From: IN%"clothier@telenet.net" "Suzanne Clothier" 30-JUN-2004 11:07:14.27 To: IN%"appleby@petbehaviourcentre.com" "David Appleby", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Seligmans paper Hi David: http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/kaminski.pdf Not a long read Maybe I'm missing something here. The whole point as I understand it was to demonstrate fast mapping - formation of "quick & rough hypotheses about the meaning of a new word after only a single exposure" as the authors note. Given Rico's performance, they conclude that "fast mapping thus appears to be mediated by general learning and memory mechanisms also found in other animals and not by a language acquisition device that is special to humans." Scent, of course, would be (to my mind) a part of the memory mechanism at work with a dog. They are looking at the dog's ability to link human words (or, as they say, "arbitrary acoustic patterns") with specific items, and to use his experience to "deduce the referent of a new word on the basis of the principle of exclusion when presented with a novel item along with a set of familiar items." Which he did. They do not address the specifics of precisely how Rico's memory may be working in order to make these associations. How Rico identified the novel object (visual, "it's the one without my scent on it", tactile, etc) doesn't seem to be the point - the point is that in hearing the request to fetch "X" he was able to pair it with the novel object. Reading the study, I'm hard pressed to see where his performance is simply a matter of shaped scent discrimination. In the past, his owners typically presented a new item, said the name for the object 2 or 3 times, the dog got to play with it, then it was integrated into the group of known objects. Though of course there's always more than can be contained in any study, that pattern of introducing an item, naming it, allowing the dog to play with it and then adding it would appear to by its very pattern then include the object in the "has my scent" grouping, yes? This is apparently the way Rico learned the names of his 200 objects. The pattern I'd expect to see if they'd inadvertently shaped a retrieve of a "doesn't have my scent" object would look something more like including it in the known objects without introducing it or letting the dog play with it. Read the study, and then decide. His retention rate is impressive - I'm not sure I'd remember something 4 weeks later!!! (Heck, can hardly remember where I put my coffee cup this morning...) best, Suzanne Clothier M 6/30/2004, David Appleby wrote: >Good thoughts but I don't think that for the dog all the toys would have >smelt the same because they had its scent on, but that the dog's scent could >have been a component of the scent profile of each of the familiar items. >Therefore I wonder if the dog was shaped into retrieving the item without >its scent on through owner response. I should point out that I have not had >a chance to read the paper and study the method used. > >Best wishes, > >David > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Suzanne Clothier [mailto:clothier@telenet.net] >Sent: 30 June 2004 05:20 >To: David Appleby; Applied-ethology >Subject: Re: Seligmans paper > >Hi: > >I wondered the same thing as David, but when thinking on it further, >considered this: what if the novel item *did* have a novel scent? Does >that change anything? If so, how? Regardless of the means by which the >novel item was detected (visual, olfactory, tactile, even auditory but not >in this case as I understand the experiments were set up but it could be >done), wouldn't fast mapping still be present? > >Was there an assumption here that visual identification was at work? Might >it be for all we know that Rico carries a scent memory for each object as >well as or even instead of a visual memory? That would be interesting to >test, and not terribly difficult by presenting hidden objects that could be >identified only by scent. Given how strong olfactory memory is in humans >(quick - think of the smell of bananas, leather, skunk, lemon), it would >seem logical that an olfactorily superior animal such as the dog would have >considerable memory links via this sense. > >And my practical experience with dogs and scentwork helps me understand >that while we humans may think all the objects had the dog's scent on it >and therefore were "the same," the dog is quite capable of distinguishing >one object from another based purely on the individual components/materials >of each. From the small photos I've seen, it looked like a pretty wide >range of materials. > >best, >Suzanne Clothier > >David Appleby wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Do you know if the toys that were familiar to the dog would have had its > >scent on i.e. resulting in the novel item being the only one that did not? > > > >Best wishes, > > > > David > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] > >Sent: 29 June 2004 01:43 > >To: 'Pat Robards'; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > >Subject: RE: Seligmans paper > > > >Hi everyone, the dog Rico was subjected to scientific testing. The novel > >object was placed in the next room by the tester, so neither the owners > >scent nor the owners body language were available to cue the dog to pick >the > >novel object. The dog was retested a few weeks later and had retained the > >names for the novel items in 50% of items, which was compared with the > >capacity of a 3 year old child for "fast-mapping". > >The dog is a border collie, commonly thought to be rather clever dogs. > >Regards, > >Jackie Perkins > >Ps I have not yet read the full copy of this study. I may be able to share > >more later. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Pat Robards [mailto:probards@ozemail.com.au] > >Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:29 PM > >To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > >Subject: Re: Seligmans paper > > > > > > > >Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:21 PM > >Subject: Re: Seligmans paper > > > > > >Good old fashioned *scent discrimination*, I wonder what other cues > >were given, a raised eyebrow, a smile perhaps? > >Kindest Regards > > > >Pat Robards (Australia) > >http://www.k9events.com/ From: IN%"probards@ozemail.com.au" "Pat Robards" 30-JUN-2004 11:35:36.04 To: IN%"clothier@telenet.net" "Suzanne Clothier", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Seligmans paper The dog being tested http://media.eurekalert.org/scipub/1097856s2.mov taken from this url http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/aaft-cwr060404.php Pat Robards (Australia) http://www.k9events.com/ From: IN%"appleby@petbehaviourcentre.com" "David Appleby" 30-JUN-2004 16:59:44.94 To: IN%"clothier@telenet.net" "Suzanne Clothier", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Seligmans paper Thanks for the link to the paper Suzanne. I think it answers my questions and the novelty of the item for whatever reason (visual or scent) is negated by the mixture of other completely novel and familiar items in the second test. Best wishes, David -----Original Message----- From: Suzanne Clothier [mailto:clothier@telenet.net] Sent: 30 June 2004 16:58 To: David Appleby; Applied-ethology Subject: RE: Seligmans paper Hi David: http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/kaminski.pdf Not a long read Maybe I'm missing something here. The whole point as I understand it was to demonstrate fast mapping - formation of "quick & rough hypotheses about the meaning of a new word after only a single exposure" as the authors note. Given Rico's performance, they conclude that "fast mapping thus appears to be mediated by general learning and memory mechanisms also found in other animals and not by a language acquisition device that is special to humans." Scent, of course, would be (to my mind) a part of the memory mechanism at work with a dog. They are looking at the dog's ability to link human words (or, as they say, "arbitrary acoustic patterns") with specific items, and to use his experience to "deduce the referent of a new word on the basis of the principle of exclusion when presented with a novel item along with a set of familiar items." Which he did. They do not address the specifics of precisely how Rico's memory may be working in order to make these associations. How Rico identified the novel object (visual, "it's the one without my scent on it", tactile, etc) doesn't seem to be the point - the point is that in hearing the request to fetch "X" he was able to pair it with the novel object. Reading the study, I'm hard pressed to see where his performance is simply a matter of shaped scent discrimination. In the past, his owners typically presented a new item, said the name for the object 2 or 3 times, the dog got to play with it, then it was integrated into the group of known objects. Though of course there's always more than can be contained in any study, that pattern of introducing an item, naming it, allowing the dog to play with it and then adding it would appear to by its very pattern then include the object in the "has my scent" grouping, yes? This is apparently the way Rico learned the names of his 200 objects. The pattern I'd expect to see if they'd inadvertently shaped a retrieve of a "doesn't have my scent" object would look something more like including it in the known objects without introducing it or letting the dog play with it. Read the study, and then decide. His retention rate is impressive - I'm not sure I'd remember something 4 weeks later!!! (Heck, can hardly remember where I put my coffee cup this morning...) best, Suzanne Clothier M 6/30/2004, David Appleby wrote: >Good thoughts but I don't think that for the dog all the toys would have >smelt the same because they had its scent on, but that the dog's scent could >have been a component of the scent profile of each of the familiar items. >Therefore I wonder if the dog was shaped into retrieving the item without >its scent on through owner response. I should point out that I have not had >a chance to read the paper and study the method used. > >Best wishes, > >David > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Suzanne Clothier [mailto:clothier@telenet.net] >Sent: 30 June 2004 05:20 >To: David Appleby; Applied-ethology >Subject: Re: Seligmans paper > >Hi: > >I wondered the same thing as David, but when thinking on it further, >considered this: what if the novel item *did* have a novel scent? Does >that change anything? If so, how? Regardless of the means by which the >novel item was detected (visual, olfactory, tactile, even auditory but not >in this case as I understand the experiments were set up but it could be >done), wouldn't fast mapping still be present? > >Was there an assumption here that visual identification was at work? Might >it be for all we know that Rico carries a scent memory for each object as >well as or even instead of a visual memory? That would be interesting to >test, and not terribly difficult by presenting hidden objects that could be >identified only by scent. Given how strong olfactory memory is in humans >(quick - think of the smell of bananas, leather, skunk, lemon), it would >seem logical that an olfactorily superior animal such as the dog would have >considerable memory links via this sense. > >And my practical experience with dogs and scentwork helps me understand >that while we humans may think all the objects had the dog's scent on it >and therefore were "the same," the dog is quite capable of distinguishing >one object from another based purely on the individual components/materials >of each. From the small photos I've seen, it looked like a pretty wide >range of materials. > >best, >Suzanne Clothier > >David Appleby wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Do you know if the toys that were familiar to the dog would have had its > >scent on i.e. resulting in the novel item being the only one that did not? > > > >Best wishes, > > > > David > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] > >Sent: 29 June 2004 01:43 > >To: 'Pat Robards'; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > >Subject: RE: Seligmans paper > > > >Hi everyone, the dog Rico was subjected to scientific testing. The novel > >object was placed in the next room by the tester, so neither the owners > >scent nor the owners body language were available to cue the dog to pick >the > >novel object. The dog was retested a few weeks later and had retained the > >names for the novel items in 50% of items, which was compared with the > >capacity of a 3 year old child for "fast-mapping". > >The dog is a border collie, commonly thought to be rather clever dogs. > >Regards, > >Jackie Perkins > >Ps I have not yet read the full copy of this study. I may be able to share > >more later. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Pat Robards [mailto:probards@ozemail.com.au] > >Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:29 PM > >To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > >Subject: Re: Seligmans paper > > > > > > > >Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:21 PM > >Subject: Re: Seligmans paper > > > > > >Good old fashioned *scent discrimination*, I wonder what other cues > >were given, a raised eyebrow, a smile perhaps? > >Kindest Regards > > > >Pat Robards (Australia) > >http://www.k9events.com/ From: IN%"jhaskins@tpg.com.au" "Jenny Haskins" 30-JUN-2004 17:45:45.02 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Seligmans paper > I wondered the same thing as David, but when thinking on it further, > considered this: what if the novel item *did* have a novel scent? Does > that change anything? If so, how? > Suzanne Clothier > > David Appleby wrote: > >Do you know if the toys that were familiar to the dog would have had its > >scent on i.e. resulting in the novel item being the only one that did not? I have only read the news report of this experiment, but suggesting the dog did not truly know the names 200 different things because he identified the new object by scent, seems to me to be a non-sequiteur. How do the critics of the conclusions drawn by the experimenters suggest that the dog should have been identifying the novel item. Isn't it a little bit chauvinist (speciesist) to limit object identification to visual stimuli only? I generally learn the name of a new object, by coupling what it looks like with the given auditory signal (word). However I can also couple the smell of a named odour with the auditory signal. Given that I know the names and smells of, say, vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, hydrogen sulfide and mercaptan, if somebody asked that from six identical phials I select a different chemical that I had nver before smelled, the new smell would be more than obvious to me. Jenny Haskins Family Dog Training Coffs Harbour, Australia From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 3-JUL-2004 04:04:52.11 To: IN%"k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz" "'John R. Lane'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: John Lane and All I think this definition of preparedness is best explained by = physiological preparedness. =20 "We can define a continuum of preparedness operationally. Confront an organism with a CS paired with US or with a response which produces an outcome. Depending on the specifics, the organism can be either prepared, unprepared, or contraprepared for learning about the events." Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9.college_napier@xtra.co.nz]=20 Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:02 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: John Lane and All Great sense of humour Robyn. Lightened the topic a lot thanks. =A0 =A0 ROBYN SAID:=20 >I think that they do not act thus in either contingence - ORDINARILY - >but clearly they can be trained if they are obliging enough to offer = the >opportunity.=20 =A0 =A0 MY RESPONSE: Good point Robyn. I'll buy this and I now don't think this necessarily negates Seligmans view. I'll explain why by taking a cut from his paper = "On the generality of the laws of learning" I posted. =A0 While parts of Seligmans paper at times appear to me to be contradictory = in terms of explaination of premise=A0I am going to cut=A0what I think is = the relative statement that=A0we are looking at here. =A0 This bit (I think) we can all live with. =A0 =A0 START OF CUT1: We can define a continuum of preparedness operationally. Confront an organism with a CS paired with US or with a response which produces an outcome. Depending on the specifics, the organism can be either prepared, unprepared, or contraprepared for learning about the events.