. of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 3900 Delancey Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010. USA. Tel: (215) 898-1004 Fax: (215) 573-6050 From: IN%"K.PLAXTON@elsevier.nl" "Ken Plaxton" 17-DEC-1996 07:28:55.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Applied Animal Behaviour Science Dear Subscriber Please find below the Contents List for Volume 50/2. I would also like to announce a new service for the journal, beginning in the New Year. As of Volume 51/1, the Senior Author of all papers published in each issue will be asked to supply the names and addresses of 5 'colleagues' to whom Elsevier will send a complimentary copy of the same issue, on their behalf. Ideally, the people concerned will not be regular readers of the journal, so that its visibility (and that of the author's own work) will be enhanced. A complimentary copy of the relevant issue will also be sent to the author him/herself. Regards and Season's Greetings. Ken Plaxton ******************************* Elsevier Science B.V. Animal/Veterinary Sciences Section P.O. Box 181 1000 AD Amsterdam Tel: +31 20 485 3332 Fax: +31 20 485 3325 E-mail: k.plaxton@elsevier.nl ******************************** APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE VOL 50/2 CONTENTS NOVEMBER 1996 Behavioural observations of reintroduced Takhi or Przewalski horses (Equus ferus przewalskii) in Mongolia M.C. Van Dierendonck, N. Bandi, D. Batdorj, S. Dgerlham and B. Munkhtsog (Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia)...............................95 The influence of handling during different ages on a halter training test in foals M.E. Mal and C.A. McCall (Auburn, AL, USA).........................115 Effects of grouping unfamiliar adult pigs after dark, after treatment with amperozide and by using pens with stalls, on aggression, skin lesions and plasma cortisol concentrations J. L. Barnett, G.M. Cronin, T.H. McCallum, E.A. Newman and D.P. Hennessy (Attwood, Vic., Australia).........................................121 Behaviour and productivity of sows and piglets in a family system and in farrowing crates D.S. Arey and E.S. Sancha (Aberdeen, UK)...........................135 The use of spatial memory by grazing animals to locate food patches in spatially heterogeneous environments: an example with sheep G.R. Edwards, J.A. Newman (Oxford, UK), A.J. Parsons (Okehampton, UK) and J.R. Krebs (Oxford, UK)....................................147 Effect of previous experience on sheep grazing leafy spurge B.E. Olson, R.T. Wallander, V.M. Thomas and R.W. Kott (Bozeman, MT, USA).................................................161 Short communication Effects of observational learning on food selection in horses J.V. Clarke, C.J. Nicol, R. Jones and P.D. McGreevy (Bristol, UK)................................................................177 From: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk" 17-DEC-1996 09:09:09.21 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Does anyone know where I can get hold of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) National Survey on People and Pet Relationships? Thanks, I. Rochlitz BVSc MSc MRCVS,Animal Welfare Group,Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK. From: IN%"serpell@vet.upenn.edu" 17-DEC-1996 09:10:20.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: civilization Dear all, I hate to disillusion those who equate 'civilization' with improved human living standards, but this view is totally at odds with the one now favoured by archaeologists and paleaopathologists. If I may quote from an authority on the subject: "Civilization has not been as successful in guaranteeing human well-being as we like to believe......Contemporary hunter-gatherers, although lean and occasionally hungry, enjoy levels of caloric intake that compare favorably with national averages for many major countries of the Third World and that are generally above those of the poor in the modern world. Even the poorest recorded hunter-gatherer group enjoys a caloric intake superior to that of impoverished contemporary urban populations. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers appear to have enjoyed richer environments and to have been better nourished than most subsequent populations (primitive and civilized alike)." M.N. Cohen (1989) _Health and the Rise of Civilization_. New Haven, CT: Yale UP. The historical success of so-called 'civilized' states arose not from their record of improving overall human well-being, but from their manifest ability to absorb or obliterate other less powerful groups. Indeed, one could argue that the domestication and intensive husbandry of livestock animals provided an early training ground for the organized subjugation of fellow humans. James Serpell ___________________________________________________________________ NB: PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: serpell@vet.upenn.edu ___________________________________________________________________ School of Veterinary Medicine, Dept. of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 3900 Delancey Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010. USA. Tel: (215) 898-1004 Fax: (215) 573-6050 From: IN%"gadagkar@is2.dal.ca" "Sudhindra Gadagkar" 17-DEC-1996 11:59:18.17 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Re the "natural" debate Dear all, Read with interest the recent postings on this debate. Of the recent ones, while concurring with Colleen Moulton and James Serpell, I must respond to Barbato. Barbato explains to me that current housing conditions of domestic animals is nothing like what they were when the process of domestication started thousands of years ago. That is, he says there has been a great change. Precisely my point. (BTW how does everybody manage to so nicely insert excerpts from the postings they are responding to, and precisely at the appropriate place? Guess I must call the help desk again. Life's sure tough for computer illiterates.) Anyway, to go on with Barbato's comments. He objects to my using using the term "playing God". Isn't that just an expression? I don't believe anyone else mistook me for a priest, or felt that this discussion was drifting towards a debate on the existence of God! Now, don't you start that - there'll be simply no end. My use of the word "normal" was quite clear. I had put in brackets, for this precise reason, what I meant ("sans the influence of man" - obviously referring to "wild", "feral" environments). My point in my posting was a simple one. Domestication involves artificial selection (weren't the terms "natural" selection and "artificial" selection" coined to acknowledge the deliberate influence of humans on the evolution of plants and animals?) I was merely trying to keep this distinction clear, as it seemed to me that it was being deliberately muddied (sp?). Of course, humans are part of the ecosystem, and we are not un-natural, in the sense that we are biological beings, if you know what I mean, as are the animals/plants we domesticate. I do not think anyone is even remotely suggetsing that. What we are, at least I am, worried about is the casual attitude towards domestication ("it's just another environmnent, big deal!" kind of attitude). This kind of attitude is what could result in the release of GMO's/transgenic animals ("natural", anyone?) and/or a potential Jurassic Park scenario. We can hair-split till doomsday (oops, sorry Barbato, there I go again!) about what natural/normal etc. actually mean, without ever agreeing. What's important is to understand another person's point of view, and not be a strickler for definitions. As to Barbato's questions arising from "professional curiosity", boy, I sure hope I don't have someone like him as my external ("what, why, when, how"?)! Anyway, to answer the questions. First of all, I must make it clear that domestication of the fish I'm working on (which, by the way, is tilapia - Oreochromis niloticus, sorry, can't italicize) is a distant goal. Presently, I'm looking at the quantitative genetics of the animal, for my Ph.D. The traits I'm looking at are social behaviour (agonism) and growth depensation (growth rate variation). I want to see if there are any heritable behaviour traits associated with uniform growth among these fish. Housing the fish? I used fish from the stock being maintained for research at the Univ. (Dalhousie Univ., Halifax, Canada). Fairly artificial housing, I would say. Basement of a large concrete bldg., incandescent and fluorescent lights, controlled temperature, light and food regimes, controlled breeding, etc. "Why"? Well, because tilapia is not native to Canada, and they would not be able to withstand the winter temperatures here. As to Belyaev and the work going on in Mississippi, sorry, don't know. Bye for now. Sudhindra Gadagkar Deparment of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4J1 Tel: (902)-425-1745 (Home) -494-5117 (work) email: should be up top, but here it is anyway: gadagkar@is2.dal.ca From: IN%"eoprice@ucdavis.edu" "Edward O. Price" 17-DEC-1996 13:14:14.88 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology Network'" CC: Subj: Domestication revisited Some persons consider humans to be part of an unnatural (i.e. artificial) world and, thus, the things that humans do with respect to domestication are considered artificial. Both artificial and natural selection typically accompany the domestication process. A distinguishing feature of artificial and natural selection is that in the former, selection normally occurs prior to reproduction whereas natural selection is typically measured "ex post facto" based on the relative number of reproducing offspring produced for future generations. Predators also remove animals from natural populations before they (the prey) have the opportunity to reproduce yet we refer to that process as natural. Also, we know that artificial selection is usually motivated by some goal or objective. Doesn't this same outcome occur in natural selection under the name "adaptation"? If you are interested in these ideas you might want to look at: Price, E.O. 1984. Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Quarterly Review of Biology 57: 1-32. I have just completed an update of this paper which will eventually appear in a book on behavior genetics edited by Temple Grandin. Ed Price eoprice@ucdavis.edu From: IN%"dolphins@dolphinsociety.org" 17-DEC-1996 13:40:45.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: A Solution To The "Natural debate" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5D277EF3484A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A way to experience both tribal culture and technological civilization. --------------5D277EF3484A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="intro.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="intro.htm" Content-Base: "file:///A|/intro.htm" INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Why shape shift to Dolphin form? Why do humans want to turn into Dolphins? When in Dolphin form humans have the advantages of eternal youth, transcendental technology, integration with advanced species and social contact with planets and stars. For example, the Earth materializes her spirit in Dolphin or advanced humanoid form and can marry humans and so on. The direct experience of dolphin cultures is enticing beyond description. The freedom, immortality, ecstatic love and transcendent knowledge alone are excellent reasons for making the shift. The Human Theogenesis can be achieved through shape shifting, and awareness of this path could allow Humanity to transcend ordinary history.

