From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 28-FEB-2003 10:06:15.87 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: 2nd Annual Intercollegiate Animal Welfare Judging Contest Dear All, Following the success of the inaugural Animal Welfare Judging Contest in March last year, Michigan State University is proud to again host the contest, which aims to integrate animal welfare into a traditional animal science undergraduate experience. The contest, being held on Friday 28th February, welcomes participants from Penn State University, Purdue University and Michigan State University. If you wish to learn more about the event, view sample scenarios, or contact organizers for more information about participating in future contests, please visit our website at http://www.msu.edu/~zanella/awjc.html Regards from Michigan, Kirsty -- Dr Kirsty Laughlin Animal Behavior and Welfare Group 1230B Anthony Hall Animal Science Michigan State University Direct line: 517-432-0085/1396 email: laughl16@msu.edu From: IN%"mseguin@uoguelph.ca" 1-MAR-2003 14:24:12.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Reducing aggression in groups of females Hello, I need some help finding articles on the presence of a male (whether it is a boar, cock etc.) on the behaviour (mainly aggression) in a group of females. The only relevant article that I have found to date is one by Temple Grandin on the presence of a boar in the slaughter house on pig aggression. Any help or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Monica Sιguin MSc Candidate Animal Behaviour University of Guelph From: IN%"rdefranco@worldofanimalscience.com" "AIAS Mail" 2-MAR-2003 07:00:42.06 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Postion Opening: Feline Behavior Instructor - Online Course delivery Position: Part-time/Adjunct Instructor Course: Applied Feline Behavior Institution: American Institute for Animal Science Division: School of Companion Animal Science Location: Online course delivery Application Due: Open until filled Salary: To US $3000 per quarter plus stipend for course development AIAS is a private, state-licensed online and ground-based career school specializing in applied animal science with an international student population. We seek a part-time faculty member to help develop a curriculum and teach an asynchronous, online course for applied feline behavior specialists. The qualified candidates must have a masters degree (doctorate or veterinary degree preferred), at least 5 years teaching experience, and knowledge of feline behavior, especially domesticated cats. Courses are 12 weeks in length and offered quarterly based upon enrollment. Apply online with CV and cover letter to Robert DeFranco at rdefranc@worldofanimalscience.com. From: IN%"lking@hsus.org" "Lesley King" 2-MAR-2003 10:32:10.55 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cat behavior, sociology re: feline companion animals: courses and papers? Hi, Does anyone know if there are courses available that focus on companion animal welfare, and more specifically, cat behavior and welfare, in the USA? If you know of any that deal directly with issues relating to cats, let me know the details. Thanks! Dr. Lesley King Director for Education and Animal Welfare Animal Research Issues Humane Society of the United States 2100 L St., NW, Washington, DC, 20037. Tel: 301-258-3046 Fax: 301-258-7760 lking@hsus.org From: IN%"wickens@ufaw.org.uk" "Stephen Wickens" 3-MAR-2003 10:54:34.93 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"ANIMAL-WELFARE@JISCMAIL.ac.uk", IN%"animal-enrichment@yahoogroups.com", IN%"ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR@JISCMAIL.ac.uk" CC: Subj: Latest programme of events of 'Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: UFAW Symposium', 2-4 April 2003. Science in the Service of Animal Welfare UFAW Symposium, 2 – 4 April 2003, Edinburgh, UK The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) is organising a three-day international symposium on "Science in the Service of Animal Welfare" in Edinburgh, UK, on 2nd to 4th April 2003. The aim is to bring together leading authorities from around the world to present papers on the science of welfare assessment, the use of science in ethical decisions and for promoting animal welfare, and public understanding of and influence over welfare standards. It is hoped that the symposium will stimulate discussion with a view to identifying future priorities for research, education, and practical/policy developments. Latest Programme of Events v WEDNESDAY 2nd APRIL 2003 Session One: The Science of Welfare Assessment Chair: Professor Vince Molony University of Edinburgh 09.30–09.45: Dr James Kirkwood Universities Federation for Animal Welfare & Humane Slaughter Association Introduction to the symposium: Science in the service of animal welfare 09.45–10.15: Professor Marian Dawkins University of Oxford Using behaviour to assess animal welfare 10.15–10.45: Dr Chris Sherwin University of Bristol Methods of investigation of ideal housing for laboratory mice 10.45–11.25: Coffee and tea Session Two: The Science of Welfare Assessment Chair: Professor Donald Broom University of Cambridge 11.25–11.55: Dr Mike Mendl University of Bristol Welfare assessment: inferences from cognitive capacities 11.55–12.15: Dr Margit Bak Jensen Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Use of demand functions to assess behavioural priorities 12.15–12.35: Dr Georgia Mason University of Oxford Lifestyle in the wild predicts captive welfare in the Carnivora 12.35–14.00: Lunch. Poster Session 1 will run from 13.00–13.55 in Appleton Tower Concourse Session Three: The Science of Welfare Assessment Chair: Professor Marian Dawkins University of Oxford 14.00–14.30: Professor Donald Broom University of Cambridge Brain measures which tell us about animal welfare 14.30–14.50: Dr Jonathan Cooper University of Lincoln Behavioural priorities under commercial husbandry conditions 14.50–15.10: Dr Klaas Kramer Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands The use of radio-telemetry in laboratory animal welfare research 15.10–15.30: Mrs Naomi Latham University of Oxford Can't stop, won't stop: clarifying the links between stereotypy, behavioural persistence and frustration in laboratory mice 15.30–16.10: Coffee and tea Session Four: The Science of Welfare Assessment Chair: Professor John Webster University of Bristol 16.10–16.40: Professor Paul Flecknell University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Assessing pain in animals — putting research into practice 16.40–17.00: Professor David Morton University of Birmingham Measurement of aversion to determine humane methods of anaesthesia and killing 17.00–17.20: Dr Victoria Braithwaite University of Edinburgh Pain perception in Teleost fish 19.00–20.30: Welcome drinks reception at the National Gallery of Scotland, The Mound v THURSDAY 3rd APRIL 2003 Session Five: The Science of Welfare Assessment Chair: Dr James Kirkwood Universities Federation for Animal Welfare & Humane Slaughter Association 09.00–09.30: Professor John Webster University of Bristol Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation 09.30–09.50: Mr Kenneth Rutherford Roslin Institute, Edinburgh Fractal analysis of animal behaviour as an indicator of animal welfare 09.50–10.10: Dr David Shepherdson Oregon Zoo, USA Zoo animal welfare assessment using cross-institutional comparisons of individuals 10.10–10.30: Dr Melissa Bateson University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Mechanisms of decision-making and the interpretation of choice tests 10.30–11.10: Coffee and tea Session Six: Using Science in Ethical Decisions Chair: Dr Michael Appleby Humane Society of the United States 11.10–11.40: Professor Peter Sandψe Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark Scientific uncertainty — how should it be handled in relation to scientific advice regarding animal welfare issues? 11.40–12.10: Professor David Mellor Massey University, New Zealand Using science to support ethical decisions promoting humane livestock slaughter and vertebrate pest control 12.10–12.30: Dr Jonathan Reynolds The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge Trade-offs between welfare, conservation, utility and economics in wildlife management — a review of conflicts, compromises and regulation 12.30–12.50: Dr Anna Olsson Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Porto, Portugal Ethical decisions concerning animal biotechnology: what is the role of animal welfare science? 12.50–14.20: Lunch. Poster Session 2 will run from 13.20–14.15 in Appleton Tower Concourse Session Seven: Public Understanding, Science and Other Factors Influencing Animal Welfare Policy Chair Professor Peter Sandψe Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen 14.20–14.50: Professor James Serpell University of Pennsylvania, USA Factors influencing public attitudes to animals and their welfare 14.50–15.10: Dr John Savory Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive Laying hen welfare standards: a classic case of 'power to the people' 15.10–15.30: Dr Michael Appleby Humane Society of the United States Science is not enough: how do we increase implementation? 15.30–16.10: Coffee and tea will be served in Appleton Tower Concourse Session Eight: Public Understanding, Science and Other Factors Influencing Animal Welfare Policy Chair Professor James Serpell University of Pennsylvania 16.10–16.40: Dr David Bayvel MAF Biosecurity Authority, New Zealand Science-based animal welfare standards: the international role of the Office International des Epizooties 16.40–17.00: Mr Mike Radford University of Aberdeen Informed debate: the impact of animal welfare science on public policy and legal regulation 19.30–23.00: Symposium banquet at the Royal Museum, Chambers Street. v FRIDAY 4th APRIL 2003 Session Nine: The Application and Transfer of Scientific Advances to the Care of Animals Chair Dr Hannah Buchanan-Smith University of Sterling 09.00–09.20: Mr David Pritchard Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Trends in animal welfare on-farm found during statutory monitoring 09.20–09.40: Dr Richard Reynnells United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): building bridges through innovative animal well-being initiatives 09.40–10.00: Dr Gilly Griffin Canadian Council of Animal Care Guidelines development and scientific uncertainty: the care and use of fish in research, teaching and testing 10.00–10.20: Dr Sylvia Taylor United States Department of Agriculture Applied behavioural science in a National Animal Welfare Program 10.20–11.00: Coffee and tea Session Ten : The Application and Transfer of Scientific Advances to the Care of Animals Chair Professor David Mellor Massey University, New Zealand 11.00–11.30: Professor Linda Keeling Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara The application of scientific advances to the welfare of farm animals 11.30–11.55: Professor Geoff Simm Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh Breeding and animal welfare: a review of options in farm animals 11.55–12.15: Dr Hannah Buchanan-Smith University of Stirling What factors should inform minimum cage sizes for laboratory primates? 12.15–13.45: Lunch. Poster Session 3 will run from 12.45–13.40 in Appleton Tower Concourse Session Eleven: The Application and Transfer of Scientific Advances to the Care of Animals Chair: Dr Robert Hubrecht Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 13.45–14.15: Professor Irene Pepperberg Brandeis University & MIT School of Architecture and Planning, USA Meeting cognitive requirements: enrichment materials for captive and companion animals 14.15–14.35: Dr Emily Patterson-Kane Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh Enrichment of laboratory caging for rats 14.35–14.55: Dr Bryan Jones Roslin Institute, Edinburgh Feather pecking in poultry: the application of science in a search for practical solutions 14.55–15.35: Coffee and tea Session Twelve: The Application and Transfer of Scientific Advances to the Care of Animals Chair: Professor Linda Keeling Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara 15.35–15.55: Dr Lesley King Humane Society of the United States Ethics and welfare of animals used in education: an international perspective 15.55–16.15: Ms Eva Waiblinger University of Zόrich, Switzerland Refinement of laboratory gerbil housing and husbandry 16.15–16.30: Concluding remarks and thanks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Registration for this meeting costs £175.00. There will be a limited number of places available for students at the reduced rate of £75.00 per person; these will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis. Prices include attendance at the symposium for three days, lunch and refreshments. Accommodation is available for delegates at Pollock Halls of Residence on 1st, 2nd and 3rd April. Single rooms are available for £84.00 per person for three nights and single en-sui te rooms for £130.50 per person for three nights; these rates include a full Scottish breakfast. Attendance at the symposium banquet will cost £35.00 per person. If you would like a registration form, please email: scioff@ufaw.org.uk. We look forward to hearing from you in due course and to meeting you in Edinburgh next year. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Herts, AL4 8AN, UK Tel +44 (0) 1582 831 818 Fax +44 (0) 1582 831 414 Email scioff@ufaw.org.uk Web www.ufaw.org.uk From: IN%"jbelck@cox.net" "Jack Belck" 3-MAR-2003 20:16:59.15 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Circling Penguins J. Barber=92s suggestions vis-=E0-vis why the few new and many old = birds circle so long seem right on, but one wonders why, if the question is worth an answer (and it is) why the keepers, perhaps prodded and directed by those of scientific bent, have not isolated, say, the newcomers in another pool along with an equal number of old-timers to see if the behavior repeats itself. This could be varied by isolating the old ones first to see if the circling habit diminishes or disappears. And those are only a few possible permutations designed to eliminate variables and dig down to the answers wanted. Otherwise, it seems to be a form of ancient Greek science, where thinkers sit around thinking about phenomena, and never deign to experiment with them. From: IN%"rich@valutech.com" "Richard Cooper" 4-MAR-2003 11:03:09.18 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Circling Penguins It seems to me that there is no other path penguins can take in a pool except to circle around its perimeter. If the pool were very long and narrow, = they would probably swim laps, and this question wouldn't even come up. Surely = there is survival advantage enough in swimming for exercise, keeping the = penguins fit, no matter how the exercise is laid out geometrically. =20 =20 JMHO, Rich =20 -----Original Message----- From: Jack Belck [mailto:jbelck@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:16 PM To: APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca Subject: Circling Penguins J. Barber's suggestions vis-=E0-vis why the few new and many old birds = circle so long seem right on, but one wonders why, if the question is worth an answer (and it is) why the keepers, perhaps prodded and directed by = those of scientific bent, have not isolated, say, the newcomers in another pool = along with an equal number of old-timers to see if the behavior repeats = itself. This could be varied by isolating the old ones first to see if the = circling habit diminishes or disappears. And those are only a few possible permutations designed to eliminate variables and dig down to the = answers wanted. Otherwise, it seems to be a form of ancient Greek science, = where thinkers sit around thinking about phenomena, and never deign to = experiment with them. From: IN%"elywolf@purdue.edu" "elywolf" 4-MAR-2003 11:55:37.94 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" "APPLIED ETHOLOGY LIST" CC: Subj: Pecking number Hi all, A collegue here at Purdue is interested in collecting the number of pecks that hens make at a feeder. Originally they were going to count each pecks after recording them, but I was wondering if anyone out there has used some sort of data logger to record the number of pecks over time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Sincerely, Mark Woodcock From: IN%"pdic@btclick.com" "Pig Disease Information Centre UK" 4-MAR-2003 13:39:40.27 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology Posting" CC: Subj: RE: Reducing aggression in groups of females Dear Monica Thank-you for an interesting topic. When I was working as a veterinarian in Yorkshire, England, in the 1970s, a number of local pig farmers had developed the practice of adding a boar to a group of newly-weaned sows in order to reduce fighting and vulva-biting in the sows. The intuitive view of this at the time was that the females were very "irritable" after weaning - partly because they had suddenly and prematurely been separated from their litters and partly also because of social mixing stress and partly because of hunger (feed was drastically curtailed at weaning following the previously generous supply to support lactation). All farms at that time (before A.I. was so widespread) would introduce a boar to the sows from about day 3 after weaning to stimulate and synchronise the post-weaning oestrus, but there were these farms who did this earlier introduction of the boar specifically to control aggression in sow groups. Did these farms have less inter-sow aggression than those that did not follow this practice? No data was collected. Comparisons would have been difficullt anyway because so many factors affect aggression between sows, e.g. pen size, group size, parity distribution, mange and genotype. It has been shown by Paul Hemsworth's group in Australia that human/pig relationships and interactions are also significant, see his book "Human-Livestock Interactions": www.pighealth.com/MEDIA/P/BOOKS/BKDETAIL/HEMSWORT.HTM Recently I was discussing this topic with a female colleague and we collating our analogous experiences of aggression in groups of human females. For example I have heard groups of female co-workers going through interpersonal strife (colloquially referred to sometimes as "bitchiness") say things like "What we need around here is a man in charge". On considering possible mechanisms for these male effect, I'm afraid our discussion became a little frivolous and we became satisfied with the explanation that "This would give the women someone to blame for all their problems!" As far as humans are concerned this might just be a case of "many a true word spoken in jest!" because it reminded me of a discussion I once overheard - a group of women were saying to each other that now that women had equal pay and in A.I. and vitro fertilisation were possible, they no longer had any need for men in their lives. They all nodded in vigorous agreement, then after a moment for reflection, one said "Yes, but who would we blame when things go wrong?" Suddenly the whole group re-affirmed their interest in the opposite gender and went home happily to their partners! To be quite fair and politically correct, similar experiences are reported in human male groups, where the entrance of a females can have a "civilising effect" on destructive male behaviour. Unfortunately I cannot recall a similar situation occurring in male groups of animals, purely because people are generally more wary of introducing a single female to a group of mature males so I cannot off-hand recall such a situation. Bye for now, I'm off to break up a fight in the girls dormitory.. Mike From: IN%"jlanier@hsus.org" "Jennifer Lanier" 6-MAR-2003 09:04:01.44 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Reminder ISAE Travel Award Hello everyone. Just a reminder that the deadline for applications for the 2003 ISAE Graduate Student Travel Award is fast approaching. Deadline is 17 March 2003. I do accept e-mailed applications! The awards maybe full or partial funding of travel expenses to Italy. Please contact me if you are interested in applying and need the information. You may also check out the web site for the 2003 ISAE Congress at www.isae2003.org I look forward to receiving your application. Jennifer Jennifer L. Lanier, Ph.D. Director of Scientific Programs Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L. Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 (301) 548 7787 (301) 258 3081 Fax jlanier@hsus.org From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 6-MAR-2003 15:51:44.80 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Circling Penguins - by chance - today's San Francisco reports! Hello - Have to say, this discussion one of my all time favorites in this forum = and my thanks all round for it. Just when I thought I'd have to phone = to Zoo to check on what's been happening, this in today's paper. My = reading of the article didn't find any science, just more = tongue-in-cheek comments; suggestions about breeding times, migrations = and stories of children who've come to watch and queries from all over. = Comment here on all this far more interesting in this person's opinion. -margory cohen San Francisco Penguin frenzy over=20 Birds back where they started after mock migration=20 URL: = http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2003/= 03/06/BA123065.DTL=20 The 52 penguins at the San Francisco Zoo have finally decided they have = better things to do than hang around the pool all day, swimming in = circles. Now, it's time to hang around the house.=20 They're burrowing in, getting ready to breed. And their mysterious mock = migration is over, for the least mysterious of reasons.=20 "The urge to merge won out over everything," said penguin keeper Jane = Tollini.=20 On Wednesday, Penguin Island looked like an avian version of Club Med. = Clingy couples lolled about in front of their burrows, pinching and = preening each other. Several pairs, firmly ensconced in their homes, = didn't even bother to stick their heads out.=20 The migration started tapering off on Valentine's Day weekend, when some = penguins stopped swimming and started fooling around. And now, says the = zoo, it's over for sure. All 52 birds have reached dry land and stayed = there.=20 The same creatures who'd been swirling around the pool frantically since = Christmas Eve are now acting as if they've been given a mass dose of = Valium.=20 "----- Original Message -----=20 From: Richard Cooper=20 To: APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@skyway.usask.ca=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:02 AM Subject: RE: Circling Penguins It seem s to me that there is no other path penguins can take in a = pool except to circle around its perimeter. If the pool were very long and = narrow, they would probably swim laps, and this question wouldn't even come up. Surely = there is survival advantage enough in swimming for exercise, keeping the = penguins fit, no matter how the exercise is laid out geometrically. =20 JMHO, Rich -----Original Message----- From: Jack Belck [mailto:jbelck@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:1 6 PM To: APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca Subject: Circling Penguins J. Barber's suggestions vis-=E0-vis why the few new and many old = birds circle so long seem right on, but one wonders why, if the question = is worth an answer (and it is) why the keepers, perhaps prodded and = directed by those of sc ientific bent, have not isolated, say, the = newcomers in another pool along with an equal number of old-timers to = see if the behavior repeats itself. This could be varied by isolating = the old ones first to see if the circling habit diminishes or = disappears. And those are only a few possible permutations designed to = eliminate variables and dig down to the answers wanted. Otherwise, it = seems to be a form of ancient Greek science, where thinkers sit around = thinking about phenom ena, and never deign to experiment with them. From: IN%"Juan.Pratdesaba@aventis.com" 7-MAR-2003 15:25:28.35 To: IN%"adolfolf1@yahoo.com", IN%"jsagastume@grupotetra.com", IN%"anaceleste@terra.com.gt", IN%"diablisg@hotmail.com", IN%"ibrahimv@intelnet.net.gt", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"Arnoldo.Contreras@aventis.com", IN%"Arturo.Dell@aventis.com", IN% CC: Subj: FW: RV: Fw: un mensaje para el futuro!! >leelo a ver que te parece el a=F1o 2050.=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > ..................Un mensaje del futuro..............=20 > >=20 > >Ayer por la ma=F1ana, al levantarme, encontr=E9 bajo mi puerta un = sobre=20 > >extra=F1o el papel era grueso y gris, como una especie de = "aleaci=F3n" de=20 > >papel y metal, no es r=EDgido, no tiene estampilla pero mi nombre y=20 > >direcci=F3n est=E1n claramente escritos, lo abr=ED con suma = curiosidad al=20 > >extender las hojas, me extra=F1o que la letra, escrita a mano, me era = > >familiar, y todav=EDa lo m=E1s sorprendente es la fecha y el = contenido, el=20 > >cual comparto con ustedes, pues parece ser el motivo por el cual fue=20 > >escrita.=20 > > >=20 > > > A=F1o 2050=20 > > >=20 > > > Acabo de cumplir los 40, pero mi apariencia es la de alguien de = 55,=20 > > > tengo serios problemas renales porque bebo muy poco agua. creo que = no=20 > > > me queda mucho tiempo. recuerdo cuando tenia 15 a=F1os: todo era = muy=20 > > > diferente. Hab=EDa muchos =E1rboles en los parques, las casas = ten=EDan=20 > > > hermosos jardines y,yo pod=EDa disfrutar de un ba=F1o de regadera = hasta=20 > > > por una hora, ahora usamos toallas empapadas en aceite mineral = para=20 > > > limpiar la piel; antes todas las mujeres luc=EDan su hermosa = cabellera;=20 > > > ahora debemos afeitarnos la cabeza para poder mantenerla limpia = sin=20 > > > agua; antes mi padre lavaba el auto con el chorro de la manguera, = los=20 > > > ni=F1os de ahora ni siquiera saben para que sirve una manguera.=20 > > >=20 > > > Recuerdo que hab=EDa muchos anuncios que dec=EDan "cuida el agua"=20 > > > aparec=EDan en la radio, la televisi=F3n, peri=F3dicos pero nadie = los tomaba=20 > > > en cuenta...pens=E1bamos que el agua jam=E1s se pod=EDa terminar, = m=E1s ahora,=20 > > > todos los r=EDos, presas, lagunas y mantos acu=EDferos est=E1n=20 > > > irreversiblemente contaminados o agotados; la cantidad de agua=20 > > > indicada como ideal para beber eran de ocho vasos al d=EDa por = persona=20 > > > adulta, yo solo puedo beber medio vaso, la ropa es desechable, con = lo=20 > > > que aumenta grandemente la cantidad de basura, hemos tenido que=20 > > > construir de nuevo letrinas, como en el siglo pasado.=20 > > >=20 > > > Yo viv=EDa en el desierto cuando ni=F1o pero nos mudamos por la = falta de=20 > > > agua; al principio la llevaban de muy lejos en camiones cisterna, = pero=20 > > > era muy costosa y solo los ricos pod=EDan pagarla. la gente de = pocos=20 > > > recursos tomaba agua contaminada. Much=EDsimos murieron de = infecciones=20 > > > gastrointestinales, enfermedades de la piel y de las v=EDas = urinarias.=20 > > > No hay industrias, ni talleres, por lo tanto hay desempleo. de los = > > > pocos lugares para trabajar hoy, en las plantas desalinizadoras, = donde=20 > > > algunos obreros prefieren recibir agua potable en vez de salario.=20 > > > existen asaltos con el =FAnico prop=F3sito de apoderarse del = aljibe con=20 > > > agua. La tasa de mortalidad entre ni=F1os y ancianos es enorme a = causa=20 > > > de problemas renales, deshidrataci=F3n, enfermedades v=EDrales e=20 > > > infecciosas, mis padres y dos de mis hijos ya no est=E1n conmigo = por=20 > > > esas causas: murieron. La comida es 80% sint=E9tica. por la = resequedad=20 > > > de la piel una joven de 20 a=F1os luce como de 35. los = cient=EDficos=20 > > > investigan, pero no hay soluci=F3n posible. no se puede fabricar = agua,=20 > > > el oxigeno tambi=E9n se ha degradado por falta de =E1rboles lo que = ha=20 > > > disminuido el coeficiente intelectual de las nuevas generaciones. = se=20 > > > ha alterado la morfolog=EDa del espermatozoide de muchos = individuos,=20 > > > como consecuencia: ni=F1os con insuficiencias, mutaciones y=20 > > > deformaciones.=20 > > >=20 > > > El gobierno incluso nos cobra por el aire que respiramos: 137 m3 = por=20 > > > d=EDa por habitante adulto. la gente que no puede pagar es = arrojada de=20 > > > las"zonas ventiladas" que est=E1n dotadas de gigantescos pulmones=20 > > > mec=E1nicos que funcionan con energ=EDa solar, no es de buena = calidad pero=20 > > > se puede respirar, la edad promedio es de 40 a=F1os.=20 > > >=20 > > > En algunos pa=EDses quedan manchas de vegetaci=F3n con su = respectivo que=20 > > > es fuertemente custodiado por el ejercito, el agua se ha vuelto un = > > > tesoro muy codiciado, mas que el oro o los diamantes. aqu=ED en = cambio,=20 > > > no hay =E1rboles porque casi nunca llueve, y cuando llega a = registrarse=20 > > > una precipitaci=F3n es de lluvia =E1cida, las estaciones de a=F1o = han sido=20 > > > severamente transformadas por las pruebas at=F3micas que se = hicieron en=20 > > > el siglo xx, entre otras causas.=20 > > >=20 > > > Se advirti=F3 entonces que hab=EDa que "cuidar el medio ambiente", = cuando=20 > > > mi hija pide que le hable de cuando era joven le describo lo = hermoso=20 > > > que eran los bosques, le hablo de la lluvia, de las flores, de lo=20 > > > agradable que era ba=F1arse y poder pescar en los r=EDos y = embalses, beber=20 > > > toda el agua que quisiera, lo saludable que era la gente; ella me=20 > > > pregunta:=20 > > >=20 > > > Pap=E1, =BFPor qu=E9 se acab=F3 el agua? ...........=20 > > >=20 > > > Entonces, siento un nudo en la garganta, no puedo dejar de = sentirme=20 > > > culpable, pertenezco a la generaci=F3n del derroche, hasta apenas = 25=20 > > > a=F1os se nos advirti=F3 "gota a gota, el agua se agota" y no = quisimos=20 > > > tomarlo en serio. ahora nuestros hijos pagan un alto precio, por=20 > > > favor, !! Cuidemos el agua y la energ=EDa, =A1hag=E1moslo por y = para=20 > > > nuestros hijos!!=20 > > >=20 > > > El mensaje esta firmado: =A1por mi hija!=20 > > >=20 > > > Documento extra=EDdo de la revista biograf=EDa "Cr=F3nica de los = Tiempos" de=20 > > > abril 2002.=20 > > >=20 > > > HAS LLEGAR ESTE MENSAJE A TODAS LAS PERSONAS QUE CONOZCAS, POR = CADA=20 > > > VEZ QUE LO HAGAS CREARAS UN POCO DE CONCIENCIA EN CADA PERSONA QUE = LO=20 > > > RECIBA Y ASI PODREMOS TENER UN POQUITO MAS DE AGUA Y VIDA PARA=20 > > > NUESTROS HIJOS.=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 >_________________________________________________________________=20 >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online=20 >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3D3963=20 >=20 From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 8-MAR-2003 15:35:19.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: OT: legislation animal welfare peop le need to be aware of, TIME SENSITIVE See this Bill Moyer PBS TV page for how our government wants to handle terrorism, including international terrorists (Greenpeace would qualify, I would guess under both this act and TX HB433) http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf . This is called the PATRIOT ACT of 2003. "This provision would expand the types of terrorism crimes for which judges may issue search warrants that are valid nationwide. Specifically, it would authorize nationwide search warrants in investigations of the offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. and 2332b(g)(5)(b), including... providing material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations." In other words, if one state will pass this ALEC law with the word terrorist, then a judge in that state could authorize a search warrant good nationwide for person(s) or organizations defined by that ALEC law as terrorists (I think that is what it says). Under ALEC legislation pending in committee in two states, and which is intended to be submitted to all 50 states: "This legislation makes protesting environmental issues a criminal activity, and increases penalties for animal rights or environmental organizations participating in activities "with an intent to influence a governmental entity or the public to take a specific political action." " http://www.serconline.org/watchdog/watchdog2003/watchdog29.html see ALEC legislation: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=78&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00433&VERSION=1&TYPE=B http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04884&sh=t also links: http://www.hsus.org/ace/18371 http://www.ark4pets.com/thln/alert.htm (www.THNL.com) http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1273 http://www.serconline.org/watchdog/watchdog2003/watchdog29.html http://houston.indymedia.org/ http://www.satyamag.com/feb03/edit.html http://www.wlfa.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=968 Note that the ALEC legislation as worded might remove the necessity of LIBEL plantiff in the USA, for instances where video or photos were used, to prove malice beyond a doubt. From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 10-MAR-2003 08:17:35.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: [Fwd: sound perception] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: sound perception Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:44:54 +0100 From: Iwona Kosmider To: stookey@sask.usask.ca Hi ,I have a problem to send the below message to the list. Could you send it for me or give me any description what can go wrong.with greetings,Iwona Kosmider Hi All,I am a master student and I am doing my master project at Etologisk Institute in Denmark. Under Roger Abrantes supervision I am trying to investigate which conditioned reinforcer is more efficient in dog training "!click" or "!good". I would like to find some resources about the perception of this two sounds.I found this on one of the article:Karen Pryor suggests : “the click sound is processed instantly through the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive part of the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals and reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately producing a positive response (excitement) without conscious effort, much like an automatic reflex. A word must be processed though the conscious part of the brain, which reacts slower and with less emotion “Could you give me if it is possible any references when I can possibly find some information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider From: IN%"coria75@neuroetologia.net" 10-MAR-2003 08:41:32.89 To: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] Hi Iwona For a dog the word "GOOD" is not more than a sound that through severals re= petitions he is able to associate with a response. A "click" is a sound too= . Both of them will work correctly associated with the behavior you want to= see. However I would be very interested in the strength and emotion of the= word "GOOD". Since you can't transmit emotions through a "CLICK".=20 Genaro Coria, MVZ M en Neuroetologia Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology (CSBN)Department of Psychology Concordia University. Montreal, QC. Canada --- "Joseph M. Stookey" wrote: > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: sound perception > Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:44:54 +0100 > From: Iwona Kosmider > To: stookey@sask.usask.ca > >Hi ,I have a problem to send the below message to the list. Could you >send it for me or give me any description what can go wrong.with >greetings,Iwona Kosmider Hi All,I am a master student and I am doing my >master project at Etologisk Institute in Denmark. Under Roger Abrantes >supervision I am trying to investigate which conditioned reinforcer is >more efficient in dog training "!click" or "!good". I would like to find >some resources about the perception of this two sounds.I found this on >one of the article:Karen Pryor suggests : =C2=93the click sound is process= ed >instantly through the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive >part of the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals and >reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately producing a >positive response (excitement) without conscious effort, much like an >automatic reflex. A word must be processed though the conscious part of >the brain, which reacts slower and with less emotion =C2=93Could you give = me >if it is possible any references when I can possibly find some >information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 10-MAR-2003 17:10:58.99 To: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" "'joseph.stookey@usask.ca'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] I don't believe the explanation below for a second - not least because of the misrepresentation of the role of the limbic system! Having said that, the quote you gave sounds completely reasonable when compared to the scale of outrageous and ridiculous claims made for clickers and how they work. Instead I think you can understand the efficacy of a 'clicker' in terms of conventional learning theory i.e. 1. The clicker has a very consistent stimulus profile. i.e. every click sounds the same. "Good" is rather variable! 2. The clicker undoubtedly produces very powerful sound in the ultrasound. Metal objects produce a huge amount of sound above the range of human hearing. 3. The clicker is only used for training. "good" is used in many rewarding and rewarding contexts. The use of clickers that I have seen often involves setting up the click as a secondary reinforcer. Again, I think "good" is a less efficient secondary reinforcer simply because it is used inconsistently 4. The clicker is a compund stimulus - having seen clickers used, there are obviously additional 'clever-hans' cues in play. You could address all of these issues by A) using a single sound sample of "good" and playing that back from a computer. That would deal with issue 1 (and issue 3 to an extent) B) using a single recording of a clicker and playing that back from a computer. That would cut out the ultrasound, and equivalate the clever hans effect (i.e. if you press one button or another on your laptop, there's not much of a clever-hans distinction to be made) - i.e. issues 2 and 4 I think if you did that you would find little difference between the two cues. Unless of course clickers really are magical. ;-) Cheers Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mench/garner.htm > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph M. Stookey [mailto:joseph.stookey@usask.ca] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 6:20 AM > To: applied ethology list > Subject: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: sound perception > Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:44:54 +0100 > From: Iwona Kosmider > To: stookey@sask.usask.ca > > Hi ,I have a problem to send the below message to the list. > Could you send it for me or give me any description what can > go wrong.with greetings,Iwona Kosmider Hi All,I am a master > student and I am doing my master project at Etologisk > Institute in Denmark. Under Roger Abrantes supervision I am > trying to investigate which conditioned reinforcer is more > efficient in dog training "!click" or "!good". I would like > to find some resources about the perception of this two > sounds.I found this on one of the article:Karen Pryor > suggests : "the click sound is processed instantly through > the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive part of > the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals > and reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately > producing a positive response (excitement) without conscious > effort, much like an automatic reflex. A word must be > processed though the conscious part of the brain, which > reacts slower and with less emotion "Could you give me if it > is possible any references when I can possibly find some > information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider > From: IN%"santa@kersur.net" "Gwenyth Santagate" 10-MAR-2003 19:20:46.95 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] From what I have read and understand, the actual sound of the mechanical clicker has such frequencies (obviously different than the human voice) as to be able to reach the amygdala. In the millisecond of sound it makes, it can interrupt the millisecond response of the amygdala to the rest of the body. The interruption then causes the messaging system to act in a "thinking" mode (cortical override) rather than a "reaction" mode. I've personally found the clicker to be an amazing aid in teaching horses to "work through" their fears of things and thus, training goes much more quickly and easily. I've actually watched the "thinking" mode go into effect as the horse hears the "click" and begins to "think". The clicker training also is a tremendous way to motivate the horse into wanting to try again and again to "get it right". In the process of helping to strengthen the learning curve of the horse it also aids the human to be much, much more aware of his or her timing of the release of pressure of a specific cue - Thus, making communications between horse and human much more clear. I've worked with enough horses over the years in the "conventional" manner of training and in the past 7 years added "clicker training" with non-debatable results as to say, positively, that clicker training is a remarkable training aid that not only helps reduce training time for specific tasks but can also change the horse's temperament and attitude with great results. *S* Gwen Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 http://www.kersur.net/~santa http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_horsemanship From: IN%"dmills@lincoln.ac.uk" "Daniel Mills" 11-MAR-2003 03:42:12.12 To: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "'Garner, Joseph P.'", IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" "'joseph.stookey@usask.ca'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] There are some interesting comments here and like Joe I am always cautious of claims of this sort but for what its worth here are a couple of comments based partly on our own research into auditory cognition in dogs (we hope to write it up this summer) 1. the clicker is distinctive and short lived (although more variable than Joe supposes, as it needs to be muffled for some animals using a differnet click techniques due to their sound sensitivity). This sets things up much better for contingent relationships during training. The initial charging of the clicker with food (click food cycle) probably allows the build up of a stimulus -response relationship with minimal higher cognitive interference (I think this is the point that Karen Pryor is trying to make), whilst the voice is a much more complex set of stimuli. 