Subject: Re: Cats From: Sabine Goubau Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:27:21 -0700 To: juliajoe CC: applied-ethology Buy a rat and a cat :-) Signed: another researcher. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:22 AM, juliajoe wrote: Hi everybody, Someone knows how I can buy rat and cat urine or body smell ? I Know that it sounds a little crazy but in scientific research who is normal ??? Juliana Clemente Machado - Brazil - 2009 Subject: Chimp Attack From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:28:33 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Taken from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_re_us/chimpanzee_attack;_ylt=AgEUb54jizk76.8lIG9JaghvzwcF Animal experts are baffled by chimp attack By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer John Christoffersen, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 17, 6:03 pm ET In this Oct. 20, 2003 photo, Travis, a 10-year-old chimpanzee, sits in the AP – In this Oct. 20, 2003 photo, Travis, a 10-year-old chimpanzee, sits in the corner of his playroom at … * Pet chimp mauls Conn. woman Slideshow:Pet chimp mauls Conn. woman * Screaming chimp, frantic owner heard on 911 call Play Video Video:Screaming chimp, frantic owner heard on 911 call AP * Chimp owner to police: He ripped my friend apart Play Video Video:Chimp owner to police: He ripped my friend apart AP STAMFORD, Conn. – Travis the chimpanzee, a veteran of TV commercials, was the constant companion of a lonely Connecticut widow who fed him steak, lobster and ice cream. He could eat at the table, drink wine from a stemmed glass, use the toilet, and dress and bathe himself. He brushed his teeth with a Water Pik, logged on to a computer to look at photos and channel-surfed television with the remote control. But on Monday, the wild animal in him came out with a vengeance. The 200-pound animal viciously mauled a friend of his owner before being shot to death by police. Investigators are trying to figure out why — whether it was a bout of Lyme disease, a reaction to drugs, or a case of instinct taking over. "It's hard to say what exactly precipitated this behavior," said Colleen McCann, a primatologist at the Bronx Zoo. "At the end of the day, they are not human and you can't always predict their behavior and how they or any other wild animal will respond when they feel threatened." Travis attacked 55-year-old Charla Nash as Sandra Herold frantically stabbed her beloved pet with a butcher knife and pounded him with a shovel. Nash was in critical condition Tuesday with "life-changing, if not life-threatening," injuries to her face and hands, Mayor Dannel Malloy said. Police said they are looking into the possibility of criminal charges. A pet owner can be held criminally responsible if he or she knew or should have known that an animal was a danger to others. Police said that Travis was agitated earlier Monday and that Herold had given him the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in some tea. Police said the drug had not been prescribed for the 14-year-old chimp. In humans, Xanax can cause memory loss, lack of coordination, reduced sex drive and other side effects. It can also lead to aggression in people who were unstable to begin with, said Dr. Emil Coccaro, chief of psychiatry at the University of Chicago Medical Center. "Xanax could have made him worse," if human studies are any indication, Coccaro said. Stephen Rene Tello, executive director of Primarily Primates, a sanctuary for chimps in Texas, said it is difficult to say what effect Xanax would have on a chimp, but he noted that chimps and humans have similar physiology. Investigators said they were also told that Travis had Lyme disease, a tick-borne illness with flu-like symptoms that can lead to arthritis and meningitis in humans. "Maybe from the medications he was out of sorts," Stamford police Capt. Richard Conklin said. Herold could not be reached for comment. A woman answering the door at Herold's home, where drops of blood stained the walkway, would not speak to reporters Tuesday. Conklin said Herold was "traumatized by this very, very brutal attack." Don Mecca, a family friend from Colchester, N.Y., said Herold, whose daughter died several years ago in a car accident, fed the chimp steak, lobster, ice cream and Italian food. Herold built the chimpanzee a large cage in her home. She knew chimps could be dangerous but found it hard to part with Travis, Mecca said. McCann of the Bronx Zoo said chimpanzees are unpredictable and dangerous even after living among humans for years. "I don't know the effects of Lyme disease on chimpanzees, but I will say that it's deceiving to think that if any animal is, quote-unquote, well-behaved around humans that means there is no risk involved to humans for potential outbursts of behavior," she said. "They are unpredictable, and in instances like this you cannot control that behavior or prevent it from happening if it is in a private home." Connecticut law requires anyone who owns a primate heavier than 50 pounds to obtain a state permit. But Herold was exempted from the law. "Given that the family in Stamford owned Travis before this law was put on the books, and the fact that over the years the animal did not appear to present a public safety risk, their possession of the chimpanzee was allowed to continue," said Dennis Schain, spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. When he was younger, Travis starred in TV commercials for Old Navy and Coca-Cola, made an appearance on the "Maury Povich Show" and took part in a television pilot, according to a 2003 story in The Advocate newspaper of Stamford. "He's been raised almost like a child by this family," Conklin said. "He rides in a car every day. He opens doors. He's a very unique animal in that aspect. We have no indication of what provoked this behavior at all." ___ Associated Press Writers Stephanie Reitz and Pat Eaton-Robb in Hartford contributed to this report. Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:31:32 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Taken from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm Science News Share Blog Cite Print Email Bookmark If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2009) — In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified. The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses. “Nationwide, the No. 1 reason why dog owners take their pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior,” Meghan E. Herron, lead author of the study, said. “Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.” The team from the School of Veterinary Medicine at Penn suggest that primary-care veterinarians advise owners of the risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems. Herron, Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department of Clinical Studies at Penn Vet, produced a 30-item survey for dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a positive, negative or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training technique they employed. Of the 140 surveys completed, the most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers.” Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39 percent), “alpha roll”physically -- rolling the dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down” —- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent) and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent) elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs on which they were attempted. In addition, dogs brought to the hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons. “This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.” Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include the aversive-training techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role. The purpose of the Penn Vet study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems. Adapted from materials provided by University of Pennsylvania. Email or share this story: Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA MLA University of Pennsylvania (2009, February 18). If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: "John R. Lane" Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:42:22 -0800 (PST) To: "Jay R. Feierman" CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Hi Jay, No surprises here, as with your human based qualifications in behaviour, I'm sure you are aware. Regards John L. From: Jay R. Feierman To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 2:31:32 PM Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs Taken from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. Find out more. Subject: Re: text books From: Donald Broom Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:42:46 +0000 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca > Dear all, > > This is a question for those of you who are teaching (applied) ethology: Which textbook(s) do you use for which courses/degrees? > > Many thanks for your help! > > Anna Olsson Dear Anna As you might expect, for behaviour and welfare courses to veterinary students here, and animal science or biology students in other places, I use: D.M.Broom and A.F.Fraser (2007). Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 4th edn., pp 438. Wallingford: CABI. Paperback ISBN 9781845932879, http://www.cabi.org/bk_BookDisplay.asp?SubjectArea=Ani&Subject=Veterinary+Science&PID=2049 I hope the list does not object to the advertising! Best wishes Don -- Professor Donald M. Broom Colleen Macleod Professor of Animal Welfare Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge Madingley Road CAMBRIDGE CB3 0ES U.K. Telephone 0044 (0)1223 337697 Fax 0044 (0)1223 337610 and St Catharine's College Cambridge CB2 1RL U.K. 0044 (0)1223 338344 e-mail dmb16@cam.ac.uk Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Francis Burton Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:54:46 +0000 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Are there potential comparable findings in how horse owners respond to agressive and other problem behaviours (frequently termed "dominant") in their horses, I wonder. Francis At 23:42 18/02/09 -0800, "John R. Lane" wrote: > >Hi Jay, No surprises here, as with your human based qualifications in behaviour, I'm sure you are aware. Regards John L. Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Kayce Cover Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:38:56 -0500 (EST) To: applied-ethology@usask.ca I sure don't have time to get embroiled in a debate here, but a survey is a very questionable way to collect data for such an issue, and the wording of the questions, attitudes of the questioners, and interpretations of those being questioned make this anything but a scientifically supportable conclusion. It sounds more like a marketing exercise directed at the likes of Cesar Milan. Here one thing that really stinks in this announcement: No one studying the results of, for example, Cesar Milan, has objectively determined what his actual training success rate is. To take a survey of the past actions of lay vet behaviorist clients, who were NOT successful to date, is a really skewed subject population. Let's say such a trainer worked with 5000 aggressive dogs, and all but 50 were resolved, and those 50 all went to the U Penn survey takers and said exactly the same thing, which the survey takers duly reported, they still have no external validity because the subject sample is not representative of the general population. The trainer's overall success rate would be 99%, although 100% of the study participants reported total failure with the same trainer. This is why in science, external validity is an important concern when designing research projects! In the Science Daily, whose rigor on reporting animal subjects is certainly not on par with, say Nature, or Science, where rigorous scientists may hope to present well conducted research, we don't know the subject sample size, the means of selecting the subject sample, the actual survey questions or construction.... in short, I would dismiss this report out of hand as a simple effort to propagandize, unless the actual researchers present the details of the study as a study and it stands up to the rigors of accepted scientific method. Using quasi science to propagandize is pretty pathetic. Is this the best they can do? Does anyone have a paper from the authors of the study? Regards, Kayce Kayce Cover MSEd, BS An Sci, CABC IAABC Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com http://www.facebook.com/people/Syn-Alia-Sats/1179766268 PO Box 8788, Norfolk, VA 23503-0788 001 757 588 5967 SATS/Bridge and Target: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/bridgeandtarget2 Trainest (newbies): http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/trainest > > Hi Jay, > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â No surprises here, as with your human based > > qualifications in behaviour, I'm sure you are aware. > > > > Regards John L. > > > > Â > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jay R. Feierman > > To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com > > Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca > > Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 2:31:32 PM > > Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs > > > > > > Taken from > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm > > > > > > Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. > > Find out more > > Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Peter Kabai Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:35:34 +0100 To: kc@synalia.