Shape shifting to Dolphin form can be done with the assistance of a dolphin who has shifted to Human form. The depth of love possible between a human and a mermaid or merman allows the human to follow when the merperson shifts back to Dolphin form. Those humans who love a mermaid or a merman touch a source of godhood. Merfolk are master shamans and so they are able to accomplish the sacred task of theogenesis; the metamorphosis of a human to a god-form; a Dolphin form. The Dolphin form is a god-form because it is a direct descendant of a form that invented and built self reproducing star ships; the transcendental technology of god-power. Because Dolphins are closely related to star ships they share their power. The Cetacea; the Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises, lead a dual existence. On Earth, they are extraordinary aquatic peoples that are shaped by the forces of natural selection. They are mortal and vulnerable.

They also live in space. In space they live in gigantic star ships. Dolphin Star ships are planet-sized, spherical, with thousands of decks. Each deck is a disc several miles thick. For example, the equatorial deck of a star ship, that humans are now living on, is a circular sea about eight thousand miles in diameter. The sea has an average depth of about one mile. There are millions of small islands in the sea. An artificial sun-effect is created by moving discs of light across the ceiling.

When living on star ships, the residents are immortal and invulnerable. Rather than being shaped by natural selection, their genomes are deliberately self-designed.

Humans who have shifted to Dolphin form are able to live in Dolphin Star ships. Sometimes the spirit of the star ship will materialize in Dolphin or Human form on one of the decks. Sometimes humans-in-Dolphin-form meet the incarnate star ship. Sometime they become close friends, sometimes friends become lovers, sometimes lovers conceive a child. When star ships conceive, they fly to the center of a star that they are in love with. In the star's core a child star ship is forged in the sacred fire. The child, the parent star, the parent star ship and her lover create and activate an assembly program. Using the heavy and light elements in the stellar womb, the child star ship's pattern is solidified.

A star ship is born.

After meeting a merperson, shape shifting is either done directly or is approached in gradual stages.

In direct shifting, the human / merperson couple journeys to a sea or river, goes for a swim and makes the shift underwater. Often the shift is performed at night.

When approached in gradual stages, shape shifting is done from a lucid dream state. Because of the emotional potency of the relationship, the merperson begins to appear in the human's dreams. The merperson begins to exert power to awaken the dreamer within the dream, that is, to initiate a lucid dream experience. Sexuality in the dream anchors the human's lucidity. The transcendent beauty and extreme gender polarity of a merperson pulls the human awareness into the sexual experience and so into the lucid dream.

The human / merperson couple flies, in the dream, to a Dolphin Star ship. The star ship will materialize a dolphin body for the human ghost if asked by the merperson. The human's dream awareness then inhabits the materialized dolphin body.

The merperson then uses a five step symbolic logic series to pull the remaining human awareness into the dolphin body. The sleeping Human body on Earth then dematerializes.

These five symbols are part of the several million symbol Dolphin Majikal Language, the symbolic language of ecological / cultural/spiritual relationship used for shamanic practice.