=20 =A0=20 The relative preparedness of an organism for learning about a situation is defined by the amount of input (e.g., numbers of trials, pairings, bits of information, etc.) which must occur before that output (responses, acts, repertoire, etc.), which is construed as evidence of acquisition, reliably occurs. It does not matter how input or output are specified, as long as that specification can be used consistently for all points on the continuum. Thus, using the preparedness dimension is independent of whether one happens to be an S-R theorist, a cognitive theorist, an information processing theorist, an ethologist, or what have you. Let me illustrate how one can place an experimental situation at various points on the continuum for classical conditioning. If the organism makes the indi-cant response consistently from the very first presentation of the CS on, such =93learning=94 represents a clear case = of instinctive responding, the extreme of the prepared end of the dimension. If the organism makes the response consistently after only a few pairings, it is somewhat prepared. If the response emerges only after many pairings (extensive input), the organism is unprepared. If acquisition occurs only after very many pairings or does not occur at all, the organism is said to be contraprepared. The number of pairings is the measure that makes the dimension a continuum, and implicit in this dimension is the notion that =93learning=94 and =93instinct=94 are continuous. END OF CUT1: =A0 From this (I think) we can see he says that "preparedness" , "unpreparedness" and "contrapreparedness" =A0is not=A0(go/no go) = terminology. As in the animal in black and white terms either can or cant. =A0 =A0He sees it as=A0a relative sliding scale of continuum. =A0 =A0Relative to the organism's difficulty of learning the new association = (as shown by the number of pairings required) because of how close or = distant the association is to innate / reflexive actions either by virtue=A0of evolutionary learning and/or coupled with the individual organism's life learning. (not as in physical difficulty). =A0 I have recut the exact words and paste them here seperated out for quick reference so you don't have to keep returning up to reread the whole = thing. =A0 =A0 START OF CUT2: If the organism makes the indi-cant response consistently from the very first presentation of the CS on, such =93learning=94 represents a clear case = of instinctive responding, the extreme of the prepared end of the dimension. =A0 =A0If the organism makes the response consistently after only a few pairings, it is somewhat prepared. =A0 =A0If the response emerges only after many pairings (extensive input), = the organism is unprepared. =A0 If acquisition occurs only after very many pairings or does not occur at all, the organism is said to be contraprepared.=20 =A0 The number of pairings is the measure that makes the dimension a = continuum, and implicit in this dimension is the notion that =93learning=94 and =93instinct=94 are = continuous. END OF CUT2: =A0 =A0 So (I think) we can see from this he doesn't say that "contraprepared" = means that the animal can *never* learn the new association just that it is = much more difficult than if it is at the other end of the preparedness scale. =A0 Thoughts anyone? =A0 Regards John L. =A0 =A0 =A0 From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 6-JUL-2004 04:44:16.35 To: IN%"bid@kvl.dk" "Birgitte Iversen Damm" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: McGlone et al.'s metaanalysis on sow welfare Well done! Publish! As for using any of the alternative measures of born= piglets as a welfare measure, this is like using growth rate as a welfare= measure. N piglets born is one of the most important components in the= breeding goals for maternal breeds (Yorkshire, Landrace), so sows have= been heavily selected for giving birth to large litters (even to the= detriment of the survival of these litters, but that is a different= question) You should discuss this with a breeding specialist, but my= layman guess is that gestating sows would have to be in a very bad= condition before they would start to divert energy away from the embryos. Anna Olsson *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 06-07-2004 at 12:18 Birgitte Iversen Damm wrote: >Dear all, >At The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University we, the division of >ethology and welfare and the division of epidemiology, have discussed the >McGlone et al. paper reviewing welfare for confined and group housed >gestating sows, which was recently posted on this list. We agree with >previous responses to the paper on the list, that the welfare debate to a >large extent is an ethical one. However, we also find reason to question >the scientific contents of the paper. > >The authors conclude that their > >" metaanalysis revealed that gestation stalls (non-tethered) or >well-managed pens generally (but not in all cases) produced similar states >of welfare for pregnant gilts or sows in terms of physiology, behaviour, >performance, and health" (page 106, column 1, line 11-17). > >We strongly disagree with this conclusion, because the material used in >the analysis was inadequate and the welfare indicators questionable. >Hence, we find it alarming, that the paper is apparently being used as an >argument against US legislation in favour of loose housing of gestating >sows. > >For those interested, we list our arguments against the authors' >conclusion in the attached file. > >Best regards, >Birgitte Damm, Bj=F6rn Forkman, Jan Ladewig, Mette Giersing and Hans Houe > > > >Birgitte I. Damm, DVM, Ph.D. >The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University >Division of Ethology >Gr=F8nneg=E5rdsvej 8 >1870 Frederiksberg C >Denmark >Telephone: +45 35 28 30 17 >Fax: +45 35 28 30 22 >E-mail: bid@kvl.dk Dr Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour and Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology - IBMC Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto Phone +351 22 607 4900 Fax +351 22 6099157 From: IN%"jurskivan@hi.htnet.hr" "Marko Jirasek" 6-JUL-2004 19:42:01.05 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: introduction Hello all I have joined this group just recently, in search for new info and experiences of others involved in feline behaviour and problem solving. I'm a cat breeder located at Croatia, Europe, and by promoting felinology and understanding cats I help people in my area to solve feline behaviour problems. If there's anyone else with same or similar interests located in my area, please send me a note. I have learned in the past couple of years since I've started dealing with feline behaviour problems and education, that people with my interests are crusingly scarce in this region. Best regards to all on this list, Marko Jirasek www.turkishvan.cjb.net www.macja-posla.cjb.net From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 13-JUL-2004 02:49:34.74 To: IN%"kc@synalia.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dogs trained to yawn Dear Kayce, Do you think these trainers would be happy to talk to me about their yawn training successes? Cheers, Dr Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviourist Good Dog Behaviour Clinics Australia www.good-dog.com.au -----Original Message----- From: Kayce Cover [mailto:kc@synalia.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 12:58 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Cc: dunlap1@mindspring.com Subject: dogs trained to yawn Marine mammal trainers routinely put signal behaviors on cue - everything from breaches, tail slaps, vocalizations, to nods and yawns. You can see this in any Sea World show, and in many others. Other normally autonomically controlled behaviors that have been put on cue for research projects I have been on include rate of breathing, quality of breath, and breath hold, urination, gag reflex, anal sphincter control, relaxation, stillness .... There is more. For any who doubt that yawning can be elicited on cue, here are two cases that people can examine. Please see the first Benji movie, (Benji trained by Frank Inn). Benji yawns, a small yawn, but shown in the movie, right near the beginning. This was thirty or forty years ago. This is a behavior he demonstrated, on cue, during publicity presentations, as I recall. In addition, Charlene Dunlap's Standard Poodle, April, performed this flawlessly, as seen in the movie, "Fuzzy Fairy". This was on cue, and was a captured behavior. See more of Dunlap's work, which is very precise and clean, at http://www.caninehorizons.com, where the movie can also be ordered. Outstanding work. Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 13-JUL-2004 06:02:08.38 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: dogs trained to yawn Dear Jackie, Charlene Dunlap may be contacted through her website. She is an outstanding trainer (you will be able to see video of her working, on her website soon) and is a very gracious person as well. http://www.caninehorizons.com Jenifer Hurley, Ph.D (physiologist) is also a world reknown trainer whose work has been featured repeatedly in the media - so you might be able to find examples just by searching. I do not know if she is available to discuss these things. She has trained her sea lions to swallow stomach tubes, allow rectal tubes, cooperate with ultrasound, and lie very still for over an hour with no food and no direct contact with a trainer (in order to examine basal metabolic rates). I don't know if she has trained yawns or not, but she definitely works around the autonomic responses. You can find her website and contact information by searching under "SLEWTHS". I have trained the breath related behaviors (while assisting Gerry Kooyman in research while at Scripps Institution of Oceanography). We had to have very good stimulus control. We were measuring lung volumes and tidal lung volumes, so needed to have no lung air exchanged unless it was in our collection bags. I have trained yawning with sea lions when I was doing shows at Mystic Marinelife Aquarium. It was a matter of capturing the behavior, assigning a cue, and then (often) modifying it to create some interesting twists on it. Naming the thing greatly speed acquisition because they know what we are trying for (versus just bridging when it occurs.) I believe that is the limit of information I might contribute that might be of interest to you. Frank Inn is dead now. Best wishes, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com > Dear Kayce, Do you think these trainers would be happy to talk to me > about their yawn training successes? > Cheers, > Dr Jackie Perkins Veterinary Behaviourist > Good Dog Behaviour Clinics > Australia > www.good-dog.com.au > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kayce Cover [mailto:kc@synalia.com] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 12:58 PM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Cc: dunlap1@mindspring.com > Subject: dogs trained to yawn > > Marine mammal trainers routinely put signal behaviors on cue - > everything from breaches, tail slaps, vocalizations, to nods and yawns. > You can see this in any Sea World show, and in many others. Other > normally > autonomically controlled behaviors that have been put on cue for > research projects I have been on include rate of breathing, quality of > breath, and breath hold, urination, gag reflex, anal sphincter control, > relaxation, stillness .... There is more. > > For any who doubt that yawning can be elicited on cue, here are two > cases that people can examine. Please see the first Benji movie, (Benji > trained by Frank Inn). Benji yawns, a small yawn, but shown in the > movie, right near the beginning. This was thirty or forty years ago. > This is a behavior he demonstrated, on cue, during publicity > presentations, as I recall. > > In addition, Charlene Dunlap's Standard Poodle, April, performed this > flawlessly, as seen in the movie, "Fuzzy Fairy". This was on cue, and > was a captured behavior. See more of Dunlap's work, which is very > precise and clean, at http://www.caninehorizons.com, where the movie can > also be ordered. Outstanding