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Dear Kayce, data collected regarded training method (confrontational or non-confrontational) and the response of the dog (aggressive or non-aggressive). The authors analysed the relation between training method and response and found that confrontational training is more likely to elicit aggressive response. They do not state that aggressive owners have aggressive dogs. They can't because confrontational training methods (yelling no, forcing the dog down by leash) can be used by gentle, or insecure people as well. Statistics at a glance look OK, the results, however, may seem obvious to many. So if we scrap the aggressive people layer of the news items, the study simply says when you kick your dog, hse may bark at you, and when you reward the dog with food, you are more safe. I would not distribute the e-print to the list, but would be happy to send it to any of you individually. Best wishes, Peter Kabai 2009/2/19 Kayce Cover : > > I sure don't have time to get embroiled in a debate here, but a survey > > is a very questionable way to collect data for such an issue, and the > > wording of the questions, attitudes of the questioners, and > > interpretations of those being questioned make this anything but a > > scientifically supportable conclusion. It sounds more like a > > marketing exercise directed at the likes of Cesar Milan. > > > > Here one thing that really stinks in this announcement: No one > > studying the results of, for example, Cesar Milan, has objectively > > determined what his actual training success rate is. To take a survey > > of the past actions of lay vet behaviorist clients, who were NOT > > successful to date, is a really skewed subject population. Let's say > > such a trainer worked with 5000 aggressive dogs, and all but 50 were > > resolved, and those 50 all went to the U Penn survey takers and said > > exactly the same thing, which the survey takers duly reported, they > > still have no external validity because the subject sample is not > > representative of the general population. The trainer's overall > > success rate would be 99%, although 100% of the study participants > > reported total failure with the same trainer. This is why in science, > > external validity is an important concern when designing research > > projects! > > > > In the Science Daily, whose rigor on reporting animal subjects is > > certainly not on par with, say Nature, or Science, where rigorous > > scientists may hope to present well conducted research, we don't know > > the subject sample size, the means of selecting the subject sample, > > the actual survey questions or construction.... in short, I would > > dismiss this report out of hand as a simple effort to propagandize, > > unless the actual researchers present the details of the study as a > > study and it stands up to the rigors of accepted scientific method. > > > > Using quasi science to propagandize is pretty pathetic. Is this the > > best they can do? Does anyone have a paper from the authors of the > > study? > > > > Regards, > > Kayce > > > > Kayce Cover MSEd, BS An Sci, CABC IAABC > > Syn Alia Training Systems > > http://www.synalia.com > > http://www.facebook.com/people/Syn-Alia-Sats/1179766268 > > > > > > PO Box 8788, Norfolk, VA 23503-0788 > > 001 757 588 5967 > > > > SATS/Bridge and Target: > > http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/bridgeandtarget2 > > Trainest (newbies): http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/trainest > > > > > > > > >> >> Hi Jay, >> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â No surprises here, as with your human based >> >> qualifications in behaviour, I'm sure you are aware. >> >> >> >> Regards John L. >> >> >> >> Â >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Jay R. Feierman >> >> To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com >> >> Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca >> >> Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 2:31:32 PM >> >> Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs >> >> >> >> >> >> Taken from >> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. >> >> Find out more >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Peter Kabai, PhD Associate Professor Dept Ecology, Szent Istvan University http://www.behav.org Subject: Evolution of Social Cognition Programme is calling for applications From: Peter Kabai Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:15:21 +0100 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Dear Colleague, The European Science Foundation Research Networking Programme "CompCog" (full name: Evolution of Social Cognition: Comparisons and integration across a wide range of human and non-human animal species) is calling for applications to organize workshops (regular workshops: 10000€, discussion meetings: 8000€) to organize lab visits (6 students will be financed for a week to visit your lab) to have short term research visits (for students, typically not longer than 2 months). Applications from countries supporting CompCog (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom) have priority. The deadline for application is 10 April 2009. For details on the CompCog objectives, the application procedure and the selection processes see www.compcog.org! Best regards, Zsofia Viranyi CompCog coordinator www.compcog.org -- forwarded by Peter Kabai, PhD Associate Professor Dept Ecology, Szent Istvan University http://www.behav.org Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Margory Cohen Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:35:14 -0800 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca I'd like it too please. That way I can see them both together. A wee tweak: what is quoted below is not 'training method' -- absolutely not method. There are only a few true 'methods'. If you kick your dog, you deserve to be bit back! Kicking is not training. Kayce, I appreciate and agree with your response to this broad report. I am not a defender of Cesar Millan and have only seen a few shows but even he is not from what I've seen 'training' - rather it seems he shows fix-it handling suggestions and one hopes the people sign up for more learning privately. One only need look at the news this week with the chimp tragedy and betrayal to remember again how distorted all this gets in the media and in even some of the dedicated press and publications. -margory cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kabai" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:35 AM Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs Dear Kayce, data collected regarded training method (confrontational or non-confrontational) and the response of the dog (aggressive or non-aggressive). The authors analysed the relation between training method and response and found that confrontational training is more likely to elicit aggressive response. They do not state that aggressive owners have aggressive dogs. They can't because confrontational training methods (yelling no, forcing the dog down by leash) can be used by gentle, or insecure people as well. Statistics at a glance look OK, the results, however, may seem obvious to many. So if we scrap the aggressive people layer of the news items, the study simply says when you kick your dog, hse may bark at you, and when you reward the dog with food, you are more safe. I would not distribute the e-print to the list, but would be happy to send it to any of you individually. Best wishes, Peter Kabai 2009/2/19 Kayce Cover : > I sure don't have time to get embroiled in a debate here, but a survey > is a very questionable way to collect data for such an issue, and the > wording of the questions, attitudes of the questioners, and > interpretations of those being questioned make this anything but a > scientifically supportable conclusion. It sounds more like a > marketing exercise directed at the likes of Cesar Milan. > > Here one thing that really stinks in this announcement: No one > studying the results of, for example, Cesar Milan, has objectively > determined what his actual training success rate is. To take a survey > of the past actions of lay vet behaviorist clients, who were NOT > successful to date, is a really skewed subject population. Let's say > such a trainer worked with 5000 aggressive dogs, and all but 50 were > resolved, and those 50 all went to the U Penn survey takers and said > exactly the same thing, which the survey takers duly reported, they > still have no external validity because the subject sample is not > representative of the general population. The trainer's overall > success rate would be 99%, although 100% of the study participants > reported total failure with the same trainer. This is why in science, > external validity is an important concern when designing research > projects! > > In the Science Daily, whose rigor on reporting animal subjects is > certainly not on par with, say Nature, or Science, where rigorous > scientists may hope to present well conducted research, we don't know > the subject sample size, the means of selecting the subject sample, > the actual survey questions or construction.... in short, I would > dismiss this report out of hand as a simple effort to propagandize, > unless the actual researchers present the details of the study as a > study and it stands up to the rigors of accepted scientific method. > > Using quasi science to propagandize is pretty pathetic. Is this the > best they can do? Does anyone have a paper from the authors of the > study? > > Regards, > Kayce > > Kayce Cover MSEd, BS An Sci, CABC IAABC > Syn Alia Training Systems > http://www.synalia.com > http://www.facebook.com/people/Syn-Alia-Sats/1179766268 > > > PO Box 8788, Norfolk, VA 23503-0788 > 001 757 588 5967 > > SATS/Bridge and Target: > http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/bridgeandtarget2 > Trainest (newbies): http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/trainest > > > > >> Hi Jay, >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â No surprises here, as with your human based >> qualifications in behaviour, I'm sure you are aware. >> >> Regards John L. >> >> Â >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jay R. Feierman >> To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com >> Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca >> Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 2:31:32 PM >> Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs >> >> >> Taken from >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm >> >> >> Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. >> Find out more >> > > > > > > > -- Peter Kabai, PhD Associate Professor Dept Ecology, Szent Istvan University http://www.behav.org Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: "John R. Lane" Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:47:44 -0800 (PST) To: kc@synalia.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca http://www.med.upenn.edu/ddcrf/publications.shtml http://www.vet.upenn.edu/FacultyandDepartments/Faculty/tabid/362/Default.aspx?faculty_id=4891970 Does anyone have a paper from the authors of the study? http://tinyurl.com/cdmguf JOHN L: I certainly agree Kayce that data surveys may not be the most robust way of collecting data and that preconcieved attitudes and questions resulting from this may indeed bias results but I challenge you to validate your insinuation that they do in this case. You say yourself that "we don't know the subject sample size, the means of selecting the subject sample, the actual survey questions or construction...." What has Cesars' unverified results to do with the following?: "Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.” and "also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses." Can you disprove this analysis of the data? Oh by the way I am not a member of either Cesars' "fan" club or his "hate" club as all media darlings tend to attract but I try to evaluate each of his techniques on their own merit. I have learnt some useful techniques from him but I also dismiss some of his things as totally invalid as well. I do agree also that interpretation by the reporter in a pop production can be invalid no matter how good the data is but as Peter says if we remove the reporter generated byline which none of the researchers actually made then I think that as I said the results will come as no surprise to many of us. KAYCE: In the Science Daily, whose rigor on reporting animal subjects is certainly not on par with, say Nature, or Science, where rigorous scientists may hope to present well conducted research, JOHN L: The paper this was based on was from Applied Animal Behavior Science. Would you care to make the same statement about this journal? Oh Peter I wouldn't mind a copy from you if you don't mind I also like to validate these types of issues for myself. Regards John L. Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. Find out more. Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Sue Bowers Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:36:01 -0500 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Speaking as another person who is neither "pro-" NOR "anti-" Cesar ...I definitely saw a lot of response amongst dog people that implied "told-you-so, Cesar's Way just makes for aggressive dogs!". I didn't really see where the study had much bearing on that topic, though. Granted, it's just common sense that you are more likely to get bitten by being confrontational with an unruly dog, than by tossing him a cookie. However, I have always been uneasily amused to note that it seems to be the NON-confrontational, esp. "positive ONLY/No Corrections" folks who tended to raise easy (if there is such a thing; I am referring to labs, spaniels, beagles) breeds of dog who went on to have problems with the dog biting them for interfering with "his" plans or resources. (i.e. dominant/high ranking dogs, for those of us who still 'believe in' that ) Not that I think people should ever be violent to dogs, btw--but corrections, "making them do", & being perceived as the highest ranking authority do not require violence. In the short term, demanding compliance may get you bitten...especially if no one has ever denied the dog his own way before! In the ~long~ term, I would venture a guess that the dogs of the average (Joe Pet Owner, not pro trainer of course) nonconfrontational type might actually be *more* aggressive than the dogs of the average authoritarian/confrontational owner--at least when you cross them. ;) (Then again, it's entirely possible that what I've experienced is not representative of dogs as a whole.) ~Sue!a From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9_college_hawkes_bay@yahoo.com.au] What has Cesars' unverified results to do with the following?: "Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.” and "also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses." Can you disprove this analysis of the data? Oh by the way I am not a member of either Cesars' "fan" club or his "hate" club Subject: RE: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Barbara Ray Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:19:52 -0500 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Sue mentioned the “Positive/No corrections folks, and I just wanted to note, (totally separate from the context of her post) that the ‘technique’ is not the problem, but the human application thereof. Plenty of ‘all positive’ trainers equate ‘positive’ with ‘permissive,’ and/or, may simply lack the mechanical skills and fluency to successfully condition the behaviors they desire. (Whether they begin with an animal that is healthy OR disordered.) As I work 60% of the time with wild animals, (30 years) I can attest that ‘all positive’ is possible (and with some/many