By becoming aware of these five symbols and their human-translated meanings, the human can bring the shapes shifting experience into the conscious mind. Because the same Dolphin Symbolic Logic meanings are used in the ordinary human awareness and in the Dolphin form, learning their meanings provides a link between the memories of the two forms. Most humans have shifted to dolphin form, lived in the sea or on dolphin star ships, even had dolphin children, but they don't remember the experience because of the vast distance between Dolphin and Human awareness. A different memory mechanism and bank is used. Because the Dolphin Majikal Language is an interspecies language, it provides a link between the memories of experiences in different forms. Dolphins encode the five symbols in a story. This story could be translated to a human-comprehensible form and condensed as follows:

"A human achieved freedom. She moved several times between sobriety and laughter. She traveled with a lover to the beginning of time. She was tempted by selfish desire but turned away from it. She became a dolphin."

By reading this translation and introduction every night, just before sleep, for several months, a link can be created between the conscious human awareness and one's memories of being in Dolphin form.

The shift to a god-form begins when a human meets a merperson. Humans meet merfolk when they have come as close as possible to Dolphin Consciousness. This shift to the place where Dolphin and Human awareness overlaps creates an empathic connection and leads to a physical meeting. The place of awareness overlap can be described as happy, free of ego, compassionate, humorous and here-and-now.

Humans that live in areas frequented by merfolk have a better chance of meeting them. For example, tribal peoples in the Amazon Basin have an excellent chance of meeting a merperson. Some of the tribes along the Amazon River are partly populated by merfolk. River dolphins shift to Human form, join human tribes and interbreed with them. Sometimes entire tribes of river dolphins shift to human form together. They often settle in river villages. Sometimes several generations pass before the tribe returns to the river. These shape-shifters create a strong merfolk genetic base in the Human population. Millions of humans now carry genes that assist the metamorphosis from Human to Dolphin form.

After meeting a merperson, friendship, marriage and other relationships depend on the human's ability to transcend provincialism and adjust to alien emotion and logic. Although merfolk appear Human and have learned the human languages and cultures, they are alien to a profound depth. To deepen a relationship with a merperson to the extent necessary to follow them back to Dolphin form requires a rare degree of fluidity.

One of the Dolphin cultural attributes that helps to deepen the relationship is the fixation on the state of ecstasy. In happy situations, the Human/Merperson couple is in ecstasy. In seemingly painful situations, the couple is still in ecstasy. All kinds of emotion are experienced, wonderful and terrible, but they are experienced in the context of ecstasy by beings who know that specific emotions are unique to form and the Human form is only one of infinite possible choices.

At this level, the relationship returns temporarily to a physical, lustful relationship. The couple is able to alter form in sexually exciting ways. By shifting form in minute and contrived ways, different aspects of the self are expressed and enjoyed and the relationship deepened.

Once in Dolphin form, humans are able to stay as long as they are able to adjust to the extremely alien cultures, the highly integrated societies of many alien species and the dolphin cognition and perception. Once completely adjusted, the spirit of the star ship of residence may materialize in Dolphin form to meet the new merperson. It is from these meetings that humans acquire star ship friends, wives, husbands and lovers. Humans are now living in the sea and on the islands inside the star ship children of human/star ship/star parents. Some of them are working with the star ship children to rescue whole ecosystems. For example, they are transplanting the rainforest ecosystems of the Amazon, Borneo, Africa and the coral reef ecosystems to new planets. They are also transplanting the endangered indigenous Human, Elephant, Ape and Giant Squid cultures of Earth to the new planets. By seeding life into worlds that would never have otherwise known life and building shamanic cultures on those planets, pagans are creating new potential for awareness and shamanic mastery. These planets are bastions of freedom; places where all beliefs are respected, all forms loved, all ways of being cherished.

Because of the pervasiveness of the shamanic cultures on these planets, shapeshifting has become a universal heritage. When humans move to one of these planets, they usually learn shape shifting to the level of mastery within a few years.

Although subject to natural selection while residing on the planets, the residents have the ability to teleport to a star ship. Natural selection in a planetary ecosystem, with it's aspects of aging, death and predation takes on an entirely different character when injury or death is merely an introduction to a long vacation in an immortal body on a star ship.

What is life like on a seeded planet? Imagine living on a planet orbiting a golden star. Lets name two of the residents "Gaia" and "Ra". Gaia and Ra are an eternal eighteen years old. Every year they celebrate their nineteenth birthday by teleporting to a starship and re-materializing as eighteen year olds.

On one of their many wanderings through the rainforest, they arrive at the entrance to the temple of the Star God and Planet Goddess. They make their offerings of jungle fruit at the altar and walk down a long golden hallway into the center of the great crystal pyramid. Orangutan priests help them out of their clothing and into the sacred pool at the focus of the pyramid.

Gazing into each other's eyes, Gaia and Ra see the faces of the God and Goddess. The Deities are asking them to reenact the Creation. Together Gaia and Ra enter the white-hot lust and divine love of Creation. Gaia and Ra make love with a depth of passion, a purity of devotion and an intimacy of knowledge that makes them glow with god-fire. The golden light shines from Ra's eyes like the setting sun, it shines from Gaia's eyes like volcanic fire. As they approach their first climax, their star approaches zenith. The majikal energy of their star focuses through the crystal pyramid and onto their sacred embrace. The majikal energy of their planet focuses on them from below. At the onset of the sacred orgasm, their spirits expand outward. They relive the Creation. For a timeless moment they are infinite entropic potential, then they materialize as subatomic particles, then condense into atoms, stars and galaxies. They are an infinity of galaxies orbiting one another in eternal orgasm. When Gaia and Ra awake again in Human form it is morning. Macaws fly about the temple and perch on their arms and heads. Monkeys mimic their embrace. They hear an elephant trumpet in the jungle. Gaia and Ra kiss, walk up the golden steps, out of the Water of Life. The Orangutan priests dry them with soft leaves, dress them and kiss them farewell. Gaia and Ra walk out of the quartz crystal pyramid and into the sacred jungle. On their way back to their house-tree, they become many different creatures; apes, elephants, insects and trees, so that they can play with friends of those species. Arriving home, they kiss their house-tree hello and walk through the circular door. They walk through the outer rooms, the living room and through the gymnasium, theater and Tantra room. In the kitchen they pick mango-like fruit. They eat the same food together, because of their love. Touching the wall of the kitchen, Gaia and Ra share their love with their house-tree. The house-tree materializes her spirit in Human form and the trinity walks into the bedroom together for an afternoon of passion. In the evening, Gaia, Ra and Banya, the house-tree, walk to the beach, shift to Dolphin form and play together in the sea.

