From: IN%"the_space_cowgirl@hotmail.com" "Becky O'Neill" 30-JAN-2007 18:34:38.96
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Ethology Programs
I am an undergrad at Idaho State University and I would like to go into
Ethology, Evolutionary Psychology, or Comparative Psychology. (undecided
between the three) However I am having trouble getting a good feel for
universty graduate programs from their websites alone. Does anyone here
have any advice on grad schools I should look into? I'm also curious what
sort of degree is best to get into the Ethology feild. I am currently split
down the middle credit-wise between a Zoology degree and a Psychology
degree. I can't pick which should be the major and which should be the
minor.
-Becky O'Neill
Undergraduate
Idaho State University
_________________________________________________________________
From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the
Academy Awards®
http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1
From: IN%"marine.bedoucha@wanadoo.fr" "Marine Cassoret" 30-JAN-2007 18:42:55.99
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Use of Animal Snares and aggression
Forwarded with permission.
You can respond to the list or by emailing Robert DeFranco directly, =20
I forwarded his email as his message bounced off.
Thank you,
Marine
-----------------------------------
Dear Colleagues,
I am conducting some forensic research on the use of restraining =20
animal snares (sometimes called =93snare polls=94 or =93catch polls=94 =
or =20
=93rabies polls=94) with dogs. These devices are usually used by animal =20=
control officers but are sometimes used by other animal handlers. I =20
am interested in learning if there is any scientific evidence that =20
would indicate that such devices could influence aggression.
Thank you.
Robert DeFranco, M.S., (Ph.D. in progress), B.C.C.A.B.
President
American College of Applied Science
123 Dream Pond Road
P.O. Box 825
Crescent City, FL 32112-0825 USA
U.S. Phone: 800-403-3347, ext 709
Phone from outside of the U.S. 407-574-3956
Fax: 386-698-3756
Email: rdefranco@amcollege.com
Web site: http://amcollege.com
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 1-FEB-2007 17:36:45.54
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in a
working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare facilities
(i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals).
The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller
groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the
questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
Gail
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
***********************************************
1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative
behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent?
2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's)
that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid
temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in animal
behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it be
an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific
things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog
was demonstrating these qualities?
5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should be
performed on, say, an annual basis?
From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 1-FEB-2007 18:13:52.06
To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Hi Gail
I feel that this is a tricky area. Temperament is a term about which
there are a whole heap of ideas about what it means and how it is
defined and measured - and often the definitions are closely linked to
the ways in which it is measured - and vice versa. Temperament, as I
understand it, is assessed through the ways in which animals respond to
new, challenging situations that generally incorporate novelty,
fear-inducing stimuli, perhaps social isolation (for social species) and
degrees of proximity to humans (for those animals that are generally
fearful of humans). It is comprised of a whole heap of different
aspects/facets (as illustrated by the components of the "tests"), some
of which (certainly in beef cattle - which are the animals I work with
mainly) are very difficult to change/modify (genetic) and others very
easily modified. Is temperament the same as "personality" (although I
personally think that term should be applied only to persons i.e.
humans) or individuality (my preferred term for non-human animals)? Are
these terms the same as "character"?
All of these things make it very difficult to answer the questions
below. I think you need to give consideration to you want "temperament"
defined, that it probably has multiple aspects, some of which are
relatively fixed and others changeable to varying degrees and, as a
consequence you may find that some of your questions can be easily
answered - or perhaps you might need to ask different questions.
Some thoughts for your consideration.
Carol
Carol Petherick
Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484
Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au
________________________________
From: Dr. Gail Golab [mailto:GGolab@avma.org]
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2007 9:36 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in a
working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare facilities
(i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals).
The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller
groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the
questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
Gail
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
***********************************************
1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative
behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent?
2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's)
that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid
temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in animal
behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it be
an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific
things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog
was demonstrating these qualities?
5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should be
performed on, say, an annual basis?
********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
(which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken
or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions
contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your computer system network.
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 1-FEB-2007 20:16:52.20
To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Thank you very much, Carol.
=20
Since we're dealing with animals in healthcare facilities, these are =
essentially "working" animals and we're mostly going to be looking at =
temperament in the context of animal stress and potential for human =
injury. The species we're principally worried about are dogs and cats, =
although rabbits might also come into play.
=20
Does this help narrow things down a bit?
=20
Gail
________________________________
From: Petherick, Carol [mailto:Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Thu 2/1/2007 6:13 PM
To: Dr. Gail Golab; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Hi Gail
I feel that this is a tricky area. Temperament is a term about which =
there are a whole heap of ideas about what it means and how it is =
defined and measured - and often the definitions are closely linked to =
the ways in which it is measured - and vice versa. Temperament, as I =
understand it, is assessed through the ways in which animals respond to =
new, challenging situations that generally incorporate novelty, =
fear-inducing stimuli, perhaps social isolation (for social species) and =
degrees of proximity to humans (for those animals that are generally =
fearful of humans). It is comprised of a whole heap of different =
aspects/facets (as illustrated by the components of the "tests"), some =
of which (certainly in beef cattle - which are the animals I work with =
mainly) are very difficult to change/modify (genetic) and others very =
easily modified. Is temperament the same as "personality" (although I =
personally think that term should be applied only to persons i.e. =
humans) or individuality (my preferred term for non-human animals)? Are =
these terms the same as "character"? =20
=20
All of these things make it very difficult to answer the questions =
below. I think you need to give consideration to you want "temperament" =
defined, that it probably has multiple aspects, some of which are =
relatively fixed and others changeable to varying degrees and, as a =
consequence you may find that some of your questions can be easily =
answered - or perhaps you might need to ask different questions.
=20
Some thoughts for your consideration.
=20
Carol=20
Carol Petherick=20
Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)=20
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries=20
Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484=20
Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au=20
=20
________________________________
From: Dr. Gail Golab [mailto:GGolab@avma.org]=20
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2007 9:36 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in a =
working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare facilities =
(i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals). =
The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller =
groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
=20
If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the =
questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be =
greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
=20
Gail
=20
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
=20
***********************************************
1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative =
behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent? =20
2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's) =
that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid =
temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in animal =
behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it be =
an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific =
things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog =
was demonstrating these qualities?
5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should be =
performed on, say, an annual basis?
********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages=20
(which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally=20
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity=20
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of=20
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken=20
or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions=20
contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions=20
of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received=20
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and=20
delete it from your computer system network.=09
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 1-FEB-2007 20:25:50.82
To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
On 1-Feb-07, at 8:13 PM, Petherick, Carol wrote:
> Is temperament the same as "personality" (although I
> personally think that term should be applied only to persons i.e.
> humans) or individuality (my preferred term for non-human
> animals)? Are
> these terms the same as "character"?
In psychology and recent ethology and neuroscience, personality is
often defined as temperament + character. This is an old but still
enduring and useful distinction (e.g., Cloninger, C. R. (1994).
Temperament and personality. Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 4,
266-273.).
Temperament is genetically determined, highly inherited, and
psychobiological theories of temperament are numerous.
Character is the part of personality that is influenced by the
development, the environment, education, etc.
See Cloninger (reference above) for a support of this distinction
from a neurobiological point of view.
~~~~~~
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology / Neuroscience Program
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Canid ethology & vertebrate neuroethology
http://web.mac.com/ysg/
International Ethology Conference 2007: iec2007.psychology.dal.ca
Email: iec2007@dal.ca
~~~~~~
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 1-FEB-2007 22:34:11.70
To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I don't really have any answers just some questions in response to your questions. Not in any particular order, just the order they popped into my head.
And though I know it won't sound that way, I really don't mean for it to seem adversarial I am just truly baffled.
~ Why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this? Are they done with all the medical problems they could be concerned with? Have they come up with a permanent solution to the overpopulation crisis that is the number one killer of dogs and cats?
~Regarding #5. How often is a licensed veterinarian retested? As in taking boards? After a certain age. On an annual basis? (And by the way is there any temperament testing involved at all? - LOL!) I ask this because interestingly enough I am on the BOD of a local Child Care Center that is trying to get a certain type of accreditation. The law in TN states that a day care worker needs to be 18 and know how to read and write. To get this special accreditation a high school diploma or GED is required. A (wonderful) teacher who had been there for 20 years could not pass the GED and so was fired. I gave the members of the board an abbreviated version of the GED test. Only one of then passed and then just barely - by one point. All of the board members have Masters Degrees or PhD's.
~Regarding #1,2,3, and 4. Again, why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this? This wheel has already been invented. It's being covered by the IAADP, TDI, AAT, Good Dog Foundation, Assistance Dogs International, Paws With A Cause and many many other well informed experienced groups. Why not leave it to them and focus on the medical part that is the AVMA? Invent a way to clean a dog or cats teeth without endangering it with anesthesia.
Go beyond heartworm and flea and tick treatment and invent a repellant instead.
~I guess I am just a bit confused on why the AVMA would concern themselves with this when there are so many medical things that need attention.
Respectfully,
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in a working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare facilities (i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals). The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
Gail
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
***********************************************
1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent?
2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's) that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in animal behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it be an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog was demonstrating these qualities?
5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should be performed on, say, an annual basis?
From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 2-FEB-2007 08:56:38.44
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca", IN%"phoenix_exotics@yahoogroups.com"
CC:
Subj: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
The Indiana DNR has approved hitting a coyote in the head to stun it and then, if it doesn't die, standing on it's chest to suffocate it.
I am looking for comments from vets. as to what is happening physically to this coyote in the minutes it takes the coyote to die.
These comments will be in an article I am planning for my next newsletter. Trappers in Indiana seem to have a blank check as to what they can do with coyotes, foxes and any other animals that they trap.
CeAnn
CeAnn Lambert
Indiana Coyote Rescue Center
www.coyoterescue.org
Please visit our gift shop @
www.cafepress.com/coyoterescue
From: IN%"thomas.sebastian@usask.ca" "Sebastian Thomas" 2-FEB-2007 09:20:27.74
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Temperament
Hi all,
We are working on beef cattle temperament in our lab.Though there has
been considerable research on the concept of animal temperament, it is
still obscure, as there is also no clarity about what we are measuring.
Behaviors such as escape, fearfulness, freezing, aggression, docility
(Burrow, 1997), and avoidance, alertness, boldness, hesitation,
environmental surveillance (Lyons, 1989) etc. are all suggested to be
attributes of animal temperament. Nervousness, skittishness, quietness,
excitability, individuality, libido, constitution and emotionality are
the terms used by Stricklin and Kautzscanavy (1984) to describe
temperament. I think the terms 'personality' and 'temperament' can be
used synonymously in animals as there is no 'character' as such in
animals.
Thomas sebatian
Behaviour lab
WCVM
From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 2-FEB-2007 09:27:14.72
To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca", IN%"phoenix_exotics@yahoogroups.com"
CC:
Subj: RE: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
Dear CeAnn,
A blow to the head is effectively the standard way of pre-slaughter
stunning that we use on millions of food animals every year. If done
correctly, and this is actually a skilled process, it renders the animal
almost instantly unconscious and insensible. If this was done to a coyote,
it would then not suffer from having its chest stood upon, unless it
regained consciousness. However, I have doubt that untrained people would
hit the coyote over the head with enough force and accuracy to render it
insensible immediately or for sufficient duration to suffocate it by
standing on its chest.
Please note these are not the comments of a vet.
Chris
--On 02 February 2007 06:56 -0800 Cecilia Lambert
wrote:
>
> The Indiana DNR has approved hitting a coyote in the head to stun it and
> then, if it doesn't die, standing on it's chest to suffocate it.
> I am looking for comments from vets. as to what is happening physically
> to this coyote in the minutes it takes the coyote to die.
> These comments will be in an article I am planning for my next
> newsletter. Trappers in Indiana seem to have a blank check as to what
> they can do with coyotes, foxes and any other animals that they trap.
> CeAnn
>
>
> 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%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com" 2-FEB-2007 09:43:20.80
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Since I haven't been active on this listserve for a while, I thought I
would answer this question as there may be many new people on the list
who are uninformed.
I don't understand why you appear baffled by Dr. Golab's questions.
Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare all along.
For instance, the moderator of this group, Dr. Stookey, is a professor
at a veterinary college. In fact the "usask.ca" from the above
address is actually the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the
University of Saskatchewan.
Gerry
Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
Diplomate, ACVB
gflannigan@triad.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Zen Trainer
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2007 11:34 pm
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
To: "Dr. Gail Golab"
Cc: Ethics List
> I don't really have any answers just some questions in response to
> your questions. Not in any particular order, just the order they
> popped into my head.
> And though I know it won't sound that way, I really don't mean
> for it to seem adversarial I am just truly baffled.
>
> ~ Why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this? Are they done
> with all the medical problems they could be concerned with? Have
> they come up with a permanent solution to the overpopulation
> crisis that is the number one killer of dogs and cats?
The AVMA is concerned with a number of welfare issues.
> ~Regarding #5. How often is a licensed veterinarian retested? As
> in taking boards? After a certain age. On an annual basis? (And by
> the way is there any temperament testing involved at all? - LOL!)
> I ask this because interestingly enough I am on the BOD of a local
> Child Care Center that is trying to get a certain type of
> accreditation. The law in TN states that a day care worker needs
> to be 18 and know how to read and write. To get this special
> accreditation a high school diploma or GED is required. A
> (wonderful) teacher who had been there for 20 years could not pass
> the GED and so was fired. I gave the members of the board an
> abbreviated version of the GED test. Only one of then passed and
> then just barely - by one point. All of the board members have
> Masters Degrees or PhD's.
> ~Regarding #1,2,3, and 4. Again, why is the AVMA concerning
> themselves with this? This wheel has already been invented. It's
> being covered by the IAADP, TDI, AAT, Good Dog Foundation,
> Assistance Dogs International, Paws With A Cause and many many
> other well informed experienced groups. Why not leave it to them
> and focus on the medical part that is the AVMA? Invent a way to
> clean a dog or cats teeth without endangering it with anesthesia.
> Go beyond heartworm and flea and tick treatment and invent a
> repellant instead.
>
> ~I guess I am just a bit confused on why the AVMA would concern
> themselves with this when there are so many medical things that
> need attention.
>
> Respectfully,
> Tracy B Ann
> www.zenpaws.com
> "The Politics of Dogs"
> www.radiofreenashville.org
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 2-FEB-2007 09:58:10.20
To: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Dear Tracy,
Veterinarians regularly serve as consultants to these programs,
particularly in terms of animal selection, zoonotic disease control, and
the welfare of the animals involved. We provide member services and that
includes guidance for these veterinarians. Basic guidelines from the
AVMA for development and management of these programs have existed for
almost a decade and a corresponding set of wellness guidelines and a
wellness packet have existed for almost as long. In addition, the Delta
Society, a major player in the animal-assisted activity and therapy
field, was actually founded by Dr. Leo Bustad, a late dean of the
Washington State College of Veterinary Medicine, in cooperation with
members of the AVMA's Committee on the Human-Animal Bond. Ergo, we have
a VERY long history of having worked in this area. Many of my veterinary
colleges who work in the human-animal bond field have been involved with
various animal-assisted activity, therapy, and resident animals
programs, consulting with administrators of long-term care and hospital
facilities for related animal management and infection control for at
least a couple of decades. I, myself, have consulted for many of these
programs for more than 15 years.
I'm not sure precisely what the point of your question regarding
credentialing of veterinarians is, but we are licensed professionals who
take a national board examination and who are also then subject to the
licensing requirements of the various states. Some states have an
additional licensing examination (above and beyond the national
examination) and virtually all require that veterinarians provide
evidence that they have completed continuing education on a regular
basis. Colleges of Veterinary Medicine are accredited and foreign
veterinary graduates must show educational equivalency before they can
be considered for licensing in the United States.
This isn't a question of reinventing a wheel. What we are involved in is
an effort that was initiated in Canada by a group of individuals who
were concerned about the lack of standardization and guidance in these
programs. We've had similar concerns here in the United States. This is
a multidisciplinary concern and our present working group reflects its
multidisciplinary nature by including veterinarians, animal
behaviorists, representatives of various animal-assisted activity and
therapy programs, physicians, nurses, infection control specialists, and
public health officials (Canadian health ministry and CDC). The
questions I posed are simply one part of a comprehensive effort to do
what we can to ensure that the people and animals involved in these
programs derive as much benefit as possible from them and are protected
from harm at the same time.
Regards,
Gail
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
________________________________
From: Zen Trainer [mailto:ZenTrainer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:34 PM
To: Dr. Gail Golab
Cc: Ethics List
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I don't really have any answers just some questions in response to your
questions. Not in any particular order, just the order they popped into
my head.
And though I know it won't sound that way, I really don't mean for it
to seem adversarial I am just truly baffled.
~ Why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this? Are they done with
all the medical problems they could be concerned with? Have they come up
with a permanent solution to the overpopulation crisis that is the
number one killer of dogs and cats?
~Regarding #5. How often is a licensed veterinarian retested? As in
taking boards? After a certain age. On an annual basis? (And by the way
is there any temperament testing involved at all? - LOL!) I ask this
because interestingly enough I am on the BOD of a local Child Care
Center that is trying to get a certain type of accreditation. The law in
TN states that a day care worker needs to be 18 and know how to read and
write. To get this special accreditation a high school diploma or GED is
required. A (wonderful) teacher who had been there for 20 years could
not pass the GED and so was fired. I gave the members of the board an
abbreviated version of the GED test. Only one of then passed and then
just barely - by one point. All of the board members have Masters
Degrees or PhD's.
~Regarding #1,2,3, and 4. Again, why is the AVMA concerning themselves
with this? This wheel has already been invented. It's being covered by
the IAADP, TDI, AAT, Good Dog Foundation, Assistance Dogs International,
Paws With A Cause and many many other well informed experienced groups.
Why not leave it to them and focus on the medical part that is the AVMA?
Invent a way to clean a dog or cats teeth without endangering it with
anesthesia.
Go beyond heartworm and flea and tick treatment and invent a repellant
instead.
~I guess I am just a bit confused on why the AVMA would concern
themselves with this when there are so many medical things that need
attention.
Respectfully,
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical
Association in a working group developing guidelines for animals in
healthcare facilities (i.e., animal-assisted activity and
animal-assisted therapy animals). The effort has been going quite well
and now we've split into smaller groups of people to solidify the
various pieces of the document.
If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the
questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
Gail
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
***********************************************
1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a
negative behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more
frequent?
2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta
Society's) that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a
valid temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in
animal behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can
it be an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What
specific things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat
or dog was demonstrating these qualities?
5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting
should be performed on, say, an annual basis?
From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 2-FEB-2007 10:05:26.95
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
"Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare all along."
This is far from true. Vets were primarily technicians helping farmers
maintain their stock long prior to some vets becoming concerned about
welfare.
Today it's hit and miss. Many vets are clearly dedicated to the welfare,
dare I say even the rights of animals. Others are clearly still much more
concerned with the interests of owners and industries using animals.
The continuing conflict between the AVMA and AVAR frequently brings the
tension between animals' and economic interests to the fore, with vets on
both sides.
Rick Bogle
Madison, WI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com [mailto:GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
>
>
> Since I haven't been active on this listserve for a while, I thought I
> would answer this question as there may be many new people on the list
> who are uninformed.
>
> I don't understand why you appear baffled by Dr. Golab's questions.
> Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare all along.
> For instance, the moderator of this group, Dr. Stookey, is a professor
> at a veterinary college. In fact the "usask.ca" from the above
> address is actually the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the
> University of Saskatchewan.
>
> Gerry
>
> Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
> Diplomate, ACVB
> gflannigan@triad.rr.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Zen Trainer
> Date: Thursday, February 1, 2007 11:34 pm
> Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
> To: "Dr. Gail Golab"
> Cc: Ethics List
>
> > I don't really have any answers just some questions in response to
> > your questions. Not in any particular order, just the order they
> > popped into my head.
> > And though I know it won't sound that way, I really don't mean
> > for it to seem adversarial I am just truly baffled.
> >
> > ~ Why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this? Are they done
> > with all the medical problems they could be concerned with? Have
> > they come up with a permanent solution to the overpopulation
> > crisis that is the number one killer of dogs and cats?
>
> The AVMA is concerned with a number of welfare issues.
>
> > ~Regarding #5. How often is a licensed veterinarian retested? As
> > in taking boards? After a certain age. On an annual basis? (And by
> > the way is there any temperament testing involved at all? - LOL!)
> > I ask this because interestingly enough I am on the BOD of a local
> > Child Care Center that is trying to get a certain type of
> > accreditation. The law in TN states that a day care worker needs
> > to be 18 and know how to read and write. To get this special
> > accreditation a high school diploma or GED is required. A
> > (wonderful) teacher who had been there for 20 years could not pass
> > the GED and so was fired. I gave the members of the board an
> > abbreviated version of the GED test. Only one of then passed and
> > then just barely - by one point. All of the board members have
> > Masters Degrees or PhD's.
>
> > ~Regarding #1,2,3, and 4. Again, why is the AVMA concerning
> > themselves with this? This wheel has already been invented. It's
> > being covered by the IAADP, TDI, AAT, Good Dog Foundation,
> > Assistance Dogs International, Paws With A Cause and many many
> > other well informed experienced groups. Why not leave it to them
> > and focus on the medical part that is the AVMA? Invent a way to
> > clean a dog or cats teeth without endangering it with anesthesia.
> > Go beyond heartworm and flea and tick treatment and invent a
> > repellant instead.
> >
> > ~I guess I am just a bit confused on why the AVMA would concern
> > themselves with this when there are so many medical things that
> > need attention.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Tracy B Ann
> > www.zenpaws.com
> > "The Politics of Dogs"
> > www.radiofreenashville.org
>
>
>
From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 2-FEB-2007 10:14:11.05
To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Hi Gail and others,
What about thinking about a qualitative systems for asssessing temperament
such as developed by Franscoise Wemelsfelder for assessing animal behavior
and welfare?
Temperament is tricky, but there is evidence that certain measures of it are
quite repeatable over time. Whether those measures tell you all you need to
know about an animal is another story.
Gail, are you planning to collect data on any assessments you do and compare
the findings to how the animal does over time in the facilities? The
consensus among the posts seems to be that we haven't done enough research
here yet--so it would be great to see more coming with such applied
possibilities.
Also, if you are interested--we did validate in a lab setting a cat
temperament test. We repeated the test 4 times (starting with 11 month old
cats, twice in the facility and 3 and 6 months after adoption) and found the
measures very reliable over time. The test also correlated well with
standard behavioral test results such as human approach and open field
tests. The test was based on a test developed to assess animals who would be
living in residential nursing homes.
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
Petherick, Carol writes:
> Hi Gail
> I feel that this is a tricky area. Temperament is a term about which
> there are a whole heap of ideas about what it means and how it is
> defined and measured - and often the definitions are closely linked to
> the ways in which it is measured - and vice versa. Temperament, as I
> understand it, is assessed through the ways in which animals respond to
> new, challenging situations that generally incorporate novelty,
> fear-inducing stimuli, perhaps social isolation (for social species) and
> degrees of proximity to humans (for those animals that are generally
> fearful of humans). It is comprised of a whole heap of different
> aspects/facets (as illustrated by the components of the "tests"), some
> of which (certainly in beef cattle - which are the animals I work with
> mainly) are very difficult to change/modify (genetic) and others very
> easily modified. Is temperament the same as "personality" (although I
> personally think that term should be applied only to persons i.e.
> humans) or individuality (my preferred term for non-human animals)? Are
> these terms the same as "character"?
>
> All of these things make it very difficult to answer the questions
> below. I think you need to give consideration to you want "temperament"
> defined, that it probably has multiple aspects, some of which are
> relatively fixed and others changeable to varying degrees and, as a
> consequence you may find that some of your questions can be easily
> answered - or perhaps you might need to ask different questions.
>
> Some thoughts for your consideration.
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> Carol Petherick
> Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)
> Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
> Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484
> Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dr. Gail Golab [mailto:GGolab@avma.org]
> Sent: Friday, 2 February 2007 9:36 AM
> To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
> Subject: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
>
>
>
> I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in a
> working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare facilities
> (i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals).
> The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller
> groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
>
>
>
> If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the
> questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be
> greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
>
>
>
> Gail
>
>
>
> Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
>
> Associate Director, Animal Welfare
>
> AVMA
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
>
> 1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative
> behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent?
>
> 2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's)
> that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
>
> 3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid
> temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in animal
> behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it be
> an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
>
> 4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific
> things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog
> was demonstrating these qualities?
>
> 5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should be
> performed on, say, an annual basis?
>
> ********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
> The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
> (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity
> to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of
> disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken
> or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions
> contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received
> this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete it from your computer system network.
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%"SBowers@rfmd.com" "Sue Bowers" 2-FEB-2007 10:40:05.63
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
To add to that, and with all due respect...until the day veterinarians in general stop pushing inappropriate canine/feline diets like 'Science Diet' upon customers, it is hard to argue that "animal welfare" is Priority #1.
~Sue
________________________________
From: Rick Bogle [mailto:rbogle@sonic.net]
--
"Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare all along."
This is far from true. Vets were primarily technicians helping farmers
maintain their stock long prior to some vets becoming concerned about
welfare.
Today it's hit and miss.
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 2-FEB-2007 10:41:08.45
To: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Thanks for your response, Janice. In our perfect world we'd be
referencing well-validated tests...unfortunately, those appear to be
relatively few.
Since this is an advisory effort on AVMA's part, we won't be directly
involved in the visits themselves and therefore won't have the
opportunity to collect data. Certainly, however, the lack of quality
data has been raised during our discussions so hopefully there will be
impetus for some data collection among those actually applying the
guidelines (and there are some of those in this working group).
I would be interested in any validated temperament testing protocols you
have available, so if you can share your cat temperament test, that
would be most appreciated (was it published?). I'd also be interested in
a reference to the assessment protocol on which your test was based
(i.e., the test assessing animals for residential placement).
-----Original Message-----
From: Janice M Siegford [mailto:siegford@msu.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:14 AM
To: Dr. Gail Golab
Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Hi Gail and others,
What about thinking about a qualitative systems for asssessing
temperament
such as developed by Franscoise Wemelsfelder for assessing animal
behavior
and welfare?
Temperament is tricky, but there is evidence that certain measures of it
are
quite repeatable over time. Whether those measures tell you all you need
to
know about an animal is another story.
Gail, are you planning to collect data on any assessments you do and
compare
the findings to how the animal does over time in the facilities? The
consensus among the posts seems to be that we haven't done enough
research
here yet--so it would be great to see more coming with such applied
possibilities.
Also, if you are interested--we did validate in a lab setting a cat
temperament test. We repeated the test 4 times (starting with 11 month
old
cats, twice in the facility and 3 and 6 months after adoption) and found
the
measures very reliable over time. The test also correlated well with
standard behavioral test results such as human approach and open field
tests. The test was based on a test developed to assess animals who
would be
living in residential nursing homes.
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
Petherick, Carol writes:
> Hi Gail
> I feel that this is a tricky area. Temperament is a term about which
> there are a whole heap of ideas about what it means and how it is
> defined and measured - and often the definitions are closely linked to
> the ways in which it is measured - and vice versa. Temperament, as I
> understand it, is assessed through the ways in which animals respond
to
> new, challenging situations that generally incorporate novelty,
> fear-inducing stimuli, perhaps social isolation (for social species)
and
> degrees of proximity to humans (for those animals that are generally
> fearful of humans). It is comprised of a whole heap of different
> aspects/facets (as illustrated by the components of the "tests"), some
> of which (certainly in beef cattle - which are the animals I work with
> mainly) are very difficult to change/modify (genetic) and others very
> easily modified. Is temperament the same as "personality" (although I
> personally think that term should be applied only to persons i.e.
> humans) or individuality (my preferred term for non-human animals)?
Are
> these terms the same as "character"?
>
> All of these things make it very difficult to answer the questions
> below. I think you need to give consideration to you want
"temperament"
> defined, that it probably has multiple aspects, some of which are
> relatively fixed and others changeable to varying degrees and, as a
> consequence you may find that some of your questions can be easily
> answered - or perhaps you might need to ask different questions.
>
> Some thoughts for your consideration.
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> Carol Petherick
> Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)
> Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
> Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484
> Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dr. Gail Golab [mailto:GGolab@avma.org]
> Sent: Friday, 2 February 2007 9:36 AM
> To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
> Subject: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
>
>
>
> I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in
a
> working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare
facilities
> (i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals).
> The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller
> groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
>
>
>
> If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the
> questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be
> greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
>
>
>
> Gail
>
>
>
> Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
>
> Associate Director, Animal Welfare
>
> AVMA
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
>
> 1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative
> behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent?
>
> 2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's)
> that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
>
> 3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid
> temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in
animal
> behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it
be
> an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
>
> 4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific
> things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog
> was demonstrating these qualities?
>
> 5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should
be
> performed on, say, an annual basis?
>
> ********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
> The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
> (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity
> to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of
> disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken
> or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions
> contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received
> this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete it from your computer system network.
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%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 2-FEB-2007 10:51:59.74
To: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I'm going to have to support Dr. Flannigan in his statement.
Veterinarians, irrespective of where they work or for whom, spend every
day worrying about the animals under their care and thereby contribute
to their welfare. Some do it by their hands-on efforts, others do it
through research on animal needs and responses, others teach, and still
others do it by working in the public policy arena.
I think it's important not to confuse veterinarian's contributions to
ensuring animal welfare with societal decisions about animal use and
care. As members of society, veterinarians contribute to those decisions
(and are looked to do so because of their expertise), but they do not
make them by themselves...nor does any other single group. Ethics,
religion, political motivations, economics...all of these have (and
likely always will) played a role when societies decide what is or is
not appropriate animal use. Like any group of people on any issue,
veterinarians will vary in their interpretation of what constitutes
appropriate animal use and care.
If we're really concerned about animal welfare, then we should focus on
the issue at hand and not the players. In that respect, does anyone else
want to provide me with some assistance as regards my original
questions?
My sincere thanks to those who have done so already by the way...some
on- and some off-list.
Gail
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Bogle [mailto:rbogle@sonic.net]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:07 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
--
"Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare all along."
This is far from true. Vets were primarily technicians helping farmers
maintain their stock long prior to some vets becoming concerned about
welfare.
Today it's hit and miss. Many vets are clearly dedicated to the welfare,
dare I say even the rights of animals. Others are clearly still much
more
concerned with the interests of owners and industries using animals.
The continuing conflict between the AVMA and AVAR frequently brings the
tension between animals' and economic interests to the fore, with vets
on
both sides.
Rick Bogle
Madison, WI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com [mailto:GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
>
>
> Since I haven't been active on this listserve for a while, I thought I
> would answer this question as there may be many new people on the list
> who are uninformed.
>
> I don't understand why you appear baffled by Dr. Golab's questions.
> Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare all along.
> For instance, the moderator of this group, Dr. Stookey, is a professor
> at a veterinary college. In fact the "usask.ca" from the above
> address is actually the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the
> University of Saskatchewan.
>
> Gerry
>
> Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
> Diplomate, ACVB
> gflannigan@triad.rr.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Zen Trainer
> Date: Thursday, February 1, 2007 11:34 pm
> Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
> To: "Dr. Gail Golab"
> Cc: Ethics List
>
> > I don't really have any answers just some questions in response to
> > your questions. Not in any particular order, just the order they
> > popped into my head.
> > And though I know it won't sound that way, I really don't mean
> > for it to seem adversarial I am just truly baffled.
> >
> > ~ Why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this? Are they done
> > with all the medical problems they could be concerned with? Have
> > they come up with a permanent solution to the overpopulation
> > crisis that is the number one killer of dogs and cats?
>
> The AVMA is concerned with a number of welfare issues.
>
> > ~Regarding #5. How often is a licensed veterinarian retested? As
> > in taking boards? After a certain age. On an annual basis? (And by
> > the way is there any temperament testing involved at all? - LOL!)
> > I ask this because interestingly enough I am on the BOD of a local
> > Child Care Center that is trying to get a certain type of
> > accreditation. The law in TN states that a day care worker needs
> > to be 18 and know how to read and write. To get this special
> > accreditation a high school diploma or GED is required. A
> > (wonderful) teacher who had been there for 20 years could not pass
> > the GED and so was fired. I gave the members of the board an
> > abbreviated version of the GED test. Only one of then passed and
> > then just barely - by one point. All of the board members have
> > Masters Degrees or PhD's.
>
> > ~Regarding #1,2,3, and 4. Again, why is the AVMA concerning
> > themselves with this? This wheel has already been invented. It's
> > being covered by the IAADP, TDI, AAT, Good Dog Foundation,
> > Assistance Dogs International, Paws With A Cause and many many
> > other well informed experienced groups. Why not leave it to them
> > and focus on the medical part that is the AVMA? Invent a way to
> > clean a dog or cats teeth without endangering it with anesthesia.
> > Go beyond heartworm and flea and tick treatment and invent a
> > repellant instead.
> >
> > ~I guess I am just a bit confused on why the AVMA would concern
> > themselves with this when there are so many medical things that
> > need attention.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Tracy B Ann
> > www.zenpaws.com
> > "The Politics of Dogs"
> > www.radiofreenashville.org
>
>
>
From: IN%"LyndhurstPark@aol.com" 2-FEB-2007 11:12:12.69
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Opinions
This forum nearly imploded last year, and if it was not for the foresight o=
f=20
Dr. Stookey this extremely valuable avenue of resource would have been=20
closed. The main core of the discord was that we had moved away from the re=
mit of=20
the forum into what was for some, a platform from where they could express=20
derogatory opinions on others.
=20
I'm beginning to feel a bit of a d=E9j=E0 vu coming along. Can we please br=
idle=20
ourselves from proffering uncomplimentary views on any given clinical=20
profession or body. If we cannot facilitate a fellow practitioners request=20=
for=20
direction or assistance, then its not really appropriate to inaugurate a 'v=
erbal=20
slugging' match based on individual bias. Such remarks should be vented in=20
other mediums.=20
=20
Lets keep this much needed forum for what Dr Stookey intended for - the =20
cross fertilisation of clinical knowledge and experience from clinicians and=
pra
ctitioners world-wide.
=20
Thank you
=20
Gordon Butcher
UK
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 2-FEB-2007 12:02:41.82
To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
Oh no, I did not mean to imply that at all. I thought your post was right on target. It just reminded me fondly of Dr. Schoen. It also reminded me of how often these days we ask the wrong question. As in the original question posed about assistance dogs. I will still stand by original question of why is the AVMA involving themselves when there are so many medical issues they could concern themselves with?
If the list implodes the list implodes. It has been silent for some time now as the clinical purists started their own list that excludes many of us who actually work in the field.
There was a 5 point question asked and my answer was that the question had already been answered. Perhaps the politically correct thing to do would be to go ahead and give the answers to those questions (which are commonly known in the assistance dog world), but that seemed silly to me and unproductive.
Trying to push the AVMA in a more productive and medical direction (which is what the M stands for) seemed more useful, not that I have that power.
And for the poster who stated the AVMA is moving in a more holistic direction, I had to laugh at that. I think their recent guidelines against any kind of holistic medicine prove that that is not their direction at all.
I have learned with age to follow the money. When I can't figure out why something is happening I follow the money trail. I believe if the AVMA has it's way an assistance dog will cost $10,000 to $20,000 dollars much like some service dogs do today. They will cut out dog trainers like myself who train assistance dogs and disabled folks who train their own. Hopefully the ADA will step on before that happens and many people who need assistance dogs are left without them due to the cost.
Just following the money trail here....
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
Dear Tracy,
I agree with you entirely about why should a coyote be killed, but that was
not the question posted. Please do not interpret my answer as suggesting I
believe animals do not feel pain - nothing could be further from the truth.
Chris
>
>
> This reminds me of when Dr. Allen Schoen was in veterinarian school and
> questioned the treatment of animals and was told they feel no pain. When
> he was asked why they made the noises that could be interpreted as pain,
> he was told that animals were mechanisms like clocks and that clocks
> tick.
>
> I found the original question quite amusing. As often these days we argue
> the wrong points. Instead of arguing the best way to kill a coyote maybe
> the question should be why kill a coyote at all?
> Tracy B Ann
> www.zenpaws.com
> "The Politics of Dogs"
> www.radiofreenashville.org
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 2-FEB-2007 12:03:56.97
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Zen Trainer=20
To: Dr. Gail Golab=20
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I was not questioning any vet in particular, forgive me if it sounded =
that way. I was questioning the institution that is the AVMA. I was =
doubting their motives and their sometimes questionable practices. If =
they truly were at the forefront of animal welfare and concern, why are =
we killing 400 dogs a week here in Nashville due to overpopulation? Why =
is unhealthy dog food being made (with a vet at every manufacturing =
company) and a ton of other examples I could give.
Every time we here in TN try to do something to curb the =
overpopulation problem we hit a brick wall built by the TN Veterinarian =
Association. The head of of this organization being a vet who also =
happens to be a breeder. You'll have to forgive my distrust of large =
organizations made up of vets.
My point about a vets credentials is that you asked the questions =
should a dog be retested each year. My questions was do vets get tested =
each year?
These dogs aren't performing rocket science, they are walking into a =
hospital to provide a simple service.
Forgive my cynicism but I don't think the AVMA is concerned about a =
lack of standardization and guidance, as always, I believe they are =
worried about a loss of control and the possibility of missing out on =
money.
They did the same thing when they excluded acupuncturists, =
chiropractors, and homeopaths from their guidelines. Without having any =
acupuncturists, chiropractors or homeopaths on the committee that =
decided this. (Their conclusion is the total opposite of what the AMA =
came up with by the way.)
They are doing the same now as they try to regulate dog training and =
effectively put dog trainers out of business.
In your last paragraph I wonder do you have any dog trainers involved =
in your group? (We are the ones who generally train service and =
assistance dogs) Any disabled folks who have trained their own dogs?
I don't buy the infection control aspect. I have seen and smelled some =
pretty dangerous (infection wise) people in hospitals and they were =
allowed to move about freely. It's a bit like no dogs in restaurants in =
the USA. In Europe dog are in eateries. Are people dropping like flies =
from infection?
I did just a quick search of assistance dogs groups and they seem very =
standardized and well organized to me. Somehow I doubt that they asked =
for guidance from the AVMA.
My only hope is that you are involved Dr. Golab, as you have always =
seemed like a voice of reason to me. It's just a shame that the AVMA =
couldn't put you in charge of something medical that might actually help =
dogs!
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org =20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Dr. Gail Golab=20
To: Zen Trainer=20
Cc: Ethics List=20
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare =
Facilities
Dear Tracy,
=20
Veterinarians regularly serve as consultants to these programs, =
particularly in terms of animal selection, zoonotic disease control, and =
the welfare of the animals involved. We provide member services and that =
includes guidance for these veterinarians. Basic guidelines from the =
AVMA for development and management of these programs have existed for =
almost a decade and a corresponding set of wellness guidelines and a =
wellness packet have existed for almost as long. In addition, the Delta =
Society, a major player in the animal-assisted activity and therapy =
field, was actually founded by Dr. Leo Bustad, a late dean of the =
Washington State College of Veterinary Medicine, in cooperation with =
members of the AVMA's Committee on the Human-Animal Bond. Ergo, we have =
a VERY long history of having worked in this area. Many of my veterinary =
colleges who work in the human-animal bond field have been involved with =
various animal-assisted activity, therapy, and resident animals =
programs, consulting with administrators of long-term care and hospital =
facilities for related animal management and infection control for at =
least a couple of decades. I, myself, have consulted for many of these =
programs for more than 15 years.
=20
I'm not sure precisely what the point of your question regarding =
credentialing of veterinarians is, but we are licensed professionals who =
take a national board examination and who are also then subject to the =
licensing requirements of the various states. Some states have an =
additional licensing examination (above and beyond the national =
examination) and virtually all require that veterinarians provide =
evidence that they have completed continuing education on a regular =
basis. Colleges of Veterinary Medicine are accredited and foreign =
veterinary graduates must show educational equivalency before they can =
be considered for licensing in the United States.
=20
This isn't a question of reinventing a wheel. What we are involved =
in is an effort that was initiated in Canada by a group of individuals =
who were concerned about the lack of standardization and guidance in =
these programs. We've had similar concerns here in the United States. =
This is a multidisciplinary concern and our present working group =
reflects its multidisciplinary nature by including veterinarians, animal =
behaviorists, representatives of various animal-assisted activity and =
therapy programs, physicians, nurses, infection control specialists, and =
public health officials (Canadian health ministry and CDC). The =
questions I posed are simply one part of a comprehensive effort to do =
what we can to ensure that the people and animals involved in these =
programs derive as much benefit as possible from them and are protected =
from harm at the same time.
=20
Regards,
=20
Gail
=20
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 2-FEB-2007 12:04:46.24
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: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
Hmmmmm.... the politics of the veterinary profession - we have some similar
issues here in the UK too.
Chris
--On 02 February 2007 12:02 -0600 Zen Trainer
wrote:
>
>
> Oh no, I did not mean to imply that at all. I thought your post was right
> on target. It just reminded me fondly of Dr. Schoen. It also reminded me
> of how often these days we ask the wrong question. As in the original
> question posed about assistance dogs. I will still stand by original
> question of why is the AVMA involving themselves when there are so many
> medical issues they could concern themselves with?
>
> If the list implodes the list implodes. It has been silent for some time
> now as the clinical purists started their own list that excludes many of
> us who actually work in the field.
>
> There was a 5 point question asked and my answer was that the question
> had already been answered. Perhaps the politically correct thing to do
> would be to go ahead and give the answers to those questions (which are
> commonly known in the assistance dog world), but that seemed silly to me
> and unproductive.
>
> Trying to push the AVMA in a more productive and medical direction (which
> is what the M stands for) seemed more useful, not that I have that power.
>
> And for the poster who stated the AVMA is moving in a more holistic
> direction, I had to laugh at that. I think their recent guidelines
> against any kind of holistic medicine prove that that is not their
> direction at all.
>
> I have learned with age to follow the money. When I can't figure out why
> something is happening I follow the money trail. I believe if the AVMA
> has it's way an assistance dog will cost $10,000 to $20,000 dollars much
> like some service dogs do today. They will cut out dog trainers like
> myself who train assistance dogs and disabled folks who train their own.
> Hopefully the ADA will step on before that happens and many people who
> need assistance dogs are left without them due to the cost.
>
> Just following the money trail here....
> Tracy B Ann
> www.zenpaws.com
> "The Politics of Dogs"
> www.radiofreenashville.org
>
>
>
>
> Dear Tracy,
> I agree with you entirely about why should a coyote be killed, but that
> was
> not the question posted. Please do not interpret my answer as suggesting
> I
> believe animals do not feel pain - nothing could be further from the
> truth.
>
> Chris
>
>
>>
>>
>> This reminds me of when Dr. Allen Schoen was in veterinarian school and
>> questioned the treatment of animals and was told they feel no pain. When
>> he was asked why they made the noises that could be interpreted as pain,
>> he was told that animals were mechanisms like clocks and that clocks
>> tick.
>>
>> I found the original question quite amusing. As often these days we argue
>> the wrong points. Instead of arguing the best way to kill a coyote maybe
>> the question should be why kill a coyote at all?
>> Tracy B Ann
>> www.zenpaws.com
>> "The Politics of Dogs"
>> www.radiofreenashville.org
>>
>>
>
----------------------
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" 2-FEB-2007 12:25:15.68
To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Spam: Re: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
Bringing animals into healthcare facilities includes elements of animal
health, animal behavior, human health and human behavior. As regards
AVMA's involvement, veterinarians (and hence the AVMA) play important
roles in ensuring positive outcomes with respect to the first three of
the four elements; therefore, the AVMA's involvement in this issue is
entirely appropriate and is not new (reference my previous comments on
the origins of the Delta Society and the AVMA's related efforts).
I wanted to provide an opportunity for those with expertise and an
interest to provide input and to make sure I was able to bring quality
information back to the table. Some of you have taken advantage of that
opportunity and been extremely helpful. For that I'm tremendously
grateful, as are the other members of our working group. Thank you!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry
[mailto:Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:05 PM
To: Zen Trainer; CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry
Cc: Ethics List
Subject: Spam: Re: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
Hmmmmm.... the politics of the veterinary profession - we have some
similar
issues here in the UK too.
Chris
--On 02 February 2007 12:02 -0600 Zen Trainer
wrote:
>
>
> Oh no, I did not mean to imply that at all. I thought your post was
right
> on target. It just reminded me fondly of Dr. Schoen. It also reminded
me
> of how often these days we ask the wrong question. As in the original
> question posed about assistance dogs. I will still stand by original
> question of why is the AVMA involving themselves when there are so
many
> medical issues they could concern themselves with?
>
> If the list implodes the list implodes. It has been silent for some
time
> now as the clinical purists started their own list that excludes many
of
> us who actually work in the field.
>
> There was a 5 point question asked and my answer was that the question
> had already been answered. Perhaps the politically correct thing to do
> would be to go ahead and give the answers to those questions (which
are
> commonly known in the assistance dog world), but that seemed silly to
me
> and unproductive.
>
> Trying to push the AVMA in a more productive and medical direction
(which
> is what the M stands for) seemed more useful, not that I have that
power.
>
> And for the poster who stated the AVMA is moving in a more holistic
> direction, I had to laugh at that. I think their recent guidelines
> against any kind of holistic medicine prove that that is not their
> direction at all.
>
> I have learned with age to follow the money. When I can't figure out
why
> something is happening I follow the money trail. I believe if the AVMA
> has it's way an assistance dog will cost $10,000 to $20,000 dollars
much
> like some service dogs do today. They will cut out dog trainers like
> myself who train assistance dogs and disabled folks who train their
own.
> Hopefully the ADA will step on before that happens and many people who
> need assistance dogs are left without them due to the cost.
>
> Just following the money trail here....
> Tracy B Ann
> www.zenpaws.com
> "The Politics of Dogs"
> www.radiofreenashville.org
>
>
>
>
> Dear Tracy,
> I agree with you entirely about why should a coyote be killed, but
that
> was
> not the question posted. Please do not interpret my answer as
suggesting
> I
> believe animals do not feel pain - nothing could be further from the
> truth.
>
> Chris
>
>
>>
>>
>> This reminds me of when Dr. Allen Schoen was in veterinarian school
and
>> questioned the treatment of animals and was told they feel no pain.
When
>> he was asked why they made the noises that could be interpreted as
pain,
>> he was told that animals were mechanisms like clocks and that clocks
>> tick.
>>
>> I found the original question quite amusing. As often these days we
argue
>> the wrong points. Instead of arguing the best way to kill a coyote
maybe
>> the question should be why kill a coyote at all?
>> Tracy B Ann
>> www.zenpaws.com
>> "The Politics of Dogs"
>> www.radiofreenashville.org
>>
>>
>
----------------------
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" 2-FEB-2007 12:36:45.57
To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Spam: Re: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
Dear Gail,
Just to clarify, because I think I might have sent a confused posting. I
was not suggesting that the issues you are discussing are also being
discussed here in the UK. On the contrary, I have no knowledge of these
issues at all in the UK and so would not comment on them. I was simply
saying that the veterinary profession here in the UK also has occasional
political problems - but then which profession does not? Sorry about the
unclear message.
With regards to your original questions, here at the university of Bristol
we have a very active companion animal behaviour group headed by John
Bradshaw. They might be able to give you information regarding temperament
scoring in companion species.
Chris
--On 02 February 2007 12:25 -0600 "Dr. Gail Golab" wrote:
> Bringing animals into healthcare facilities includes elements of animal
> health, animal behavior, human health and human behavior. As regards
> AVMA's involvement, veterinarians (and hence the AVMA) play important
> roles in ensuring positive outcomes with respect to the first three of
> the four elements; therefore, the AVMA's involvement in this issue is
> entirely appropriate and is not new (reference my previous comments on
> the origins of the Delta Society and the AVMA's related efforts).
>
> I wanted to provide an opportunity for those with expertise and an
> interest to provide input and to make sure I was able to bring quality
> information back to the table. Some of you have taken advantage of that
> opportunity and been extremely helpful. For that I'm tremendously
> grateful, as are the other members of our working group. Thank you!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry
> [mailto:Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: Zen Trainer; CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry
> Cc: Ethics List
> Subject: Spam: Re: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
>
> Hmmmmm.... the politics of the veterinary profession - we have some
> similar
> issues here in the UK too.
>
> Chris
>
> --On 02 February 2007 12:02 -0600 Zen Trainer
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Oh no, I did not mean to imply that at all. I thought your post was
> right
>> on target. It just reminded me fondly of Dr. Schoen. It also reminded
> me
>> of how often these days we ask the wrong question. As in the original
>> question posed about assistance dogs. I will still stand by original
>> question of why is the AVMA involving themselves when there are so
> many
>> medical issues they could concern themselves with?
>>
>> If the list implodes the list implodes. It has been silent for some
> time
>> now as the clinical purists started their own list that excludes many
> of
>> us who actually work in the field.
>>
>> There was a 5 point question asked and my answer was that the question
>> had already been answered. Perhaps the politically correct thing to do
>> would be to go ahead and give the answers to those questions (which
> are
>> commonly known in the assistance dog world), but that seemed silly to
> me
>> and unproductive.