2. In our own work (Fukuzawa, Mills and Cooper), we have found that dogs do not generalise voice commands anywhere near as well as we may think. If you transcribe a command onto tape you may get a consistent sound for a human but to a dog you are pretty much starting from scratch again in the training. ie it appears like a new stimulus to the dog. Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare University of Lincoln Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group Riseholme Park Lincoln LN2 2LG tel 44 (0)1522 895356 e-mail dmills@lincoln.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Garner, Joseph P. [mailto:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:11 PM To: 'joseph.stookey@usask.ca'; applied ethology list Subject: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] I don't believe the explanation below for a second - not least because of the misrepresentation of the role of the limbic system! Having said that, the quote you gave sounds completely reasonable when compared to the scale of outrageous and ridiculous claims made for clickers and how they work. Instead I think you can understand the efficacy of a 'clicker' in terms of conventional learning theory i.e. 1. The clicker has a very consistent stimulus profile. i.e. every click sounds the same. "Good" is rather variable! 2. The clicker undoubtedly produces very powerful sound in the ultrasound. Metal objects produce a huge amount of sound above the range of human hearing. 3. The clicker is only used for training. "good" is used in many rewarding and rewarding contexts. The use of clickers that I have seen often involves setting up the click as a secondary reinforcer. Again, I think "good" is a less efficient secondary reinforcer simply because it is used inconsistently 4. The clicker is a compund stimulus - having seen clickers used, there are obviously additional 'clever-hans' cues in play. You could address all of these issues by A) using a single sound sample of "good" and playing that back from a computer. That would deal with issue 1 (and issue 3 to an extent) B) using a single recording of a clicker and playing that back from a computer. That would cut out the ultrasound, and equivalate the clever hans effect (i.e. if you press one button or another on your laptop, there's not much of a clever-hans distinction to be made) - i.e. issues 2 and 4 I think if you did that you would find little difference between the two cues. Unless of course clickers really are magical. ;-) Cheers Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mench/garner.htm > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph M. Stookey [mailto:joseph.stookey@usask.ca] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 6:20 AM > To: applied ethology list > Subject: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: sound perception > Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:44:54 +0100 > From: Iwona Kosmider > To: stookey@sask.usask.ca > > Hi ,I have a problem to send the below message to the list. > Could you send it for me or give me any description what can > go wrong.with greetings,Iwona Kosmider Hi All,I am a master > student and I am doing my master project at Etologisk > Institute in Denmark. Under Roger Abrantes supervision I am > trying to investigate which conditioned reinforcer is more > efficient in dog training "!click" or "!good". I would like > to find some resources about the perception of this two > sounds.I found this on one of the article:Karen Pryor > suggests : "the click sound is processed instantly through > the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive part of > the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals > and reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately > producing a positive response (excitement) without conscious > effort, much like an automatic reflex. A word must be > processed though the conscious part of the brain, which > reacts slower and with less emotion "Could you give me if it > is possible any references when I can possibly find some > information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-MAR-2003 11:26:42.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: June 20-22 class at Yellowstone Institute Dr. Marc Beckoff is teaching a course at the Yellowstone Association Institute from 20-22 June - it is titled MINDING ANIMALS: EMOTIONS, NATURE, ETHICS, AND HEART - the contact number is 307-344 -2485 - there are also many other interesting courses also. From: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "D.B. Cameron" 11-MAR-2003 14:16:52.77 To: IN%"dmills@lincoln.ac.uk", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu", IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" CC: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Effective sound production is much more complicated than I realized. A question: Instead of clickers, I have suggested "mouth sounds" (clicks, squawks, Donald Duck quacks, "raspberries", whistles, etc.) or finger snaps as conditioned reinforcers to my clients for three reasons: 1) The sound generator is always available; i.e., you cannot forget it or lose it. 2) Because these sounds are quite different from each other, each one can be used to "say" a different thing to a dog. 3) In an ambience where there are other similarly trained dogs, a mouth sound will not be confused by YOUR dog, as other trainers are using clickers or at least an easily distinguished mouth sound. Since you have only discussed clickers and words, how do these mouth sounds fit into the equation? Also, since dogs apparently distinguish among sounds much more selectively than we do, if one has to change clickers, is there any possibility of a communication problem developing? I ask because a given clicker most probably has a very specific sound, and another may well have a significantly different sound. It occurs to me, now that I have begun to think about this, that mouth sounds from one person are very likely to vary all the time, but even so, within a certain "envelope" of frequencies that the subject is most likely to learn to recognize as the same sound. DBC ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM Animal Behavior Clinic < \ / > 15353 N. Bloomfield Road Nevada City, CA 95959 ! ! 530.265.9341 .. Ships are safe in harbor . . . But that is not what ships are for. On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:41:11 +0000 Daniel Mills writes: > There are some interesting comments here and like Joe I am always > cautious > of claims of this sort but for what its worth here are a couple of > comments > based partly on our own research into auditory cognition in dogs (we > hope to > write it up this summer) > 1. the clicker is distinctive and short lived (although more > variable than > Joe supposes, as it needs to be muffled for some animals using a > differnet > click techniques due to their sound sensitivity). This sets things > up much > better for contingent relationships during training. The initial > charging of > the clicker with food (click food cycle) probably allows the build > up of a > stimulus -response relationship with minimal higher cognitive > interference > (I think this is the point that Karen Pryor is trying to make), > whilst the > voice is a much more complex set of stimuli. > 2. In our own work (Fukuzawa, Mills and Cooper), we have found that > dogs do > not generalise voice commands anywhere near as well as we may think. > If you > transcribe a command onto tape you may get a consistent sound for a > human > but to a dog you are pretty much starting from scratch again in the > training. ie it appears like a new stimulus to the dog. > > > > Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS > Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare > University of Lincoln > Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group > Riseholme Park > Lincoln LN2 2LG > tel 44 (0)1522 895356 > e-mail dmills@lincoln.ac.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garner, Joseph P. [mailto:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:11 PM > To: 'joseph.stookey@usask.ca'; applied ethology list > Subject: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > I don't believe the explanation below for a second - not least > because of > the misrepresentation of the role of the limbic system! > > Having said that, the quote you gave sounds completely reasonable > when > compared to the scale of outrageous and ridiculous claims made for > clickers > and how they work. > > Instead I think you can understand the efficacy of a 'clicker' in > terms of > conventional learning theory i.e. > > 1. The clicker has a very consistent stimulus profile. i.e. every > click > sounds the same. "Good" is rather variable! > 2. The clicker undoubtedly produces very powerful sound in the > ultrasound. > Metal objects produce a huge amount of sound above the range of > human > hearing. > 3. The clicker is only used for training. "good" is used in many > rewarding > and rewarding contexts. The use of clickers that I have seen often > involves > setting up the click as a secondary reinforcer. Again, I think > "good" is a > less efficient secondary reinforcer simply because it is used > inconsistently > 4. The clicker is a compund stimulus - having seen clickers used, > there are > obviously additional 'clever-hans' cues in play. > > You could address all of these issues by > > A) using a single sound sample of "good" and playing that back from > a > computer. That would deal with issue 1 (and issue 3 to an extent) > B) using a single recording of a clicker and playing that back from > a > computer. That would cut out the ultrasound, and equivalate the > clever hans > effect (i.e. if you press one button or another on your laptop, > there's not > much of a clever-hans distinction to be made) - i.e. issues 2 and 4 > > I think if you did that you would find little difference between the > two > cues. Unless of course clickers really are magical. > > ;-) > > Cheers > > Joe > > > __________________________ > > Dr. Joseph Garner, > University of California, > Department of Animal Science, > One Shields Avenue, > Davis, > CA 95616 > USA > > Phone: (530) 752 1253 > Fax: (530) 752 0175 > > http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mench/garner.htm > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph M. Stookey [mailto:joseph.stookey@usask.ca] > > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 6:20 AM > > To: applied ethology list > > Subject: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: sound perception > > Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:44:54 +0100 > > From: Iwona Kosmider > > To: stookey@sask.usask.ca > > > > Hi ,I have a problem to send the below message to the list. > > Could you send it for me or give me any description what can > > go wrong.with greetings,Iwona Kosmider Hi All,I am a master > > student and I am doing my master project at Etologisk > > Institute in Denmark. Under Roger Abrantes supervision I am > > trying to investigate which conditioned reinforcer is more > > efficient in dog training "!click" or "!good". I would like > > to find some resources about the perception of this two > > sounds.I found this on one of the article:Karen Pryor > > suggests : "the click sound is processed instantly through > > the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive part of > > the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals > > and reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately > > producing a positive response (excitement) without conscious > > effort, much like an automatic reflex. A word must be > > processed though the conscious part of the brain, which > > reacts slower and with less emotion "Could you give me if it > > is possible any references when I can possibly find some > > information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider > > > > From: IN%"matchdog@chello.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard" 11-MAR-2003 18:23:45.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: sound perception Hello All, I would like to pay my fare with a contribution of a translation of an article on my website I wrote a couple of years back. "This afternoon I had a young Dobermann puppy in for lessons. A small bitch of just over three months. I had already heard a couple of heart-wrenching stories about her. She was bred by a very unpleasant breeder and her ears were cropped. The little animal suffered braindamage during birth. While all her brothers and sisters had already been sold, this animal was kept apart. Ever since her seventh week she was alone in a kennel. She was very poorly fed and without any attention or care. Every time when people came to check the healthy puppies this merchant had to offer, and he thought he had a chance for a good deal, he took them to the little misfit and offered it for half price. He told them that this animal would be killed in the end, if it didn't find a home soon. A customer of mine who had bought a healthy pup from this man told me about this earlier and her story gave me the creeps. Her friend finally fell for the tricks of the breeder and bought the puppy as a present for her mother. What a gift! The head is crooked, the eyes swim in all directions, there is no focussing at all. The puppy has no control over her bladder, she pees without even noticing, even during play. Her new owner came to me for Bach Flower Remedies and after a chat we decided to also try and reach her by using the clicker. The new owner had taken care for this puppy for two weeks. During this time the pup had never made eye contact. If one spoke to the animal you got a mix of 5 or 6 different behaviours, accompanied by uncontrolled eyemovement and weaving head. In the back of my mind was this statement of Karen Pryor that says that you can directly link the sound of the clicker to the spinal cord and that thinking therefore isn't a necessity, so I started to click and feed the pup. The first 20 treats were gobbled up by a headshaking, unfocussed and shivering puppy. That is, when she realised I was trying to feed her something nice. After that I started clicking for looking up. I initiated the movement by slowly moving the treat towards my face a couple of times. Then I waited to see what would happen. AND: she got it! Even better: after about 10 clicks she was able to focus on my face for about 10 seconds at a time. (At which point the owner was almost into tears...) What happened next was very interesting. The swaying movement of the head as well as the unfocussed swimming eyes were gone. This problem did not return during the rest of the visit which totalled one and a half hour. As soon as she got confused by too many stimuli she stood quietly and focussed her eyes on either her owner or me. At that point I decided to test fate... I lured her into a sit with a treat. Did this three times. After that I moved the treat behind my back. The puppy stood before me, concentrated and quiet, looked at me, expected a click that didn't come. And then she sat down! When I stopped training to give the puppy a chance to have a rest and her owner and I sat down at the table to talk, the puppy went on and on: she was training us! She stood before us, gave us a quiet and focussed look and after that sat down! This was a lesson that gave me the most satisfaction ever!" Bianca Uittenbogaard www.listen.to/click matchdog@chello.nl www.alithia.ontheweb.nl alithia@planet.nl Success is a journey, not a destination From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 11-MAR-2003 18:47:39.11 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: sound perception Thank you Bianca for a very infomative and interesting story. Congratulations on your success with this pup! I'm very curious - do you have any updates on what happened to this dog as it matured? Vivian ____________ Vivian Singer-Ferris Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. info@kerwoodwolf.com www.kerwoodwolf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Bianca Uittenbogaard To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:20 PM Subject: Re: sound perception "This afternoon I had a young Dobermann puppy in for lessons..." From: IN%"dmills@lincoln.ac.uk" "Daniel Mills" 12-MAR-2003 03:11:45.02 To: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "'D.B. Cameron'", IN%"dmills@lincoln.ac.uk", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu", IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] In answer to these questions, we have also done some work looking at the phonetic characteristics of the command word and the key stimulus features that the dog responds to. Again it is too early to say definitively, but certainly dogs do generalise and discrimminate different phonemes within the command......when I get the time, we will finish off writing up the work. The other thing we looked into was the emotional content of the commands and the effect this had. Here prior experience seems to be quite important ie emotional content is learned. Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare University of Lincoln Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group Riseholme Park Lincoln LN2 2LG tel 44 (0)1522 895356 e-mail dmills@lincoln.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: D.B. Cameron [mailto:orion1432@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:58 PM To: dmills@lincoln.ac.uk; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca; JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu; joseph.stookey@usask.ca Cc: orion1432@juno.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: sound perception] Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Effective sound production is much more complicated than I realized. A question: Instead of clickers, I have suggested "mouth sounds" (clicks, squawks, Donald Duck quacks, "raspberries", whistles, etc.) or finger snaps as conditioned reinforcers to my clients for three reasons: 1) The sound generator is always available; i.e., you cannot forget it or lose it. 2) Because these sounds are quite different from each other, each one can be used to "say" a different thing to a dog. 3) In an ambience where there are other similarly trained dogs, a mouth sound will not be confused by YOUR dog, as other trainers are using clickers or at least an easily distinguished mouth sound. Since you have only discussed clickers and words, how do these mouth sounds fit into the equation? Also, since dogs apparently distinguish among sounds much more selectively than we do, if one has to change clickers, is there any possibility of a communication problem developing? I ask because a given clicker most probably has a very specific sound, and another may well have a significantly different sound. It occurs to me, now that I have begun to think about this, that mouth sounds from one person are very likely to vary all the time, but even so, within a certain "envelope" of frequencies that the subject is most likely to learn to recognize as the same sound. DBC ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM Animal Behavior Clinic < \ / > 15353 N. Bloomfield Road Nevada City, CA 95959 ! ! 530.265.9341 .. Ships are safe in harbor . . . But that is not what ships are for. On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:41:11 +0000 Daniel Mills writes: > There are some interesting comments here and like Joe I am always > cautious > of claims of this sort but for what its worth here are a couple of > comments > based partly on our own research into auditory cognition in dogs (we > hope to > write it up this summer) > 1. the clicker is distinctive and short lived (although more > variable than > Joe supposes, as it needs to be muffled for some animals using a > differnet > click techniques due to their sound sensitivity). This sets things > up much > better for contingent relationships during training. The initial > charging of > the clicker with food (click food cycle) probably allows the build > up of a > stimulus -response relationship with minimal higher cognitive > interference > (I think this is the point that Karen Pryor is trying to make), > whilst the > voice is a much more complex set of stimuli. > 2. In our own work (Fukuzawa, Mills and Cooper), we have found that > dogs do > not generalise voice commands anywhere near as well as we may think. > If you > transcribe a command onto tape you may get a consistent sound for a > human > but to a dog you are pretty much starting from scratch again in the > training. ie it appears like a new stimulus to the dog. > > > > Daniel Mills BVSc MRCVS > Principal Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Animal Welfare > University of Lincoln > Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group > Riseholme Park > Lincoln LN2 2LG > tel 44 (0)1522 895356 > e-mail dmills@lincoln.ac.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Garner, Joseph P. [mailto:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:11 PM > To: 'joseph.stookey@usask.ca'; applied ethology list > Subject: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > I don't believe the explanation below for a second - not least > because of > the misrepresentation of the role of the limbic system! > > Having said that, the quote you gave sounds completely reasonable > when > compared to the scale of outrageous and ridiculous claims made for > clickers > and how they work. > > Instead I think you can understand the efficacy of a 'clicker' in > terms of > conventional learning theory i.e. > > 1. The clicker has a very consistent stimulus profile. i.e. every > click > sounds the same. "Good" is rather variable! > 2. The clicker undoubtedly produces very powerful sound in the > ultrasound. > Metal objects produce a huge amount of sound above the range of > human > hearing. > 3. The clicker is only used for training. "good" is used in many > rewarding > and rewarding contexts. The use of clickers that I have seen often > involves > setting up the click as a secondary reinforcer. Again, I think > "good" is a > less efficient secondary reinforcer simply because it is used > inconsistently > 4. The clicker is a compund stimulus - having seen clickers used, > there are > obviously additional 'clever-hans' cues in play. > > You could address all of these issues by > > A) using a single sound sample of "good" and playing that back from > a > computer. That would deal with issue 1 (and issue 3 to an extent) > B) using a single recording of a clicker and playing that back from > a > computer. That would cut out the ultrasound, and equivalate the > clever hans > effect (i.e. if you press one button or another on your laptop, > there's not > much of a clever-hans distinction to be made) - i.e. issues 2 and 4 > > I think if you did that you would find little difference between the > two > cues. Unless of course clickers really are magical. > > ;-) > > Cheers > > Joe > > > __________________________ > > Dr. Joseph Garner, > University of California, > Department of Animal Science, > One Shields Avenue, > Davis, > CA 95616 > USA > > Phone: (530) 752 1253 > Fax: (530) 752 0175 > > http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mench/garner.htm > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joseph M. Stookey [mailto:joseph.stookey@usask.ca] > > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 6:20 AM > > To: applied ethology list > > Subject: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: sound perception > > Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:44:54 +0100 > > From: Iwona Kosmider > > To: stookey@sask.usask.ca > > > > Hi ,I have a problem to send the below message to the list. > > Could you send it for me or give me any description what can > > go wrong.with greetings,Iwona Kosmider Hi All,I am a master > > student and I am doing my master project at Etologisk > > Institute in Denmark. Under Roger Abrantes supervision I am > > trying to investigate which conditioned reinforcer is more > > efficient in dog training "!click" or "!good". I would like > > to find some resources about the perception of this two > > sounds.I found this on one of the article:Karen Pryor > > suggests : "the click sound is processed instantly through > > the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive part of > > the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals > > and reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately > > producing a positive response (excitement) without conscious > > effort, much like an automatic reflex. A word must be > > processed though the conscious part of the brain, which > > reacts slower and with less emotion "Could you give me if it > > is possible any references when I can possibly find some > > information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider > > > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen MRCVS" 12-MAR-2003 03:33:50.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] This issue concerning generalisation of voices and other learned cues is very interesting. A couple of things ocurred to me. Probably obviosu to everyone else but there we go... The dog's hearing extends to higher pitch than ours, and there are probably other aspects of sounds that are perceived differently. Any good conventional recording and replay chain has a frequency range of maybe 40-16,500 hz. Some really expensive systems may go a bit higher, but most fall well short of the 20,000 hz that manufacturers often quote. This means that the recording/replay system functions as a low pass filter, removing a lot of the higher frequency sounds that dogs are able to hear. You can simulate this effect for people by applying a similar low pass filter to alter the sound of an ordinary recording. Intelligability of voices is sharply decreased if the filter just cuts out the top 3-4,000 hz and gets much worse if you remove any more. It is quite easy to make voices indistinguishable from each other in this way, and to alter unfamiliar sounds so that a person would find it hard to match the altered noise with the unaltered one unless they understood what had happened to the sounds and had some other comparisons that enabled them to learn what was going on. Hifi systems of all kinds have recognisable effects on the arrival time of different frequencies and on the frequency balance of the sound. These are all easy to hear for a person who knows what they are listening for, but are probably even more obvious to a dog. There are also issues of directinality to consider when replaying sounds to dogs, and the fact that the animal has learned to respond to the vocal signal in the context of having a person sitting in front of them moving their mouth around. So a recording and replay system will have quite a wide range of effects on sound that might make generalisation a lot more difficult with some noises than we might expect.. I have a number of clients that keep parrots and dogs, and in several cases the parrot has learned to call the dog from another room. The parrots voice is not at all like the person's; if you record it [as I have done unintentionally on one occasion] all of the low frequencies are missing and the voice is very shrill. The dog still responds, despite never getting a reward when it goes into the room where the parrot is [the dog looks utterly confused every time], so you would expect that if these missing frequencies meant anything to the dog then it would learn to discriminate better. I think clickers work well because: 1. Clickers are transferable between people. 2. My hand-eye coordination is generally better than eye-verbal. 3. It is easier to hide any anticipatory movements and behaviours when clicker training [reducing the dog's vigilance of my movements and anticipating my next action is a key element in the way I use a clicker] I do sometimes train dogs to have a finger click or vocal signal as a conditioned reinforcer and it works well for normal training. It isn't quite so good for the kind of training I want in behavioural work, where I often want to stop the dog from anticipating what I am going to do next. Jon From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" "kcover" 12-MAR-2003 10:21:24.82 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" Subj: RE: sound perception and clicker vs verbal bridge This discussion surprises me. As a professional trainer who has worked largely with scientific researchers and in innovative applications, the question of whether the clicker is inherently a more powerful bridge* than the "good", is analogous to debating the merits of electric typewriters. The applications have left this issue behind. The use of verbal bridging based on sound syllables, in a two tier system, the intermediate bridge leading to the terminal bridge, is being used in many professional training endeavors all over the world. The I.M.A.T.A. Glossary, (Hurley, J., and Scaramozzino, J., 1998) lists and defines the intermediate bridge. In general, animal training information at institutions may be considered proprietary information and is generally transmitted in-house to employees, and not shared with the general public, including dog trainers, horse trainers, etc. Some information about these techniques has been made available to the public, but it does not necessarily reflect the apex of training technique development. Many of us use sounds, instead of words, and the word "good" used by the professional trainers I have worked with, has very little in common with the conversational word "good". It is more like a little bark or yelp. It is sometimes purposely extended, as when encouraging an animal to continue to lie still during blood collection. However, many of us have now switched over the the use of the ib/tb system, so rather than dragging the bridge out, we issue a steady stream of intermediate bridges to support the animal as desired. (Dragging the bridge out was, nonetheless, effective, and not just a sloppy application.) Even if the click is wildly superior, in terms of the quality of sound, for some inherent physiological reason, the sound quality of the bridge is only one aspect of the cue system, and not an overriding one. Timing, conditioned impact, use of other cues, nuances in bridging - all combine to make the sound properties relevant only to a point. There are characteristics that are desirable for acoustic bridges, but within these criteriae, there are many appropriate choices. Further, a lot of high level training goes on that never uses any kind of acoustic bridge, so to imagine that there is something "magic" about a particular sound is belying the facts. Clickers are not considered good for underwater work, distance work, aerial work, theatre work, special forces work... The fact is, the clicker was a cheap, conveniently available toy that made a sharp noise THAT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SHOW SCRIPT! (And that the audience was not likely to have on hand to confuse the working animals with.) Even trainers that use clickers will tell you that they also use the click from a ball point pen, or a metal lid, or simply another bridge. It only takes about 2 minutes to condition a bridge, and many of us condition many, many bridges. My bridge of choice will vary according to the situation. If I am involved in a conversation with the director of the zoo and I need to tell my sea lion something, I want a non-acoustic way to do so, and I have conditioned the eyebrow raise to be a bridge for animals. It is the conditioning that makes the bridge, not the stimulus itself. To consider the quality of the click and hang the efficiency of communication from that one thing is like taking a voice track from a person and, having found certain imagined qualities that make that voice the perfect voice, saying that this person will be the most persuasive speaker. There is so much more to communication and motivation that I propose the voice quality is relatively incidental in the total mix. Taking the human communication analogy further, it has been estimated that only 13% of the meaning of spoken language comes through word content. The rest is through inflection, body language, timing, pitch ... In my experiences before audiences, these nuances become critical to success with the audience. Where the audience is my trained animals, these nuances of communication are more easily and effectively harnessed with a verbal bridge than with a mechanical bridge. The problem here, is that if there person is not skilled in using the nuances of bridging, there are more places for them to make mistakes. So, a mechanical bridge might initially prevent someone from being ineffective through misuse of nuances. However, to desire to stay at this level of proficiency in bridging is like aspiring to read a script when speaking - in a monotone! It interferes with the level of effectiveness that might be acheived by an expert. Some imagine that the click is faster than a spoken sound. My bridge is faster than many people's click. I have had the opportunity to compare. In honor of this discussion, with the help of 2 research assistants , I just timed the speed of intermediate bridging. I issue an everage of 20 ibs a second, and I am getting old. These young trainers are probably faster! That means that the animal is getting feedback that marks the instant of success or failure within 1/20th of a second. Will attempt to get some samples up on my website this spring. Also, some in this thread are starting to compare cues with bridges. A cue initiates a behavior, a (terminal) bridge signals its successful completion. Behaviors are defined and relate directly to the trainer, unless otherwise trained. So, while we sometimes work to generalize bridges (For example, show animals are often taught that applause is a bridge, to translate a potential fear of the audience to an appreciation of the audience. Trainers will then use applause to communicate and motivate, but the animals will also play directly to the audience.) However, we do not teach the animals to take cues from the audience, or anyone walking around. Nor is the animal motivated to do so. (If someone tells your teenager to do something and they ignore the command, it may show lack of motivation, not lack of understanding.) So, the fact that an animal will not take a recorded cue is perhaps to be expected. But, just because the word "good" and the cue for "sit" may both be words, they have different roles and the animal will respond differently according to conditioning and other learned associations.. There are many researchers using verbal bridges with amazing results. Hurley's trained sea lions which will lie perfectly still for over an hour for no food or direct contact with the trainer, are one application that has been fully documented. The irony is that the scientists who have applied these techniques to research issues are normally publishing in physiology journals, rather than in ethology or psych journals. The training technique is a tool of research, rather than the subject of research. However, to name a few which may be known to people here: Jerry Kooyman, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Terry Williams, University of California at Santa Cruz, Dan Costa, also UCSC, Jenifer Hurley, Moss Landing Marine Lab (see http://www.mlml.calstate.edu/slewth/how.htm), Daryl Boness, Smithsonian Institution, and Tom Hartsock, Mark Varner and Edwin Goodwin of University of Maryland at College Park. Best wishes, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com 757 588 5967 *a specific conditioned reinforcer which serves to tell the animal that he has met the trainer's requirements, per Keller Breland Web resources: Jenifer Hurley's work: http://www.mlml.calstate.edu/slewth/how.htm and (longer to load) http://www.mlml.calstate.edu/slewths/slewth.html Conditioning bridges: http://www.synalia.com/animal_training_bridges.htm Intermediate Bridge: http://www.synalia.com/animal_training_bridges_intermediate.htm > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 12-MAR-2003 13:33:03.54 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: IMPORTANT: NEWS RELEASE The American Legislative Exchange Council Chairman of the Criminal Justice Task Force (D.C.), Rep. Ray Allen has introduced this additional legislation: Rep. Allen has just: "(Columbus) - A bill has been introduced in the Texas House of Representatives that will increase the punishments prescribed for individuals convicted of animal rights and ecological terrorism. Texas Representative Ray Allen (R-Dallas) introduced House Bill 1516 to combat animal rights terrorism. Under the bill, anyone convicted of animal rights or ecological terror offenses will have his sentence increased to the punishment for the next prescribed category. For example, if convicted of an animal rights terrorism offense that would otherwise bring with it a second-degree felony penalty, the guilty party would receive the sentence of a first-degree felony crime. First-degree felony and Class-A misdemeanor punishments would not be increased. The introduction of a Senate companion bill is imminent." From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 12-MAR-2003 14:21:28.