work. > > Kayce Cover > Syn Alia Training Systems > http://www.synalia.com Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 13-JUL-2004 12:07:00.66 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: dogs trained to yawn > kayce, > The one thing that I don't understand is why anyone > would want to take a Social Signal and put it on cue, > where it doesn't mean what it is meant to mean. For > example, I have been told that in Ostriches, it is to > signal danger and when the danger is over, the > ostriches stop yawning. It just doesn't make sense to > me. > CeAnn > Hi CeAnn, People do this because they want to 1) demonstrate to the public what the animal's signals are and how they are used 2) use these behaviors as a jumping off point for more complicated behaviors important to the animals well being - like dental examinations in the case of a yawn, which develops into a mouth held open, and from there to teeth brushing, dental exams, etc, 3) to get an animal which has not been well socialized to start showing or using these signals appropriately (we can coach them) or 4) because the animal is an actor in some sense, in a public demonstration, movie, etc and we need them to communicate via a yawn, for some reason, that is not in a normal social context, to name a few good reasons. I have never seen any problem or confusion, any more than I experience if someone tells me to yawn so they can get a picture of my tonsils (much in demand). Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 13-JUL-2004 12:47:40.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: elephants and other animals in "captivity" Hi all, On some exotic animal management lists I am on, there are some very vocal people lobbying to send all elephants to sanctuaries. They do not offer any evidence that this is better for elephants, Instead, they offer impassioned appeals and "ethical" arguments. God save me from some people's ethics. In any case, I rebutted one such argument and present it here for your consideration,as I believe these issues are complex and concern all of us. Best, Kayce ******************* Dear xxxx and all, I have listened with misgivings to recent discussion about placing elephants which may be more politically correct than substantive. For example, the two directors who placed their elephants in sanctuaries did not make "admirable" choices. They did not have a choice at all. The AZA decreed that their faciilties did not meet the new standards, based on best guesses rather than data, on what elephants need in captivity, supported by no comparisons of wellness amongst any elephant, captive, or wild. These faciilties MUST send away their elephants or lose their acreditation, and all funding and ability to keep animals dependent on that accreditation (some states in the US now mandate that only zoos that are AZA accredited may keep exotic animals in that state). To turn around and praise these zoos as being forward thinking seems downright patronizing. And to represent showing elephants to children as a misplaced indulgence is a grave misunderstanding. Children must learn about animals in a way that ties their hearts to the interests of these animals, and their (our) environment. Having been there, and done that, using books, videos and live animals, I have seen that this happens best when people and animals make direct contact. Those of us who are currently professionally involved with exotic animals are riding a crest of awareness ushered in by zoos, scientific studies, and television productions. It has been postulated that the television show "Flipper" did more to advance the cause of dolphins than any other single conservation measure. I certainly know that up into the 80's dolphins were still being driven onshore in Japan and slaughtered in masses, as were dolphins in tuna nets in this country's waters. Economic, not moral concerns, drove tuna companies to change their practices and start offering "dolphin safe" tuna. Today's children will learn to respect the needs of other inhabitants of Earth, not because they read a political statement, but because they learn to appreciate other beings - largely through direct contact and observation. I often see that people who have never owned a dog have very little idea what a dog is, or is capable of, and don't care either. So, once these elephants go off to a sanctuary, who will see them? Right now, it seems very doubtful that elephants will ever be returned to the wild. We sat together at a conference where scientists from all over the world described the thorny problems of people and elephant needs colliding. One scientist from Africa described how the elephants would kill solitary human travelers, and destroy entire fields of crops when they came to eat them at the peak of ripeness - causing financial devastation and starvation amongst farmers. Children could not walk to school. Attempts to fence elephants off from the fields were ineffectual. It will take diligence and investment to protect the future of elephants, and it will be provided by the children hoping to see elephants today. And some of those children will be like you and I, and grow up to dedicate their adult endeavors to improving things for elephants and other animals. The elephants need to be accessible. They need to be seen. In real life - not just on a screen. And, I think there is a lot of uninformed presumption about what an elephant wants. We have not really asked them. I know many people who choose to live in cities and love it. They don't want to be airlifted to the wilderness in order to live a more "natural" life. Not everyone wants to live in the hills of Tennessee. Unlike many people who work with exotics, I have been in numerous situations where the animals did have choice. In every case that I know of, they chose to remain in "captivity". At Scripps, the sea lions that washed up on the beach lived in lab pools one wall away from the ocean. The sea lions could easily jump the distance from the top of the pool wall to freedom outside the pool wall. Instead, they chose to rest atop the walls and gaze at the sea, and jump off on the inside. Everyone that I know that works animals in the open water has no problems at all with the animals leaving them. However they do have problems retiring them. The animals have been known to swim over 200 miles to get back to their captive situations. Those facitliies that allow their marine mammals to go in and out of their enclosures, relay that the animals almost always report in time for work. And when Willie (Keiko) was freed, he soon died. I am all for working to protect the interests of animals, the environment and people. I believe the best way to do this is to intertwine our lives and increase the ways were are mutually dependent and mutually benificiaries of shared existences. I think it is good for people and animals to live and work together. I think zoos are vital to the education of children who will inherit these issues. I fear that the elephants that get sequestered away in sanctuaries will be the last of their kind, due to lack of interest of humans to come later. My perspective might change if I saw any actually evidence that elephants would choose a different life - not that they make the best of it when they find themselves in a new situation, or even that they like it, but would they choose it? Or, is there any data showing how elephants are tangibly happier in a sanctuary, or whether their lives are longer or more disease/illness free. This is what should enter into our discussions rather than impassioned emotional pleas that may be misguided. Politically correct is not necessarily biologically, or even ethically, correct. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com 757 588 5967 or 757 630 2000 From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 13-JUL-2004 12:48:02.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: elephants and other animals in "captivity" Hi all, On some exotic animal management lists I am on, there are some very vocal people lobbying to send all elephants to sanctuaries. They do not offer any evidence that this is better for elephants, Instead, they offer impassioned appeals and "ethical" arguments. God save me from some people's ethics. In any case, I rebutted one such argument and present it here for your consideration,as I believe these issues are complex and concern all of us. Best, Kayce ******************* Dear xxxx and all, I have listened with misgivings to recent discussion about placing elephants which may be more politically correct than substantive. For example, the two directors who placed their elephants in sanctuaries did not make "admirable" choices. They did not have a choice at all. The AZA decreed that their faciilties did not meet the new standards, based on best guesses rather than data, on what elephants need in captivity, supported by no comparisons of wellness amongst any elephant, captive, or wild. These faciilties MUST send away their elephants or lose their acreditation, and all funding and ability to keep animals dependent on that accreditation (some states in the US now mandate that only zoos that are AZA accredited may keep exotic animals in that state). To turn around and praise these zoos as being forward thinking seems downright patronizing. And to represent showing elephants to children as a misplaced indulgence is a grave misunderstanding. Children must learn about animals in a way that ties their hearts to the interests of these animals, and their (our) environment. Having been there, and done that, using books, videos and live animals, I have seen that this happens best when people and animals make direct contact. Those of us who are currently professionally involved with exotic animals are riding a crest of awareness ushered in by zoos, scientific studies, and television productions. It has been postulated that the television show "Flipper" did more to advance the cause of dolphins than any other single conservation measure. I certainly know that up into the 80's dolphins were still being driven onshore in Japan and slaughtered in masses, as were dolphins in tuna nets in this country's waters. Economic, not moral concerns, drove tuna companies to change their practices and start offering "dolphin safe" tuna. Today's children will learn to respect the needs of other inhabitants of Earth, not because they read a political statement, but because they learn to appreciate other beings - largely through direct contact and observation. I often see that people who have never owned a dog have very little idea what a dog is, or is capable of, and don't care either. So, once these elephants go off to a sanctuary, who will see them? Right now, it seems very doubtful that elephants will ever be returned to the wild. We sat together at a conference where scientists from all over the world described the thorny problems of people and elephant needs colliding. One scientist from Africa described how the elephants would kill solitary human travelers, and destroy entire fields of crops when they came to eat them at the peak of ripeness - causing financial devastation and starvation amongst farmers. Children could not walk to school. Attempts to fence elephants off from the fields were ineffectual. It will take diligence and investment to protect the future of elephants, and it will be provided by the children hoping to see elephants today. And some of those children will be like you and I, and grow up to dedicate their adult endeavors to improving things for elephants and other animals. The elephants need to be accessible. They need to be seen. In real life - not just on a screen. And, I think there is a lot of uninformed presumption about what an elephant wants. We have not really asked them. I know many people who choose to live in cities and love it. They don't want to be airlifted to the wilderness in order to live a more "natural" life. Not everyone wants to live in the hills of Tennessee. Unlike many people who work with exotics, I have been in numerous situations where the animals did have choice. In every case that I know of, they chose to remain in "captivity". At Scripps, the sea lions that washed up on the beach lived in lab pools one wall away from the ocean. The sea lions could easily jump the distance from the top of the pool wall to freedom outside the pool wall. Instead, they chose to rest atop the walls and gaze at the sea, and jump off on the inside. Everyone that I know that works animals in the open water has no problems at all with the animals leaving them. However they do have problems retiring them. The animals have been known to swim over 200 miles to get back to their captive situations. Those facitliies that allow their marine mammals to go in and out of their enclosures, relay that the animals almost always report in time for work. And when Willie (Keiko) was freed, he soon died. I am all for working to protect the interests of animals, the environment and people. I believe the best way to do this is to intertwine our lives and increase the ways were are mutually dependent and mutually benificiaries of shared existences. I think it is good for people and animals to live and work together. I think zoos are vital to the education of children who will inherit these issues. I fear that the elephants that get sequestered away in sanctuaries will be the last of their kind, due to lack of interest of humans to come later. My perspective might change if I saw any actually evidence that elephants would choose a different life - not that they make the best of it when they find themselves in a new situation, or even that they like it, but would they choose it? Or, is there any data showing how elephants are tangibly happier in a sanctuary, or whether their lives are longer or more disease/illness free. This is what should enter into our discussions rather than impassioned emotional pleas that may be misguided. Politically correct is not necessarily biologically, or even ethically, correct. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com 757 588 5967 or 757 630 2000 From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 14-JUL-2004 11:43:04.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: help with some farm animal questions Dear all, I'm reviewing a book on animal ethics and would appreciate your help to answer a few factual questions. 1. Is it usual to debeak laying hens twice? 2. How many times in a life, and with what interval, are laying hens usually moulted in countries where this practice is applied? 3. Is debeaking routinely used for broiler chickens? Toeclipping? 4. Is cannibalism at all a problem in broiler flocks? 5. Is it usual that tail-biting in pigs transfers into regular fighting? 6. Is it common practice anywhere to keep gestating sows in darkness and fed only every two to three days? These have all to do with statements made that I don't recognise from the farming practice I'm familiar with, but recognising that my own experience is limited I would appreciate the international input from the list members. Best wishes Anna Olsson From: IN%"applied.ethology@katiestuff.com" "Katie Lukas" 15-JUL-2004 16:48:11.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: A question about dogs' eyes & eye movements Hi all - I've been looking for information on this subject and have come up fairly empty-handed, but that may be because I'm not tapped into the more scientific resources that many of the folks on this list have at their disposal. If that's the case, apologies in advance, and hopefully you can just point me in a worthwhile direction. Given the rather different mechanics of a canid eye (and as far as I know, most eyes other than human eyes and those of some primates) from our own, and, notably, the several eye-oriented interspecies means of communication (direct stare, head-turning), it strikes me in my own experience with my dogs and others that they seem capable of a much more human-like set of communications using their eyes than one would expect. The best example of this is looking to a person and then to a thing to indicate concern or desire ("I want that thing, please give it to me," "I need to go out, please open that door.") I personally find this interesting on several levels, not least because interspecies body language in dogs seems to preclude direct eye contact most of the time, yet dogs learn to not only tolerate it with people but use it to their (and our) advantage. My own dogs have not only not avoided eye contact with me, but frequently have sought it out, and - even more compellingly - have figured out how to use their eyes and eye movements to communicate highly specific things to me and other people. I'm wondering if there is any research on this subject, and also if there are any comparative studies of eye-movement communication of other species both within the species and with humans. I find it particularly fascinating that a means of communication that appears to be somewhat taboo between dogs has regardless been developed as a means of communication with us, and what might be possible to extrapolate or learn from what appears to be a somewhat dichotomous system of "language." Any information would be much appreciated. Best, Katie Lukas -- ------------- Katie Lukas Dog Training & Behavior Modification http://www.katiek9.com katie@katiek9.com