>>
>> Trying to push the AVMA in a more productive and medical direction
> (which
>> is what the M stands for) seemed more useful, not that I have that
> power.
>>
>> And for the poster who stated the AVMA is moving in a more holistic
>> direction, I had to laugh at that. I think their recent guidelines
>> against any kind of holistic medicine prove that that is not their
>> direction at all.
>>
>> I have learned with age to follow the money. When I can't figure out
> why
>> something is happening I follow the money trail. I believe if the AVMA
>> has it's way an assistance dog will cost $10,000 to $20,000 dollars
> much
>> like some service dogs do today. They will cut out dog trainers like
>> myself who train assistance dogs and disabled folks who train their
> own.
>> Hopefully the ADA will step on before that happens and many people who
>> need assistance dogs are left without them due to the cost.
>>
>> Just following the money trail here....
>> Tracy B Ann
>> www.zenpaws.com
>> "The Politics of Dogs"
>> www.radiofreenashville.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Tracy,
>> I agree with you entirely about why should a coyote be killed, but
> that
>> was
>> not the question posted. Please do not interpret my answer as
> suggesting
>> I
>> believe animals do not feel pain - nothing could be further from the
>> truth.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This reminds me of when Dr. Allen Schoen was in veterinarian school
> and
>>> questioned the treatment of animals and was told they feel no pain.
> When
>>> he was asked why they made the noises that could be interpreted as
> pain,
>>> he was told that animals were mechanisms like clocks and that clocks
>>> tick.
>>>
>>> I found the original question quite amusing. As often these days we
> argue
>>> the wrong points. Instead of arguing the best way to kill a coyote
> maybe
>>> the question should be why kill a coyote at all?
>>> Tracy B Ann
>>> www.zenpaws.com
>>> "The Politics of Dogs"
>>> www.radiofreenashville.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> 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%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 2-FEB-2007 12:45:19.69
To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Spam: Re: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
I'm sorry, Chris. I did understand your post. I can see that posting my
response directly to your message could have generated some confusion. I
actually wasn't commenting on your post...was commenting on the previous
one and trying to get back to the questions I raised originally.
Thanks for your advice regarding the Bristol group. I am familiar with
them and that's a good suggestion.
-----Original Message-----
From: CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry
[mailto:Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:36 PM
To: Dr. Gail Golab; CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry; Zen Trainer
Cc: Ethics List
Subject: RE: Spam: Re: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
Dear Gail,
Just to clarify, because I think I might have sent a confused posting. I
was not suggesting that the issues you are discussing are also being
discussed here in the UK. On the contrary, I have no knowledge of these
issues at all in the UK and so would not comment on them. I was simply
saying that the veterinary profession here in the UK also has occasional
political problems - but then which profession does not? Sorry about
the
unclear message.
With regards to your original questions, here at the university of
Bristol
we have a very active companion animal behaviour group headed by John
Bradshaw. They might be able to give you information regarding
temperament
scoring in companion species.
Chris
--On 02 February 2007 12:25 -0600 "Dr. Gail Golab"
wrote:
> Bringing animals into healthcare facilities includes elements of
animal
> health, animal behavior, human health and human behavior. As regards
> AVMA's involvement, veterinarians (and hence the AVMA) play important
> roles in ensuring positive outcomes with respect to the first three of
> the four elements; therefore, the AVMA's involvement in this issue is
> entirely appropriate and is not new (reference my previous comments on
> the origins of the Delta Society and the AVMA's related efforts).
>
> I wanted to provide an opportunity for those with expertise and an
> interest to provide input and to make sure I was able to bring quality
> information back to the table. Some of you have taken advantage of
that
> opportunity and been extremely helpful. For that I'm tremendously
> grateful, as are the other members of our working group. Thank you!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry
> [mailto:Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:05 PM
> To: Zen Trainer; CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry
> Cc: Ethics List
> Subject: Spam: Re: killing an animal by standing on it's chest
>
> Hmmmmm.... the politics of the veterinary profession - we have some
> similar
> issues here in the UK too.
>
> Chris
>
> --On 02 February 2007 12:02 -0600 Zen Trainer
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Oh no, I did not mean to imply that at all. I thought your post was
> right
>> on target. It just reminded me fondly of Dr. Schoen. It also reminded
> me
>> of how often these days we ask the wrong question. As in the
original
>> question posed about assistance dogs. I will still stand by original
>> question of why is the AVMA involving themselves when there are so
> many
>> medical issues they could concern themselves with?
>>
>> If the list implodes the list implodes. It has been silent for some
> time
>> now as the clinical purists started their own list that excludes many
> of
>> us who actually work in the field.
>>
>> There was a 5 point question asked and my answer was that the
question
>> had already been answered. Perhaps the politically correct thing to
do
>> would be to go ahead and give the answers to those questions (which
> are
>> commonly known in the assistance dog world), but that seemed silly to
> me
>> and unproductive.
>>
>> Trying to push the AVMA in a more productive and medical direction
> (which
>> is what the M stands for) seemed more useful, not that I have that
> power.
>>
>> And for the poster who stated the AVMA is moving in a more holistic
>> direction, I had to laugh at that. I think their recent guidelines
>> against any kind of holistic medicine prove that that is not their
>> direction at all.
>>
>> I have learned with age to follow the money. When I can't figure out
> why
>> something is happening I follow the money trail. I believe if the
AVMA
>> has it's way an assistance dog will cost $10,000 to $20,000 dollars
> much
>> like some service dogs do today. They will cut out dog trainers like
>> myself who train assistance dogs and disabled folks who train their
> own.
>> Hopefully the ADA will step on before that happens and many people
who
>> need assistance dogs are left without them due to the cost.
>>
>> Just following the money trail here....
>> Tracy B Ann
>> www.zenpaws.com
>> "The Politics of Dogs"
>> www.radiofreenashville.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Tracy,
>> I agree with you entirely about why should a coyote be killed, but
> that
>> was
>> not the question posted. Please do not interpret my answer as
> suggesting
>> I
>> believe animals do not feel pain - nothing could be further from the
>> truth.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This reminds me of when Dr. Allen Schoen was in veterinarian school
> and
>>> questioned the treatment of animals and was told they feel no pain.
> When
>>> he was asked why they made the noises that could be interpreted as
> pain,
>>> he was told that animals were mechanisms like clocks and that clocks
>>> tick.
>>>
>>> I found the original question quite amusing. As often these days we
> argue
>>> the wrong points. Instead of arguing the best way to kill a coyote
> maybe
>>> the question should be why kill a coyote at all?
>>> Tracy B Ann
>>> www.zenpaws.com
>>> "The Politics of Dogs"
>>> www.radiofreenashville.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> 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%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 2-FEB-2007 13:20:50.11
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
~ Why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
I have not followed this discussion, nor have I read the messages in detail.
However, I did see the above question posed - and would point out that the
answer, in part at least, lies in the oath taken by vets which I hope is
copied correctly as follows:
Veterinarian's Oath
_____
Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to
use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through
the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the
conservation of livestock resources, the promotion of public health and the
advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping
with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my
professional knowledge and competence.
---------------------------------------
W.R. Stricklin
University of Maryland
From: IN%"fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu" "Martin, Francois" 2-FEB-2007 13:24:33.36
To: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Hello Gail,
I have been involved in AAT for almost 20 years now and I have to say
that I am not aware of any test that could predict how
successful/happy/useful an animal will be in a therapeutic context. The
tests that are available now are helpful in pointing out the big "no no"
candidates (e.g., aggressive, shy, over protective animals), but besides
that, their predictive values are very poor. There are so many variables
that are at play (even the best dog or horse (I have not much experience
with cats, but I guess this would hold true), used improperly, can react
inappropriately. And an "average" animal could do very well if
supervised by an experience handler and used in the right context). I am
not sure "testing" is the way to go. Maybe an ongoing evaluation that
carefully monitors for the presence of inappropriate behavior, fear,
stress signs, etc. would be better (if the animal shows these behaviors
then it needs to be retired). But, of course, the evaluator should have
the qualifications and the skills to do so. And this, again, is not an
easy/cheap thing to implement.
It will be interesting to see what your group comes up with - not an
easy task!
Cheers
Francois
Francois Martin, M.A., Ph.D.
Associate Director of the Center for the Study
of Animal Well-being and
Head of the People-Pet Partnership
College of Veterinary Medicine
Washington State University
PO Box 647010
Pullman WA 99164-7010
509 335.4569
fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu
________________________________
From: Dr. Gail Golab [mailto:GGolab@avma.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:36 PM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in a
working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare facilities
(i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals).
The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller
groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the
questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
Gail
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
***********************************************
1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative
behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent?
2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's)
that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid
temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in animal
behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it be
an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific
things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog
was demonstrating these qualities?
5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should be
performed on, say, an annual basis?
From: IN%"GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com" 2-FEB-2007 13:32:54.49
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Dr. Golab posted on this list to get all the involved people's input
on a very important issue: ie. temperament testing for dogs who enter
health facilities. She could have stayed on professional groups but
did not. She came to the applied ethology list that has dog trainers,
assistance dog trainers, as well as others welfare-friendly people to
get YOUR input. In essence, she is doing everything you claim the AVMA
will not. I really do not understand why veterinary medicine and the
AVMA has to be attacked in order to get the information. You have a
right to question the motives of the group. However, you mention a
group of issues in your local community that Dr. Golab and the rest of
us know very little about; it tends to cloud the issue and feels like
an attack.
"This is a multidisciplinary
> concern and our present working group reflects its
> multidisciplinary nature by including veterinarians, animal
> behaviorists, representatives of various animal-assisted activity
> and therapy programs, physicians, nurses, infection control
> specialists, and public health officials (Canadian health ministry
> and CDC). The questions I posed are simply one part of a
> comprehensive effort to do what we can to ensure that the people
> and animals involved in these programs derive as much benefit as
> possible from them and are protected from harm at the same time."
I am not part of this group. The working group appears to be a varied
group that wants to bring a sense of cohesiveness to the animals that
enter healthcare facilities. Perhaps there are groups that are quite
organized but maybe there should be standard practices across the US.
Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc.
Diplomate, ACVB
gflannigan@triad.rr.com
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 2-FEB-2007 13:58:00.95
To: IN%"gflannigan@triad.rr.com"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: Questions and Answers
Dr. Flannigan,
I hope you are not saying that as a professional vet you are not aware that euthanasia is the number one killer of dogs and cats? That's not just happening in Nashville, TN. Our 400 killed each and every week is normal. The average for any city our size.
I have to stick by my original statement in regard to the 5 questions asked. They have been answered by many professional competent groups working with assistance animals for years.
Is there some sudden outburst of disease in hospitals and assisted living facilities that I am unaware of that has forced the AVMA to get involved? Large numbers of dogs suddenly turning on patients and the elderly? I think not. My radio show is called "The Politics of Dogs" for a reason. I keep up with what's going on.
I answered the 5 original questions that Gail posed in the only reasonable way I know how. The questions have been asked and answered by many many reputable groups. As of right now there are no major problems in the system so why set up a group to try to fix something that isn't broke? If the AVMA really wanted to help perhaps they could go to the assistance groups directly and ask them *if* they need help and what kind.
And in case the AVMA couldn't come up on their own with any projects that might be useful for them to work on I listed a few (and I left many out.)
Now I think perhaps I will go and discuss the issue with my cats. They are very articulate, well spoken and keep current on the issues as well as having the ability to focus. For example the other day they were able to communicate quite effectively that it wasn't a question of whether they wanted their canned food heated or cold. Turns out they didn't want canned food at all.
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 2-FEB-2007 14:11:35.53
To: IN%"fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu" "Martin, Francois", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Agreed, Francois. I think what we're really looking for is a way to do
an initial evaluation and then an ongoing assessment (i.e., the "total
package" as you suggest). In addition to the points you raise, another
thing we need to consider is how to balance the benefits of testing with
its burdens.
________________________________
From: Martin, Francois [mailto:fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:24 PM
To: Dr. Gail Golab; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Hello Gail,
I have been involved in AAT for almost 20 years now and I have to say
that I am not aware of any test that could predict how
successful/happy/useful an animal will be in a therapeutic context. The
tests that are available now are helpful in pointing out the big "no no"
candidates (e.g., aggressive, shy, over protective animals), but besides
that, their predictive values are very poor. There are so many variables
that are at play (even the best dog or horse (I have not much experience
with cats, but I guess this would hold true), used improperly, can react
inappropriately. And an "average" animal could do very well if
supervised by an experience handler and used in the right context). I am
not sure "testing" is the way to go. Maybe an ongoing evaluation that
carefully monitors for the presence of inappropriate behavior, fear,
stress signs, etc. would be better (if the animal shows these behaviors
then it needs to be retired). But, of course, the evaluator should have
the qualifications and the skills to do so. And this, again, is not an
easy/cheap thing to implement.
It will be interesting to see what your group comes up with - not an
easy task!
Cheers
Francois
Francois Martin, M.A., Ph.D.
Associate Director of the Center for the Study
of Animal Well-being and
Head of the People-Pet Partnership
College of Veterinary Medicine
Washington State University
PO Box 647010
Pullman WA 99164-7010
509 335.4569
fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu
________________________________
From: Dr. Gail Golab [mailto:GGolab@avma.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:36 PM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I've been representing the American Veterinary Medical Association in a
working group developing guidelines for animals in healthcare facilities
(i.e., animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy animals).
The effort has been going quite well and now we've split into smaller
groups of people to solidify the various pieces of the document.
If some of you would be willing to provide some feedback to the
questions that follow the ****s below my signature, this would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help-in advance!
Gail
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM
Associate Director, Animal Welfare
AVMA
***********************************************
1) Is one-time testing, followed by re-evaluation when a negative
behaviour change is noted, enough? Does it need to be more frequent?
2) Any ideas on available tests (in addition to the Delta Society's)
that are suitable for assessing temperament in dogs and cats?
3) What kind of "formal" training is required to qualify as a valid
temperament evaluator? Does the individual need some training in animal
behaviour (e.g. veterinarian, behaviourist, animal trainer)? Can it be
an "average Joe" with an understanding of what to look for?
4) How should both "aggression" and "fear" be defined? What specific
things can a layperson note that would alert him/her that a cat or dog
was demonstrating these qualities?
5) Is there a "maximum age" or possibly an age where retesting should be
performed on, say, an annual basis?
From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 2-FEB-2007 14:14:25.51
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Largest USA Pork Prod Phasing out Gest Stalls
Smithfield Foods to phase out gestation stalls for pigs
By SONJA BARISIC
Associated Press Writer
January 25, 2007
NORFOLK, Va. -- Pork processor Smithfield Foods Inc. announced Thursday it
will phase out gestation stalls or crates at all 187 sow farms it owns in
eight states and replace them with "more animal-friendly" group housing pens
over the next decade.
More info at:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--smithfield-sows0125jan
25,0,3684094.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia
From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 2-FEB-2007 14:21:13.62
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Veterinarian's Oath...
"I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit
of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal
suffering, the conservation of livestock resources, the promotion of public
health and the advancement of medical knowledge."
In practice, this isn't a rank order, any one of these promises can easily
be used to dismiss the others.
It's a simple demonstative fact that many vets are involved in activities
that put animal health and the relief of their suffering at the end of the
list.
My point was not to disparage vets generally, but to point out that broad
statements like: "Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare
all along" are misleading and should be taken with a grain of salt.
No one should find a factual observation offensive. Allowing such a claim to
remain uncommented on serves to reinforce an unwarranted impression of a
profession staffed by people with a range of beliefs about animals.
Rick Bogle
Madison, WI
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:21 PM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
~ Why is the AVMA concerning themselves with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
I have not followed this discussion, nor have I read the messages in detail.
However, I did see the above question posed - and would point out that the
answer, in part at least, lies in the oath taken by vets which I hope is
copied correctly as follows:
Veterinarian's Oath
Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to
use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through
the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the
conservation of livestock resources, the promotion of public health and the
advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping
with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my
professional knowledge and competence.
---------------------------------------
W.R. Stricklin
University of Maryland
From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 2-FEB-2007 14:27:58.75
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Largest USA Pork Prod Phasing out Gest Stalls
AVMA Position statements
Pregnant Sow Housing
(Current as of June 2005)
"Pregnant sows (including gilts) are kept in a variety of production
systems. The industry has moved toward gestation stall (crate) housing,
because gestation stalls increase caregiver productivity, require lower
capital investment, and are easier to manage than some indoor group housing
systems...."
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/pregnant_sow_housing.asp
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:15 PM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Largest USA Pork Prod Phasing out Gest Stalls
Smithfield Foods to phase out gestation stalls for pigs
By SONJA BARISIC
Associated Press Writer
January 25, 2007
NORFOLK, Va. -- Pork processor Smithfield Foods Inc. announced Thursday it
will phase out gestation stalls or crates at all 187 sow farms it owns in
eight states and replace them with "more animal-friendly" group housing pens
over the next decade.
More info at:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--smithfield-sows0125jan
25,0,3684094.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia
From: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" 2-FEB-2007 14:36:41.08
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj:
---- GFLANNIGAN@triad.rr.com wrote:
> Dr. Golab posted on this list to get all the involved people's input
> on a very important issue: ie. temperament testing for dogs who enter
> health facilities. She could have stayed on professional groups but
> did not. She came to the applied ethology list that has dog trainers,
> assistance dog trainers, as well as others welfare-friendly people to
> get YOUR input. In essence, she is doing everything you claim the AVMA
> will not.
Hear,hear.
I'm not a vet.
Nor do I have any association with the AVMA or similar organisation.
I am just another animal trainer.
Attacks on Gail and her organisation on unrelated issues on this list are doing us all a disservice.
If you have some ideas to contribute to what Gail asked for then please do so
you will help all of us. If not then please desist with the unrelated diatribe.
If you want to take these issues up with the AVMA or similar then there are
appropriate places to do so. I might even agree with you on some of them but to
respond to Gail's request as was done by some is the absolute height of rudeness and I feel is totally uncalled for on this list in this situation.
John L.
From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 2-FEB-2007 15:06:23.74
To: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "'Rick Bogle'", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
My point was not to disparage vets generally, but to point out that broad
statements like: "Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare
all along" are misleading and should be taken with a grain of salt.
No one should find a factual observation offensive. ...
--------------------
Dear All,
I don't believe that the above statement itself is factual. Vets have played
key roles in many, many aspects of advancing the discussion and bringing
forth change relative to animal welfare, including establishing animal care
guidelines, etc. In fact in the USA the oversight for lab animal care came
about largely from the early efforts of military vets. They played - and
continue to play - a very important role in the establishment of mandatory
guidelines for the care and use of all lab animals.
Maybe more directly related to the point above, I have been around long
enough to know that Michael Fox was one of the earliest persons - if not the
first - on the scene leading discussions about animal welfare. Fox - a vet -
was THE person advocating AW reform in the USA in the early 1970's. His
written ideas are ones that greatly influenced late writings of many
persons, maybe most notably Bernie Rollin. One can find many, many ideas in
Rollin's books written about in Fox's earlier books.
And I can name a large number of other vets who were very influential in
advancing the discussion and moving society toward its current views
regarding animals. Roger Ewbank in the UK, Frank Loew in Canada and later
the USA, a large of Swedes and other Europeans, ... and the list could go on
and on.
And it was a vet who founded both the scientific society and scientific
journal most important today for applied ethologists. Andy Fraser put forth
a huge effort to establish what is now known as the "International Society
of Applied Ethology" - and he also founded the journal now known as "Applied
Animal Behaviour Science."
I think that some persons consider that the "forefront" of animal welfare is
located among persons engaged in political and social protest. I very much
disagree. The book entitled "Year of the Barricades: 1968" includes a
statement to the effect that all social/political movements begin with a
philosophical literature. Fortunately, I know of few vets who consider it
their role to attack through political protests in the streets. And even
more fortunately, I have known many, many vets who have advocated change
through their work and writings.
(And selecting out a position statement by AVMA on gestation stalls does not
impeach my statements above regarding contributions of vets to advancing AW.
And of course it was not the vets alone - but I can name more than a few
scientific and/or professional organizations that have been far less
progressive than AVMA when it comes to addressing and advancing AW.)
Ray Stricklin
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 2-FEB-2007 15:09:56.96
To: IN%"thomas.sebastian@usask.ca" "Sebastian Thomas"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Temperament
On 2-Feb-07, at 11:20 AM, Sebastian Thomas wrote:
> I think the terms 'personality' and 'temperament' can be
> used synonymously in animals as there is no 'character' as such in
> animals.
Not so sure: From studies with social carnivores (e.g., wolves) and
primates, I would argue the term character is more than relevant.
S. Gadbois
~~~~~~
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology / Neuroscience Program
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Canid ethology & vertebrate neuroethology
http://web.mac.com/ysg/
International Ethology Conference 2007: iec2007.psychology.dal.ca
Email: iec2007@dal.ca
~~~~~~
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 2-FEB-2007 15:57:01.36
To: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Largest USA Pork Prod Phasing out Gest Stalls
Just to be sure that no one is misled by the first few words of the AVMA
policy as referenced below, our policy on pregnant sow housing also
states the following (Again, this is only a portion of the policy...to
see the entire policy, you can visit:
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/pregnant_sow_housing.as
p ):
"Given the number of variables and large variation in performance within
both group and stall systems for pregnant sows, no one system is clearly
better than others under all conditions and according to all criteria of
animal welfare."...and...
"All systems have advantages and disadvantages for welfare. Current
group systems allow freedom of movement and social interaction. However,
these same systems, when they fail to work well, lead to problems,
especially in the areas of aggression, injury, and uneven body
condition. When they lack manipulable material, sows in group systems
are also unable to forage. Current stall systems minimize aggression and
injury, reduce competition, allow individual feeding, and assist in
control of body condition. Stalls, however, also restrict movement,
exercise, foraging behavior and social interaction. Because the
advantages and disadvantages of housing systems are qualitatively
different, there is no simple or objective way to rank systems for
"overall" welfare."
And for those of you with a real interest in this subject, AVMA also
completed a comprehensive review of the literature, which is accessible
here: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/sow_housing_tfr.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Bogle [mailto:rbogle@sonic.net]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:30 PM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: Largest USA Pork Prod Phasing out Gest Stalls
AVMA Position statements
Pregnant Sow Housing
(Current as of June 2005)
"Pregnant sows (including gilts) are kept in a variety of production
systems. The industry has moved toward gestation stall (crate) housing,
because gestation stalls increase caregiver productivity, require lower
capital investment, and are easier to manage than some indoor group
housing
systems...."
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/pregnant_sow_housing.as
p
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:15 PM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Largest USA Pork Prod Phasing out Gest Stalls
Smithfield Foods to phase out gestation stalls for pigs
By SONJA BARISIC
Associated Press Writer
January 25, 2007
NORFOLK, Va. -- Pork processor Smithfield Foods Inc. announced Thursday
it
will phase out gestation stalls or crates at all 187 sow farms it owns
in
eight states and replace them with "more animal-friendly" group housing
pens
over the next decade.
More info at:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--smithfield-sows012
5jan
25,0,3684094.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia
From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 2-FEB-2007 16:33:24.61
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Vets and welfare
Last first: I just copied the first paragraph and provided a link to the
rest of the AVMA position statement on gestation stalls. Nothing selective
about it. A discussion had ensued regarding vets' roles in welfare advances
and the AVMA, then the Smithfield Foods article was posted, so it seemed
interesting to consider the AVMA position on the matter of gestation stalls.
A list of welfare efforts and accomplishments by veterinarians is just a
list of accomplishments by selected persons. It would be combative to list
some of the many vets involved in activities and efforts involving animals
that are not so welfare oriented, so I won't unless asked to do so.
The factual claim is that vets have not always been in the forefront of this
effort. The modern welfare movement might be said to have begun with the
formation of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(RSPCA) established in the early 1800s.
The RSPCA's founding fathers included Richard Martin MP, William Wilberforce
MP, and the Reverend Arthur Broome, none of whom were veterinarians. The
modern animal welfare movement grew out of anti-child labor and anti-slavery
efforts. This is just a matter of historical fact easily verified with a
simple Google search.
To say that "Veterinarians have been in the forefront of animal welfare all
along" is misleading and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Rick Bogle
Madison, WI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:07 PM
> To: 'Rick Bogle'; applied-ethology@usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
>
>
>
>
> My point was not to disparage vets generally, but to point out that broad
> statements like: "Veterinarians have been in the forefront of
> animal welfare
> all along" are misleading and should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> No one should find a factual observation offensive. ...
>
> --------------------
> Dear All,
>
> I don't believe that the above statement itself is factual. Vets
> have played
> key roles in many, many aspects of advancing the discussion and bringing
> forth change relative to animal welfare, including establishing
> animal care
> guidelines, etc. In fact in the USA the oversight for lab animal care came
> about largely from the early efforts of military vets. They played - and
> continue to play - a very important role in the establishment of mandatory
> guidelines for the care and use of all lab animals.
>
> Maybe more directly related to the point above, I have been around long
> enough to know that Michael Fox was one of the earliest persons -
> if not the
> first - on the scene leading discussions about animal welfare.
> Fox - a vet -
> was THE person advocating AW reform in the USA in the early 1970's. His
> written ideas are ones that greatly influenced late writings of many
> persons, maybe most notably Bernie Rollin. One can find many,
> many ideas in
> Rollin's books written about in Fox's earlier books.
>
> And I can name a large number of other vets who were very influential in
> advancing the discussion and moving society toward its current views
> regarding animals. Roger Ewbank in the UK, Frank Loew in Canada and later
> the USA, a large of Swedes and other Europeans, ... and the list
> could go on
> and on.
>
> And it was a vet who founded both the scientific society and scientific
> journal most important today for applied ethologists. Andy Fraser
> put forth
> a huge effort to establish what is now known as the "International Society
> of Applied Ethology" - and he also founded the journal now known
> as "Applied
> Animal Behaviour Science."
>
> I think that some persons consider that the "forefront" of animal
> welfare is
> located among persons engaged in political and social protest. I very much
> disagree. The book entitled "Year of the Barricades: 1968" includes a
> statement to the effect that all social/political movements begin with a
> philosophical literature. Fortunately, I know of few vets who consider it
> their role to attack through political protests in the streets. And even
> more fortunately, I have known many, many vets who have advocated change
> through their work and writings.
>
> (And selecting out a position statement by AVMA on gestation
> stalls does not
> impeach my statements above regarding contributions of vets to
> advancing AW.
> And of course it was not the vets alone - but I can name more than a few
> scientific and/or professional organizations that have been far less
> progressive than AVMA when it comes to addressing and advancing AW.)
>
> Ray Stricklin
>
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 2-FEB-2007 17:29:59.87
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
Becky O'Neill wrote:
> I am an undergrad at Idaho State University and I would like to go
> into Ethology, Evolutionary Psychology, or Comparative Psychology.
> (undecided between the three) However I am having trouble getting a
> good feel for universty graduate programs from their websites alone.
> Does anyone here have any advice on grad schools I should look into?
> I'm also curious what sort of degree is best to get into the Ethology
> feild. I am currently split down the middle credit-wise between a
> Zoology degree and a Psychology degree. I can't pick which should be
> the major and which should be the minor.
In my humble opinion it is impossible to be a real ethologist without a very
solid background in zoology. In spite of considerable rapprochement in recent
decades, psychology and ethology really represent fundamentally different
approaches to the subject of behavior. I suppose it is not too far-fetched to
say that ethology represents the study of behavior from a zoological and
evolutionary perspective, while psychology represents the study of behavior from
a philosophical and humanistic one. My personal recommendation would therefore
be to pursue Zoology as the primary course of study.
John
--
John E. Burchard, Ph.D.
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu" "Martin, Francois" 2-FEB-2007 18:10:18.73
To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
Hello John,
Going the zoology route is certainly a valuable way to learn about
ethology. However, I am not sure what you mean by:
"while psychology represents the study of behavior from
a philosophical and humanistic one."
Psychology is not philosophy. Also, one can be from psychology and be
interested in the distal causes of behavior (i.e., be interested in an
evolutionary perspective). Some researchers from the field of psychology
have made significant contributions to ethology.
Just my two cents...
Francois
Francois Martin, M.A., Ph.D.
Associate Director of the Center for the Study
of Animal Well-being and
Head of the People-Pet Partnership
College of Veterinary Medicine
Washington State University
PO Box 647010
Pullman WA 99164-7010
509 335.4569
fmartin@vetmed.wsu.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:03 PM
To: Applied Ethology list
Subject: Re: Ethology Programs
Becky O'Neill wrote:
> I am an undergrad at Idaho State University and I would like to go
> into Ethology, Evolutionary Psychology, or Comparative Psychology.
> (undecided between the three) However I am having trouble getting a
> good feel for universty graduate programs from their websites alone.
> Does anyone here have any advice on grad schools I should look into?
> I'm also curious what sort of degree is best to get into the Ethology
> feild. I am currently split down the middle credit-wise between a
> Zoology degree and a Psychology degree. I can't pick which should be
> the major and which should be the minor.
In my humble opinion it is impossible to be a real ethologist without a
very
solid background in zoology. In spite of considerable rapprochement in
recent
decades, psychology and ethology really represent fundamentally
different
approaches to the subject of behavior. I suppose it is not too
far-fetched to
say that ethology represents the study of behavior from a zoological and
evolutionary perspective, while psychology represents the study of
behavior from
a philosophical and humanistic one. My personal recommendation would
therefore
be to pursue Zoology as the primary course of study.
John
--
John E. Burchard, Ph.D.
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 2-FEB-2007 18:13:49.73
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
CC:
Subj: Fw: Ethology Programs
Hmm...or maybe a combination of the two? Vanderbilt University has been very open to a sort of student designed major in areas like this. They have accepted many well designed proposals. I have one friend who combined film and religion. Now, writing the proposal is no easy task but it's easier than a double major and sometimes seems to fit the situation the best. I think other universities would be open to this as well and it certainly can't hurt to try.
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
In my humble opinion it is impossible to be a real ethologist without a very
solid background in zoology. In spite of considerable rapprochement in recent
decades, psychology and ethology really represent fundamentally different
approaches to the subject of behavior. I suppose it is not too far-fetched to
say that ethology represents the study of behavior from a zoological and
evolutionary perspective, while psychology represents the study of behavior from
a philosophical and humanistic one. My personal recommendation would therefore
be to pursue Zoology as the primary course of study.
John
--
John E. Burchard, Ph.D.
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane" 2-FEB-2007 18:55:02.92
To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
On 31/01/07, John Burchard wrote:
> evolutionary perspective, while psychology represents the study of behavior from
> a philosophical and humanistic one.
Depending of course on which of the psychologies you pursue. Ol'
Skinner expressed learning as being essentially natural selection
working at the unit of the behavior.
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 2-FEB-2007 23:53:15.45
To: IN%"LIHaug@aol.com"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Oh gosh! I didn't say it was their fault but I would think it would be their focus as it is the number one killer of dogs and cats. I think it ranks a bit higher than assistance dogs when it comes to veterinary involvement.
I think vets may be responsible in part by the high prices they charge for spaying and neutering. There are discounts you can get from Friends of Animals for spay and neuter and out of 50 vets in town I think we are down to only 8 that accept them. These are the only 8 vet clinics I recommend as a trainer and radio talk show host.
As I realize that money is the bottom line I work hard to convince vets that it is in their best business interest to neuter for free. (yes, free!)
Someone printed the oath of a vet. By not actively making the overpopulation problem the number one focus of the veterinary profession I would say they are not fulfilling their oath.
So if they could do something to stop it and they don't then I would say it is their fault. Dr. Michael Fox would say so also. His name was mentioned as being on the forefront. In his book Inhumane Society he blasts the veterinary community!
I however did not say it was the vet communities fault. I will say that the group who is on the forefront of animal concern will do something about the overpopulation problem. I highly doubt that will be the AVMA but I would love it if they surprise me.
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
----- Original Message -----
From: LIHaug@aol.com
To: ZenTrainer@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
In a message dated 2/2/2007 10:08:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, ZenTrainer@hotmail.com writes:
If they truly were at the forefront of animal welfare and concern, why are we killing 400 dogs a week here in Nashville due to overpopulation>>
At what point did the pet overpopulation problem become the fault of the veterinary profession??
Lore I. Haug, DVM, MS, DACVB, CPDT, CABC
Animal Behavior Service
Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine
College Station, TX 77843-4474
979-845-2351
Lihaug@aol.com
Lhaug@cvm.tamu.edu
APDT # 692; NADOI #713; IAABC
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 3-FEB-2007 00:26:52.47
To: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer", IN%"LIHaug@aol.com"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
As regards the AVMA's involvement in addressing the problem of unwanted =
pets (variously referred to as pet overpopulation, surplus pets and some =
other monikers)...
=20
Aside from the contributions our members make (which are =
considerable--e.g., spay/neuter at reduced or no fee, pro bono work for =
local shelters and animal control, shelter veterinarians who have found =
their calling dealing with the challenges of shelter work and animal =
control every day, providing client and community education in an =
attempt to encourage responsible ownership, etc.), the AVMA is one of =
the founding members of the National Council on Pet Population Study and =
Policy (NCPPSP). The NCPPSP has been in existence since the early 1990s =
and its focus is on examining and finding solutions to the problem of =
unwanted animals. You can learn about the Council and its work at =
www.petpopulation.org. The data from studies the Council has sponsored =
have contributed a great deal to understanding the reasons why pets are =
relinquished to shelters and have assisted in designing programs and =
adoption approches that have improved many shelters' intake and adoption =
rates. In addition, the Council has provided a positive forum for =
dialogue between stakeholders.
=20
Another group working on the problem is the Alliance for Contraception =
in Cats and Dogs, which is looking at nonsurgical approaches to =
contraception. A number of veterinarians have been very involved in that =
group as well, as are researchers, shelter personnel, animal control etc =
(again, it's a multi-stakeholder effort).
________________________________
From: Zen Trainer [mailto:ZenTrainer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Fri 2/2/2007 11:52 PM
To: LIHaug@aol.com
Cc: Ethics List
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Oh gosh! I didn't say it was their fault but I would think it would be =
their focus as it is the number one killer of dogs and cats. I think it =
ranks a bit higher than assistance dogs when it comes to veterinary =
involvement.
=20
I think vets may be responsible in part by the high prices they charge =
for spaying and neutering. There are discounts you can get from Friends =
of Animals for spay and neuter and out of 50 vets in town I think we =
are down to only 8 that accept them. These are the only 8 vet clinics I =
recommend as a trainer and radio talk show host.
=20
As I realize that money is the bottom line I work hard to convince vets =
that it is in their best business interest to neuter for free. (yes, =
free!)
Someone printed the oath of a vet. By not actively making the =
overpopulation problem the number one focus of the veterinary profession =
I would say they are not fulfilling their oath.
=20
So if they could do something to stop it and they don't then I would say =
it is their fault. Dr. Michael Fox would say so also. His name was =
mentioned as being on the forefront. In his book Inhumane Society he =
blasts the veterinary community!
=20
I however did not say it was the vet communities fault. I will say that =
the group who is on the forefront of animal concern will do something =
about the overpopulation problem. I highly doubt that will be the AVMA =
but I would love it if they surprise me.=20
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com =20
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org =20
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: LIHaug@aol.com=20
To: ZenTrainer@hotmail.com=20
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
In a message dated 2/2/2007 10:08:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, =
ZenTrainer@hotmail.com writes:
If they truly were at the forefront of animal welfare and concern, why =
are we killing 400 dogs a week here in Nashville due to overpopulation>>
=20
At what point did the pet overpopulation problem become the fault of =
the veterinary profession??
=20
Lore I. Haug, DVM, MS, DACVB, CPDT, CABC
Animal Behavior Service
Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine
College Station, TX 77843-4474
979-845-2351
Lihaug@aol.com
Lhaug@cvm.tamu.edu
APDT # 692; NADOI #713; IAABC
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 3-FEB-2007 09:26:22.58
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
CC:
Subj: Fw: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Zen Trainer=20
To: Dr. Gail Golab=20
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
That is wonderful because the overpopulation problem is not just caused =
by lack of spay and neutering. There are a multitude of contributors =
that need to be addressed. But....in the meantime, it's my belief that =
*every* vet should be spaying and neutering for *free*. When I did a =
radio show solely on this subject I got a record number of calls. Every =
person calling stated that if their vet did this that vet would have =
their business for life.
So it is nice that the NCPPSP has been examining the problem for the =
last 16 years, and I hope they continue. In the meantime though let's do =
something to expediently treat the problem. Free spay and neuter seems =
an easy way to go about it.
There is a very interesting new website where pet owners get to rate =
vets. www.vetratingz.com In Nashville at =
any rate it's the vets that provide free or *very* low cost spay and =
neuter that score the highest. (Low cost meaning $90 to spay a 70 pound =
female dog which includes pain meds.)
I still maintain it should be free.=20
There is a great book called "Management Mess-Ups" by Mark Eppler that =
all vets would be well advised to read.
As someone mentioned before, the leaders in the vet community, the one's =
at the forefront, are not in lockstep with the AVMA. In fact many are =
shunned by the AVMA and the vet community.
So once again, back to the original questions. There are many reputable =
groups testing, evaluating and using standards put into place for =
assistance and service dogs.
The pet overpopulation problem (the term surplus pets shows fairly =
clearly the discord within the vet profession. I think Allen Schoen =
might say that "surplus" pets would be akin to saying you have too many =
clocks left over!), seems like something very worthwhile for the AVMA to =
devote all of it's energy to.=20
There is a Quaker philosophy about finding one's calling in life. It has =
to do with finding the place where your passion meets the worlds =
greatest need.
If the AVMA's greatest passion (or mission) is to help animals it would =
be clear that this *is* the greatest need. Perhaps I am idolizing the =
vet community though. The oath as stated is ambiguous. Maybe the AVMA's =
greatest passion is to find the best and cheapest way to raise and =
slaughter animals for food.
Sadly, I suspect from past actions that the AVMA's greatest passion is =
to make money which is why they are making a bid for the service dog =
industry.
The cool thing about the Quaker definition of calling is that when you =
fulfill it, the money just comes. But you have to intersect with the =
world's greatest need and somehow I doubt that need is for the AVMA to =
make money! LOL!
I think I am done with this subject. I have learned enough to warn my =
clients with service and assistance dogs to start working with their =
attorneys and the ADA now to protect their rights.
There is something else in the back of my head that I can't put words to =
right now that many vets have spoken to me about. It has to do with =
ethics vs science. I approach the world from an ethical point of view. =
Many of the vets that I work with used to also but somewhere in the =
pursuit of science and the very nature of vet school they had to shut =
down their ethics in order to survive. They talk to me about the =
struggle to get back to that ethical place. Some on this list give me =
hope that it is possible!
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Dr. Gail Golab=20
To: Zen Trainer ; =
LIHaug@aol.com=20
Cc: Ethics List=20
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:26 AM
Subject: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
As regards the AVMA's involvement in addressing the problem of =
unwanted pets (variously referred to as pet overpopulation, surplus pets =
and some other monikers)...
=20
Aside from the contributions our members make (which are =
considerable--e.g., spay/neuter at reduced or no fee, pro bono work for =
local shelters and animal control, shelter veterinarians who have found =
their calling dealing with the challenges of shelter work and animal =
control every day, providing client and community education in an =
attempt to encourage responsible ownership, etc.), the AVMA is one of =
the founding members of the National Council on Pet Population Study and =
Policy (NCPPSP). The NCPPSP has been in existence since the early 1990s =
and its focus is on examining and finding solutions to the problem of =
unwanted animals. You can learn about the Council and its work at =
www.petpopulation.org. The data from =
studies the Council has sponsored have contributed a great deal to =
understanding the reasons why pets are relinquished to shelters and have =
assisted in designing programs and adoption approches that have improved =
many shelters' intake and adoption rates. In addition, the Council has =
provided a positive forum for dialogue between stakeholders.
=20
Another group working on the problem is the Alliance for Contraception =
in Cats and Dogs, which is looking at nonsurgical approaches to =
contraception. A number of veterinarians have been very involved in that =
group as well, as are researchers, shelter personnel, animal control etc =
(again, it's a multi-stakeholder effort).
________________________________
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 3-FEB-2007 17:03:33.76
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
On 31-Jan-07, at 9:02 PM, John Burchard wrote:
> In my humble opinion it is impossible to be a real ethologist
> without a very
> solid background in zoology. In spite of considerable
> rapprochement in recent
> decades, psychology and ethology really represent fundamentally
> different
> approaches to the subject of behavior. I suppose it is not too far-
> fetched to
> say that ethology represents the study of behavior from a
> zoological and
> evolutionary perspective, while psychology represents the study of
> behavior from
> a philosophical and humanistic one. My personal recommendation
> would therefore
> be to pursue Zoology as the primary course of study.
>
With all due respect John, this definition of psychology is the most
antiquated I have read in a long time.
Comparative or animal psychology and biological psychology have
nothing to do with philosophical or humanistic psychology, which are
virtually non-existent in North America or Europe (Humanistic
psychology had brief popularity in the 70's and philosophical
psychology is not taught by any university I know in North America).
In fact, psychology contributes over 50% of
"neuroscientists" (Society for Neuroscience) and most biology
departments in North America focus on behavioural ecology; this is
why many "true" ethologists (as opposed to behavioural ecologists)
are teaching and doing research in psychology departments. For
example, the four wolf specialists here in Nova Scotia are in
psychology departments (John Fentress -retired- and myself at
Dalhousie; Peter McLeod at Acadia; Fred Harrington at Mount Saint
Vincent). Our psychology department has 4 biologists as Faculty
members and with the growth of neuroscience in the past 15 years,
that trend is on the increase.
Many students do a double major psychology-biology simply because
psychology will provide them with many courses in behaviour (animal
or human) and biology or zoology may provide a few, with many more in
unrelated areas (to behaviour).
Also, animal psychologists and biologists share a common interest in
proximal issues in behaviour: physiology and development, social
behaviour, etc.
I honestly think that both tracks have their pluses and minuses.
Simon Gadbois
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 3-FEB-2007 17:05:58.89
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
Martin, Francois wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Going the zoology route is certainly a valuable way to learn about
> ethology. However, I am not sure what you mean by:
>
> "while psychology represents the study of behavior from
> a philosophical and humanistic one."
>
> Psychology is not philosophy. Also, one can be from psychology and be
> interested in the distal causes of behavior (i.e., be interested in an
> evolutionary perspective). Some researchers from the field of
> psychology have made significant contributions to ethology.
>
> Just my two cents...
Actually I agree. Today it would be very difficult to draw a hard and fast line
between the two disciplines, and that is probably a good thing.
I am a bit of a dinosaur and go back to the heroic age - I was in the middle of
the debates between Daniel Lehrman (a cherished friend who died much too young)
and Konrad Lorenz (with whom I was working at the time). I was later mediator
in the sometimes acrimonious debates between Niko Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz -
I mean that quite literally, I sat on the lawn at Seewiesen and talked with both
when they were too annoyed to talk with each other. Heady days, those.
Psychology is many different things depending on which thread you are involved
in. So I suppose is modern ethology. I am anyway not much enamored of labels,
because they almost invariably get in the way of insight.
I am however in one sense an "old school" ethologist, believing that without a
solid foundation in the diversity and phylogeny of animal life it would be
nearly impossible to construct an orderly edifice of ethological perceptions.
Psychology in the United States had its roots in pedagogy rather than
philosophy, I suppose. That accounts to some extent for the overarching
prominence of various learning theories, for a widespread belief in universals
of behavior, and (alas) for a regrettable neglect or actual ignorance of the
extent of biological diversity and of the specificity and adaptedness of
behavioral structures. Psychology in Europe was a considerably different
matter, with roots in the study of perception (Helmholtz etc.) and in the
processing of perceptual information (e.g. Gestalt ...). Both, I suggest, had
strong links to philosophy, but to very different kinds of philosophy .
That's a very incomplete answer to a thought-provoking comment, but it's all I
can manage at the moment . Maybe when I'm recovered I can do better.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 3-FEB-2007 17:17:56.86
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
Hi again,
> I am however in one sense an "old school" ethologist, believing
> that without a
> solid foundation in the diversity and phylogeny of animal life it
> would be
> nearly impossible to construct an orderly edifice of ethological
> perceptions.
That is not old school at all and it is a valuable point, but even
modern psychology has been "updated" at that level, for example
evolutionary psychology. I know some psychologists that know more
about evolutionary theory (and know it more accurately as well) than
many of my colleagues in biology.
>
> Psychology in the United States had its roots in pedagogy rather than
> philosophy, I suppose.
I don't think so. All modern sciences come from philosophy in a way
(isn't that why we are "doctors of philosophy"). I am not sure
pedagogy had much to do with Skinner, or vice versa, fortunately!
> That accounts to some extent for the overarching
> prominence of various learning theories, for a widespread belief in
> universals
> of behavior, and (alas) for a regrettable neglect or actual
> ignorance of the
> extent of biological diversity and of the specificity and
> adaptedness of
> behavioral structures.
Psychologists are the ones that came-up with the "biological
constraints" on learning in a massive attack against the Skinnerians
in the 60's and 70's (e.g., Garcia, Seligman, Lehrman). The idea that
they focus on rats and pigeons is true for some, but the animal
psychologists I know work with cuddlefish, killifish, Japanese
macaques, marmosets, dolphins, wolves, coyotes, raccoons.
S. Gadbois
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 3-FEB-2007 17:39:37.95
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
When students ask me for a program in "ethology" in North America, I
usually don't know what to say. There are actually very few programs
that still use the label "ethology". Their choice is usually between
psychology (animal or biological psychology) or biology (behavioural
ecology). I usually recommend the double major Psychology/Biology
which gives them everything they need to know about behaviour, from
Tinbergen's four legs to a knowledge of human and abnormal behaviour.
Behavioural ecology is the field of animal behaviour that dominates
in biology departments in North America, and, unfortunately,
methodologically, is quite different from the good old ethology of
Lorenz and Tinbergen. Direct observations of behaviour are not
emphasized as much, the inductive approach is often seen as "weak"
and I know many students of animal behaviour that learned their
observational techniques from developmental psychologists...
I think that John is right, labels are in the way, but unfortunately
as well, "classical" ethology has been diluted by a stronger focus on
ecology. After being a regular attendee at a provincial animal
behaviour society for years, I stopped going because we were not
talking about behaviour anymore (they way ethologists would define
it) but ecology. Most talks and posters would leave me wondering
"where is the behaviour"?
I am "only" 40, but I was trained by two "real" ethologists (John
Fentress and Peter McLeod) and I honestly think that we need to turn
to the continental Europeans to remind us of what ethology should be.
S. Gadbois
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 3-FEB-2007 18:22:03.58
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
CC:
Subj: Ethology Programs
John and Simon and all,
What a great topic. Very interesting and thought provoking which I always find enjoyable!
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 4-FEB-2007 12:20:09.02
To: IN%"debhdvm@aol.com"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
LOL! Not only did I work for a non profit training group before starting my own business, I *still* train dogs for free. At least 2 out of every 10 dogs in any one of my classes are there for free. I do free classes in the projects. I answer 30 minute + calls on the phone for free on a daily basis. I do private consultations for free. I go into public schools and teach children how not to get bit for free each week.
(And remember dog training is the *only* way I make income, I don't do surgery, vaccines, or general medicine. I just train dogs and I still do a whole lot of it for free.)
Every Monday I take all the animal abuse calls for our city shelter as they are closed. (Don't ask me why, 411 just gives out my number and I do it.)
I tithe 10% of my income to animal charities.
My first paragraph was:
"That is wonderful because the overpopulation problem is not just caused by lack of spay and neutering. There are a multitude of contributors that need to be addressed. But... in the meantime, it's my belief that *every* vet should be spaying and neutering for *free.* When I did a radio show solely on this subject I got a record number of calls. Every person stated that if their vet did this that vet would have their business for life."
I in no way oversimplified the problem. I know from trainer and shelter friends and statistics, that in other states it is surrendered teenage dogs that fill their shelters. In TN it is puppies and kittens. By the way though, how many vets do you know that include a list of dog trainers in their puppy packages? How many ask as they give out vaccine after vaccine every other week if the owner has signed up for a puppy class yet? How many ask on an annual basis if the dog is receiving any training, rather than just ignoring an unruly dog and dealing with it the best they can?
I don't think it's inappropriate for vets to charge for their services. I just think it's inappropriate for vets to charge for *this* service. I also think vets would find that it's good business to spay and neuter for free.
There was a new young vet in town who was trying to save the world and he worked at a clinic that did very little business. (They would call the clinic I worked at the time and ask to borrow two vaccines - really pitiful!) So they started out a low cost spay and neuter program and I mean it was $25 a dog. Where the parking lot used to be empty, now it was packed on Fridays (the day they did the low cost surgery). I figure they kept about 10% of that business because people were so impressed. Two years later their parking lot is packed every day and they have built an addition.
Our most profitable groom and board business rounds up the dogs from the Humane Society that are for adoption and gives them lovely hair cuts. I am telling you, there is profit to be made from doing the right thing,
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
----- Original Message -----
From: debhdvm@aol.com
To: ZenTrainer@hotmail.com
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
<>
I was just wondering if you train dogs for free? Why is it inappropriate for a veterinarian to charge for their services, and not others in the animal care profession? If you look at some of the data on pet over population and in many shelters, the problems that they have are not puppies and kittens but spayed and neutered turned back dogs and cats who have behavior problems that the owner can not deal with, has no information to deal with it or will not deal with it. The veterinary profession is working hard on such issues as early spay-neuter to help overpopulation, educating veterinarians and the public on animal behavior and preventing and treating behavior problems in companion animals. It is an over simplication to say that if all pets were spayed and neutered things would be fine.