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] Hi Gwenyth Please don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that the clicker works reall really well, and I have no doubt that many of the people who've pitched in on this thread know an awful lot about the practical nature of training animals, and I have no doubt that I would fall flat on my face if I was trying to train animals to do many of the things that expert animal trainers do on a daily basis. I don't see any need to be anything but proud about that kind of knowledge and practical skill. In fact, it is worth remembering that most conventionally trained behavioral scientists have never seen advanced training in action, and many proabably don't appreciate just how difficult it is to translate conventional operant theory into a practical training program. Aand if they are dismissive of the skill required to train animals in the real world, then they will be far more dismissive if those skills are presented dressed up with pseudo-science. As an ethologist who specialises in the brain mechanisms underlying behavior, the sorts of explanation you recalled hearing really get my goat. It's hypothesis-free, untestable, post-hoc story-telling dressed up to sound impressive with some big words. Next time someone says that, ask them to point to the amygdala on a map of the human brain. Also, bear in mind the difference between a post-hoc explanation, and a predictive explanation. This is a complex and subtle distinction that is central to science, but is blurred over in the lay world. - A predictive explanation of a phenomenon can explain how the phenomenon will work in an entirely new situation. Western medicine for instance, for all its flaws, is a predictive science. We can extrapolate treatments from one disease to a completely new disease with a high rate of success, because our understanding of the mechanisms of the body and of disease are predictive. Predictive explanations involve contingent and causal relationships. - A post hoc explanation of a phenomenon is any explanation that fits the facts after the event. It may or may not be why the phenomenon actually happened. It cannot predict how the phenomenon will work in an entirely new situation. Post hoc explanations involve correlational relationships, that often are not contingent. For instance, the encylopaedic knowledge of a herbalist, may be just as effective as western medicine, or even more effective than western medicine in treating KNOWN diseases - but this does not ratify or in any way validate the post hoc explanation of why the treatment works, in terms of 'the four humors' (madaevil europe), 'chi', 'energy flow', 'toxins' or anything else. Because when presented with an utterly new disease, the herbalist is unable to predict a treatment. When we say the VCR is 'misbehaving' or didn't record a show because 'it didn't want to', that's a classic post-hoc explanation, it could be why - there could be a little man in the VCr who makes it work, and he could be really annoyerd, but it doesn't help us figure out how to make the VCR work better next time (or more accurately if we talk loving to the VCR there's no greater chance - i.e. a contingency - that it will work better next time). A good rule of thumb is that anything that needs to be "put in quotes" is usually more of a post-hoc explanation. ;-) There's nothing wrong with post hoc explanations - unless you want to extend your knowledge into entirely new territory. That's why science is about predictive explanations. For example, In my research I have to figure out how to translate very complex cognitive tasks that are used in human psychiatry, into exactly the same task that can be used with animals. This is somewhat analagous to the problem of translating operant theroy into practical training methods. To do so I go back to the predictive explanations of operant theory, to the predictive explanations of psychiatry, and to the predictive explanations in ethology about the ecological constraints in learning. As a result, I have mice solving these problems faster than rhesus monkeys do - not because the mice are smarter, but because the task is designed around them. This is pretty much the same as bridging techniques being so effective - they are developed from the predictive explanations of operant theory in such a way that the training techniques are designed around the constraints of the animal. That to me is good science! Cheers Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mench/garner.htm > -----Original Message----- > From: Gwenyth Santagate [mailto:santa@kersur.net] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 5:34 PM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > From what I have read and understand, the actual sound of the > mechanical clicker has such frequencies (obviously different > than the human voice) as to be able to reach the amygdala. In > the millisecond of sound it makes, it can interrupt the > millisecond response of the amygdala to the rest of the body. > The interruption then causes the messaging system to act in a > "thinking" mode (cortical override) rather than a "reaction" > mode. I've personally found the clicker to be an amazing aid > in teaching horses to "work through" their fears of things > and thus, training goes much more quickly and easily. I've > actually watched the "thinking" mode go into effect as the > horse hears the "click" and begins to "think". The clicker > training also is a tremendous way to motivate the horse into > wanting to try again and again to "get it right". In the > process of helping to strengthen the learning curve of the > horse it also aids the human to be much, much more aware of > his or her timing of the release of pressure of a specific > cue - Thus, making communications between horse and human > much more clear. I've worked with enough horses over the > years in the "conventional" manner of training and in the > past 7 years added "clicker training" with non-debatable > results as to say, positively, that clicker training is a > remarkable training aid that not only helps reduce training > time for specific tasks but can also change the horse's > temperament and attitude with great results. > > *S* Gwen > > Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate > MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist > PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 http://www.kersur.net/~santa > http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_ho> rsemanship > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen MRCVS" 12-MAR-2003 15:02:30.82 To: IN%"coria75@neuroetologia.net", IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] Hi Genaro, Both human vocalisations and click sounds can be turned into conditioned reinforcers with enough pairings, but it depends upon other pre-existing associations. The problem with words like 'good' is that the dog has heard them so many times before, often used in an inconsistent or completely meaningless way or associated with events that are definitely not neutral. For example, many owners say 'good dog' when the dog is misbehaving and they are yanking on its lead...they are not praising the dog, they are pleading with it to behave better. What does this dog learn about the phrase 'good dog'?. Unless verbal cues are novel, are given consistent meaning [in the way Kayce uses them] then they just get lumped in with all the other verbal diarrhoea that dogs have to put up with from us! The emotional side of verbal communication can be useful, but only as long as the trainer is in complete control of the emotions being expressed. Unfortunately most dog owners tend to inject negative emotion without realising it [such as when yelling angrily at a dog that has so far failed a recall]. Self control and an awareness of the signals you are sending out are vital. Jon Hi Iwona For a dog the word "GOOD" is not more than a sound that through severals repetitions he is able to associate with a response. A "click" is a sound too. Both of them will work correctly associated with the behavior you want to see. However I would be very interested in the strength and emotion of the word "GOOD". Since you can't transmit emotions through a "CLICK". Genaro Coria, MVZ M en Neuroetologia Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology (CSBN)Department of Psychology Concordia University. Montreal, QC. Canada --- "Joseph M. Stookey" wrote: > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: sound perception > Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:44:54 +0100 > From: Iwona Kosmider > To: stookey@sask.usask.ca > >Hi ,I have a problem to send the below message to the list. Could you >send it for me or give me any description what can go wrong.with >greetings,Iwona Kosmider Hi All,I am a master student and I am doing my >master project at Etologisk Institute in Denmark. Under Roger Abrantes >supervision I am trying to investigate which conditioned reinforcer is >more efficient in dog training "!click" or "!good". I would like to find >some resources about the perception of this two sounds.I found this on >one of the article:Karen Pryor suggests : Β“the click sound is processed >instantly through the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive >part of the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals and >reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately producing a >positive response (excitement) without conscious effort, much like an >automatic reflex. A word must be processed though the conscious part of >the brain, which reacts slower and with less emotion Β“Could you give me >if it is possible any references when I can possibly find some >information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 12-MAR-2003 22:25:44.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: wolf attack question Hi, I came across this account on the internet and thought that if the 7 month old wolf had wanted to damage that man's leg it certainly had the jaw power to do so. Rather it seemed to be controlling the person. Plus, I was amazed that a wild wolf would allow someone to kill it in such a manner. I am not a wolf behavior person. Could someone comment? http://www.buckshotscamp.com/Newsletter-February-2003.htm Next time some one tells there has never been a wolf attack on a human being here is the case study proven that yes they do. This Wolf attack comes from "Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13- 2002. CASE 19 - Whale Cove, Northwest Territories, 1985. On 13 December biologists Robert Mulders and Mark Williams were capturing barren-ground caribou about 65 km southwest of Whale Cove, a small community on the west coast of Hudson Bay in what is now the territory of Nunavut. At 1:40 PM they captured an adult female caribou with a skid-mounted net gun from a Bell 206B helicopter and landed to process the animal. As they knelt over the netted caribou, Mulders noticed an approaching wolf at a distance of 200 m. The helicopter engine was still running, but the wolf ran within 10 m of the spinning tail rotor as it approached the men. Both men stood, shouted and stepped toward the wolf waving their arms. As Mulders took several strides toward the wolf, it moved to their right in a low stalking crouch. When the men turned and faced the wolf, it circled around further to the right, as if to outflank them. Mulders, who was closest to the wolf, maintained direct eye contact and took a step back and to the right as the wolf came within a few meters. The wolf quickly moved in and grabbed Mulder's left leg, just below the shin. Mulders leaned over and struck the wolf in the head with his bare fist, but the wolf maintained a firm grip for about 10-15 seconds. Williams then stepped forward and struck the wolf on the head with a caribou radio collar, knocking the wolf unconscious. Mulders subsequently struck the wolf twice on the top of the skull with the collar and punctured the wolf's chest cavity with a knife. The wolf's bite caused a small 4 cm tear in Mulders' wind-pants and a small lesion to his shin. External examination of the carcass indicated that this female pup (about 7 mo of age) was in reasonably good body condition and weighed an estimated 22 kg. Traces of dried blood on its right shoulder suggested it might have fed within the previous few days. The head was sent to a lab for rabies testing. Rather than risk possible rabies contamination, the remainder of the carcass was burned without any attempt at necropsy. The wolf tested negative for rabies. The men believed the wolf intended to prey upon the caribou and had probably not previously encountered people. Given its age, the wolf was probably inexperienced in catching and killing large prey. It is possible that the wolf had witnessed the caribou capture sequence and was visually stimulated, but it was unusual that the wolf was not deterred by the noise of the helicopter's turbine engine. Given the wind direction, the wolf would have scented the men and caribou only at close range. Williams speculated that Mulder's movement back and to the right as the wolf was circling may have elicited an aggressive response by the wolf. However, Mulder's interpretation was slightly different. He described the final movement by the wolf as follows: "The wolf had come in close, within several (perhaps 4) meters then moved around in a wider circle to the right, in a low crouched posture. I maintained steady eye contact with the animal over the entire period, and I believe the wolf was already determined to get in close to me. I'm not convinced that my shifting back and turning to the right by one or two paces is what actually provoked the wolf to run in and grab my leg. It was probably already intent on dealing with me prior to my shifting to the right. Obviously, it's difficult to assess what the wolf's motives were." Source: Robert Mulders, Wildlife and Fisheries Division, NWT Ministry of Resources,Wildlife and Economic Development, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, personal communication; and Mark Williams, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Smithers British Columbia, personal communication. From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "anna olsson" 13-MAR-2003 01:46:51.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: wolf attack question The man got "a small 4 cm tear in (his) wind-pants and a small lesion to his shin". The wolf was knocked unconscious and then stabbed. Not much doubt left who represented the most dangerous species... ----- Original Message ----- From: heather mcmurray To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:24 AM Subject: wolf attack question Hi, I came across this account on the internet and thought that if the 7 month old wolf had wanted to damage that man's leg it certainly had the jaw power to do so. Rather it seemed to be controlling the person. Plus, I was amazed that a wild wolf would allo w someone to kill it in such a manner. I am not a wolf behavior person. Could someone comment? http://www.buckshotscamp.com/Newsletter-February-2003.htm Next time some one tells there has never been a wolf attack on a human being here is the case study proven th at yes they do. This Wolf attack comes from "Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13- 2002. CASE 19 - Whale Cove, Northwest Territories, 1985. On 13 December biologists Robert Mulders and Mark Williams were capturing barren-ground caribou about 65 km southwest of Whale Cove, a small community on the west coast of Hudson Bay in what is now the territory of Nunav ut. At 1:40 PM they captured an adult female caribou with a skid-mounted net gun from a Bell 206B helicopter and landed to process the animal. As they knelt over the netted caribou, Mulders noticed an approaching wolf at a distance of 200 m. The helicopter engine was still running, but the wolf ran within 10 m of the spinning tail rotor as it approached the men. Both men sto od, shouted and stepped toward the wolf waving their arms. As Mulders took several strides toward the wolf, it moved to their right in a low stalking crouch. When the men turned and faced the wolf, it circled around further to the right, as if to outflank them. Mulders, who was closest to the wolf, maintained direct eye contact and took a step back and to the right as the wolf came within a few meters. The wolf quickly moved in and grabbed Mulder's left leg, just below the shin. Mulders leaned over and struck the wolf in the head with his bare fist, but the wolf maintained a firm grip for about 10-15 seconds. Williams then stepped forward and struck the wolf on the head with a caribou radio collar, knocking the wolf unconscious. Mulders subsequently struck the wolf twice on the top of the skull with the collar and punctured the wolf's chest cavity with a knife. The wolf's bite caused a small 4 cm tear in Mulders' wind-pants and a small lesion to his shin. External examination of the carcass indicated that this female pup (about 7 mo of age) was in reasonably good body condition and weighed an estimated 22 kg. Traces of dried blood on its right shoulder suggested it might have fed within the previous few days. The head was sent to a lab for rabies testing. Rather than risk possible rabies contamination, the remainder of the carcass was burned without any attempt at necropsy. The wolf tested negative for rabies. The men believed the wolf intended to prey upon the caribou and h ad probably not previously encountered people. Given its age, the wolf was probably inexperienced in catching and killing large prey. It is possible that the wolf had witnessed the caribou capture sequence and was visually stimulated, but it was unusual that the wolf was not deterred by the noise of the helicopter's turbine engine. Given the wind direction, the wolf would have scented the men and caribou only at close range. Williams speculated that Mulder's movement back and to the right as the wolf was circling may have elicited an aggressive response by the wolf. However, Mulder's interpretation was slightly different. He described the final movement by the wolf as follows: "The wolf had come in close, within several (perhaps 4) meters then moved around in a wider circle to the right, in a low crouched posture. I maintained steady eye contact with the animal over the entire period, and I believe the wolf was already determined to get in close to me. I'm not convinced that my shifting back and turning to the right by one or two paces is what actually provoked the wolf to run in and grab my leg. It was probably already intent on dealing with me prior to my shifting to the right. Obviously, it's difficult to assess what the wolf's motives were." < FONT face="Courier New">Source: Robert Mulders, Wildlife and Fisheries Division, NWT Ministry of Resources,Wildlife and Economic Development, Yellowknife, Northwest T erritories, personal communication; and Mark Williams, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Smithers British Columbia, personal communication. From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 13-MAR-2003 03:45:17.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: OT: Plain text please! (Re: wolf attack question) May I repeat my plea for posting in plain text rather than html format, please?! As the quote below shows, some posts are barely legible. Francis >>>> The man got "a small 4 cm tear in (his) wind-pants and a small lesion to his shin". The wolf was knocked unconscious and then stabbed. Not much doubt left who represented the most dangerous species... style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> ----- Original Message ----- From: heather mcmurray To: href=3D"mailto:applied-e thology@skyway.usask.ca">applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:24 AM Subject: wolf attack question =20 align=3Djustify>Hi, I came across this account on the internet and thought that if the 7 ; LINE-HEIG: 200%" align=3Djustify>month old wol= f had wanted to damage that man's leg it certainly had the jaw align=3Djustify>power to do so. Rather it seemed to be controlling the person. Plus, I was align=3Djustify>amazed that a wild wolf would allo w someone to kill it in such a manner. align=3Djustify>I am not a wolf behavior person. Could someone comment? align=3Djustify> T= : 200%" align=3Djustify>http://www.buckshotscamp.com/Newsletter-February-2003.htm align=3Djustify>Next time some one tells there has never been a wolf attack on align=3Djustify> > a human being here is the case study proven th at yes they do. align=3Djustify> This Wolf attack comes from "Alaska Department of Fish and Game align=3Djustify> Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13- 2002. 