species, quite preferable or necessary- ‘corrections’ will simply not work or can get you seriously injured- wild animals are not so tolerant of such tactics, as domestic animals often ARE by virtue of their domesticity.) HOWEVER, such use of positive methods is done WITHIN the framework of management. In my experience, plenty of domestic animal trainers are lacking in knowledge or practical application of environmental management techniques or options that ALLOW positive conditioning methods to be applied successfully the greatest percent of the time. And Joe Dog Owner can be nearly impossible at times, to convince to provide the management options taught/suggested to him that are part and parcel of ANY training program, whatever the method or technique. As I school horses as an avocation, I can also make a ‘comparison’ in my area, between wild animal behavioral management, dog trainers and horse trainers, and I have to say, the horse trainers by far, (industry-wide) are on the tail end of the spectrum in understanding that one does NOT need punishment or coercion to have a perfectly sane, safe riding companion or sport horse. The true conundrum for the equine folks, is that the specie itself operates comfortably within a negative-reinforcement social structure and physicality-awareness. However, humans have [conveniently?] misapplied this factor to justify the use of many coercive techniques that are NOT NECESSARY, but are believed to be! Ironically, these techniques are [correctly] described and prescribed as __conditioning__ techniques! The juncture at which I depart, is that certain TYPES of conditioning believed to be inviolate, are not even necessary, and just about any normal OR disordered horse can bear this out, anyone can test it (on any type of horse, in other words) and reach same end result REPEATEDLY over time. Whatever problems exist such as this example of the horse industry, they are surely magnified in the dog-owning public, by virtue of sheer numbers of companion animals living with humans. Not too many horse owners place the food bowl each evening on the kitchen floor, or have to worry about housetraining the colt. Although ‘loose leash’ walking IS important! Barbara Ray Ohio Wildlife Center Conservation Education and Wildlife Health Studies "The goal of life is living in agreement with nature." ~~Zeno Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Mike Wood Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:34:36 +0200 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca I train non-confrontationally and don't feel the need to fantasize that I can or should "make' dogs do things they really don't want to. So I concentrate on changing their perceptions instead. It sort of suggests itself, really. Many of the trainers I interact with also prefer to avoid confrontation or coercion wherever possible. In the last five years, for example, have nor heard of any one of them being bitten for any reason at all - so I'm a puzzled by this anecdote. Maybe it's something in the local water. On the other hand I know a few entrenched "do as I say" trainers who seem to get bitten on regular occasions. One actually bares his scars to all his new clients with some perverse pride. Who of the better known non- confrontational trainers has Labs, Spaniels or Beagles that have bitten them recently, I wonder? And what does any of this have to do with applied ethology? Mike On 19 Feb 2009 at 12:36, Sue Bowers wrote: (snip) > > However,I have always been uneasily amused to note that it seems to > > bethe NON- confrontational, esp. "positive ONLY/No Corrections" folks > > who tended to raise easy (if there is such a thing; I am referring to > > labs, spaniels, beagles) breeds of dog who went on to have problems > > with the dog biting them for interfering with "his" plansor resources. > > (i.e. dominant/high rankingdogs, for those of us who still 'believe > > in' that) Not that I think people should ever be violent to dogs, > > btw--but corrections, "making them do",& being perceived as the > > highest ranking authority do not require violence. > > > > In the short term, demanding compliancemay get you bitten...especially > > if no one has ever denied the dog his own way before! > > > > In the ~long~ term, I would venture a guess that the dogs of the > > average (Joe Pet Owner, not pro trainer of course) nonconfrontational > > type might actually be *more* aggressive than the dogs of the average > > authoritarian/confrontational owner--at least when you cross them. ;) > > (Then again, it's entirely possible that what I've experienced is not > > representative of dogs as a whole.) ~Sue!a > > > > > > From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9_college_hawkes_bay@yahoo.com.au] > > > > > > What has Cesars' unverified results to do with the following?:"Our > > study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether > > staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical > > manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit > > aggressive responses.ť and "also showed that using non-aversive or > > neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards > > elicited very few aggressive responses." Can you disprove this > > analysis of the data? > > > > Oh by the way I am not a member of either Cesars' "fan" club or his > > "hate" club > > > > Subject: RE: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Sue Bowers Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:44:58 -0500 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca This was a great post, thanks for taking the time. :-) I'm always curious about this subject. I think with John Q., we need to offer the quickest and most potent (nonviolent) techniques available, because he's not going to put much into it and if he fails, the dog suffers--and perhaps the community as well. But, I am also interested in new options and new tools! Education will make the biggest difference, in the long run, but it sure does have a long way to go. :-/ I sometimes work with wolfdogs or coydogs that have been left to run wild, and essentially ARE "wild animals" when they come to me. Structure is *very* important, but as you noted, corrections are usually ineffective &/or dangerous. When raising the same animal from a pup, the rules are different--as I have found they usually take to correction the same as a dog.(!) Likewise, I would not recommend aversives on any incoming adult unsocialised (or abused, or aggressive) canid, even a labrador. You may not get as far, as fast...but it just doesn't present as a safe and appropriate option, despite the fact that dogs are hardwired to give and receive corrections--physical and otherwise. My two cents. :) ~Sue! From: Barbara Ray [mailto:bray@ohiowildlifecenter.org] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:20 PM To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Subject: RE: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs Sue mentioned the “Positive/No corrections folks, and I just wanted to note, (totally separate from the context of her post) that the ‘technique’ is not the problem, but the human application thereof. Plenty of ‘all positive’ trainers equate ‘positive’ with ‘permissive,’ and/or, may simply lack the mechanical skills and fluency to successfully condition the behaviors they desire. (Whether they begin with an animal that is healthy OR disordered.) As I work 60% of the time with wild animals, (30 years) I can attest that ‘all positive’ is possible (and with some/many species, quite preferable or necessary- ‘corrections’ will simply not work or can get you seriously injured- wild animals are not so tolerant of such tactics, as domestic animals often ARE by virtue of their domesticity.) HOWEVER, such use of positive methods is done WITHIN the framework of management. In my experience, plenty of domestic animal trainers are lacking in knowledge or practical application of environmental management techniques or options that ALLOW positive conditioning methods to be applied successfully the greatest percent of the time. And Joe Dog Owner can be nearly impossible at times, to convince to provide the management options taught/suggested to him that are part and parcel of ANY training program, whatever the method or technique. As I school horses as an avocation, I can also make a ‘comparison’ in my area, between wild animal behavioral management, dog trainers and horse trainers, and I have to say, the horse trainers by far, (industry-wide) are on the tail end of the spectrum in understanding that one does NOT need punishment or coercion to have a perfectly sane, safe riding companion or sport horse. The true conundrum for the equine folks, is that the specie itself operates comfortably within a negative-reinforcement social structure and physicality-awareness. However, humans have [conveniently?] misapplied this factor to justify the use of many coercive techniques that are NOT NECESSARY, but are believed to be! Ironically, these techniques are [correctly] described and prescribed as __conditioning__ techniques! The juncture at which I depart, is that certain TYPES of conditioning believed to be inviolate, are not even necessary, and just about any normal OR disordered horse can bear this out, anyone can test it (on any type of horse, in other words) and reach same end result REPEATEDLY over time. Whatever problems exist such as this example of the horse industry, they are surely magnified in the dog-owning public, by virtue of sheer numbers of companion animals living with humans. Not too many horse owners place the food bowl each evening on the kitchen floor, or have to worry about housetraining the colt. Although ‘loose leash’ walking IS important! Barbara Ray Ohio Wildlife Center Conservation Education and Wildlife Health Studies "The goal of life is living in agreement with nature." ~~Zeno Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Peter Kabai Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:35:01 +0100 To: kc@synalia.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Dear All, as quite a few of you requested the paper on nasty people-nasty dogs, I've uploaded it to my website at http://www.behav.org/00library/articles/dog/dog_training_method.pdf and will keep it there until Tuesday. Best wishes, Peter Kabai 2009/2/19 Kayce Cover : > > I sure don't have time to get embroiled in a debate here, but a survey > > is a very questionable way to collect data for such an issue, and the > > wording of the questions, attitudes of the questioners, and > > interpretations of those being questioned make this anything but a > > scientifically supportable conclusion. It sounds more like a > > marketing exercise directed at the likes of Cesar Milan. > > > > Here one thing that really stinks in this announcement: No one > > studying the results of, for example, Cesar Milan, has objectively > > determined what his actual training success rate is. To take a survey > > of the past actions of lay vet behaviorist clients, who were NOT > > successful to date, is a really skewed subject population. Let's say > > such a trainer worked with 5000 aggressive dogs, and all but 50 were > > resolved, and those 50 all went to the U Penn survey takers and said > > exactly the same thing, which the survey takers duly reported, they > > still have no external validity because the subject sample is not > > representative of the general population. The trainer's overall > > success rate would be 99%, although 100% of the study participants > > reported total failure with the same trainer. This is why in science, > > external validity is an important concern when designing research > > projects! > > > > In the Science Daily, whose rigor on reporting animal subjects is > > certainly not on par with, say Nature, or Science, where rigorous > > scientists may hope to present well conducted research, we don't know > > the subject sample size, the means of selecting the subject sample, > > the actual survey questions or construction.... in short, I would > > dismiss this report out of hand as a simple effort to propagandize, > > unless the actual researchers present the details of the study as a > > study and it stands up to the rigors of accepted scientific method. > > > > Using quasi science to propagandize is pretty pathetic. Is this the > > best they can do? Does anyone have a paper from the authors of the > > study? > > > > Regards, > > Kayce > > > > Kayce Cover MSEd, BS An Sci, CABC IAABC > > Syn Alia Training Systems > > http://www.synalia.com > > http://www.facebook.com/people/Syn-Alia-Sats/1179766268 > > > > > > PO Box 8788, Norfolk, VA 23503-0788 > > 001 757 588 5967 > > > > SATS/Bridge and Target: > > http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/bridgeandtarget2 > > Trainest (newbies): http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/trainest > > > > > > > > >> >> Hi Jay, >> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â No surprises here, as with your human based >> >> qualifications in behaviour, I'm sure you are aware. >> >> >> >> Regards John L. >> >> >> >> Â >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Jay R. Feierman >> >> To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com >> >> Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca >> >> Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 2:31:32 PM >> >> Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs >> >> >> >> >> >> Taken from >> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. >> >> Find out more >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Peter Kabai, PhD Associate Professor Dept Ecology, Szent Istvan University http://www.behav.org Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: EJ Haskins Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:45:34 +1100 To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Good article. Bad Heading! Having had "aggressive" dogs I can tell you just how depressing it is that other people treat you as an aggressive and unfriendly person. ESPECIALLY those handing out the advice to use compulsive and punishment-based methods. It is absolutely NO fun to be treated as a pariah, and have people be rude about your much loved dog. It is REALLY no fun to have those instructors tell you that you are a cream puff because you won't "correct" (AKA try to choke your dog) hard enough. And it is mind bogglingly depressing to have these instructors tell you that because your much loved dog is "untrainable" then you should have it put down. Sincerely, Jenny H Coffs Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Jay R. Feierman If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study ScienceDaily Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: EJ Haskins Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:20:30 +1100 To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Which of course begs the question of what a "correction' is!!! In my vocabulary a correction is making something that was not right, right. OR pointing out to someone their mistakes. As such "correction" is part and parcel of most reward-based trainer's methods. (The exception would be ONLY when using "free-shaping" -- in quotes because this describes a particular method of capturing tiny movements/behaviours and finally shaping them into something else. Corrections should NOT be aversive -- they should be giving information to the subject being "trained". They should basically be reducing the animal's stress. (As I thought Kayce's Bridge and Target method is supposed to do.) However, I presume that people here are meaning "Application of aversives" in an attempt to punish unwanted behaviour. It is a euphemism, just as calling gaol a "Correctional Institution" is a euphemism. It is a real shame that people even here resort to such a misleading euphemism. Let's say physical abuse of verbal abuse. Or if you want a euphemism say at least physical or verbal aversives. Now we can say (correctly IMO) that the use of harsh aversives in human/animal interactions leads to aggression on the part of the recipient of the aversives. As I said in an earlier mail (not arrived yet as I write this) the use of aversives in training was considered right and proper and necessary in dog training by the 'establishment' for decades. There is still a number of people who have yet to give up this stance. Now as Kayce said, the statistics might possibly be biased. Yet, anecdotally, I have observed from my years in Dog Clubs, that in the "traditional" clubs there was a lot of shouting on the people's part and barking on the dogs' parts. The clubs using and recommended reward-based training are quieter altogether. In general the dogs seem less "reactive'. Now I THINK this indicates that reward-based training methods reduce tension and stress (if they're not the same thing :-) in both handlers and dogs. But it might simply be a reflection of the sort of people who choose the different methods. On the other hand I have had dog/dog aggressive dogs in the past, which escalated over time using 'traditional' methods. I have now, by becoming a "cross-over" trainer reared two beautifully non-aggressive German Shepherds (from an aggressive dam) and cured the said dam as well as my Kelpie from their aggression issues. What has this got to do with ethology???? I dunno. I think it belongs more of the ARF list -- and I am quite happy to transfer this discussion over to there if people want to continue it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Bowers To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:44 AM Subject: RE: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs . . . "wild animals" when they come to me. Structure is *very* important, but as you noted, corrections are usually ineffective &/or dangerous. When raising the same animal from a pup, the rules are different--as I have found they usually take to correction the same as a dog.(!) Likewise, I would not recommend aversives on any incoming adult unsocialised (or abused, or aggressive) canid, even a labrador. You may not get as far, as fast...but it just doesn't present as a safe and appropriate option, despite the fact that dogs are hardwired to give and receive corrections--physical and otherwise. My two cents. :) ~Sue! Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Margory Cohen Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:25:01 -0800 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Thank you. -margory cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kabai" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs Dear All, as quite a few of you requested the paper on nasty people-nasty dogs, I've uploaded it to my website at http://www.behav.org/00library/articles/dog/dog_training_method.pdf and will keep it there until Tuesday. Best wishes, Peter Kabai 2009/2/19 Kayce Cover : > I sure don't have time to get embroiled in a debate here, but a survey > is a very questionable way to collect data for such an issue, and the > wording of the questions, attitudes of the questioners, and > interpretations of those being questioned make this anything but a > scientifically supportable conclusion. It sounds more like a > marketing exercise directed at the likes of Cesar Milan. > > Here one thing that really stinks in this announcement: No one > studying the results of, for example, Cesar Milan, has objectively > determined what his actual training success rate is. To take a survey > of the past actions of lay vet behaviorist clients, who were NOT > successful to date, is a really skewed subject population. Let's say > such a trainer worked with 5000 aggressive dogs, and all but 50 were > resolved, and those 50 all went to the U Penn survey takers and said > exactly the same thing, which the survey takers duly reported, they > still have no external validity because the subject sample is not > representative of the general population. The trainer's overall > success rate would be 99%, although 100% of the study participants > reported total failure with the same trainer. This is why in science, > external validity is an important concern when designing research > projects! > > In the Science Daily, whose rigor on reporting animal subjects is > certainly not on par with, say Nature, or Science, where rigorous > scientists may hope to present well conducted research, we don't know > the subject sample size, the means of selecting the subject sample, > the actual survey questions or construction.... in short, I would > dismiss this report out of hand as a simple effort to propagandize, > unless the actual researchers present the details of the study as a > study and it stands up to the rigors of accepted scientific method. > > Using quasi science to propagandize is pretty pathetic. Is this the > best they can do? Does anyone have a paper from the authors of the > study? > > Regards, > Kayce > > Kayce Cover MSEd, BS An Sci, CABC IAABC > Syn Alia Training Systems > http://www.synalia.com > http://www.facebook.com/people/Syn-Alia-Sats/1179766268 > > > PO Box 8788, Norfolk, VA 23503-0788 > 001 757 588 5967 > > SATS/Bridge and Target: > http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/bridgeandtarget2 > Trainest (newbies): http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/trainest > > > > >> Hi Jay, >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â No surprises here, as with your human based >> qualifications in behaviour, I'm sure you are aware. >> >> Regards John L. >> >> Â >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jay R. Feierman >> To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com >> Cc: applied-ethology@usask.ca >> Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 2:31:32 PM >> Subject: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs >> >> >> Taken from >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm >> >> >> Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. >> Find out more >> > > > > > > > -- Peter Kabai, PhD Associate Professor Dept Ecology, Szent Istvan University http://www.behav.org Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: "John R. Lane" Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:31:25 -0800 (PST) To: Margory Cohen , applied-ethology@usask.ca from me too thanks Peter. John L. From: Margory Cohen To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Friday, 20 February, 2009 3:25:01 PM Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs Thank you. -margory cohen Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. Find out more. Subject: Re: Animal Behaviour on YouTube From: Olsson@ibmc.up.pt Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:07:08 +0000 To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca CC: applied-ethology network Dear Joe, On a lab animal website I just found a link to an example of how YouTube is used for information/debate on a very controversial issue - the use of animals in research. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JftURPWzvY The video here is just an example (with which I have nothing do to and with views I don't necessarily share); the list on the right handside give a picture of the wide range of contributions to this debate. Best regards, Anna From: joseph stookey To: applied-ethology network Date: 06-02-2009 15:14 Subject: Animal Behaviour on YouTube HI Everyone, The video of self directed aggression on YouTube, sent to us by Kristina Gage, is indeed troubling from the standpoint of the laughter coming from the people video taping the behaviour and their lack of appreciation that what they are seeing is not normal and something may be wrong. I've seen other video clips, sent to me by my students, of animals performing strange stereotypies or abnormal behaviours and all of the clips were recorded and sent to TV shows or posted on the Internet with the intent of being funny. I have seriously considered giving my students an assignment of finding such videos and having them write a brief, but educational comment, about the video, with the idea that we would post the "educational comments" below the video clip so that other viewers could be educated about what they were watching. When I bounced this idea off my son, he said, "First off you would be trying to educate some of the dumbest people on the planet, which is difficult to do and second you would only succeed in having some other joker write a follow up comment with disparaging and rude remarks, with the sole purpose of humiliating the students for being "know-it-alls", etc." To some extent I think my son is correct and the exercise I proposed would fall short of its goal of educating people who laugh at animals which engage in abnormal behaviours or behaviours they do not understand. However, I am toying with the idea of having my students create new/independent or stand alone "educational clips" that we could post on YouTube or similar Internet servers as a way to help educate the layman or interested people in the kinds of behaviour we can see, including normal and abnormal behaviours. For the abnormal behaviours the clips would include narratives on possible causes, preventions, solutions that may exist to treat them and/or advice to seek professional or veterinary assistance. I haven't launched this assignment on my students yet, but my hunch is that it may be a worthwhile exercise. I want to believe that if we (I use the term "we" to include all of you on this server) were to also use the Internet and YouTube to post educational video material then perhaps we may help educate the layman on behavioural topics and in the process help more animals that may need intervention. I would be grateful to receive some feedback on whether you think such an assignment would be of value for my students and the general public. And if we do this, should the video clips be posted on YouTube or just posted on our own web page? Thanks. Cheers, Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey 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 Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: DebHdvm@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:05:46 -0500 (EST) To: margorycohen@comcast.net, applied-ethology@usask.ca In a message dated 2/19/2009 8:25:53 PM Central Standard Time, margorycohen@comcast.net writes: as quite a few of you requested the paper on nasty people-nasty dogs, I've uploaded it to my website at http://www.behav.org/00library/articles/dog/dog_training_method.pdf Thank you for uploading the paper. For those who choose not to go find it I just want to reiterate the paper is entitled: <> It was the author of another article that called it nasty people, nasty dogs. To say that the authors of the published paper used those terms is incorrect. I was going to also post the abstract to help dispell confusion but was concerned about copyright issues. Best regards, Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB Veterinary Behavior Consultations 11469 Olive Blvd. #254 St. Louis, MO 63141-7108 Phone and fax: 314-567-4131 e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. Subject: text books From: Olsson@ibmc.up.pt Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:25:13 +0000 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Four persons responded to my question about text books. I'm posting the compiled list here in case more people are interested:respondents use: For applied ethology: Broom & Fraser 2007 Domestic animal behaviour and welfare Barnard complemented with Alcock and Krebs & Davis For ethology in general Drickamer et al Goodenough et al Dugatkin et al Interestingly, the only overlap between the four respondents was that two use Goodenough et al. Thanks to those of you who responded! Anna Olsson Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Margory Cohen Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:19:55 -0800 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Actual credit to Peter Kabai for posting this to his website. I posted my thanks. -margory cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: DebHdvm@aol.com To: margorycohen@comcast.net ; applied-ethology@usask.ca Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: Re: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs In a message dated 2/19/2009 8:25:53 PM Central Standard Time, margorycohen@comcast.net writes: as quite a few of you requested the paper on nasty people-nasty dogs, I've uploaded it to my website at http://www.behav.org/00library/articles/dog/dog_training_method.pdf Thank you for uploading the paper. For those who choose not to go find it I just want to reiterate the paper is entitled: <> It was the author of another article that called it nasty people, nasty dogs. To say that the authors of the published paper used those terms is incorrect. I was going to also post the abstract to help dispell confusion but was concerned about copyright issues. Best regards, Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB Veterinary Behavior Consultations 11469 Olive Blvd. #254 St. Louis, MO 63141-7108 Phone and fax: 314-567-4131 e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. Subject: RE: Aggressive Owners and Aggressive Dogs From: Zen Trainer Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:41:32 -0600 To: Ethics List I think this was just a bad title. The paper wasn't about aggressive owners, it was about owners using aggressive/harsh methods. And the potential that has to create an aggressive dog. As for folks who use positive methods having "easy" dogs (Labs, springers, beagles), I think there are two separate issues there. One is do their training methods work on all types of dogs and do they train all types of dogs. From my experience positive methods not only work well on all types of dogs but on every species, including human. I train all types of dogs; Cane Corso's, Pit Bulls, Mastiffs, Poodles, Cavaliers, Westies, and a whole lot of Labs just to name a few. Adult dogs, puppies, and a variety of levels of aggressive dogs (from dogs who are aggressive toward children, or other dogs, or just the mailman, etc.) The second issue, which I think would make a very good study, is do people with a certain type of personality choose a certain type of dog. I have found a connection between the folks who have the breeds considered "manstoppers" and a certain type of personality. And for purposes of study you would have to make a distinction between people who go out and buy a Cane Corso and those who take in a Pit Bull puppy who wanders into their yard. I think that would be a fascinating study. Tracy B Ann www.zenpaws.com "The Politics of Dogs" www.radiofreenashville.org Subject: New text in applied animal behavior From: E Price Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:46:51 -0800 (PST) To: Olsson@ibmc.up.pt CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Dear Anna, I should mention that CABI has just published my introductory animal behavior textbook entitled "Principles and Applications of Domestic Animal Behavior". It describes the basic principles underlying animal behavior and how these concepts can be used in managing and caring for domestic animals and captive wild animals. The text covers four key themes: development of behavior, biological rhythms, social behavior and behavioral aspects of animal management. It is extensively illustrated with many practical examples and over 150 photos and figures and contains 285 pages of text plus 25 pages of references. Best wishes. Edward Price Professor Emeritus Department of Animal Science University of California, Davis, USA eoprice@ucdavis.edu > > Four persons responded to my question about text books. I'm posting the > > compiled list here in case more people are interested:respondents use: > > > > For applied ethology: > > Broom & Fraser 2007 Domestic animal behaviour and welfare > > Barnard complemented with Alcock and Krebs & Davis > > > > For ethology in general > > Drickamer et al > > Goodenough et al > > Dugatkin et al > > > > Interestingly, the only overlap between the four respondents was that two > > > > use Goodenough et al. > > > > Thanks to those of you who responded! > > > > Anna Olsson > > > > Subject: text book From: "Katherine A. Houpt" Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:11:58 -0500 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca I must contribute to the text book list My text is Domestic Animal Behavior 4th ed Blackwell Scientific 506 pages, 91 figures, 1874 references. Call 1 800 862 6657 to order. The 5th edition should be ready in 2010 -- Katherine Albro Houpt VMD PhD Dipl ACVB James Law Professor of Animal Behavior Department of Clinical Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853-6401 phone 607 253 3450 FAX 607 253 3846 Subject: Pet and Guide Dog's Responses to Human Referential Communication Cues From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:11:04 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca The response of guide dogs and pet dogs ( Canis Familiaris ) to cues of human referential communication (pointing and gaze) Journal Animal Cognition Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 1435-9448 (Print) 1435-9456 (Online) Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / March, 2009 Category Original Paper DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0188-6 Pages 257-265 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Thursday, September 04, 2008 Add to marked items Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article PDF (370.9 KB)HTMLFree PreviewFree Preview Original Paper The response of guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis Familiaris) to cues of human referential communication (pointing and gaze) Miriam Ittyerah1 Contact Information and Florence Gaunet2 (1) Department of Psychology, Christ University, Bangalore, 560029, India (2) Laboratoire Eco-Anthropologie et Ethnobiologie, Muséum National Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France Received: 7 November 2007 Revised: 15 August 2008 Accepted: 18 August 2008 Published online: 4 September 2008 Abstract The study raises the question of whether guide dogs and pet dogs are expected to differ in response to cues of referential communication given by their owners; especially since guide dogs grow up among sighted humans, and while living with their blind owners, they still have interactions with several sighted people. Guide dogs and pet dogs were required to respond to point, point and gaze, gaze and control cues of referential communication given by their owners. Results indicate that the two groups of dogs do not differ from each other, revealing that the visual status of the owner is not a factor in the use of cues of referential communication. Both groups of dogs have higher frequencies of performance and faster latencies for the point and the point and gaze cues as compared to gaze cue only. However, responses to control cues are below chance performance for the guide dogs, whereas the pet dogs perform at chance. The below chance performance of the guide dogs may be explained by a tendency among them to go and stand by the owner. The study indicates that both groups of dogs respond similarly in normal daily dyadic interaction with their owners and the lower comprehension of the human gaze may be a less salient cue among dogs in comparison to the pointing gesture. Keywords Referential communication - Cues - Dog-owner dyads - Guide dogs - Apprenticeship Contact Information Miriam Ittyerah Email: miriam.ittyerah@christuniversity.in Fulltext Preview (Small, Large) Image of the first page of the fulltext Subject: Cognition in Neotropical Parrots From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:15:06 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Means to an end: Neotropical parrots manage to pull strings to meet their goals Journal Animal Cognition Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 1435-9448 (Print) 1435-9456 (Online) Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / March, 2009 Category Original Paper DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0190-z Pages 287-301 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Wednesday, September 03, 2008 Add to marked items Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article PDF (523.3 KB)HTMLFree PreviewFree Preview Original Paper Means to an end: Neotropical parrots manage to pull strings to meet their goals Cynthia Schuck-Paim1 Contact Information, Andressa Borsari1 and Eduardo B. Ottoni1 (1) Laboratory of Cognitive Ethology, Department of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil Received: 30 November 2007 Revised: 5 August 2008 Accepted: 18 August 2008 Published online: 3 September 2008 Abstract Although parrots share with corvids and primates many of the traits believed to be associated with advanced cognitive processing, knowledge of parrot cognition is still limited to a few species, none of which are Neotropical. Here we examine the ability of three Neotropical parrot species (Blue-Fronted Amazons, Hyacinth and Lear’s macaws) to spontaneously solve a novel physical problem: the string-pulling test. The ability to pull up a string to obtain out-of-reach food has been often considered a cognitively complex task, as it requires the use of a sequence of actions never previously assembled, along with the ability to continuously monitor string, food and certain body movements. We presented subjects with pulling tasks where we varied the spatial relationship between the strings, the presence of a reward and the physical contact between the string and reward to determine whether (1) string-pulling is goal-oriented in these parrots, (2) whether the string is recognized as a means to obtain the reward and (3) whether subjects can visually determine the continuity between the string and the reward, selecting only those strings for which no physical gaps between string and reward were present. Our results show that some individuals of all species were able to use the string as a means to reach a specific goal, in this case, the retrieval of the food treat. Also, subjects from both macaw species were able to visually determine the presence of physical continuity between the string and reward, making their choices consistently with the recognition that no gaps should be present between the string and the reward. Our findings highlight the potential of this taxonomic group for the understanding of the underpinnings of cognition in evolutionarily distant groups such as birds and primates. Keywords String-pulling - Parrots - Cognition - Problem-solving - Tools Contact Information Cynthia Schuck-Paim Email: cynthia@origem.info Email: c.schuck@sciencenat.com Fulltext Preview (Small, Large) Image of the first page of the fulltext Subject: Chimpanzee Cognition: What can be seen from where From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:18:36 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) know what can be seen from where Journal Animal Cognition Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 1435-9448 (Print) 1435-9456 (Online) Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / March, 2009 Category Original Paper DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0192-x Pages 317-331 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Wednesday, October 08, 2008 Add to marked items Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article Open Access PDF (563.2 KB)HTML Original Paper Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) know what can be seen from where Carla Krachun1, 2 Contact Information and Josep Call1 Contact Information (1) Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany (2) Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, K1S 5B6, Canada Received: 16 January 2008 Revised: 26 August 2008 Accepted: 29 August 2008 Published online: 7 October 2008 Abstract Visual perspective taking research has established that chimpanzees recognize what others can or cannot see in the presence of occluding barriers. Less is known about chimpanzees’ appreciation of what they themselves can or cannot see in similar situations. Additionally, it is unclear whether chimpanzees must rely on others’ gaze cues to solve such tasks or whether they have a more general appreciation of what can be seen from where. Hence, we investigated chimpanzees’ ability to anticipate what they would or would not be able to see from different visual perspectives. Food was hidden among arrays of open containers, with different containers providing visual access from unique viewing perspectives. Chimpanzees immediately adopted the correct perspective for each container type. Follow-up experiments showed that they were not simply moving to align themselves with visible openings. Our study thus suggests that chimpanzees have good visual perspective taking abilities with regard to themselves as well as others, and that both likely reflect a more general knowledge, at least implicit, of what can be seen from where. Keywords Visual perspective taking - Theory of mind - Chimpanzees - Nonhuman primates Contact Information Carla Krachun (Corresponding author) Email: ckrachun@connect.carleton.ca Contact Information Josep Call Email: call@eva.mpg.de References Beran MJ, Minahan MF (2000) Monitoring spatial transpositions by bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Int J Comp Psychol 13:1–15 Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Visual perspective taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 88:299–317 CrossRef Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2005) All great ape species follow gaze to distant locations and around barriers. J Comp Psychol 119:145–154 PubMed CrossRef Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2007) Chimpanzees really know what others can see in a competitive situation. Anim Cogn 10:439–448 PubMed SpringerLink Bugnyar T, Kotrschal K (2002) Observational learning and the raiding of food caches in ravens, Corvus corax: is it ‘tactical’ deception? Anim Behav 64:185–195 CrossRef Bugnyar T, Stöwe M, Heinrich B (2004) Ravens, Corvus corax, follow gaze direction of humans around obstacles. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1331–1336 CrossRef Burkart J, Heschl A (2007) Understanding visual access in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus: perspective taking or behaviour reading? Anim Behav 73:457–469 CrossRef Butler SC, Caron AJ, Brooks R (2000) Infant understanding of the referential nature of looking. J Cogn Dev 1:359–377 CrossRef Call J (2003) Spatial rotations and transpositions in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Primates 44:347–357 PubMed SpringerLink Call J (2004) Inferences about the location of food in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus). J Comp Psychol 118:232–241 PubMed CrossRef Call J (2005) The self and other: a missing link in comparative social cognition. In: Terrace HS, Metcalfe J (eds) The missing link in cognition: origins of self-reflective consciousness. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 321–341 Call J, Carpenter M (2001) Do apes and children know what they have seen? Anim Cogn 3:207–220 SpringerLink Call J, Hare BA, Tomasello M (1998) Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task. Anim Cogn 1:89–99 SpringerLink Carruthers P, Smith PK (eds) (1996) Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Chapuis N (1987) Detour and shortcut abilities in several species of mammals. In: Ellen P, Thinus-Blanc C (eds) Cognitive processes and spatial orientation in animal and man. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 97–106 Dally JM, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2005) Cache protection strategies by western scrub-jays, Aphelocoma californica: implications for social cognition. Anim Behav 70:1251–1263 CrossRef Davies M, Stone T (eds) (1995a) Folk psychology: the theory of mind debate. Blackwell, Oxford Davies M, Stone T (eds) (1995b) Mental simulation: evaluations and applications. Blackwell, Oxford Emery NJ (2000) The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 24:581–604 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Flavell JH (1978) The development of knowledge about visual perception. In: The Nebraska symposium on motivation, vol 25. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 43–76 Flombaum JI, Santos LR (2005) Rhesus monkeys attribute perceptions to others. Curr Biol 15:447–452 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Goldman AI, Sebanz N (2005) Simulation, mirroring, and a different argument from error. Trends Cogn Sci 9:320 PubMed CrossRef Gómez JC (2005) Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends Cogn Sci 9:118–125 PubMed CrossRef Gordon RM (2005) Simulation and systematic errors in prediction. Trends Cogn Sci 9:361–362 PubMed CrossRef Hampton RR, Zivin A, Murray EA (2004) Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) discriminate between knowing and not knowing and collect information as needed before acting. Anim Cogn 7:239–246 PubMed SpringerLink Hare B, Addessi E, Call J, Tomasello M, Visalberghi E (2003) Do capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella, know what conspecifics do and do not see? Anim Behav 65:131–142 CrossRef Hare B, Call J, Agnetta B, Tomasello M (2000) Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Anim Behav 59:771–785 PubMed CrossRef Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees deceive a human competitor by hiding. Cognition 101:495–514 PubMed CrossRef Heyes C (1998) Theory of mind in nonhuman primates. Behav Brain Sci 21:101–148 PubMed ChemPort Hoffman ML, Beran MJ (2006) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) remember the location of a hidden food item after altering their orientation to a spatial array. J Comp Psychol 120:389–393 PubMed CrossRef Itakura S (1996) An exploratory study of gaze-monitoring in nonhuman primates. Jpn Psychol Res 38:174–180 Johnson CM, Karin-D’Arcy MR (2006) Social attention in nonhuman primates: a behavioral review. Aquat Mamm 32:423–442 CrossRef Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2005) Domestic goats (Capra hircus) follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Anim Behav 69:11–18 CrossRef Karin-D’Arcy MR, Povinelli DJ (2002) Do chimpanzees know what each other see? A closer look. Int J Comp Psychol 15:21–54 Kummer H, Anzenberger G, Hemelrijk CK (1996) Hiding and perspective taking in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). J Comp Psychol 110:97–102 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Miklósi Á (2008) Dog behaviour, evolution and cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121 SpringerLink Mitchell JP (2005) The false dichotomy between simulation and theory–theory: the argument’s error. Trends Cogn Sci 9:363–364 PubMed CrossRef Moll H, Tomasello M (2004) 12- and 18-month-old infants follow gaze to spaces behind barriers. Dev Sci 7:F1–F9 PubMed CrossRef Pack AA, Herman LM (2004) Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) comprehend the referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task. J Comp Psychol 118:160–171 PubMed CrossRef Paukner A, Anderson JR, Fujita K (2006) Redundant food searches by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): a failure of metacognition? Anim Cogn 9:110–117 PubMed SpringerLink Penn DC, Povinelli DJ (2007) On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a ‘theory of mind’. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 362:731–744 CrossRef Povinelli DJ, Eddy TJ (1996) Chimpanzees: joint visual attention. Psychol Sci 7:129–135 CrossRef Povinelli DJ, Eddy TJ (1997) Specificity of gaze-following in young chimpanzees. Br J Dev Psychol 15:213–222 Povinelli DJ, Vonk J (2003) Chimpanzee minds: suspiciously human? Trends Cogn Sci 7:157–160 PubMed CrossRef Povinelli DJ, Vonk J (2004) We don’t need a microscope to explore the chimpanzee’s mind. Mind Lang 19:1–28 Regolin L, Vallortigara G, Zanforlin M (1995) Object and spatial representations in detour problems by chicks. Anim Behav 49:195–199 CrossRef Saxe R (2005) Against simulation: the argument from error. Trends Cogn Sci 9:174–179 PubMed CrossRef Schloegl C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2007) Gaze following in common ravens, Corvus corax: ontogeny and habituation. Anim Behav 74:769–778 CrossRef Tomasello M, Call J, Hare B (1998) Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics. Anim Behav 55:1063–1069 PubMed CrossRef Tomasello M, Call J, Hare B (2003a) Chimpanzees understand psychological states—the question is which ones and to what extent. Trends Cogn Sci 7:153–156 PubMed CrossRef Tomasello M, Call J, Hare B (2003b) Chimpanzees versus humans: it’s not that simple. Trends Cogn Sci 7:239–240 PubMed CrossRef Tomasello M, Hare B, Agnetta B (1999) Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, follow gaze direction geometrically. Anim Behav 58:769–777 PubMed CrossRef Tomasello M, Hare B, Fogleman T (2001) The ontogeny of gaze following in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, and rhesus macaques, Macaca mulatta. Anim Behav 61:335–343 CrossRef Tschudin A, Call J, Dunbar RIM, Harris G, van der Elst C (2001) Comprehension of signs by dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J Comp Psychol 115:100–105 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Zucca P, Antonelli F, Vallortigara G (2005) Detour behaviour in three species of birds: quails (Coturnix sp.), herring gulls (Larus cachinnans) and canaries (Serinus canaria). Anim Cogn 8:122–128 PubMed SpringerLink Subject: Pointing in Orangutans and Bonobos From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:20:45 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Orangutans ( Pongo pygmaeus ) and bonobos ( Pan paniscus ) point to inform a human about the location of a tool Journal Animal Cognition Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 1435-9448 (Print) 1435-9456 (Online) Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / March, 2009 Category Original Paper DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0194-8 Pages 347-358 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Saturday, October 25, 2008 Add to marked items Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article Open Access PDF (513.2 KB)HTML Original Paper Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) point to inform a human about the location of a tool Felizitas Zimmermann1 Contact Information, Franziska Zemke1, Josep Call1 and Juan Carlos Gómez2 (1) Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany (2) University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland, UK Received: 5 December 2007 Revised: 5 September 2008 Accepted: 25 September 2008 Published online: 24 October 2008 Abstract Although pointing is not part of great apes’ natural gestural repertoire, they can learn to point to food, in order to request it. To assess the flexibility with which they can use this gesture, one can vary the potential referent of the point. In two previous studies, three orangutans (two of them human-reared) have shown the ability to point to the location of a tool which a human experimenter needed in order to give them food. Here, we tested six orangutans and five bonobos using a set-up in which our subjects had to guide a human experimenter to the hiding place of a fork which was needed in order to retrieve a piece of food for the subject out of a vertical tube. We further examined the potential role of a competitive/deceptive context by varying the identity of the person responsible for hiding the tool. In addition, we implemented three different control conditions in which an object was hidden but it was not necessary to indicate its location to get the food. We found that the majority of subjects spontaneously guided the experimenter to the hiding place of the fork by pointing to it when it was necessary and they did so significantly less in control conditions. We did not find an effect of the person hiding the fork. Our results show that mother-reared orangutans and bonobos are able to point to inform a human about the location of an object that the human needs to procure food for the subject and that they can take into account whether it is relevant or not to do so. Keywords Orangutans - Bonobos - Pointing - Flexibility - Theory of mind Contact Information Felizitas Zimmermann Email: felizitas.zimmermann@eva.mpg.de References Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2007) Chimpanzees really know what others can see in a competitive situation. Anim Cogn 10:439–448 PubMed SpringerLink Call J, Tomasello M (1994) Production and comprehension of referential pointing by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). J Comp Psychol 108:303–317 CrossRef Call J, Tomasello M (1996) The effect of humans on the cognitive development of apes. In: Russon A, Bard KA, Parker ST (eds) Reaching into thought: the minds of the great apes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 371–403 Cosmides L (1989) The logic of exchange: has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31:187–276 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Gómez JC (1996) Ostensive behavior in great apes: the role of eye contact. In: Russon AE, Bard KA, Parker ST (eds) Reaching in to thought: the minds of the great apes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 131–151 Gómez JC (1998) Assessing theory of mind with nonverbal procedures: problems with training methods and an alternative “key” procedure. Behav Brain Sci 21:119–120 CrossRef Gómez JC (2004) Apes, monkeys, children, and the growth of the mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Gómez JC (2008) The evolution of pretence: from intentional availability to intentional non-existence. Mind Lang 23:586–606 Gómez JC, Teixidor P (1992) Theory of mind in an orangutan: a nonverbal test of false-belief appreciation. Paper presented at the XIV Congress of the International Primatological Society, Strasbourg, France Goodall J (1986) The Chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA Hare B, Tomasello M (2004) Chimpanzees are more skilful in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. Anim Behav 68:571–581 CrossRef Hare B, Call J, Agnetta B, Tomasello M (2000) Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Anim Behav 59:771–786 PubMed CrossRef Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2001) Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Anim Behav 61:139–151 PubMed CrossRef Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees deceive a human by hiding. Cognition 101:495–514 PubMed CrossRef Inoue-Nakamura N, Matsuzawa T (1997) Development of stone tool use by wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 111:159–173 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes’ begging behavior from humans. Anim Cogn 7:216–223 PubMed SpringerLink Kellogg WN, Kellogg LA (1933) The Ape and the child: a study of early environmental influence upon early behavior. McGraw-Hill, New York Leavens DA, Hopkins WD (1998) Intentional communication by chimpanzees: a cross-sectional study of the use of referential gestures. Dev Psychol 34:813–822 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Leavens DA, Hopkins WD, Bard KA (1996) Indexical and referential pointing in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 110:346–353 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Leavens DA, Hopkins WD, Thomas RK (2004) Referential communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 118:48–57 PubMed CrossRef Liebal K, Behne T, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2008) Infants use shared experience to interpret pointing gestures. Dev Sci (in press) Liszkowski U, Carpenter M, Striano T, Tomasello M (2006) Twelve- and 18-month-olds point to provide information to others. J Cogn Dev 7:173–187 CrossRef Melis A, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees conceal visual and auditory information from others. J Comp Psychol 120:154–162 PubMed CrossRef Menzel EW (1973) Leadership and communication in young chimpanzees. In: Menzel EW (ed) Precultural primate behavior. Karger, Basel, pp 192–225 Menzel CR (1999) Unprompted recall and reporting of hidden objects by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) after extended delays. J Comp Psychol 113:426–434 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Miles HL (1990) The cognitive foundations for reference in a signing orangutan. In: Parker ST, Gibson KR (eds) “Language” and intelligence in monkeys and apes: comparative developmental perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 511–539 Moll H, Tomasello M (2007) How 14- and 18-month-olds know what others have experienced. Dev Psychol 43:309–317 PubMed CrossRef Núńez M, Rivičre A (2007) Una reevaluación del Paradigma de la Creencia Falsa. Infancia y Aprendizaje 30:289–308 CrossRef Patterson F (1978) Linguistic capabilities of a lowland gorilla. In: Peng F (ed) Sign language and language acquisition in man and ape. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, pp 161–201 Russell JL, Braccini S, Buehler N, Kachin MJ, Schapiro S, Hopkins WD (2005) Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) intentional communication is not contingent upon food. Anim Cogn 8:263–272 PubMed SpringerLink Savage-Rumbaugh ES (1986) Ape language: from conditioned response to symbol. Columbia University Press, New York Savage-Rumbaugh ES, McDonald K, Sevcik RA, Hopkins WD, Rubert E (1986) Spontaneous symbol acquisition and communicative use by pygmy chimpanzees (Pan paniscus). J Exp Psychol Gen 115:211–235 PubMed CrossRef ChemPort Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA Tomasello M, Haberl K (2003) Understanding attention: 12- and 18-month-olds know what’s new for other persons. Dev Psychol 39:906–912 PubMed CrossRef Tomasello M, Carpenter M, Liszkowski U (2007) A new look at infant pointing. Child Dev 78:705–722 PubMed CrossRef Veŕ JJ, Sabater-Pi J (1998) Spontaneous pointing behaviour in the wild pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). Folia Primatol 69:289–290 PubMed CrossRef Virányi Z, Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2006) A nonverbal test of knowledge attribution: a comparative study on dogs and children. Anim Cogn 9:13–26 PubMed SpringerLink de Waal F, van Hooff J (1981) Side directed communication and agonistic interactions in chimpanzees. Behaviour 77:164–198 SpringerLink Whiten A (2000) Chimpanzee cognition and the question of mental re-representation. In: Sperber D (ed) Metarepresentation: a multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 139–167 Woodruff G, Premack D (1979) Intentional communication in the chimpanzee: the development of deception. Cognition 7:333–362 CrossRef Subject: Concept of Uprightness in Guinea Baboons From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:24:32 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Concept of uprightness in baboons: assessment with pictures of realistic scenes Journal Animal Cognition Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 1435-9448 (Print) 1435-9456 (Online) Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / March, 2009 Category Original Paper DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0196-6 Pages 369-379 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Friday, October 17, 2008 Add to marked items Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article PDF (429.6 KB)HTMLFree PreviewFree Preview Original Paper Concept of uprightness in baboons: assessment with pictures of realistic scenes Joël Fagot1 Contact Information, Elodie Bonté1 and Carole Parron1 (1) CNRS, Institut de Neurosciences Cognitives de la Méditerranée et Université de la Méditerranée, 31 ch Joseph Aiguier, 13402 Marseille cedex 20, France Received: 14 May 2008 Revised: 22 September 2008 Accepted: 25 September 2008 Published online: 17 October 2008 Abstract How nonhuman primates process pictures of natural scenes or objects remains a matter of debates. This issue was addressed in the current research by questioning the processing of the canonical orientation of pictures in baboons. Two adult guinea baboons were trained to use an interactive key (IK) on a touch-screen to change the orientation of target pictures showing humans or quadruped mammals until upright. In experiment 1, both baboons successfully learned to use the IK when that key induced a 90° rightward rotation of the picture, but post-training transfer of performance did not occur to novel pictures of natural scenes due to potential motor biases. In Experiment 2, a touch on IK randomly displayed the pictures in any of the four cardinal orientations. Baboons successfully learned the task, but transfer to novel pictures could only be demonstrated after they had been exposed to 360–480 pictures in that condition. Experiment 3 confirmed positive transfers to novel pictures, and showed that both the figure and background information controlled the behavior. Our research on baboons therefore demonstrates the development and use of an “upright” concept, and indicates that picture processing modes strongly depend on the subject’s past experience with naturalistic pictorial stimuli. Keywords Orientation - Picture perception - Primate - Cognition Contact Information Joël Fagot Email: Fagot@incm.cnrs-mrs.fr Fulltext Preview (Small, Large) Image of the first page of the fulltext Subject: Object Permanence in Diurnal Lemurs From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:27:00 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Object permanence in lemurs Journal Animal Cognition Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 1435-9448 (Print) 1435-9456 (Online) Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / March, 2009 Category Original Paper DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0197-5 Pages 381-388 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Tuesday, October 21, 2008 Add to marked items Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article PDF (492.6 KB)HTMLFree PreviewFree Preview Original Paper Object permanence in lemurs Anja M. Deppe1, 3 Contact Information, Patricia C. Wright2 Contact Information and William A. Szelistowski3 Contact Information (1) Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA (2) Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA (3) Department of Biology, Eckerd College, St Petersburg, FL 33711, USA Received: 13 March 2008 Revised: 29 August 2008 Accepted: 25 September 2008 Published online: 21 October 2008 Abstract Object permanence, the ability to mentally represent objects that have disappeared from view, should be advantageous to animals in their interaction with the natural world. The objective of this study was to examine whether lemurs possess object permanence. Thirteen adult subjects representing four species of diurnal lemur (Eulemur fulvus rufus, Eulemur mongoz, Lemur catta and Hapalemur griseus) were presented with seven standard Piagetian visible and invisible object displacement tests, plus one single visible test where the subject had to wait predetermined times before allowed to search, and two invisible tests where each hiding place was made visually unique. In all visible tests lemurs were able to find an object that had been in clear view before being hidden. However, when lemurs were not allowed to search for up to 25-s, performance declined with increasing time-delay. Subjects did not outperform chance on any invisible displacements regardless of whether hiding places were visually uniform or unique, therefore the upper limit of object permanence observed was Stage 5b. Lemur species in this study eat stationary foods and are not subject to stalking predators, thus Stage 5 object permanence is probably sufficient to solve most problems encountered in the wild. Keywords Cognition - Choice task - Memory - Cognitive ecology - Prosimii Contact Information Anja M. Deppe (Corresponding author) Email: adeppe@ic.sunysb.edu Contact Information Patricia C. Wright Email: Patricia.Wright@stonybrook.edu Contact Information William A. Szelistowski Email: szeliswa@eckerd.edu Fulltext Preview (Small, Large) Image of the first page of the fulltext Subject: Gorillas Poor at Picking up Human Manual and Facial Cues From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:29:10 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Gorillas’ ( Gorilla gorilla ) use of experimenter-given manual and facial cues in an object-choice task Journal Animal Cognition Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 1435-9448 (Print) 1435-9456 (Online) Issue Volume 12, Number 2 / March, 2009 Category Short Communication DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0200-1 Pages 401-404 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Friday, October 17, 2008 Add to marked items Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article PDF (201.5 KB)HTMLFree PreviewFree Preview Short Communication Gorillas’ (Gorilla gorilla) use of experimenter-given manual and facial cues in an object-choice task Jill T. Byrnit1 Contact Information (1) Semel Institute of Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Received: 11 September 2008 Revised: 24 September 2008 Accepted: 27 September 2008 Published online: 17 October 2008 Abstract Several experiments have been performed to examine the great apes’ use of experimenter-given manual and visual cues in object-choice tasks. Considering their use of referential gestures in gaze-following paradigms, great apes perform surprisingly unsuccessfully in object-choice tasks. However, the large majority of object-choice experiments have been conducted with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with very few experiments including other great ape species, making it difficult to generalize about the great apes. Interestingly, the only object-choice task conducted with gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) has indicated successful use of both manual and visual cues. It was the aim of the present study to gather more data on gorillas’ use of human manual and facial cues on the object-choice task. Gorilla subjects in this study did not show consistent use of three types of referential cues. Keywords Object-choice task - Gorillas - Referential gestures - Individual differences Contact Information Jill T. Byrnit Email: jbyrnit@hotmail.com Fulltext Preview (Small, Large) Image of the first page of the fulltext Subject: Does "Playing" Have a Phylogeny? From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:11:07 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Sonny Williams: You can trace the evolutionary history of play behavior. Jay R. Feierman: If the term "evolutionary history" is used as a synonym with phylogeny, play behavior can not be traced in the same way that the term phylogeny is used by comparative anatomists, who trace the evolutionary history of anatomical structures back through the phylogenetic tree. The problem is that "evolutionary history" can also have a broader meaning. One can trace the evolutionary history of the automobile or of firearms. That is not the same meaning as tracing the phylogeny of the human middle ear bones. So when you say you can trace the evolutionary history of play behavior, you are using the term "evolutionary history" in its broad generic meaning (like tracing the evolutionary history of the automobile) and not in its biological meaning. If you are tracing the evolutionary history of structures whose proximate use-function is playing in these various species, what are these structures? If you can not identify them and define them by their form, you can't trace their phylogeny. As such "play behavior" is a function a la carte that has no known structural referents whose phylogeny can be traced. Some day these structural referents will be found. When they are found, their phylogeny can be traced. Sonny Williams: Such behavior is seen in many species, and the behavior shares a common ancestry. Jay R. Feierman: There is no doubt that play behavior is seen in many species in the juvenile period. Humans and their artificially bred dog pets are rather unique in showing play behavior as adults. However, when you say the "behavior" shares a common ancestry, what does that mean? If by behavior you mean what Tinbergen and Lorenz meant by behavior, which is "the total of movements made by the intact animal," then the only way that you can trace the phylogeny of play behavior is by its description, which is going to be different in each species that plays. You can't define play behavior by its form and then expect to trace the same form back through phylogeny, as different species have different forms to their play behavior. So in effect you are tracing the proximate use-function of playing a la carte. However, the cardinal principle of phylogeny is object constancy. What is the object that has constancy that one is tracing back through phylogeny when one traces the proximate use-function of play? And, what is the proximate use-function of play? In actuality we do not know. Eibl-Eibesfeldt suggestion is that play could be just practice of coordinated motor pattern divorced from the usual moods that lower their threshold for execution. So when puppies or little boys "play fight," they are not in an aggressive mood. However, humans "play" with Type II Behaviors (describable by form and definable by function in a natural environment and not species-universal in form) that are not tightly linked to specific moods. In reality, "play" is a free-floating functional description that to date has no known structural referent whose phylogeny can be traced. At least if you were going to try to trace the phylogeny of another proximate use-function, such as "seeing," you could trace the eye back through phylogeny. Sonny Williams: It has fitness value. Jay R. Feierman: What is the evidence that "playing" has fitness value? If you can cite some data, I'll believe it. Sonny Williams: Just because a puppy moves different muscles than a human child when playing is no reason to think differently. Jay R. Feierman: I would not presume that "playing" has fitness value even if a puppy and a human child used the same muscles. There are may alternative ways of understanding why play may be executed that don't require individuals to play to have increased survival value compared to invidividuals who do not play. Sonny Williams: In fact, observations of how their muscles movements differ simply obscures an understanding of play behavior. Jay R. Feierman: If playing behavior used the same group of coordinated muscle movements in different vertebrate species, then one could trace the phylogeny of these muscle movements the same way that one can trace the phylogeny of the muscle movements used in the make-oneself-lower-or-smaller-or-more-vulnerable (LSV behavior) muscle movements through phylogeny. One can trace the phylogeny of LSV coordinated motor patterns from humans all the way back to teleost fish! Because play behavior (describable only in a particular species) utilizes different coordinated muscle movements, we can not define play behavior by its form. I am sorry if you do not see the significance of this in terms of tracing phylogeny. Subject: String pulling as cognition test From: joseph stookey Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:31:49 -0600 To: "Jay R. Feierman" CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Hi Jay, You sent a copy of a paper on cognition testing in parrots and in the abstract appeared the following sentence: "The ability to pull up a string to obtain out-of-reach food has been often considered a cognitively complex task, as it requires the use of a sequence of actions never previously assembled, along with the ability to continuously monitor string, food and certain body movements." It has always struck me that tests that we devise to test cognitive ability, self awareness, etc. of various animal species are potentially flawed, both in the tests themselves and often in the interpretation of the results. In other words, if an animal can not do the test, is that proof they have lower cognitive skills or that they are not as self-aware as a species that can succeed in the test? I am skeptical that failure to do the test or success of the test provides us with the answers we seek. I also believe there are species constraints (ie. structural or anatomical constraints, relevance or similarity of the test to situations in their natural environment, etc.) that predispose some species to fail or succeed, without providing us with much additional insight. For instance, when I think of a parrot in its natural environment, sitting on a stout branch, in view of say a nut or food source which is attached to a smaller branch or stem, then it is not too much of a stretch of my imagination to envision such a parrot to "naturally" reach with its foot or beak to pull the small stem closer to them in order to reach the food. So if you take the parrot into the lab and place a food treat within view, but out of reach and attach it to a string, I am not surprised that the parrot can complete the task, because in my mind you simply switched the branch stem to a string and perhaps moved the food further away, but strictly speaking not much has changed for the parrot. I could also imagine a hummingbird incapable of pulling a string to gain access to food, since such a skill set is not used to gain access to a flower! But what if the test was to determine if the animal could remember the exact time of day the food would be available? I am certain nectar feeders such as the hummingbird and honey bee would be light years quicker in learning the exact time of the day that there is food available compared to a parrot. So what? Does that make the hummingbird or honey bee higher in their cognitive ability and learning ability then a parrot? Certainly, the test we devise have a huge impact on the animals that can succeed in completing them. I think the same type of arguments can be made as to why the self-awareness-mirror-test "works" for some species and not others. If the animal you are testing happens to be an animal that squares off head to head with rivals during combat (i.e. cattle, sheep, chickens, etc.) and they are preprogrammed to square off and look straight ahead and have their opponent match their exact behavior, movement for movement, then it doesn't surprise me that cattle, sheep, chickens, etc. can not do the "mirror-test", but instead treat the image as an opponent. Granted, the mirror test may tell us something about the primate species who can rub off the dot we placed on them while they were anesthetized, but does it really say much about the self awareness of species that do not perform well? There is a classic paper on male elk (or technically North American wapiti), where the researcher reduced the dimensions of the gate or doorway in their enclosure by a few centimeters daily. What the researcher observed was the uncanny ability of the male elk to "know", within centimeters, the dimension of the doorway in relation to their own antler width. Is that self awareness? Why or why not? Anyway, Jay, I love the papers you sent, I just find some of them "debatable" in what the tests are really testing and what the outcomes really mean. 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 Subject: Announcement of position in Spain From: Bonnie Beaver Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:39:54 -0600 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca This announcement was received by the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and I am sharing it with other groups that might be interested. If you are interested, please respond to them directly. Bonnie Beaver **************************** Message: Hello, my name is Gabriel González. I have a newly founded dog training company named Proyecto K and I am interested in employing a veterinarian, psychologist or biologist with a wide experience in clinical ethology and experience in dog training; companion or working dogs. I offer a job in Málaga, Spain. I address your organisation hoping that you might know of someone who could be interested. I would be very grateful if you could spare a few minutes of your time and if you think you know of someone who is looking for a new job within the amazing world of dog training, please let this person know I offer the below metioned job. Kind regards Gabriel González VETERINARIAN / PSYCHOLOGIST / BIOLOGIST * Málaga, Spain. *ProyectoK* is a company specialized in canine training. *ProyectoK* sprouted from another company which exclusively worked with the training of companion dogs and this new company works as intermediary between dog owners, municipalities and the local authorities. The company*s main activities: * To interpret Spanish legislation regarding canines. * Education of dog owners. * Training of companion dogs. * Solution of behavioural problems. * Training of working and sports dogs. * Education of new dog trainers. Your job responsibilities will be: * Evaluate dogs that have been reported to the police due to aggressive behaviour and write a report to the local authority. * Several breeds in Spain are classified as potentially dangerous. Owners must have a license to possess these dogs. In association with the municipalities and local authorities, you will impart dog training courses for the owners of these breeds in order for the owners to obtain the license. * Imparting seminars for the local police. * Clinical consults for dogs with behavioural problems. * Impart courses for future dog trainers. * Collaboration and communication with other professionals in this area. * Be the public figure of the company. Your profile: * Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, Biologist or Psychologist. * Fluent in Spanish, written and spoken. * Experience in companion or working dog training. * Wide experience in clinical ethology. * Driver*s license. * You are honest, hardworking, responsible, dog and dog training enthusiast, patient and with excellent comunication skills. * Your curriculum vitae must be written in Spanish and include a photo. ProyectoK offers you: * 29.400 euros net per year. * 40 days of holiday per year. * Private medical insurance. TO SEND CURRICULUM VITAE: www.doktordyr.dk Subject: Monkeys Can Subtract From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:01:53 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Monkeys Can Subtract, Study Finds Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:20 am (PST) Monkeys Can Subtract, Study Finds Add this to the growing list of reasons humans aren't so special, after all: Monkeys can subtract. The discovery marks the first time a nonhuman species has been seen having "widespread success" with subtraction, scientists announced. Rhesus macaques placed in front of touch screens in a Duke University laboratory were able to subtract dots-not by counting them individually but by using a more instantaneous ability researchers call number sense. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090218-monkeys-subtract.html Subject: The "Male Effect" in Sheep and Goats From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:04:51 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca Behavioural Brain Research Article in Press, Uncorrected Proof - Note to users Review The ‘male effect’ in sheep and goats—Revisiting the dogmas Purchase the full-text article References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article. J. Alberto Delgadilloa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Helene Gelezb, Rodolfo Ungerfeldc, Penelope A.R. Hawkend and Graeme B. Martind aCentro de Investigación en Reproducción Caprina, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez y Carretera a Santa Fe, C. P. 27054, Torreón, Coahuila, Mexico bPelvipharm Laboratories, 86 rue de Paris, 91400 Orsay, France cDepartamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Veterinaria, Lasplaces 1550, Montevideo, Uruguay dUWA Institute of Agriculture (Animal Production Systems), The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia Received 5 November 2008; revised 29 January 2009; accepted 3 February 2009. Available online 12 February 2009. Abstract Male-induced ovulation in sheep and goats (the ‘male effect’), documented during the period 1940–1960, has long been shrouded in preconceptions concerning how, when and why it worked. These preconceptions became dogmas but recent research is challenging them so, in this review, we have re-visited some major physiological (breed seasonality; characteristics of the response; the nature of the male stimuli) and physical factors (duration of male presence; isolation from male stimuli) that affect the phenomenon. We reject the dogma that ewes must be isolated from males and conclude that male ‘novelty’ is more important than isolation per se. Similarly, we reject the perception that the neuroendocrine component of the male effect is restricted to anovulatory females. Finally, we re-assess the relative importance of olfactory and non-olfactory signals, and develop a perspective on the way male-induced ovulation fits with preconceptions about pheromonal processes in mammals. Overall, our understanding of the male effect has evolved significantly and it is time to modify or reject our dogmas so this field of research can advance. We can now ask new questions regarding the application of the male effect in industry and develop research so we can fully understand this biological phenomenon. Keywords: Ovulation; Luteinizing hormone; Pheromone; Olfaction; GnRH; Sexual behaviour; Reproductive seasonality Article Outline 1. History 2. The dogmas 2.1. Complete isolation of the females from all males is essential for the male effect to work 2.1.1. Conclusion 2.2. The male effect depends on the females being anovulatory, so it will only work during the non-breeding season 2.2.1. Conclusion 2.3. Continuous contact of the females with stimulatory males is necessary 2.3.1. Conclusion 2.4. Genotypes that are very seasonal show little response, especially during mid-anoestrus 2.4.1. Conclusion 2.5. The male effect depends on an instantaneous increase in the frequency of GnRH/LH pulses 2.5.1. Conclusion 2.6. The male effect is dependent on olfactory signals 2.6.1. Conclusion 2.7. The olfactory signal responsible for the acute GnRH/LH response in the female is a ‘pheromone’ 2.7.1. Nature and species specificity of the chemical signal 2.7.2. The pheromone acts via the vomeronasal organ and accessory olfactory system 2.7.3. The response to the male is innate, not learned 2.7.3.1. Conclusion 2.8. The acute LH response is followed by an increase in oestradiol secretion by the ovaries, positive feedback, a preovulatory LH surge, and a series of normal or short ovulatory cycles, with a high potential for fertilisation and pregnancy 2.8.1. Conclusion 3. General conclusions 3.1. What remains of the dogmas and what are our perspectives for future research? Acknowledgements References Thumbnail image Fig. 1. Working hypothesis on the characteristics and potential implications of the neuroendocrine response of cyclic females to males, based on observations in sheep and goats [43] and [44]. Exposure to males appears to increase LH secretion at all stages of the oestrous cycle, although a significant response was not detected when the circulating concentrations of progesterone were highest. As indicated in the schema, the consequences of the LH response are likely to differ among the phases of the cycle [44]. Adapted from Hawken et al. [44]. View Within Article Thumbnail image Fig. 2. The signals responsible for the male effect on GnRH secretion are primarily odouriferous and fit the definition of a pheromone in the context of mammals. They could influence the reproductive centres in the brain via pathways beginning in either the olfactory mucosa and main olfactory bulb (broken lines), or the vomeronasal organ and accessory olfactory bulb (solid lines), or both. In contrast with rodents, the main olfactory system is the dominant pathway in ruminants [16], although interactions between the main olfactory system and the medial amygdala, or between the medial and cortical nuclei of the amygdala, are also possible [56]. Redrawn after Martin et al. [68]. View Within Article Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +52 871 729 7651; fax: +52 871 729 7676. Note to users: The section "Articles in Press" contains peer reviewed accepted articles to be published in this journal. When the final article is assigned to an issue of the journal, the "Article in Press" version will be removed from this section and will appear in the associated published journal issue. The date it was first made available online will be carried over. Please be aware that although "Articles in Press" do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI as follows: Author(s), Article Title, Journal (Year), DOI. Please consult the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and the use of punctuation. There are three types of "Articles in Press": * Accepted manuscripts: these are articles that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board. The articles have not yet been copy edited and/or formatted in the journal house style. * Uncorrected proofs: these are copy edited and formatted articles that are not yet finalized and that will be corrected by the authors. Therefore the text could change before final publication. * Corrected proofs: these are articles containing the authors' corrections and may, or may not yet have specific issue and page numbers assigned. Behavioural Brain Research Article in Press, Uncorrected Proof - Note to users Subject: Analysing Animal Social Structures From: "Jay R. Feierman" Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:14:17 -0700 To: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com CC: applied-ethology@usask.ca SOCPROG programs: analysing animal social structures Journal Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 0340-5443 (Print) 1432-0762 (Online) Issue Volume 63, Number 5 / March, 2009 Category Methods DOI 10.1007/s00265-008-0697-y Pages 765-778 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Friday, January 16, 2009 Add to marked items Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article PDF (274.3 KB)HTMLFree PreviewFree Preview Methods SOCPROG programs: analysing animal social structures Hal Whitehead1 Contact Information (1) Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1 Received: 11 June 2008 Revised: 24 September 2008 Accepted: 9 December 2008 Published online: 16 January 2009 Communicated by L. Z. Garamszegi. Abstract SOCPROG is a set of programs which analyses data on animal associations. Data usually come from observations of the social behaviour of individually identifiable animals. Associations among animals, sampling periods, restrictions on the data and association indices can be defined very flexibly. SOCPROG can analyse data sets including 1,000 or more individuals. Association matrices are displayed using sociograms, principal coordinates analysis, multidimensional scaling and cluster analyses. Permutation tests, Mantel and related tests and matrix correlation methods examine hypotheses about preferred associations among individuals and classes of individual. Weighted network statistics are calculated and can be tested against null hypotheses. Temporal analyses include displays of lagged association rates (rates of reassociation following an association). Models can be fitted to lagged association rates. Multiple association measures, including measures produced by other programs such as genetic or range use data, may be analysed using Mantel tests and principal components analysis. SOCPROG also performs mark-recapture population analyses and movement analyses. SOCPROG is written in the programming language MATLAB and may be downloaded free from the World Wide Web. Keywords Social analysis - Software - Association Contact Information Hal Whitehead Email: hwhitehe@dal.ca Fulltext Preview (Small, Large) Image of the first page of the fulltext Subject: Re: Analysing Animal Social Structures From: Margory Cohen Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:24:02 -0800 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Would be obliged if you are sending these, if you could send in a format without all the html, etc. -- which is a burden on systems. Thank you. margory cohen