Debra F. Horwitz, DVM, DACVB
Veterinary Behavior Consultations
St. Louis, Missouri
From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 4-FEB-2007 12:57:36.62
To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: interesting discussion about scientific approaches
Although I feel somewhat sorry for the student who asked the original question
and now gets loads of messages under the same heading that are hardly useful
for her, the discussion is very interesting.
Simon, could you give an example of
> the inductive approach is often seen as "weak"
and of what techniques are learned here:
> and I know many students of animal behaviour that learned their
> observational techniques from developmental psychologists...
It is useful for my own construction of a research philosophy to try to
understand "how" we study animals (and maybe also "why" this "how").
Regards,
Anna Olsson
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 4-FEB-2007 14:06:17.84
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
Simon Gadbois wrote:
> With all due respect John, this definition of psychology is the most
> antiquated I have seen in a long time.
You are probably right, and I am hopelessly antiquated. I was in any case not
trying to "define" psychology, since I have a profound allergy to "definitions"
.
> Comparative or animal psychology and biological psychology have
> nothing to do with philosophical or humanistic psychology, which are
> virtually non-existent in North America or Europe. In fact,
> psychology contributes over 50% of "neuroscientists" (Society for
> Neuroscience) and most biology departments in North America focus on
> behavioural ecology; this is why many "true" ethologists are teaching
> in psychology departments. For example, the four wolf specialists
> here in Nova Scotia are in psychology departments (John Fentress -
> retired- and myself at Dalhousie; Peter McLeod at Acadia; Fred
> Harrington at Mount Saint Vincent). Our psychology department has 4
> biologists as Faculty members and with the growth of neuroscience in
> the past 15 years, that trend is on the increase.
That is a very interesting shift of boundaries (and makes me out even more of a
dinosaur than I already thought I was ). It makes the old labels practically
irrelevant - which is quite OK with me. In the old (or should I say "antique"?
) days, psychology was concerned with human behavior, and zoology with that
of animals.
I guess that has been going on for quite some time. Years ago, when my old
friend Mark Konishi was beginning his remarkable neurobiological work on
acoustical prey location by Barn Owls, it was as I remember in the Psychology
department at Princeton, and not in the Biology department from which I had
graduated a dozen or so years earlier ...
> Many students do a double major psychology-biology simply because
> psychology will provide them with many courses in behaviour (animal
> or human) and biology or zoology may provide a few, with many more in
> unrelated areas (to behaviour).
That makes perfect sense (and makes my advice into *non*sense ).
> Also, animal psychologists and biologists share a common interest in
> proximal issues in behaviour: physiology and development, social
> behaviour, etc.
> I honestly think that both tracks have their pluses and minuses.
I do not disagree there at all.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 4-FEB-2007 14:10:13.83
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Zen Trainer wrote:
> Oh gosh! I didn't say it was their fault but I would think it would
> be their focus as it is the number one killer of dogs and cats. I
> think it ranks a bit higher than assistance dogs when it comes to
> veterinary involvement.
>
> I think vets may be responsible in part by the high prices they
> charge for spaying and neutering. There are discounts you can get
> from Friends of Animals for spay and neuter and out of 50 vets in
> town I think we are down to only 8 that accept them. These are the
> only 8 vet clinics I recommend as a trainer and radio talk show host.
>
> As I realize that money is the bottom line I work hard to convince
> vets that it is in their best business interest to neuter for free.
> (yes, free!)
> Someone printed the oath of a vet. By not actively making the
> overpopulation problem the number one focus of the veterinary
> profession I would say they are not fulfilling their oath.
>
> So if they could do something to stop it and they don't then I would
> say it is their fault. Dr. Michael Fox would say so also. His name
> was mentioned as being on the forefront. In his book Inhumane Society
> he blasts the veterinary community!
>
> I however did not say it was the vet communities fault. I will say
> that the group who is on the forefront of animal concern will do
> something about the overpopulation problem. I highly doubt that will
> be the AVMA but I would love it if they surprise me.
It seems to me the first thing to realize is that what we are dealing with is
not really an overpopulation problem, in the sense of an excess of supply over
demand. It is, rather, a relinquishment problem in a society which increasingly
regards everything, even animals, as "disposable."
If there were really an "overpopulation" problem, the large scale producers of
puppies, and the companies like Hunte which broker and transport them, would not
continue to be profitable. Nor would we observe the phenomenon of shelters
importing "adoptable" puppies (and kittens) from other parts of the country, or
even from foreign countries, because there aren't enough in their own area to
meet local demand.
"Supply side" measures are notoriously ineffective at regulating a demand-driven
market.
I think it is unfair to blame the veterinary community for not addressing the
wrong problem.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 4-FEB-2007 14:39:48.15
To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: interesting discussion about scientific approaches
On 4-Feb-07, at 2:52 PM, Anna Olsson wrote:
> Although I feel somewhat sorry for the student who asked the
> original question
> and now gets loads of messages under the same heading that are
> hardly useful
> for her, the discussion is very interesting.
>
> Simon, could you give an example of
>> the inductive approach is often seen as "weak"
Going from observations to theories ("theory-making"; induction) as
opposed to testing theories with the hypothetico-deductive approach
is the issue here.
Psychologists adhere to a very rigid but scientific hypothesis-
testing type of science (i.e., experiments). Ethologists
(historically) were much less into this kind of science with their
field observations (with the huge advantage of ecological
validity!!!). Lorenz was proud to say that he never published a graph
in his whole life. At the same time, Tinbergen pioneered an
experimental ethology that influenced immensely the Madingley group
(Cambridge) and Oxford groups (where he spent much time). For
instance, Robert Hinde published in 1966 the first integration (a
book: "Animal Behaviour: a Synthesis of Ethology and Comparative
Psychology") of animal psychology and ethology demonstrating quite
eloquently the value of field and lab research, inductive science and
deductive science. In order words, the first to say that good science
requires both approaches (unfortunately, nobody is listening
anymore). Modern behavioural scientists tend to get entrenched in one
specific method. Yet, astronomy, by definition, has to be inductive.
We can't "experiment" on stars, constellations. The best we can do is
observe, come-up with explanations, transform them into theories
until a better one comes-up. Nobody would think of astronomy as a
"weak" science. Yet, in the behavioural sciences, if you have any
inclination towards dominantly observational work, you are often seen
as not doing "real science". This new trend is killing ethology as we
knew it. It is also why the label is disappearing from North American
schools, with the exception, interestingly, of some psychology
departments. The methodological similarities identified by Robert
Hinde have been recognized by psychology. The irony here is that E.O.
Wilson in his seminal book "Sociobiology; The New Synthesis" had
predicted the death of psychology by the end of the last Century. If
anything, thankfully to the popularity of the neurosciences,
psychology has gotten stronger.
> and of what techniques are learned here:
>> and I know many students of animal behaviour that learned their
>> observational techniques from developmental psychologists...
Observational methods, event recording, time sampling, event
sampling, focal behaviour approached, sequential analysis of
behaviour (Markovian analyses, Information theory analyses, log-
linear analyses, etc.). Robert Hinde pointed out this "rapprochement"
between ethology and developmental psychology in his gem of little
book entitled "Ethology".
Simon Gadbois
From: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane" 4-FEB-2007 14:54:09.26
To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois"
CC: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: interesting discussion about scientific approaches
On 04/02/07, Simon Gadbois wrote:
> Psychologists adhere to a very rigid but scientific hypothesis-
> testing type of science (i.e., experiments). Ethologists
> (historically) were much less into this kind of science with their
> field observations (with the huge advantage of ecological
> validity!!!).
I think that as soon as one attributes deficits to the 'other' and
strength to the in-group, the relevant science may well be sociology
;)
In many of the groups I have worked in it would be impossible to
identify who emerged from which discipline--and many of the 'greats'
were eclectic. We each bring different tools to the worksite and IMHO
is it good to have a large diverse tool kit so consensus means more
than just agreement.
When a behaviourist, a vet and an ethologist agree on something I am
pretty convinced that it it true!
Emily.
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 4-FEB-2007 15:38:35.92
To: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane"
CC: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: interesting discussion about scientific approaches
And fortunately, those differences are mainly "historical".
Simon G.
~~~~~~
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology / Neuroscience Program
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Canid ethology and vertebrate neuroethology
http://web.mac.com/ysg/
International Ethology Conference 2007: iec2007.psychology.dal.ca
Email: iec2007@dal.ca
~~~~~~
On 4-Feb-07, at 4:53 PM, Emily Patterson-Kane wrote:
> On 04/02/07, Simon Gadbois wrote:
>
>> Psychologists adhere to a very rigid but scientific hypothesis-
>> testing type of science (i.e., experiments). Ethologists
>> (historically) were much less into this kind of science with their
>> field observations (with the huge advantage of ecological
>> validity!!!).
>
> I think that as soon as one attributes deficits to the 'other' and
> strength to the in-group, the relevant science may well be sociology
> ;)
>
> In many of the groups I have worked in it would be impossible to
> identify who emerged from which discipline--and many of the 'greats'
> were eclectic. We each bring different tools to the worksite and IMHO
> is it good to have a large diverse tool kit so consensus means more
> than just agreement.
>
> When a behaviourist, a vet and an ethologist agree on something I am
> pretty convinced that it it true!
>
> Emily.
>
From: IN%"zentrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 4-FEB-2007 17:46:25.62
To: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Emotions vs Ethics
I think that the argument you continue is an emotional one.
Patricia Simonet
Spokane WA
Yes, people confuse this all the time. My argument is not an emotional one. It is a matter of ethics.
From: IN%"tricia_b@comcast.net" "Tricia Breen" 4-FEB-2007 18:17:09.84
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied Ethology list'"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
I would say that, based on this article, free spay/neutering would not take
care of the problem!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/magazine/04dogs.t.html?ex=1171256400&en=c4
f0a80e0ffae424&ei=5070&emc=eta1
-----Original Message-----
From: John Burchard [mailto:saluqi@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 6:16 PM
To: Applied Ethology list
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
It seems to me the first thing to realize is that what we are dealing with
is
not really an overpopulation problem, in the sense of an excess of supply
over
demand. It is, rather, a relinquishment problem in a society which
increasingly
regards everything, even animals, as "disposable."
If there were really an "overpopulation" problem, the large scale producers
of
puppies, and the companies like Hunte which broker and transport them, would
not
continue to be profitable. Nor would we observe the phenomenon of shelters
importing "adoptable" puppies (and kittens) from other parts of the country,
or
even from foreign countries, because there aren't enough in their own area
to
meet local demand.
"Supply side" measures are notoriously ineffective at regulating a
demand-driven
market.
I think it is unfair to blame the veterinary community for not addressing
the
wrong problem.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins" 4-FEB-2007 18:40:17.63
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament
Sebastian Thomas wrote: I think the terms 'personality' and 'temperament' can be used synonymously in animals as there is no 'character' as such in animals.
Not so sure: From studies with social carnivores (e.g., wolves) and primates, I would argue the term character is more than relevant.
S. Gadbois
Absolutely!! If there is one thing sentient animals have, it is character. Not just carnivores and primates, but dogs, goats, cows, rats, geese, chooks (aka chickens) and cats -- from my own experience.
Personality and temperament too :-)
Maybe the real probelm is, with "temperament testing" to come up with a definition of the term that is usable in such a context.
As a rough start, I would like to suggest that it might be something along the lines of "reliability and predictability of behavioural responses to novel stimuli (or environment?)."
Cheers,
Jenny Haskins
Australia
From: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins" 4-FEB-2007 18:59:22.06
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Sorry all, I cannot see any positive outcome for anyone by "vet bashing". Sure, I've seen some woeful vets, but I have also seen excellent vets that I would trust implicitly not only with my own and my animals' lives but with my children's :-)
I think that it is important that vets do get involved with such things as temperament testing, at least in as much as they understand it. What I would NOT like to see, is vets manoeuvring to make it a veterinary monopoly.
While on this topic (which is currently very topical for me) I would be interested if the vets on this list -- and any medical doctors?? -- could say what VACCINATIONS they consider that animals (dogs especially as far as I am concerned) should have to visit health care facilities. (Here in Australia Rabies is not -- thank our quarantine laws -- an issue. as far as I know the other disease against which we vaccinate our dogs do not affect humans. Flea retirements and worming I feel should be prescribed for any health care, or other public, visiting, but to me vaccinations should be up to the owners' discretion.
As an aside:
Maybe the time has come for vets to follow the (human) medical profession and separate the retail side of their practice from the medical. That is leave the selling of dog foods and non-prescription care product to the pet shops. (Dunno about prescription drugs and preparations to the pharmacies, but that might need to be considered too.)
Gail, I have information on file re temperament testing in New South Wales re the Companion Animals Act. This is basically for dogs considered 'dangerous' and dogs designated as "Pit Pull crosses" but if you are interested, let me know and I will send them to you as attachments. I have also been involved in testing dogs for the Delta People Pet Partnership programme here, but I notice that you must already have this information?
Regards,
Jenny Haskins
Australia
From: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins" 4-FEB-2007 19:47:24.15
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: interesting discussion about scientific approaches
> I think that as soon as one attributes deficits to the 'other' and
> strength to the in-group, the relevant science may well be sociology
> ;)
>
> In many of the groups I have worked in it would be impossible to identify
> who emerged from which discipline--and many of the 'greats' were eclectic.
> We each bring different tools to the worksite and IMHO is it good to have
> a large diverse tool kit so consensus means more than just agreement.>
> When a behaviourist, a vet and an ethologist agree on something I am
> pretty convinced that it it true!> Emily.
Bravo!!
I think that it is probably important to keep Ethology and Animal Behaviour
as multidisciplinary as possible.
I worry that the vast bulk of "positive dog trainers" seem to limit their
knowledge of both animal behaviour and psychology to Skinner's "Quadrants"
:-(
On a tangent, I would like to see a much broader multidisciplinary approach
to all knowledge. My daughter is a University lecturer in Modern History,
and her husband is the professor of Aboriginal Studies at the same
university. We have a lot of interesting conversations -- but I feel
strongly that until they understand human history from the point of view of
human behaviour from an animal behaviour perspective, much of their history
is merely descriptive of 'what happened when' :-)
Cheers all,
Jenny Haskins
Coffs Harbour Australia
From: IN%"randihelene@fjellanger.net" "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole)" 5-FEB-2007 03:28:23.68
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "'ethology'"
CC:
Subj: Dog and cat feeding, dry kibble and welfare
One and a half year ago we had a veterinary, who works for a large dog food
company, come and have a lecture at the Dog Instructor Education we run. The
lecture was a disaster, but at the same time very valuable, because the
students asked so many questions that the man ended up standing with his
arms crossed over his chest insisting that he was right. (I am not out after
vets as a profession here now, but I do question the food industry)
One of the statements he gave was that: "Dog's do not care what they eat.
Present them with kibble and they will eat it."
With many experienced trainers amongst the students the question he got back
is "How can you then explain that we can train animals to do the most
fantastic things using high quality food?"
What do you, as animal behaviourists, think about the welfare of a dog/cat
being presented with food 1-2 times pr day, the food being gathered in a
bowl (no search needed) and the food being dry and identical every day?
Thank you!
Yours,
Randi Helene Tillung
M.Sc in ethology
Fjellanger Dog Training Academy
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 5-FEB-2007 06:01:47.58
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Fwd: vets and animal welfare
--Boundary_(ID_sryIYDIBwL+3jW1KikD4cA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
--Boundary_(ID_sryIYDIBwL+3jW1KikD4cA)
Content-type: message/rfc822; name="Message 7.eml"
Received: (from expms6.cites.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.212])
by expms6.cites.uiuc.edu (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with HTTP/1.1 id AJB25915
(AUTH securtis); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:57:24 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:57:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Stanley Curtis
Subject: vets and animal welfare
To: applied-ethology@usask, ca
Bcc: Don Butler ,
Jack Albright , Jerry Baker ,
John Campbell ,
Rick Balsbaugh ,
"Croney, Candace" ,
Brenda Coe , Iain Christison ,
Karen Campbell , Iain Curtis ,
Tom Curtis , "Barbara P. Glenn" ,
Bob Easter , Jake DeDecker ,
Mike Ellis , Philip Dziuk ,
"Hill, Jeff" , Anna Johnson ,
Janeen Johnson ,
Kay Johnson ,
Jim McFarlane , JOHN KANE ,
Ken Kephnart , Gerald Morris ,
John McGlone , Neal Merchen ,
Sherrie Niekamp , Allan Schinckel ,
Beau Peterson , Jim Pettigrew ,
Joseph Siegel , Matt Ritter ,
Steve Sinn , Ed Stephenson ,
Hans Stein , Ian Taylor ,
Paul Thompson , Bradley Wolter ,
Tina Widowski
Reply-to: securtis@uiuc.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mirapoint Webmail Direct 3.7.5a-GA
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
V2l0aCBodW1ibGUgYXBvbG9naWVzIGZvciBteSB0YXJkaW5lc3MgYW5kIHJlc3BlY3RmdWwg
cmVxdWVzdHMgZm9yIHlvdXIgaW5kdWxnZW5jZXMsIEkgd2FudCB0byBnbyBiYWNrIGFuZCBw
aWNrIHVwIG9uIHRoZSByZWNlbnQgY29udmVyc2F0aW9uIG9uIHRoaXMgbmV0d29yayBvZiB0
aGUgcm9sZSBvZiB2ZXRlcmluYXJ5IHNjaWVudGlzdHMgaW4gZGVhbGluZyB3aXRoIGFuaW1h
bCBzdGF0ZSBvZiBiZWluZyBpbiBhbGwgb2YgaXRzIGFzcGVjdHMgYW5kIHJhbWlmaWNhdGlv
bnMgdGhhdCBldm9sdmVkIGZyb20gR2FpbCBHb2xhYuKAmXMgcXVlcnkgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGFz
c2Vzc21lbnQgb2YgdGVtcGVyYW1lbnQgaW4gYW5pbWFscy4gSSB0aGluayB0aGF0IGRpc2N1
c3Npb24gc28gZmFyIGhhcyBjb21wcmlzZWQgYW4gb2JqZWN0IGxlc3NvbiB0aGF0IGlzIGlt
cG9ydGFudCB0byBvdXIgY29udGludWluZyBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgaXNzdWUg
YW5kIHRoZSBzY2llbnRpZmljIGludmVzdGlnYXRpb24gb2Ygc28tY2FsbGVkIGFuaW1hbCB3
ZWxmYXJlLg0KCVRoZSBub3Rpb24gb2YgZWdvaXNtIGhvbGRzIHRoYXQgaHVtYW4gaW5kaXZp
ZHVhbHMgYXJlIGFsd2F5cyBtb3RpdmF0ZWQgYnkgc2VsZi1pbnRlcmVzdC4gRWdvaXNtIGlz
IHRlbGVvbG9naWNhbGx5IHJhdGlvbmFsIGluIHZpZXcgb2YgdGhlIGNvbmNlcHQgb2YgZml0
bmVzcywgYW5kIHNvIGl0IGlzIG5vdCBzdXJwcmlzaW5nIHRoYXQgc29tZSBzb3J0IG9mIGVn
b2lzbSBleGlzdHMgaW4gdGhlIG5vbmh1bWFuIGFuaW1hbHMgdG9vLg0KCUFsYXMsIGh1bWFu
cyBoYXZlIGEgdGVuZGVuY3kgdG8gY2FycnkgZ29vZCBjaGFyYWN0ZXIgdHJhaXRzIHRvIGEg
ZmF1bHQuIEFuZCBzbyBpdCBpcyB3aXRoIGVnb2lzbSwgd2hpY2ggY2FuIGxlYWQgdG8gZWdv
dGlzbSAoYW4gZXhhZ2dlcmF0ZWQgc2Vuc2Ugb2Ygc2VsZi1pbXBvcnRhbmNlKSwgd2hpY2gg
aW4gdHVybiBjYW4gbGVhZCB0byBlZ29jZW50cmlzbSAodGhlIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljIG9m
IHJlZ2FyZGluZyBvbmVzZWxmIGFuZCBvbmXigJlzIG93biBpbnRlcmVzdHMgYW5kIG9waW5p
b25zIGFzIHRoZSBtb3N0IGltcG9ydGFudCkuIFRoZXJlIGlzLCBhZnRlciBhbGwsIG5vdGhp
bmcgcXVpdGUgc28gcmlkaWN1bG91cyBhcyB0aGUgc2NpZW50aXN0IHdobywgd2hpbGUgY2Fy
cnlpbmcgYSBsb2FmIG9mIGhhbGYtYmFrZWQgYnJlYWQgaW4gaGlzIHBhY2ssIGRlbW9uc3Ry
YXRlcyBieSB3b3JkIGFuZCBieSBkZWVkIHRoYXQgaGUgdGhpbmtzIGhlIGhhcyBhIGhhbW1l
cmxvY2sgb24gdHJ1dGguDQoJV2hlbiBHZW9yZ2UgQmVybmFyZCBTaGF3IHByb2NsYWltZWQg
dGhhdCDigJxhbGwgcHJvZ3Jlc3MgaXMgaW5pdGlhdGVkIGJ5IGNoYWxsZW5naW5nIGN1cnJl
bnQgY29uY2VwdGlvbnMsIGFuZCBleGVjdXRlZCBieSBzdXBwbGFudGluZyBleGlzdGluZyBp
bnN0aXR1dGlvbnPigJ0sIGhlIHdhcyBleHRvbGxpbmcgdGhlIHZpcnR1ZSBmb3Igc2NpZW50
aXN0cyBvZiBub3Qgb25seSBiZWluZyBvcGVuLW1pbmRlZCBidXQgYWxzbyB0aGF0IG9mIGJl
aW5nIGJyb2FkLW1pbmRlZC4gVGhvc2UgaWRlYXMgd2VyZSBjb21wbGVtZW50ZWQgYnkgT3Nj
YXIgV2lsZGUgd2hlbiBoZSBub3RpY2VkIHRoYXQg4oCcZGlzY29udGVudCBpcyB0aGUgZmly
c3Qgc3RlcCBpbiBodW1hbiBwcm9ncmVzc+KAnSBhbmQgYnkgQWxiZXJ0IEVpbnN0ZWluIHdo
ZW4gaGUgZW50cmVhdGVkIHVzIHRvIHJlbWVtYmVyIHRoYXQg4oCcdGhlIHJpZ2h0IHRvIHNl
YXJjaCBmb3IgdHJ1dGggaW1wbGllcyBhbHNvIGEgZHV0eTsgb25lIG11c3Qgbm90IGNvbmNl
YWwgYW55IHBhcnQgb2Ygd2hhdCBvbmUgaGFzIHJlY29nbml6ZWQgdG8gYmUgdHJ1ZeKAnS4N
CglJdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSB0aGF0IGFsbCBvZiB0aGVzZSB0aG91Z2h0cyBhcmUgY2FwdHVy
ZWQgaW4gb25lIG9mIHRoZSBpbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwgdmlydHVlcywgbmFtZWx5LCBpbnRlbGxl
Y3R1YWwgY291cmFnZSAodGhlIGNvdXJhZ2UgdG8gYmUgdHJ1ZSB0byBvbmXigJlzIG9ic2Vy
dmF0aW9uYWwgY29uY2x1c2lvbnMgZGVzcGl0ZSBwcmVzc3VyZXMgb2YgdmFyaW91cyBzb3J0
cyBhZ2FpbnN0IGl0IGFuZCB0byBiZSB0cnVlIHRvIGFsbCBvZiB0aGUgZXZpZGVuY2UgdGhh
dCBwcmVzZW50cyBpdHNlbGYpLiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIOKAnHdoYXTigJlzIHNhdWNlIGZvciBn
ZWVzZSBtdXN0IGJlIHNhdWNlIGZvciBnYW5kZXJz4oCdLiBUaGF0IGlzIHRvIHNheSwgZWFj
aCBhbmQgZXZlcnkgc2NpZW50aXN0IGhhcyB0aGUgcmlnaHQgYW5kIHRoZSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9u
IHRvIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlIGludGVsbGVjdHVhbCBjb3VyYWdlLiBBcyBhIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNl
4oCUYmVjYXVzZSBlYWNoIGFuZCBldmVyeSBzY2llbnRpc3QgaXMgdW5pcXVlIHdpdGggcmVz
cGVjdCB0byBoZXIgYXBwcm9hY2hlcyB0byB0aGUgaXNzdWUgYW5kIHRoZSBzY2llbnRpZmlj
IGludmVzdGlnYXRpb24gb2YgYW5pbWFsIHN0YXRlIG9mIGJlaW5n4oCUaXQgaXMgY2VydGFp
biB0aGF0IGEgZ3JlYXQgZGl2ZXJzaXR5IG9mIG9ic2VydmF0aW9ucyBhbmQgaW50ZXJwcmV0
YXRpb25zIG9mIG9ic2VydmF0aW9ucyB3aWxsIG9idGFpbi4gQW5kIHRoYXQgaXMgYSBnb29k
IHRoaW5nIGZvciBhIGNvbW11bml0eSBvZiBzY2llbnRpc3RzIHdobyBhcmUgZ3JvcGluZyBh
Ym91dCBpbiB0aGUgZGFya25lc3MgYXMgdGhleSBhdHRlbXB0IHRvIGZpbmQgdHJ1dGggYWJv
dXQgcyBjb21wbGV4IHNldCBvZiBwaGVub21lbmEuDQoJTm93LCByZXR1cm5pbmcgdG8gdGhl
IHByZXNlbnQgdG9waWMsIGxldCBtZSBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgd2UgYWxsIG91Z2h0IHRvIGFk
bWl0IHRoYXQsIGluIGdlbmVyYWwsIG5vIHNjaWVudGlzdCBoYXMgYSBoYW1tZXJsb2NrIG9u
IHRydXRoOyB0aGF0IG5vIHNjaWVudGlzdCBrbm93cyBhbGwgdGhlcmUgaXMgdG8ga25vdyBl
dmVuIGluIGhpcyBvd24gc2xpdmVyIG9mIHNjaWVudGlmaWMgZm9jdXM7IGFuZCB0aGF0IGl0
IGlzIGltcG9ydGFudCB0aGF0IGFzIG11Y2ggZGl2ZXJzaXR5IGFzIHBvc3NpYmxlIGV4aXN0
IGluIHRoZSBhcHByb2FjaGVzIHNjaWVudGlzdHMgdGFrZSBhcyB0aGV5IGludmVzdGlnYXRl
IGltcG9ydGFudCBxdWVzdGlvbnMgaW4gdGhlIG5hdHVyYWwgd29ybGQgLi4uIHN1Y2ggYXMg
YW5pbWFsIHN0YXRlIG9mIGJlaW5nLg0KCVdpdGggcGFydGljdWxhciByZXNwZWN0IHRvIGFu
aW1hbCBzdGF0ZSBvZiBiZWluZyBpbiBhbGwgb2YgaXRzIGFzcGVjdHMgYW5kIHJhbWlmaWNh
dGlvbnMsIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgYXQgaXRzIHByZXNlbnQgcGVyaW5hdGFsIHN0YWdlIG9mIG9u
dG9nZW55LCB3aGF0IGlzIG5lZWRlZCBpcyBtb3JlIGRpdmVyc2l0eSBpbiBzY2llbnRpZmlj
IGlucXVpcnkgb2YgdGhlIGRlZHVjdGl2ZSBzb3J0LCBub3QgbGVzcy4gQnV0IGV2ZW4gdGhh
dCB3b27igJl0IGJlIGVub3VnaC4NCiAgICAgCVNjaWVudGlzdHMgZm9sbG93aW5nIGVhY2gg
b2YgdGhlIHZhcmlvdXMgZGlzY2lwbGluZXMgdGhhdCBsb2dpY2FsbHkgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGRp
cmVjdGx5IGludm9sdmVkIGluIHRoZSBzY2llbmNlIG9mIGFuaW1hbCBzdGF0ZSBvZiBiZWlu
Z+KAlGluY2x1ZGluZyBhbmltYWwgZWNvbG9naXN0cywgYXBwbGllZCBhbmltYWwgZWNvbG9n
aXN0cywgYW5pbWFsIGV0aG9sb2dpc3RzLCBhcHBsaWVkIGFuaW1hbCBldGhvbG9naXN0cywg
YW5pbWFsIHNjaWVudGlzdHMsIGJlaGF2aW9yYWwgZWNvbG9naXN0cywgY29nbml0aXZlIHBz
eWNob2xvZ2lzdHMsIGV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbCBwc3ljaG9sb2dpc3RzLCB2ZXRlcmluYXJ5IHNj
aWVudGlzdHMsIGFuZCB6b29sb2dpc3RzLCBhbW9uZyBvdGhlcnPigJRtdXN0IGNvbWUgdG8g
cmVzcGVjdCB0aGUgdmFsdWUgb2Ygd2hhdCB0aGVpciBmZWxsb3cgc2NpZW50aXN0cyBpbiB0
aGUgb3RoZXIgZ2VybWFuZSBkaXNjaXBsaW5lcyBoYXZlIHRvIG9mZmVyIHRvIHRoZSBzZWFy
Y2ggZm9yIHRydXRoLg0KCUluIG15IG9waW5pb24sIHRoZSBlbXBoYXNlcyBpbiB0aGUgc2Np
ZW5jZSBvZiBhbmltYWwgc3RhdGUgb2YgYmVpbmcgbm93IG91Z2h0IHRvIGJlIHNoaWZ0ZWQg
c28gYXMgdG8gZGUtZW1waGFzaXplIHRoZSBhbmltYWzigJlzIGZlZWxpbmdzIChiZWNhdXNl
LCBpbiB0aGUgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHNlbnNlLCB3ZSBjYW7igJl0IG1hbmFnZSB3aGF0IHdlIGNh
buKAmXQgbWVhc3VyZSkgYW5kIHRvIHJlLWVtcGhhc2l6ZSBvdGhlciBhc3BlY3RzIG9mIHRo
ZSBhbmltYWzigJlzIGxpZmUgYXMgZGV0ZXJtaW5hbnRzIG9mIGl0cyBzdGF0ZSBvZiBiZWlu
Zy4gVGhlc2Ugb3RoZXIgYXNwZWN0cyBmb2xsb3cgYSBoaWVyYXJjaHkgb2YgbmVlZHMgb2Yg
YW5pbWFscyBiYXNlZCBvbiBwc3ljaG9sb2dpc3QgQWJyYWhhbSBNYXNsb3figJlzIGhpZXJh
cmNoeSBmb3IgaHVtYW5zLCB3aGVyZSB0aGUgbmVlZHMgZm9yIGFpciwgZm9vZCwgYW5kIHdh
dGVyIGFyZSBhbW9uZyBhbiBhbmltYWzigJlzIG1vc3QgYmFzaWMgbmVlZHM7IHRoZSBuZWVk
cyBmb3IgYSBjb21mb3J0YWJsZSBhbmQgc2FmZSBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCBhbmQgYWRlcXVhdGUg
aGVhbHRoIGNhcmUgY29tZSBuZXh0OyBhbmQgZmluYWxseSBjb21lIHdoYXQgbWlnaHQgZm9y
IGFuaW1hbHMgYmUgbHVtcGVkIGFuZCBjYWxsZWQgdGhlIGJlaGF2aW9yYWwgYW5kIHBzeWNo
b2xvZ2ljIG5lZWRzLiBNYXNsb3figJlzIGNvbmNlcHQgd2FzIHRoYXQgdGhlIG1vcmUgYmFz
aWMgbmVlZHMgbXVzdCBiZSBjb21wbGV0ZWx5IG9yIGF0IGxlYXN0IHN1ZmZpY2llbnRseSBz
YXRpc2ZpZWQgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBiZWhhdmlvcmFsIGFuZCBwc3ljaG9sb2dpYyBuZWVkcyBj
b21lIGludG8gZm9jdXMuIChBcyBWaXJnaW5pYSBXb29sZiBwdXQgaXQgZm9yIHRoZSBodW1h
biBhbmltYWw6IOKAnE9uZSBjYW5ub3QgdGhpbmsgd2VsbCwgbG92ZSB3ZWxsLCBzbGVlcCB3
ZWxsLCBpZiBvbmUgaGFzIG5vdCBkaW5lZCB3ZWxsLuKAnSkgRmluYWxseSwgd2hlbiBNYXNs
b3cgb3BpbmVkIGluIGhpcyB3cml0aW5ncyB0aGF0IOKAnHRoZSBzdHVkeSBvZiBjcmlwcGxl
ZCwgc3R1bnRlZCwgaW1tYXR1cmUsIGFuZCB1bmhlYWx0aHkgc3BlY2ltZW5zIGNhbiB5aWVs
ZCBvbmx5IGEgY3JpcHBsZSBwc3ljaG9sb2d5IGFuZCBhIGNyaXBwbGUgcGhpbG9zb3BoeeKA
nSwgaGUgYm93ZWQgdG8gdGhlIGltcG9ydGFuY2Ugb2YgbWFraW5nIHN1cmUgdGhhdCwgYmVm
b3JlIGZvY3VzaW5nIHZpcnR1YWxseSBleGNsdXNpdmVseSBvbiBiZWhhdmlvcmFsIGFuZCBw
c3ljaG9sb2dpYyBuZWVkcywgd2Uga25vdyBuZXR0ZXIgaG93IHRvIG1lZXQgdGhlIG1vcmUg
YmFzaWMgbmVlZHMgYW5kIHRoZW4gZm9sbG93IHRocm91Z2ggYW5kIG1ha2Ugc3VyZSB0aGF0
IHRob3NlIG5lZWRzIGFyZSBpbmRlZWQgYmVpbmcgbWV0Lg0KCUluIGNvbmNsdXNpb24sIGF0
IHRoaXMgcG9pbnQsIGF0dGVudGlvbiB0byBhbmltYWwgc3RhdGUgb2YgYmVpbmcgYnkgc2Np
ZW50aXN0cyBpbiBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIHNjaWVudGlmaWMgZGlzY2lwbGluZXMgaXMgY3J1Y2lh
bCB0byBvdXIgbGVhcm5pbmcgbW9yZSBhYm91dCB3aGF0IGNvbnN0aXR1dGVzIGFuaW1hbCB3
ZWxsLWJlaW5nIGFuZCBob3cgdGhhdCBzdGF0ZSBjYW4gYmUgc3VwcG9ydGVkIGluIHByYWN0
aWNhbCBrZWVwaW5nIGVudmlyb25tZW50cy4gQW5kIOKAnGFsbCBvZiB0aGUgc2NpZW50aWZp
YyBkaXNjaXBsaW5lc+KAnSBjZXJ0YWlubHkgaW5jbHVkZXMgdmV0ZXJpbmFyeSBzY2llbmNl
IGFzIG11Y2ggYXMgYW55IG90aGVyLCBhbmQgYXQgdGhpcyB0aW1lLCBvZiBjb3Vyc2UsIHRo
YXQgaXMgZXNwZWNpYWxseSBzbyB3aXRoIHJlc3BlY3QgdG8gdGhhdCBhc3BlY3QgaGF2aW5n
IHRvIGRvIHdpdGggdGhlIGFuaW1hbOKAmXMgcGh5c2ljYWwgaGVhbHRoLiBBcyBwb2ludGVk
IG91dCBpbiB0aGUgbmV0d29yayBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLCB0aGUgcnViIGNvbWVzIHdoZW4gcGVv
cGxlIHdpdGggZWR1Y2F0aW9uIGFuZCBleHBlcnRpc2UgaW4gb25lIGRpc2NyZXRlIGFzcGVj
dCBvZiB0aGUgYW5pbWFs4oCZcyBzdGF0ZSBvZiBiZWluZyB3YW5kZXIgaW50byBhc3BlY3Rz
IGluIHdoaWNoIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBuZWl0aGVyIGVkdWNhdGlvbiBub3IgZXhwZXJ0aXNlLiBG
b3IgYWxsIHBlcnRpbmVudCBkaXNjaXBsaW5lcywgZHVlIGFja25vd2xlZGdlbWVudCBhbmQg
cmVzcGVjdCBmb3IgdGhlIGNvbXBsZXhpdGllcyBvZiB0aGUga25vd2xlZGdlIGF0IGVhY2gg
b2YgdGhvc2UgYXNwZWN0cyBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIGZvciB0aGUgbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSByb2xlcyBv
ZiBzY2llbnRpc3RzIHdobyBzcGVjaWFsaXplIGluIHRob3NlIHJlc3BlY3RpdmUgYXNwZWN0
cyBpcyBhYnNvbHV0ZWx5IGNyaXRpY2FsIGlmIHRoZSBhbmltYWwgaXMgdG8gYmUgYmVzdC1z
ZXJ2ZWQuIEluIG90aGVyIHdvcmRzLCBhbiBhZmZpcm1hdGl2ZWx5IGVuc3VyZWQgaW50ZXJk
aXNjaXBsaW5hcnksIG11bHRpZGlzY2lwbGluYXJ5IGFwcHJvYWNoIGlzIHdoYXQgaXMgY2Fs
bGVkIGZvci4NCiAgICAgSSBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgb3VyIGNvbGxlY3RpdmUgdGFzayBmb3Ig
dGhlIG5lYXIgZnV0dXJlIGlzIHRvIG1ha2Ugc3VyZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBhY2tub3dsZWRnZW1l
bnQgYW5kIHJlc3BlY3QganVzdCBtZW50aW9uZWQgYXJlIGluZGVlZCBtb3JlIHRob3JvdWdo
bHkgZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQuIEFuZCB0aGF0LCBvbmNlIHRob3NlIGdvYWxzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBh
Y2hpZXZlZCwgaXQgdGhlbiB3aWxsIGJlIGhpZ2ggdGltZSBmb3Igc2NpZW50aXN0cyBpbiBh
bGwgb2YgdGhlIGludm9sdmVkIGRpc2NpcGxpbmVzIHRvIGVuZ2FnZSwgYXMgbmV2ZXIgYmVm
b3JlLCBpbiBpbmR1Y3RpdmUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb2YgYWxsIG9mIHRoZSBhdmFpbGFibGUg
ZXZpZGVuY2UuIA0KDQpTdGFubGV5IEN1cnRpcw0KRGVwYXJ0bWVudCBvZiBBbmltYWwgU2Np
ZW5jZXMNClVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgSWxsaW5vaXMgYXQgVXJiYW5hLUNoYW1wYWlnbg0K
--Boundary_(ID_sryIYDIBwL+3jW1KikD4cA)--
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 5-FEB-2007 06:05:01.02
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network"
CC:
Subj: Fwd: vets and animal welfare
--Boundary_(ID_7S8MBxmC1xnc+v4pFuF7ww)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
--Boundary_(ID_7S8MBxmC1xnc+v4pFuF7ww)
Content-type: message/rfc822; name="Message 7.eml"
Received: (from expms6.cites.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.212])
by expms6.cites.uiuc.edu (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with HTTP/1.1 id AJB25915
(AUTH securtis); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:57:24 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:57:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Stanley Curtis
Subject: vets and animal welfare
To: applied-ethology@usask, ca
Bcc: Don Butler ,
Jack Albright , Jerry Baker ,
John Campbell ,
Rick Balsbaugh ,
"Croney, Candace" ,
Brenda Coe , Iain Christison ,
Karen Campbell , Iain Curtis ,
Tom Curtis , "Barbara P. Glenn" ,
Bob Easter , Jake DeDecker ,
Mike Ellis , Philip Dziuk ,
"Hill, Jeff" , Anna Johnson ,
Janeen Johnson ,
Kay Johnson ,
Jim McFarlane , JOHN KANE ,
Ken Kephnart , Gerald Morris ,
John McGlone , Neal Merchen ,
Sherrie Niekamp , Allan Schinckel ,
Beau Peterson , Jim Pettigrew ,
Joseph Siegel , Matt Ritter ,
Steve Sinn , Ed Stephenson ,
Hans Stein , Ian Taylor ,
Paul Thompson , Bradley Wolter ,
Tina Widowski
Reply-to: securtis@uiuc.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mirapoint Webmail Direct 3.7.5a-GA
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: base64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--Boundary_(ID_7S8MBxmC1xnc+v4pFuF7ww)--
From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 5-FEB-2007 06:26:29.49
To: IN%"the_space_cowgirl@hotmail.com" "'Becky O'Neill'", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
Becky,
Regarding how to find info on grad study in "ethology" - in the USA the
majority of these persons (who mostly no longer identify themselves as
ethologists) are affiliated with the "Animal Behavior Society" (ABS). And
they tend to publish in the journal "Animal Behaviour."
Thus, you should take a look at the ABS website
(http://www.animalbehavior.org/) and then peruse the journal "Animal
Behaviour."
And I recommend that you try to identify a behavior topic and species that
are of interest to you. Find out who has published on the topic and then try
and determine if the researcher is still active in advising grad students.
You can get some idea about possible grad study opportunities (but be aware
that the info posted is almost 10 years out-of-date)at:
http://www.animalbehavior.org/ABS/Guides/
And then I recommend that you try to do the same using comparative
psychology web sites, journals, etc.
Finally, I recommend that you schedule an appointment with at least 2-3
persons in your local psych and biol departments - and approach each of
these persons with a list of questions regarding career opportunities, grad
programs, etc. And in personally meeting with each of persons (from psych
and biol), ask yourself if you would like to have the job - and professional
experiences - this person currently witnesses.
And if you dig deeply, you will likely find that there is considerable
variation within the various Biology and Psychology programs - not just
differences between the two disciplines. In general, however, you should
expect a biology program to place greater emphasis on evolutionary biology,
population genetics, etc. while a psych program is likely to place greater
emphasis on learning theory, neuro anatomy and physiology, etc. But a good
grad program should allow you as a grad student considerable opportunity to
choose courses across these topics regardless of your department affiliation
- and encourage you to build your own course of study while in grad school.
Good luck,
W.R. Stricklin
University of Maryland
-----Original Message-----
From: Becky O'Neill [mailto:the_space_cowgirl@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:34 PM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Ethology Programs
I am an undergrad at Idaho State University and I would like to go into
Ethology, Evolutionary Psychology, or Comparative Psychology. (undecided
between the three) However I am having trouble getting a good feel for
universty graduate programs from their websites alone. Does anyone here
have any advice on grad schools I should look into? I'm also curious what
sort of degree is best to get into the Ethology feild. I am currently split
down the middle credit-wise between a Zoology degree and a Psychology
degree. I can't pick which should be the major and which should be the
minor.
-Becky O'Neill
Undergraduate
Idaho State University
_________________________________________________________________
From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the
Academy AwardsR
http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1
From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 5-FEB-2007 08:15:07.96
To: IN%"randihelene@fjellanger.net" "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole)"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "'ethology'"
Subj: RE: Dog and cat feeding, dry kibble and welfare
Hi Randi,
I've never done research in this area, but I play a game with my dogs called
'hide the biscuit'. This involves their regular kibble, but instead being
served in the the bowl, it's now hidden around the room. The dogs have to
sit and wait while I hide it and then are told to 'go look'. It's all very
informal and doesn't make up most of their intake--but they are very excited
to play the game and search diligently until every piece has been found.
Sometimes you hear nothing but sniffing as they search everything out.
However, my dogs do love to eat period (and I do feed high quality dog
kibble--but it is still all very homogenous). Even for their regular meal
times when I make them work first for a minute or two by doing sit stays and
some other commands they perform perfectly, with rapt attention, drooling
all the while. So while my dogs enjoy the games, they also still enjoy their
regular boring meals.
I know that this isn't true for all dogs. My dogs are a chocolate lab and a
black lab cross, both neutered males--and maybe those factor into their food
motivation.
It would be an interesting line of research and I'd love to hear what other
folks experiences are with their dogs.
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
Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole) writes:
> One and a half year ago we had a veterinary, who works for a large dog food
> company, come and have a lecture at the Dog Instructor Education we run. The
> lecture was a disaster, but at the same time very valuable, because the
> students asked so many questions that the man ended up standing with his
> arms crossed over his chest insisting that he was right. (I am not out after
> vets as a profession here now, but I do question the food industry)
>
>
>
> One of the statements he gave was that: "Dog's do not care what they eat.
> Present them with kibble and they will eat it."
>
>
>
> With many experienced trainers amongst the students the question he got back
> is "How can you then explain that we can train animals to do the most
> fantastic things using high quality food?"
>
>
>
> What do you, as animal behaviourists, think about the welfare of a dog/cat
> being presented with food 1-2 times pr day, the food being gathered in a
> bowl (no search needed) and the food being dry and identical every day?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Randi Helene Tillung
>
> M.Sc in ethology
>
> Fjellanger Dog Training Academy
>
>
>
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%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 5-FEB-2007 08:29:59.30
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Ethology Programs
Simon Gadbois wrote:
> When students ask me for a program in "ethology" in North America, I
> usually don't know what to say. There are actually very few programs
> that still use the label "ethology". Their choice is usually between
> psychology (animal or biological psychology) or biology (behavioural
> ecology). I usually recommend the double major Psychology/Biology
> which gives them everything they need to know about behaviour, from
> Tinbergen's four legs to a knowledge of human and abnormal behaviour.
>
> Behavioural ecology is the field of animal behaviour that dominates
> in biology departments in North America, and, unfortunately,
> methodologically, is quite different from the good old ethology of
> Lorenz and Tinbergen. Direct observations of behaviour are not
> emphasized as much, the inductive approach is often seen as "weak"
> and I know many students of animal behaviour that learned their
> observational techniques from developmental psychologists...
I'd like to know more about that side of observational technique. I'd say
inductive methods are not "weak" - but they take hard work and hard thinking and
don't lend themselves very well to unconsidered numeracy . You have to
figure out what is really there before you can start to count it . Arbitrary
categories won't do.
> I think that John is right, labels are in the way, but unfortunately
> as well, "classical" ethology has been diluted by a stronger focus on
> ecology. After being a regular attendee at a provincial animal
> behaviour society for years, I stopped going because we were not
> talking about behaviour anymore (they way ethologists would define
> it) but ecology. Most talks and posters would leave me wondering
> "where is the behaviour"?
That's interesting ... I began as a "physiological ecologist" studying
microhabitat adaptations, both physiological and behavioral, in sibling
Drosophila species. Circadian rhythms were part of those adaptations and my
1958 dissertation was on "resetting" circadian clocks by non-periodic light
stimuli (you can shift a clock by several hours with a single strobe flash at
the right moment in the cycle). At Seewiesen I worked mostly on Cichlid fish
ethology. After leaving Seewiesen I moved gradually back into ecology, but
never lost sight (I hope) of the *structure* of behavior which is IMHO the "nuts
and bolts" of the adaptations which are so crucial to the ecology of any animal
species. I got fascinated by the behavioral ecology of predators and could go
on for hours about the behavioral "nuts and bolts" of certain raptorial birds
(especially Goshawks) and of driver ants (Anomma spp) in Africa (well, for
example ). To get at those "nuts and bolts" you still have to use the
classical inductive ethological methods and work out in full detail what the
animals are actually doing ... otherwise you aren't going to understand it.
Anyway that full detail - the "how it works" part - is what I find most
fascinating. The way the individual behaviors of individual driver ants combine
into the "superorganismic" behavior of a raiding swarm containing a couple of
million individuals ... and the way those individual and collective behaviors
combine to produce a remarkably efficient prey harvesting system which scours
any given square meter of forest floor (and canopy!) on average about twice a
year ... was for me a large part of the fascination of that work (unfortunately
the Nigerian civil war drove me out before it was finished ...).
> I am "only" 40, but I was trained by two "real" ethologists (John
> Fentress and Peter McLeod) and I honestly think that we need to turn
> to the continental Europeans to remind us of what ethology should be.
Now we agree completely - in fact that is more or less what I had in mind
originally.
The Lorenz-Tinbergen debates I mentioned really hinged around that point too.
There was already then (early 1960s, I went off to Africa in 1965) an increasing
gap between the British and the Continental perspective on these things.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 5-FEB-2007 09:14:21.40
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
CC:
Subj: Ethological Ethics
I am always interested in Marc Beckoff's work. He and Jane Goodall co founded the
"Ethologist's for Ethical Treatment of Animals
Citizens for Responsible Animal Studies"
http://www.EthologicalEthics.org
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 5-FEB-2007 09:15:33.52
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
CC:
Subj: Fw: Dog and cat feeding, dry kibble and welfare
----- Original Message -----
From: Zen Trainer
To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole)
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Dog and cat feeding, dry kibble and welfare
What do you, as animal behaviourists, think about the welfare of a dog/cat being presented with food 1-2 times pr day, the food being gathered in a bowl (no search needed) and the food being dry and identical every day?
Yours,
Randi Helene Tillung
M.Sc in ethology
Fjellanger Dog Training Academy
Sounds very boring to me. I think I am the only human I know who likes to eat the same food 4 or 5 days in a row. I think it's much like prisoners in a camp though - you eat what gets presented to you if you have no choice.
I have had visiting dogs who won't eat the same thing after a couple of days or they will just pick at their food. (Not the labs of course who will eat dog food, patio furniture and solar lights all with equal gusto). For those more discriminating dogs even a bit of gravy, fresh apples or yogurt will entice the dog to eat all of it's food.
My own dogs and cats eat a raw Pitcairn diet with a bit of Dr. Goldstein's philosophy thrown in.
I do workshops on basic pet nutrition. The veterinary nutrionist I consult with knows the temperature at which each dog food is cooked. His knowledge of nutrition is way above my head, but I do get that no matter how good the food is, it's cooked and we all need fresh food.
Kind of like the difference between lightly steamed green beans that are packed with nutrients and the kind we get here in the south - cooked in fat back for about a week. No nutitional value at all but they taste real good!
I do use food as a lure in training and a reward and then fade it out. In my last training class 8 out of 10 dogs preferred cheeseburgers. The other 2 liked apples. If you gave them a choice between a piece of cheeseburger and a piece of apple they picked the apple! Go figure.
Even when using food as a reward when training I have my clients vary it. They have little bags with cheerios, hotdogs, dog treats, cheeseburgers etc. so the dog gets something different each time it say, comes when called. That way it doesn't get bored - it comes when called!
Oh and I do sometimes have clients who feed dry food scatter the food so the dogs can search or put it in a Buster Cube.
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 5-FEB-2007 09:28:55.22
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" "Stanley Curtis"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
Dear Dr. Curtis,
I really enjoyed your letter. And, I agree with your position. I see
difficulties in carrying out this position, as even on the applied
ethology list, mutual respect is often missing and emotions often
overrule any other concern. But, I believe that we must set our
sights for an optimal outcome.
Your candid recognition of the importance of others and humility, to
intellectual progress, giving respect to all others, regardless of
position, makes a big impression on me.
On the subject of where to direct our efforts to best support welfare
in animals, I observe that many times, we want more, or choose
differently, for animals than they want for themselves. An old study
on pigs choosing their own barn temperature comes to mind - the
farmers set the temperature higher than the pigs did. In the work I
do, we now can directly ask animals about their preferences and
perspective. I believe we will find their information and choices
surprising. In my own life, I value freedom more than a high degree
of comfort. With the animals I see, I find they often value
self-determination and intellectual stimulation very highly.
Thank you for eloquently framing the target for cross disciplinary
collaboration, with your compelling presentation.
Best wishes,
Kayce
> With humble apologies for my tardiness and respectful requests for
> your indulgences, I want to go back and pick up on the recent
> conversation on this network of the role of veterinary scientists in
> dealing with animal state of being in all of its aspects and
> ramifications that evolved from Gail Golab’s query about the
> assessment of temperament in animals. I think that discussion so far
> has comprised an object lesson that is important to our continuing
> considerations of the issue and the scientific investigation of
> so-called animal welfare.
> The notion of egoism holds that human individuals are always
> motivated by self-interest. Egoism is teleologically rational in view
> of the concept of fitness, and so it is not surprising that some sort
> of egoism exists in the nonhuman animals too.
> Alas, humans have a tendency to carry good character traits to a
> fault. And so it is with egoism, which can lead to egotism (an
> exaggerated sense of self-importance), which in turn can lead to
> egocentrism (the characteristic of regarding oneself and one’s own
> interests and opinions as the most important). There is, after all,
> nothing quite so ridiculous as the scientist who, while carrying a
> loaf of half-baked bread in his pack, demonstrates by word and by
> deed that he thinks he has a hammerlock on truth.
> When George Bernard Shaw proclaimed that “all progress is initiated
> by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting
> existing institutions”, he was extolling the virtue for scientists
> of not only being open-minded but also that of being broad-minded.
> Those ideas were complemented by Oscar Wilde when he noticed that
> “discontent is the first step in human progress” and by Albert
> Einstein when he entreated us to remember that “the right to search
> for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what
> one has recognized to be true”.
> It seems to me that all of these thoughts are captured in one of the
> intellectual virtues, namely, intellectual courage (the courage to be
> true to one’s observational conclusions despite pressures of
> various sorts against it and to be true to all of the evidence that
> presents itself). Of course, “what’s sauce for geese must be
> sauce for ganders”. That is to say, each and every scientist has
> the right and the obligation to demonstrate intellectual courage. As
> a consequence—because each and every scientist is unique with
> respect to her approaches to the issue and the scientific
> investigation of animal state of being—it is certain that a great
> diversity of observations and interpretations of observations will
> obtain. And that is a good thing for a community of scientists who
> are groping about in the darkness as they attempt to find truth about
> s complex set of phenomena.
> Now, returning to the present topic, let me suggest that we all ought
> to admit that, in general, no scientist has a hammerlock on truth;
> that no scientist knows all there is to know even in his own sliver
> of scientific focus; and that it is important that as much diversity
> as possible exist in the approaches scientists take as they
> investigate important questions in the natural world ... such as
> animal state of being.
> With particular respect to animal state of being in all of its
> aspects and ramifications, especially at its present perinatal stage
> of ontogeny, what is needed is more diversity in scientific inquiry
> of the deductive sort, not less. But even that won’t be enough.
> Scientists following each of the various disciplines that
> logically should be directly involved in the science of animal
> state of being—including animal ecologists, applied animal
> ecologists, animal ethologists, applied animal ethologists,
> animal scientists, behavioral ecologists, cognitive
> psychologists, experimental psychologists, veterinary
> scientists, and zoologists, among others—must come to respect
> the value of what their fellow scientists in the other germane
> disciplines have to offer to the search for truth.
> In my opinion, the emphases in the science of animal state of being
> now ought to be shifted so as to de-emphasize the animal’s feelings
> (because, in the practical sense, we can’t manage what we can’t
> measure) and to re-emphasize other aspects of the animal’s life as
> determinants of its state of being. These other aspects follow a
> hierarchy of needs of animals based on psychologist Abraham
> Maslow’s hierarchy for humans, where the needs for air, food, and
> water are among an animal’s most basic needs; the needs for a
> comfortable and safe environment and adequate health care come next;
> and finally come what might for animals be lumped and called the
> behavioral and psychologic needs. Maslow’s concept was that the
> more basic needs must be completely or at least sufficiently
> satisfied before the behavioral and psychologic needs come into
> focus. (As Virginia Woolf put it for the human animal: “One cannot
> think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.”)
> Finally, when Maslow opined in his writings that “the study of
> crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a
> cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy”, he bowed to the
> importance of making sure that, before focusing virtually exclusively
> on behavioral and psychologic needs, we know netter how to meet the
> more basic needs and then follow through and make sure that those
> needs are indeed being met.
> In conclusion, at this point, attention to animal state of being by
> scientists in all of the scientific disciplines is crucial to our
> learning more about what constitutes animal well-being and how that
> state can be supported in practical keeping environments. And “all
> of the scientific disciplines” certainly includes veterinary
> science as much as any other, and at this time, of course, that is
> especially so with respect to that aspect having to do with the
> animal’s physical health. As pointed out in the network discussion,
> the rub comes when people with education and expertise in one
> discrete aspect of the animal’s state of being wander into aspects
> in which they have neither education nor expertise. For all pertinent
> disciplines, due acknowledgement and respect for the complexities of
> the knowledge at each of those aspects as well as for the legitimate
> roles of scientists who specialize in those respective aspects is
> absolutely critical if the animal is to be best-served. In other
> words, an affirmatively ensured interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary
> approach is what is called for.
> I suggest that our collective task for the near future is to make
> sure that the acknowledgement and respect just mentioned are
> indeed more thoroughly established. And that, once those goals
> have been achieved, it then will be high time for scientists in
> all of the involved disciplines to engage, as never before, in
> inductive discussions of all of the available evidence.
>
> Stanley Curtis
> Department of Animal Sciences
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
Kayce Cover
Syn Alia Training Systems
http://www.synalia.com
From: IN%"SBowers@rfmd.com" "Sue Bowers" 5-FEB-2007 09:53:50.14
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Dog and cat feeding, dry kibble and welfare
Personally, I don't believe in feeding canids out of bowls, for a variety of reasons. ;)
My degree is in something completely unrelated to animal research, but as a trainer of primitive canines (wolf/dog crosses), I feel we need to make the most use possible out of something a canine values so highly!
We do lure training, clicker-style training, and follow a No Free Lunch program. Our guys have to work for their food. (Granted, this is a bit easier to do with a raw food diet; but were I to feed kibble, I would follow a similar protocol.)
Leaving a bowl of food out teaches that the animal doesn't need you to survive, facilitates resource-guarding, and simply wastes an enormous opportunity for training and bonding. It is the number-one way to 'drop the ball' when raising canids, IMO.
~Sue!
p.s. I find this side tangent fascinating, with apologies for the hijacking of the original thread. ;)
________________________________
From: Janice M Siegford [mailto:siegford@msu.edu]
It would be an interesting line of research and I'd love to hear what other
folks experiences are with their dogs.
Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole) writes:
>> What do you, as animal behaviourists, think about the welfare of a dog/cat
> being presented with food 1-2 times pr day, the food being gathered in a
> bowl (no search needed) and the food being dry and identical every day?
>
>
From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 5-FEB-2007 11:41:46.68
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
Stan Curtis wrote:
"In my opinion, the emphases in the science of animal state of being now
ought to be shifted so as to de-emphasize the animal's feelings (because, in
the practical sense, we can't manage what we can't measure) and to
re-emphasize other aspects of the animal's life as determinants of its state
of being."
------------------------------------
Dear Stan and all,
I think a big problem with what you suggest above is that THE primary
concern among members of the general public regarding animal welfare has to
do with "animal feelings."
And specifically, the general public wants assurance that food animals
experience an "appropriate quality of life." I think one could even say the
majority of the public wants assurance that animals enjoy some "happiness"
during their existence.
And yes, Stan, you are absolutely correct that when one gets into
discussions about animal quality of life, animal happiness, etc. - "one
ain't no longer dealing with Science!" And I, for one, believe as you do
that too many scientists have attempted to move the boundaries of Science
too far in this regard. But I don't think that this is the issue at hand.
Rather, I think telling the public that simply because we scientists cannot
measure subjective states dictates that animal subjective states should
therefore NOT even be considered when making decisions regarding the
animal's well-being - in my opinion - will NOT result in satisfying the
public's concerns!
Thus, I think that we scientists - when dealing with welfare should, or
maybe even must, acknowledge that "quality of life" is important to the
individual animal - even though we cannot measure it directly. Additionally,
I think that what we need are some general statements regarding what
constitutes an appropriate "quality of life" experience for each of the food
animals. And if the scientists don't provide such a position, then I think
that ultimately these position statements will be defined by others.
And finally, I think the mission of animal science should be to move
production practices to ones that provide for at least this minimally
defined "appropriate quality of life."
"Science alone" sounds good as a sound bite approach in dealing with welfare
issues. But in the long-term, I think this approach will fail. I say this
because I do not believe that animal agriculture can present a defensible
ethical argument for using animals unless one includes "quality of life for
the individual animal" in the equation.
Good to hear from you, Stan, and see that you haven't lost any of your bark
or bite.
Best personal regards,
Ray Stricklin
University of Maryland
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 5-FEB-2007 12:52:52.45
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network"
CC:
Subj: Fwd: RE: vets and animal welfare
Ray-
As you know, I think, I've always had the highest regards for your thinking and your articulateness- And I pretty much agree with what you have said just now-
In defense of my thesis, however, I do want to emphasize that what I suggested were "de-emphasis" and "re-emphasis" -- by which I meant "de-" and "re-" relative to each other -- and not a turning away from investigations of what's on animals' minds in terms of feelings and such-
In other words, let's do make sure we place proper emphasis on meeting the animal's basic needs- My concern in this respect has to do with the fact that -- in my experience -- many animals in all catgeories of use by humans are still not having their basic needs met- Let's be sure to tend to first things first-
Stan Curtis
University of Illinois
From: IN%"GGolab@avma.org" "Dr. Gail Golab" 6-FEB-2007 01:17:19.11
To: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Based on the direction that this discussion seems to be taking, I want to clarify that the "animals in healthcare facilities" project that is being worked on is:
1) Not AVMA's project---AVMA is simply a member of the team (we're not even coordinating the effort). This is a project that involves veterinarians, veterinary/animal behaviorists, physicians, nurses, infection control specialists, those who train and visit with animals involved in animal-assisted activity and therapy, as well as those who run animal-assisted activity and therapy programs. The intent is not to generate laws, create a primary responsible body, or anything of the kind...it is simply to generate a guidance document. The AVMA has had similar guidance documents available for veterinarians for since the 1990s (and, yes, we have regularly updated these).
2) Multifactorial---meaning that it involves both medical and behavioral elements--I asked some temperament questions (and they were only part of a series of issues being discussed) simply to get feedback from this group, since I knew that its members comprised a range of expertise and training. Discussion of vaccinations will be included as a medical element, as well other preventive protocols (screening, parasite control).
Jenny...if you can provide the information you reference in your post on temperament testing, that would be most helpful and appreciated. The "dangerous" dogs issue is certainly different from my emphasis in this project, but I would also bet there would be some overlap in screening approaches, so this would be of interest to me (actually from a couple of perspectives, since I spend a lot of time dealing with the "dangerous dogs" issue as well).
With respect to the question that Jenny has raised about veterinary offices separating out products...at this point, most clinics in the US don't do much in the way of nonprescription products. That used to be somewhat common, but has become considerably less so during the past 15 or 20 years. The majority of clinics now seem to be limiting their sales to prescription products (foods and medicines).
________________________________
From: peterhaskins [mailto:peterhaskins@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sun 2/4/2007 6:59 PM
To: ethology
Subject: Re: Temperament Testing for Animals in Healthcare Facilities
Sorry all, I cannot see any positive outcome for anyone by "vet bashing". Sure, I've seen some woeful vets, but I have also seen excellent vets that I would trust implicitly not only with my own and my animals' lives but with my children's :-)
I think that it is important that vets do get involved with such things as temperament testing, at least in as much as they understand it. What I would NOT like to see, is vets manoeuvring to make it a veterinary monopoly.
While on this topic (which is currently very topical for me) I would be interested if the vets on this list -- and any medical doctors?? -- could say what VACCINATIONS they consider that animals (dogs especially as far as I am concerned) should have to visit health care facilities. (Here in Australia Rabies is not -- thank our quarantine laws -- an issue. as far as I know the other disease against which we vaccinate our dogs do not affect humans. Flea retirements and worming I feel should be prescribed for any health care, or other public, visiting, but to me vaccinations should be up to the owners' discretion.
As an aside:
Maybe the time has come for vets to follow the (human) medical profession and separate the retail side of their practice from the medical. That is leave the selling of dog foods and non-prescription care product to the pet shops. (Dunno about prescription drugs and preparations to the pharmacies, but that might need to be considered too.)
Gail, I have information on file re temperament testing in New South Wales re the Companion Animals Act. This is basically for dogs considered 'dangerous' and dogs designated as "Pit Pull crosses" but if you are interested, let me know and I will send them to you as attachments. I have also been involved in testing dogs for the Delta People Pet Partnership programme here, but I notice that you must already have this information?
Regards,
Jenny Haskins
Australia
From: IN%"jlanier@hsi.org" "Jennifer Lanier" 6-FEB-2007 10:44:26.04
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: -energy balance
In a discussion with a coworker we began debating about negative energy
balance. I thought it an interesting question and thought it would be
useful to pose the question to the list. When does a negative energy
balance become starvation? This was in regards to beef cattle, but I
would be very interested in thoughts on this for any animal or humans.
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to www.hsus.org/join .
From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 6-FEB-2007 11:02:15.11
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
Stanley Curtice wrote, "In my opinion, the emphases in the science of animal
state of being now ought to be shifted so as to de-emphasize the animal's
feelings (because, in the practical sense, we can't manage what we can't
measure)..."
Ray Strickland answered: "I think a big problem with what you suggest above
is that THE primary concern among members of the general public regarding
animal welfare has to do with 'animal feelings.'"
Two things: science, in part, seems to be the history or noticing something
and then devising a way to measure it. Denying a phenomenon's importance or
failing to take it into account until until it can be measured could be a
way to conveniently deny what is plainly apparent. (Kind of like global
warming or the deleterious effects of tobacco.)
Second, though this may not have been Mr. Strickland's intent, an
implication could be that animals' feelings, thoughts, subjective
experiences, desires, etc. are NOT primary concerns of (hard-nosed, no
nonsense) scientists, that these concerns are just the mushy emotionalism of
a scientifically illiterate general public.
It seems to me that there isn't a general claim that can be made one way or
the other. Some of the leading voices asking that animal feelings be given
greater weight and more acknowledgement are those of respected scientists.
Jane Goodall comes immediately to mind. Many lay people advocating for a
societal acknowlegement of animal mind and the implications thereof, point
directly to rigorous scientific data.
The general case for trying to synthesize our everyday observations with the
growing data on mind is spelled out by Marc Beckoff in the article just
below.
Rick Bogle
Madison, WI
ANIMAL EMOTIONS, ETHICS, AND INVASIVE RESEARCH: WHY ANIMAL EMOTIONS MATTER
By Marc Bekoff
One of the hottest questions in the study of animal behavior is "Do animals
have emotions?" And the simple and correct answer is "Of course they do."
Just look at them, listen to them, and if you dare, smell the odours that
pour out when they interact with friends and foes. Look at their faces,
tails, bodies, and most importantly their eyes. What we see on the outside
tells us a lot about what's happening inside animals' heads and hearts.
Animal emotions aren't all that mysterious.
When I first began my studies three decades ago asking the question "What
does it feel like to be a dog or a wolf?" researchers were almost all
skeptics who spent their time wondering if dogs, cats, chimpanzees, and
other animals felt anything. Since feelings don't fit under a microscope,
these scientists usually didn't find any, and, as I like to say, I'm glad I
wasn't their dog! But now there are far fewer skeptics - prestigious
scientific journals now publish essays on joy in rats, grief in elephants,
and empathy in mice - and no one blinks, and the question of real importance
is not whether animals have emotions but why animal emotions have evolved.
Simply put, emotions have evolved as adaptations in numerous species. They
serve as a social glue to bond animals with one another and also catalyze
and regulate a wide variety of social encounters among friends and foes.
Emotions permit animals to behave adaptively and flexibly using various
behaviour patterns in a wide variety of venues. Research has shown that mice
are empathic rodents but it turns out they're fun-loving as well. We also
read accounts of pleasure-seeking iguanas, amorous whales, angry baboons,
elephants who suffer from psychological flashbacks and post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD; elephants have a huge hippocampus, a brain structure in the
limbic system that's important in processing emotions), grieving elephants,
otters, magpies, and donkeys, sentient fish, and a sighted dog who serves as
a "seeing-eye dog" for his canine buddy. Today, the paradigm has shifted to
such an extent that the burden of 'proof' now falls to those who still argue
that animals don't experience emotions.
Anthropomorphism
Many researchers also recognize that we must be anthropomorphic (attribute
human traits to animals) when we discuss animal emotions but that if we do
it carefully we can still give due consideration to the animals' point of
view. No matter what we call it, researchers agree that animals and humans
share many traits including emotions. Thus, we're not inserting something
human into animals, but we're identifying commonalities and then using human
language to communicate what we observe. Being anthropomorphic is doing
what's natural and necessary to understand animal emotions.
Improbable friends
We might expect to find close, enduring, and endearing emotional
relationships between members of the same species, but improbable
relationships often occur between animals of wildly different species, even
between animals who are normally predator and prey! Such is the case for
Aochan, a rat snake, who befriended a dwarf hamster named Gohan at Tokyo's
Mutsugoro Okoku Zoo and a lioness in Northern Kenya who adopted a baby oryx
(usually an appetizer before a larger meal) on five different occasions.
Charles Darwin and Evolutionary Continuity
It's bad biology to argue against the existence of animal emotions.
Scientific research in evolutionary biology, cognitive ethology (the study
of animal minds), and social neuroscience support the view that numerous and
diverse animals have rich and deep emotional lives. Here I focus on mammals
although there are data showing that birds and perhaps fish experience
various emotions and surely pain and suffering.
Charles Darwin'swell-accepted ideas about evolutionary continuity, that
differences among species are differences in degree rather than kind (there
are shades of gray among different species, not stark black and white
differences), argue strongly for the presence of animal emotions, empathy,
and moral behaviour. Continuity allows us to connect the "evolutionary dots"
among different species to highlight similarities in evolved traits
including individual feelings and passions. All mammals (including humans)
share neuroanatomical structures such as the amygdala and neurochemical
pathways in the limbic system that are important for feelings.
Spindle cells: A whale of a discovery
In scientific research there are always surprises. Just when we think we've
seen it all, new scientific data and stories appear that force us to rethink
what we know and to revise our stereotypes. For example, spindle cells,
which were long thought to exist only in humans and other great apes, have
been discovered in humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales, and sperm
whales in the same area of their brains as spindle cells in human brains.
This brain region is linked with social organization, empathy, intuition
about the feelings of others, as well as rapid gut reactions. Spindle cells
are important in processing emotions. Speaking of whales, there's also a
story about a humpback whale who, after being untangled from a net in which
she was caught, swam up to each of the rescuers and winked at them before
swimming off. The rescuers all agreed that she was expressing gratitude.
Mirror neurons
Mirror neurons help explain such feelings as empathy. Research on these
neurons supports the notion that individuals can feel the feelings of
others. Mirror neurons allow us to understand another individual's behaviour
by imagining ourselves performing the same behaviour and then mentally
projecting ourselves into the other individual's shoes. To what degree
various species share this capability remains to be seen, but there is
compelling evidence that humans are not alone in possessing it. Diana
monkeys and chimpanzees help one another get food and elephants comfort
others in distress. Mirror neurons also help explain observations of rhesus
monkeys who won't accept food if another monkey suffers when they do so, and
empathic mice who react more strongly to painful stimuli after they observed
other mice in pain.
Blurred borders
The borders between 'them' and 'us' are murky and permeable, and the study
of animal emotions helps inform the big question of just who we are. Another
big question for which answers are revealed by studying animal passions is
"Can animals be moral beings?" I argue that they can be in my development of
the phenomenon that I call "wild justice." Many animals know right from
wrong and live according to a moral code.
Animal Emotions and Why They Matter
When people tell me that they love animals because they're feeling beings
and then go on to abuse them I tell them that I'm glad they don't love me. I
often ask researchers who conduct invasive work with animals or people who
work on factory farms 'Would you do that to your dog?' Some are startled to
hear this question because if someone won't do something to their dog that
they do daily to other dogs or to mice, rats, cats, monkeys, pigs, cows,
elephants, or chimpanzees we need to know why. There's no doubt whatsoever
that, when it comes to what we can and cannot do to other animals, it's
their emotions that should inform our discussions and our actions on their
behalf.
Emotions are the gifts of our ancestors. We have them and so do other
animals. We must never forget this. When it comes to animal welfare we can
always do better. Most of the time "good welfare" is not "good enough."
Marc Bekoff is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334 USA
(marc.bekoff@colorado.edu; http://literati.net/Bekoff;
www.ethologicalethics.org). All of this material is discussed in his
forthcoming book The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist
Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy - and Why The Matter (New World
Library, California, 2007)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kayce Cover [mailto:kc@synalia.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:28 AM
> To: Stanley Curtis
> Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: vets and animal welfare
>
>
> Dear Dr. Curtis,
>
> I really enjoyed your letter. And, I agree with your position. I see
> difficulties in carrying out this position, as even on the applied
> ethology list, mutual respect is often missing and emotions often
> overrule any other concern. But, I believe that we must set our
> sights for an optimal outcome.
>
> Your candid recognition of the importance of others and humility, to
> intellectual progress, giving respect to all others, regardless of
> position, makes a big impression on me.
>
> On the subject of where to direct our efforts to best support welfare
> in animals, I observe that many times, we want more, or choose
> differently, for animals than they want for themselves. An old study
> on pigs choosing their own barn temperature comes to mind - the
> farmers set the temperature higher than the pigs did. In the work I
> do, we now can directly ask animals about their preferences and
> perspective. I believe we will find their information and choices
> surprising. In my own life, I value freedom more than a high degree
> of comfort. With the animals I see, I find they often value
> self-determination and intellectual stimulation very highly.
>
> Thank you for eloquently framing the target for cross disciplinary
> collaboration, with your compelling presentation.
>
> Best wishes,
> Kayce
>
>
> > With humble apologies for my tardiness and respectful requests for
> > your indulgences, I want to go back and pick up on the recent
> > conversation on this network of the role of veterinary scientists in
> > dealing with animal state of being in all of its aspects and
> > ramifications that evolved from Gail Golab’s query about the
> > assessment of temperament in animals. I think that discussion so far
> > has comprised an object lesson that is important to our continuing
> > considerations of the issue and the scientific investigation of
> > so-called animal welfare.
> > The notion of egoism holds that human individuals are always
> > motivated by self-interest. Egoism is teleologically rational in view
> > of the concept of fitness, and so it is not surprising that some sort
> > of egoism exists in the nonhuman animals too.
> > Alas, humans have a tendency to carry good character traits to a
> > fault. And so it is with egoism, which can lead to egotism (an
> > exaggerated sense of self-importance), which in turn can lead to
> > egocentrism (the characteristic of regarding oneself and one’s own
> > interests and opinions as the most important). There is, after all,
> > nothing quite so ridiculous as the scientist who, while carrying a
> > loaf of half-baked bread in his pack, demonstrates by word and by
> > deed that he thinks he has a hammerlock on truth.
> > When George Bernard Shaw proclaimed that “all progress is
> initiated
> > by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting
> > existing institutions”, he was extolling the virtue for scientists
> > of not only being open-minded but also that of being broad-minded.
> > Those ideas were complemented by Oscar Wilde when he noticed that
> > “discontent is the first step in human progress” and by Albert
> > Einstein when he entreated us to remember that “the right to search
> > for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what
> > one has recognized to be true”.
> > It seems to me that all of these thoughts are captured in one of the
> > intellectual virtues, namely, intellectual courage (the courage to be
> > true to one’s observational conclusions despite pressures of
> > various sorts against it and to be true to all of the evidence that
> > presents itself). Of course, “what’s sauce for geese must be
> > sauce for ganders”. That is to say, each and every scientist has
> > the right and the obligation to demonstrate intellectual courage. As
> > a consequence—because each and every scientist is unique with
> > respect to her approaches to the issue and the scientific
> > investigation of animal state of being—it is certain that a great
> > diversity of observations and interpretations of observations will
> > obtain. And that is a good thing for a community of scientists who
> > are groping about in the darkness as they attempt to find truth about
> > s complex set of phenomena.
> > Now, returning to the present topic, let me suggest that we
> all ought
> > to admit that, in general, no scientist has a hammerlock on truth;
> > that no scientist knows all there is to know even in his own sliver
> > of scientific focus; and that it is important that as much diversity
> > as possible exist in the approaches scientists take as they
> > investigate important questions in the natural world ... such as
> > animal state of being.
> > With particular respect to animal state of being in all of its
> > aspects and ramifications, especially at its present perinatal stage
> > of ontogeny, what is needed is more diversity in scientific inquiry
> > of the deductive sort, not less. But even that won’t be enough.
> > Scientists following each of the various disciplines that
> > logically should be directly involved in the science of animal
> > state of being—including animal ecologists, applied animal
> > ecologists, animal ethologists, applied animal ethologists,
> > animal scientists, behavioral ecologists, cognitive
> > psychologists, experimental psychologists, veterinary
> > scientists, and zoologists, among others—must come to respect
> > the value of what their fellow scientists in the other germane
> > disciplines have to offer to the search for truth.
> > In my opinion, the emphases in the science of animal state of being
> > now ought to be shifted so as to de-emphasize the animal’s feelings
> > (because, in the practical sense, we can’t manage what we can’t
> > measure) and to re-emphasize other aspects of the animal’s life as
> > determinants of its state of being. These other aspects follow a
> > hierarchy of needs of animals based on psychologist Abraham
> > Maslow’s hierarchy for humans, where the needs for air, food, and
> > water are among an animal’s most basic needs; the needs for a
> > comfortable and safe environment and adequate health care come next;
> > and finally come what might for animals be lumped and called the
> > behavioral and psychologic needs. Maslow’s concept was that the
> > more basic needs must be completely or at least sufficiently
> > satisfied before the behavioral and psychologic needs come into
> > focus. (As Virginia Woolf put it for the human animal: “One cannot
> > think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.”)
> > Finally, when Maslow opined in his writings that “the study of
> > crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a
> > cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy”, he bowed to the
> > importance of making sure that, before focusing virtually exclusively
> > on behavioral and psychologic needs, we know netter how to meet the
> > more basic needs and then follow through and make sure that those
> > needs are indeed being met.
> > In conclusion, at this point, attention to animal state of being by
> > scientists in all of the scientific disciplines is crucial to our
> > learning more about what constitutes animal well-being and how that
> > state can be supported in practical keeping environments. And “all
> > of the scientific disciplines” certainly includes veterinary
> > science as much as any other, and at this time, of course, that is
> > especially so with respect to that aspect having to do with the
> > animal’s physical health. As pointed out in the network discussion,
> > the rub comes when people with education and expertise in one
> > discrete aspect of the animal’s state of being wander into aspects
> > in which they have neither education nor expertise. For all pertinent
> > disciplines, due acknowledgement and respect for the complexities of
> > the knowledge at each of those aspects as well as for the legitimate
> > roles of scientists who specialize in those respective aspects is
> > absolutely critical if the animal is to be best-served. In other
> > words, an affirmatively ensured interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary
> > approach is what is called for.
> > I suggest that our collective task for the near future is to make
> > sure that the acknowledgement and respect just mentioned are
> > indeed more thoroughly established. And that, once those goals
> > have been achieved, it then will be high time for scientists in
> > all of the involved disciplines to engage, as never before, in
> > inductive discussions of all of the available evidence.
> >
> > Stanley Curtis
> > Department of Animal Sciences
> > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> >
>
>
> Kayce Cover
> Syn Alia Training Systems
> http://www.synalia.com
>
From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 6-FEB-2007 13:08:14.72
To: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "'Rick Bogle'", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
Stanley Curtice wrote, "In my opinion, the emphases in the science of animal
state of being now ought to be shifted so as to de-emphasize the animal's
feelings (because, in the practical sense, we can't manage what we can't
measure)..."
Ray Strickland answered: "I think a big problem with what you suggest above
is that THE primary concern among members of the general public regarding
animal welfare has to do with 'animal feelings.'"
Two things: science, in part, seems to be the history or noticing something
and then devising a way to measure it. Denying a phenomenon's importance or
failing to take it into account until until it can be measured could be a
way to conveniently deny what is plainly apparent. (Kind of like global
warming or the deleterious effects of tobacco.)
Second, though this may not have been Mr. Strickland's intent, an
implication could be that animals' feelings, thoughts, subjective
experiences, desires, etc. are NOT primary concerns of (hard-nosed, no
nonsense) scientists, that these concerns are just the mushy emotionalism of
a scientifically illiterate general public.
---------------
Dear Rick Bogle,
Please don't try to put words in mouth. I did NOT say that animal feelings
are unimportant. Indeed, I said just the contrary - I stated that when
addressing the topic of animal welfare, animal feelings must be included in
the equation.
However, I very much did mean to say that I strongly disagree with those
scientists who wish to move the boundaries of Science to include subjective
phenomenon such as feelings, etc. (Which is NOT to say that research
attempts to develop indirect measures should be discontinued.)
If you have followed my arguments on this web site or otherwise over the
past 10 to 15 years, I would hope that you are aware that my argument is
that scientists - along with everyone else - should deal with subjective
feelings, etc. as a matter of Ethics - and not Science!
One can build a completely defensible Ethical argument regarding why the
subjective feelings of animals should be taken into account. But using
Science alone, one cannot even build a completely defensible argument that
subjective feelings exist - for either humans or other animals. Science by
its very definition has to do with OBJECTIVE phenomenon.
To try and be absolutely clear - we need both Science and Ethics when
dealing with issues such as Animal Welfare. And my contention is that those
"scientists" who are attempting to include ethical arguments (as part of
Animal Welfare Science for example) and calling it Science are on the wrong
track. When they make normative statements regarding how animals "ought" to
be treated, they have stepped from Science into Ethics.
To add emphasis to the point I wish to make (with no intent to be offensive
to anyone), "We should yield until Science the things that of Science and
unto Ethics the things that are of Ethics."
Also, I ask that you please note the correct spelling for the name of Dr.
Stanley Curtis and for my name as well.
Ray Stricklin
University of Maryland
From: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle" 6-FEB-2007 13:25:56.84
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
Ray Stricklin,
I sincerely apologize for misspelling both your and Stanley Curtis's names.
I am intrigued by your comment: "I very much did mean to say that I strongly
disagree with those scientists who wish to move the boundaries of Science to
include subjective phenomenon such as feelings, etc."
What does this mean? Would you mind giving a few concrete examples?
Rick Bogle
Madison, WI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:09 PM
> To: 'Rick Bogle'; applied-ethology@usask.ca
> Subject: RE: vets and animal welfare
>
>
>
> Stanley Curtice wrote, "In my opinion, the emphases in the
> science of animal
> state of being now ought to be shifted so as to de-emphasize the animal's
> feelings (because, in the practical sense, we can't manage what we can't
> measure)..."
>
> Ray Strickland answered: "I think a big problem with what you
> suggest above
> is that THE primary concern among members of the general public regarding
> animal welfare has to do with 'animal feelings.'"
>
> Two things: science, in part, seems to be the history or noticing
> something
> and then devising a way to measure it. Denying a phenomenon's
> importance or
> failing to take it into account until until it can be measured could be a
> way to conveniently deny what is plainly apparent. (Kind of like global
> warming or the deleterious effects of tobacco.)
>
> Second, though this may not have been Mr. Strickland's intent, an
> implication could be that animals' feelings, thoughts, subjective
> experiences, desires, etc. are NOT primary concerns of (hard-nosed, no
> nonsense) scientists, that these concerns are just the mushy
> emotionalism of
> a scientifically illiterate general public.
> ---------------
>
>
> Dear Rick Bogle,
>
> Please don't try to put words in mouth. I did NOT say that animal feelings
> are unimportant. Indeed, I said just the contrary - I stated that when
> addressing the topic of animal welfare, animal feelings must be
> included in
> the equation.
>
> However, I very much did mean to say that I strongly disagree with those
> scientists who wish to move the boundaries of Science to include
> subjective
> phenomenon such as feelings, etc. (Which is NOT to say that research
> attempts to develop indirect measures should be discontinued.)
>
> If you have followed my arguments on this web site or otherwise over the
> past 10 to 15 years, I would hope that you are aware that my argument is
> that scientists - along with everyone else - should deal with subjective
> feelings, etc. as a matter of Ethics - and not Science!
>
> One can build a completely defensible Ethical argument regarding why the
> subjective feelings of animals should be taken into account. But using
> Science alone, one cannot even build a completely defensible argument that
> subjective feelings exist - for either humans or other animals. Science by
> its very definition has to do with OBJECTIVE phenomenon.
>
> To try and be absolutely clear - we need both Science and Ethics when
> dealing with issues such as Animal Welfare. And my contention is
> that those
> "scientists" who are attempting to include ethical arguments (as part of
> Animal Welfare Science for example) and calling it Science are on
> the wrong
> track. When they make normative statements regarding how animals
> "ought" to
> be treated, they have stepped from Science into Ethics.
>
> To add emphasis to the point I wish to make (with no intent to be
> offensive
> to anyone), "We should yield until Science the things that of Science and
> unto Ethics the things that are of Ethics."
>
> Also, I ask that you please note the correct spelling for the name of Dr.
> Stanley Curtis and for my name as well.
>
> Ray Stricklin
> University of Maryland
>
>
>
>
From: IN%"chris.redenbach@gmail.com" "Chris Redenbach" 6-FEB-2007 13:57:20.74
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology"
CC:
Subj: NYT: A New Problem for Farmers: Few Veterinarians
A New Problem for Farmers: Few Veterinarians
New York Times, 7.2.6
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/06vets.html
By PAM BELLUCK
GORHAM, Me. Rainbow had the bad luck to try to have a baby on a
Thursday.
Thursday was her doctors day off, and there was no one else for
miles who could handle a complicated breech birth, not when the
mother was a Holstein cow.
Had the vet been here, we could have done a C-section and she could
have lived through it fine, said Becki Benson, the owner, with her
husband, Eddie, of Rainbow and 150 other dairy cows.
Instead, I worked on her till I was just exhausted, Mr. Benson
said. But I ended up having to take the cow to a butcher shop,
where she got processed for hamburger.
These days, the Bensons veterinarian is pretty much the only cow
doctor in a 1,300-square-mile swath of Maine, and one of only about
30 large-animal veterinarians left in the entire state.
And across the country, veterinarians who care for the animals that
provide the United States with food are in increasingly short
supply.
For one, there is generally more money to be made caring for cats
and dogs. And with fewer students from farm backgrounds, fewer
gravitate to rural jobs, especially if a spouse needs work, too.
Large-animal care can be tough, even dangerous think of maneuvering
in frigid weather around 1,000-pound cows in manure-filled pens.
And more veterinarians are women, generally less inclined toward
large animals.
Since 1990, the number of veterinarians focusing on large animals
has dropped to fewer than 4,500 from nearly 6,000, according to the
American Veterinary Medical Association, which said those doctors
now made up less than 10 percent of private-practice veterinarians.
A recent study predicted that by 2016, 4 out of every 100
food-animal veterinary jobs would go unfilled.
We look at it as a crisis, said Dr. Roger Mahr, the associations
president, who cited serious consequences not only for the
well-being of farmers and animals, but also potentially for food
safety and the impact of non-native diseases like bird flu.
Of all the emerging diseases in people in the last 25 years, 75
percent of those were transmitted from animals, Dr. Mahr said.
Veterinarians are the ones to identify those diseases in animals
first.
Pressed to address the problem, Congress enacted a law in 2004
offering to repay the student loans of veterinarians working in
underserved areas, but it has received little financing.
Video
More Video =BB
States are jumping in, with loan repayment or grant programs under
way or proposed in Kansas, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, Texas and
elsewhere.
In Iowa, students at the states veterinary school formed Vsmart,
which barnstorms county fairs and 4-H meetings to entice teenagers
to become rural veterinarians.
And in Oklahoma, State Representative Don Armes, Republican of
Faxon, has introduced a bill offering tax breaks to large-animal
veterinarians. Mr. Armes, a cattleman, knows the shortage
firsthand, especially after one Friday last summer when a heifer
struggled to deliver a large calf.
I called six different veterinarians and could not get any of them,
Mr. Armes said. We lost the calf. Almost lost the heifer.
The dearth of food-animal veterinarians (the shortage is not as
critical for horses) reflects seismic shifts in farming, veterinary
medicine, the economy and American culture.
Money is critical when veterinary students graduate $100,000 in
debt. While some say salaries can be the same, no matter the animal
size, many say small-animal practices are more profitable, allowing
for dozens of clinic appointments daily instead of requiring trips
of long distances between farms and ranches. And dog or cat owners
more often pay for expensive surgery and treatment.
For Fifi the family dog, youll spend $1,500 or $2,000, Mr. Armes
said. That old cow at some point economics kick in and you say if
shes going to cost $1,500, I can buy two cows for that, so I should
have shot her.
Tembra Gatlin, 27, who was reared on an Oklahoma ranch, started
veterinary school large animal all the way, she said.
She changed her mind after doing a C-section on a cow and its 50
bucks, Ms. Gatlin said. Do a C-section on a Chihuahua and you get
$300. Its the money. I hate to say that.
A study by the American Veterinary Medical Association found the
median starting salary of large-animal veterinarians to be $60,500,
$11,000 less than that of small-animal veterinarians. For
veterinarians practicing 25 years, the gap was even wider: $98,500
for large-animal practitioners, $122, 500 for small.
In Maine, the closing of about 250 dairy farms since 1993 makes it
harder to attract new veterinarians and leaves remaining farm
doctors overstretched.
If you cant get a vet or its so expensive because they have to
travel such a distance, farmers end up just dealing with it
themselves, and in a lot of cases thats not a good idea, said Dr.
Donald Hoenig, Maines state veterinarian.
Timothy Leary, a farmer in Saco, Me., nearly lost a cow with a
prolapsed uterus when no veterinarian was available. You either eat
your mistakes or you bury them, if you literally cant get anyone,
Mr. Leary said. Even the small-animal clinic where Mr. Learys wife
is a technician could not help him.
Dr. Dennis M. Brewster treated animals of the Bensons and other
farmers until a few years ago, when he felt forced to switch to
dogs and cats because he could not find another large-animal doctor
to help cover emergencies.
I just didnt want to face all of these dear people and tell them
that I could not come to their farm for an emergency, and then when
I showed up have them say, You know that prize cow you didnt come
for died, he said. Now, some farmers have had to make hard
decisions. Theyve had to kill cows for things that we used to fix.
The Bensons, who raise valuable cows for breeding as well as
milking, now shoulder many veterinary responsibilities, giving cows
antibiotics for mastitis and intravenous calcium for milk fever.
Their current veterinarian, Dr. Becky Myers, 52, worked for years
round the clock.
Half killed myself, Dr. Myers said. Back problems developed. A cow
broke her hand.
When she had a baby son, farmers with sick animals would be pushing
the stroller around while I was pushing a cows uterus back in. I
used to call people in the middle of the night to come over and
watch him when a farmer called. He gave me the nickname Mommy Moo.
Three times she managed to hire partners, but they either left
Maine or large-animal care. In 2003, Dr. Myers said, she scaled
back to four 10-hour days, which people here consider to be part
time.
Before reducing her hours, Dr. Myers held a training session for
farmers, providing a detailed manual with tips on giving cows
anesthesia and pumping their stomachs. Her schedule is still
packed. One recent day was spent vaccinating calves for
brucellosis, helping a sheep give birth, poking into a heifers
uterus to determine pregnancy, inserting magnets into a sick cow to
attract metal fragments it might have swallowed and examining an
arthritic goat whose owner had driven 70 miles because no doctor
was nearer.
But with so few counterparts one of the closest is Doc Cooper, 80,
an hours drive north people get stuck and I feel really bad about
it, she said. It was one of those decisions is my health and my
family life more important or less important than somebodys cow?
Dr. Myers once visited the Bensons every 10 days; now it is once a
month. They understand her need to cut back. Still, just in the
last month, one cow, Darling, had a foot problem the Bensons could
not diagnose. Another, Karissa, had mastitis, but the Bensons
initially misdiagnosed the strain and gave the wrong antibiotic,
delaying her recovery and milk production.
And Alpha, a cow worth thousands of dollars, became weak and
feverish after miscarrying twins, unfortunately on a weekend. When
the Bensons tried moving her to a comfortable pen, she literally
dropped dead.
The fact that theres nothing you can do, you accept it as a
business expense now, Mr. Benson said. You didnt used to. If you
have livestock, sooner or later youre going to have deadstock.
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 6-FEB-2007 14:27:41.02
To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin", IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "'Rick Bogle'", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
All-
I agree with all Ray Stricklin had to say in his most recent posting-
To expand briefly on his thoughts:
As an animal scientist, I am trained and experienced and authorized to speak ot the science aspect of the issue of animal welfare- There is an ethics aspect also, but I am not trained in, and therefore am not authorized to speak on, that aspewct of the issue of animal welfare-
In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when ethical judgements are confused with scientific evicence in discussions of animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good and even a combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example, scientists should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free society there will be different opinions as to who should talk the mix- My opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists should talk the ethics, and other interested people should talk the mix-
Now, consider a contemporary example- As a scientist, I am on record as thinking that for the nation's pork-production industry to switch all of a sudden to group housing of dry sows would not be in the animals' best interests- Today I still stand by that opinion- Smihfield and Maple Leaf have decided to move to some sort of group housing of dry sows- Notice, however, that neither says they did so on the basis of any imperative based on scientific evidence- They did so for other reasons-
Those decisions are realities in capitalistic, free cultures and economies- That they follow some directive other than science is a decision to be made by those businesspeople- Because the scientific evidence and practical experience are the same today as they were a month ago today, my opinion as a scientist remains the same todya as it was a month ago today- But I accept the business decisions of Smithfiueld and Maple Leaf Farms and expect to do whatever I can as a scientist to contribute in the future to improving the state of ebing of dry sows as the reside in group housing systems-
Again, I am troubled by so-called scientists who add ethical arguments to their nominally scientific opinions on specific aspects of animal welfare without clearly identifying themselves as hybrid scientist-ethicists- After all, science is supposed to be devoid of value judgements- The integrity of science suffers when there is confusion as to where scientific evidence ends and ethical judgement begins-
Bottom Line: In my opinion, there is a need for both science and ethics in the hoilistic discussion of animal welfare- But let's keep the lines of discussion straight and the slants of the discussants transparent- Obviously, a coming together of the two lines ultimately must happen, but in the meantime let's not confuse ethics with science-
Stanley Curtis
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:08:38 -0500
>From: Ray Stricklin
>Subject: RE: vets and animal welfare
>To: "'Rick Bogle'" , applied-ethology@usask.ca
>
>
>Stanley Curtice wrote, "In my opinion, the emphases in the science of animal
>state of being now ought to be shifted so as to de-emphasize the animal's
>feelings (because, in the practical sense, we can't manage what we can't
>measure)..."
>
>Ray Strickland answered: "I think a big problem with what you suggest above
>is that THE primary concern among members of the general public regarding
>animal welfare has to do with 'animal feelings.'"
>
>Two things: science, in part, seems to be the history or noticing something
>and then devising a way to measure it. Denying a phenomenon's importance or
>failing to take it into account until until it can be measured could be a
>way to conveniently deny what is plainly apparent. (Kind of like global
>warming or the deleterious effects of tobacco.)
>
>Second, though this may not have been Mr. Strickland's intent, an
>implication could be that animals' feelings, thoughts, subjective
>experiences, desires, etc. are NOT primary concerns of (hard-nosed, no
>nonsense) scientists, that these concerns are just the mushy emotionalism of
>a scientifically illiterate general public.
>---------------
>
>
>Dear Rick Bogle,
>
>Please don't try to put words in mouth. I did NOT say that animal feelings
>are unimportant. Indeed, I said just the contrary - I stated that when
>addressing the topic of animal welfare, animal feelings must be included in
>the equation.
>
>However, I very much did mean to say that I strongly disagree with those
>scientists who wish to move the boundaries of Science to include subjective
>phenomenon such as feelings, etc. (Which is NOT to say that research
>attempts to develop indirect measures should be discontinued.)
>
>If you have followed my arguments on this web site or otherwise over the
>past 10 to 15 years, I would hope that you are aware that my argument is
>that scientists - along with everyone else - should deal with subjective
>feelings, etc. as a matter of Ethics - and not Science!
>
>One can build a completely defensible Ethical argument regarding why the
>subjective feelings of animals should be taken into account. But using
>Science alone, one cannot even build a completely defensible argument that
>subjective feelings exist - for either humans or other animals. Science by
>its very definition has to do with OBJECTIVE phenomenon.
>
>To try and be absolutely clear - we need both Science and Ethics when
>dealing with issues such as Animal Welfare. And my contention is that those
>"scientists" who are attempting to include ethical arguments (as part of
>Animal Welfare Science for example) and calling it Science are on the wrong
>track. When they make normative statements regarding how animals "ought" to
>be treated, they have stepped from Science into Ethics.
>
>To add emphasis to the point I wish to make (with no intent to be offensive
>to anyone), "We should yield until Science the things that of Science and
>unto Ethics the things that are of Ethics."
>
>Also, I ask that you please note the correct spelling for the name of Dr.
>Stanley Curtis and for my name as well.
>
>Ray Stricklin
>University of Maryland
>
>
>
>
From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 6-FEB-2007 15:43:57.18
To: IN%"jlanier@hsi.org" "Jennifer Lanier", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: -energy balance
Hi Jennifer
Yes, an interesting question. In northern Australia negative energy
balance for beef cattle is part of the "normal" cycle of nutrition,
related to seasonal conditions and pasture quality. It is not unusual
for an adult animal to lose 20-30% of its liveweight (sometimes more)
over a 3-6 month period. Here we tend to consider body condition of an
animal as an indicator of whether animals are "starved". Of course,
such a measure doesn't really take into consideration how hungry the
animals feel, but there is (anecdotal?) evidence from humans that if you
eat less, then you get used to do so and you feel less hungry. I would
guess that the tropically-adapted breeds of cattle we have here have
evolved with cycles of pastures with widely differing nutritional
qualities and it could be argued that they therefore tolerate/cope
better with cycles of hunger and negative energy balance better than
unadapted breeds. Indeed, the tropically-adapted breeds are known for
their resilience; they do not die when we have severe droughts - or take
a long time to die - which of course raises a whole lot of
questions/debate about impacts on welfare and on land use/degradation -
but I'm not going there!!
Regards
Carol
Carol Petherick
Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484
Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au
________________________________
From: Jennifer Lanier [mailto:jlanier@hsi.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 2:48 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: -energy balance
In a discussion with a coworker we began debating about negative energy
balance. I thought it an interesting question and thought it would be
useful to pose the question to the list. When does a negative energy
balance become starvation? This was in regards to beef cattle, but I
would be very interested in thoughts on this for any animal or humans.
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online
community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to
www.hsus.org/join .
********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
(which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken
or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions
contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your computer system network.
From: IN%"the_space_cowgirl@hotmail.com" "Becky O'Neill" 6-FEB-2007 17:24:12.22
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Adjunctive Behavior in Rats
I am looking for journal articles about Adjunctive (or Superstitious)
Behavior in rats. Anyone know of any papers I could look up? They are sort
of thin on the Ebscohost database.
Becky Hansis-O'Neill
Undergraduate of Psychology/Zoology
Idaho State University
_________________________________________________________________
Get in the mood for Valentine's Day. View photos, recipes and more on your
Live.com page.
http://www.live.com/?addTemplate=ValentinesDay&ocid=T001MSN30A0701
From: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane" 6-FEB-2007 21:52:46.82
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu"
CC: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin", IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "Rick Bogle", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
On 06/02/07, Stanley Curtis wrote:
> As an animal scientist, I am trained and experienced and authorized to speak ot the science aspect of the issue of animal welfare- There is an ethics aspect also, but I am not trained in, and therefore am not authorized to speak on, that aspewct of the issue of animal welfare-
---------------------------------
There was a time I was trained, as a psychologist to make a similar
statement. but it was that I was concerned with learned behavior--not
biology, genes, neurology and stuff like that. That position simply
wasn't tenable in the long run as behaviour is intrinsically learned
and innate--every behavior is both. We can't all know everything but
when subjects cross discpline boundaries the scientist must
follow--even if that involves carrying a heavier burden of doubt.
Animal welfare is also intrinscially science and ethics. As a pure
"animal scientist" one may simply supply data as grist for the mill.
But those who cross over to being an 'animal welfare sceintists' have
to straddle the divide. The best way, in my opinion, to successfully
marry science and ethics is within people tolerable comfortable with
both.
From: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit" 7-FEB-2007 00:19:11.04
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: cat welfare
Hello,
I'm working with stray cats, studying their welfare.
I noticed that after feeding, some cats will self groom and others won't.
Do you thing this behaviour can indicate about individual differences
between animals, or indicate poor/good welfare. After all, it isn't like
self grooming in captive animals??!!
Thanks,
Hilit finkler
Zoology Department,
Tel Aviv university
Israel
From: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins" 7-FEB-2007 01:55:17.18
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: cat welfare
Anecdotal only, but we currently have two cats -- a mother and her son.
The female does not groom herself -- she is an untidy-looking cat, obviously part long-hair. We got her from friends whose cat had had kittens, so she was home-reared and always well cared for.
Her son (castrated before puberty), on the other hand, grooms himself meticulously. He is always neat and elgant. He is a short-hair.
In the past we have owned cats (mother and daughter) who would not 'house-train'. We got the mother from my sister, and her own mother and grandmother were unclean in the house too :-(
So I think that it is probably innate tendencies, rather than poor welfare.
Cheers,
Jenny Haskins
Coffs Harbour Australia
I'm working with stray cats, studying their welfar.
I noticed that after feeding, some cats will self groom and others won't.
Do you thing this behaviour can indicate about individual differences between animals, or indicate poor/good welfare. After all, it isn't like self grooming in captive animals??!!
Hilit finkler
From: IN%"bjarne.braastad@umb.no" "Bjarne O. Braastad" 7-FEB-2007 02:45:25.86
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Cat welfare
Dear Hilit,
=20
Cats show pronounced individual variation in behaviour, like most other
species (like also Jenny Haskins indicates).=20
Self-grooming can be performed for several reasons. It is typical for =
cats
to groom themselves after feeding. If the grooming appeared relaxed, =
this
might be quite normal. The non-grooming cats might still have been too =
tense
in that context to perform such grooming. If the grooming appeared =
frenetic,
exaggerated or just with short bursts, it might have been a displacement
activity due to some sort of frustration or conflict between =
motivations,
e.g. lack of enough food, competition with other cats for access to the
food, hesitation to leave the spot in case more food appeared etc.=20
=20
If you didn=92t see marked effects of the non-grooming cats having a =
very
untidy fur, I would not take this variation as an indication of =
variation in
welfare level. However, if the non-grooming cats seemed more reluctant =
to
approach you and didn=92t show a more untidy fur, variation in =
fearfulness
towards humans might have been the explanation.
=20
Best regards,
Bjarne=20
=20
**********************************************************************
Bjarne O. Braastad
Professor of ethology
Head of Research group UMB: Nature, health and quality of life
Head of Research group IHA: Ethology and animal environment
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
P.O. Box 5003
NO-1432 =C5s
Norway
Phone: +47 64965162, Mobile: +47 41908693, Fax: +47 64965101
e-mail: bjarne.braastad@umb.no
=
http://www.umb.no/?avd=3D70&ans_usr=3D68
**********************************************************************
=20
=20
Hello,
=20
I'm working with stray cats, studying their welfare.
I noticed that after feeding, some cats will self groom and others =
won't.
Do you thing this behaviour can indicate about individual differences
between animals, or indicate poor/good welfare. After all, it isn't like
self grooming in captive animals??!!
=20
Thanks,
Hilit finkler
Zoology Department,
Tel Aviv university
Israel
=20
From: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit" 7-FEB-2007 02:53:07.03
To: IN%"bjarne.braastad@umb.no" "'Bjarne O. Braastad'"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Cat welfare
You wrote" However, if the non-grooming cats seemed more reluctant to
approach you and didn=92t show a more untidy fur, variation in =
fearfulness
towards humans might have been the explanation". I didn't understand in =
your
sentence how is non-grooming related to fearfulness? Do you suggest that =
the
fact that they didn't groom is related to the fact that they are perhaps
fearful?
Thanks
=20
=20
=20
_____ =20
From: Bjarne O. Braastad [mailto:bjarne.braastad@umb.no]=20
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:45 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Cat welfare
=20
Dear Hilit,
=20
Cats show pronounced individual variation in behaviour, like most other
species (like also Jenny Haskins indicates).=20
Self-grooming can be performed for several reasons. It is typical for =
cats
to groom themselves after feeding. If the grooming appeared relaxed, =
this
might be quite normal. The non-grooming cats might still have been too =
tense
in that context to perform such grooming. If the grooming appeared =
frenetic,
exaggerated or just with short bursts, it might have been a displacement
activity due to some sort of frustration or conflict between =
motivations,
e.g. lack of enough food, competition with other cats for access to the
food, hesitation to leave the spot in case more food appeared etc.=20
=20
If you didn=92t see marked effects of the non-grooming cats having a =
very
untidy fur, I would not take this variation as an indication of =
variation in
welfare level. However, if the non-grooming cats seemed more reluctant =
to
approach you and didn=92t show a more untidy fur, variation in =
fearfulness
towards humans might have been the explanation.
=20
Best regards,
Bjarne=20
=20
**********************************************************************
Bjarne O. Braastad
Professor of ethology
Head of Research group UMB: Nature, health and quality of life
Head of Research group IHA: Ethology and animal environment
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
P.O. Box 5003
NO-1432 =C5s
Norway
Phone: +47 64965162, Mobile: +47 41908693, Fax: +47 64965101
e-mail: bjarne.braastad@umb.no
=
http://www.umb.no/?avd=3D70&ans_usr=3D68
**********************************************************************
=20
=20
Hello,
=20
I'm working with stray cats, studying their welfare.
I noticed that after feeding, some cats will self groom and others =
won't.
Do you thing this behaviour can indicate about individual differences
between animals, or indicate poor/good welfare. After all, it isn't like
self grooming in captive animals??!!
=20
Thanks,
Hilit finkler
Zoology Department,
Tel Aviv university
Israel
From: IN%"bjarne.braastad@umb.no" "Bjarne O. Braastad" 7-FEB-2007 03:03:15.77
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: SV: Cat welfare
Dear Hilit,
=20
Yes, fearfulness in animals (even slight) might lead to a reduction in
otherwise normal behaviour, because the animal does not relax =
sufficiently.
The distance to the humans in this situation is important. But, as I
indicate, a number of different mechanisms might be in operation here,
dependent on the number of cats and humans around, the previous =
experience
with humans among the cats, spatial and other contextual conditions, and
other behaviours shown by the animals.=20
=20
Bjarne
=20
**********************************************************************
Bjarne O. Braastad
Professor of ethology
Head of Research group UMB: Nature, health and quality of life
Head of Research group IHA: Ethology and animal environment
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
P.O. Box 5003
NO-1432 =C5s
Norway
Phone: +47 64965162, Mobile: +47 41908693, Fax: +47 64965101
e-mail: bjarne.braastad@umb.no
=
http://www.umb.no/?avd=3D70&ans_usr=3D68
**********************************************************************
_____ =20
Fra: hilit [mailto:hilit@teldan.com]=20
Sendt: 7. februar 2007 09:53
Til: 'Bjarne O. Braastad'
Kopi: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Emne: RE: Cat welfare
=20
You wrote" However, if the non-grooming cats seemed more reluctant to
approach you and didn=92t show a more untidy fur, variation in =
fearfulness
towards humans might have been the explanation". I didn't understand in =
your
sentence how is non-grooming related to fearfulness? Do you suggest that =
the
fact that they didn't groom is related to the fact that they are perhaps
fearful?
Thanks
=20
=20
=20
_____ =20
From: Bjarne O. Braastad [mailto:bjarne.braastad@umb.no]=20
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:45 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Cat welfare
=20
Dear Hilit,
=20
Cats show pronounced individual variation in behaviour, like most other
species (like also Jenny Haskins indicates).=20
Self-grooming can be performed for several reasons. It is typical for =
cats
to groom themselves after feeding. If the grooming appeared relaxed, =
this
might be quite normal. The non-grooming cats might still have been too =
tense
in that context to perform such grooming. If the grooming appeared =
frenetic,
exaggerated or just with short bursts, it might have been a displacement
activity due to some sort of frustration or conflict between =
motivations,
e.g. lack of enough food, competition with other cats for access to the
food, hesitation to leave the spot in case more food appeared etc.=20
=20
If you didn=92t see marked effects of the non-grooming cats having a =
very
untidy fur, I would not take this variation as an indication of =
variation in
welfare level. However, if the non-grooming cats seemed more reluctant =
to
approach you and didn=92t show a more untidy fur, variation in =
fearfulness
towards humans might have been the explanation.
=20
Best regards,
Bjarne=20
=20
**********************************************************************
Bjarne O. Braastad
Professor of ethology
Head of Research group UMB: Nature, health and quality of life
Head of Research group IHA: Ethology and animal environment
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
P.O. Box 5003
NO-1432 =C5s
Norway
Phone: +47 64965162, Mobile: +47 41908693, Fax: +47 64965101
e-mail: bjarne.braastad@umb.no
=
http://www.umb.no/?avd=3D70&ans_usr=3D68
**********************************************************************
=20
=20
Hello,
=20
I'm working with stray cats, studying their welfare.
I noticed that after feeding, some cats will self groom and others =
won't.
Do you thing this behaviour can indicate about individual differences
between animals, or indicate poor/good welfare. After all, it isn't like
self grooming in captive animals??!!
=20
Thanks,
Hilit finkler
Zoology Department,
Tel Aviv university
Israel
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 7-FEB-2007 06:15:14.33
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network", IN%"johnso17@uiuc.edu" "Janeen Johnson", IN%"KJohnson@animalagalliance.org" "Kay Johnson"
CC:
Subj: Fwd: Re: vets and animal welfare
Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent comment (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent posting-
As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat what I said in that recent posting, to wit:
"In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when ethical judgements are confused with scientific evicence in discussions of animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good and even a combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example, scientists should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
"Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free society there will be different opinions as to who should talk the mix- My opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists should talk the ethics, and other interested people should talk the mix-"
To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that -- although I think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be construed as an oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists, respectively, will want to attempt to "straddle the divide" to which Patterson-Kane makes reference and which will ultimately be neceessary as we make progress in dealing holistically with the issue of so-called aniumal welfare- (David Fraser refers to this as "bridging the gap"-)
But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking and writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have a lot of other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and deserve to be assisted in knowing at all times where the line -- that "divide", if you will -- lies- It needs to know about that divide because, on one of its sides, the evidence has been generated by the scientific method, whereas, on the other side, the multiple notions of where to draw another important line -- namely, the line as to what is morally acceptable and what is not in the ways and means of animnal-husbandry systems (which as I understand it is the line of the animal-welfare approach as opposed to the animal-rights approach)-- are the individual opinions of people living in a free and pluralistic society (and hence, because each is loaded with several sorts of baggage, will be quite variable and often !
ev!
en in disagreement [philosophers argue, too])-
As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns should prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of being and (b) that the scientific method should guide us in that investigation- And I think that any consensus that a set of ethical thinkers might come up with in terms of what they think we "ought" to do with respect to how we treat our animals is all well and good so long as it turns out that the ensuant scientific evidence supports those notions- But, when it does not, then I think the animals deserve our bowing to the scientific evidence no matter how paradoxical it may seem to people with their ethicist hats on-
Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect to the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put themm in some sort of group housing system, how some of today's slef-described hybird scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling as they worry about the obvious practical problem (in terms of sow state of being) of switching the husbanding dry sows in groups before the system has been more nearly perfected and, most importantly, before the nation's cadre of caretakers can be brought up to speed on everything from how to make thorough regular inspections of sows in a group to how to protect themselves from personal injury when working in a pen with a group of loose, ever-hungry (limit-fed for their own good), 500-lb sows milling about- Those of us who raised hogs "the old way" know all too well the practical problems that attend those ways and means; that's why different ways and means evolved-
Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that many of the people who are offering advice or making demands as to how animal agriculture should do its business are awfully naive and unaware of -- and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications-
Stanley Curtis
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 7-FEB-2007 06:34:47.26
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network", IN%"johnso17@uiuc.edu" "Janeen Johnson", IN%"KJohnson@animalagalliance.org" "Kay Johnson"
CC:
Subj: RE: Fwd: Re: vets and animal welfare
Stan (and others),
Thanks for your very thought provoking ideas on science, ethics and hybrids
as they relate to animal welfare. I have put together the following
fictitious passage which I could imagine might be published in any
ethology/welfare science journal. If I am correct in following your line
of thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop after writing
(a). An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b). The hybrid should
stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree with this, or would you
perhaps take a different slant?
(a) In this paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had a high
motivation for space additional to that provided by standard laboratory
cages. (b) It has been argued that such findings indicate the small space
in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause frustration and suffering
in the mice. (c) It is therefore recommended that laboratory mice should
be provided with more space than is currently given as standard.
Respectfully yours,
Chris
--On 07 February 2007 06:14 -0600 Stanley Curtis wrote:
>
>
> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>
> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent comment
> (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent posting-
>
> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat what I
> said in that recent posting, to wit:
>
> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when ethical
> judgements are confused with scientific evicence in discussions of animal
> welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good and even a combination
> salad of the two is tasty, but, for example, scientists should talk
> apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
>
> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free society
> there will be different opinions as to who should talk the mix- My
> opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists should talk the
> ethics, and other interested people should talk the mix-"
>
> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that -- although I
> think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be construed as an oxymoron
> -- some scientists and some ethicists, respectively, will want to attempt
> to "straddle the divide" to which Patterson-Kane makes reference and
> which will ultimately be neceessary as we make progress in dealing
> holistically with the issue of so-called aniumal welfare- (David Fraser
> refers to this as "bridging the gap"-)
>
> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so
> cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking and
> writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have a lot of
> other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and deserve to be
> assisted in knowing at all times where the line -- that "divide", if you
> will -- lies- It needs to know about that divide because, on one of its
> sides, the evidence has been generated by the scientific method, whereas,
> on the other side, the multiple notions of where to draw another
> important line -- namely, the line as to what is morally acceptable and
> what is not in the ways and means of animnal-husbandry systems (which as
> I understand it is the line of the animal-welfare approach as opposed to
> the animal-rights approach)-- are the individual opinions of people
> living in a free and pluralistic society (and hence, because each is
> loaded with several sorts of baggage, will be quite variable and often !
> ev!
> en in disagreement [philosophers argue, too])-
>
> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns should
> prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of being and (b)
> that the scientific method should guide us in that investigation- And I
> think that any consensus that a set of ethical thinkers might come up
> with in terms of what they think we "ought" to do with respect to how we
> treat our animals is all well and good so long as it turns out that the
> ensuant scientific evidence supports those notions- But, when it does
> not, then I think the animals deserve our bowing to the scientific
> evidence no matter how paradoxical it may seem to people with their
> ethicist hats on-
>
> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect to the
> the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put themm in some
> sort of group housing system, how some of today's slef-described hybird
> scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling as they worry about the
> obvious practical problem (in terms of sow state of being) of switching
> the husbanding dry sows in groups before the system has been more nearly
> perfected and, most importantly, before the nation's cadre of caretakers
> can be brought up to speed on everything from how to make thorough
> regular inspections of sows in a group to how to protect themselves from
> personal injury when working in a pen with a group of loose, ever-hungry
> (limit-fed for their own good), 500-lb sows milling about- Those of us
> who raised hogs "the old way" know all too well the practical problems
> that attend those ways and means; that's why different ways and means
> evolved-
>
> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for
> example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that many
> of the people who are offering advice or making demands as to how animal
> agriculture should do its business are awfully naive and unaware of --
> and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications-
>
> Stanley Curtis
> Department of Animal Sciences
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
----------------------
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%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 7-FEB-2007 07:50:10.85
To: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "'Emily Patterson-Kane'", IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu"
CC: IN%"rbogle@sonic.net" "'Rick Bogle'", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
Animal welfare is also intrinscially science and ethics. As a pure "animal
scientist" one may simply supply data as grist for the mill.
But those who cross over to being an 'animal welfare sceintists' have to
straddle the divide. The best way, in my opinion, to successfully marry
science and ethics is within people tolerable comfortable with both.
----------------------
Dear All,
Sorry that I can not write a detailed statement for the above - or provide
answer for all other messages sent me. But to do so is somewhat stealing my
time from students who are paying tuition.
But a couple of quick comments related to the above:
1) I don't believe that I know any animal scientists whom I consider to be
"pure." (Intended to be humor.)
2) Yes - absolutely animal welfare is both science and ethics. And this is
my point exactly. And we scientists need to recognize that we cannot avoid
ethics and thus should educate ourselves accordingly - and give ethicists
their due recognition.
3) To emphasize, when scientists "cross over" into ethics they should
acknowledge that they are presenting ethical statements - not just doing
"science." Accordingly, they should attempt to incorporate the professional
ethicists in this endeavor and follow the procedures used by applied
ethicists. (And this is not to say that ethical statements should be
independent of science.)
4) Additionally, my contention is that ALL scientists who deal with animals
should consider themselves "animal welfare scientists." Animal welfare is
inclusive of all aspects of every discipline and sub-discipline related to
animal biology. Thus, there is a certain amount of hubris for one to contend
that they are a scientist who is expert in all disciplines related to animal
biology. In short, I am saying that animal welfare should not be limited to
a select few "scientists" who are members of a self-ordained priesthood who
have labeled themselves as "Animal Welfare Scientists."
5) I consider myself to be an Applied Ethologist - and a member of a group
that I would like to see someday recognized as a scientific sub-discipline.
But my opinion is that this will never happen as long as a large number of
the members of the group "straddle the fence" - working in ethics with only
limited tools of the trade and trying to sell their product under the label
of science. Rather, I think the group should focus specifically on studying
behavior as a science - and stop trying to be "Animal Welfare Scientists."
Yes, Applied Ethology is the major missing piece to the scientific puzzle
when it comes to Animal Welfare. But Applied Ethologists need to focus
specifically on investigating behavior - and not try to take over all of
"Animal Welfare" as their topic of research - and policy. At a minimum they
need to acknowledge where they have crossed over from their discipline into
someone else's territory.
And I realize that messages written in haste and sent out in this format
often create more confusion than clarity. Thus, I want to be very clear that
my statement above is not meant to be personal or directed toward any
individual(s). My statement has to my ideological differences related to
Philosophy of Science with my peers and thus does not necessarily have to do
with subscribers to this message board specifically.
Ray Stricklin
From: IN%"00698150@harper-adams.ac.uk" "Moira Harris" 7-FEB-2007 09:06:28.85
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Savaging gilts
Dear all,
I'm forwarding this message from Laura Boyle, who tried to post it to the =
list but couldn't.
Hopefully Laura is receiving messages even though she can't post them, so =
she will be able to read your replies. If you prefer to reply directly to =
Laura, her email address is laura.boyle@teagasc.ie.
Best wishes,
- Moira
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
Hi all,
I=92ve just had a call from a pig producer who was close to tears because =
of the problem she is having with savaging. It may be that it only =
appears like the problem is worse than usual (given that there are always =
occasional problems with gilts in farrowing crates savaging their young) =
because the herd was recently re-stocked. However, the producer is =
adamant that there are many more gilts savaging that she would have =
expected. She blames the genetics of the new stock, saying that they are =
using a relatively untried 3-way cross (I think there is Pietrain in there =
somewhere) and that they appear to be extremely nervous, stubborn and she =
used a lot of other words that I cannot repeat here**. The gilts are also =
being very aggressive towards the stockpeople. I was wondering if this is =
usual for savaging gilts?
I was told she should put some rabbits (or some other unfortunate animals) =
into the farrowing house to habituate the gilts to small, unpredictable =
creatures. Others recommend that the gilts be moved from the gestation =
accommodation, where they are housed in gestation stalls, into the =
farrowing crates at least a week prior to farrowing to ensure they are =
accustomed to the house. While the producer is more than willing to try =
these things she is more interested in getting muzzles for the gilts at =
this stage. Her vet advised spraying lavender onto the sows and the man =
was lucky to escape with his life.
I would really appreciate hearing any other advice you might have,
Thanks!
Laura
Dr. Moira Harris
Animals Group
Harper Adams University College
Edgmond, Newport
Shropshire, TF10 8NB
ISAE Membership Secretary
Email: mharris@harper-adams.ac.uk
Phone: +44 (0)1952 820280
Fax: +44 (0)1952 814783
From: IN%"jlanier@hsi.org" "Jennifer Lanier" 7-FEB-2007 09:07:00.28
To: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: -energy balance
We also use body condition as an indicator of welfare, potential for
conception, etc. If we consider a neg. energy balance as a casual agent
and the body condition score (BCS) the result with the potential for
"being hungry", fatigue, depressed immunity, etc, leading to death, when
does normal weight loss cross the boundary and become actual starvation?
Or is starvation and negative energy balance virtually the same thing
but on a continuum with no true tipping point until another variable is
added such as parasites or transport?
If the animal is sporadically fed some hay, or cull produce is this
actually improving the welfare of the animal? Is the negative energy
balance a little less negative, or in the case of ruminates is it a case
of gut fill with minimal nutrient/caloric use due to the rumen
microfauna having to acclimate before digestion can occur? What is
scientifically and ethically (or a marriage between the two) better for
the animal, to be in constant state of random timing and feed type being
fed or no feeding what so ever other that what the animal can find in a
confined area?
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
________________________________
From: Petherick, Carol [mailto:Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:44 PM
To: Jennifer Lanier; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: -energy balance
Hi Jennifer
Yes, an interesting question. In northern Australia negative energy
balance for beef cattle is part of the "normal" cycle of nutrition,
related to seasonal conditions and pasture quality. It is not unusual
for an adult animal to lose 20-30% of its liveweight (sometimes more)
over a 3-6 month period. Here we tend to consider body condition of an
animal as an indicator of whether animals are "starved". Of course,
such a measure doesn't really take into consideration how hungry the
animals feel, but there is (anecdotal?) evidence from humans that if you
eat less, then you get used to do so and you feel less hungry. I would
guess that the tropically-adapted breeds of cattle we have here have
evolved with cycles of pastures with widely differing nutritional
qualities and it could be argued that they therefore tolerate/cope
better with cycles of hunger and negative energy balance better than
unadapted breeds. Indeed, the tropically-adapted breeds are known for
their resilience; they do not die when we have severe droughts - or take
a long time to die - which of course raises a whole lot of
questions/debate about impacts on welfare and on land use/degradation -
but I'm not going there!!
Regards
Carol
Carol Petherick
Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484
Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au
________________________________
From: Jennifer Lanier [mailto:jlanier@hsi.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 2:48 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: -energy balance
In a discussion with a coworker we began debating about negative energy
balance. I thought it an interesting question and thought it would be
useful to pose the question to the list. When does a negative energy
balance become starvation? This was in regards to beef cattle, but I
would be very interested in thoughts on this for any animal or humans.
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online
community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to
www.hsus.org/join .
********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
(which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken
or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions
contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your computer system network.
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to www.hsus.org/join .
From: IN%"Nicholas.Tyler@ib.uit.no" "Nicholas Tyler" 7-FEB-2007 09:35:13.46
To: IN%"jlanier@hsi.org" "Jennifer Lanier", IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: -energy balance
The relationship between the concepts of 'negative energy balance' and
'starvation' (or true inanition) becomes quite ambiguous in the case of
northern temperate and Arctic species of mammals (and some resident
species of birds). Many of these display pronounced annual cycles in
body mass and 'body condition' (however this is measured) which are
driven by endogenous rhythms. Such cycles persist even when animals are
fed ad libitum all year round. In such cases, marked inappetance in
autumn and the resulting loss in body mass/fat merely relfect the normal
functioning of healthy individuals and have nothing necessarily to do
with undernutrition. Both the physiological basis and adaptive
significance of endogenous annual cycles growth, metabolism and appetite
(in that order!) is well understood and many good reviews are available.
Dr. Nicholas Tyler
c/o Department of Biology, University of Tromso,
N-9037 Tromso, Norway
tel. (direct) + 47 77 64 47 88
fax + 47 77 64 63 33
mobile phone + 47 90 57 72 98
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Lanier [mailto:jlanier@hsi.org]
Sent: 7. februar 2007 16:10
To: Petherick, Carol; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: -energy balance
We also use body condition as an indicator of welfare, potential for
conception, etc. If we consider a neg. energy balance as a casual agent
and the body condition score (BCS) the result with the potential for
"being hungry", fatigue, depressed immunity, etc, leading to death, when
does normal weight loss cross the boundary and become actual starvation?
Or is starvation and negative energy balance virtually the same thing
but on a continuum with no true tipping point until another variable is
added such as parasites or transport?
If the animal is sporadically fed some hay, or cull produce is this
actually improving the welfare of the animal? Is the negative energy
balance a little less negative, or in the case of ruminates is it a case
of gut fill with minimal nutrient/caloric use due to the rumen
microfauna having to acclimate before digestion can occur? What is
scientifically and ethically (or a marriage between the two) better for
the animal, to be in constant state of random timing and feed type being
fed or no feeding what so ever other that what the animal can find in a
confined area?
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
________________________________
From: Petherick, Carol [mailto:Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:44 PM
To: Jennifer Lanier; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: -energy balance
Hi Jennifer
Yes, an interesting question. In northern Australia negative energy
balance for beef cattle is part of the "normal" cycle of nutrition,
related to seasonal conditions and pasture quality. It is not unusual
for an adult animal to lose 20-30% of its liveweight (sometimes more)
over a 3-6 month period. Here we tend to consider body condition of an
animal as an indicator of whether animals are "starved". Of course,
such a measure doesn't really take into consideration how hungry the
animals feel, but there is (anecdotal?) evidence from humans that if you
eat less, then you get used to do so and you feel less hungry. I would
guess that the tropically-adapted breeds of cattle we have here have
evolved with cycles of pastures with widely differing nutritional
qualities and it could be argued that they therefore tolerate/cope
better with cycles of hunger and negative energy balance better than
unadapted breeds. Indeed, the tropically-adapted breeds are known for
their resilience; they do not die when we have severe droughts - or take
a long time to die - which of course raises a whole lot of
questions/debate about impacts on welfare and on land use/degradation -
but I'm not going there!!
Regards
Carol
Carol Petherick
Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484
Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au
________________________________
From: Jennifer Lanier [mailto:jlanier@hsi.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 2:48 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: -energy balance
In a discussion with a coworker we began debating about negative energy
balance. I thought it an interesting question and thought it would be
useful to pose the question to the list. When does a negative energy
balance become starvation? This was in regards to beef cattle, but I
would be very interested in thoughts on this for any animal or humans.
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online
community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to
www.hsus.org/join .
********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
(which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken
or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions
contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your computer system network.
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online
community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to
www.hsus.org/join .
From: IN%"ZenTrainer@hotmail.com" "Zen Trainer" 7-FEB-2007 09:51:53.97
To: IN%"hilit@teldan.com" "hilit"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethics List"
Subj: RE: cat welfare
Very interesting question. I wonder if it can be compared to human welfare as well. We tend to judge people by their appearances and often an unkempt person is a depressed person. However, on my 49th birthday I threw all my combs and brushes away deciding that life was just to short to waste time messing with my hair.
I work as much with cats as I do with dogs and I agree about variation in individuals. I had a cat who lived for 19 years who never groomed himself once. Sometimes one of my other cats would groom him. (I suspect one of my friends will come and comb my hair anytime now!)
I can't help but think of a song, maybe by James Taylor. It's on a Sesame Street album of rock sorts of songs for kids. It's called "Some kitties don't care".
Einstein was a pretty bizarre looking character who didn't seem to care what others thought about him. Maybe the non grooming cats are the genius's of the cat world?
And I am joking around but I do find this very interesting. Cats seem to be very self conscious. If a dog falls off the couch it tends to get up with no fuss with a "yuk, yuk yuk" attitude.
A cat who falls off a couch will immediately start grooming as if to say " I meant to do that".
I think it would be something very fun to study in the way that Jane Goodall studied the patterns of behavior of "The Chimpanzees of Gombe".
Best,
Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org
Hello,
I'm working with stray cats, studying their welfare.
I noticed that after feeding, some cats will self groom and others won't.
Do you thing this behaviour can indicate about individual differences between animals, or indicate poor/good welfare. After all, it isn't like self grooming in captive animals??!!
Thanks,
Hilit finkler
Zoology Department,
Tel Aviv university
Israel
From: IN%"jlanier@hsi.org" "Jennifer Lanier" 7-FEB-2007 11:35:25.04
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: -energy balance
I fully appreciate the information regarding the normal rhythms of
weight loss and gain as it relates to seasonality. However, I am more
curious about weight loss and subsequent welfare as it relates to poor
management.
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
________________________________
From: Nicholas Tyler [mailto:Nicholas.Tyler@ib.uit.no]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:35 AM
To: Jennifer Lanier; Petherick, Carol; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: -energy balance
The relationship between the concepts of 'negative energy balance' and
'starvation' (or true inanition) becomes quite ambiguous in the case of
northern temperate and Arctic species of mammals (and some resident
species of birds). Many of these display pronounced annual cycles in
body mass and 'body condition' (however this is measured) which are
driven by endogenous rhythms. Such cycles persist even when animals are
fed ad libitum all year round. In such cases, marked inappetance in
autumn and the resulting loss in body mass/fat merely relfect the normal
functioning of healthy individuals and have nothing necessarily to do
with undernutrition. Both the physiological basis and adaptive
significance of endogenous annual cycles growth, metabolism and appetite
(in that order!) is well understood and many good reviews are available.
Dr. Nicholas Tyler
c/o Department of Biology, University of Tromso,
N-9037 Tromso, Norway
tel. (direct) + 47 77 64 47 88
fax + 47 77 64 63 33
mobile phone + 47 90 57 72 98
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Lanier [mailto:jlanier@hsi.org]
Sent: 7. februar 2007 16:10
To: Petherick, Carol; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: -energy balance
We also use body condition as an indicator of welfare, potential for
conception, etc. If we consider a neg. energy balance as a casual agent
and the body condition score (BCS) the result with the potential for
"being hungry", fatigue, depressed immunity, etc, leading to death, when
does normal weight loss cross the boundary and become actual starvation?
Or is starvation and negative energy balance virtually the same thing
but on a continuum with no true tipping point until another variable is
added such as parasites or transport?
If the animal is sporadically fed some hay, or cull produce is this
actually improving the welfare of the animal? Is the negative energy
balance a little less negative, or in the case of ruminates is it a case
of gut fill with minimal nutrient/caloric use due to the rumen
microfauna having to acclimate before digestion can occur? What is
scientifically and ethically (or a marriage between the two) better for
the animal, to be in constant state of random timing and feed type being
fed or no feeding what so ever other that what the animal can find in a
confined area?
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
________________________________
From: Petherick, Carol [mailto:Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:44 PM
To: Jennifer Lanier; applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: RE: -energy balance
Hi Jennifer
Yes, an interesting question. In northern Australia negative energy
balance for beef cattle is part of the "normal" cycle of nutrition,
related to seasonal conditions and pasture quality. It is not unusual
for an adult animal to lose 20-30% of its liveweight (sometimes more)
over a 3-6 month period. Here we tend to consider body condition of an
animal as an indicator of whether animals are "starved". Of course,
such a measure doesn't really take into consideration how hungry the
animals feel, but there is (anecdotal?) evidence from humans that if you
eat less, then you get used to do so and you feel less hungry. I would
guess that the tropically-adapted breeds of cattle we have here have
evolved with cycles of pastures with widely differing nutritional
qualities and it could be argued that they therefore tolerate/cope
better with cycles of hunger and negative energy balance better than
unadapted breeds. Indeed, the tropically-adapted breeds are known for
their resilience; they do not die when we have severe droughts - or take
a long time to die - which of course raises a whole lot of
questions/debate about impacts on welfare and on land use/degradation -
but I'm not going there!!
Regards
Carol
Carol Petherick
Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare)
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 1484
Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au
________________________________
From: Jennifer Lanier [mailto:jlanier@hsi.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 2:48 AM
To: applied-ethology@usask.ca
Subject: -energy balance
In a discussion with a coworker we began debating about negative energy
balance. I thought it an interesting question and thought it would be
useful to pose the question to the list. When does a negative energy
balance become starvation? This was in regards to beef cattle, but I
would be very interested in thoughts on this for any animal or humans.
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D.
Director of Scientific Programs
Humane Society International - Trade
2100 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20037 USA
jlanier@hsi.org
(240) 888 1217 cell
(202) 778 6148
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online
community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to
www.hsus.org/join .
********************************DISCLAIMER****************************
The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages
(which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken
or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions
contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete it from your computer system network.
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online
community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to
www.hsus.org/join .
Interested in taking action online to help animals? Then join our online community and sign up for our Humane Action Network. Go to www.hsus.org/join .
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 8-FEB-2007 08:39:40.87
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: vets and animal welfare
Stanley Curtis wrote:
> I agree with all Ray Stricklin had to say in his most recent posting-
>
> To expand briefly on his thoughts:
> As an animal scientist, I am trained and experienced and
> authorized to speak ot the science aspect of the issue of animal
> welfare- There is an ethics aspect also, but I am not trained in, and
> therefore am not authorized to speak on, that aspewct of the issue of
> animal welfare-
Ouch. Training and experience may give what we have to say more weight, but
"authorized" ????
By what "authority"???
As for ethics, that is something which concerns us all as human beings, it is
part of the inescapable burden of the human condition, and IMVHO we cannot evade
it by saying "I'm not trained in this field."
Ethics as a branch of philosophy is one thing, but ethics as a branch of daily
life is another and more immediate thing, in respect of which every one of us is
not only "authorized" but also *obligated* to speak out according to our
understanding and beliefs.
> In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when ethical
> judgements are confused with scientific evicence in discussions of
> animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good and even a
> combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example, scientists
> should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
Um, er, see above .
> Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free society
> there will be different opinions as to who should talk the mix- My
> opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists should talk
> the ethics, and other interested people should talk the mix-
>
> Now, consider a contemporary example- As a scientist, I am on record
> as thinking that for the nation's pork-production industry to switch
> all of a sudden to group housing of dry sows would not be in the
> animals' best interests- Today I still stand by that opinion-
> Smihfield and Maple Leaf have decided to move to some sort of group
> housing of dry sows- Notice, however, that neither says they did so
> on the basis of any imperative based on scientific evidence- They did
> so for other reasons-
Yes, political and public-relations ones. Including I believe a still pending
lawsuit against my neighbors just up the road (Corcpork).
> Those decisions are realities in capitalistic, free cultures and
> economies- That they follow some directive other than science is a
> decision to be made by those businesspeople- Because the scientific
> evidence and practical experience are the same today as they were a
> month ago today, my opinion as a scientist remains the same todya as
> it was a month ago today- But I accept the business decisions of
> Smithfiueld and Maple Leaf Farms and expect to do whatever I can as a
> scientist to contribute in the future to improving the state of ebing
> of dry sows as the reside in group housing systems-
Of course.
> Again, I am troubled by so-called scientists who add ethical
> arguments to their nominally scientific opinions on specific aspects
> of animal welfare without clearly identifying themselves as hybrid
> scientist-ethicists- After all, science is supposed to be devoid of
> value judgements- The integrity of science suffers when there is
> confusion as to where scientific evidence ends and ethical judgement
> begins-
>
> Bottom Line: In my opinion, there is a need for both science and
> ethics in the hoilistic discussion of animal welfare- But let's keep
> the lines of discussion straight and the slants of the discussants
> transparent- Obviously, a coming together of the two lines ultimately
> must happen, but in the meantime let's not confuse ethics with
> science-
But yikes, let us also not be misled into believing you can practice one without
the other
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 8-FEB-2007 08:39:41.81
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: -energy balance
Petherick, Carol wrote:
> Hi Jennifer
> Yes, an interesting question. In northern Australia negative energy
> balance for beef cattle is part of the "normal" cycle of nutrition,
> related to seasonal conditions and pasture quality. It is not unusual
> for an adult animal to lose 20-30% of its liveweight (sometimes more)
> over a 3-6 month period. Here we tend to consider body condition of
> an animal as an indicator of whether animals are "starved". Of
> course, such a measure doesn't really take into consideration how
> hungry the animals feel, but there is (anecdotal?) evidence from
> humans that if you eat less, then you get used to do so and you feel
> less hungry. I would guess that the tropically-adapted breeds of
> cattle we have here have evolved with cycles of pastures with widely
> differing nutritional qualities and it could be argued that they
> therefore tolerate/cope better with cycles of hunger and negative
> energy balance better than unadapted breeds. Indeed, the
> tropically-adapted breeds are known for their resilience; they do not
> die when we have severe droughts - or take a long time to die - which
> of course raises a whole lot of questions/debate about impacts on
> welfare and on land use/degradation - but I'm not going there!!
Are your tropical-adapted cattle at least partly indicus in background?
I'm ashamed to say I spent brief time on cattle properties in N. Qld. about 25
years ago, but don't now remember what those cattle looked like ...
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 8-FEB-2007 08:39:44.08
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology list"
CC:
Subj: RE: Re: vets and animal welfare
Stanley Curtis wrote:
> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>
> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent
> comment (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent posting-
>
> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat
> what I said in that recent posting, to wit:
>
> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when
> ethical judgements are confused with scientific evicence in
> discussions of animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good
> and even a combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example,
> scientists should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
>
> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free society
> there will be different opinions as to who should talk the mix- My
> opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists should talk
> the ethics, and other interested people should talk the mix-"
>
> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that -- although I
> think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be construed as an
> oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists, respectively, will
> want to attempt to "straddle the divide" to which Patterson-Kane
> makes reference and which will ultimately be neceessary as we make
> progress in dealing holistically with the issue of so-called aniumal
> welfare- (David Fraser refers to this as "bridging the gap"-)
>
> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so
> cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking
> and writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have a
> lot of other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and
> deserve to be assisted in knowing at all times where the line -- that
> "divide", if you will -- lies- It needs to know about that divide
> because, on one of its sides, the evidence has been generated by the
> scientific method, whereas, on the other side, the multiple notions
> of where to draw another important line -- namely, the line as to
> what is morally acceptable and what is not in the ways and means of
> animnal-husbandry systems (which as I understand it is the line of
> the animal-welfare approach as opposed to the animal-rights
> approach)-- are the individual opinions of people living in a free
> and pluralistic society (and hence, because each is loaded with
> several sorts of baggage, will be quite variable and often ! ev!
> en in disagreement [philosophers argue, too])-\
It is the business of philosophers to argue. If they don't, culture is dead.
In the context of agricultural systems, there is besides all questions of
science and ethics another question, namely what the system can or will support
economically. It's a bit much to demand self-immolation of people who are
basically just trying to make a living. Another story of course if the man is
running a million head on half the rangeland in Colorado and Wyoming .
> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns should
> prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of being and (b)
> that the scientific method should guide us in that investigation- And
> I think that any consensus that a set of ethical thinkers might come
> up with in terms of what they think we "ought" to do with respect to
> how we treat our animals is all well and good so long as it turns out
> that the ensuant scientific evidence supports those notions- But,
> when it does not, then I think the animals deserve our bowing to the
> scientific evidence no matter how paradoxical it may seem to people
> with their ethicist hats on-
>
> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect to
> the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put themm
> in some sort of group housing system, how some of today's
> slef-described hybird scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling as
> they worry about the obvious practical problem (in terms of sow state
> of being) of switching the husbanding dry sows in groups before the
> system has been more nearly perfected and, most importantly, before
> the nation's cadre of caretakers can be brought up to speed on
> everything from how to make thorough regular inspections of sows in a
> group to how to protect themselves from personal injury when working
> in a pen with a group of loose, ever-hungry (limit-fed for their own
> good), 500-lb sows milling about- Those of us who raised hogs "the
> old way" know all too well the practical problems that attend those
> ways and means; that's why different ways and means evolved-
Now there's truth (indelible childhood memories of where we were NEVER allowed
to play ). "Personal injury" is putting it gently.
> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for
> example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that
> many of the people who are offering advice or making demands as to
> how animal agriculture should do its business are awfully naive and
> unaware of -- and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications-
Thank you for this ... so very true.
John
--
Dr. John Burchard
Tepe Gawra Salukis
saluqi@ix.netcom.com
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/
From: IN%"deh910@mail.usask.ca" "Derek Haley" 8-FEB-2007 13:35:20.11
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: The science and ethics of animal welfare
Stan Curtis wrote << As an animal scientist, I am trained and experienced and
authorized to speak to the science aspect of the issue of animal welfare. There
is an ethics aspect also, but I am not trained in, and therefore am not
authorized to speak on, that aspect of the issue of animal welfare. >>
John Burchard replied << As for ethics, that is something which concerns us all
as human beings, it is part of the inescapable burden of the human condition,
and IMVHO we cannot evade it by saying "I'm not trained in this field." //
Ethics as a branch of philosophy is one thing, but ethics as a branch of daily
life is another and more immediate thing, in respect of which every one of us is
not only "authorized" but also *obligated* to speak out according to our
understanding and beliefs. >>
(After corresponding with Stan about this off-list, to make sure I am not
misrepresenting his perspective, I offer the following.)
My sense is that Stan is not saying scientists should not participate in ethical
discussions, rather that we must be careful and open about our expertise so as
not confuse science and ethics in our discussions of animal welfare.
Livestock producer groups commonly call for more and more SCIENCE and
objectivity in determining the welfare of animals. We have not done a good
enough job at helping them understand that ultimately, science alone will not
be able to provide the final answers to questions about animal welfare. When
scientists make statements about animal welfare (while wearing our scientist
hat) we risk perpetuating the idea that science is answering questions about
animal welfare. In reality, it is the researchers interpretation of their
scientifically obtained results, which leads that scientist to the conclusions
that they have drawn, relative to animal welfare. Without full disclosure to
differentiate between the two (science, and ethics), loose interpretations and
conclusions made by scientists about the implications of their results for
animal welfare risks being construed as science, when it is, in fact, ethics.
For my part, I do as much as I can to engage livestock producer groups in
understanding that ethical considerations are critical in wrestling with
questions of animal welfare.
Derek Haley
From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 9-FEB-2007 08:06:45.73
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network", IN%"johnso17@uiuc.edu" "Janeen Johnson", IN%"KJohnson@animalagalliance.org" "Kay Johnson"
CC:
Subj: RE: Fwd: Re: vets and animal welfare
Dear Stan,
Many thanks for your complete and insightful reply.
When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course, in
the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its various
interpretations with appropriate references which I think addresses
statement (a). Regarding statement (b), I would develop the arguments that
various scientist (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put forward regarding matters
of animal feelings and how we might indirectly measure these. But, this is
where my argument falls down. In your reply, you wrote,
If there is no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the
argument is based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch
(scientific or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified version
of statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking or writing in
her/his role as a scientist.
Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in mice.
We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use the analogy
postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to ourselves therefore
it is possible the animal is experiencing an analogous subjective
experience. But, we can not objectively measure frustration in other
humans. Does this mean scientists should not be writing statements such as
(b) slightly re-written. "Statement (b): It has been argued that such
findings indicate the small space in prison cells are likely to cause
frustration and suffering in the prisoners."
Respectfully yours,
Chris
--On 08 February 2007 18:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis wrote:
>
> Chris and others-
>
> In his posting to this network a couple of days ago in reaction to an
> earlier posting of mine, Chris Sherwin astutely offered a set of three
> statements (statements a, b, and c between quotation marks below) and
> then asked me: CMS: "If I am correct in following your line of
> thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop after writing (a).
> An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b). The hybrid should stop
> after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree with this, or would you
> perhaps take a different slant?"
>
> My response to Chris Sherwin?s query follows follows in respective
> comments following each of the statements he offered:
>
> CMS: "Statement (a): In this study, consumer demand trials showed that
> mice had a high motivation for space additional to that provided by
> standard laboratory cages."
>
> SEC: Statement (a) comprises the scientific evidence generated by the
> study.
>
> In her/his role as a scientist reporting strictly new scientific
> evidence, she/he should stop here.
>
> CMS: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate the
> small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause frustration
> and suffering in the mice."
>
> SEC: Statement (b) is inadequate as it stands because it does not state
> who is arguing what such findings indicate and on what basis that
> argument is grounded. The statement should be clarified in those contexts.
>
> Then: Is statement (b) based on arguments based on evidence generated in
> other experiments following the scientific method? If so, the scientist
> should allude to that other scientific evidence in her/his discussion of
> her/his new evidence in clarifying statement (b). If not, the scientist
> should not make that statement in a scientific journal.
>
> What is the nature of the basis for the argument that the mice are likely
> to be experiencing frustration and suffering? If the scientist does make
> a clarified version of statement (b), that statement should clearly
> allude to the objective ways and means of determining the animals?
> subjective states of frustration and suffering. If there is no objective
> evidence of any such state ? but instead the argument is based on the
> analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or
> philosophic grounds -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should
> not be made by a scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a
> scientist.
>
> CMS: "Statement (c): It is therefore recommended that laboratory mice
> should be provided with more space than is currently given as standard."
>
> SEC: The scientific method requires that any scientific finding be
> repeated and confirmed by other scientists in other laboratories before
> it qualifies to be considered to be accepted scientific evidence. Unless
> and until it is so accepted, it remains a theory. Practical
> recommendations should be based only on accepted scientific evidence, and
> then only after that accepted scientific evidence has been applied in a
> variety of actual animal husbandry settings and been found by scientific
> observation to be supportive of a high overall animal state of being. On
> the basis of a finding in a single study or several confirmative studies
> that have not be tested in an actual animal-keeping setting, no practical
> recommendation at all should be made.
>
> Stanley Curtis
> Department of Animal Sciences
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:34:22 +0000
>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>> welfare
>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network
>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>> Johnson
>>
>> Stan (and others),
>>
>> Thanks for your very thought provoking ideas on science, ethics and
>> hybrids as they relate to animal welfare. I have put together the
>> following fictitious passage which I could imagine might be published
>> in any ethology/welfare science journal. If I am correct in following
>> your line of thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop
>> after writing (a). An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b). The
>> hybrid should stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree with
>> this, or would you perhaps take a different slant?
>>
>> (a) In this paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had a high
>> motivation for space additional to that provided by standard laboratory
>> cages. (b) It has been argued that such findings indicate the small
>> space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause frustration and
>> suffering in the mice. (c) It is therefore recommended that
>> laboratory mice should be provided with more space than is currently
>> given as standard.
>>
>> Respectfully yours,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> --On 07 February 2007 06:14 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>>>
>>> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent comment
>>> (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent posting-
>>>
>>> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat what I
>>> said in that recent posting, to wit:
>>>
>>> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when ethical
>>> judgements are confused with scientific evicence in discussions of
>>> animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good and even a
>>> combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example, scientists
>>> should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
>>>
>>> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free society
>>> there will be different opinions as to who should talk the mix- My
>>> opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists should talk the
>>> ethics, and other interested people should talk the mix-"
>>>
>>> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that -- although I
>>> think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be construed as an
>>> oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists, respectively, will want
>>> to attempt to "straddle the divide" to which Patterson-Kane makes
>>> reference and which will ultimately be neceessary as we make progress
>>> in dealing holistically with the issue of so-called aniumal welfare-
>>> (David Fraser refers to this as "bridging the gap"-)
>>>
>>> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so
>>> cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking and
>>> writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have a lot of
>>> other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and deserve to be
>>> assisted in knowing at all times where the line -- that "divide", if you
>>> will -- lies- It needs to know about that divide because, on one of its
>>> sides, the evidence has been generated by the scientific method,
>>> whereas, on the other side, the multiple notions of where to draw
>>> another important line -- namely, the line as to what is morally
>>> acceptable and what is not in the ways and means of animnal-husbandry
>>> systems (which as I understand it is the line of the animal-welfare
>>> approach as opposed to the animal-rights approach)-- are the individual
>>> opinions of people living in a free and pluralistic society (and hence,
>>> because each is loaded with several sorts of baggage, will be quite
>>> variable and often ! ev!
>>> en in disagreement [philosophers argue, too])-
>>>
>>> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns should
>>> prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of being and (b)
>>> that the scientific method should guide us in that investigation- And I
>>> think that any consensus that a set of ethical thinkers might come up
>>> with in terms of what they think we "ought" to do with respect to how we
>>> treat our animals is all well and good so long as it turns out that the
>>> ensuant scientific evidence supports those notions- But, when it does
>>> not, then I think the animals deserve our bowing to the scientific
>>> evidence no matter how paradoxical it may seem to people with their
>>> ethicist hats on-
>>>
>>> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect to
>>> the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put themm in
>>> some sort of group housing system, how some of today's slef-described
>>> hybird scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling as they worry about
>>> the obvious practical problem (in terms of sow state of being) of
>>> switching the husbanding dry sows in groups before the system has been
>>> more nearly perfected and, most importantly, before the nation's cadre
>>> of caretakers can be brought up to speed on everything from how to make
>>> thorough regular inspections of sows in a group to how to protect
>>> themselves from personal injury when working in a pen with a group of
>>> loose, ever-hungry (limit-fed for their own good), 500-lb sows milling
>>> about- Those of us who raised hogs "the old way" know all too well the
>>> practical problems that attend those ways and means; that's why
>>> different ways and means evolved-
>>>
>>> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for
>>> example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that many
>>> of the people who are offering advice or making demands as to how animal
>>> agriculture should do its business are awfully naive and unaware of --
>>> and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications-
>>>
>>> Stanley Curtis
>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>> 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%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 9-FEB-2007 15:09:18.93
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network", IN%"johnso17@uiuc.edu" "Janeen Johnson", IN%"KJohnson@animalagalliance.org" "Kay Johnson"
Subj: Gestation stalls and ramifications
Dear Stan,
Stan, you wrote:
"Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for examp=
le, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that many of th=
e people who are offering advice or making demands as to how animal agric=
ulture should do its business are awfully naive and unaware of -- and per=
haps uncaring about -- those ramifications-"
One could argue that the original movement away from group housing and in=
to gestation stalls was done by naive producers, naive animal scientists =
and naive veterinarians who lacked consideration and foresight on how ges=
tation stalls might offend the non-agriculturalists, ethicists, and socie=
ty in general. The move into gestation stalls was an economic and produc=
tion gamble that backfired and proved to be a wrong move because it was n=
ot "sustainable" in the long run. It may be sustainable in the sense that=
sows in crates can be productive and perhaps initially sows in stalls we=
re more economical, the system was more ergonomic and perhaps easier to m=
anage than sows in group housing, but gestation stalls were and are not s=
ustainable esthetically, ethically or morally in the eyes of Europeans an=
d likely in the eyes of many N. Americans too. Maybe where advice should=
have been offered was upfront before the decisions to use gestation stal=
ls were made. Who is naive here? Perhaps as producers, animal scientists=
and veterinarians we were naive to not consider such ramifications! I wo=
uld further argue that the original justifications that contributed to th=
e swine industry evolving towards a stall system (for the most part) are =
no longer valid and are currently surmountable in today's group housed sy=
stems. =20
In regards to your final statement:
"...I am afraid that many of the people who are offering advice or making=
demands as to how animal agriculture should do its business are awfully =
naive and unaware of -- and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications=
-"
I am going to assume that you are referring to New York taxi drivers and =
that you are not referring to scientists, like myself, who grew up on a f=
arm, worked in the swine industry, studied animal science and who pursued=
a graduate degree studying farm animal behaviour (swine aggression speci=
fically). I know quite well what the ramifications are in moving from a =
gestation system to a stall system. And I care about both the producers a=
nd their animals. And I still maintain that giving up gestation stalls is=
the right thing to do for a multitude of reasons (including scientific r=
easons). I say we should get at it, make the switch and work to improve =
those aspects of group housing that are problematic for producers and the=
animals. Smithfield and Maple Leaf companies apparently agree and I cong=
ratulate them on being able to muddle through all the agricultural, scien=
tific and societal "politics" in getting there.
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%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins" 10-FEB-2007 14:52:25.77
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: Gestation stalls and ramifications
With regard to this topic, I wonder what the ethological facts are re pigs.
What size groups do they live in naturally, and how and where does a sow
give birth and rear her piglets?
It just seems to me that living in a pen might be just as unnatural as
living in stalls, with the added danger of aggression being considerably
increased with the forced cohabitation and closeness of the individuals.
I know that work done on wild pigs may not be applicable to domesticated
pigs, but I wonder what research has been done re group living in both
varieties.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny Haskins
Coffs Harbour Australia
From: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane" 10-FEB-2007 18:04:53.48
To: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
Subj: RE: Gestation stalls and ramifications
It is a relatively well-researched area. Classic examples of studies
using free-ranging swine include Graves (1984) --USA, Stolba &
Woodgush (1989)--UK, Jensen (1986)--Sweden. Swine live in groups of a
few sows and their offspring, they leave the group for farrowing but
return a week or two later.
I think it would also be fair to say that group housing in various
forms is a proven technology currently in use by many commercial farms
around the world. Sows can be allowed to separate themselves for
farrowing by providing nest areas. As with any system there are good
and bad management and design issues but there are plenty of farms out
there doing a good job with group penning or pasturing.
There are pros and cons with either system and local needs relating
the climate, markets, customer expectations etc and an awful lot of
data out there to allow everyone involved to form an accurate
understanding of the findings--if not their implications.
On 10/02/07, peterhaskins wrote:
>
> With regard to this topic, I wonder what the ethological facts are re pigs.
>
> What size groups do they live in naturally, and how and where does a sow
> give birth and rear her piglets?
>
> It just seems to me that living in a pen might be just as unnatural as
> living in stalls, with the added danger of aggression being considerably
> increased with the forced cohabitation and closeness of the individuals.
>
> I know that work done on wild pigs may not be applicable to domesticated
> pigs, but I wonder what research has been done re group living in both
> varieties.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Jenny Haskins
> Coffs Harbour Australia
>
>
From: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com" "Emily Patterson-Kane" 10-FEB-2007 18:29:33.10
To: IN%"VBowen@bowenconsulting.net"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
Subj: RE: Gestation stalls and ramifications
Forwarded for Virginia who is having access problems with the list:
------------------------------------------------------------
There is one thing that I don't think I've seen anyone address yet on this
discussion. That is the behavioral and psychological changes in captive
swine brought about by our selective breeding for changing human tastes, and
more importantly, for mass production. I recall reading something in my
studies about some breed of chicken that, when bred for larger breasts,
developed a killer instinct in addition to the large breast.
Do we know what behavioral changes the swine being kept TODAY have from
feral or wild swine? That would have a great impact on their ability to
handle new housing situations.
In my studies on animal welfare science online (with some of the folks on
this list, in fact), as well as in reading since that course, I have also
pondered the inadvertent selective breeding by the farmers/ranchers.
I just wonder if we even know how they will behave until we get them there
because they may have been so changed over the years of intensive factory
farming.
I'm not saying the moves by the big pork producers are bad, I don't know
enough. My gut tells me though, that as a student scientist with a strong
interest in animal welfare, we should take all these factors into account
and ensure the happiest of lives for the swine we have, as well as for the
swine we WILL have in the future. That, and I'm a big fan of growing our
meat in labs. (seriously).
Virginia
> Brownwood, TX
>
> "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and
> bray in the night."
>
> "None of the animals seem to want me to be other than human. But they want
> me to be a human who knows how the world looks to them and respects it." -
> Verlyn Klinkenborg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emily Patterson-Kane [mailto:rattitude@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:05 PM
> To: peterhaskins
> Cc: ethology
> Subject: Re: Gestation stalls and ramifications
>
> It is a relatively well-researched area. Classic examples of studies
> using free-ranging swine include Graves (1984) --USA, Stolba &
> Woodgush (1989)--UK, Jensen (1986)--Sweden. Swine live in groups of a
> few sows and their offspring, they leave the group for farrowing but
> return a week or two later.
>
> I think it would also be fair to say that group housing in various
> forms is a proven technology currently in use by many commercial farms
> around the world. Sows can be allowed to separate themselves for
> farrowing by providing nest areas. As with any system there are good
> and bad management and design issues but there are plenty of farms out
> there doing a good job with group penning or pasturing.
>
> There are pros and cons with either system and local needs relating
> the climate, markets, customer expectations etc and an awful lot of
> data out there to allow everyone involved to form an accurate
> understanding of the findings--if not their implications.
>
> On 10/02/07, peterhaskins wrote:
> >
> > With regard to this topic, I wonder what the ethological facts are re
> pigs.
> >
> > What size groups do they live in naturally, and how and where does a sow
> > give birth and rear her piglets?
> >
> > It just seems to me that living in a pen might be just as unnatural as
> > living in stalls, with the added danger of aggression being considerably
> > increased with the forced cohabitation and closeness of the individuals.
> >
> > I know that work done on wild pigs may not be applicable to domesticated
> > pigs, but I wonder what research has been done re group living in both
> > varieties.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Jenny Haskins
> > Coffs Harbour Australia
> >
> >
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2051 (20070210) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
From: IN%"peterhaskins@bigpond.com" "peterhaskins" 10-FEB-2007 19:37:02.43
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: Gestation stalls and ramifications
Thankyou s much, both Emily and Virginia.
Jenny
Coffs Australia
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Gestation stalls and ramifications
> There is one thing that I don't think I've seen anyone address yet on this
> discussion. . . . > Do we know what behavioral changes the swine being
> kept TODAY have from
> feral or wild swine? That would have a great impact on their ability to
> handle new housing situations.
>>> From: Emily Patterson-Kane [mailto:rattitude@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: Gestation stalls and ramifications
>>
>> It is a relatively well-researched area. Classic examples of studies
>> using free-ranging swine include Graves (1984) --USA, Stolba &
>> Woodgush (1989)--UK, Jensen (1986)--Sweden. Swine live in groups of a
>> few sows and their offspring, they leave the group for farrowing but
>> return a week or two later.
From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 12-FEB-2007 04:47:08.16
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Spam:Re: Gestation stalls and ramifications
Interesting debate, although we seem to have had part of it before.
The question of about what a scientist can speak and about what s/he should keep quiet is interesting. We have just been through a referendum campaign about abortion in Portugal. There are a few not unimportant scientific arguments that can be made in that debate (such as at which stage of development the embryo/fetus gains certain capacities, how many women are affected by complications from unprofessionally executed abortions). But few people would argue that science can provide the answer to whether or not clinics should be legally authorized to perform abortions in the case of undesired pregnancies.
I don't think a general comparison of the debates about abortion and gestation stalls is very interesting but would like to point out two parallels:
1. Definition
The existing Portuguese legislation allows abortions when the woman's psychological health is at risk. What is psychological health? When is it at stake? Some professionals claim (as is the way the legislation is applied in neighbouring Spain) that if the woman considers it impossible to have a baby in her present situation, then her psychological health is at risk if the pregnancy is to be carried to term. Others argue that there must be a history of clinically manifest psychiatric disorders.
Animal welfare involves the physical and psychological health of animals. It also involves the possibility to perform natural behaviour (both in the definitions classified by Fraser & Duncan in the text book chapter in Appleby & Hughes' Animal Welfare, and in the Five Freedoms definition). When Stanley Curtis is worried about the welfare of group-housed sows, he's arguing about their physical and possibly also psychological health as a result of aggression. When the general public is worried about the welfare of tethered/crated sows, they are most likely thinking about the behavioural restriction and the inability to perform natural behaviours, and possibly the health consequences of that.
2. When and about what can different professionals legitimately speak
Many medical doctors, nurses, midwifes and psychologists have taken side in the abortion debate. There have certainly been discussions (and reasons to discuss) the way some of them have used their professional status in the debate, but nobody has questioned that these professionals are authorized in taking sides in a discussion which so obviously is about more than science. I see no reason why the animal science / veterinary profession and the gestation stall debate should be any different.
There is scientific, ethical and political disagreement over both issues - and THAT is the most important question to acknowledge! Only after we have done that, is there any chance at all to have a rational and transparent discussion, in which the different arguments supporting the different views can be laid out clear.
To some extent, we seem to be approaching that discussion on applied-ethology, which is excellent!
Regards,
Anna
PS For transparency, my academic training ranges from animal science (first degree) through ethology (PhD) to ethics (postdoc).
Dr Anna Olsson
Researcher
Laboratory Animal Science group
http://www.ibmc.up.pt/group.php?area=4&grupo=18
Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC
Rua Campo Alegre 823
4150-180 Porto, Portugal
Phone +351 22 607 4900
Fax +351 22 6099157
From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 12-FEB-2007 04:59:02.76
To: IN%"rattitude@gmail.com", IN%"VBowen@bowenconsulting.net"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: pig genetics and gestation stalls
Now, to the very question of gestation stalls for sows. Both Stanley Curtis=
and Virginia Bowen have raised the question of breeding, which I agree is=
an important and overlooked issue.
In selective breeding of animals, one may directly breed for a trait by=
including that trait in the breeding goal and only selecting breeding=
animals that perform well on that trait. Typically farm animals have been=
directly selected for production traits, such as number of piglets born=
alive, amount of milk produced, growth rate or the like. Over time the=
genetic makeup of the farm animal stock will be biased towards that=
resulting in higher production under the conditions under which selection=
took place. If the selective breeding take place in gestation stalls, we=
are selecting sows that produce well in gestation stalls. These sows may=
or may not do well in group-housing systems, and as Virginia Bowen writes,=
we will really only now once we have these sows in group-housing systems.=
The most scientifically correct approach to a radical change of housing=
system seems to be to change the selective breeding a few years before the=
production system is changed, just as Stanley Curtis pointed out. This is=
not even a question of animal welfare but of overall production and=
economy. Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen in many places. When=
I reviewed the Danish pig breeding in 2004, the managers recognised that=
facing a upcoming change to group-housing of sows in production, the=
breeders should be one step ahead, but argued that this was practically=
impossible. I would be very interested in knowing if breeders are more=
proactive in other places?
Regards,
Anna
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10-02-2007 at 19:29 Emily Patterson-Kane wrote:
>Forwarded for Virginia who is having access problems with the list:
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> There is one thing that I don't think I've seen anyone address yet on=
this
> discussion. That is the behavioral and psychological changes in captive
> swine brought about by our selective breeding for changing human tastes,
>and
> more importantly, for mass production. I recall reading something in my
> studies about some breed of chicken that, when bred for larger breasts,
> developed a killer instinct in addition to the large breast.
>
> Do we know what behavioral changes the swine being kept TODAY have from
> feral or wild swine? That would have a great impact on their ability to
> handle new housing situations.
>
> In my studies on animal welfare science online (with some of the folks on
> this list, in fact), as well as in reading since that course, I have also
> pondered the inadvertent selective breeding by the farmers/ranchers.
>
> I just wonder if we even know how they will behave until we get them=
there
> because they may have been so changed over the years of intensive factory
> farming.
>
> I'm not saying the moves by the big pork producers are bad, I don't know
> enough. My gut tells me though, that as a student scientist with a=
strong
> interest in animal welfare, we should take all these factors into account
> and ensure the happiest of lives for the swine we have, as well as for=
the
> swine we WILL have in the future. That, and I'm a big fan of growing our
> meat in labs. (seriously).
>
> Virginia
>> Brownwood, TX
>>
>> "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun
>and
>> bray in the night."
>>
>> "None of the animals seem to want me to be other than human. But they
>want
>> me to be a human who knows how the world looks to them and respects it."
>-
>> Verlyn Klinkenborg
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Emily Patterson-Kane [mailto:rattitude@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:05 PM
>> To: peterhaskins
>> Cc: ethology
>> Subject: Re: Gestation stalls and ramifications
>>
>> It is a relatively well-researched area. Classic examples of studies
>> using free-ranging swine include Graves (1984) --USA, Stolba &
>> Woodgush (1989)--UK, Jensen (1986)--Sweden. Swine live in groups of a
>> few sows and their offspring, they leave the group for farrowing but
>> return a week or two later.
>>
>> I think it would also be fair to say that group housing in various
>> forms is a proven technology currently in use by many commercial farms
>> around the world. Sows can be allowed to separate themselves for
>> farrowing by providing nest areas. As with any system there are good
>> and bad management and design issues but there are plenty of farms out
>> there doing a good job with group penning or pasturing.
>>
>> There are pros and cons with either system and local needs relating
>> the climate, markets, customer expectations etc and an awful lot of
>> data out there to allow everyone involved to form an accurate
>> understanding of the findings--if not their implications.
>>
>> On 10/02/07, peterhaskins wrote:
>> >
>> > With regard to this topic, I wonder what the ethological facts are re
>> pigs.
>> >
>> > What size groups do they live in naturally, and how and where does a
>sow
>> > give birth and rear her piglets?
>> >
>> > It just seems to me that living in a pen might be just as unnatural as
>> > living in stalls, with the added danger of aggression being
>considerably
>> > increased with the forced cohabitation and closeness of the
>individuals.
>> >
>> > I know that work done on wild pigs may not be applicable to
>domesticated
>> > pigs, but I wonder what research has been done re group living in both
>> > varieties.
>> >
>> > Yours sincerely,
>> >
>> > Jenny Haskins
>> > Coffs Harbour Australia
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2051 (20070210) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
Dr Anna Olsson
Researcher
Laboratory Animal Science group
http://www.ibmc.up.pt/group.php?area=3D4&grupo=3D18
Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC
Rua Campo Alegre 823
4150-180 Porto, Portugal
Phone +351 22 607 4900
Fax +351 22 6099157
From: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 12-FEB-2007 15:12:08.01
To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca", IN%"rattitude@gmail.com", IN%"VBowen@bowenconsulting.net"
Subj: RE: pig genetics and gestation stalls
Amen, Anna Olsson- Amen!-
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:58:45 +0000
>From: Anna Olsson
>Subject: pig genetics and gestation stalls
>To: rattitude@gmail.com, VBowen@bowenconsulting.net
>Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca
>
>
>Now, to the very question of gestation stalls for sows. Both Stanley Curtis and Virginia Bowen have raised the question of breeding, which I agree is an important and overlooked issue.
>
>In selective breeding of animals, one may directly breed for a trait by including that trait in the breeding goal and only selecting breeding animals that perform well on that trait. Typically farm animals have been directly selected for production traits, such as number of piglets born alive, amount of milk produced, growth rate or the like. Over time the genetic makeup of the farm animal stock will be biased towards that resulting in higher production under the conditions under which selection took place. If the selective breeding take place in gestation stalls, we are selecting sows that produce well in gestation stalls. These sows may or may not do well in group-housing systems, and as Virginia Bowen writes, we will really only now once we have these sows in group-housing systems. The most scientifically correct approach to a radical change of housing system seems to be to change the selective breeding a few years before the production system is changed, just as Stanley!
C!
urtis pointed out. This is not even a question of animal welfare but of overall production and economy. Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen in many places. When I reviewed the Danish pig breeding in 2004, the managers recognised that facing a upcoming change to group-housing of sows in production, the breeders should be one step ahead, but argued that this was practically impossible. I would be very interested in knowing if breeders are more proactive in other places?
>
>Regards,
>Anna
>
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 10-02-2007 at 19:29 Emily Patterson-Kane wrote:
>
>>Forwarded for Virginia who is having access problems with the list:
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> There is one thing that I don't think I've seen anyone address yet on this
>> discussion. That is the behavioral and psychological changes in captive
>> swine brought about by our selective breeding for changing human tastes,
>>and
>> more importantly, for mass production. I recall reading something in my
>> studies about some breed of chicken that, when bred for larger breasts,
>> developed a killer instinct in addition to the large breast.
>>
>> Do we know what behavioral changes the swine being kept TODAY have from
>> feral or wild swine? That would have a great impact on their ability to
>> handle new housing situations.
>>
>> In my studies on animal welfare science online (with some of the folks on
>> this list, in fact), as well as in reading since that course, I have also
>> pondered the inadvertent selective breeding by the farmers/ranchers.
>>
>> I just wonder if we even know how they will behave until we get them there
>> because they may have been so changed over the years of intensive factory
>> farming.
>>
>> I'm not saying the moves by the big pork producers are bad, I don't know
>> enough. My gut tells me though, that as a student scientist with a strong
>> interest in animal welfare, we should take all these factors into account
>> and ensure the happiest of lives for the swine we have, as well as for the
>> swine we WILL have in the future. That, and I'm a big fan of growing our
>> meat in labs. (seriously).
>>
>> Virginia
>>> Brownwood, TX
>>>
>>> "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun
>>and
>>> bray in the night."
>>>
>>> "None of the animals seem to want me to be other than human. But they
>>want
>>> me to be a human who knows how the world looks to them and respects it."
>>-
>>> Verlyn Klinkenborg
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Emily Patterson-Kane [mailto:rattitude@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:05 PM
>>> To: peterhaskins
>>> Cc: ethology
>>> Subject: Re: Gestation stalls and ramifications
>>>
>>> It is a relatively well-researched area. Classic examples of studies
>>> using free-ranging swine include Graves (1984) --USA, Stolba &
>>> Woodgush (1989)--UK, Jensen (1986)--Sweden. Swine live in groups of a
>>> few sows and their offspring, they leave the group for farrowing but
>>> return a week or two later.
>>>
>>> I think it would also be fair to say that group housing in various
>>> forms is a proven technology currently in use by many commercial farms
>>> around the world. Sows can be allowed to separate themselves for
>>> farrowing by providing nest areas. As with any system there are good
>>> and bad management and design issues but there are plenty of farms out
>>> there doing a good job with group penning or pasturing.
>>>
>>> There are pros and cons with either system and local needs relating
>>> the climate, markets, customer expectations etc and an awful lot of
>>> data out there to allow everyone involved to form an accurate
>>> understanding of the findings--if not their implications.
>>>
>>> On 10/02/07, peterhaskins wrote:
>>> >
>>> > With regard to this topic, I wonder what the ethological facts are re
>>> pigs.
>>> >
>>> > What size groups do they live in naturally, and how and where does a
>>sow
>>> > give birth and rear her piglets?
>>> >
>>> > It just seems to me that living in a pen might be just as unnatural as
>>> > living in stalls, with the added danger of aggression being
>>considerably
>>> > increased with the forced cohabitation and closeness of the
>>individuals.
>>> >
>>> > I know that work done on wild pigs may not be applicable to
>>domesticated
>>> > pigs, but I wonder what research has been done re group living in both
>>> > varieties.
>>> >
>>> > Yours sincerely,
>>> >
>>> > Jenny Haskins
>>> > Coffs Harbour Australia
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 2051 (20070210) Information __________
>>>
>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>Dr Anna Olsson
>Researcher
>Laboratory Animal Science group
>http://www.ibmc.up.pt/group.php?area=4&grupo=18
>
>Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC
>Rua Campo Alegre 823
>4150-180 Porto, Portugal
>Phone +351 22 607 4900
>Fax +351 22 6099157
>
>
>
>
From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 13-FEB-2007 06:34:37.47
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network"
CC:
Subj: RE: Reply to Chris Sherwin
Dear Stan,
I realise that the following might be interpreted as inflammatory or
argumentative - it is not meant to be and it is sent with the utmost
respect for your arguments and beliefs. I do not understand how if you
argue that scientists should not make statements about changing husbandry
systems without objective data on welfare, it is acceptable for scientist
to argue for the status quo - but still devoid of objective data. Surely
if there are no acceptable objective data, then scientists should not be
making statements in either direction.
P.S. I very much enjoyed your comments about argument by analogy. I few
years ago I wrote a review of studies indicating that by using this
postulate, we should be thinking very carefully about the possibility of
suffering in invertebrates, not just vertebrates. Sherwin, C.M. (2001).
Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy? Animal
Welfare, 10 (supplement): 103-118
Chris
--On 12 February 2007 22:10 -0600 Stanley Curtis wrote:
>
> Chris Sherwin and others-
> The following comments are in reply to the posting by C.M. Sherwin (CMS)
> to this network of Friday 9 February (CST in USA), which itself was in
> reply to an earlier response of mine to an earlier query-posting of me
> (S. E. Curtis SEC) by CMS- = = =
> CMS wrote:
> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
> written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course, in
> the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its
> various interpretations with appropriate references which I think
> addresses statement (a) [(a) In this paper, consumer demand studies
> showed that mice had a high motivation for space additional to that
> provided by standard laboratory cages.]. SEC comment:
> I wrote in my earlier response: ?Statement (a) comprises the scientific
> evidence generated by the study. In her/his role as a scientist reporting
> strictly new scientific evi-dence, she/he should stop here.?]. Thereby, I
> acknowledged that, in my opinion, statement (a) meets the criteria of a
> scientific conclusion- = = =
> CMS wrote:
> Regarding statement (b) [(b) It has been argued that such findings
> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause
> frustration and suffering in the mice.], I would develop the arguments
> that various scientists (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put forward regarding
> matters of animal feelings and how we might indirectly measure these.
> But, this is where my argument falls down. SEC comment:
> I am familiar with the researches and the analyses and the
> interpretations of Marian Stamp Dawkins and Ian Duncan, and have great
> respect for them and their excellent works- On more than one occasion, I
> have discussed with Ian Duncan animals? cognitive processes and their
> measurement- As you know, both Dawkins and Duncan have opined, however,
> that at present, indirect scientific evidence is all we have to consider
> in matters of nonhuman animals? feelings- And in their own works they are
> very cautious and conservative in terms of the permissible inference
> space for their findings and conclusions- I simply believe that indirect
> evidence ?- scientific or otherwise -- should not suffice as the basis
> for determining how an animal ought to be husbanded- (By the way, because
> we would like to have some direct evidence as to how an animal feels,
> beginning more than a decade ago, colleagues and I have been interested
> and engaged in attempting to develop ways and means of directly
> communicating with pigs, along the lines the Georgia scientists have
> communicated with chimpanzees-) = = =
> CMS wrote:
> In your reply, you [SEC] wrote,
> ?If there is no objective evidence of any such state
> -- but instead the argument is based on the analogy postulate,
> anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds
> -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should not be made by a
> scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a scientist.? Of course,
> I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in mice. We do not
> KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use the analogy postulate
> - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to ourselves therefore it is
> possible the animal is experiencing an analogous subjective experience.
> But, we can not objectively measure frustration in other humans. Does
> this mean scientists should not be writing statements such as (b)
> slightly re-written: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such
> findings indicate the small space in prison cells are likely to cause
> frustration and suffering in the prisoners." SEC comment:
> In my opinion, the re-written statement (b) about humans is not analogous
> to the original statement (b) about mice- My reasoning includes the
> obvious facts that mice are not humans and that most likely individuals
> of the two species have different emotional thresholds and aversions to
> suf-fering, not to mention different motivations to behave in one way or
> another in an artificial experimental setting- Vera Baumans and Paul
> Brain, in discussing the analogy postulate, have written: ?It is
> ethically prudent to go one step further and to accept that animal
> suffering can at least be equivalent to the suffering of a human when
> both are subject to the same [experience]. This analogy postulate should
> be accepted unless its invalidity has been proven in a specific case.
> [But] one should realize it has a weak scientific basis and should be
> used with caution. One cannot exclude the possibility that
> [experiences], which are comparatively harmless for human subjects, are
> painful or stressful for certain animals, or vice versa.? So Baumans and
> Brain profess that to apply the analogy postulate is to be ?ethically
> prudent? but ?scientifically weak?- My point precisely!- Unless and until
> we have at hand verifiable, direct scientific evidence in the matter of
> emotional suffering by animals, as a scientist, I think we should
> continue our search for the truth of the matter and make decisions and
> regulations in the matter ?with caution?- And, finally, if psychologists
> and posychiatrists cannot objecively measure frustration and suffering in
> humans, then, writing as scientists, they should not imply that humans in
> such-and-such a situation most liely are experiencing those feelings- As
> Lord Kelvin said quite some time ago: ?When you cannot measure it, when
> you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and
> unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have
> scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the
> matter may be." = = =
> Stanley Curtis
> Department of Animal Sciences
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>
>
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:06:13 +0000
>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>> welfare
>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>> , applied-ethology network
>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>> Johnson
>>
>> Dear Stan,
>>
>> Many thanks for your complete and insightful reply.
>>
>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
>> written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course,
>> in the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its
>> various interpretations with appropriate references which I think
>> addresses statement (a). Regarding statement (b), I would develop the
>> arguments that various scientist (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put
>> forward regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might
>> indirectly measure these. But, this is where my argument falls down.
>> In your reply, you wrote,
>>
>> If there is no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the
>> argument is based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch
>> (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified
>> version of statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking or
>> writing in her/his role as a scientist.
>>
>>
>> Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in
>> mice. We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use the
>> analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to
>> ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is experiencing an
>> analogous subjective experience. But, we can not objectively measure
>> frustration in other humans. Does this mean scientists should not be
>> writing statements such as (b) slightly re-written. "Statement (b): It
>> has been argued that such findings indicate the small space in prison
>> cells are likely to cause frustration and suffering in the prisoners."
>>
>>
>> Respectfully yours,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> --On 08 February 2007 18:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Chris and others-
>>>
>>> In his posting to this network a couple of days ago in reaction to an
>>> earlier posting of mine, Chris Sherwin astutely offered a set of three
>>> statements (statements a, b, and c between quotation marks below) and
>>> then asked me: CMS: "If I am correct in following your line of
>>> thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop after writing
>>> (a). An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b). The hybrid should
>>> stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree with this, or would you
>>> perhaps take a different slant?"
>>>
>>> My response to Chris Sherwin?s query follows follows in respective
>>> comments following each of the statements he offered:
>>>
>>> CMS: "Statement (a): In this study, consumer demand trials showed that
>>> mice had a high motivation for space additional to that provided by
>>> standard laboratory cages."
>>>
>>> SEC: Statement (a) comprises the scientific evidence generated by the
>>> study.
>>>
>>> In her/his role as a scientist reporting strictly new scientific
>>> evidence, she/he should stop here.
>>>
>>> CMS: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate the
>>> small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause frustration
>>> and suffering in the mice."
>>>
>>> SEC: Statement (b) is inadequate as it stands because it does not state
>>> who is arguing what such findings indicate and on what basis that
>>> argument is grounded. The statement should be clarified in those
>>> contexts.
>>>
>>> Then: Is statement (b) based on arguments based on evidence generated in
>>> other experiments following the scientific method? If so, the scientist
>>> should allude to that other scientific evidence in her/his discussion of
>>> her/his new evidence in clarifying statement (b). If not, the scientist
>>> should not make that statement in a scientific journal.
>>>
>>> What is the nature of the basis for the argument that the mice are
>>> likely to be experiencing frustration and suffering? If the scientist
>>> does make a clarified version of statement (b), that statement should
>>> clearly allude to the objective ways and means of determining the
>>> animals? subjective states of frustration and suffering. If there is no
>>> objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the argument is
>>> based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific
>>> or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified version of
>>> statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking or writing in
>>> her/his role as a scientist.
>>>
>>> CMS: "Statement (c): It is therefore recommended that laboratory mice
>>> should be provided with more space than is currently given as standard."
>>>
>>> SEC: The scientific method requires that any scientific finding be
>>> repeated and confirmed by other scientists in other laboratories before
>>> it qualifies to be considered to be accepted scientific evidence. Unless
>>> and until it is so accepted, it remains a theory. Practical
>>> recommendations should be based only on accepted scientific evidence,
>>> and then only after that accepted scientific evidence has been applied
>>> in a variety of actual animal husbandry settings and been found by
>>> scientific observation to be supportive of a high overall animal state
>>> of being. On the basis of a finding in a single study or several
>>> confirmative studies that have not be tested in an actual
>>> animal-keeping setting, no practical recommendation at all should be
>>> made.
>>>
>>> Stanley Curtis
>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:34:22 +0000
>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>>>> welfare
>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network
>>>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>>>> Johnson
>>>>
>>>> Stan (and others),
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your very thought provoking ideas on science, ethics and
>>>> hybrids as they relate to animal welfare. I have put together the
>>>> following fictitious passage which I could imagine might be published
>>>> in any ethology/welfare science journal. If I am correct in following
>>>> your line of thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop
>>>> after writing (a). An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b).
>>>> The hybrid should stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree
>>>> with this, or would you perhaps take a different slant?
>>>>
>>>> (a) In this paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had a high
>>>> motivation for space additional to that provided by standard laboratory
>>>> cages. (b) It has been argued that such findings indicate the small
>>>> space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause frustration and
>>>> suffering in the mice. (c) It is therefore recommended that
>>>> laboratory mice should be provided with more space than is currently
>>>> given as standard.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --On 07 February 2007 06:14 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>>>>>
>>>>> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent
>>>>> comment (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent posting-
>>>>>
>>>>> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat
>>>>> what I said in that recent posting, to wit:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when ethical
>>>>> judgements are confused with scientific evicence in discussions of
>>>>> animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good and even a
>>>>> combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example, scientists
>>>>> should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
>>>>>
>>>>> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free society
>>>>> there will be different opinions as to who should talk the mix- My
>>>>> opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists should talk the
>>>>> ethics, and other interested people should talk the mix-"
>>>>>
>>>>> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that -- although I
>>>>> think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be construed as an
>>>>> oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists, respectively, will
>>>>> want to attempt to "straddle the divide" to which Patterson-Kane makes
>>>>> reference and which will ultimately be neceessary as we make progress
>>>>> in dealing holistically with the issue of so-called aniumal welfare-
>>>>> (David Fraser refers to this as "bridging the gap"-)
>>>>>
>>>>> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so
>>>>> cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking and
>>>>> writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have a lot
>>>>> of other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and deserve
>>>>> to be assisted in knowing at all times where the line -- that
>>>>> "divide", if you will -- lies- It needs to know about that divide
>>>>> because, on one of its sides, the evidence has been generated by the
>>>>> scientific method, whereas, on the other side, the multiple notions
>>>>> of where to draw another important line -- namely, the line as to
>>>>> what is morally acceptable and what is not in the ways and means of
>>>>> animnal-husbandry systems (which as I understand it is the line of
>>>>> the animal-welfare approach as opposed to the animal-rights
>>>>> approach)-- are the individual opinions of people living in a free
>>>>> and pluralistic society (and hence, because each is loaded with
>>>>> several sorts of baggage, will be quite variable and often ! ev!
>>>>> en in disagreement [philosophers argue, too])-
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns should
>>>>> prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of being and (b)
>>>>> that the scientific method should guide us in that investigation- And
>>>>> I think that any consensus that a set of ethical thinkers might come
>>>>> up with in terms of what they think we "ought" to do with respect to
>>>>> how we treat our animals is all well and good so long as it turns out
>>>>> that the ensuant scientific evidence supports those notions- But,
>>>>> when it does not, then I think the animals deserve our bowing to the
>>>>> scientific evidence no matter how paradoxical it may seem to people
>>>>> with their ethicist hats on-
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect to
>>>>> the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put themm in
>>>>> some sort of group housing system, how some of today's slef-described
>>>>> hybird scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling as they worry about
>>>>> the obvious practical problem (in terms of sow state of being) of
>>>>> switching the husbanding dry sows in groups before the system has been
>>>>> more nearly perfected and, most importantly, before the nation's cadre
>>>>> of caretakers can be brought up to speed on everything from how to
>>>>> make thorough regular inspections of sows in a group to how to protect
>>>>> themselves from personal injury when working in a pen with a group of
>>>>> loose, ever-hungry (limit-fed for their own good), 500-lb sows milling
>>>>> about- Those of us who raised hogs "the old way" know all too well the
>>>>> practical problems that attend those ways and means; that's why
>>>>> different ways and means evolved-
>>>>>
>>>>> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for
>>>>> example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that
>>>>> many of the people who are offering advice or making demands as to
>>>>> how animal agriculture should do its business are awfully naive and
>>>>> unaware of -- and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications-
>>>>>
>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> 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
----------------------
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%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 13-FEB-2007 07:37:29.59
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Changes in USA Animal Ag
FYI,
An official of the USA State Department dealing with international animal
welfare-related issues forwarded to me the message below. Note the title
used in the message subject.
Changes in USA animal ag practices will occur; indeed, are occurring. Such
changes either emerge from leadership coming from within the ag community -
or else the changes are forced upon the ag community from outside interests
or the government.
And I believe it is quite likely that the ag community has resisted change
for too long for changes to now come from within. And as a consequence,
change is being forced upon producers from both up-stream food processors
and outlets - and possibly from government actions.
I very much wish the change had come as a result of actions taken from the
bottom-up rather than ones coming from the top-down. I think having the
change come about from actions taken by the ag community itself would have
been much better for all parties - including the animals.
And also, in my opinion - for the most part, the changes mentioned below
should have come about some time ago.
Best regards to all,
Ray Stricklin
University of Maryland
_____
From: xxxxx@state.gov]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:03 PM
To: wrstrick@umd.edu
Subject: Best ag news I've seen in recent memory
ANIMAL RIGHTS PUSH IN FARM BILL WORRIES LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS (119 Des Moines
Register 2/11) Agriculture columnist Philip Brasher says livestock producers
are watching nervously as animal welfare groups push to use the new farm
bill to stop practices they consider inhumane. Congress is likely to
consider whether to require the federal government, including the school
lunch program, to buy meat or dairy products from producers that meet
certain animal welfare standards. It may also consider a permanent ban on
slaughtering downer cattle or hogs, and a requirement that USDA set
standards for the humane slaughter of chickens and turkeys. Brasher says
the increased size and influence of the Humane Society since the last farm
bill was written, along with the Democratic takeover of Congress and the
defeat of several of the livestock industry's staunchest allies have been
behind the change. Animal welfare forces have already shown their clout on
some issues, and Brasher concludes that "some farmers may rue the day that
Congress passes the farm bill."
From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 13-FEB-2007 08:04:20.42
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: animal welfare definitions and restrictive feeding of sows
In the discussion developed between Chris Sherwin and Stanley Curtis, it seems to me that both discuss animal welfare defined in terms of biological functioning (clinical health) and in terms of subjective experience (feeling). What about the third definition (if we follow Fraser & Duncan), the ability to perform natural behaviour or live a natural life? I don't know if there is evidence but we have at least reason to think that the general public gives quite some attention to that approach.
Also, to comment on a comment by Stan Curtis last week: non-lactating sows are fed a restrictive diet for their own best interest. I argue this is a very simplistic way of viewing the question. For the sows' own good we should feed them a calory-restricted diet (to avoid problems at farrowing/lactation in obese sows). But it is not in the sows' best interest to be fed small quantities which neither serve to fill the stomach nor to fulfil foraging motivation. If we were sufficiently concerned over the psychological wellbeing of an animal (highly unlikely that a mammal so similar to us suffers any less from being hungry than we do), we would feed bulky diets with low calory content but large volumes. This was not done when I studied pig production in 1993 - Stanley, has this changed?
Best regards,
Anna
Dr Anna Olsson
Researcher
Laboratory Animal Science group
http://www.ibmc.up.pt/group.php?area=4&grupo=18
Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC
Rua Campo Alegre 823
4150-180 Porto, Portugal
Phone +351 22 607 4900
Fax +351 22 6099157
From: IN%"gregor.gorjanc@bfro.uni-lj.si" 13-FEB-2007 09:41:53.05
To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
Subj: RE: animal welfare definitions and restrictive feeding of sows
Anna Olsson wrote:
... If we were
> sufficiently concerned over the psychological wellbeing of an animal
> (highly unlikely that a mammal so similar to us suffers any less from
> being hungry than we do), we would feed bulky diets with low calory
> content but large volumes. This was not done when I studied pig
> production in 1993 - Stanley, has this changed?
There is some legislative in EU that is implementing this i.e. feeding
some roughage, but I do not know the details. Of course this brings
additional work and costs to the breeders, but on the other hand ...
Gregor
From: IN%"vanner@unb.br" "Vanner Boere" 13-FEB-2007 15:31:28.18
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: HPA axis and fear in lambs
Dear all
I am carrying out a behavioural and phsysiological study in lambs. I
didn't find references about the relationship between HPA axis and fear
in lambs. I would very thankfull if someone could help me about. Thank
you,
Best wishes Vanner
Vanner Boere
Department of Physiological Sciences
Institute of Biology
University of Brasilia
70910900 -Brasilia - DF - Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
From: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 14-FEB-2007 03:29:26.73
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network"
CC:
Subj: RE: Reply to Chris Sherwin
Stan,
Many thanks for those thoughts - most interesting - and I look forward to
reading the full paper.
Most of my work with production animals is with poultry. One of the
problems with using production as an indicator of welfare, at least with
poultry, is that they remain highly productive despite receiving injuries
most people would believe considerably reduce their welfare. Layer hens
very frequently suffer broken bones (wings, keels) yet these birds continue
to lay eggs. Broiler (meat) birds suffer immense problems with lameness to
the point where a significant proportion die from starvation or thirst
because they can not walk a few feet to the drinkers or feeders. However,
if they survive, they continue to put on meat until we slaughter them at 6
weeks of age. I feel there most be more to assessing animal welfare than
simply recording whether an animal remains alive and produces what we want
it to, at a rate we find acceptable.
Respectfully yours.
Chris
--On 13 February 2007 22:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis wrote:
>
>
> Chris and others-
>
> There's nothing wrong with disciplined argument in the latter stages of
> pursuing truth via the scientific method- Argument is the essence of the
> process of acceptance of scientific evidence by the larger community- The
> problem I've been addressing in a series of postings to this network
> comes when inputs into the larger arguments come from immiscible realms-
>
> In short, I favor improvement in animal state of being, but I believe any
> such improvement will be based on the tera firma of scientific evidence-
> And I do think that much objective, direct scientific evidence on animal
> state of being does exist . . . it is embodied in the Performance Axiom
> that I have been espousing for several years (see below)- Strangely, to
> me, much of that evidence does exist is either ignored or even disclaimed
> by many who think about and discuss so-called animal welfare-
>
> To discuss all of the reasoning behind the Performacne Axiom requires a
> nmber of pages- But here, in response to your continuing contriubtions to
> this string of postings, I offer some thoughts that I offered at an ASAS
> symposium in Minneapolis last summer, the whole paper of which is
> supposed to be published in the Journal of Animal Science:
>
> = = =
>
> We might say that there are nowadays six distinct tacks being taken now
> in the USA with respect to the issue of so-called welfare . . . six
> creeds being advocated- To trump in a game of cards is to absolutely
> override, to veto- Each of those sex creeds features its own trumping
> rule- So those six tacks are mutually exclusive, as intractable
> discordances they complicate the various stakeholders? coming together
> and making progress on settling this issue- Moreover, and importantly,
> they are confusing to the general public, which is not a good thing for
> animal agriculture-
>
> ? Tack 1. Ethics = trump: Ethics philosophers have been talking about
> animal rights since the 6th Century BCE- English and Australian
> philosophers birthed the modern animal-rights movement in the 1970s CE-
> In general, subscribers to that philosophy advocate ending human use of
> animals in experiments or as food, among other things- For these people,
> the rights of animals comprise an absolute trump in any situation- Left
> open for the moment, as a practical matter, are clear definitions of
> those rights-
>
> ? Tack 2. Intuition = trump: There are self-proclaimed experts who hold
> that animal state of being should be based on human intuition?on insights
> seemingly independent of previous experience?so intuitive notions
> constitute trumps- Of course, although intuitions are real, they are not
> necessarily truths- An assessment based on intuition comprise normative
> analysis (i. e., what perhaps ought to be), whereas that based on
> scientific evidence comprises positive analysis (i. e., what is)-
>
> Moreover, given ten people, there usually will be ten or more sets of
> intuitions, possibly none of which is correct- Following such an
> ambiguous approach hampers resolution of any issue- It is especially
> problematic when someone claims to be an expert due to a special gift or
> power of some sort, thereby committing the logical fallacy argumentum ad
> verecundiam (i. e., an appeal to authority)-
>
> ? Tack 3. Opinion = trump: Each person has a unique opinion, so there
> will be no consensus when it comes to setting standards and formulating
> algorithms based on a set of strongly held opinions- For example, the
> position of the European Union and the World Organisation for Animal
> Health today seems to be this: European entities will decide what
> constitutes appropriate farm-animal welfare and then they will cajole and
> coerce the rest of the world to follow their lead-
>
> To hijack the issue in this way would not be useful- Opinions, as do
> intuitions, constitute normative analyses, which, until objectively
> verified by positive analyses, are not necessarily truths and therefore
> are subject to error and consequently the unintentional compromising of
> animal state of being-
>
> ? Tack 4. Producer input = trump: Producer input into developing
> welfare-assessment schemes is essential, especially in terms of
> workability- But producer input alone would be insufficient, and
> producers? holding trumping power therefore would be inadvisable- The
> trouble here is akin to those with intuition and opinion- US producers?
> emphases, e. g., currently are on affordability and workability in a
> program that will not enjoy credibility except within the producer
> community that clearly has conflicts of interest in the matter- Other
> stakeholders are justified in wanting to follow Ronald Reagan?s advice:
> ?Trust, but verify?-
>
> ? Tack 5. Animal feelings = trump: One school of applied ethologists
> holds that animal welfare is about how the animal feels (Duncan, 1993;
> Duncan and Fraser, 1997)- But there seem to be serious problems with this
> approach, a major one being that we still do not know either directly or
> indirectly how an animal feels, let alone how to measure that (Gregory,
> 2005)-
>
> Some would rely on the analogy postulate (Baumans and Brain, 2001),
> saying: ?Put yourself in the place of the animal, then you?ll know how
> it feels?- But, until we can objectively measure something, this
> approach falls into the realm of intuition, opinion, and subjective
> experience- After all, as posited by William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
> (Thomson, 2005 ): ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express
> it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it
> may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts
> advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be"- And
> management guru Peter Drucker (1964) added: ?If you can?t measure it,
> you can?t manage it?- Enough said just now, perhaps, for animal feelings
> and businesses that must be managed-
>
> ? Tack 6. Scientific evidence = trump: The failings of the foregoing
> leave us with the probablity that the terra firma of scientific evidence
> should hold trumping power- The animal's deserve this kind of care-
>
> Bottom Line: Political scientists would tell us that resolution of the
> animal-welfare issue ? whenever that may come ? will bear the marks of
> each stakeholder group now engaged- Six such groups are involved in the
> issue in the USA: philosophers, animal-protection activists,
> self-appointed experts and celebrities, pork producers, animal
> ethologists, and other animal scientists- These groups have respective
> unique tacks for resolving the issue, each having its own trumping rule-
> The discrepancies are confusing to the general public- Flaws exist for
> the first five stakeholder groups as listed above- This leaves scientific
> evidence as the sole tack that passes the test fro objectivity and
> practicality- It is posited that the best scientific evidence in this
> respect is that generated by following the author?s Performance Axiom,
> to wit:
>
> "For a constitutionally fit animal of any kind, in the continuing absence
> of an adequate scientifically informed understanding of its conscious
> feelings, the best single set of measurable ? hence, manageable ?
> indicators of that animal?s state of being will be its rates of
> productive and reproductive performance relative to its predicted
> potential to perform. Body condition index and rates of culling,
> morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable additional information on
> animal state of being." = = =
> Stanley Curtis
> Department of Animal Sciences
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:34:13 +0000
>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>> , applied-ethology network
>>
>>
>> Dear Stan,
>>
>> I realise that the following might be interpreted as inflammatory or
>> argumentative - it is not meant to be and it is sent with the utmost
>> respect for your arguments and beliefs. I do not understand how if you
>> argue that scientists should not make statements about changing
>> husbandry systems without objective data on welfare, it is acceptable
>> for scientist to argue for the status quo - but still devoid of
>> objective data. Surely if there are no acceptable objective data, then
>> scientists should not be making statements in either direction.
>>
>> P.S. I very much enjoyed your comments about argument by analogy. I
>> few years ago I wrote a review of studies indicating that by using this
>> postulate, we should be thinking very carefully about the possibility of
>> suffering in invertebrates, not just vertebrates. Sherwin, C.M. (2001).
>> Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy? Animal
>> Welfare, 10 (supplement): 103-118
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> --On 12 February 2007 22:10 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Chris Sherwin and others-
>>> The following comments are in reply to the posting by C.M. Sherwin (CMS)
>>> to this network of Friday 9 February (CST in USA), which itself was in
>>> reply to an earlier response of mine to an earlier query-posting of me
>>> (S. E. Curtis SEC) by CMS- = = =
>>> CMS wrote:
>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
>>> written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course,
>>> in the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its
>>> various interpretations with appropriate references which I think
>>> addresses statement (a) [(a) In this paper, consumer demand studies
>>> showed that mice had a high motivation for space additional to that
>>> provided by standard laboratory cages.]. SEC comment: I wrote
>>> in my earlier response: ?Statement (a) comprises the scientific
>>> evidence generated by the study. In her/his role as a scientist
>>> reporting strictly new scientific evi-dence, she/he should stop
>>> here.?]. Thereby, I acknowledged that, in my opinion, statement (a)
>>> meets the criteria of a scientific conclusion- = = =
>>> CMS wrote:
>>> Regarding statement (b) [(b) It has been argued that such findings
>>> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to
>>> cause frustration and suffering in the mice.], I would develop the
>>> arguments that various scientists (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put
>>> forward regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might
>>> indirectly measure these. But, this is where my argument falls down.
>>> SEC comment: I am familiar with the researches and the analyses and the
>>> interpretations of Marian Stamp Dawkins and Ian Duncan, and have great
>>> respect for them and their excellent works- On more than one occasion, I
>>> have discussed with Ian Duncan animals? cognitive processes and their
>>> measurement- As you know, both Dawkins and Duncan have opined, however,
>>> that at present, indirect scientific evidence is all we have to consider
>>> in matters of nonhuman animals? feelings- And in their own works they
>>> are very cautious and conservative in terms of the permissible inference
>>> space for their findings and conclusions- I simply believe that indirect
>>> evidence ?- scientific or otherwise -- should not suffice as the basis
>>> for determining how an animal ought to be husbanded- (By the way,
>>> because we would like to have some direct evidence as to how an animal
>>> feels, beginning more than a decade ago, colleagues and I have been
>>> interested and engaged in attempting to develop ways and means of
>>> directly communicating with pigs, along the lines the Georgia
>>> scientists have communicated with chimpanzees-) = = =
>>> CMS wrote:
>>> In your reply, you [SEC] wrote,
>>> ?If there is no objective evidence of any such state
>>> -- but instead the argument is based on the analogy postulate,
>>> anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds
>>> -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should not be made by a
>>> scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a scientist.? Of
>>> course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in mice.
>>> We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use the
>>> analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to
>>> ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is experiencing an
>>> analogous subjective experience. But, we can not objectively measure
>>> frustration in other humans. Does this mean scientists should not be
>>> writing statements such as (b) slightly re-written: "Statement
>>> (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate the small space in
>>> prison cells are likely to cause frustration and suffering in the
>>> prisoners." SEC comment: In my opinion, the re-written
>>> statement (b) about humans is not analogous to the original statement
>>> (b) about mice- My reasoning includes the obvious facts that mice are
>>> not humans and that most likely individuals of the two species have
>>> different emotional thresholds and aversions to suf-fering, not to
>>> mention different motivations to behave in one way or another in an
>>> artificial experimental setting- Vera Baumans and Paul Brain, in
>>> discussing the analogy postulate, have written: ?It is ethically
>>> prudent to go one step further and to accept that animal suffering can
>>> at least be equivalent to the suffering of a human when both are
>>> subject to the same [experience]. This analogy postulate should be
>>> accepted unless its invalidity has been proven in a specific case.
>>> [But] one should realize it has a weak scientific basis and should be
>>> used with caution. One cannot exclude the possibility that
>>> [experiences], which are comparatively harmless for human subjects, are
>>> painful or stressful for certain animals, or vice versa.? So Baumans and
>>> Brain profess that to apply the analogy postulate is to be ?ethically
>>> prudent? but ?scientifically weak?- My point precisely!- Unless and
>>> until we have at hand verifiable, direct scientific evidence in the
>>> matter of emotional suffering by animals, as a scientist, I think we
>>> should continue our search for the truth of the matter and make
>>> decisions and regulations in the matter ?with caution?- And, finally,
>>> if psychologists and posychiatrists cannot objecively measure
>>> frustration and suffering in humans, then, writing as scientists, they
>>> should not imply that humans in such-and-such a situation most liely
>>> are experiencing those feelings- As Lord Kelvin said quite some time
>>> ago: ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in
>>> numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may
>>> be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts
>>> advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." = = =
>>> Stanley Curtis
>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:06:13 +0000
>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>>>> welfare
>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>>>> Johnson
>>>>
>>>> Dear Stan,
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for your complete and insightful reply.
>>>>
>>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
>>>> written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course,
>>>> in the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its
>>>> various interpretations with appropriate references which I think
>>>> addresses statement (a). Regarding statement (b), I would develop the
>>>> arguments that various scientist (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put
>>>> forward regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might
>>>> indirectly measure these. But, this is where my argument falls down.
>>>> In your reply, you wrote,
>>>>
>>>> If there is no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the
>>>> argument is based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch
>>>> (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified
>>>> version of statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking or
>>>> writing in her/his role as a scientist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in
>>>> mice. We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use the
>>>> analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to
>>>> ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is experiencing an
>>>> analogous subjective experience. But, we can not objectively measure
>>>> frustration in other humans. Does this mean scientists should not be
>>>> writing statements such as (b) slightly re-written. "Statement (b):
>>>> It has been argued that such findings indicate the small space in
>>>> prison cells are likely to cause frustration and suffering in the
>>>> prisoners."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --On 08 February 2007 18:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris and others-
>>>>>
>>>>> In his posting to this network a couple of days ago in reaction to an
>>>>> earlier posting of mine, Chris Sherwin astutely offered a set of three
>>>>> statements (statements a, b, and c between quotation marks below) and
>>>>> then asked me: CMS: "If I am correct in following your line of
>>>>> thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop after writing
>>>>> (a). An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b). The hybrid should
>>>>> stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree with this, or would
>>>>> you perhaps take a different slant?"
>>>>>
>>>>> My response to Chris Sherwin?s query follows follows in respective
>>>>> comments following each of the statements he offered:
>>>>>
>>>>> CMS: "Statement (a): In this study, consumer demand trials showed
>>>>> that mice had a high motivation for space additional to that provided
>>>>> by standard laboratory cages."
>>>>>
>>>>> SEC: Statement (a) comprises the scientific evidence generated by the
>>>>> study.
>>>>>
>>>>> In her/his role as a scientist reporting strictly new scientific
>>>>> evidence, she/he should stop here.
>>>>>
>>>>> CMS: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate
>>>>> the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause
>>>>> frustration and suffering in the mice."
>>>>>
>>>>> SEC: Statement (b) is inadequate as it stands because it does not
>>>>> state who is arguing what such findings indicate and on what basis
>>>>> that argument is grounded. The statement should be clarified in those
>>>>> contexts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then: Is statement (b) based on arguments based on evidence generated
>>>>> in other experiments following the scientific method? If so, the
>>>>> scientist should allude to that other scientific evidence in her/his
>>>>> discussion of her/his new evidence in clarifying statement (b). If
>>>>> not, the scientist should not make that statement in a scientific
>>>>> journal.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the nature of the basis for the argument that the mice are
>>>>> likely to be experiencing frustration and suffering? If the scientist
>>>>> does make a clarified version of statement (b), that statement should
>>>>> clearly allude to the objective ways and means of determining the
>>>>> animals? subjective states of frustration and suffering. If there is
>>>>> no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the argument is
>>>>> based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific
>>>>> or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified version of
>>>>> statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking or writing in
>>>>> her/his role as a scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> CMS: "Statement (c): It is therefore recommended that laboratory
>>>>> mice should be provided with more space than is currently given as
>>>>> standard."
>>>>>
>>>>> SEC: The scientific method requires that any scientific finding be
>>>>> repeated and confirmed by other scientists in other laboratories
>>>>> before it qualifies to be considered to be accepted scientific
>>>>> evidence. Unless and until it is so accepted, it remains a theory.
>>>>> Practical recommendations should be based only on accepted scientific
>>>>> evidence, and then only after that accepted scientific evidence has
>>>>> been applied in a variety of actual animal husbandry settings and
>>>>> been found by scientific observation to be supportive of a high
>>>>> overall animal state of being. On the basis of a finding in a single
>>>>> study or several confirmative studies that have not be tested in an
>>>>> actual
>>>>> animal-keeping setting, no practical recommendation at all should be
>>>>> made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:34:22 +0000
>>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>>>>>> welfare
>>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network
>>>>>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>>>>>> Johnson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stan (and others),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your very thought provoking ideas on science, ethics and
>>>>>> hybrids as they relate to animal welfare. I have put together the
>>>>>> following fictitious passage which I could imagine might be
>>>>>> published in any ethology/welfare science journal. If I am correct
>>>>>> in following your line of thinking, you would argue that a
>>>>>> scientist should stop after writing (a). An ethicist should stop
>>>>>> after writing (a + b). The hybrid should stop after writing (a + b
>>>>>> + c). Would you agree with this, or would you perhaps take a
>>>>>> different slant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) In this paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had a
>>>>>> high motivation for space additional to that provided by standard
>>>>>> laboratory cages. (b) It has been argued that such findings
>>>>>> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to
>>>>>> cause frustration and suffering in the mice. (c) It is therefore
>>>>>> recommended that laboratory mice should be provided with more space
>>>>>> than is currently given as standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --On 07 February 2007 06:14 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent
>>>>>>> comment (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent posting-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat
>>>>>>> what I said in that recent posting, to wit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when
>>>>>>> ethical judgements are confused with scientific evicence in
>>>>>>> discussions of animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good
>>>>>>> and even a combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example,
>>>>>>> scientists should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free
>>>>>>> society there will be different opinions as to who should talk the
>>>>>>> mix- My opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists
>>>>>>> should talk the ethics, and other interested people should talk the
>>>>>>> mix-"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that -- although I
>>>>>>> think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be construed as an
>>>>>>> oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists, respectively, will
>>>>>>> want to attempt to "straddle the divide" to which Patterson-Kane
>>>>>>> makes reference and which will ultimately be neceessary as we make
>>>>>>> progress in dealing holistically with the issue of so-called
>>>>>>> aniumal welfare- (David Fraser refers to this as "bridging the
>>>>>>> gap"-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so
>>>>>>> cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking
>>>>>>> and writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have
>>>>>>> a lot of other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and
>>>>>>> deserve to be assisted in knowing at all times where the line --
>>>>>>> that "divide", if you will -- lies- It needs to know about that
>>>>>>> divide because, on one of its sides, the evidence has been
>>>>>>> generated by the scientific method, whereas, on the other side, the
>>>>>>> multiple notions of where to draw another important line -- namely,
>>>>>>> the line as to what is morally acceptable and what is not in the
>>>>>>> ways and means of animnal-husbandry systems (which as I understand
>>>>>>> it is the line of the animal-welfare approach as opposed to the
>>>>>>> animal-rights approach)-- are the individual opinions of people
>>>>>>> living in a free and pluralistic society (and hence, because each
>>>>>>> is loaded with several sorts of baggage, will be quite variable and
>>>>>>> often ! ev! en in disagreement [philosophers argue, too])-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns should
>>>>>>> prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of being and
>>>>>>> (b) that the scientific method should guide us in that
>>>>>>> investigation- And I think that any consensus that a set of ethical
>>>>>>> thinkers might come up with in terms of what they think we "ought"
>>>>>>> to do with respect to how we treat our animals is all well and good
>>>>>>> so long as it turns out that the ensuant scientific evidence
>>>>>>> supports those notions- But, when it does not, then I think the
>>>>>>> animals deserve our bowing to the scientific evidence no matter how
>>>>>>> paradoxical it may seem to people with their ethicist hats on-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect
>>>>>>> to the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put
>>>>>>> themm in some sort of group housing system, how some of today's
>>>>>>> slef-described hybird scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling as
>>>>>>> they worry about the obvious practical problem (in terms of sow
>>>>>>> state of being) of switching the husbanding dry sows in groups
>>>>>>> before the system has been more nearly perfected and, most
>>>>>>> importantly, before the nation's cadre of caretakers can be brought
>>>>>>> up to speed on everything from how to make thorough regular
>>>>>>> inspections of sows in a group to how to protect themselves from
>>>>>>> personal injury when working in a pen with a group of loose,
>>>>>>> ever-hungry (limit-fed for their own good), 500-lb sows milling
>>>>>>> about- Those of us who raised hogs "the old way" know all too well
>>>>>>> the practical problems that attend those ways and means; that's why
>>>>>>> different ways and means evolved-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for
>>>>>>> example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that
>>>>>>> many of the people who are offering advice or making demands as to
>>>>>>> how animal agriculture should do its business are awfully naive and
>>>>>>> unaware of -- and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>> 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%"securtis@uiuc.edu" 14-FEB-2007 08:57:27.35
To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network"
CC:
Subj: Reply to Chris Sherwin
Chris and others-
Your arguments are not new ones- I simply think that there is ample opportunity and rationale to use performance as the major indicator of animal state of being and that it is the most highly objectively measurable trait we have at hand at this time-
This is not to say that we won't some day have more objective and more direct measures of feelings- And that would be a wonderful day- But, in the meantime, the animals deserve more concrete bases for assessing their state of being than intution, opinion, and musing grounded on subjective individual observations- I think the best -- although imperfect -- tools we now have at hand are embodied in the Performance Axiom-
I agree with your last statement, and have so indicated in the last sentence of the Performance Axiom- To wit: "Body condition index and rates of culling, morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable additional information on animal state of being"-
Moreover: Yes, those injured hens continue to lay eggs- After all, these hens are of genetic stocks that have been intensely selectd over many generations for a propensity to lay eggs- But at what rate are the injured hens laying eggs?- To apply the Performance Axiom, there would need to be careful analysis of performance rate and comparison of high performance expectations depending on the genetic merit of those individuals-
Stanley Curtis
Department of Animal Sciecnes
Unviersity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:29:10 +0000
>From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" , applied-ethology network
>
>Stan,
>Many thanks for those thoughts - most interesting - and I look forward to
>reading the full paper.
>Most of my work with production animals is with poultry. One of the
>problems with using production as an indicator of welfare, at least with
>poultry, is that they remain highly productive despite receiving injuries
>most people would believe considerably reduce their welfare. Layer hens
>very frequently suffer broken bones (wings, keels) yet these birds continue
>to lay eggs. Broiler (meat) birds suffer immense problems with lameness to
>the point where a significant proportion die from starvation or thirst
>because they can not walk a few feet to the drinkers or feeders. However,
>if they survive, they continue to put on meat until we slaughter them at 6
>weeks of age. I feel there most be more to assessing animal welfare than
>simply recording whether an animal remains alive and produces what we want
>it to, at a rate we find acceptable.
>
>Respectfully yours.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>--On 13 February 2007 22:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris and others-
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with disciplined argument in the latter stages of
>> pursuing truth via the scientific method- Argument is the essence of the
>> process of acceptance of scientific evidence by the larger community- The
>> problem I've been addressing in a series of postings to this network
>> comes when inputs into the larger arguments come from immiscible realms-
>>
>> In short, I favor improvement in animal state of being, but I believe any
>> such improvement will be based on the tera firma of scientific evidence-
>> And I do think that much objective, direct scientific evidence on animal
>> state of being does exist . . . it is embodied in the Performance Axiom
>> that I have been espousing for several years (see below)- Strangely, to
>> me, much of that evidence does exist is either ignored or even disclaimed
>> by many who think about and discuss so-called animal welfare-
>>
>> To discuss all of the reasoning behind the Performacne Axiom requires a
>> nmber of pages- But here, in response to your continuing contriubtions to
>> this string of postings, I offer some thoughts that I offered at an ASAS
>> symposium in Minneapolis last summer, the whole paper of which is
>> supposed to be published in the Journal of Animal Science:
>>
>> = = =
>>
>> We might say that there are nowadays six distinct tacks being taken now
>> in the USA with respect to the issue of so-called welfare . . . six
>> creeds being advocated- To trump in a game of cards is to absolutely
>> override, to veto- Each of those sex creeds features its own trumping
>> rule- So those six tacks are mutually exclusive, as intractable
>> discordances they complicate the various stakeholders? coming together
>> and making progress on settling this issue- Moreover, and importantly,
>> they are confusing to the general public, which is not a good thing for
>> animal agriculture-
>>
>> ? Tack 1. Ethics = trump: Ethics philosophers have been talking about
>> animal rights since the 6th Century BCE- English and Australian
>> philosophers birthed the modern animal-rights movement in the 1970s CE-
>> In general, subscribers to that philosophy advocate ending human use of
>> animals in experiments or as food, among other things- For these people,
>> the rights of animals comprise an absolute trump in any situation- Left
>> open for the moment, as a practical matter, are clear definitions of
>> those rights-
>>
>> ? Tack 2. Intuition = trump: There are self-proclaimed experts who hold
>> that animal state of being should be based on human intuition?on insights
>> seemingly independent of previous experience?so intuitive notions
>> constitute trumps- Of course, although intuitions are real, they are not
>> necessarily truths- An assessment based on intuition comprise normative
>> analysis (i. e., what perhaps ought to be), whereas that based on
>> scientific evidence comprises positive analysis (i. e., what is)-
>>
>> Moreover, given ten people, there usually will be ten or more sets of
>> intuitions, possibly none of which is correct- Following such an
>> ambiguous approach hampers resolution of any issue- It is especially
>> problematic when someone claims to be an expert due to a special gift or
>> power of some sort, thereby committing the logical fallacy argumentum ad
>> verecundiam (i. e., an appeal to authority)-
>>
>> ? Tack 3. Opinion = trump: Each person has a unique opinion, so there
>> will be no consensus when it comes to setting standards and formulating
>> algorithms based on a set of strongly held opinions- For example, the
>> position of the European Union and the World Organisation for Animal
>> Health today seems to be this: European entities will decide what
>> constitutes appropriate farm-animal welfare and then they will cajole and
>> coerce the rest of the world to follow their lead-
>>
>> To hijack the issue in this way would not be useful- Opinions, as do
>> intuitions, constitute normative analyses, which, until objectively
>> verified by positive analyses, are not necessarily truths and therefore
>> are subject to error and consequently the unintentional compromising of
>> animal state of being-
>>
>> ? Tack 4. Producer input = trump: Producer input into developing
>> welfare-assessment schemes is essential, especially in terms of
>> workability- But producer input alone would be insufficient, and
>> producers? holding trumping power therefore would be inadvisable- The
>> trouble here is akin to those with intuition and opinion- US producers?
>> emphases, e. g., currently are on affordability and workability in a
>> program that will not enjoy credibility except within the producer
>> community that clearly has conflicts of interest in the matter- Other
>> stakeholders are justified in wanting to follow Ronald Reagan?s advice:
>> ?Trust, but verify?-
>>
>> ? Tack 5. Animal feelings = trump: One school of applied ethologists
>> holds that animal welfare is about how the animal feels (Duncan, 1993;
>> Duncan and Fraser, 1997)- But there seem to be serious problems with this
>> approach, a major one being that we still do not know either directly or
>> indirectly how an animal feels, let alone how to measure that (Gregory,
>> 2005)-
>>
>> Some would rely on the analogy postulate (Baumans and Brain, 2001),
>> saying: ?Put yourself in the place of the animal, then you?ll know how
>> it feels?- But, until we can objectively measure something, this
>> approach falls into the realm of intuition, opinion, and subjective
>> experience- After all, as posited by William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
>> (Thomson, 2005 ): ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express
>> it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it
>> may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts
>> advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be"- And
>> management guru Peter Drucker (1964) added: ?If you can?t measure it,
>> you can?t manage it?- Enough said just now, perhaps, for animal feelings
>> and businesses that must be managed-
>>
>> ? Tack 6. Scientific evidence = trump: The failings of the foregoing
>> leave us with the probablity that the terra firma of scientific evidence
>> should hold trumping power- The animal's deserve this kind of care-
>>
>> Bottom Line: Political scientists would tell us that resolution of the
>> animal-welfare issue ? whenever that may come ? will bear the marks of
>> each stakeholder group now engaged- Six such groups are involved in the
>> issue in the USA: philosophers, animal-protection activists,
>> self-appointed experts and celebrities, pork producers, animal
>> ethologists, and other animal scientists- These groups have respective
>> unique tacks for resolving the issue, each having its own trumping rule-
>> The discrepancies are confusing to the general public- Flaws exist for
>> the first five stakeholder groups as listed above- This leaves scientific
>> evidence as the sole tack that passes the test fro objectivity and
>> practicality- It is posited that the best scientific evidence in this
>> respect is that generated by following the author?s Performance Axiom,
>> to wit:
>>
>> "For a constitutionally fit animal of any kind, in the continuing absence
>> of an adequate scientifically informed understanding of its conscious
>> feelings, the best single set of measurable ? hence, manageable ?
>> indicators of that animal?s state of being will be its rates of
>> productive and reproductive performance relative to its predicted
>> potential to perform. Body condition index and rates of culling,
>> morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable additional information on
>> animal state of being." = = =
>> Stanley Curtis
>> Department of Animal Sciences
>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- Original message ----
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:34:13 +0000
>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Stan,
>>>
>>> I realise that the following might be interpreted as inflammatory or
>>> argumentative - it is not meant to be and it is sent with the utmost
>>> respect for your arguments and beliefs. I do not understand how if you
>>> argue that scientists should not make statements about changing
>>> husbandry systems without objective data on welfare, it is acceptable
>>> for scientist to argue for the status quo - but still devoid of
>>> objective data. Surely if there are no acceptable objective data, then
>>> scientists should not be making statements in either direction.
>>>
>>> P.S. I very much enjoyed your comments about argument by analogy. I
>>> few years ago I wrote a review of studies indicating that by using this
>>> postulate, we should be thinking very carefully about the possibility of
>>> suffering in invertebrates, not just vertebrates. Sherwin, C.M. (2001).
>>> Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy? Animal
>>> Welfare, 10 (supplement): 103-118
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> --On 12 February 2007 22:10 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Sherwin and others-
>>>> The following comments are in reply to the posting by C.M. Sherwin (CMS)
>>>> to this network of Friday 9 February (CST in USA), which itself was in
>>>> reply to an earlier response of mine to an earlier query-posting of me
>>>> (S. E. Curtis SEC) by CMS- = = =
>>>> CMS wrote:
>>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
>>>> written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course,
>>>> in the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its
>>>> various interpretations with appropriate references which I think
>>>> addresses statement (a) [(a) In this paper, consumer demand studies
>>>> showed that mice had a high motivation for space additional to that
>>>> provided by standard laboratory cages.]. SEC comment: I wrote
>>>> in my earlier response: ?Statement (a) comprises the scientific
>>>> evidence generated by the study. In her/his role as a scientist
>>>> reporting strictly new scientific evi-dence, she/he should stop
>>>> here.?]. Thereby, I acknowledged that, in my opinion, statement (a)
>>>> meets the criteria of a scientific conclusion- = = =
>>>> CMS wrote:
>>>> Regarding statement (b) [(b) It has been argued that such findings
>>>> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to
>>>> cause frustration and suffering in the mice.], I would develop the
>>>> arguments that various scientists (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put
>>>> forward regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might
>>>> indirectly measure these. But, this is where my argument falls down.
>>>> SEC comment: I am familiar with the researches and the analyses and the
>>>> interpretations of Marian Stamp Dawkins and Ian Duncan, and have great
>>>> respect for them and their excellent works- On more than one occasion, I
>>>> have discussed with Ian Duncan animals? cognitive processes and their
>>>> measurement- As you know, both Dawkins and Duncan have opined, however,
>>>> that at present, indirect scientific evidence is all we have to consider
>>>> in matters of nonhuman animals? feelings- And in their own works they
>>>> are very cautious and conservative in terms of the permissible inference
>>>> space for their findings and conclusions- I simply believe that indirect
>>>> evidence ?- scientific or otherwise -- should not suffice as the basis
>>>> for determining how an animal ought to be husbanded- (By the way,
>>>> because we would like to have some direct evidence as to how an animal
>>>> feels, beginning more than a decade ago, colleagues and I have been
>>>> interested and engaged in attempting to develop ways and means of
>>>> directly communicating with pigs, along the lines the Georgia
>>>> scientists have communicated with chimpanzees-) = = =
>>>> CMS wrote:
>>>> In your reply, you [SEC] wrote,
>>>> ?If there is no objective evidence of any such state
>>>> -- but instead the argument is based on the analogy postulate,
>>>> anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds
>>>> -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should not be made by a
>>>> scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a scientist.? Of
>>>> course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in mice.
>>>> We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use the
>>>> analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to
>>>> ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is experiencing an
>>>> analogous subjective experience. But, we can not objectively measure
>>>> frustration in other humans. Does this mean scientists should not be
>>>> writing statements such as (b) slightly re-written: "Statement
>>>> (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate the small space in
>>>> prison cells are likely to cause frustration and suffering in the
>>>> prisoners." SEC comment: In my opinion, the re-written
>>>> statement (b) about humans is not analogous to the original statement
>>>> (b) about mice- My reasoning includes the obvious facts that mice are
>>>> not humans and that most likely individuals of the two species have
>>>> different emotional thresholds and aversions to suf-fering, not to
>>>> mention different motivations to behave in one way or another in an
>>>> artificial experimental setting- Vera Baumans and Paul Brain, in
>>>> discussing the analogy postulate, have written: ?It is ethically
>>>> prudent to go one step further and to accept that animal suffering can
>>>> at least be equivalent to the suffering of a human when both are
>>>> subject to the same [experience]. This analogy postulate should be
>>>> accepted unless its invalidity has been proven in a specific case.
>>>> [But] one should realize it has a weak scientific basis and should be
>>>> used with caution. One cannot exclude the possibility that
>>>> [experiences], which are comparatively harmless for human subjects, are
>>>> painful or stressful for certain animals, or vice versa.? So Baumans and
>>>> Brain profess that to apply the analogy postulate is to be ?ethically
>>>> prudent? but ?scientifically weak?- My point precisely!- Unless and
>>>> until we have at hand verifiable, direct scientific evidence in the
>>>> matter of emotional suffering by animals, as a scientist, I think we
>>>> should continue our search for the truth of the matter and make
>>>> decisions and regulations in the matter ?with caution?- And, finally,
>>>> if psychologists and posychiatrists cannot objecively measure
>>>> frustration and suffering in humans, then, writing as scientists, they
>>>> should not imply that humans in such-and-such a situation most liely
>>>> are experiencing those feelings- As Lord Kelvin said quite some time
>>>> ago: ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in
>>>> numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may
>>>> be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts
>>>> advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." = = =
>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:06:13 +0000
>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>>>>> welfare
>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>>>>> Johnson
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Stan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks for your complete and insightful reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
>>>>> written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course,
>>>>> in the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its
>>>>> various interpretations with appropriate references which I think
>>>>> addresses statement (a). Regarding statement (b), I would develop the
>>>>> arguments that various scientist (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put
>>>>> forward regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might
>>>>> indirectly measure these. But, this is where my argument falls down.
>>>>> In your reply, you wrote,
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the
>>>>> argument is based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch
>>>>> (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified
>>>>> version of statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking or
>>>>> writing in her/his role as a scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in
>>>>> mice. We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use the
>>>>> analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to
>>>>> ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is experiencing an
>>>>> analogous subjective experience. But, we can not objectively measure
>>>>> frustration in other humans. Does this mean scientists should not be
>>>>> writing statements such as (b) slightly re-written. "Statement (b):
>>>>> It has been argued that such findings indicate the small space in
>>>>> prison cells are likely to cause frustration and suffering in the
>>>>> prisoners."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --On 08 February 2007 18:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris and others-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In his posting to this network a couple of days ago in reaction to an
>>>>>> earlier posting of mine, Chris Sherwin astutely offered a set of three
>>>>>> statements (statements a, b, and c between quotation marks below) and
>>>>>> then asked me: CMS: "If I am correct in following your line of
>>>>>> thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop after writing
>>>>>> (a). An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b). The hybrid should
>>>>>> stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree with this, or would
>>>>>> you perhaps take a different slant?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My response to Chris Sherwin?s query follows follows in respective
>>>>>> comments following each of the statements he offered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (a): In this study, consumer demand trials showed
>>>>>> that mice had a high motivation for space additional to that provided
>>>>>> by standard laboratory cages."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SEC: Statement (a) comprises the scientific evidence generated by the
>>>>>> study.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In her/his role as a scientist reporting strictly new scientific
>>>>>> evidence, she/he should stop here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate
>>>>>> the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause
>>>>>> frustration and suffering in the mice."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SEC: Statement (b) is inadequate as it stands because it does not
>>>>>> state who is arguing what such findings indicate and on what basis
>>>>>> that argument is grounded. The statement should be clarified in those
>>>>>> contexts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then: Is statement (b) based on arguments based on evidence generated
>>>>>> in other experiments following the scientific method? If so, the
>>>>>> scientist should allude to that other scientific evidence in her/his
>>>>>> discussion of her/his new evidence in clarifying statement (b). If
>>>>>> not, the scientist should not make that statement in a scientific
>>>>>> journal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the nature of the basis for the argument that the mice are
>>>>>> likely to be experiencing frustration and suffering? If the scientist
>>>>>> does make a clarified version of statement (b), that statement should
>>>>>> clearly allude to the objective ways and means of determining the
>>>>>> animals? subjective states of frustration and suffering. If there is
>>>>>> no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the argument is
>>>>>> based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific
>>>>>> or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified version of
>>>>>> statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking or writing in
>>>>>> her/his role as a scientist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (c): It is therefore recommended that laboratory
>>>>>> mice should be provided with more space than is currently given as
>>>>>> standard."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SEC: The scientific method requires that any scientific finding be
>>>>>> repeated and confirmed by other scientists in other laboratories
>>>>>> before it qualifies to be considered to be accepted scientific
>>>>>> evidence. Unless and until it is so accepted, it remains a theory.
>>>>>> Practical recommendations should be based only on accepted scientific
>>>>>> evidence, and then only after that accepted scientific evidence has
>>>>>> been applied in a variety of actual animal husbandry settings and
>>>>>> been found by scientific observation to be supportive of a high
>>>>>> overall animal state of being. On the basis of a finding in a single
>>>>>> study or several confirmative studies that have not be tested in an
>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> animal-keeping setting, no practical recommendation at all should be
>>>>>> made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:34:22 +0000
>>>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>>>>>>> welfare
>>>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network
>>>>>>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>>>>>>> Johnson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stan (and others),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your very thought provoking ideas on science, ethics and
>>>>>>> hybrids as they relate to animal welfare. I have put together the
>>>>>>> following fictitious passage which I could imagine might be
>>>>>>> published in any ethology/welfare science journal. If I am correct
>>>>>>> in following your line of thinking, you would argue that a
>>>>>>> scientist should stop after writing (a). An ethicist should stop
>>>>>>> after writing (a + b). The hybrid should stop after writing (a + b
>>>>>>> + c). Would you agree with this, or would you perhaps take a
>>>>>>> different slant?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) In this paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had a
>>>>>>> high motivation for space additional to that provided by standard
>>>>>>> laboratory cages. (b) It has been argued that such findings
>>>>>>> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to
>>>>>>> cause frustration and suffering in the mice. (c) It is therefore
>>>>>>> recommended that laboratory mice should be provided with more space
>>>>>>> than is currently given as standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --On 07 February 2007 06:14 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent
>>>>>>>> comment (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent posting-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat
>>>>>>>> what I said in that recent posting, to wit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when
>>>>>>>> ethical judgements are confused with scientific evicence in
>>>>>>>> discussions of animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are good
>>>>>>>> and even a combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for example,
>>>>>>>> scientists should talk apples and ethicists should talk oranges-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free
>>>>>>>> society there will be different opinions as to who should talk the
>>>>>>>> mix- My opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists
>>>>>>>> should talk the ethics, and other interested people should talk the
>>>>>>>> mix-"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that -- although I
>>>>>>>> think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be construed as an
>>>>>>>> oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists, respectively, will
>>>>>>>> want to attempt to "straddle the divide" to which Patterson-Kane
>>>>>>>> makes reference and which will ultimately be neceessary as we make
>>>>>>>> progress in dealing holistically with the issue of so-called
>>>>>>>> aniumal welfare- (David Fraser refers to this as "bridging the
>>>>>>>> gap"-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so
>>>>>>>> cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking
>>>>>>>> and writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have
>>>>>>>> a lot of other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and
>>>>>>>> deserve to be assisted in knowing at all times where the line --
>>>>>>>> that "divide", if you will -- lies- It needs to know about that
>>>>>>>> divide because, on one of its sides, the evidence has been
>>>>>>>> generated by the scientific method, whereas, on the other side, the
>>>>>>>> multiple notions of where to draw another important line -- namely,
>>>>>>>> the line as to what is morally acceptable and what is not in the
>>>>>>>> ways and means of animnal-husbandry systems (which as I understand
>>>>>>>> it is the line of the animal-welfare approach as opposed to the
>>>>>>>> animal-rights approach)-- are the individual opinions of people
>>>>>>>> living in a free and pluralistic society (and hence, because each
>>>>>>>> is loaded with several sorts of baggage, will be quite variable and
>>>>>>>> often ! ev! en in disagreement [philosophers argue, too])-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns should
>>>>>>>> prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of being and
>>>>>>>> (b) that the scientific method should guide us in that
>>>>>>>> investigation- And I think that any consensus that a set of ethical
>>>>>>>> thinkers might come up with in terms of what they think we "ought"
>>>>>>>> to do with respect to how we treat our animals is all well and good
>>>>>>>> so long as it turns out that the ensuant scientific evidence
>>>>>>>> supports those notions- But, when it does not, then I think the
>>>>>>>> animals deserve our bowing to the scientific evidence no matter how
>>>>>>>> paradoxical it may seem to people with their ethicist hats on-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect
>>>>>>>> to the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put
>>>>>>>> themm in some sort of group housing system, how some of today's
>>>>>>>> slef-described hybird scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling as
>>>>>>>> they worry about the obvious practical problem (in terms of sow
>>>>>>>> state of being) of switching the husbanding dry sows in groups
>>>>>>>> before the system has been more nearly perfected and, most
>>>>>>>> importantly, before the nation's cadre of caretakers can be brought
>>>>>>>> up to speed on everything from how to make thorough regular
>>>>>>>> inspections of sows in a group to how to protect themselves from
>>>>>>>> personal injury when working in a pen with a group of loose,
>>>>>>>> ever-hungry (limit-fed for their own good), 500-lb sows milling
>>>>>>>> about- Those of us who raised hogs "the old way" know all too well
>>>>>>>> the practical problems that attend those ways and means; that's why
>>>>>>>> different ways and means evolved-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for
>>>>>>>> example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid that
>>>>>>>> many of the people who are offering advice or making demands as to
>>>>>>>> how animal agriculture should do its business are awfully naive and
>>>>>>>> unaware of -- and perhaps uncaring about -- those ramifications-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>> 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%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry" 14-FEB-2007 09:18:55.91
To: IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu", IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network"
CC:
Subj: RE: Reply to Chris Sherwin
Dear Stan and others,
If we consider the production of foie gras, this involves force feeding
ducks or geese to enlarge their liver (I believe up to 3 times its normal
size) for human consumption. If these birds were fed normally, their
livers would not enlarge. This means that their 'production performance'
would be decreased and therefore according to the Performance Axiom, the
normally growing birds would have REDUCED welfare compared to the force-fed
birds.
Respectfully,
Chris
--On 14 February 2007 08:57 -0600 Stanley Curtis wrote:
>
>
> Chris and others-
>
> Your arguments are not new ones- I simply think that there is ample
> opportunity and rationale to use performance as the major indicator of
> animal state of being and that it is the most highly objectively
> measurable trait we have at hand at this time-
>
> This is not to say that we won't some day have more objective and more
> direct measures of feelings- And that would be a wonderful day- But, in
> the meantime, the animals deserve more concrete bases for assessing their
> state of being than intution, opinion, and musing grounded on subjective
> individual observations- I think the best -- although imperfect -- tools
> we now have at hand are embodied in the Performance Axiom-
>
> I agree with your last statement, and have so indicated in the last
> sentence of the Performance Axiom- To wit: "Body condition index and
> rates of culling, morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable
> additional information on animal state of being"-
>
> Moreover: Yes, those injured hens continue to lay eggs- After all, these
> hens are of genetic stocks that have been intensely selectd over many
> generations for a propensity to lay eggs- But at what rate are the
> injured hens laying eggs?- To apply the Performance Axiom, there would
> need to be careful analysis of performance rate and comparison of high
> performance expectations depending on the genetic merit of those
> individuals-
>
> Stanley Curtis
> Department of Animal Sciecnes
> Unviersity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:29:10 +0000
>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>> , applied-ethology network
>>
>>
>> Stan,
>> Many thanks for those thoughts - most interesting - and I look forward
>> to reading the full paper.
>> Most of my work with production animals is with poultry. One of the
>> problems with using production as an indicator of welfare, at least with
>> poultry, is that they remain highly productive despite receiving
>> injuries most people would believe considerably reduce their welfare.
>> Layer hens very frequently suffer broken bones (wings, keels) yet these
>> birds continue to lay eggs. Broiler (meat) birds suffer immense
>> problems with lameness to the point where a significant proportion die
>> from starvation or thirst because they can not walk a few feet to the
>> drinkers or feeders. However, if they survive, they continue to put on
>> meat until we slaughter them at 6 weeks of age. I feel there most be
>> more to assessing animal welfare than simply recording whether an
>> animal remains alive and produces what we want it to, at a rate we find
>> acceptable.
>>
>> Respectfully yours.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> --On 13 February 2007 22:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris and others-
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with disciplined argument in the latter stages of
>>> pursuing truth via the scientific method- Argument is the essence of the
>>> process of acceptance of scientific evidence by the larger community-
>>> The problem I've been addressing in a series of postings to this network
>>> comes when inputs into the larger arguments come from immiscible realms-
>>>
>>> In short, I favor improvement in animal state of being, but I believe
>>> any such improvement will be based on the tera firma of scientific
>>> evidence- And I do think that much objective, direct scientific
>>> evidence on animal state of being does exist . . . it is embodied in
>>> the Performance Axiom that I have been espousing for several years (see
>>> below)- Strangely, to me, much of that evidence does exist is either
>>> ignored or even disclaimed by many who think about and discuss
>>> so-called animal welfare-
>>>
>>> To discuss all of the reasoning behind the Performacne Axiom requires a
>>> nmber of pages- But here, in response to your continuing contriubtions
>>> to this string of postings, I offer some thoughts that I offered at an
>>> ASAS symposium in Minneapolis last summer, the whole paper of which is
>>> supposed to be published in the Journal of Animal Science:
>>>
>>> = = =
>>>
>>> We might say that there are nowadays six distinct tacks being taken now
>>> in the USA with respect to the issue of so-called welfare . . . six
>>> creeds being advocated- To trump in a game of cards is to absolutely
>>> override, to veto- Each of those sex creeds features its own trumping
>>> rule- So those six tacks are mutually exclusive, as intractable
>>> discordances they complicate the various stakeholders? coming together
>>> and making progress on settling this issue- Moreover, and importantly,
>>> they are confusing to the general public, which is not a good thing for
>>> animal agriculture-
>>>
>>> ? Tack 1. Ethics = trump: Ethics philosophers have been talking about
>>> animal rights since the 6th Century BCE- English and Australian
>>> philosophers birthed the modern animal-rights movement in the 1970s CE-
>>> In general, subscribers to that philosophy advocate ending human use of
>>> animals in experiments or as food, among other things- For these people,
>>> the rights of animals comprise an absolute trump in any situation- Left
>>> open for the moment, as a practical matter, are clear definitions of
>>> those rights-
>>>
>>> ? Tack 2. Intuition = trump: There are self-proclaimed experts who hold
>>> that animal state of being should be based on human intuition?on
>>> insights seemingly independent of previous experience?so intuitive
>>> notions constitute trumps- Of course, although intuitions are real,
>>> they are not necessarily truths- An assessment based on intuition
>>> comprise normative analysis (i. e., what perhaps ought to be), whereas
>>> that based on scientific evidence comprises positive analysis (i. e.,
>>> what is)-
>>>
>>> Moreover, given ten people, there usually will be ten or more sets of
>>> intuitions, possibly none of which is correct- Following such an
>>> ambiguous approach hampers resolution of any issue- It is especially
>>> problematic when someone claims to be an expert due to a special gift or
>>> power of some sort, thereby committing the logical fallacy argumentum ad
>>> verecundiam (i. e., an appeal to authority)-
>>>
>>> ? Tack 3. Opinion = trump: Each person has a unique opinion, so there
>>> will be no consensus when it comes to setting standards and formulating
>>> algorithms based on a set of strongly held opinions- For example, the
>>> position of the European Union and the World Organisation for Animal
>>> Health today seems to be this: European entities will decide what
>>> constitutes appropriate farm-animal welfare and then they will cajole
>>> and coerce the rest of the world to follow their lead-
>>>
>>> To hijack the issue in this way would not be useful- Opinions, as do
>>> intuitions, constitute normative analyses, which, until objectively
>>> verified by positive analyses, are not necessarily truths and therefore
>>> are subject to error and consequently the unintentional compromising of
>>> animal state of being-
>>>
>>> ? Tack 4. Producer input = trump: Producer input into developing
>>> welfare-assessment schemes is essential, especially in terms of
>>> workability- But producer input alone would be insufficient, and
>>> producers? holding trumping power therefore would be inadvisable- The
>>> trouble here is akin to those with intuition and opinion- US producers?
>>> emphases, e. g., currently are on affordability and workability in a
>>> program that will not enjoy credibility except within the producer
>>> community that clearly has conflicts of interest in the matter- Other
>>> stakeholders are justified in wanting to follow Ronald Reagan?s advice:
>>> ?Trust, but verify?-
>>>
>>> ? Tack 5. Animal feelings = trump: One school of applied ethologists
>>> holds that animal welfare is about how the animal feels (Duncan, 1993;
>>> Duncan and Fraser, 1997)- But there seem to be serious problems with
>>> this approach, a major one being that we still do not know either
>>> directly or indirectly how an animal feels, let alone how to measure
>>> that (Gregory, 2005)-
>>>
>>> Some would rely on the analogy postulate (Baumans and Brain, 2001),
>>> saying: ?Put yourself in the place of the animal, then you?ll know how
>>> it feels?- But, until we can objectively measure something, this
>>> approach falls into the realm of intuition, opinion, and subjective
>>> experience- After all, as posited by William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
>>> (Thomson, 2005 ): ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express
>>> it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it
>>> may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your
>>> thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be"-
>>> And management guru Peter Drucker (1964) added: ?If you can?t measure
>>> it, you can?t manage it?- Enough said just now, perhaps, for animal
>>> feelings and businesses that must be managed-
>>>
>>> ? Tack 6. Scientific evidence = trump: The failings of the foregoing
>>> leave us with the probablity that the terra firma of scientific evidence
>>> should hold trumping power- The animal's deserve this kind of care-
>>>
>>> Bottom Line: Political scientists would tell us that resolution of the
>>> animal-welfare issue ? whenever that may come ? will bear the marks of
>>> each stakeholder group now engaged- Six such groups are involved in the
>>> issue in the USA: philosophers, animal-protection activists,
>>> self-appointed experts and celebrities, pork producers, animal
>>> ethologists, and other animal scientists- These groups have respective
>>> unique tacks for resolving the issue, each having its own trumping rule-
>>> The discrepancies are confusing to the general public- Flaws exist for
>>> the first five stakeholder groups as listed above- This leaves
>>> scientific evidence as the sole tack that passes the test fro
>>> objectivity and practicality- It is posited that the best scientific
>>> evidence in this respect is that generated by following the author?s
>>> Performance Axiom, to wit:
>>>
>>> "For a constitutionally fit animal of any kind, in the continuing
>>> absence of an adequate scientifically informed understanding of its
>>> conscious feelings, the best single set of measurable ? hence,
>>> manageable ? indicators of that animal?s state of being will be its
>>> rates of productive and reproductive performance relative to its
>>> predicted potential to perform. Body condition index and rates of
>>> culling, morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable additional
>>> information on animal state of being." = = =
>>> Stanley Curtis
>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:34:13 +0000
>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Stan,
>>>>
>>>> I realise that the following might be interpreted as inflammatory or
>>>> argumentative - it is not meant to be and it is sent with the utmost
>>>> respect for your arguments and beliefs. I do not understand how if you
>>>> argue that scientists should not make statements about changing
>>>> husbandry systems without objective data on welfare, it is acceptable
>>>> for scientist to argue for the status quo - but still devoid of
>>>> objective data. Surely if there are no acceptable objective data,
>>>> then scientists should not be making statements in either direction.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I very much enjoyed your comments about argument by analogy. I
>>>> few years ago I wrote a review of studies indicating that by using
>>>> this postulate, we should be thinking very carefully about the
>>>> possibility of suffering in invertebrates, not just vertebrates.
>>>> Sherwin, C.M. (2001). Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is
>>>> argument-by-analogy? Animal Welfare, 10 (supplement): 103-118
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> --On 12 February 2007 22:10 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Sherwin and others-
>>>>> The following comments are in reply to the posting by C.M. Sherwin
>>>>> (CMS) to this network of Friday 9 February (CST in USA), which itself
>>>>> was in reply to an earlier response of mine to an earlier
>>>>> query-posting of me (S. E. Curtis SEC) by CMS- = = =
>>>>> CMS wrote:
>>>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might be
>>>>> written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of course,
>>>>> in the Introduction I would give a summary of the methodology and its
>>>>> various interpretations with appropriate references which I think
>>>>> addresses statement (a) [(a) In this paper, consumer demand studies
>>>>> showed that mice had a high motivation for space additional to that
>>>>> provided by standard laboratory cages.]. SEC comment: I
>>>>> wrote in my earlier response: ?Statement (a) comprises the scientific
>>>>> evidence generated by the study. In her/his role as a scientist
>>>>> reporting strictly new scientific evi-dence, she/he should stop
>>>>> here.?]. Thereby, I acknowledged that, in my opinion, statement (a)
>>>>> meets the criteria of a scientific conclusion- = = = CMS wrote:
>>>>> Regarding statement (b) [(b) It has been argued that such findings
>>>>> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to
>>>>> cause frustration and suffering in the mice.], I would develop the
>>>>> arguments that various scientists (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put
>>>>> forward regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might
>>>>> indirectly measure these. But, this is where my argument falls down.
>>>>> SEC comment: I am familiar with the researches and the analyses and
>>>>> the interpretations of Marian Stamp Dawkins and Ian Duncan, and have
>>>>> great respect for them and their excellent works- On more than one
>>>>> occasion, I have discussed with Ian Duncan animals? cognitive
>>>>> processes and their measurement- As you know, both Dawkins and Duncan
>>>>> have opined, however, that at present, indirect scientific evidence
>>>>> is all we have to consider in matters of nonhuman animals? feelings-
>>>>> And in their own works they are very cautious and conservative in
>>>>> terms of the permissible inference space for their findings and
>>>>> conclusions- I simply believe that indirect evidence ?- scientific or
>>>>> otherwise -- should not suffice as the basis for determining how an
>>>>> animal ought to be husbanded- (By the way, because we would like to
>>>>> have some direct evidence as to how an animal feels, beginning more
>>>>> than a decade ago, colleagues and I have been interested and engaged
>>>>> in attempting to develop ways and means of directly communicating
>>>>> with pigs, along the lines the Georgia scientists have communicated
>>>>> with chimpanzees-) = = = CMS wrote:
>>>>> In your reply, you [SEC] wrote,
>>>>> ?If there is no objective evidence of any such state
>>>>> -- but instead the argument is based on the analogy postulate,
>>>>> anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic
>>>>> grounds -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should not be
>>>>> made by a scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a
>>>>> scientist.? Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure
>>>>> frustration in mice. We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration,
>>>>> but, we use the analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous
>>>>> manner to ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is
>>>>> experiencing an analogous subjective experience. But, we can not
>>>>> objectively measure frustration in other humans. Does this mean
>>>>> scientists should not be writing statements such as (b) slightly
>>>>> re-written: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such
>>>>> findings indicate the small space in prison cells are likely to cause
>>>>> frustration and suffering in the prisoners." SEC comment:
>>>>> In my opinion, the re-written statement (b) about humans is not
>>>>> analogous to the original statement (b) about mice- My reasoning
>>>>> includes the obvious facts that mice are not humans and that most
>>>>> likely individuals of the two species have different emotional
>>>>> thresholds and aversions to suf-fering, not to mention different
>>>>> motivations to behave in one way or another in an artificial
>>>>> experimental setting- Vera Baumans and Paul Brain, in discussing the
>>>>> analogy postulate, have written: ?It is ethically prudent to go one
>>>>> step further and to accept that animal suffering can at least be
>>>>> equivalent to the suffering of a human when both are subject to the
>>>>> same [experience]. This analogy postulate should be accepted unless
>>>>> its invalidity has been proven in a specific case. [But] one should
>>>>> realize it has a weak scientific basis and should be used with
>>>>> caution. One cannot exclude the possibility that [experiences],
>>>>> which are comparatively harmless for human subjects, are painful or
>>>>> stressful for certain animals, or vice versa.? So Baumans and Brain
>>>>> profess that to apply the analogy postulate is to be ?ethically
>>>>> prudent? but ?scientifically weak?- My point precisely!- Unless and
>>>>> until we have at hand verifiable, direct scientific evidence in the
>>>>> matter of emotional suffering by animals, as a scientist, I think we
>>>>> should continue our search for the truth of the matter and make
>>>>> decisions and regulations in the matter ?with caution?- And, finally,
>>>>> if psychologists and posychiatrists cannot objecively measure
>>>>> frustration and suffering in humans, then, writing as scientists, they
>>>>> should not imply that humans in such-and-such a situation most liely
>>>>> are experiencing those feelings- As Lord Kelvin said quite some time
>>>>> ago: ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in
>>>>> numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may
>>>>> be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts
>>>>> advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." = = =
>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:06:13 +0000
>>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and animal
>>>>>> welfare
>>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>>>> , Janeen Johnson , Kay
>>>>>> Johnson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Stan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks for your complete and insightful reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might
>>>>>> be written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of
>>>>>> course, in the Introduction I would give a summary of the
>>>>>> methodology and its various interpretations with appropriate
>>>>>> references which I think addresses statement (a). Regarding
>>>>>> statement (b), I would develop the arguments that various scientist
>>>>>> (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put forward regarding matters of animal
>>>>>> feelings and how we might indirectly measure these. But, this is
>>>>>> where my argument falls down. In your reply, you wrote,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead the
>>>>>> argument is based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism, a hunch
>>>>>> (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the clarified
>>>>>> version of statement (b) should not be made by a scientist speaking
>>>>>> or writing in her/his role as a scientist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration in
>>>>>> mice. We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we use
>>>>>> the analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous manner to
>>>>>> ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is experiencing an
>>>>>> analogous subjective experience. But, we can not objectively
>>>>>> measure frustration in other humans. Does this mean scientists
>>>>>> should not be writing statements such as (b) slightly re-written.
>>>>>> "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate the
>>>>>> small space in prison cells are likely to cause frustration and
>>>>>> suffering in the prisoners."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --On 08 February 2007 18:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris and others-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In his posting to this network a couple of days ago in reaction to
>>>>>>> an earlier posting of mine, Chris Sherwin astutely offered a set of
>>>>>>> three statements (statements a, b, and c between quotation marks
>>>>>>> below) and then asked me: CMS: "If I am correct in following
>>>>>>> your line of thinking, you would argue that a scientist should stop
>>>>>>> after writing (a). An ethicist should stop after writing (a + b).
>>>>>>> The hybrid should stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree
>>>>>>> with this, or would you perhaps take a different slant?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My response to Chris Sherwin?s query follows follows in respective
>>>>>>> comments following each of the statements he offered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (a): In this study, consumer demand trials showed
>>>>>>> that mice had a high motivation for space additional to that
>>>>>>> provided by standard laboratory cages."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SEC: Statement (a) comprises the scientific evidence generated by
>>>>>>> the study.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In her/his role as a scientist reporting strictly new scientific
>>>>>>> evidence, she/he should stop here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings indicate
>>>>>>> the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause
>>>>>>> frustration and suffering in the mice."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SEC: Statement (b) is inadequate as it stands because it does not
>>>>>>> state who is arguing what such findings indicate and on what basis
>>>>>>> that argument is grounded. The statement should be clarified in
>>>>>>> those contexts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then: Is statement (b) based on arguments based on evidence
>>>>>>> generated in other experiments following the scientific method? If
>>>>>>> so, the scientist should allude to that other scientific evidence
>>>>>>> in her/his discussion of her/his new evidence in clarifying
>>>>>>> statement (b). If not, the scientist should not make that statement
>>>>>>> in a scientific journal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the nature of the basis for the argument that the mice are
>>>>>>> likely to be experiencing frustration and suffering? If the
>>>>>>> scientist does make a clarified version of statement (b), that
>>>>>>> statement should clearly allude to the objective ways and means of
>>>>>>> determining the animals? subjective states of frustration and
>>>>>>> suffering. If there is no objective evidence of any such state ?
>>>>>>> but instead the argument is based on the analogy postulate,
>>>>>>> anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic
>>>>>>> grounds -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should not
>>>>>>> be made by a scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a
>>>>>>> scientist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (c): It is therefore recommended that laboratory
>>>>>>> mice should be provided with more space than is currently given as
>>>>>>> standard."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SEC: The scientific method requires that any scientific finding be
>>>>>>> repeated and confirmed by other scientists in other laboratories
>>>>>>> before it qualifies to be considered to be accepted scientific
>>>>>>> evidence. Unless and until it is so accepted, it remains a theory.
>>>>>>> Practical recommendations should be based only on accepted
>>>>>>> scientific evidence, and then only after that accepted scientific
>>>>>>> evidence has been applied in a variety of actual animal husbandry
>>>>>>> settings and been found by scientific observation to be supportive
>>>>>>> of a high overall animal state of being. On the basis of a finding
>>>>>>> in a single study or several confirmative studies that have not be
>>>>>>> tested in an actual
>>>>>>> animal-keeping setting, no practical recommendation at all should be
>>>>>>> made.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:34:22 +0000
>>>>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and
>>>>>>>> animal welfare
>>>>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network
>>>>>>>> , Janeen Johnson ,
>>>>>>>> Kay Johnson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stan (and others),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your very thought provoking ideas on science, ethics and
>>>>>>>> hybrids as they relate to animal welfare. I have put together the
>>>>>>>> following fictitious passage which I could imagine might be
>>>>>>>> published in any ethology/welfare science journal. If I am
>>>>>>>> correct in following your line of thinking, you would argue that a
>>>>>>>> scientist should stop after writing (a). An ethicist should stop
>>>>>>>> after writing (a + b). The hybrid should stop after writing (a + b
>>>>>>>> + c). Would you agree with this, or would you perhaps take a
>>>>>>>> different slant?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) In this paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had a
>>>>>>>> high motivation for space additional to that provided by standard
>>>>>>>> laboratory cages. (b) It has been argued that such findings
>>>>>>>> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely
>>>>>>>> to cause frustration and suffering in the mice. (c) It is
>>>>>>>> therefore recommended that laboratory mice should be provided
>>>>>>>> with more space than is currently given as standard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --On 07 February 2007 06:14 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and cogent
>>>>>>>>> comment (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a recent
>>>>>>>>> posting-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I repeat
>>>>>>>>> what I said in that recent posting, to wit:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when
>>>>>>>>> ethical judgements are confused with scientific evicence in
>>>>>>>>> discussions of animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are
>>>>>>>>> good and even a combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for
>>>>>>>>> example, scientists should talk apples and ethicists should talk
>>>>>>>>> oranges-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free
>>>>>>>>> society there will be different opinions as to who should talk the
>>>>>>>>> mix- My opinion: scientists should talk the science, ethicists
>>>>>>>>> should talk the ethics, and other interested people should talk
>>>>>>>>> the mix-"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that --
>>>>>>>>> although I think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be
>>>>>>>>> construed as an oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists,
>>>>>>>>> respectively, will want to attempt to "straddle the divide" to
>>>>>>>>> which Patterson-Kane makes reference and which will ultimately be
>>>>>>>>> neceessary as we make progress in dealing holistically with the
>>>>>>>>> issue of so-called aniumal welfare- (David Fraser refers to this
>>>>>>>>> as "bridging the gap"-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever so
>>>>>>>>> cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in speaking
>>>>>>>>> and writing for audiences of people in animal agriculture who have
>>>>>>>>> a lot of other things on their minds, too, and therefore need and
>>>>>>>>> deserve to be assisted in knowing at all times where the line --
>>>>>>>>> that "divide", if you will -- lies- It needs to know about that
>>>>>>>>> divide because, on one of its sides, the evidence has been
>>>>>>>>> generated by the scientific method, whereas, on the other side,
>>>>>>>>> the multiple notions of where to draw another important line --
>>>>>>>>> namely, the line as to what is morally acceptable and what is not
>>>>>>>>> in the ways and means of animnal-husbandry systems (which as I
>>>>>>>>> understand it is the line of the animal-welfare approach as
>>>>>>>>> opposed to the animal-rights approach)-- are the individual
>>>>>>>>> opinions of people living in a free and pluralistic society (and
>>>>>>>>> hence, because each is loaded with several sorts of baggage, will
>>>>>>>>> be quite variable and often ! ev! en in disagreement
>>>>>>>>> [philosophers argue, too])-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns
>>>>>>>>> should prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of
>>>>>>>>> being and (b) that the scientific method should guide us in that
>>>>>>>>> investigation- And I think that any consensus that a set of
>>>>>>>>> ethical thinkers might come up with in terms of what they think
>>>>>>>>> we "ought" to do with respect to how we treat our animals is all
>>>>>>>>> well and good so long as it turns out that the ensuant scientific
>>>>>>>>> evidence supports those notions- But, when it does not, then I
>>>>>>>>> think the animals deserve our bowing to the scientific evidence
>>>>>>>>> no matter how paradoxical it may seem to people with their
>>>>>>>>> ethicist hats on-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with respect
>>>>>>>>> to the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of crates and put
>>>>>>>>> themm in some sort of group housing system, how some of today's
>>>>>>>>> slef-described hybird scientist-ethicists are now back-pedalling
>>>>>>>>> as they worry about the obvious practical problem (in terms of sow
>>>>>>>>> state of being) of switching the husbanding dry sows in groups
>>>>>>>>> before the system has been more nearly perfected and, most
>>>>>>>>> importantly, before the nation's cadre of caretakers can be
>>>>>>>>> brought up to speed on everything from how to make thorough
>>>>>>>>> regular inspections of sows in a group to how to protect
>>>>>>>>> themselves from personal injury when working in a pen with a
>>>>>>>>> group of loose, ever-hungry (limit-fed for their own good),
>>>>>>>>> 500-lb sows milling about- Those of us who raised hogs "the old
>>>>>>>>> way" know all too well the practical problems that attend those
>>>>>>>>> ways and means; that's why different ways and means evolved-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small, for
>>>>>>>>> example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am afraid
>>>>>>>>> that many of the people who are offering advice or making demands
>>>>>>>>> as to how animal agriculture should do its business are awfully
>>>>>>>>> naive and unaware of -- and perhaps uncaring about -- those
>>>>>>>>> ramifications-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> 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
----------------------
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" 14-FEB-2007 09:49:48.93
To: IN%"Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry", IN%"securtis@uiuc.edu", IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "applied-ethology network"
CC:
Subj: RE: Reply to Chris Sherwin
--On 14 February 2007 15:47 +0000 "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
wrote:
> Dear Stan,
>
> Does that last sentence mean then we can artificially select for any
> genetic trait and so long as the animal performs to our expectations,
> everything is Ok about the animal's welfare?
>
> Chris
>
> --On 14 February 2007 09:41 -0600 Stanley Curtis
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris and others-
>>
>> In my opinion, you are talking apples (traditional finishing duck) and
>> oranges (foie gras duck)-
>>
>> The first phrase of the Performance Axiom explicitly refers to "a
>> constitutionally fit animal"- In my opinion, a duck liver artificially
>> cultured so as to be three times normal size is not in the abdominal
>> cavity of "a constitutionally fit animal"- The foie gras duck is destined
>> to be slaughtered very soon- Its natural life expectancy at the end of
>> its culture period is very short- That is to say, at that stage of its
>> life, it does not enjoy high "constitutional fitness", and so the
>> Performance Axiom would not apply-
>>
>> Moreover, the assessment comparisons to which the Performance Axiom
>> speaks have to do with comparison of an individual's performance as
>> against that individual's innate ability to perform- In other wrods: How
>> nearly is that individual fulfilling its genetic potential to perform in
>> a given production system?-
>>
>> Stanley Curtis
>> Department of Animal Sciences
>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- Original message ----
>>> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:18:34 +0000
>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Stan and others,
>>>
>>> If we consider the production of foie gras, this involves force feeding
>>> ducks or geese to enlarge their liver (I believe up to 3 times its
>>> normal size) for human consumption. If these birds were fed normally,
>>> their livers would not enlarge. This means that their 'production
>>> performance' would be decreased and therefore according to the
>>> Performance Axiom, the normally growing birds would have REDUCED
>>> welfare compared to the force-fed birds.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> --On 14 February 2007 08:57 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris and others-
>>>>
>>>> Your arguments are not new ones- I simply think that there is ample
>>>> opportunity and rationale to use performance as the major indicator of
>>>> animal state of being and that it is the most highly objectively
>>>> measurable trait we have at hand at this time-
>>>>
>>>> This is not to say that we won't some day have more objective and more
>>>> direct measures of feelings- And that would be a wonderful day- But, in
>>>> the meantime, the animals deserve more concrete bases for assessing
>>>> their state of being than intution, opinion, and musing grounded on
>>>> subjective individual observations- I think the best -- although
>>>> imperfect -- tools we now have at hand are embodied in the Performance
>>>> Axiom-
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your last statement, and have so indicated in the last
>>>> sentence of the Performance Axiom- To wit: "Body condition index and
>>>> rates of culling, morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable
>>>> additional information on animal state of being"-
>>>>
>>>> Moreover: Yes, those injured hens continue to lay eggs- After all,
>>>> these hens are of genetic stocks that have been intensely selectd over
>>>> many generations for a propensity to lay eggs- But at what rate are
>>>> the injured hens laying eggs?- To apply the Performance Axiom, there
>>>> would need to be careful analysis of performance rate and comparison
>>>> of high performance expectations depending on the genetic merit of
>>>> those individuals-
>>>>
>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>> Department of Animal Sciecnes
>>>> Unviersity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:29:10 +0000
>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stan,
>>>>> Many thanks for those thoughts - most interesting - and I look forward
>>>>> to reading the full paper.
>>>>> Most of my work with production animals is with poultry. One of the
>>>>> problems with using production as an indicator of welfare, at least
>>>>> with poultry, is that they remain highly productive despite receiving
>>>>> injuries most people would believe considerably reduce their welfare.
>>>>> Layer hens very frequently suffer broken bones (wings, keels) yet
>>>>> these birds continue to lay eggs. Broiler (meat) birds suffer immense
>>>>> problems with lameness to the point where a significant proportion
>>>>> die from starvation or thirst because they can not walk a few feet
>>>>> to the drinkers or feeders. However, if they survive, they continue
>>>>> to put on meat until we slaughter them at 6 weeks of age. I feel
>>>>> there most be more to assessing animal welfare than simply recording
>>>>> whether an animal remains alive and produces what we want it to, at
>>>>> a rate we find acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --On 13 February 2007 22:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris and others-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with disciplined argument in the latter stages
>>>>>> of pursuing truth via the scientific method- Argument is the essence
>>>>>> of the process of acceptance of scientific evidence by the larger
>>>>>> community- The problem I've been addressing in a series of postings
>>>>>> to this network comes when inputs into the larger arguments come from
>>>>>> immiscible realms-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, I favor improvement in animal state of being, but I believe
>>>>>> any such improvement will be based on the tera firma of scientific
>>>>>> evidence- And I do think that much objective, direct scientific
>>>>>> evidence on animal state of being does exist . . . it is embodied in
>>>>>> the Performance Axiom that I have been espousing for several years
>>>>>> (see below)- Strangely, to me, much of that evidence does exist is
>>>>>> either ignored or even disclaimed by many who think about and discuss
>>>>>> so-called animal welfare-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To discuss all of the reasoning behind the Performacne Axiom requires
>>>>>> a nmber of pages- But here, in response to your continuing
>>>>>> contriubtions to this string of postings, I offer some thoughts that
>>>>>> I offered at an ASAS symposium in Minneapolis last summer, the whole
>>>>>> paper of which is supposed to be published in the Journal of Animal
>>>>>> Science:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> = = =
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We might say that there are nowadays six distinct tacks being taken
>>>>>> now in the USA with respect to the issue of so-called welfare . . .
>>>>>> six creeds being advocated- To trump in a game of cards is to
>>>>>> absolutely override, to veto- Each of those sex creeds features its
>>>>>> own trumping rule- So those six tacks are mutually exclusive, as
>>>>>> intractable discordances they complicate the various stakeholders?
>>>>>> coming together and making progress on settling this issue- Moreover,
>>>>>> and importantly, they are confusing to the general public, which is
>>>>>> not a good thing for animal agriculture-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Tack 1. Ethics = trump: Ethics philosophers have been talking
>>>>>> about animal rights since the 6th Century BCE- English and Australian
>>>>>> philosophers birthed the modern animal-rights movement in the 1970s
>>>>>> CE- In general, subscribers to that philosophy advocate ending human
>>>>>> use of animals in experiments or as food, among other things- For
>>>>>> these people, the rights of animals comprise an absolute trump in any
>>>>>> situation- Left open for the moment, as a practical matter, are clear
>>>>>> definitions of those rights-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Tack 2. Intuition = trump: There are self-proclaimed experts who
>>>>>> hold that animal state of being should be based on human intuition?on
>>>>>> insights seemingly independent of previous experience?so intuitive
>>>>>> notions constitute trumps- Of course, although intuitions are real,
>>>>>> they are not necessarily truths- An assessment based on intuition
>>>>>> comprise normative analysis (i. e., what perhaps ought to be),
>>>>>> whereas that based on scientific evidence comprises positive
>>>>>> analysis (i. e., what is)-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover, given ten people, there usually will be ten or more sets of
>>>>>> intuitions, possibly none of which is correct- Following such an
>>>>>> ambiguous approach hampers resolution of any issue- It is especially
>>>>>> problematic when someone claims to be an expert due to a special gift
>>>>>> or power of some sort, thereby committing the logical fallacy
>>>>>> argumentum ad verecundiam (i. e., an appeal to authority)-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Tack 3. Opinion = trump: Each person has a unique opinion, so there
>>>>>> will be no consensus when it comes to setting standards and
>>>>>> formulating algorithms based on a set of strongly held opinions- For
>>>>>> example, the position of the European Union and the World
>>>>>> Organisation for Animal Health today seems to be this: European
>>>>>> entities will decide what constitutes appropriate farm-animal welfare
>>>>>> and then they will cajole and coerce the rest of the world to follow
>>>>>> their lead-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To hijack the issue in this way would not be useful- Opinions, as do
>>>>>> intuitions, constitute normative analyses, which, until objectively
>>>>>> verified by positive analyses, are not necessarily truths and
>>>>>> therefore are subject to error and consequently the unintentional
>>>>>> compromising of animal state of being-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Tack 4. Producer input = trump: Producer input into developing
>>>>>> welfare-assessment schemes is essential, especially in terms of
>>>>>> workability- But producer input alone would be insufficient, and
>>>>>> producers? holding trumping power therefore would be inadvisable- The
>>>>>> trouble here is akin to those with intuition and opinion- US
>>>>>> producers? emphases, e. g., currently are on affordability and
>>>>>> workability in a program that will not enjoy credibility except
>>>>>> within the producer community that clearly has conflicts of interest
>>>>>> in the matter- Other stakeholders are justified in wanting to follow
>>>>>> Ronald Reagan?s advice: ?Trust, but verify?-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Tack 5. Animal feelings = trump: One school of applied ethologists
>>>>>> holds that animal welfare is about how the animal feels (Duncan,
>>>>>> 1993; Duncan and Fraser, 1997)- But there seem to be serious
>>>>>> problems with this approach, a major one being that we still do not
>>>>>> know either directly or indirectly how an animal feels, let alone
>>>>>> how to measure that (Gregory, 2005)-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some would rely on the analogy postulate (Baumans and Brain, 2001),
>>>>>> saying: ?Put yourself in the place of the animal, then you?ll know
>>>>>> how it feels?- But, until we can objectively measure something,
>>>>>> this approach falls into the realm of intuition, opinion, and
>>>>>> subjective experience- After all, as posited by William Thomson,
>>>>>> Lord Kelvin (Thomson, 2005 ): ?When you cannot measure it, when you
>>>>>> cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and
>>>>>> unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
>>>>>> have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science,
>>>>>> whatever the matter may be"- And management guru Peter Drucker (1964)
>>>>>> added: ?If you can?t measure it, you can?t manage it?- Enough said
>>>>>> just now, perhaps, for animal feelings and businesses that must be
>>>>>> managed-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? Tack 6. Scientific evidence = trump: The failings of the foregoing
>>>>>> leave us with the probablity that the terra firma of scientific
>>>>>> evidence should hold trumping power- The animal's deserve this kind
>>>>>> of care-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bottom Line: Political scientists would tell us that resolution of
>>>>>> the animal-welfare issue ? whenever that may come ? will bear the
>>>>>> marks of each stakeholder group now engaged- Six such groups are
>>>>>> involved in the issue in the USA: philosophers, animal-protection
>>>>>> activists, self-appointed experts and celebrities, pork producers,
>>>>>> animal ethologists, and other animal scientists- These groups have
>>>>>> respective unique tacks for resolving the issue, each having its own
>>>>>> trumping rule- The discrepancies are confusing to the general
>>>>>> public- Flaws exist for the first five stakeholder groups as listed
>>>>>> above- This leaves scientific evidence as the sole tack that passes
>>>>>> the test fro objectivity and practicality- It is posited that the
>>>>>> best scientific evidence in this respect is that generated by
>>>>>> following the author?s Performance Axiom, to wit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For a constitutionally fit animal of any kind, in the continuing
>>>>>> absence of an adequate scientifically informed understanding of its
>>>>>> conscious feelings, the best single set of measurable ? hence,
>>>>>> manageable ? indicators of that animal?s state of being will be its
>>>>>> rates of productive and reproductive performance relative to its
>>>>>> predicted potential to perform. Body condition index and rates of
>>>>>> culling, morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable additional
>>>>>> information on animal state of being." = = =
>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:34:13 +0000
>>>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>>>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Stan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I realise that the following might be interpreted as inflammatory or
>>>>>>> argumentative - it is not meant to be and it is sent with the utmost
>>>>>>> respect for your arguments and beliefs. I do not understand how if
>>>>>>> you argue that scientists should not make statements about changing
>>>>>>> husbandry systems without objective data on welfare, it is
>>>>>>> acceptable for scientist to argue for the status quo - but still
>>>>>>> devoid of objective data. Surely if there are no acceptable
>>>>>>> objective data, then scientists should not be making statements in
>>>>>>> either direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P.S. I very much enjoyed your comments about argument by analogy.
>>>>>>> I few years ago I wrote a review of studies indicating that by
>>>>>>> using this postulate, we should be thinking very carefully about the
>>>>>>> possibility of suffering in invertebrates, not just vertebrates.
>>>>>>> Sherwin, C.M. (2001). Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is
>>>>>>> argument-by-analogy? Animal Welfare, 10 (supplement): 103-118
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --On 12 February 2007 22:10 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris Sherwin and others-
>>>>>>>> The following comments are in reply to the posting by C.M. Sherwin
>>>>>>>> (CMS) to this network of Friday 9 February (CST in USA), which
>>>>>>>> itself was in reply to an earlier response of mine to an earlier
>>>>>>>> query-posting of me (S. E. Curtis SEC) by CMS- = = = CMS wrote:
>>>>>>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they might
>>>>>>>> be written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the conclusions. Of
>>>>>>>> course, in the Introduction I would give a summary of the
>>>>>>>> methodology and its various interpretations with appropriate
>>>>>>>> references which I think addresses statement (a) [(a) In this
>>>>>>>> paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had a high
>>>>>>>> motivation for space additional to that provided by standard
>>>>>>>> laboratory cages.]. SEC comment: I wrote in my earlier
>>>>>>>> response: ?Statement (a) comprises the scientific evidence
>>>>>>>> generated by the study. In her/his role as a scientist reporting
>>>>>>>> strictly new scientific evi-dence, she/he should stop here.?].
>>>>>>>> Thereby, I acknowledged that, in my opinion, statement (a) meets
>>>>>>>> the criteria of a scientific conclusion- = = = CMS wrote: Regarding
>>>>>>>> statement (b) [(b) It has been argued that such findings indicate
>>>>>>>> the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely to cause
>>>>>>>> frustration and suffering in the mice.], I would develop the
>>>>>>>> arguments that various scientists (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put
>>>>>>>> forward regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might
>>>>>>>> indirectly measure these. But, this is where my argument falls
>>>>>>>> down. SEC comment: I am familiar with the researches and the
>>>>>>>> analyses and the interpretations of Marian Stamp Dawkins and Ian
>>>>>>>> Duncan, and have great respect for them and their excellent works-
>>>>>>>> On more than one occasion, I have discussed with Ian Duncan
>>>>>>>> animals? cognitive processes and their measurement- As you know,
>>>>>>>> both Dawkins and Duncan have opined, however, that at present,
>>>>>>>> indirect scientific evidence is all we have to consider in matters
>>>>>>>> of nonhuman animals? feelings- And in their own works they are
>>>>>>>> very cautious and conservative in terms of the permissible
>>>>>>>> inference space for their findings and conclusions- I simply
>>>>>>>> believe that indirect evidence ?- scientific or otherwise --
>>>>>>>> should not suffice as the basis for determining how an animal
>>>>>>>> ought to be husbanded- (By the way, because we would like to have
>>>>>>>> some direct evidence as to how an animal feels, beginning more
>>>>>>>> than a decade ago, colleagues and I have been interested and
>>>>>>>> engaged in attempting to develop ways and means of directly
>>>>>>>> communicating with pigs, along the lines the Georgia scientists
>>>>>>>> have communicated with chimpanzees-) = = = CMS wrote:
>>>>>>>> In your reply, you [SEC] wrote,
>>>>>>>> ?If there is no objective evidence of any such state
>>>>>>>> -- but instead the argument is based on the analogy postulate,
>>>>>>>> anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic
>>>>>>>> grounds -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should not
>>>>>>>> be made by a scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a
>>>>>>>> scientist.? Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure
>>>>>>>> frustration in mice. We do not KNOW that mice experience
>>>>>>>> frustration, but, we use the analogy postulate - an animal behaves
>>>>>>>> in an analogous manner to ourselves therefore it is possible the
>>>>>>>> animal is experiencing an analogous subjective experience. But, we
>>>>>>>> can not objectively measure frustration in other humans. Does this
>>>>>>>> mean scientists should not be writing statements such as (b)
>>>>>>>> slightly re-written: "Statement (b): It has been argued
>>>>>>>> that such findings indicate the small space in prison cells are
>>>>>>>> likely to cause frustration and suffering in the prisoners." SEC
>>>>>>>> comment: In my opinion, the re-written statement (b) about humans
>>>>>>>> is not analogous to the original statement (b) about mice- My
>>>>>>>> reasoning includes the obvious facts that mice are not humans and
>>>>>>>> that most likely individuals of the two species have different
>>>>>>>> emotional thresholds and aversions to suf-fering, not to mention
>>>>>>>> different motivations to behave in one way or another in an
>>>>>>>> artificial experimental setting- Vera Baumans and Paul Brain, in
>>>>>>>> discussing the analogy postulate, have written: ?It is ethically
>>>>>>>> prudent to go one step further and to accept that animal suffering
>>>>>>>> can at least be equivalent to the suffering of a human when both
>>>>>>>> are subject to the same [experience]. This analogy postulate
>>>>>>>> should be accepted unless its invalidity has been proven in a
>>>>>>>> specific case. [But] one should realize it has a weak scientific
>>>>>>>> basis and should be used with caution. One cannot exclude the
>>>>>>>> possibility that [experiences], which are comparatively harmless
>>>>>>>> for human subjects, are painful or stressful for certain animals,
>>>>>>>> or vice versa.? So Baumans and Brain profess that to apply the
>>>>>>>> analogy postulate is to be ?ethically prudent? but ?scientifically
>>>>>>>> weak?- My point precisely!- Unless and until we have at hand
>>>>>>>> verifiable, direct scientific evidence in the matter of emotional
>>>>>>>> suffering by animals, as a scientist, I think we should continue
>>>>>>>> our search for the truth of the matter and make decisions and
>>>>>>>> regulations in the matter ?with caution?- And, finally, if
>>>>>>>> psychologists and posychiatrists cannot objecively measure
>>>>>>>> frustration and suffering in humans, then, writing as scientists,
>>>>>>>> they should not imply that humans in such-and-such a situation most
>>>>>>>> liely are experiencing those feelings- As Lord Kelvin said quite
>>>>>>>> some time ago: ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express
>>>>>>>> it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
>>>>>>>> kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely
>>>>>>>> in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the
>>>>>>>> matter may be." = = = Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:06:13 +0000
>>>>>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and
>>>>>>>>> animal welfare
>>>>>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>>>>> , applied-ethology network
>>>>>>>>> , Janeen Johnson ,
>>>>>>>>> Kay Johnson
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Stan,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for your complete and insightful reply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I put the three sentences together, I was imagining they
>>>>>>>>> might be written as the last three of a paper, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. Of course, in the Introduction I would give a
>>>>>>>>> summary of the methodology and its various interpretations with
>>>>>>>>> appropriate references which I think addresses statement (a).
>>>>>>>>> Regarding statement (b), I would develop the arguments that
>>>>>>>>> various scientist (e.g. Dawkins, Duncan) have put forward
>>>>>>>>> regarding matters of animal feelings and how we might indirectly
>>>>>>>>> measure these. But, this is where my argument falls down. In
>>>>>>>>> your reply, you wrote,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no objective evidence of any such state ? but instead
>>>>>>>>> the argument is based on the analogy postulate, anthropomorphism,
>>>>>>>>> a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic grounds -- then the
>>>>>>>>> clarified version of statement (b) should not be made by a
>>>>>>>>> scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a scientist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, I can not directly and objectively measure frustration
>>>>>>>>> in mice. We do not KNOW that mice experience frustration, but, we
>>>>>>>>> use the analogy postulate - an animal behaves in an analogous
>>>>>>>>> manner to ourselves therefore it is possible the animal is
>>>>>>>>> experiencing an analogous subjective experience. But, we can not
>>>>>>>>> objectively measure frustration in other humans. Does this mean
>>>>>>>>> scientists should not be writing statements such as (b) slightly
>>>>>>>>> re-written. "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings
>>>>>>>>> indicate the small space in prison cells are likely to cause
>>>>>>>>> frustration and suffering in the prisoners."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --On 08 February 2007 18:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris and others-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In his posting to this network a couple of days ago in reaction
>>>>>>>>>> to an earlier posting of mine, Chris Sherwin astutely offered a
>>>>>>>>>> set of three statements (statements a, b, and c between quotation
>>>>>>>>>> marks below) and then asked me: CMS: "If I am correct in
>>>>>>>>>> following your line of thinking, you would argue that a scientist
>>>>>>>>>> should stop after writing (a). An ethicist should stop after
>>>>>>>>>> writing (a + b). The hybrid should stop after writing (a + b +
>>>>>>>>>> c). Would you agree with this, or would you perhaps take a
>>>>>>>>>> different slant?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My response to Chris Sherwin?s query follows follows in
>>>>>>>>>> respective comments following each of the statements he offered:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (a): In this study, consumer demand trials
>>>>>>>>>> showed that mice had a high motivation for space additional to
>>>>>>>>>> that provided by standard laboratory cages."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SEC: Statement (a) comprises the scientific evidence generated
>>>>>>>>>> by the study.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In her/his role as a scientist reporting strictly new scientific
>>>>>>>>>> evidence, she/he should stop here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (b): It has been argued that such findings
>>>>>>>>>> indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages are likely
>>>>>>>>>> to cause frustration and suffering in the mice."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SEC: Statement (b) is inadequate as it stands because it does
>>>>>>>>>> not state who is arguing what such findings indicate and on what
>>>>>>>>>> basis that argument is grounded. The statement should be
>>>>>>>>>> clarified in those contexts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then: Is statement (b) based on arguments based on evidence
>>>>>>>>>> generated in other experiments following the scientific method?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, the scientist should allude to that other scientific
>>>>>>>>>> evidence in her/his discussion of her/his new evidence in
>>>>>>>>>> clarifying statement (b). If not, the scientist should not make
>>>>>>>>>> that statement in a scientific journal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the nature of the basis for the argument that the mice
>>>>>>>>>> are likely to be experiencing frustration and suffering? If the
>>>>>>>>>> scientist does make a clarified version of statement (b), that
>>>>>>>>>> statement should clearly allude to the objective ways and means
>>>>>>>>>> of determining the animals? subjective states of frustration and
>>>>>>>>>> suffering. If there is no objective evidence of any such state ?
>>>>>>>>>> but instead the argument is based on the analogy postulate,
>>>>>>>>>> anthropomorphism, a hunch (scientific or other), or philosophic
>>>>>>>>>> grounds -- then the clarified version of statement (b) should not
>>>>>>>>>> be made by a scientist speaking or writing in her/his role as a
>>>>>>>>>> scientist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CMS: "Statement (c): It is therefore recommended that
>>>>>>>>>> laboratory mice should be provided with more space than is
>>>>>>>>>> currently given as standard."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SEC: The scientific method requires that any scientific finding
>>>>>>>>>> be repeated and confirmed by other scientists in other
>>>>>>>>>> laboratories before it qualifies to be considered to be accepted
>>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence. Unless and until it is so accepted, it
>>>>>>>>>> remains a theory. Practical recommendations should be based only
>>>>>>>>>> on accepted scientific evidence, and then only after that
>>>>>>>>>> accepted scientific evidence has been applied in a variety of
>>>>>>>>>> actual animal husbandry settings and been found by scientific
>>>>>>>>>> observation to be supportive of a high overall animal state of
>>>>>>>>>> being. On the basis of a finding in a single study or several
>>>>>>>>>> confirmative studies that have not be tested in an actual
>>>>>>>>>> animal-keeping setting, no practical recommendation at all should
>>>>>>>>>> be made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:34:22 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: vets and
>>>>>>>>>>> animal welfare
>>>>>>>>>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, applied-ethology network
>>>>>>>>>>> , Janeen Johnson ,
>>>>>>>>>>> Kay Johnson
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stan (and others),
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your very thought provoking ideas on science, ethics
>>>>>>>>>>> and hybrids as they relate to animal welfare. I have put
>>>>>>>>>>> together the following fictitious passage which I could imagine
>>>>>>>>>>> might be published in any ethology/welfare science journal. If
>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct in following your line of thinking, you would
>>>>>>>>>>> argue that a scientist should stop after writing (a). An
>>>>>>>>>>> ethicist should stop after writing (a + b). The hybrid should
>>>>>>>>>>> stop after writing (a + b + c). Would you agree with this, or
>>>>>>>>>>> would you perhaps take a different slant?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) In this paper, consumer demand studies showed that mice had
>>>>>>>>>>> a high motivation for space additional to that provided by
>>>>>>>>>>> standard laboratory cages. (b) It has been argued that such
>>>>>>>>>>> findings indicate the small space in standard laboratory cages
>>>>>>>>>>> are likely to cause frustration and suffering in the mice.
>>>>>>>>>>> (c) It is therefore recommended that laboratory mice should
>>>>>>>>>>> be provided with more space than is currently given as standard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --On 07 February 2007 06:14 -0600 Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Emily Patterson-Kane and others-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is in response to Emily Patterson-Kane's welcome and
>>>>>>>>>>>> cogent comment (forwarded below) on a statement I made in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> recent posting-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for my opinion of the ideal situation in this regard, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeat what I said in that recent posting, to wit:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "In tending to the science aspect, however, I am troubled when
>>>>>>>>>>>> ethical judgements are confused with scientific evicence in
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions of animal welfare- Apples and oranges ... both are
>>>>>>>>>>>> good and even a combination salad of the two is tasty, but, for
>>>>>>>>>>>> example, scientists should talk apples and ethicists should
>>>>>>>>>>>> talk oranges-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Then who should talk the combination salad?- Well, in a free
>>>>>>>>>>>> society there will be different opinions as to who should talk
>>>>>>>>>>>> the mix- My opinion: scientists should talk the science,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ethicists should talk the ethics, and other interested people
>>>>>>>>>>>> should talk the mix-"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To make that clearer, perhaps I should have added that --
>>>>>>>>>>>> although I think the term "animal welfare scientist" can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> construed as an oxymoron -- some scientists and some ethicists,
>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively, will want to attempt to "straddle the divide" to
>>>>>>>>>>>> which Patterson-Kane makes reference and which will ultimately
>>>>>>>>>>>> be neceessary as we make progress in dealing holistically with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue of so-called aniumal welfare- (David Fraser refers to
>>>>>>>>>>>> this as "bridging the gap"-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But, in my role as an applied animal scientist, I must be ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> so cautious when it comes to being clear and transparent in
>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking and writing for audiences of people in animal
>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture who have a lot of other things on their minds, too,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore need and deserve to be assisted in knowing at all
>>>>>>>>>>>> times where the line -- that "divide", if you will -- lies- It
>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to know about that divide because, on one of its sides,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the evidence has been generated by the scientific method,
>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas, on the other side, the multiple notions of where to
>>>>>>>>>>>> draw another important line -- namely, the line as to what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> morally acceptable and what is not in the ways and means of
>>>>>>>>>>>> animnal-husbandry systems (which as I understand it is the line
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the animal-welfare approach as opposed to the animal-rights
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach)-- are the individual opinions of people living in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> free and pluralistic society (and hence, because each is loaded
>>>>>>>>>>>> with several sorts of baggage, will be quite variable and often
>>>>>>>>>>>> ! ev! en in disagreement
>>>>>>>>>>>> [philosophers argue, too])-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have stated elsewhere, I think (a) that ethical concerns
>>>>>>>>>>>> should prompt us to investigate the matters of animal state of
>>>>>>>>>>>> being and (b) that the scientific method should guide us in
>>>>>>>>>>>> that investigation- And I think that any consensus that a set
>>>>>>>>>>>> of ethical thinkers might come up with in terms of what they
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we "ought" to do with respect to how we treat our
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals is all well and good so long as it turns out that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ensuant scientific evidence supports those notions- But, when
>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not, then I think the animals deserve our bowing to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence no matter how paradoxical it may seem to
>>>>>>>>>>>> people with their ethicist hats on-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, it is interesting to observe right now, with
>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to the the move now afoot to move dry sows out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> crates and put themm in some sort of group housing system, how
>>>>>>>>>>>> some of today's slef-described hybird scientist-ethicists are
>>>>>>>>>>>> now back-pedalling as they worry about the obvious practical
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem (in terms of sow state of being) of switching the
>>>>>>>>>>>> husbanding dry sows in groups before the system has been more
>>>>>>>>>>>> nearly perfected and, most importantly, before the nation's
>>>>>>>>>>>> cadre of caretakers can be brought up to speed on everything
>>>>>>>>>>>> from how to make thorough regular inspections of sows in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> group to how to protect themselves from personal injury when
>>>>>>>>>>>> working in a pen with a group of loose, ever-hungry (limit-fed
>>>>>>>>>>>> for their own good), 500-lb sows milling about- Those of us who
>>>>>>>>>>>> raised hogs "the old way" know all too well the practical
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems that attend those ways and means; that's why different
>>>>>>>>>>>> ways and means evolved-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every change of routine in animal agriculture, large or small,
>>>>>>>>>>>> for example, has multiple practical ramifications- And I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid that many of the people who are offering advice or
>>>>>>>>>>>> making demands as to how animal agriculture should do its
>>>>>>>>>>>> business are awfully naive and unaware of -- and perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>> uncaring about -- those ramifications-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stanley Curtis
>>>>>>>>>>>> Department of Animal Sciences
>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>> 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
----------------------
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%"Stefan.Gunnarsson@hmh.slu.se" "Stefan Gunnarsson" 14-FEB-2007 09:54:11.33
To: IN%"applied-ethology@usask.ca" "'applied-ethology network'"
CC:
Subj: SV: Reply to Chris Sherwin
Hello
It=92s really interesting to follow the discussion.
Last year I published a short review of how the concept of health is =
defined
in veterinary textbooks. In my opinion production performance in farm
animals will always be an arbitrary measurement, not different from =
other
assessments. I=92m pessimistic in finding =91a apriori=92 definitions of =
animal
performance, animal health or animal welfare. Nevertheless, I find it
possible to find science-based measurements, but no measurement will be
completely value-free. Not even performance is a value-free concept.
The paper Gunnarsson, S.2006. 'The conceptualisation of health and =
disease
in veterinary medicine' Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2006,48:20,=20
is available on http://www.actavetscand.com/content/48/1/20/abstract
Yours,=20
Stefan Gunnarsson
DVM, PhD
Head of department
Department of Animal Environment and Health
SLU Skara, Sweden
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr=E5n: Stanley Curtis [mailto:securtis@uiuc.edu]=20
Skickat: den 14 februari 2007 15:57
Till: CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry; applied-ethology network
=C4mne: Reply to Chris Sherwin
Chris and others-
Your arguments are not new ones- I simply think that there is ample
opportunity and rationale to use performance as the major indicator of
animal state of being and that it is the most highly objectively =
measurable
trait we have at hand at this time-
This is not to say that we won't some day have more objective and more
direct measures of feelings- And that would be a wonderful day- But, in =
the
meantime, the animals deserve more concrete bases for assessing their =
state
of being than intution, opinion, and musing grounded on subjective
individual observations- I think the best -- although imperfect -- tools =
we
now have at hand are embodied in the Performance Axiom-
I agree with your last statement, and have so indicated in the last =
sentence
of the Performance Axiom- To wit: "Body condition index and rates of
culling, morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable additional
information on animal state of being"-
Moreover: Yes, those injured hens continue to lay eggs- After all, these
hens are of genetic stocks that have been intensely selectd over many
generations for a propensity to lay eggs- But at what rate are the =
injured
hens laying eggs?- To apply the Performance Axiom, there would need to =
be
careful analysis of performance rate and comparison of high performance
expectations depending on the genetic merit of those individuals-
Stanley Curtis
Department of Animal Sciecnes
Unviersity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:29:10 +0000
>From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"=20
>
>Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"=20
>, applied-ethology network=20
>
>
>Stan,
>Many thanks for those thoughts - most interesting - and I look forward=20
>to reading the full paper.
>Most of my work with production animals is with poultry. One of the=20
>problems with using production as an indicator of welfare, at least=20
>with poultry, is that they remain highly productive despite receiving=20
>injuries most people would believe considerably reduce their welfare. =20
>Layer hens very frequently suffer broken bones (wings, keels) yet these =
>birds continue to lay eggs. Broiler (meat) birds suffer immense=20
>problems with lameness to the point where a significant proportion die=20
>from starvation or thirst because they can not walk a few feet to the=20
>drinkers or feeders. However, if they survive, they continue to put on =
>meat until we slaughter them at 6 weeks of age. I feel there most be=20
>more to assessing animal welfare than simply recording whether an=20
>animal remains alive and produces what we want it to, at a rate we find
acceptable.
>
>Respectfully yours.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>--On 13 February 2007 22:51 -0600 Stanley Curtis =
wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris and others-
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with disciplined argument in the latter stages=20
>> of pursuing truth via the scientific method- Argument is the essence=20
>> of the process of acceptance of scientific evidence by the larger=20
>> community- The problem I've been addressing in a series of postings=20
>> to this network comes when inputs into the larger arguments come from =
>> immiscible realms-
>>
>> In short, I favor improvement in animal state of being, but I believe =
>> any such improvement will be based on the tera firma of scientific=20
>> evidence- And I do think that much objective, direct scientific=20
>> evidence on animal state of being does exist . . . it is embodied in=20
>> the Performance Axiom that I have been espousing for several years=20
>> (see below)- Strangely, to me, much of that evidence does exist is=20
>> either ignored or even disclaimed by many who think about and discuss =
>> so-called animal welfare-
>>
>> To discuss all of the reasoning behind the Performacne Axiom requires =
>> a nmber of pages- But here, in response to your continuing=20
>> contriubtions to this string of postings, I offer some thoughts that=20
>> I offered at an ASAS symposium in Minneapolis last summer, the whole=20
>> paper of which is supposed to be published in the Journal of Animal
Science:
>>
>> =3D =3D =3D
>>
>> We might say that there are nowadays six distinct tacks being taken=20
>> now in the USA with respect to the issue of so-called welfare . . .=20
>> six creeds being advocated- To trump in a game of cards is to=20
>> absolutely override, to veto- Each of those sex creeds features its=20
>> own trumping
>> rule- So those six tacks are mutually exclusive, as intractable=20
>> discordances they complicate the various stakeholders? coming=20
>> together and making progress on settling this issue- Moreover, and=20
>> importantly, they are confusing to the general public, which is not a =
>> good thing for animal agriculture-
>>
>> ? Tack 1. Ethics =3D trump: Ethics philosophers have been talking=20
>> about animal rights since the 6th Century BCE- English and Australian =
>> philosophers birthed the modern animal-rights movement in the 1970s=20
>> CE- In general, subscribers to that philosophy advocate ending human=20
>> use of animals in experiments or as food, among other things- For=20
>> these people, the rights of animals comprise an absolute trump in any =
>> situation- Left open for the moment, as a practical matter, are clear =
>> definitions of those rights-
>>
>> ? Tack 2. Intuition =3D trump: There are self-proclaimed experts who =
>> hold that animal state of being should be based on human intuition?on =
>> insights seemingly independent of previous experience?so intuitive=20
>> notions constitute trumps- Of course, although intuitions are real,=20
>> they are not necessarily truths- An assessment based on intuition=20
>> comprise normative analysis (i. e., what perhaps ought to be),=20
>> whereas that based on scientific evidence comprises positive analysis =
>> (i. e., what is)-
>>
>> Moreover, given ten people, there usually will be ten or more sets of =
>> intuitions, possibly none of which is correct- Following such an=20
>> ambiguous approach hampers resolution of any issue- It is especially=20
>> problematic when someone claims to be an expert due to a special gift =
>> or power of some sort, thereby committing the logical fallacy=20
>> argumentum ad verecundiam (i. e., an appeal to authority)-
>>
>> ? Tack 3. Opinion =3D trump: Each person has a unique opinion, so =
there=20
>> will be no consensus when it comes to setting standards and=20
>> formulating algorithms based on a set of strongly held opinions- For=20
>> example, the position of the European Union and the World=20
>> Organisation for Animal Health today seems to be this: European=20
>> entities will decide what constitutes appropriate farm-animal welfare =
>> and then they will cajole and coerce the rest of the world to follow=20
>> their lead-
>>
>> To hijack the issue in this way would not be useful- Opinions, as do=20
>> intuitions, constitute normative analyses, which, until objectively=20
>> verified by positive analyses, are not necessarily truths and=20
>> therefore are subject to error and consequently the unintentional=20
>> compromising of animal state of being-
>>
>> ? Tack 4. Producer input =3D trump: Producer input into developing=20
>> welfare-assessment schemes is essential, especially in terms of
>> workability- But producer input alone would be insufficient, and=20
>> producers? holding trumping power therefore would be inadvisable- The =
>> trouble here is akin to those with intuition and opinion- US =
producers?
>> emphases, e. g., currently are on affordability and workability in a=20
>> program that will not enjoy credibility except within the producer=20
>> community that clearly has conflicts of interest in the matter- Other =
>> stakeholders are justified in wanting to follow Ronald Reagan?s =
advice:
>> ?Trust, but verify?-
>>
>> ? Tack 5. Animal feelings =3D trump: One school of applied =
ethologists=20
>> holds that animal welfare is about how the animal feels (Duncan,=20
>> 1993; Duncan and Fraser, 1997)- But there seem to be serious problems =
>> with this approach, a major one being that we still do not know=20
>> either directly or indirectly how an animal feels, let alone how to=20
>> measure that (Gregory,
>> 2005)-
>>
>> Some would rely on the analogy postulate (Baumans and Brain, 2001),
>> saying: ?Put yourself in the place of the animal, then you?ll know =
how
>> it feels?- But, until we can objectively measure something, this
>> approach falls into the realm of intuition, opinion, and subjective
>> experience- After all, as posited by William Thomson, Lord Kelvin=20
>> (Thomson, 2005 ): ?When you cannot measure it, when you cannot=20
>> express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and=20
>> unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you=20
>> have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science,=20
>> whatever the matter may be"- And management guru Peter Drucker=20
>> (1964) added: ?If you can?t measure it, you can?t manage it?- =20
>> Enough said just now, perhaps, for animal feelings and businesses=20
>> that must be managed-
>>
>> ? Tack 6. Scientific evidence =3D trump: The failings of the =
foregoing=20
>> leave us with the probablity that the terra firma of scientific=20
>> evidence should hold trumping power- The animal's deserve this kind=20
>> of care-
>>
>> Bottom Line: Political scientists would tell us that resolution of=20
>> the animal-welfare issue ? whenever that may come ? will bear the=20
>> marks of each stakeholder group now engaged- Six such groups are=20
>> involved in the issue in the USA: philosophers, animal-protection=20
>> activists, self-appointed experts and celebrities, pork producers,=20
>> animal ethologists, and other animal scientists- These groups have=20
>> respective unique tacks for resolving the issue, each having its own=20
>> trumping rule- The discrepancies are confusing to the general public- =
>> Flaws exist for the first five stakeholder groups as listed above-=20
>> This leaves scientific evidence as the sole tack that passes the test =
>> fro objectivity and
>> practicality- It is posited that the best scientific evidence in this =
>> respect is that generated by following the author?s Performance=20
>> Axiom, to wit:
>>
>> "For a constitutionally fit animal of any kind, in the continuing=20
>> absence of an adequate scientifically informed understanding of its=20
>> conscious feelings, the best single set of measurable ? hence, =
manageable
?
>> indicators of that animal?s state of being will be its rates of=20
>> productive and reproductive performance relative to its predicted=20
>> potential to perform. Body condition index and rates of culling,=20
>> morbidity, and mortality will provide valuable additional information =
>> on animal state of being." =3D =3D =3D Stanley Curtis Department of =
Animal=20
>> Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- Original message ----
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:34:13 +0000
>>> From: "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>> Subject: Re: Reply to Chris Sherwin
>>> To: securtis@uiuc.edu, "CM Sherwin, Animal Health and Husbandry"
>>>