0px" align=3Djustify> align=3Djustify>CASE 19 =97 Whale Cove, Northwest Territories, 1985. =20 align=3Djustify>On 13 December bi ologists Robert Mulders and Mark Williams =20 were capturing barren-ground caribou about 65 km southwest of Whale Cove, align=3Djustify> a small community on the west coast of Hudson Bay in what is now the px; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" align=3Djustify> territory of Nunav ut. At 1:40 PM they captured an adult female caribou align=3Djustify>with a skid-mounted net gun from a Bell 206B helicopter and landed to align=3Djustify>process the animal. A s they knelt over the netted caribou, Mulders =20 noticed an approaching wolf at a distance of 200 m. The helicopter align=3Djustify>engine was still running, but the wolf ran within 10 m of the T: 200%" align=3Djustify>spinning tail rotor as it approached the men. Both men sto od, shouted align=3Djustify> and stepped toward the wolf waving their arms. As Mulders took align=3Djustify> several strides toward the wolf, it moved to their right in a align=3Djustify>Courier New" size=3D2>low stalking crouch. When the men turned and faced the wolf, it align=3Djustify> align=3Djustify>circled around further to the right, as if to outflank them. Mulders, align=3Djustify> who was closest to the wolf, maintained direct eye contact and took align=3Djustify> a step back and to the right as the wolf came within a few meters. -TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" align=3Djustify>The wolf quickly moved in and grabbed Mulder's left leg, just below align=3Djustify>the shin. Mulders leaned over and struck the wolf in the head with align=3Djustify> hi s bare fist, but the wolf maintained a firm grip for about 10=9615 seconds. =20 align=3Djustify>Williams then stepped forward and struck the wolf on the head with align=3Djustify> w" size=3D2> a caribou radio collar, knocking the wolf unconscious. Mulders subsequently align=3Djustify> struck the wolf twice on the top of the skull with the collar and align=3Djustify>punctured the wolf's chest cavity with a knife. The wolf'= s bite caused NT> align=3Djustify>a small 4 cm tear in Mulders' wind-pants and a small lesion to his shin. =20 align=3Djustify>External examination of the carcass indicated that this female pup align=3Djustify> (about 7 mo of age) was in reasonably good body condition and align=3Djustify> weighed an estimate= d 22 kg. Traces of dried blood on its right align=3Djusti fy>shoulder suggested it might have fed within the previous few days. align=3Djustify> The head was sent to a lab for rabies testing. Rather align=3Djustify> than risk possible rabies contamination, the remainder of the > align=3Djustify>carcass was burned without any attempt at necropsy. The wolf align=3Djustify>tested negative for rabies. =20 IN-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" align=3Djustify>The men believed the wolf intended to prey upon the caribou and align=3Djustify>h ad probably not previously encountered people. Given its align=3Djustify>age, the wolf was probably ine xperienced in catching and killing align=3Djustify>large prey. It is possible that the wolf ha= d witnessed the caribou =20 capture sequence and was visually stimulated, but it was unusual align=3Djustify> that the wolf was not deterred by the noise of the helicopter's align=3Djustify> align=3Djustify>turbine engine. Gi= ven the wind direction, the wolf would have LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" align=3Djustify> scented the men and caribou only at close range. William= s align=3Djustify>speculated that Mulder's movement back and to the right as align=3Djustify> the wolf was circling may have elicited a= n aggressive align=3Djustify>response by the wolf. However, Mulder's interpretation was align=3Djustify> align=3Djustify>slightly different. He described the final movement by the align=3Djustify> wolf as follows: =20 align=3Djustify>"The wolf had come in close, within several (perhap= s 4) meters P style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" align=3Djustify> then moved around in a wider circle to the right, in a low align=3Djustify>crouched posture. I maintained steady eye contact with the animal align=3Djustify> =3D2> over the enti= re period, and I believe the wolf was already align=3Djustify>determined to get in close to me. I'm not convinced that align=3Djustify>my shifting back and turning to the right by one or two : 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" align=3Djustify> paces is what actually provoked the wolf to run in and align=3Djustify>grab my leg. It was probably already intent on dealing align=3Djustify> with me prior to my shifting to the right . Obviously, align=3Djustify> it's difficul= t to assess what the wolf's motives were." =20 align=3Djustify>< FONT face=3D"Courier New">Source: Robert Mulders, Wildlif e and Fisheries Division, align=3Djustify>NWT Ministry of Resources,Wildlife and Economic Development, align=3Djustify> Yellowknife, Northwest T erritories, personal communication; ARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" align=3Djustify>an= d Mark Williams, British Columbia Ministry of Water, align=3Djustify>Land and Air Protection, Smithers British Columbia, personal communication. size=3D2> =20 From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 13-MAR-2003 07:58:50.74 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: wolf attack question Good morning everyone, I've read this and checked out its source, "Buckshot's Camp," a website for trapping enthusiasts. Although the actual article comes from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13, 2002, and recounts an incident in 1985, it is not the government who refers to the scenario as a wolf attack; it is the webmaster of the trapping site that does so. Alaska Fish & Game merely print the biologists' conflicting conclusions about the situation i.e.: one biologist (Williams) believing there was a true "aggressive response" by the wolf and the other biologist (Mulders), interpreting it slightly differently, stating "Obviously, it's difficult to assess what the wolf's motives were." Unlike the owner of the trapping site, I do not consider this wolf pup's behavior to be a true "attack." A true attack would most likely not have begun with the wolf merely grabbing the man's shin. No wolf (of any age) initiates an "all out assault" in this manner. A true attack would have resulted in the man incurring much more serious injury than what was described. The biologists' beliefs, that the pup had not previously encountered people, are probably correct. There are few facts from which to make a qualified assessment, however, from what is presented, here's my take on the situation. The pup approached the men in "innocence," not having learned as yet that most humans are predators. The fact that it seemed to be travelling alone, without its pack, is somewhat unusual. Although pups of that age may be left at a "rendezvous site" while the rest of the pack hunts elsewhere, in most cases this pup would not have been left without a "guardian," either its mother or another female pack member. Despite the traces of dried blood on its shoulder, indicating it may have fed a few days prior, I strongly question whether this pup was not recently orphaned or somehow, at least temporarily separated from its pack. Without elders for guidance, I believe this pup approached the humans out of unguarded curiosity and that in its grasping of Mulders' shin, it was merely "testing" the man, attempting to ascertain how this "new type of animal" would react. Unfortunately, for the wolf, it was a fatal mistake. As Anna said in her post, "Not much doubt who represented the most dangerous species..." It is ironic that the biologists felt it necessary to so brutally kill the "predator," merely a pup, as if it were the true predator in the situation. With some thoughtful effort, I believe very little, they could just as easily have driven it off. Vivian ___________ Vivian Singer-Ferris Executive Director Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. info@kerwoodwolf.com www.kerwoodwolf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: heather mcmurray To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:24 PM Subject: wolf attack question Hi, I came across this account on the internet and thought that if the 7 month old wolf had wanted to damage that man's leg it certainly had the jaw power to do so. Rather it seemed to be controlling the person. Plus, I was amazed that a wild wolf would allo w someone to kill it in such a manner. I am not a wolf behavior person. Could someone comment? http://www.buckshotscamp.com/Newsletter-February-2003.htm Next time some one tells there has never been a wolf attack on a human being here is the case study proven th at yes they do. This Wolf attack comes from "Alaska Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13- 2002. CASE 19 - Whale Cove, Northwest Territories, 1985. On 13 December biologists Robert Mulders and Mark Williams were capturing barren-ground caribou about 65 km southwest of Whale Cove, a small community on the west coast of Hudson Bay in what is now the territory of Nunav ut. At 1:40 PM they captured an adult female caribou with a skid-mounted net gun from a Bell 206B helicopter and landed to process the animal. As they knelt over the netted caribou, Mulders noticed an approaching wolf at a distance of 200 m. The helicopter engine was still running, but the wolf ran within 10 m of the spinning tail rotor as it approached the men. Both men sto od, shouted and stepped toward the wolf waving their arms. As Mulders took several strides toward the wolf, it moved to their right in a low stalking crouch. When the men turned and faced the wolf, it circled around further to the right, as if to outflank them. Mulders, who was closest to the wolf, maintained direct eye contact and took a step back and to the right as the wolf came within a few meters. The wolf quickly moved in and grabbed Mulder's left leg, just below the shin. Mulders leaned over and struck the wolf in the head with his bare fist, but the wolf maintained a firm grip for about 10-15 seconds. Williams then stepped forward and struck the wolf on the head with a caribou radio collar, knocking the wolf unconscious. Mulders subsequently struck the wolf twice on the top of the skull with the collar and punctured the wolf's chest cavity with a knife. The wolf's bite caused a small 4 cm tear in Mulders' wind-pants and a small lesion to his shin. External examination of the carcass indicated that this female pup (about 7 mo of age) was in reasonably good body condition and weighed an estimated 22 kg. Traces of dried blood on its right shoulder suggested it might have fed within the previous few days. The head was sent to a lab for rabies testing. Rather than risk possible rabies contamination, the remainder of the carcass was burned without any attempt at necropsy. The wolf tested negative for rabies. The men believed the wolf intended to prey upon the caribou and h ad probably not previously encountered people. Given its age, the wolf was probably inexperienced in catching and killing large prey. It is possible that the wolf had witnessed the caribou capture sequence and was visually stimulated, but it was unusual that the wolf was not deterred by the noise of the helicopter's turbine engine. Given the wind direction, the wolf would have scented the men and caribou only at close range. Williams speculated that Mulder's movement back and to the right as the wolf was circling may have elicited an aggressive response by the wolf. However, Mulder's interpretation was slightly different. He described the final movement by the wolf as follows: "The wolf had come in close, within several (perhaps 4) meters then moved around in a wider circle to the right, in a low crouched posture. I maintained steady eye contact with the animal over the entire period, and I believe the wolf was already determined to get in close to me. I'm not convinced that my shifting back and turning to the right by one or two paces is what actually provoked the wolf to run in and grab my leg. It was probably already intent on dealing with me prior to my shifting to the right. Obviously, it's difficult to assess what the wolf's motives were." < FONT face="Courier New">Source: Robert Mulders, Wildlife and Fisheries Division, NWT Ministry of Resources,Wildlife and Economic Development, Yellowknife, Northwest T erritories, personal communication; and Mark Williams, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Smithers British Columbia, personal communication. From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-MAR-2003 11:22:40.56 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Plain text please! (Re: wolf attack question) -- my 2nd try at proper formatting Hi, I came across this account on the internet and thought that if the 7month old wolf had wanted to damage that man's leg it certainly had the jawpower to do so. Rather it seemed to be controlling the person. Plus, I wasamazed that a wild wolf would allo w someone to kill it in such a manner.I am not a wolf behavior person. Could someone comment? http://www.buckshotscamp.com/Newsletter-February-2003.htm Next time some one tells there has never been a wolf attack ona human being here is the case study proven th at yes they do.This Wolf attack comes from "Alaska Department of Fish and GameWildlife Technical Bulletin 13- 2002. CASE 19 - Whale Cove, Northwest Territories, 1985. On 13 December biologists Robert Mulders and Mark Williams were capturing barren-ground caribou about 65 km southwest of Whale Cove,a small community on the west coast of Hudson Bay in what is now theterritory of Nunav ut. At 1:40 PM they captured an adult female caribou with a skid-mounted net gun from a Bell 206B helicopter and landed to process the animal. As they knelt over the netted caribou, Mulders noticed an approaching wolf at a distance of 200 m. The helicopter engine was still running, but the wolf ran within 10 m of the spinning tail rotor as it approached the men. Both men sto od, shouted and stepped toward the wolf waving their arms. As Mulders took several strides toward the wolf, it moved to their right in a low stalking crouch. When the men turned and faced the wolf, it circled around further to the right, as if to outflank them. Mulders,who was closest to the wolf, maintained direct eye contact and tooka step back and to the right as the wolf came within a few meters. The wolf quickly moved in and grabbed Mulder's left leg, just below the shin. Mulders leaned over and struck the wolf in the head with his bare fist, but the wolf maintained a firm grip for about 10-15 seconds.Williams then stepped forward and struck the wolf on the head with a caribou radio collar, knocking the wolf unconscious. Mulders subsequently struck the wolf twice on the top of the skull with the collar and punctured the wolf's chest cavity with a knife. The wolf's bite caused a small 4 cm tear in Mulders' wind-pants and a small lesion to his shin. External examination of the carcass indicated that this female pup (about 7 mo of age) was in reasonably good body condition and weighed an estimated 22 kg. Traces of dried blood on its right shoulder suggested it might have fed within the previous few days. The head was sent to a lab for rabies testing. Ratherthan risk possible rabies contamination, the remainder of the carcass was burned without any attempt at necropsy. The wolf tested negative for rabies.The men believed the wolf intended to prey upon the caribou and had probably not previously encountered people. Given its age, the wolf was probably inexperienced in catching and killing large prey. It is possible that the wolf had witnessed the caribou capture sequence and was visually stimulated, but it was unusual that the wolf was not deterred by the noise of the helicopter's turbine engine. Given the wind direction, the wolf would havescented the men and caribou only at close range. Williams speculated that Mulder's movement back and to the right as the wolf was circling may have elicited an aggressive response by the wolf. However, Mulder's interpretation was slightly different. He described the final movement by the wolf as follows: "The wolf had come in close, within several (perhaps 4) meters then moved around in a wider circle to the right, in a low crouched posture. I maintained steady eye contact with the animal over the entire period, and I believe the wolf was already determined to get in close to me. I'm not convinced that my shifting back and turning to the right by one or two paces is what actually provoked the wolf to run in and grab my leg. It was probably already intent on dealing with me prior to my shifting to the right. Obviously,it's difficult to assess what the wolf's motives were." Source: Robert Mulders, Wildlife and Fisheries Division, NWT Ministry of Resources,Wildlife and Economic Development, Yellowknife, Northwest T erritories, personal communication; and Mark Williams, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Smithers British Columbia, personal communication. From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 13-MAR-2003 14:29:19.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Wolf "Unfortunately , for the wolf, it was a fatal mistake. As Anna said in her post, "Not much doubt who represented the most dangerous species..." It is ironic that the biologists felt it necessary to so brutally kill the "predator," merely a pup, as if it were the true predator in the situation. With some thoughtful effort, I believe very little, they could just as easily have driven it off." My thoughts entirely - it is a great shame that the urge to kill should surface so readily in intelligent people - and be chosen as the option when, once the Wolf was unconscious, there was absolutely no need. Perhaps greater awareness of the 'rights' of other creatures might have stayed the knife hand? The death penalty seems extreme for a 4cm trouser wound! Perhaps this also highlights the need for a change in consciousness so that we do not automatically assume that, by virtue of being a human animal, we have an automatic right to kill other creatures. The dominant world culture would appear to desensitize us to the killing of other animals and marginalise both their autonomy and suffering by the daily slaughter of 'meat' for the table. It is perhaps understandable that this should result in the 'extreme' or radical views of those who resist, what many ethicists view as, the hypocrisy of discriminate killing in favour of a more holistic value system. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 13-MAR-2003 14:42:08.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf What about the possible rabies exposure? Had they "driven off" the pup, the person who was bitten would have had to undergo rabies prophylaxis. Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, Therapy Dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Beck To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Wolf "Unfortunately , for the wolf, it was a fatal mistake. As Anna said in her post, "Not much doubt who represented the most dangerous species..." It is ironic that the biologists felt it necessary to so brutally kill the "predator," merely a pup, as if it were the true predator in the situation. With some thoughtful effort, I believe very little, they could just as easily have driven it off." My thoughts entirely - it is a great shame that the urge to kill should surface so readily in intelligent people - and be chosen as the option when, once the Wolf was unconscious, there was absolutely no need. Perhaps greater awareness of the 'rights' of other creatures might have stayed the knife hand? The death penalty seems extreme for a 4cm trouser wound! Perhaps this also highlights the need for a change in consciousness so that we do not automatically assume that, by virtue of being a human animal, we have an automatic right to kill other creatures. The dominant world culture would appear to desensitize us to the killing of other animals and marginalise both their autonomy and suffering by the daily slaughter of 'meat' for the table. It is perhaps understandable that this should result in the 'extreme' or radical views of those who resist, what many ethicists view as, the hypocrisy of discriminate killing in favour of a more holistic value system. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 13-MAR-2003 15:06:13.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf This nicely encapsulates the attitude - the value of the animals life is considered less than the inconvenience to the person who was bitten that he should have to undergo rabies prophylaxis. I rest my case! Regards Andy -----Original Message----- From: Nancy [mailto:noofies@tir.com] Sent: Friday, 14 March 2003 9:41 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Wolf What about the possible rabies exposure? Had they "driven off" the pup, the person who was bitten would have had to undergo rabies prophylaxis. Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, Therapy Dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Beck To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Wolf "Unfortunately , for the wolf, it was a fatal mistake. As Anna said in her post, "Not much doubt who represented the most dangerous species..." It is ironic that the biologists felt it necessary to so brutally kill the "predator," merely a pup, as if it were the true predator in the situation. With some thoughtful effort, I believe very little, they could just as easily have driven it off." My thoughts entirely - it is a great shame that the urge to kill should surface so readily in intelligent people - and be chosen as the option when, once the Wolf was unconscious, there was absolutely no need. Perhaps greater awareness of the 'rights' of other creatures might have stayed the knife hand? The death penalty seems extreme for a 4cm trouser wound! Perhaps this also highlights the need for a change in consciousness so that we do not automatically assume that, by virtue of being a human animal, we have an automatic right to kill other creatures. The dominant world culture would appear to desensitize us to the killing of other animals and marginalise both their autonomy and suffering by the daily slaughter of 'meat' for the table. It is perhaps understandable that this should result in the 'extreme' or radical views of those who resist, what many ethicists view as, the hypocrisy of discriminate killing in favour of a more holistic value system. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 13-MAR-2003 15:11:31.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf Inconvenience? How about pain? And, at the time this occurred, less than adequate assurance that prophylaxis would have worked? And - had the wolf been rabid - would it have been responsible to allow it to go free, to infect other animals? ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Beck To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:04 PM Subject: RE: Wolf This nicely encapsulates the attitude - the value of the animals life is considered less than the inconvenience to the person who was bitten that he should have to undergo rabies prophylaxis. I rest my case! Regards Andy -----Original Message----- From: Nancy [mailto:noofies@tir.com] Sent: Friday, 14 March 2003 9:41 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Wolf What about the possible rabies exposure? Had they "driven off" the pup, the person who was bitten would have had to undergo rabies prophylaxis. Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, Therapy Dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Beck To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Wolf "Unfortunately , for the wolf, it was a fatal mistake. As Anna said in her post, "Not much doubt who represented the most dangerous species..." It is ironic that the biologists felt it necessary to so brutally kill the "predator," merely a pup, as if it were the true predator in the situation. With some thoughtful effort, I believe very little, they could just as easily have driven it off." My thoughts entirely - it is a great shame that the urge to kill should surface so readily in intelligent people - and be chosen as the option when, once the Wolf was unconscious, there was absolutely no need. Perhaps greater awareness of the 'rights' of other creatures might have stayed the knife hand? The death penalty seems extreme for a 4cm trouser wound! Perhaps this also highlights the need for a change in consciousness so that we do not automatically assume that, by virtue of being a human animal, we have an automatic right to kill other creatures. The dominant world culture would appear to desensitize us to the killing of other animals and marginalise both their autonomy and suffering by the daily slaughter of 'meat' for the table. It is perhaps understandable that this should result in the 'extreme' or radical views of those who resist, what many ethicists view as, the hypocrisy of discriminate killing in favour of a more holistic value system. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org From: IN%"scloutie@vetmed.wsu.edu" "Sylvie Cloutier" 13-MAR-2003 15:11:48.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf Am I correct in thinking that any field biologist who has possibilities of being in contact with species known to be rabies vectors should be vaccinated against rabies? If this is correct then Nancy's point does not have any importance in this case. Sylvie Sylvie Cloutier, PhD Research Associate Department of VCAPP College of Veterinary Medicine Washington State University PO Box 646520 Pullman WA 99164-6520 USA Phone: 509-335-2956 Fax: 509-335-4650 Email: scloutie@vetmed.wsu.edu -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:04 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Wolf This nicely encapsulates the attitude - the value of the animals life is considered less than the inconvenience to the person who was bitten that he should have to undergo rabies prophylaxis. I rest my case! Regards Andy -----Original Message----- From: Nancy [mailto:noofies@tir.com] Sent: Friday, 14 March 2003 9:41 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Wolf What about the possible rabies exposure? Had they "driven off" the pup, the person who was bitten would have had to undergo rabies prophylaxis. Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, Therapy Dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Beck To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Wolf "Unfortunately , for the wolf, it was a fatal mistake. As Anna said in her post, "Not much doubt who represented the most dangerous species..." It is ironic that the biologists felt it necessary to so brutally kill the "predator," merely a pup, as if it were the true predator in the situation. With some thoughtful effort, I believe very little, they could just as easily have driven it off." My thoughts entirely - it is a great shame that the urge to kill should surface so readily in intelligent people - and be chosen as the option when, once the Wolf was unconscious, there was absolutely no need. Perhaps greater awareness of the 'rights' of other creatures might have stayed the knife hand? The death penalty seems extreme for a 4cm trouser wound! Perhaps this also highlights the need for a change in consciousness so that we do not automatically assume that, by virtue of being a human animal, we have an automatic right to kill other creatures. The dominant world culture would appear to desensitize us to the killing of other animals and marginalise both their autonomy and suffering by the daily slaughter of 'meat' for the table. It is perhaps understandable that this should result in the 'extreme' or radical views of those who resist, what many ethicists view as, the hypocrisy of discriminate killing in favour of a more holistic value system. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 13-MAR-2003 15:58:35.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf Post-exposure prophylaxis is recommended even if the person bitten is vaccinated. It simply reduces the number of shots required from 5 to 3. But back in 1985, the old duck embryo vaccine was still being used in many places - that was a series of 21 shots administered to the abdomen. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: Sylvie Cloutier To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Wolf Am I correct in thinking that any field biologist who has possibilities of being in contact with species known to be rabies vectors should be vaccinated against rabies? If this is correct then Nancy's point does not have any importance in this case. Sylvie Sylvie Cloutier, PhD Research Associate Department of VCAPP College of Veterinary Medicine Washington State University PO Box 646520 Pullman WA 99164-6520 USA Phone: 509-335-2956 Fax: 509-335-4650 Email: scloutie@vetmed.wsu.edu -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:04 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Wolf This nicely encapsulates the attitude - the value of the animals life is considered less than the inconvenience to the person who was bitten that he should have to undergo rabies prophylaxis. I rest my case! Regards Andy -----Original Message----- From: Nancy [mailto:noofies@tir.com] Sent: Friday, 14 March 2003 9:41 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Wolf What about the possible rabies exposure? Had they "driven off" the pup, the person who was bitten would have had to undergo rabies prophylaxis. Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, Therapy Dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Beck To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Wolf "Unfortunately , for the wolf, it was a fatal mistake. As Anna said in her post, "Not much doubt who represented the most dangerous species..." It is ironic that the biologists felt it necessary to so brutally kill the "predator," merely a pup, as if it were the true predator in the situation. With some thoughtful effort, I believe very little, they could just as easily have driven it off." My thoughts entirely - it is a great shame that the urge to kill should surface so readily in intelligent people - and be chosen as the option when, once the Wolf was unconscious, there was absolutely no need. Perhaps greater awareness of the 'rights' of other creatures might have stayed the knife hand? The death penalty seems extreme for a 4cm trouser wound! Perhaps this also highlights the need for a change in consciousness so that we do not automatically assume that, by virtue of being a human animal, we have an automatic right to kill other creatures. The dominant world culture would appear to desensitize us to the killing of other animals and marginalise both their autonomy and suffering by the daily slaughter of 'meat' for the table. It is perhaps understandable that this should result in the 'extreme' or radical views of those who resist, what many ethicists view as, the hypocrisy of discriminate killing in favour of a more holistic value system. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org From: IN%"swilkins@idx.com.au" "Susan Wilkins" 13-MAR-2003 16:37:27.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: sound perception] Hi Iwona, I hope the following helps in your search for more information on why the clicker is more effective than the spoken word in dog training. The information that Karen Pryor has on her web page relates to work she is doing in conjunction with veterinary neuroscientist Dr. Barbara Schoening. Dr. Schoening presented a paper to the International Symposium of Cognitive Neuroscience, Bremen, Germany in November 1999 "How modern animal training profits from research in neuroscience - changes of paradigms in the example of dog training", and included in her presentation she explains that "the clicker is a very effective training tool and its effectiveness can explained on a neuronal level.". In addition she explains in her presentation her reasons why the clicker may become a primary reinforcer. I am sure if you contact Dr. Schoening direct, (Ulmenstr.44, 22299 Hamburg, Germany), you may be able to receive more current information on her ongoing research in the subject that will assist you in your project. (I am unable to quote from the paper because of copyright) cheers, Susan Wilkins, Sydney Australia >>. : Β“the click sound is processed > >instantly through the limbic part of the nervous system. This primitive > >part of the brain produces emotion and responses to startle signals and > >reflexes. So, the click has the advantage of immediately producing a > >positive response (excitement) without conscious effort, much like an > >automatic reflex. A word must be processed though the conscious part of > >the brain, which reacts slower and with less emotion Β“Could you give me > >if it is possible any references when I can possibly find some > >information?Best wishes,Iwona Kosmider --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03 From: IN%"matchdog@chello.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard" 13-MAR-2003 18:52:45.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Braindamaged pup, continued Hi all, I received some very encouraging reactions, so I consider myself clicked! The puppy did improve enormously during the months of training. The first week gave the most improvements. For instance, her uncontrolled urine loss diminished from 40 to 4 times a day in the first 5 days. She never ever showed the weaving headmovement again. She was able to learn quite fast and was very concentrated whilst learning new behaviours, like sit, down, stay, fetch etc. With two lessons a week, during a period of a month, she was able to compete with other pups her own age without braindamage. I am sad to say that I lost track of this puppy who was a real favourite of mine. Her owner decided she was too burdened by having a dog (note: a dog, not a braindamaged one) when the pup was six months old and gave her away. I never found out what happened to her later on. But according to hearsay she was placed in a real nice home and I like to keep my hopes up, so I chose to believe that story. I am sad to conclude that my fairytale does not end in a "they lived happily ever after".... Bianca Uittenbogaard www.listen.to/click matchdog@chello.nl www.alithia.ontheweb.nl alithia@planet.nl Success is a journey, not a destination From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 13-MAR-2003 19:28:15.45 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Braindamaged pup, continued Nevertheless, there is lots of "happy" in your story. And think of it this way, it may have ended in a happily ever after - after all, the pup may very well have been placed into a wonderful home. Vivian I am sad to conclude that my fairytale does not end in a "they lived happily ever after".... Bianca Uittenbogaard From: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" 14-MAR-2003 00:06:29.75 To: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "'Garner, Joseph P.'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] dear Everybody - PLEASE read Jo's magisterial comments. His words should be copied, laminated, tapestried, embroidered and hung on walls everywhere. Thank you Jo! Robin Denmark House 78 Bromyard Road Worcester WR2 5DA Tel. 01905 423381 (I have retired, sold my Practice, sold my loyal servants into slavery under new masters, sold my equipment and now recline on a divan of delights in my library. Now I can study.) -----Original Message----- From: Garner, Joseph P. [mailto:JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu] Sent: 12 March 2003 20:22 To: 'applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca' Subject: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] Hi Gwenyth Please don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that the clicker works reall really well, and I have no doubt that many of the people who've pitched in on this thread know an awful lot about the practical nature of training animals, and I have no doubt that I would fall flat on my face if I was trying to train animals to do many of the things that expert animal trainers do on a daily basis. I don't see any need to be anything but proud about that kind of knowledge and practical skill. In fact, it is worth remembering that most conventionally trained behavioral scientists have never seen advanced training in action, and many proabably don't appreciate just how difficult it is to translate conventional operant theory into a practical training program. Aand if they are dismissive of the skill required to train animals in the real world, then they will be far more dismissive if those skills are presented dressed up with pseudo-science. As an ethologist who specialises in the brain mechanisms underlying behavior, the sorts of explanation you recalled hearing really get my goat. It's hypothesis-free, untestable, post-hoc story-telling dressed up to sound impressive with some big words. Next time someone says that, ask them to point to the amygdala on a map of the human brain. Also, bear in mind the difference between a post-hoc explanation, and a predictive explanation. This is a complex and subtle distinction that is central to science, but is blurred over in the lay world. - A predictive explanation of a phenomenon can explain how the phenomenon will work in an entirely new situation. Western medicine for instance, for all its flaws, is a predictive science. We can extrapolate treatments from one disease to a completely new disease with a high rate of success, because our understanding of the mechanisms of the body and of disease are predictive. Predictive explanations involve contingent and causal relationships. - A post hoc explanation of a phenomenon is any explanation that fits the facts after the event. It may or may not be why the phenomenon actually happened. It cannot predict how the phenomenon will work in an entirely new situation. Post hoc explanations involve correlational relationships, that often are not contingent. For instance, the encylopaedic knowledge of a herbalist, may be just as effective as western medicine, or even more effective than western medicine in treating KNOWN diseases - but this does not ratify or in any way validate the post hoc explanation of why the treatment works, in terms of 'the four humors' (madaevil europe), 'chi', 'energy flow', 'toxins' or anything else. Because when presented with an utterly new disease, the herbalist is unable to predict a treatment. When we say the VCR is 'misbehaving' or didn't record a show because 'it didn't want to', that's a classic post-hoc explanation, it could be why - there could be a little man in the VCr who makes it work, and he could be really annoyerd, but it doesn't help us figure out how to make the VCR work better next time (or more accurately if we talk loving to the VCR there's no greater chance - i.e. a contingency - that it will work better next time). A good rule of thumb is that anything that needs to be "put in quotes" is usually more of a post-hoc explanation. ;-) There's nothing wrong with post hoc explanations - unless you want to extend your knowledge into entirely new territory. That's why science is about predictive explanations. For example, In my research I have to figure out how to translate very complex cognitive tasks that are used in human psychiatry, into exactly the same task that can be used with animals. This is somewhat analagous to the problem of translating operant theroy into practical training methods. To do so I go back to the predictive explanations of operant theory, to the predictive explanations of psychiatry, and to the predictive explanations in ethology about the ecological constraints in learning. As a result, I have mice solving these problems faster than rhesus monkeys do - not because the mice are smarter, but because the task is designed around them. This is pretty much the same as bridging techniques being so effective - they are developed from the predictive explanations of operant theory in such a way that the training techniques are designed around the constraints of the animal. That to me is good science! Cheers Joe __________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner, University of California, Department of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 752 1253 Fax: (530) 752 0175 http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mench/garner.htm > -----Original Message----- > From: Gwenyth Santagate [mailto:santa@kersur.net] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 5:34 PM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] > > > From what I have read and understand, the actual sound of the > mechanical clicker has such frequencies (obviously different > than the human voice) as to be able to reach the amygdala. In > the millisecond of sound it makes, it can interrupt the > millisecond response of the amygdala to the rest of the body. > The interruption then causes the messaging system to act in a > "thinking" mode (cortical override) rather than a "reaction" > mode. I've personally found the clicker to be an amazing aid > in teaching horses to "work through" their fears of things > and thus, training goes much more quickly and easily. I've > actually watched the "thinking" mode go into effect as the > horse hears the "click" and begins to "think". The clicker > training also is a tremendous way to motivate the horse into > wanting to try again and again to "get it right". In the > process of helping to strengthen the learning curve of the > horse it also aids the human to be much, much more aware of > his or her timing of the release of pressure of a specific > cue - Thus, making communications between horse and human > much more clear. I've worked with enough horses over the > years in the "conventional" manner of training and in the > past 7 years added "clicker training" with non-debatable > results as to say, positively, that clicker training is a > remarkable training aid that not only helps reduce training > time for specific tasks but can also change the horse's > temperament and attitude with great results. > > *S* Gwen > > Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate > MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist > PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 http://www.kersur.net/~santa > http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_ho> rsemanship > > From: IN%"janicecox@yahoo.com" "Janice Cox" 14-MAR-2003 05:21:53.74 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Sentience Conference Dear All, I thought some may be interested in the below. Kind regards, Janice Cox **************** CONFERENCE Understanding Animals: putting animal sentience on the educational agenda Saturday 10 May 2003 - King's College, London Bridge, London, UK - 10:00 - 17:00 www.ciwf.org/understanding-animals A unique conference with expert speakers and interactive workshops for students, teachers and lecturers in Agriculture * Education * Veterinary Science * Biology * Ecology * Philosophy For full information please visit www.ciwf.org/understanding-animals, e-mail ciwf@eventbookings.com, or phone the conference helpline on +44 (0)1730 231809 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 14-MAR-2003 06:48:25.