From: IN%"sschmerl@umich.edu" "Sonia Schmerl" 17-DEC-1996 13:59:37.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: domestication vs. breeding Sudhindra Gadagkar wrote: >My point in my posting was a simple one. Domestication involves >artificial selection (weren't the terms "natural" selection and >"artificial" selection" coined to acknowledge the deliberate influence of >humans on the evolution of plants and animals?) I believe it would be more accurate to say that breeding involves artificial selection. Domestication may be something entirely different. Several people have pointed out that humans can, through artificial selection, produce bizarre things like the reproductively challenged bulldog, but I would like to point out that the starting material for this genetic manipulation is the domestic dog. The "domestication" of the dog happened so long ago that any description of that process is strictly guesswork. It may not have involved deliberate selective breeding of dogs by humans at all. >Of course, humans are part of the ecosystem, >and we are not un-natural, in the sense that we are >biological beings, if you know what I mean, as are the >animals/plants we domesticate. I'm kind of uncomfortable with this use of the term "domestication," or perhaps with a lack of distinction between the terms "domestic animal" and "captive animal." I would prefer to define "domestic" in evolutionary rather than economic (or political) terms, meaning a species which has evolved to live in close association with humans, and whose niche depends on humans. Note that this definition includes rats and mice and probably more parasites than we care to think about, as well as dogs and cats and cows and chickens. >What's important is to understand another person's point of >view, and not be a strickler for definitions. Sorry, but I like definitions. I also would like to know what you mean when you say you're working on "domestication of tilapia"? Thanks, S. Schmerl sschmerl@umich.edu From: IN%"WayneH42@aol.com" 17-DEC-1996 15:29:23.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: No Subject American Animal Hospital Association 12575 W. Bayaud Ave. Lakewood, CO 80228 USA You might also try their internet site: http://www.acmepet.com/aaha/index.html Wayne Hunthausen, DVM From: IN%"richards@hula.net" 17-DEC-1996 16:05:08.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: civilization James Serpell wrote: >I hate to disillusion those who equate 'civilization' with improved human >living standards, but this view is totally at odds with the one now >favoured by archaeologists and paleaopathologists. If I may quote from an >authority on the subject: Not totally true. >"Civilization has not been as successful in guaranteeing human well-being >as we like to believe......Contemporary hunter-gatherers, although lean and >occasionally hungry, enjoy levels of caloric intake that compare favorably >with national averages for many major countries of the Third World and that >are generally above those of the poor in the modern world. As probably the only archaeologist/anthropologist on the list, I feel compelled to reply. Yes, modern day hunter-gatherers are well-off: the !Kung San of the Kalahari have been studied for years by numerous anthropologists (most commonly: Richard Lee; Lorna Marshal; Marjorie Shostak) who have proclaimed them among the most healthy people in the world, as well as having the most leisure time. Since the government has resettled many of the !San on "reservations" where they now engage in small-scale farming and herding, they have undergone a number of deleterious changes: increase in pop. density; an increase in body fat (from change in diet); an increase in bith rate (probably a consequence of sedentism and dietary changes, shortening the period of lactational amenorrhea); increase in mortality (introduction of TB, diverse and nutritious foraging diet replaced by tinned chicken and eggs, mealie beer, etc); growth of a cash economy; spouse abuse. So, I agree that H/Gs are, in many ways, better off than many "civilized" populations. However, evidence from the fossil record of past H/G and early farming pops suggests that in many cases these pops enjoyed a shorter life span, higher infant and maternal mortality rates, stress during weaning, and constant parasites (as evidenced from the coprolite record!). In other words, life was no picnic back then. >The historical success of so-called 'civilized' states arose not from their >record of improving overall human well-being, but from their manifest >ability to absorb or obliterate other less powerful groups. That is indeed one criterion for the "civilization" or "state" society. But other criteria for a society to be classified as such are: full-time specialization of labor; concentration of surplus; intensive agriculture and irrigation; a system of writing; arithmetic, geometry, astronomy; and emergence of true law; monumental and symbolic artwork (among others). So not every aspect of that long haul was negative. After all that rambling I've almost sight of my point, which is, that equating civilization with improved human living standards is not *totally* at odds with the view favored by most arch/anths. The pendulum has swung towards a more middle-of-the-road approach. In some respects our H/G ancestors were better off, in other respects our intensified agriculturalists/animal husbandry ancestors were better off. And, however one views our progress over the last 10,000 years, our domestication of animals certainly played a large role in achieving our present day status. Regards, Dawn From: IN%"denn9587@uidaho.edu" "John Dennehy" 17-DEC-1996 20:33:41.44 To: IN%"eoprice@ucdavis.edu" "Edward O. Price" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology Network'", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Domestication revisited Ed, I've been watching this nature/artifice debate with bemused disinterest. I guess I'm not interested in semantics. Nature is, of course, whatever one defines it as. However, something you wrote caught my eye. "Also, we know that artificial selection is usually motivated by some goal or objective. Doesn't this same outcome occur in natural selection under the name `adaptation'?" I assume this is a rhetorical question. Can you explain what you mean by this? Respectfully yours, John Dennehy From: IN%"denn9587@uidaho.edu" "John Dennehy" 17-DEC-1996 20:33:59.93 To: IN%"eoprice@ucdavis.edu" "Edward O. Price" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology Network'", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Domestication revisited Ed, I've been watching this nature/artifice debate with bemused disinterest. I guess I'm not interested in semantics. Nature is, of course, whatever one defines it as. However, something you wrote caught my eye. "Also, we know that artificial selection is usually motivated by some goal or objective. Doesn't this same outcome occur in natural selection under the name `adaptation'?" I assume this is a rhetorical question. Can you explain what you mean by this? Respectfully yours, John Dennehy From: IN%"Heeler@aol.com" 17-DEC-1996 21:02:59.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: domestication vs. breeding In a message dated 96-12-17 15:53:06 EST, you write: >I believe it would be more accurate to say that breeding involves >artificial selection. Domestication may be something entirely >different. You got it. Domestication occurred LONG before humans managed the breeding of animals who'd opted for living with humans. One theory of domestication holds that environmental pressures (like an ice age) separated wild animals who could live close to human societies from those who couldn't. The humans didn't choose the animals who hung around the cave. Some animals could do it and others couldn't. The animals who could tolerate living in close proximity to humans became the ancestors of today's domestic animals. We didn't choose them. They chose themselves. Cheers, Margie From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 18-DEC-1996 10:46:47.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: The Nature of Ethics Dear All: I have not closely followed the recent discussion on nature, domestication, etc. but when I quickly looked through the messages, one sentence particularly caught my eye. Colleen Moultan wrote: "You can say everything is natural, so whatever we do is ok, or we or we can say everything is unnatural and it doesnt matter what we do." I believe the sentiment expressed in this sentence lies at the base of much of the discussion, confusion and disagreement among the group about things "natural and unnatural." Science is a human endeavor to understand "nature." Ethics is a human endeavor to define and practice "what ought to be." Every critical thinker about evolutionary biology from Darwin to Dawkins has admonished their readers to NOT look to nature as the basis for building moral arguments. Forced copulation is common in many species - it is "natural." Forced copulation is also all too common in _H. sapiens_, which one could argue is also "natural." But it is _not_ OK! Regarding domestication, I believe that much of the discussion about this topic can benefit by viewing domestication as a technology. My argument in brief is: Tech is human manipulation of nature. If biotech is a technol, then dom is simply a slower method of reaching the same end point. One of my favorite quotes is that, "Technol is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral." We scientists produce the knowledge that drives the technology. We humans decide whether good or bad will arise from our actions. A longer discussion of this topic is presented in a discussion entitled "Technology and Animal Agriculture" by Stricklin and Swanson (J Agric & Envir Ethics, Vol 6 (Suppl 1), pages 67-80). (There is fascinating 6 to 8 part discussion about Genesis led by Bill Moyers on Public Television currently airing in the US. I have seen only parts of two of these programs, but much of the discussion I viewed centered on the recognition by humans of their difference from other animals and this being the basis for the development of ethics. The topics of recent discussion are not new - they have been around a few thousand years.) Ray Stricklin Department of Animal Sciences University of Maryland From: IN%"Heeler@aol.com" 18-DEC-1996 23:13:46.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The Nature of Ethics In a message dated 96-12-18 12:32:03 EST, you write: >Regarding domestication, I believe that much of the discussion about this >topic can benefit by viewing domestication as a technology. OK, I can see where I've made my mistake here. Some of you are writing about the management of domesticated animals and calling it "domestication." I always thought domestication was the process that caused some wild animals to become domesticated. (This is quite different from capturing and taming.) This process occurred LONG before humans had any real control over animal reproduction. Domesticated animals were following humans around and surviving on human handouts long before humans began selectively breeding the animals who were following them around. Cheers, Margie From: IN%"Heeler@aol.com" 18-DEC-1996 23:20:15.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: The Nature of Ethics In a message dated 96-12-18 12:32:03 EST, you write: > Forced copulation is common in many species - it >is "natural." Forced copulation is also all too common in _H. sapiens_, >which >one could argue is also "natural." But it is _not_ OK! Infanticide is also common in some species and can get a human being in real ethical trouble today. Back in the olden days, human infanticide was kind of blinked at as long as it was limited to exposure on a hillside or something similar. Forced copulation is still iffy in many human societies. Even societies that condemn rape can't define it. Human ethics are human inventions that allow human beings to share the planet together. They have survival value for human beings. We ignore them at our peril. Animals have their own ethics that work for them, and we ignore them at their peril. Happy Holidays everybody, Margie From: IN%"Hans.P.Kjaestad@veths.no" 19-DEC-1996 06:04:01.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: What is natural? Dear All, I agree with Ray Stricklin's recent posting about "nature" and ethics. When we discuss the terms "nature" and "natural", we should indeed have in mind that those terms are usually used to make value statements. To a lot of people, "natural" is a honorary term which implies a variety of good characteristics, while "unnatural" or "artificial" has unpleasant associations. The catch is that the term is often used as if it were= neutral. Modern society has, of course, both positive and negative aspects to it. This is why the network seems to have a kind of pseudo-debate going on over whether a man-made environment is "natural" or not. However, a debate over values would be far more interesting than an endless series of postings on whether this and that is "natural" or "artificial". "Nature" is a very fuzzy term, and I think it is better to substitute it with more precise words whenever possible. Hans Petter Kj=E6stad hans.p.kjaestad@veths.no PS By the way, I think all of the above also goes for the discussion of what constitutes "civilization". HPK From: IN%"jpalacio@mvet.unizar.es" "JORGE PALACIO LIESA" 20-DEC-1996 02:14:11.63 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: MOON AND CALVING TIMES Hi everybody, Some farmers in my country think parturition does not occur randomly throughout the moon cycle in the cows. A higher incidence of birth at night has been reported for various mammals (man, horses, pigs, cows...). But, now, I'm looking for previous works or references concerning calving times in cows during moon phase. Have anyone some information about this topic? Thanks Jorge Palacio Liesa Dpto. Patologia Animal Facultad de Veterinaria C/ Miguel Servet, 177 50013-ZARAGOZA (SPAIN) From: IN%"jpalacio@mvet.unizar.es" "JORGE PALACIO LIESA" 20-DEC-1996 03:08:21.57 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: MOON AND CALVING TIMES Hi everybody, Some farmers in my country think parturition does not occur randomly throughout the moon cycle in the cows. A higher incidence of birth at night has been reported for various mammals (man, horses, pigs, cows...). But, now, I'm looking for previous works or references concerning calving times in cows during moon phase. Have anyone some information about this topic? Thanks Jorge Palacio Liesa Dpto. Patologia Animal Facultad de Veterinaria C/ Miguel Servet, 177 50013-ZARAGOZA (SPAIN) From: IN%"jpalacio@mvet.unizar.es" "JORGE PALACIO LIESA" 20-DEC-1996 06:19:29.18 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: MOON AND CALVING TIMES Hi everybody, Some farmers in my country think parturition does not occur randomly throughout the moon cycle in the cows. A higher incidence of birth at night has been reported for various mammals (man, horses, pigs, cows...). But, now, I'm looking for previous works or references concerning calving times in cows during moon phase. Have anyone some information about this topic? Thanks Jorge Palacio Liesa Dpto. Patologia Animal Facultad de Veterinaria C/ Miguel Servet, 177 50013-ZARAGOZA (SPAIN) From: IN%"lafama@pinos.com" 20-DEC-1996 14:32:07.79 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Masturbation and other things Hi, all again In my country we have many problems of behavior in, for example, the throughbred in training 1) Masturbation with ejaculation 2) Ejaculation without erection 3) The horse that walks and walks around the box for hours 4) The horse that swallows air. 5) The horse that scratches its croup, bites (ie: woood), kicks, swings ( we call it "bear decease") 6) The horse that gets frightened in the racetracks, or sweats, or evacuates. In advanced Thank you very much Mario Lopez Oliva Argentina From: IN%"Heeler@aol.com" 21-DEC-1996 12:52:32.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Masturbation and other things In a message dated 96-12-20 16:06:42 EST, you write: >In my country we have many problems of behavior in, for example, the >throughbred in training >1) Masturbation with ejaculation >2) Ejaculation without erection >3) The horse that walks and walks around the box for hours >4) The horse that swallows air. >5) The horse that scratches its croup, bites (ie: woood), kicks, swings >( we call it "bear decease") These behaviors are most often seen in horses kept in stalls. They're seldom seen in horses who are turned out to graze. Cheers, Margie, NY From: IN%"appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk" "David Appleby" 22-DEC-1996 05:55:03.48 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"apbc4_um@ftech.net" CC: Subj: Waltham/Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors Annual Symposium 1997 This information is also available at: WWW: http://webzone1.co.uk/www/apbc/symp97.htm Waltham/Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors Annual Symposium 1997 The Art of Being Sociable Avoiding Conflict Through Communication The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors invites you to the 9th Annual Symposium. This yeas theme, *The Art of Being Sociable* promises to give a fascinating insight into how our pets communicate to avoid conflicts and how we can be better owners and practitioners by learning their strategies. With five superb speakers, including the world renowned and highly amusing Dr Ian Dunbar, and chaired by the very entertaining Dr Roger Abrantes, this symposium promises to be a delightful day of humour and learning. Ian Dunbar will begin with how dogs survive encounters with each other. He will tell us how to assess the severity of fighting problems, look for the antecedents of disputes and stress the importance of prevention. Julie Sellors will then tell us, from her wealth of practical experiences, about the difficulties of keeping more than one dog in a household and the strategies for lasting peace. Julie will be followed by Sarah Heath who will give us a similar story from the point of view of the cat, with particular emphasis on the varied and fascinating language of communication of felines. After lunch, the ever popular Dr John Bradshaw will give us an ethologists view of why well-armoured species like the cat and dog so rarely fight. Sandra Horn will then lead us through a fascinating discovery of our own body language used often without realisation with members of our own species. After tea, Ian Dunbar will tell us why dogs bite people and conflicts with our Pets can be avoided. Finally, the programme will end with what promises to be a lively and useful discussion between the audience and the panel of speakers. The APBC would like to extend a welcome for the sixth year to our symposium sponsors, the Waltham Centre for pet Nutrition. For over 30 years, Waltham, the worlds leading authority on pet car and nutrition, has been studying the nutritional science of pet foods and behavioural aspects of feeding and also the relationship that people enjoy with their pets. Such wide ranging studies provide the science behind so many well known pet food brands such as Whiskas and Pedigree. Programme 9.00 am Registration & Coffee 10.00 am Welcome Dr Roger Abrantes, DFcan.art, APBC=92s Advisor in Research and Education Matters. 10.05 am Coffee 11.30 am Problems in multi-dog households Julie Sellors, MAPBC, Centre Manager for Blue Cross. 12.10 pm Feline communications and conflicts Sarah Heath, BVSc, MRCVS, Veterinary Liaison Officer of the APBC. 12.40 pm Lunch 2.00 pm Why Animals so rarely fight: an ethologists view Dr John Bradshaw, Bsc, PhD, Anthrozoology Institute, University of Southampton, Advisor to APBC. 2.30 pm Body Language during consultations: the power of the unspoken Sandra Horn, BTechPsychol, SPsychol, DisClinPsych, SPBSsS,Physchology Dept.,University of Southampton. 3.15 pm Tea 3.40 pm Communication and conflict between dogs and their humans Dr Ian Dunbar. 4.40 pm Panel of speakers and discussion 5.00 pm Close --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Booking Form The Art of Being Sociable Name: Mr/Mrs/Ms ....................................................... Address ................................................................... .... ............................................ Postcode ..................... ... Tel: ..................................................................... ...... I would like to book ........................ ticket(s) to attend the Waltham APBC Symposium at: 29 pounds each (booked before 31st Jan) Discount group booking for 8 203 pounds 32 pounds (booked after 31st Jan) Discount group booking for 8 232 pounds Please make cheque payable to APBC Symposium and post to: Waltham APBC Symposium P O Box 46 Worcester WR8 9YS (APBC Tel: 01386 751151) Please complete details and enclose with payment Please give the name(s) of the delegate(s) below. These will then be made into name badges which will be given out at the symposium. ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... Please indicate the number of vegetarians in your group if applicable. Cancellations prior to 21st February are refundable subject to a 5 pounds administration fee. After 21st February, we regret that no refund can be given. The Venue The Hanover International Hotel & Club, Daventry, Ashby Road, Daventry, Northamptonshire, NN11 5SG Tel: 01327 30177 Fax: 01327 706313 The Hanover International Hotel & Club, Daventry is a spacious modern hotel centrally located and within easy striking distance of both the M40 and the M1, with ample parking and superb facilities. Although we are unable to accommodate dogs within the Symposium, for those who wish to bring their dog and leave it in the car, it may be useful to note that the hotel is opposite Drayton Water and close to Daventry Country Park. Delegates may wish to take advantage of the special rate available to Symposium delegates. The hotel offers the facilities of a Health and Leisure Club for overnight guests as well as the =91Cats Whiskers=92 night club for those who dare! Full details of the hotel, rates and facilities will be sent with all booking confirmations. By road: A361 - 1 mile North of Daventry By Rail: London Euston - Rugby 1 hour; Rugby - Daventry 20 mins. From: IN%"joseph.stookey@sask.usask.ca" 23-DEC-1996 09:42:49.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Polled cattle Dear All, The following message was sent to me and included a request to forward this to the Applied-ethology network. If anyone has additional information on this topic would you please respond. Thank you, Joe Stookey ====================================================================== > Dear Dr. Stookey, > I will be giving a short lecture on genetics of the polled gene to a > local breeders convention. I am looking for references about the welfare > and economic aspects of breeding for the polled phenotype. I would > particularly be interested to know about proposals or legislation about > dehorning cattle or transporting horned cattle. At the last ISAG > conference I heard rumors about the ECU discussing a ban on dehorning or > fines for transporting horned cattle. Any information or addresses would > be appreciated. Thank you. > Sincerely, > Mark Band > Volcani Animal Genetics > Israel > michar@indycc1.AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL From: IN%"joseph.stookey@sask.usask.ca" 24-DEC-1996 13:18:46.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: The "teacher" is important Dear All, I just read a fascinating article in the 1997 January issue of Natural History by Louis Lefebvre. I thought some of you may find this interesting if you have not heard of this before now. Dr. Lefebvre, an associate professor at McGill University, at Montreal, has conducted studies on the Zenaida dove (Zenaida aurita), one of the resident dove species on the tropical island of Barbados. (I could use a tropical island about now to flee this -35 C temperature!) Most of the island doves are extremely territorial. Lefebvre and his students trapped some of the wild doves (111 to be exact) and brought them into the laboratory to study their learning ability. If he places a wild territorial dove adjacent to a dove who is trained to lift an opaque lid covering the feed dish the naive dove doesn't learn the task. (Apparently, a common pigeon by watching a trained pigeon can learn to operate the feeding apparatus easier than learning by itself). Instead of learning, the naive dove paces nervously and acts oblivious to the information the trained dove is providing. However, if Lefebvre places a naive dove with a trained grackle as demonstrator "the difference is spectacular. The dove suddenly becomes interested in the feeding apparatus and solves the problem." The story is reversed if the researchers use doves that live near the grain storage facilities. These more social Zenaida doves learn from each other, but will not learn from grackles which are few and far between around the habor grain storage area. I found it interesting to consider that it is not enough to have a demonstrator to facilitate learning, but it must be a *relevant* demonstrator. I wonder if many of the experiments on socially facilitated learning in our domestic species took into account this phenomenon? For young animals perhaps tasks are easier to learn in the presence of adults then in the presence of similar aged conspecifics! It is something to think about! Anyway, I wish you all a joyful Christmas season and hope your new year is filled with fascinating and rewarding events. Joe ================================= Joseph M. Stookey Department of Herd Medicince and Theriogenology Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 Canada joseph.stookey@sask.usask.ca From: IN%"vuzv1@ms.anet.cz" "Marek Spinka" 27-DEC-1996 14:55:59.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE 97 final reminder: Deadline in 15 days! Dear all, Allow me to remind you that the deadline for submitting abstracts and returning reply forms for the 31th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology which will be held in Prague, August 13-16, 1997 is JANUARY 10, 1997 Below, I am including the electronic form of the First Announcement and Call for Abstracts which was mailed to all members of the ISAE in October. FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT RECEIVE THE FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS IN WRITTEN AND WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONGRESS. IF YOU WISH TO HAVE A PRESENTATION, please send your abstract, according to the instructions enclosed below. Indicate whether you wish to have a spoken paper or poster, and which session do you prefer. Please include your postal, fax and e-mail address in your message and indicate whether you prefer communicating by e-mail or fax. If you wish to participate WITHOUT A PRESENTATION, please send me a brief message stating "Add me to the ISAE 97 mailing list." Add your e-mail, fax and postal address. Sincerely, Marek Spinka *********************************************************** 1st announcement and Call for papers 31st International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology Prague, Czech Republic, 13-16 August 1997 Deadline 10 January 1997 Congress Site and Date Prague is considered by many to be among the finest cities in Europe. Despite its location in the geographical centre of the continent and many dramatic historical events, the town has never been destroyed during its 1100-year history. During the last 8 years, Prague has become a popular conference city. Prague has daily direct flight connections to most of major European cities, and to many overseas airports as well. It can be also easily approached by road or train. The congress accommodation and meeting rooms are in the Crystal Conference Centre, with a good public transport connection to any place in Prague. The date of the congress was chosen for 13-16th August in order to give the delegates the opportunity to visit also the International Ethological Congress in Vienna (18-25th August 1997) or the Congress of the Society for Animal Hygiene in Helsinki (17th-21st August 1997). Session Topics . Behaviour of Zoo Animals, including management, housing, man-animal relationship, behavioural problems and their solution. Invited speaker: Frans de Waal, Yerkes Regional Primate Centre, Atlanta, USA. . Behavioural Aspects of Domestication and Feralization, including semi- and newly domesticated species, feral animals, and any behavioural aspect of transfers of wild animals into captivity or captive animals to the wild. Invited speaker: Edward Price, University of California, Davis, USA. . Free Papers, including behavioural studies on farm, companion, and laboratory animals. Scope of the conference There will be 6 plenary presentations (40 minutes including discussion), 48 spoken presentations in two parallel streams, and a poster session which will be given ample time and space during the conference. The 60 minutes Wood-Gush Memorial Lecture will be given by Ilan Golani, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Events . Visits to the Safari Zoo in Dv r Kralove and to a "white" red deer park . Visit to Prague Zoo or Walk through Historical Prague . Congress Banquet followed by Folk Dancing . After-congress excursion to South Bohemia Pond Conservation Area Submission of Abstracts Papers can be submitted as oral presentations or posters on a form (available from the congress organisers) along with a 300 word abstract (to reach the Congress Secretariat no later than 10 January 1997). The preferred way of sending the abstracts is by e-mail. Please send the abstract to the two following addresses: VUZV1@MS.ANET.CZ and SPINKA@NOVELL.VUZV.CZ . ASCII text is suitable, if authors provide a character in brackets for each of the unconventional control commands. The legend for these characters should be enclosed by the author. E.g. (1)=superscript, (2)=degrees etc. Acceptance of Word or Wordperfect format would avoid the problem. Alternatively, abstracts can be sent in a printed form, by mail or fax. Four of the plenary talks will be selected by the scientific committee so that they fit the general interests as indicated by the offered papers. Authors who wish to offer a plenary presentation should indicate so on the form and submit an abstract of this talk, not exceeding 600 words, along with the abstract of their ordinary (spoken or poster) presentation. Authors will be informed about the acceptance of their offers in February 1997. Local Organizing Committee Marek Spinka, Gudrun Illmann, Ludek Bartos , and Zuzana Stetkova, Ethology Group, Research Institute of Animal Production, Prague, Czech Republic Lubor Kostal, Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Ivanka pri Dunaji, Slovakia Scientific Committee Paul Hemsworth, Victorian Animal Science Institute, Attwood, Australia (Chairman) Please address all correspondence to ISAE97, c/o Marek Spinka, Research Institute of Animal Production (VUZV), CZ-104 00 Praha 10 - Uhrineves, Czech Republic, phone +42 2 6771 0713, fax +42 2 6771 0779 or 6771 1448, e-mail VUZV1@MS.ANET.CZ. ------ Forwarded message ends here ------ From: IN%"vuzv1@ms.anet.cz" "Marek Spinka" 27-DEC-1996 14:56:00.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE 97 Abstracts / Safety measures during submission Dear all, In order to avoid problems during the transfer of your abstracts by email, please do the following: 1. Send the abstract to BOTH the following e-mail addresses: VUZV1@MS.ANET.CZ and SPINKA@NOVELL.VUZV.CZ 2. Send them, if possible, in two forms: as a text editor file (Word or WordPerfect for PC) and as a plain DOS text. Thank you for your cooperation. Wishing you peaceful Christmass time and a successful year 1997, and looking forward to see you in August in Prague, Sincerely, Marek From: IN%"appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk" "David Appleby" 28-DEC-1996 03:20:57.74 To: IN%"apbc4_um@ftech.net", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"bryden@wcpn.demon.co.uk" "WALTHAM-Bryden Stanley" CC: Subj: Date of Waltham/Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors Annual Symposium The date of the APBCs Annual Symposium was missed off of the last posting. Sorry for this oversight. Here it is again with the date of 1 March 1997. This information is also available at: WWW: http://webzone1.co.uk/www/apbc/symp97.htm Waltham/Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors Annual Symposium 1997 1 March 1997 The Art of Being Sociable Avoiding Conflict Through Communication The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors invites you to the 9th Annual Symposium. This years theme, *The Art of Being Sociable* promises to give a fascinating insight into how our pets communicate to avoid conflicts and how we can be better owners and practitioners by learning their strategies. With five superb speakers, including the world renowned and highly amusing Dr Ian Dunbar, and chaired by the very entertaining Dr Roger Abrantes, this symposium promises to be a delightful day of humour and learning. Ian Dunbar will begin with how dogs survive encounters with each other. He will tell us how to assess the severity of fighting problems, look for the antecedents of disputes and stress the importance of prevention. Julie Sellors will then tell us, from her wealth of practical experiences, about the difficulties of keeping more than one dog in a household and the strategies for lasting peace. Julie will be followed by Sarah Heath who will give us a similar story from the point of view of the cat, with particular emphasis on the varied and fascinating language of communication of felines. After lunch, the ever popular Dr John Bradshaw will give us an ethologists view of why well-armoured species like the cat and dog so rarely fight. Sandra Horn will then lead us through a fascinating discovery of our own body language used often without realisation with members of our own species. After tea, Ian Dunbar will tell us why dogs bite people and conflicts with our Pets can be avoided. Finally, the programme will end with what promises to be a lively and useful discussion between the audience and the panel of speakers. The APBC would like to extend a welcome for the sixth year to our symposium sponsors, the Waltham Centre for pet Nutrition. For over 30 years, Waltham, the worlds leading authority on pet care and nutrition, has been studying the nutritional science of pet foods and behavioural aspects of feeding and also the relationship that people enjoy with their pets. Such wide ranging studies provide the science behind so many well known pet food brands such as Whiskas and Pedigree. Programme 9.00 am Registration & Coffee 10.00 am Welcome Dr Roger Abrantes, DFcan.art, APBC member and the APBCs Advisor in Research and Education Matters. 10.05 am Coffee 11.30 am Problems in multi-dog households Julie Sellors, MAPBC, Centre Manager for Blue Cross. 12.10 pm Feline communications and conflicts Sarah Heath, BVSc, MRCVS, Veterinary Liaison Officer of the APBC. 12.40 pm Lunch 2.00 pm Why Animals so rarely fight: an ethologists view Dr John Bradshaw, Bsc, PhD, Anthrozoology Institute, University of Southampton, Advisor to APBC. 2.30 pm Body Language during consultations: the power of the unspoken Sandra Horn, BTechPsychol, SPsychol, DisClinPsych, SPBSsS,Physchology Dept.,University of Southampton. 3.15 pm Tea 3.40 pm Communication and conflict between dogs and their humans Dr Ian Dunbar. 4.40 pm Panel of speakers and discussion 5.00 pm Close --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Booking Form The Art of Being Sociable Name: Mr/Mrs/Ms ....................................................... Address ................................................................... ............................................ Postcode ..................... Tel: ..................................................................... I would like to book ........................ ticket(s) to attend the Waltham APBC Symposium at: 29 pounds each (booked before 31st Jan) Discount group booking for 8 203 pounds 32 pounds (booked after 31st Jan) Discount group booking for 8 232 pounds Please make cheque payable to APBC Symposium and post to: Waltham APBC Symposium P O Box 46 Worcester WR8 9YS (APBC Tel: 01386 751151) Please complete details and enclose with payment Please give the name(s) of the delegate(s) below. These will then be made into name badges which will be given out at the symposium. ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... Please indicate the number of vegetarians in your group if applicable. Cancellations prior to 21st February are refundable subject to a 5 pounds administration fee. After 21st February, we regret that no refund can be given. The Venue The Hanover International Hotel & Club, Daventry, Ashby Road, Daventry, Northamptonshire, NN11 5SG Tel: 01327 30177 Fax: 01327 706313 The Hanover International Hotel & Club, Daventry is a spacious modern hotel centrally located and within easy striking distance of both the M40 and the M1, with ample parking and superb facilities. Although we are unable to accommodate dogs within the Symposium, for those who wish to bring their dog and leave it in the car, it may be useful to note that the hotel is opposite Drayton Water and close to Daventry Country Park. Delegates may wish to take advantage of the special rate available to Symposium delegates. The hotel offers the facilities of a Health and Leisure Club for overnight guests as well as the =91Cats Whiskers=92 night club for those who dare! Full details of the hotel, rates and facilities will be sent with all booking confirmations. By road: A361 - 1 mile North of Daventry By Rail: London Euston - Rugby 1 hour; Rugby - Daventry 20 mins.