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] Joseph Garner, Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:21 PM >...This is somewhat analagous to the > problem of translating operant theroy into practical training methods. To do > so I go back to the predictive explanations of operant theory, to the > predictive explanations of psychiatry, and to the predictive explanations in > ethology about the ecological constraints in learning. As a result, I have > mice solving these problems faster than rhesus monkeys do - not because the > mice are smarter, but because the task is designed around them. This is > pretty much the same as bridging techniques being so effective - they are > developed from the predictive explanations of operant theory in such a way > that the training techniques are designed around the constraints of the > animal. That to me is good science! > margory cohen here: I second Dr. Walker and just hadn't written to it. My experience too and anecdotes from others -- trainers long time in the field who tell of dogs being trained to the clicker! because that sound bothers them and then proceeding with the work -- but still more my own experience from the Deerhound -- that what works with birds and fish is totally separate and apart from the kind of result training offers a person and a dog. And I do write to Dog because that's the world I live in. And a rarefied world it is because my dogs work at a distance from me and live a life at liberty and that's a lot of dog off-lead where there's ample safe turnaround room. The theory is all well and good but missing is the very personal package that delivers the word 'Cally come' or if you want one word, 'Cally' and she does. I'm not looking to be shaped; I'm looking for a real decision, and I don't think any contraption or middle steps or any such thing does that except for the Relationship between and the Dog and me, unencumbered, unfettered, naked if you will, in direct work. I have read Ms. Pryor, some pretenders, and some of the Scientists, and some of that, especially the marine work is indeed interesting; but I think in the application in Dogs especially now what is missing reveals itself to be deep enough that the numbers of truly untrained dogs has gone up, evidenced by municipalities less and less friendly to off-lead dogs because people don't remember what "voice control" means. And the study presenters themselves ain't never trained a dawg! Now I'm not laying all that on clickers -- but I am filing away Dr. Garner's for what I think contains more Praticial Truth about this than many of the current books in stores and theories in chat rooms promote. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"aap28@cam.ac.uk" "hermes" 14-MAR-2003 07:27:39.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Welfare problems of companion animal breeds I am writing a talk about Welfare problems of companion animal breeds and I need to find detailed information about particular problems in particular breeds ( dogs, cats, etc) Would anyone be able to help with references, and places where I can get publications, info etc? Literature/URLs can be in the following languages: English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish , Italian and French. Unfortunately I can't read German, sorry for the German colleagues. Thanks Ana -- Dr Anabela Pinto CUAWIC Cambridge University Animal Welfare Information Centre Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ES Hammond Building Room 8 phone: 01223 337 691 mobile: 078 17 15 57 34 http://www.animal-info.net/CUAWIC/ From: IN%"Renee.Bergeron@san.ulaval.ca" "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9e?= Bergeron" 14-MAR-2003 08:09:33.12 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Castration of pigs Dear all, I heard of the recent ban of routine castration in Norway (starting in 2009), but would be interested to know the details of the legislation.=20 Also, I am interested to know the status of pig castration in Denmark and Sweden (other than the minimum standards stated by the EU Directive). Your help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Renee Bergeron Renee Bergeron, PhD, agr. D=E9partement des sciences animales Universit=E9 Laval Qu=E9bec, Qu=E9bec G1K 7P4 From: IN%"Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov" "Schulze, Cindy, VHACIN" 14-MAR-2003 08:52:58.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf One important issue being overlooked is that there was no prevailing need to receive a rabies injection. The wolf, having been rendered unconscious, could have easily been quarantined to ascertain if indeed rabies infection were present. There is no justification for killing this pup, nor for the brutality with which she was dispatched. Unfortunately, it appears our biologists have become desensitized to the feelings of their study subjects and developed a callous disregard for sentient life. Cindy L. Schulze Research Assistant Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: Nancy [SMTP:noofies@tir.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:55 PM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Wolf > > Post-exposure prophylaxis is recommended even if the person bitten is > vaccinated. It simply reduces the number of shots required from 5 to 3. > But back in 1985, the old duck embryo vaccine was still being used in many > places - that was a series of 21 shots administered to the abdomen. > > Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sylvie Cloutier > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:11 PM > Subject: RE: Wolf > > Am I correct in thinking that any field biologist who has > possibilities of being in contact with species known to be rabies vectors > should be vaccinated against rabies? > > If this is correct then Nancy's point does not have any importance > in this case. > > Sylvie > > Sylvie Cloutier, PhD > Research Associate > Department of VCAPP > College of Veterinary Medicine > Washington State University > PO Box 646520 > Pullman WA 99164-6520 > USA > Phone: 509-335-2956 > Fax: 509-335-4650 > Email: scloutie@vetmed.wsu.edu > > From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 14-MAR-2003 10:01:13.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: was Wolf -- perspective Cindy Schulze, Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:52 AM Unfortunately, it appears our > biologists have become desensitized to the feelings of their study subjects > and developed a callous disregard for sentient life. > margory cohen: This was from a report that was made, from what I read in a quick scan, 25 years ago. "CASE 19 - Whale Cove, Northwest Territories, 1985." One has to remember considerable changes in protocols even since then. I wouldn't lump today's biologists necessarily into the same truck as even that one fella back in '85 in the Northwest Territory. Otherwise, one finds oneself in the "humane" debate and frankly don't you too often worry more about the cruelty of kindness than some of the other stuff? [rhetorical question] -margory cohen San Francisco From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 14-MAR-2003 10:54:36.24 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "Cruelty of Kindess" Hello Margory, Please excuse me for butting in but, in discussing "the cruelty of kindness" you have reminded me of something I have been expressing for quite some time. This, by the way, is not directed at Cindy but refers to some of the, what I think of as anyway, more extreme animal welfare and animal rights organizations. Here's a short antedote that I believe will illustrate my point. In fighting for the welfare and rights of animals, especially of wild species in captivity, activist groups stress that wildlife should live in captivity exactly as they do in the wild and in doing so, these groups tout the numerous advantages of animal and environmental enrichment. This is not what I take exception to because, undoubtedly, the advantages are very well documented and are quite clear. However, in their frenzy to ensure all captive wildlife are treated "properly," they often vascilate to and fro between their own guidelines, attempting at the same time to give and to take away what captive wild species need. A number of years ago some very well-meaning women (from a prominent activist group) visited our facility, attempting to "disguise" themselves as mere tourists in the area. Why the disguise? I really should have asked them but didn't. If they'd been honest about who they were I would have been happy to set their minds at ease, giving them a full behind-the-scenes tour. After expressing great concern that our poor wolves miss out on the enjoyment and "thrill" of hunting live prey, while in the same breath stating how cruel a death prey species suffer at the hands of predators and how dangerous it is for wild wolves to consume the diseased members of their prey species, the women wandered over to our raccoon compounds. One of them immediately remarked that perhaps the raccoons shouldn't have quite so many trees and climbing apparatus - she said they could fall and get hurt. Right after this, another of the women continued on, expressing concern that we should do even more to simulate a natural environment for the raccoons. When concern and kindness are interwined with the unfortunate lack of knowledge of a species and with an attempt to impose "safety" that is more related to the human world than to the animal kingdom, then I think this expresses very well what you have mentioned, that is, "the cruelty of kindness." Vivian Singer-Ferris Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. Ontario, Canada > Otherwise, one finds oneself in the "humane" debate and frankly don't you > too often worry more about the cruelty of kindness than some of the other > stuff? > [rhetorical question] > -margory cohen > San Francisco From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 14-MAR-2003 15:17:10.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology@Skyway.Usask.Ca" CC: Subj: Fw: was Wolf -- perspective Vivian Singer-Ferris Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. Please excuse me for butting in but, in discussing "the cruelty of kindness" you have reminded me of something I have been expressing for quite some time. This, by the way, is not directed at Cindy but refers to some of the, what I think of as anyway, more extreme animal welfare and animal rights organizations. margory here: Not butting in at all. Thank you for reading me as intended, Ms. Singer-Ferris. Ms. McMurray, wrote me privately: > hi, yes the rpt is that old, but the reaction of the hunter who posted it, > calling it a wolf "attack" is current. margory replied publicly: Ms. McMurray, I will not engage privately or publicly in a debate about humane or in judgment over situations like that described in the old report you posted. This forum has been for me for years an opportunity where wide-ranging experience and thought has been exchanged freely and generously, with disagreement and different views to be sure -- but not with judgment. And certainly, not from me. I bid everyone a happy safe weekend. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"anton@dyrevernalliansen.org" "Anton Krag" 14-MAR-2003 16:05:27.87 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Pig castration Dear Renee, Have a look at this link: http://www.dyrevernalliansen.no/english.php If you still have any questions do let me know! Best regards Anton Krag biologist ***************************** Norwegian Animal Welfare Alliance (Dyrevernalliansen) Adr.: Brenneriveien 7, 0182 Oslo, NORWAY. Tlf/Fax: (+47) 22 20 16 50. Mob.: (+47) 90 68 57 38 / 95 27 64 65 Org. nr.: 983 482 392 Bank account: 0537.34.87378 post@dyrevernalliansen.org http://www.dyrevernalliansen.org/english.htm "INSIGHT AND COLLABORATION - FOR ANIMALS!" ***************************** on 14.03.03 09:07, Ren=E9e Bergeron at Renee.Bergeron@san.ulaval.ca wrote: > Dear all, >=20 > I heard of the recent ban of routine castration in Norway (starting in > 2009), but would be interested to know the details of the legislation. > Also, I am interested to know the status of pig castration in Denmark and > Sweden (other than the minimum standards stated by the EU Directive). >=20 > Your help would be greatly appreciated. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Renee Bergeron > Renee Bergeron, PhD, agr. > D=E9partement des sciences animales > Universit=E9 Laval > Qu=E9bec, Qu=E9bec > G1K 7P4 >=20 From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 14-MAR-2003 16:55:11.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: "Cruelty of Kindess" Fools are always with us - and their foolishness knows no boundaries, neither of geography nor of representation. I greatly sympathise with anyone who has been subjected to such visits - but would add that these can come from either end of the spectrum. Some years ago when I was tutoring courses here at the Equine Ethology Project a student was approached by members of the local Pony Club and Horse Racing establishment and asked to collect information against me - in short to spy. There then followed a vitriolic and slanderous letter to the funding authority presumably in order to have our funding withdrawn. These attacks were made on the basis of such suggestions as keeping horses in family groups results in stallions killing foals and is therefore irresponsible. I had stated, amongst other things, that I believed forced in-hand service carried out with the mare hobbled and tied is equivalent to rape and that keeping horse alone in stables is equivalent to the punishment we commonly reserve for our worst human offenders. I had also invited the ILPH (International League for the Protection of Horses) to visit prior to courses starting in order to get an outside view in case there were any welfare considerations that I had missed - the spin put on this was that I had been investigated for cruelty! As we were government funded the allegations led to a complete official investigation during which both the Project and myself were completely exonerated. As a result of the NZ 'Privacy Act' we were not allowed to view the original letters but only copies with the writers names removed, so were also never able to get the case into court where I would have been able to publicly clear myself and recover damages. Although these attacks were quite unfounded they did an enormous amount of harm - particularly financially. The foolish, the spiteful, the envious and the ignorant exist in every sphere of life and may be attracted to every type of organisation - from the most academic liberal left through to the most red-necked fascist right. Informed ethical conduct survives on its own merits - no matter what badge it might wear. Warm regards Andy White Horse Equine Ethology Project Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org -----Original Message----- From: Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. [mailto:info@kerwoodwolf.com] Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2003 5:45 a.m. To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: "Cruelty of Kindess" Hello Margory, Please excuse me for butting in but, in discussing "the cruelty of kindness" you have reminded me of something I have been expressing for quite some time. This, by the way, is not directed at Cindy but refers to some of the, what I think of as anyway, more extreme animal welfare and animal rights organizations. Here's a short antedote that I believe will illustrate my point. In fighting for the welfare and rights of animals, especially of wild species in captivity, activist groups stress that wildlife should live in captivity exactly as they do in the wild and in doing so, these groups tout the numerous advantages of animal and environmental enrichment. This is not what I take exception to because, undoubtedly, the advantages are very well documented and are quite clear. However, in their frenzy to ensure all captive wildlife are treated "properly," they often vascilate to and fro between their own guidelines, attempting at the same time to give and to take away what captive wild species need. A number of years ago some very well-meaning women (from a prominent activist group) visited our facility, attempting to "disguise" themselves as mere tourists in the area. Why the disguise? I really should have asked them but didn't. If they'd been honest about who they were I would have been happy to set their minds at ease, giving them a full behind-the-scenes tour. After expressing great concern that our poor wolves miss out on the enjoyment and "thrill" of hunting live prey, while in the same breath stating how cruel a death prey species suffer at the hands of predators and how dangerous it is for wild wolves to consume the diseased members of their prey species, the women wandered over to our raccoon compounds. One of them immediately remarked that perhaps the raccoons shouldn't have quite so many trees and climbing apparatus - she said they could fall and get hurt. Right after this, another of the women continued on, expressing concern that we should do even more to simulate a natural environment for the raccoons. When concern and kindness are interwined with the unfortunate lack of knowledge of a species and with an attempt to impose "safety" that is more related to the human world than to the animal kingdom, then I think this expresses very well what you have mentioned, that is, "the cruelty of kindness." Vivian Singer-Ferris Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. Ontario, Canada > Otherwise, one finds oneself in the "humane" debate and frankly don't > you too often worry more about the cruelty of kindness than some of > the other stuff? [rhetorical question] > -margory cohen > San Francisco From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 15-MAR-2003 01:04:31.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: was Wolf -- perspective Regarding Margory's reply about not wanting to comment on humane or get into debate -- I am a bit confused. First, I wrote privately to Margory because the software is set up to reply to the author, not the list. Second, I wanted to know from wolf animal behavioralists what the wolf in that report was communicating so I could see if I understood the wolf's behavior correctly. My impression was that the hunter, even in this age of 2003, didn't and that really surprised me (even back in '85 it may have surprised me now that I think back -- Dr. Niko Tinbergen won the Nobel Prize in Ethology (medicine) over a dozen years before that and Robert Redford was making records of wolf vocalizations for the general public. Farley Mowat published "Never Cry Wolf" in 1963.) Now, if you are talking about Hog dog fighting and the animal rights and ecology terrorism legislation that was a different post. Heather > Ms. McMurray, wrote me privately: > > > hi, yes the rpt is that old, but the reaction of the hunter who posted it, > > calling it a wolf "attack" is current. > > margory replied publicly: > > Ms. McMurray, I will not engage privately or publicly in a debate about > humane or in judgment over situations like that described in the old report > you posted. > > This forum has been for me for years an opportunity where wide-ranging > experience and thought has been exchanged freely and generously, with > disagreement and different views to be sure -- but not with judgment. And > certainly, not from me. > > I bid everyone a happy safe weekend. > -margory cohen > Scottish Deerhounds > San Francisco > > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen MRCVS" 15-MAR-2003 11:42:08.08 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [Fwd: sound perception] Hi Margory, I don't want to presume, and I may have misssed a message somewhere, but I don't think Jo or Robin were saying that clickers are pseudoscience or that they don't work. They were just saying that , like most of us, they get fed up with deliberately mysterious psuedoscientifically worded post-hoc explanations. They are passed on like Chinese whispers and mutate into quasi-religious fundamentalism. Clicker training does work, but only within the bounds of normal learning. Same with other effective forms of training...and what method you choose to use has as much to do with early success, developing commitment, and the skill and understanding you develop. I am sure that for someone who has never trained a dog before, any decent form of training will seem like a minor miracle. If it includes a handy gadget that appeals to their love of novelty then so much the better if it encourages them to do the training and achieve good results.. Jon From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 15-MAR-2003 12:16:19.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: wolf I see no justification in singling out biologists as either paragons of virtue or brtutes. People will be people and will react in a situation according to their nature, with little regard to how many years they've walked the halls of universities. Separate the shell of education from the man and look at the underlying motivations and conditioned responces. sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada