From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 30-SEP-2003 11:42:15.37 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Dog trainers, etc. Jo Angleberger wrote: > > =======Simon is quite gutsy, IMO, to have written that (though I did not get > his entire note containing the paragraph). Anyone can make a mistake, > especially people who aren't aware of the whole realm of research and > applications of ethology. I'm quite interested in dogs, also in all > wildlife behavior (including humans) down to one-celled lives. I've always > believed that behavioral research is basic to any and all real life > applications. > Jo > > Simon Gadbois wrote: > > > > Dog trainers are probably more motivated to be 'really interested in > > ethology' as it applies to life in the real world than many researchers > > are. Their safety and livelihood are on the line as well as the safety, > > satisfaction and welfare of their clients. > > > > Even ethologists? Is this a bait? O.k., o.k., deep breathing... > > I think ethologists doing work in animal welfare and conservation do work > that "applies to life in the real world" and certainly impact on the welfare > and survival of individuals and sometimes species... Note that Simon was quoting the paragraph beginning "Dog trainers ..." written by someone else, and his reply begins with "Even ethologists?" I was BTW not disagreeing with Simon! but merely pointing out an additional aspect. AFAIK we all make mistakes but I was certainly not accusing Simon of one. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 30-SEP-2003 16:22:23.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Infanticide by stallions I don't have a copy of the paper Nancy refers to (but if anyone knows = where I might get one I would be most appreciative!), but I seem to recall = that the work was discredited?=20 If my memory serves me (and I shall happily stand corrected if it is at fault) the notion that stallions cause abortion in captured or otherwise newly acquired mares arose from a transfer of this behavior from another species - namely the lion. In order to get the behavior to work for = horses also it requires that mares display submissiveness to such a stallion by adopting a mating posture (the 'crouch' exhibited by female lions and = some primates) - an invitation to mount - even when they are not in oestrus. = This is simply not the case. Nor is it generally the case that stallions = respond to non-oestrus mares with the required erection, scent playing a very important role in the process. In fact non-oestrus mares will often = spray urine during a retreat from a stallion in order to signal that they are = not in season. Having introduced in-foal mares, and mares with young foals at foot, to = a number of stallions I have not seen any evidence of either rejection, or = of aggression. In all cases the foal has been accepted as a member of the = harem group - and, in the case of fillies, treated as a daughter and subjected = to the same rules of exogamy as biological daughters. I've done some work = over the past few years to test this reaction; removing and reintroducing a mother and daughter to a stallion group - the stallion served the three = year old daughter on re-introduction - and introducing a trio of mare, two = year old filly and filly foal at foot to a harem group. The stallion served = the older during the following season but treats the younger as a daughter (shows aggression towards her during oestrus and drives her out to the periphery of the group) and has not served her during the two full = seasons she has cycled. This would suggest that there is an age/development discretion in operation. The supposition that a stallion would attack and kill a foal in this way surely requires that the animal in question is able to make a causal = link between mating and birth of a foal and, while I would happily contend = that horses display some signs of episodic memory, this seems very dubious. = As far as I am able to tell stallions treat all progeny as their own if = born into the harem group - and appear to also do so with foals that are introduced with their dam, even as yearlings.=20 I have also observed coalitions of mares operate to prevent a stallion serving an oestrus mare on several occasions (while investigating mating behavior between mother/daughter pairs and resident stallion) I also = doubt that such a 'rape' to provoke abortion is possible - stallions being extremely vulnerable during the approach and mount. It seems very = unlikely that it would be worth the high level of risk involved in any = evolutionary sense - at best, if the forced-mating is successful, the mare may cycle again and be impregnated during that particular breeding season. If the = mare cycles but the mating takes place so that the foal is born out of season then it may well not survive - and, at worst, the stallion suffers = severe injury to the chest muscles from kicks and is either displaced by a = healthy stallion or becomes the subject of predation. It becomes hard to see how = the behavior might become selected. My guess is also that, given the unnatural way in which many stallions = are reared and managed, it must be quite possible for the occasional one to = be so badly psychologically developed (or literally mentally ill as a = result of isolation - what might be characterised as Equine P.I.C.S.) that it = could kill a foal. In fact it would be quite surprising if it were never to = occur. This only means that such an attack falls within the scope of possible abnormal behavior - not that it is a normal part of the social paradigm. It seems that this old chestnut is trotted out whenever someone is = trying to make a case for keeping stallions on their own. 10 or so years ago a spiteful and ignorant attempt to discredit my keeping of horses in = 'natural' harem groups was made on exactly this basis by members of the local = equine industry. It amazes me that, despite the total lack of any sound = evidence, the misinformation is still current. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =20 -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Diehl [mailto:ndiehl@psu.edu]=20 Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 1:42 a.m. To: Francis Burton; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Infanticide by stallions Here is a paper: Berger, J. (1983). "Induced abortion and social factors in wild horses." Nature 303: 59-61. My impression is that this is talked about more than actually sighted = and reported in the literature. Nancy Nancy Kate Diehl, MS, VMD The Pennsylvania State University Assistant Professor of Equine Science Department of Dairy and Animal Science 324 Henning Building University Park, PA 16802 phone: 814-863-9727 fax: 814-863-6042 email: ndiehl@psu.edu web: http://www.das.psu.edu =09 -----Original Message----- From: Francis Burton [mailto:F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:20 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Infanticide by stallions At 01:33 30/09/03 +0200, Pablo Hern=E1ndez wrote: = >Hi all, I'm looking for information about infanticide in domestic = cats, but not by >tomcats. Pablo's post has prompted me to ask the group whether anything is known about stallions either a) causing abortions in mares who are pregnant by another stallion or b) killing of foals sired by another stallion. This question came up on another group (about stallion care) and I am presently unable to contribute any information - so pointers to research (or anecdotal evidence) would be appreciated. Francis From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 30-SEP-2003 16:31:13.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Taming/Socialization Equally an animal may be tame with respect to one person and not at all tame to others. My cats come on trips round the farm with the dogs - but quickly disappear if a strange dog - or person - turns up. Perceived membership of a social group might then be a factor in 'tameness'? Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: E Price [mailto:eoprice@ucdavis.edu] Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 4:35 a.m. To: Jo Angleberger; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Taming/Socialization Dear Jo, Good question! If we think of tameness (a state of mind) as different from taming (a process), animals which can be approached by humans without fleeing (showing avoidance) can be thought of as tame even when they have not experienced a taming process. I believe there are populations of animals living where there are no predators (e.g. island populations) which are inherently tame towards humans. They may not have experienced a taming process; nevertheless, they are tame. Ed Price > ======fascinating. Then, is there a term for the fearlessness/indifference > of a species toward humans and non-indigenous predators because the species > has never been predated/exploited? Case in point, Guam birds vs. brown > snake > > Dear CeAnn, > > In the context of human-animal interactions, I define taming as an > experiential (learning) process occurring during the lifetime of an > individual in which the animal's avoidance of people is reduced and > willingness to approach humans is increased. > > Tameness can be operationally defined as a measure of the extent to which > an animal is reluctant to avoid or motivated to approach a human. > > Tameability refers to the capacity to become tamed (some species and some > individuals within those species are more readily tamed than others). > > The process of socialization (to humans) is one of the more important > experiences that promotes taming. Habituation to people is another. > > I discuss this topic in greater length in the chapter on human-animal > interactions in my book "Animal Domestication and Behavior" (CABI Publ.). > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail > Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es > From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 1-OCT-2003 01:32:52.29 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: defensive mares and mating stallions Dear Andy, What you write is very interesting - thanks. The picture that emerges while reading your acconts and recalling my own memories from growing up and working on horse farms, is one of a species where females may appear very violently against males unless they're in oestrus. I've been involved in having to bring a stallion to emergency surgery after the person supposed to hold the mare stupidly letting go of her. But that stallion was certainly not behaving the way a free-living stallion would do: he wouldn't pull back the slightest even after being kicked literally in the face. I suspect that many stallions develop a somewhat uncontrolled mating behaviour because all they ever get to interact with are restrained mares in oestrus. (But not all: some will respond solely to the scents and never even try to mount a mare unless she is in oestrus; sometimes not even while still in heat but after the ovulation). Questions: Are mares really more violent and more defensive than most females? Or do they just act like that in response to very violent and offensive domestic stallions? You also refer to groups of females defending against a male trying to mate. Is this common? In which situations do you observe this? With a 'decent' stallion or with one of these uneducated ones which would try to mate anything? (The stallion referred to in the beginning was taken to the veterinary hospital by his somewhat absent-minded owner, and while taken from the trailer to the clinic tried to mate a gelding passing by...) Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"isabella.capellini@ncl.ac.uk" "isabella.capellini" 1-OCT-2003 02:05:41.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: defensive mares and mating stallions Dear Anna and Andy, Your observations are really interesting and correct. Although I worked with horses in a riding centre, I don=92t pretend to be an expert on = their behaviour. However I work on ungulate behaviour and I think that here the problem is that the horses we are dealing with have developed their behaviour differently in response to different taming methods. They differ in the expression of their behaviour if they have grown with only mares, in yearling groups, one sexed or mixed groups, or in more natural conditions with both sexes and animals of all ages in the herd.=20 I think that the only way to compare horse behaviours and understand them is to study the effect of different social environments on the development of behaviour and compare the findings from different social groups. Studying horses in the wild would probably be the best although we can't consider them true "wild" horses as they still descend from domesticated individual. I think it's difficult to reason about what a fully-natural behaviour is and how it evolved studying animals whose behaviour has been so greatly changed by the interactions (and in different ways and degrees!) with people and by different taming methods. Isabella Isabella Capellini PhD Student Evolution and Behaviour Research Group H.Wellcome Building School of Biology University of Newcastle Framlington Place Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH (UNITED KINGDOM) phone: +44 (0)191 222 3466 email: Isabella.Capellini@ncl.ac.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] > Sent: 01 October 2003 08:33 > To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: defensive mares and mating stallions >=20 > Dear Andy, > What you write is very interesting - thanks. The picture that emerges while > reading your acconts and recalling my own memories from growing up and > working on horse farms, is one of a species where females may appear very > violently against males unless they're in oestrus. I've been involved in > having to bring a stallion to emergency surgery after the person supposed to > hold the mare stupidly letting go of her. But that stallion was certainly > not behaving the way a free-living stallion would do: he wouldn't pull back > the slightest even after being kicked literally in the face. I suspect that > many stallions develop a somewhat uncontrolled mating behaviour because all > they ever get to interact with are restrained mares in oestrus. (But not > all: some will respond solely to the scents and never even try to mount a > mare unless she is in oestrus; sometimes not even while still in heat but > after the ovulation). >=20 > Questions: Are mares really more violent and more defensive than most > females? Or do they just act like that in response to very violent and > offensive domestic stallions? >=20 > You also refer to groups of females defending against a male trying to mate. > Is this common? In which situations do you observe this? With a 'decent' > stallion or with one of these uneducated ones which would try to mate > anything? (The stallion referred to in the beginning was taken to the > veterinary hospital by his somewhat absent-minded owner, and while taken > from the trailer to the clinic tried to mate a gelding passing by...) >=20 > Anna Olsson >=20 > Anna Olsson > Postdoctoral research fellow > Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics >=20 > Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology > Rua Campo Alegre 823 > 4150-180 Porto, Portugal > Phone +351 22 607 4900 > Faz +351 22 609 9157 >=20 From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 1-OCT-2003 03:03:23.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: defensive mares and mating stallions Hi Anna - there certainly are a large number of poorly socialised stallions and I agree that they are highly likely to behave in an uncontrolled and 'desperate' manner due to lack of social contact. This is entirely a matter of management systems failure to support innate behaviors. It is quite surprising, when one considers the high value of many stud stallions, that managers do not keep a couple of mares with them all the time. This way the stallion's social needs are met, and he also gets an opportunity to practice courtship behavior. It is a very simple matter to invite the stallion to leave his little harem in order to serve visiting mares - and to return afterwards - and the whole desperation/isolation scenario is dealt with and the end result is a very biddable and co-operative stud. As to the question: Are mares really more violent and more defensive than most females? Or do they just act like that in response to very violent and offensive domestic stallions? I think the answer to this has the same root - just as the majority of stallions are raised under systems of management that fail to produce balanced animals so too are mares. A large number will never have seen a stallion before their first service when, as maidens, they would under normal circumstances require a longer courtship phase than older mares - instead of which they are often restrained in an unfamiliar environment and mounted by a sexually inept and desperate stallion without any courtship - or foreplay. While I acknowledge that many people dislike 'rape' being applied to this type of forced mating I think it is quite reasonable to apply the term. Once a mare has been treated in this way there is a very good chance that she will become very aggressive in her attempts to prevent the same thing occurring at the next service. Hobbles, anti-kick pads, lip-straps and tranquilisers become the norm - as do American Football type outfits for handlers, harsh 'stallion bits' and 'stallion-handling-poles' for controlling the stud. There can be little doubt that the application of control via pain in the mouth can hardly be expected to improve the stallion's behavior. >You also refer to groups of females defending against a male trying to >mate. >Is this common? In which situations do you observe this? With a 'decent' >stallion or with one of these uneducated ones which would try to mate >anything? (The stallion referred to in the beginning was taken to the >veterinary hospital by his somewhat absent-minded owner, and while taken >from the trailer to the clinic tried to mate a gelding passing by...) At the time I set up the foundation group there was frequent mention in the literature that the mare/daughter bond was the central building block of equine society. As a result I deliberately sought out adult mother-daughter pairs - four pairs in all. In every case only one of the two consented to service - either mother or daughter - but not both. Foaling averages for these pairs was much lower than for other mares. At a later stage a mother, daughter and closely bonded female herd sister were moved together into the newly established second generation group. Both maidens were willing and co-operative partners to the harem stallion - but both joined forces in support of the mother to prevent the stallion gaining access to her during oestrus. My hypothesis is that exogamy in E.Caballus features both male and female behavioral strategies. In the normal ('natural')course of events fillies would be ejected from the harem at first oestrus or soon after, so adult mother daughter pairs within a harem structure would not occur. Presumably the closer the biological relationship within a harem the greater the liklihood of inbreeding in the extended herd - so, as with other animals living in family groups, there are innate behaviors that function in such a way that the coefficient of inbreeding is kept at a safe level. This is a somewhat shortened explanation - and no doubt is a little crude - even so I think it stands up reasonably well. I did start a series of theoretical 'exogamy games' in order to test the hypothesis further - but didn't have the necessary software (or computer skill!) to run the study for as long as I would have liked without having to do it by slow longhand method. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 7:33 p.m. To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: defensive mares and mating stallions Dear Andy, What you write is very interesting - thanks. The picture that emerges while reading your acconts and recalling my own memories from growing up and working on horse farms, is one of a species where females may appear very violently against males unless they're in oestrus. I've been involved in having to bring a stallion to emergency surgery after the person supposed to hold the mare stupidly letting go of her. But that stallion was certainly not behaving the way a free-living stallion would do: he wouldn't pull back the slightest even after being kicked literally in the face. I suspect that many stallions develop a somewhat uncontrolled mating behaviour because all they ever get to interact with are restrained mares in oestrus. (But not all: some will respond solely to the scents and never even try to mount a mare unless she is in oestrus; sometimes not even while still in heat but after the ovulation). Questions: Are mares really more violent and more defensive than most females? Or do they just act like that in response to very violent and offensive domestic stallions? You also refer to groups of females defending against a male trying to mate. Is this common? In which situations do you observe this? With a 'decent' stallion or with one of these uneducated ones which would try to mate anything? (The stallion referred to in the beginning was taken to the veterinary hospital by his somewhat absent-minded owner, and while taken from the trailer to the clinic tried to mate a gelding passing by...) Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 1-OCT-2003 07:17:43.54 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Infanticide by stallions At 10:21 01/10/03 +1200, wheep@igrin.co.nz (Andy Beck) wrote: >I don't have a copy of the paper Nancy refers to (but if anyone knows where >I might get one I would be most appreciative!), but I seem to recall that >the work was discredited? I don't know about that. However, I now have a copy of Berger's Nature paper and could make a scan of it available for a limited time on the web to anyone here who is interested, if someone can assure me that by so doing I will not be in breach of copyright. Francis From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 1-OCT-2003 11:21:46.83 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Positions for a Scientist and two post docs in New Zealand I am forwarding a message that was originally sent to me from Lindsay Matthews. Attached to this message should be a notice regarding job positions in New Zealand. I am not certain if I can forward an attachment, because it doesn't show up on my screen, but here goes. If you want to respond to this notice you should contact Lindsay Matthews at: lindsay.matthews@agresearch.co.nz Cheers, Joe Stookey ================================ Hi Joe Could you pls post this on the applied ethol network thanks <> Lindsay ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_kpEkuaLGYUDRz/zGhXY50Q) Content-type: application/msword; name="Advert - Snr scientist+2 post doc Sept 02.doc" Content-transfer-encoding: BASE64 Content-disposition: inline; filename="Advert - Snr scientist+2 post doc Sept 02.doc" Content-description: Advert - Snr scientist+2 post doc Sept 02.doc 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA PwAAAAAAAAAAEAAAQQAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAEAAAAD///////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////spcEAVUAJBAAA+BK/AAAA AAAAEAAAAAAABgAAhxIAAA4AYmpiaqybrJsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJBBYA JSYAAM7xAADO8QAAhQoAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8A AAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgAAAAAADQE AAAAAAAANAQAADQEAAAAAAAANAQAAAAAAAA0BAAAAAAAADQEAAAAAAAANAQAABQA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEgEAAAAAAAAcAkAAAAAAABwCQAAAAAAAHAJAAA4AAAAqAkAADQA AADcCQAAFAAAAEgEAAAAAAAASRUAAAACAAD8CQAAKAAAACQKAAAAAAAAJAoAAAAA AAAkCgAAAAAAACQKAAAAAAAA/woAAAAAAAD/CgAAAAAAAP8KAAAAAAAAyBQAAAIA AADKFAAAAAAAAMoUAAAAAAAAyhQAAAAAAADKFAAAAAAAAMoUAAAAAAAAyhQAACQA AABJFwAAUgIAAJsZAACyAAAA7hQAABUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANAQAAAAA AAA0DQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD/CgAAAAAAAP8KAAAAAAAANA0AAAAA AAA0DQAAAAAAAO4UAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0BAAAAAAAADQEAAAAAAAAJAoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAACQKAADbAAAAAxUAABYAAACwDQAAAAAAALANAAAAAAAAsA0AAAAA AAA0DQAAIgAAADQEAAAAAAAAJAoAAAAAAAA0BAAAAAAAACQKAAAAAAAAyBQAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAALANAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANA0AAAAAAADIFAAAAAAAALANAAAMAQAAsA0AAAAA AAC8DgAAOgAAALQTAABAAAAANAQAAAAAAAA0BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUBQAAAAA AAAkCgAAAAAAAPAJAAAMAAAAIBmjvxiGwwEAAAAAAAAAAHAJAAAAAAAAVg0AACIA AAD0EwAACgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyBQAAAAAAAAZFQAAMAAAAEkVAAAAAAAA/hMAAFIA AABNGgAAAAAAAHgNAAAiAAAATRoAABQAAABQFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAQAAAAA AABIBAAAAAAAADQEAAAAAAAANAQAAAAAAAA0BAAAAAAAADQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAE0aAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0BAAAAAAAAFAUAAB4AAAA/woAAFoA AABZCwAAQAAAALANAAAAAAAAmQsAADQAAADNCwAAZwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/woAAAAAAAD/CgAAAAAAAP8KAAAAAAAA7hQAAAAA AADuFAAAAAAAAEgEAAAAAAAASAQAAAQEAABMCAAAJAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAmg0AABYA AABIBAAAAAAAAEgEAAAAAAAATAgAAAAAAAACAAEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEFuaW1hbCBCZWhhdmlvdXIgYW5kIFdlbGZhcmUgliAz IHBvc2l0aW9ucw1BR1JFU0VBUkNIDUhBTUlMVE9OLCBORVcgWkVBTEFORA0NQWdS ZXNlYXJjaCBpcyB0aGUgbGVhZGluZyBwcm92aWRlciBvZiBzY2llbmNlLWJhc2Vk IHNvbHV0aW9ucyB0byBhbmltYWwgd2VsZmFyZSBpc3N1ZXMgaW4gTmV3IFplYWxh bmQuIA1PdXIgY3VycmVudCB0ZWFtIHJlcXVpcmVzIDMgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBoaWdo bHkgc2tpbGxlZCByZXNlYXJjaGVycyB3aXRoIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgaW4gYXQgbGVh c3Qgb25lIG9mIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYXJlYXM6IGFuaW1hbCBwaHlzaW9sb2d5 LCBhbmltYWwgYmVoYXZpb3VyLCB6b29sb2d5IGFuZCBlY29sb2d5Lg0NIFNjaWVu dGlzdCCWIEFuaW1hbCBXZWxmYXJlDVlvdSB3aWxsIGhhdmUgYSBQaEQgYW5kIGFu IGV4Y2VsbGVudCB0cmFjayByZWNvcmQgb2YgcmVzZWFyY2ggd2l0aCBpbnRlcmVz dHMgaW4gcGFzdG9yYWwgZGFpcnksIGRlZXIsIGJlZWYgYW5kIHNoZWVwIGluZHVz dHJpZXMgdGhhdCBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCB0byB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHRoZSBpbXBhY3Rz IG9mIG91dGRvb3IgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRzIGFuZCBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IG9uIGFuaW1h bCB3ZWxsLWJlaW5nLCBhbmQgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBwcmV2ZW50 YXRpdmUgYW5kIHJlbWVkaWFsIHByb2NlZHVyZXMgdGhhdCB3aWxsIGFtZWxpb3Jh dGUgYWR2ZXJzZSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZXMgZm9yIGFuaW1hbHMuICAgVGhlIHBvc2l0 aW9uIHdvdWxkIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgc3VpdCB5b3UgaWYgeW91IGhhdmUgc2tpbGxz IGluIGJlaGF2aW91cmFsIHBoeXNpb2xvZ3kgYW5kIHJlbGF0ZWQgYXJlYXMuDQ0g UG9zdC1Eb2N0b3JhbCBTY2llbnRpc3QgliBTdHJlc3MgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgKHRo cmVlIHllYXJzKS4NDVRoZSBwcm9qZWN0IGZvciB0aGlzIHBvc2l0aW9uIGFpbXMg dG8gbWVhc3VyZSBhbmQgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB0aGUgcHJvY2Vzc2VzIG9mIHN0cmVz cyByZXNwb25zaXZlbmVzcyBhbmQgcmVjb3ZlcnksIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSBpbiBk YWlyeSBjYXR0bGUgZXhwb3NlZCB0byB0eXBpY2FsIGNsaW1hdGljIG9yIGhhbmRs aW5nIGV2ZW50cy4gWW91IHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBhIFBoRCwgcmVzZWFyY2ggYW5kIHBy YWN0aWNhbCBleHBlcmllbmNlIHJlbGV2YW50IHRvIHBhc3RvcmFsIGRhaXJ5LCBk ZWVyLCBiZWVmIGFuZCBzaGVlcCBpbmR1c3RyaWVzLiBBbiBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIGRl dmVsb3AgbW9kZWxzIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgc3RyZXNzIHByb2Nlc3NlcyB3b3Vs ZCBiZSB0byB5b3VyIGFkdmFudGFnZS4NDSBQb3N0LURvY3RvcmFsIFNjaWVudGlz dCAgLSBBbmltYWwgQmVoYXZpb3VyICh0aHJlZSB5ZWFycykuDQ1UaGlzIHByb2pl Y3QgYWltcyB0byBtZWFzdXJlIGFuZCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIGJlaGF2aW91cmFsIHBy aW9yaXRpZXMgb2YgbGl2ZXN0b2NrIGluIHBhc3RvcmFsIGVudmlyb25tZW50cy4g IFRoZSBpbnRlbnRpb24gaXMgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBhbmltYWwgYmFzZWQgbWV0aG9k cyBvZiB3ZWxmYXJlIGFzc2Vzc21lbnQsIGFuZCBkZXNpZ24gb3V0ZG9vciBlbnZp cm9ubWVudHMgdGhhdCBtYXRjaCB3aXRoIHdlbGZhcmUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLiBB IFBoRCBhbmQgcmVsZXZhbnQgcmVzZWFyY2ggZXhwZXJpZW5jZS4gU3BlY2lhbGlz dCBrbm93bGVkZ2UgaW4gYmVoYXZpb3VyYWwgZWNvbm9taWNzLCBvcGVyYW50IGNv bmRpdGlvbmluZywgYW5kIGJlaGF2aW91cmFsIGVjb2xvZ3kgd291bGQgYmUgYW4g YWR2YW50YWdlLg0NQXMgb3VyIGVtcGxveWVlcyB5b3Ugd2lsbCANlSBiZSBoaWdo bHkgbW90aXZhdGVkIHRlYW0gd29ya2VycyB3aXRoIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIGFw cGx5IGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsIGtub3dsZWRnZSBpbiBuZXcgYW5kIGNyZWF0aXZlIHdh eXMgdG8gYXNzdXJlIHRoZSB3ZWxsLWJlaW5nIG9mIGFuaW1hbHMgaW4gTmV3IFpl YWxhbmSScyBwcmltYXJ5IGluZHVzdHJpZXMNlSBkZXZlbG9wIGFuZCBtYWludGFp biBuYXRpb25hbCBhbmQgaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBjb2xsYWJvcmF0aW9ucyB3aXRo IG90aGVyIHdvcmxkLWxlYWRpbmcgaW5zdGl0dXRlcyBpbiB0aGVzZSBhcmVhcw2V IGhhdmUgYW4gYXB0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHVzaW5nIHNjaWVuY2UgZmluZGluZ3MgdG8g Z2VuZXJhdGUgbmV3IHNvbHV0aW9ucywgc2VydmljZXMgYW5kIHRlY2hub2xvZ2ll cyB0byBpbXByb3ZlIGFuaW1hbCB3ZWxmYXJlLg0NRm9yIGZ1cnRoZXIgaW5mb3Jt YXRpb24geW91IGNhbiBjb250YWN0IExpbmRzYXkgTWF0dGhld3MgMDcgODM4IDU1 NjkgEyBIWVBFUkxJTksgIm1haWx0bzpsaW5kc2F5Lm1hdHRoZXdzQGFncmVzZWFy Y2guY28ubnoiIAEUbGluZHNheS5tYXR0aGV3c0BhZ3Jlc2VhcmNoLmNvLm56FSAN DUFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIGZvcm0gYW5kIEpvYiBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBhcmUgYXZhaWxh YmxlIGZyb20gQ2F0aGVyaW5lIENhbWVyb24sIFBBIE51dHJpdGlvbiAgYW5kIEJl aGF2aW91ciwgR3Jhc3NsYW5kcywgUHJpdmF0ZSBCYWcgMTEwMDgsIFBhbG1lcnN0 b24gTm9ydGguIC4gEyBIWVBFUkxJTksgIm1haWx0bzpDYXRoZXJpbmUuY2FtZXJv bkBhZ3Jlc2VhcmNoLmNvLm56IiABFGNhdGhlcmluZS5jYW1lcm9uQGFncmVzZWFy Y2guY28ubnoVICAgcGhvbmUgMDYgMzUxIDgwNTENDQ1BcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgY2xv c2UgMjQgT2N0b2JlciAyMDAzDQ0NDQ0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAAAdCAAAKggAACsIAAA2CAAATAgAAE0IAAC0CAAA tQgAAMEIAADNCAAAzggAANsIAAD2CAAAXwkAAGkJAABrCQAAdAkAAObNubWghHde WlZaVlJaUs07AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtFmgeaLoANQiB QioBQ0ocAE9KAgBRSgIAXAiBXkoCAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEBhZoHmi6AAAGFmhF fvcAAAYWaKYQGAAAMBVo3TYsABZoHmi6AEIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXAiBXkoCAGFKGABt SAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBAAYFWjdNiwAFmi3dmMAT0oCAFFKAgBhShgAADcVaN02LAAW aB5ougA1CIFCKgFDShwAT0oCAFFKAgBcCIFeSgIAYUocAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkE KRZot3ZjADUIgUIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXAiBXkoCAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEBhZot3Zj AAAnFmi3dmMAQioBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUowAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEMRZoHmi6 ADUIgUIqAUNKHABPSgIAUUoCAFwIgV5KAgBhSjAAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQxFmi3 dmMANQiBQioBQ0ocAE9KAgBRSgIAXAiBXkoCAGFKMABtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBAAR AAYAACsIAAA2CAAATAgAAE0IAAC1CAAAaQkAAGoJAACGCQAATgsAAE8LAACMCwAA jQsAABgNAAAZDQAAVQ0AAFYNAADrDgAA7A4AAAcPAAC7DwAALxAAAK0QAACuEAAA UBEAAFERAAD2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD2 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA9gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAANcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADXAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcA AAAAAAAAAAAAAADXAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcAAAAAAAAAAAAA AADoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwA AAMkAzckADgkAEgkAGEkA2dkNUSjAAAEFABnZB5ougAMAAADJAM3JAA4JABIJABh JANnZB5ougAAAQQACQAAAyQDNyQAOCQASCQAYSQDABkABgAAhRIAAIYSAAD+/gAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgEBAnQJAACFCQAAhgkAAIcJAACJCQAAjgkAAJMJAACUCQAA lgkAAK8JAADVCQAA5wkAABkKAAAqCgAAPAoAAEcKAABICgAAbgoAAHIKAACJCgAA owoAALIKAADjCgAA5AoAAOUKAADmCgAAGQsAAE0LAABOCwAATwsAAOjOuqa6ppK6 krqSupJ+kn6SfpJ+apK6Vn6mVpKmAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnFmj1 fdIAQioBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEJxZoijQzAEIqAU9K AgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBCcWaMc8OgBCKgFPSgIAUUoCAF5K AgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQnFmi3dmMAQioBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1I CQRwaAAAAABzSAkEJxZoRX73AEIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAA c0gJBCcWaDUWqABCKgFPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQzFWge aLoAFmi3dmMANQiBQioBQ0ocAE9KAgBRSgIAXAiBXkoCAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkE LRZoNRaoADUIgUIqAUNKHABPSgIAUUoCAFwIgV5KAgBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBAAd TwsAAFALAABoCwAAfAsAAIsLAACMCwAAjQsAALoLAAC8CwAAyQsAADkMAABMDAAA YgwAAKEMAACrDAAAvwwAAMEMAAAYDQAAGQ0AABoNAAAyDQAAMw0AAObPuKSKpHak dqRiTqRiTmKkYubPNwAtFmhFfvcANQiBQioBQ0ocAE9KAgBRSgIAXAiBXkoCAG1I CQRwaAAAAABzSAkEJxZojFHSAEIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAA c0gJBCcWaEV+9wBCKgFPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQnFmg1 FqgAQioBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEMxVoRX73ABZoNUSj ADUIgUIqAUNKHABPSgIAUUoCAFwIgV5KAgBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBCcWaDVEowBC KgFPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQtFmgeaLoANQiBQioBQ0oc AE9KAgBRSgIAXAiBXkoCAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkELRZoNUSjADUIgUIqAUNKHABP SgIAUUoCAFwIgV5KAgBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBDEWaDVEowA1CIFCKgFDShwAT0oC AFFKAgBcCIFeSgIAYUowAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEABUzDQAANA0AADUNAABFDQAA VA0AAFUNAABWDQAAgQ0AALwNAADRDQAATg4AAHgOAADrDgAA7A4AAPIOAAD7DgAA /A4AAAcPAAALDwAAKA8AACkPAADnDwAABhAAAK0QAADzEAAA6NHovaO9j72PvY+9 e49ne1N7U3tTj1M/AAAnFmiKNDMAQioBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1ICQRwaAAA AABzSAkEJxZoHmi6AEIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBCcW aLxOeQBCKgFPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQnFmhFfvcAQioB T0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEJxZojFHSAEIqAU9KAgBRSgIA XkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBDMVaEV+9wAWaDVEowA1CIFCKgFDShwAT0oC AFFKAgBcCIFeSgIAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQnFmg1RKMAQioBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIA YUoRAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkELRZoijQzADUIgUIqAUNKHABPSgIAUUoCAFwIgV5K AgBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBC0WaDUWqAA1CIFCKgFDShwAT0oCAFFKAgBcCIFeSgIA bUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQAGPMQAAD0EAAAKhEAACsRAAAsEQAATREAAE4RAABQEQAA txEAAOwRAADtEQAAJBIAACUSAAAmEgAAJxIAAEgSAABJEgAATBIAAFESAABZEgAA XRIAAF4SAABgEgAAgxIAAOfTtOef59OL0+fTbOdan+fTRtNGi9NGAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJxZoJ32/AEIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAA c0gJBCIWaIo0MwAwSg8AT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1ICQRzSAkEADwCCIEDagsB AAAGCAEVaO0QFgAWaIo0MwBCKgFPSgIAUUoCAFUIAV5KAgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAA AHNICQQAJxZojFHSAEIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBCgV aO0QFgAWaIo0MwAwSg8AT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1ICQRzSAkEADwCCIEDagAA AAAGCAEVaO0QFgAWaIo0MwBCKgFPSgIAUUoCAFUIAV5KAgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAA AHNICQQAJxZoijQzAEIqAU9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBDAD agAAAAAWaIo0MwBCKgFPSgIAUUoCAFUIAV5KAgBhShEAbUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQX UREAAF4SAABfEgAAYBIAAIMSAACEEgAAhRIAAIYSAACHEgAA8wAAAAAAAAAAAAAA APMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPMAAAAAAAAA AAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAACQAAAyQDNyQAOCQA SCQAYSQDDAAAAyQDNyQAOCQASCQAYSQDZ2QeaLoAAAiDEgAAhBIAAIUSAACGEgAA hxIAAObSztIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABhZo3RukAAAnFmj1fdIAQioBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoRAG1I CQRwaAAAAABzSAkEMRZoHmi6ADUIgUIqAUNKHABPSgIAUUoCAFwIgV5KAgBhSjAA bUgJBHBoAAAAAHNICQQABCMAEjAAHFABAB+w0C8gsOA9IbAIByKwCAcjkKAFJJCg BSWwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CwEAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0Mnqefm6zhGMggCqAEupCwIAAAAXAAAAIgAA AGwAaQBuAGQAcwBhAHkALgBtAGEAdAB0AGgAZQB3AHMAQABhAGcAcgBlAHMAZQBh AHIAYwBoAC4AYwBvAC4AbgB6AAAA4Mnqefm6zhGMggCqAEupC1IAAABtAGEAaQBs AHQAbwA6AGwAaQBuAGQAcwBhAHkALgBtAGEAdAB0AGgAZQB3AHMAQABhAGcAcgBl AHMAZQBhAHIAYwBoAC4AYwBvAC4AbgB6AAAADwEAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 0Mnqefm6zhGMggCqAEupCwIAAAAXAAAAIwAAAEMAYQB0AGgAZQByAGkAbgBlAC4A YwBhAG0AZQByAG8AbgBAAGEAZwByAGUAcwBlAGEAcgBjAGgALgBjAG8ALgBuAHoA AADgyep5+brOEYyCAKoAS6kLVAAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAQwBhAHQAaABlAHIA aQBuAGUALgBjAGEAbQBlAHIAbwBuAEAAYQBnAHIAZQBzAGUAYQByAGMAaAAuAGMA bwAuAG4AegAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQAFgASAAEAnAAPAAMAAAAAAAAAAABEAABA8f8CAEQA DAAAAAAAAAAAAAYATgBvAHIAbQBhAGwAAAACAAAAHABDShgAT0oDAFFKAwBfSAEE bUgJFHNICRR0SAkERgABQAEAAgBGAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAJAEgAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcA IAAxAAAACAABAAYkAUAmABIANQiBQ0okAEtIIABcCIFhSiAARgACQAEAAgBGAAwA AAAAAAAAAAAJAEgAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcAIAAyAAAACAACAAYkAUAmAREANQiBQ0og AFwIgV0IgWFKHAAAQgADQAEAAgBCAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAJAEgAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcA IAAzAAAACAADAAYkAUAmAg4ANQiBQ0ocAFwIgWFKGgBsAARAAQACAGwADAAAAAAA AAAAAAkASABlAGEAZABpAG4AZwAgADQAAAAXAAQAAyQDBiQBNyQAOCQAQCYDSCQA YSQDACcANQiBQioBT0oCAFFKAgBcCIFeSgIAYUowAG1ICQRwaAAAAABzSAkEAAAA AAAAAAAAAABEAEFA8v+hAEQADAEAAAAAAAAAABYARABlAGYAYQB1AGwAdAAgAFAA YQByAGEAZwByAGEAcABoACAARgBvAG4AdAAAAAAAVgBpAPP/swBWAAwBAAAAAAAA AAAMAFQAYQBiAGwAZQAgAE4AbwByAG0AYQBsAAAAIAA6VgsAF/YDAAA01gYAAQUD AAA01gYAAQoDbABh9gMAAAIACwAAACgAawD0/8EAKAAAAQAAAAAAAAAABwBOAG8A IABMAGkAcwB0AAAAAgAMAAAAAAAwAFVAogDxADAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAkASAB5AHAA ZQByAGwAaQBuAGsAAAAGAD4qAUIqAiwAIEABAAIBLAAMAAAAAAAAAAAABgBGAG8A bwB0AGUAcgAAAAIAEAAEAENKEgAsAB9AAQASASwADAAAAAAAAAAAAAYASABlAGEA ZABlAHIAAAACABEABABDShIAPgAcQAEAIgE+AAwAAAAAAAAAAAANAE4AbwByAG0A YQBsACAASQBuAGQAZQBuAHQAAAAKABIAD4Q3Al6ENwIAAFYAQkABADIBVgAMAAAA AAAAAAAACQBCAG8AZAB5ACAAVABlAHgAdAAAAAsAEwA3JAA4JABIJAAAHQBCKgFP SgQAUUoEAGFKEQBtSAkEcGgAAAAAc0gJBABOAFBAAQBCAU4ADAAAAAAAAAAAAAsA QgBvAGQAeQAgAFQAZQB4AHQAIAAyAAAAEQAUAAMkAzckADgkAEgkAGEkAwAMAE9K AgBRSgIAXkoCAEgAmQABAFIBSAAMAQAAk0sJAAAADABCAGEAbABsAG8AbwBuACAA VABlAHgAdAAAAAIAFQAUAENKEABPSgUAUUoFAF5KBQBhShAAAAAAAIcKAAAFAAAm AAAAAP////8AAAAAKwAAADYAAABMAAAATQAAALUAAABpAQAAagEAAIYBAABOAwAA TwMAAIwDAACNAwAAGAUAABkFAABVBQAAVgUAAOsGAADsBgAABwcAALsHAAAvCAAA rQgAAK4IAABQCQAAUQkAAF4KAABfCgAAYAoAAIMKAACECgAAhQoAAIgKAACYAAAA ADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOEAAAAQwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAeAAA AAAAAJhAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAKwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACYQAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgCsA AAAAAAB4AAAAAAAAmEAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIArAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAUMAAA AAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYQAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgCsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA mEAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIArAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJhAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAKwAAAAAA AAAAAAAAgACYQAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgCsAAAAAAAB4AAAAAAAAmEAAAAAwAAAAAAAA AIArAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJhAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAKwAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAACYQAAA ADAAAAAAAAAAgCsAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAmEAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIArAAAAAAAAeAAA AAAAAJhAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYQAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgCsA AAAAAAAgAAAAAIAAmEAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIArAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJhAAAAAMAAA AAAAAACAKwAAAAAAABAAAAAAAACYQAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgCsAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAA mEAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIArAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAJhAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAKwAAAAAA ABgAAAAAgACYQAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgCsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmEAAAAAwAAAAAAAA AIArAAAAAAAAeAAAAAAAAJhAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAKwAAAAAAAHgAAAAAAACYQAAA ADAAAAAAAAAAgCsAAAAAAAAgAAAAAIAAmEAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAACAAA AAAAAJhAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAKwAAAAAAAHgAAAAAAACYQAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgCsA AAAAAAB4AAAAAAAAmEAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIArAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAJhAAAAAMAAA AAAAAACAKwAAAAAAAHgAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DTsBMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAlAObBwAAAAArAAAANgAAAE0AAABpAQAA hgEAALsHAAAvCAAAgwoAAIgKAAAPewEwADAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIAH D3sBMAAwAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACABw97ATAAMAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAA AAAAAAAAgAcPewEwADAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAIAHD3sBMAAwAAAAAAAA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAACgBw97ATAAMAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAoAcPewEw ADAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAKAHD3sBMAAwAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AACgB5pAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgBIAuFISAJwEmwcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAGAAB0CQAA TwsAADMNAADzEAAAgxIAAIcSAAAKAAAADQAAAA4AAAAPAAAAEAAAABIAAAAABgAA UREAAIcSAAALAAAAEQAAAAAGAACGEgAADAAAAPMIAAArCQAATQkAAOwJAAAlCgAA SAoAAIcKAAATWBT/FYATWBT/FYwPAADwOAAAAAAABvAYAAAAAggAAAIAAAABAAAA AQAAAAEAAAACAAAAQAAe8RAAAAD//wAAAAD/AICAgAD3AAAQAA8AAvCSAAAAEAAI 8AgAAAABAAAAAQQAAA8AA/AwAAAADwAE8CgAAAABAAnwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAACAArwCAAAAAAEAAAFAAAADwAE8EIAAAASAArwCAAAAAEEAAAADgAAUwAL 8B4AAAC/AQAAEADLAQAAAAD/AQAACAAEAwkAAAA/AwEAAQAAABHwBAAAAAEAAAD/ /wYAAAAGAEQLcgAAAAEAnDkOBAYARQtyAAEAAQBsHQwEBgBGC3IAAQABADQzEgQG AEcLcgAAAAEAdDMSBAYASAtyAAEAAQC0MxIEBgBJC3IAAAABAFRsFAQ2AAAANgAA AEAAAACnAAAApwAAAHMKAACICgAAAQAAAAIAAAAAAAIAAgAAAAIAAwAAAAIABAAA AAIABQAAAAEAPgAAAEsAAABLAAAAsgAAALIAAACCCgAAiAoAAAEAAQAAAAAAAgAA AAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAQAAAA4AAAAAQAAACqAdXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0 LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6c21hcnR0YWdzBIBkYXRlAIA5AAAABgAAACqAdXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6c21hcnR0YWdzBYBwbGFjZQCAOAAAAAUA AAAqgHVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOnNtYXJ0dGFncwSA Q2l0eQCAQgAAAAQAAAAqgHVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNl OnNtYXJ0dGFncw6AY291bnRyeS1yZWdpb24AgAwAAAEBAAAABgAAAAKAMTAEgDIw MDMCgDI0A4BEYXkFgE1vbnRoBIBZZWFyBgAAAAAABQAAAAAABAAAAAAABgAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAQADAAAABQAAAAEAAAADAAAAAgAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFwBAABfAQAA 2AkAAOIJAACICgAABwAEAAcAHAAHAAAAAAAoBQAANAUAAJ8JAACtCQAAiAoAAAcA MwAHADMABwAAAAAAtQAAAGgBAAAmCgAAhAoAAIgKAAAHAAQABwAFAAcAAAAAAFwB AABfAQAAiAoAAAcABAAHAP//EgAAAA0AcwBoAGUAbABsAGUAeQBoAHUAZwBoAGUA cwAAAA0AcwBoAGUAbABsAGUAeQBoAHUAZwBoAGUAcwAAAA0AcwBoAGUAbABsAGUA eQBoAHUAZwBoAGUAcwAAAA0AcwBoAGUAbABsAGUAeQBoAHUAZwBoAGUAcwAAAA0A cwBoAGUAbABsAGUAeQBoAHUAZwBoAGUAcwAAAA0AcwBoAGUAbABsAGUAeQBoAHUA ZwBoAGUAcwAAAA0AcwBoAGUAbABsAGUAeQBoAHUAZwBoAGUAcwAAABAATABpAG4A ZABzAGEAeQAgAE0AYQB0AHQAaABlAHcAcwAAAAYAeABwAHQAZQBzAHQAAAACAD0G sFwoIALl/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8PEACMCwt8MIPmdf8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P /w//DxAAAQAAABcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADxgAAA+EZQERhJv+FcYFAAFo AQZehGUBYISb/kNKFABPSgEAUUoBAG8oAAEAt/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAALGAAAD4SgBRGEmP4VxgUAAaAFBl6EoAVghJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8A AQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxgAAA+EcAgRhJj+FcYFAAFwCAZehHAI YISY/k9KBwBRSgcAbygAAQCn8AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsYAAAP hEALEYSY/hXGBQABQAsGXoRAC2CEmP5PSgEAUUoBAG8oAAEAt/ABAAAAF4AAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALGAAAD4QQDhGEmP4VxgUAARAOBl6EEA5ghJj+T0oGAFFK BgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxgAAA+E4BARhJj+FcYF AAHgEAZehOAQYISY/k9KBwBRSgcAbygAAQCn8AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAsYAAAPhLATEYSY/hXGBQABsBMGXoSwE2CEmP5PSgEAUUoBAG8oAAEAt/AB AAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALGAAAD4SAFhGEmP4VxgUAAYAWBl6EgBZg hJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxgAAA+E UBkRhJj+FcYFAAFQGQZehFAZYISY/k9KBwBRSgcAbygAAQCn8AEAAAAXAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8YAAAPhBwBEYTk/hXGBQABaAEGXoQcAWCE5P5DShQAT0oB AFFKAQBvKAABALfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxgAAA+EoAURhJj+ FcYFAAGgBQZehKAFYISY/k9KBgBRSgYAbygAAQBvAAEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAsYAAAPhHAIEYSY/hXGBQABcAgGXoRwCGCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEA p/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALGAAAD4RACxGEmP4VxgUAAUALBl6E QAtghJj+T0oBAFFKAQBvKAABALfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxgA AA+EEA4RhJj+FcYFAAEQDgZehBAOYISY/k9KBgBRSgYAbygAAQBvAAEAAAAXgAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsYAAAPhOAQEYSY/hXGBQAB4BAGXoTgEGCEmP5PSgcA UUoHAG8oAAEAp/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALGAAAD4SwExGEmP4V xgUAAbATBl6EsBNghJj+T0oBAFFKAQBvKAABALfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAACxgAAA+EgBYRhJj+FcYFAAGAFgZehIAWYISY/k9KBgBRSgYAbygAAQBv AAEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsYAAAPhFAZEYSY/hXGBQABUBkGXoRQ GWCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEAp/ADAAAAjAsLfAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIwLC3wAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA9BrBcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA//////////////////8CAAAAAAAAAP// AgAAABIAnOF88QMACQQFAAkEAQAJBAMACQQFAAkEAQAJBAMACQQFAAkEEgCIu5B+ AwAJBAUACQQBAAkEAwAJBAUACQQBAAkEAwAJBAUACQQYAAAABAAAAAgAAADlAAAA AAAAABcAAACTSwkA8zAWAKYQGADMSyMAu2IlAN02LACKNDMAxzw6ALd2YwC8TnkA EFWLAA9NlwA1RKMA3RukADUWqAD5f7kAHmi6ACd9vwC/GcsAjFHSAPV90gBoS+MA RX73ADFR/QD/QAGAAQBfAQAAXwEAAFAjyQFTAFMAXwEAAAAAAABfAQAAAAAAAAIQ AAAAAAAAAIcKAABQAAAQAEAAAP//AQAAAAcAVQBuAGsAbgBvAHcAbgD//wEACAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA//8BAAAAAAD//wAAAgD//wAAAAD//wAAAgD//wAAAAAIAAAARxaQ AQAAAgIGAwUEBQIDBId6ACAAAACACAAAAAAAAAD/AQAAAAAAAFQAaQBtAGUAcwAg AE4AZQB3ACAAUgBvAG0AYQBuAAAANRaQAQIABQUBAgEHBgIFBwAAAAAAAAAQAAAA AAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAFMAeQBtAGIAbwBsAAAAMyaQAQAAAgsGBAICAgICBId6ACAA AACACAAAAAAAAAD/AQAAAAAAAEEAcgBpAGEAbAAAADkWkAEAAAICBAQDAwEBCAOH AgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnwAAAAAAAABHAGEAcgBhAG0AbwBuAGQAAABdBpABAA9D YAAAAAD//+HgAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAUgBvAHQAaQBzAFMAYQBu AHMAUwBlAHIAaQBmAAAAQwBvAHUAcgBpAGUAcgAgAE4AZQB3AAAANSYAAAAAAgsG BAMFBAQCBId6AGEAAACACAAAAAAAAAD/AQEAAAAAAFQAYQBoAG8AbQBhAAAAPzWQ AQAAAgcDCQICBQIEBId6ACAAAACACAAAAAAAAAD/AQAAAAAAAEMAbwB1AHIAaQBl AHIAIABOAGUAdwAAADsGkAECAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA gAAAAABXAGkAbgBnAGQAaQBuAGcAcwAAACIABABxCIwYAPA3AgAAaAEAAAAA9Mt5 huDqeSbH6nimAwACAAAAkQEAAPQIAAABAAUAAAAEAAMQEwAAAJEBAAD0CAAAAQAF AAAAEwAAAAAAAAAkAwDwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABuBG4EOQAn AIKAMjQAABAAGQBkAAAAGQAAAIAKAACACgAAAAAAANFGaaMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAA AAkzg1EA8BAA398AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAAAAAACPD/ DwEAAT8AAOQEAAD///9/////f////3////9/////f////3////9/t3ZjAP//EgAA AAAAAAAnAGEAbgBpAG0AYQBsACAAYgBlAGgAYQB2AGkAbwByACAAYQBuAGQAIAB3 AGUAbABmAGEAcgBlACAALQAgAHMAYwBpAGUAbgB0AGkAcwB0AAAAAAAAAA0AcwBo AGUAbABsAGUAeQBoAHUAZwBoAGUAcwAQAEwAaQBuAGQAcwBhAHkAIABNAGEAdAB0 AGgAZQB3AHMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUAAAABgAAAAIAAAAAAAwAAQAM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+/wAABQECAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAA4IWf8vlPaBCrkQgAKyez2TAAAAC0AQAAEgAAAAEAAACYAAAA AgAAAKAAAAADAAAA0AAAAAQAAADcAAAABQAAAPQAAAAGAAAAAAEAAAcAAAAMAQAA CAAAACABAAAJAAAAPAEAABIAAABIAQAACgAAAGQBAAALAAAAcAEAAAwAAAB8AQAA DQAAAIgBAAAOAAAAlAEAAA8AAACcAQAAEAAAAKQBAAATAAAArAEAAAIAAADkBAAA HgAAACgAAABhbmltYWwgYmVoYXZpb3IgYW5kIHdlbGZhcmUgLSBzY2llbnRpc3QA HgAAAAEAAAAAbmltHgAAAA4AAABzaGVsbGV5aHVnaGVzAHIgHgAAAAEAAAAAaGVs HgAAAAEAAAAAaGVsHgAAAAsAAABOb3JtYWwuZG90AGUeAAAAEQAAAExpbmRzYXkg TWF0dGhld3MAbmQgHgAAAAIAAAAzAG5kHgAAABQAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAx MC4wAEAAAAAAjIZHAAAAAEAAAAAAwuEVuW3DAUAAAAAA8G1fGIPDAUAAAAAA2MG2 GIbDAQMAAAABAAAAAwAAAJEBAAADAAAA9AgAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA /v8AAAUBAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAALVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a5EAAAA BdXN1ZwuGxCTlwgAKyz5rmABAAAcAQAADAAAAAEAAABoAAAADwAAAHAAAAAFAAAA iAAAAAYAAACQAAAAEQAAAJgAAAAXAAAAoAAAAAsAAACoAAAAEAAAALAAAAATAAAA uAAAABYAAADAAAAADQAAAMgAAAAMAAAA/AAAAAIAAADkBAAAHgAAAA4AAABUTVAg V29ybGR3aWRlAG8AAwAAABMAAAADAAAABQAAAAMAAACACgAAAwAAAHsQCgALAAAA AAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAB4QAAABAAAAKAAAAGFuaW1hbCBi ZWhhdmlvciBhbmQgd2VsZmFyZSAtIHNjaWVudGlzdAAMEAAAAgAAAB4AAAAGAAAA VGl0bGUAAwAAAAEAAAAAALgCAAAJAAAAAAAAAFAAAAABAAAAFAEAAAIAAAAcAQAA AwAAADgCAAAEAAAAQAIAAAUAAABkAgAABgAAAIwCAAAHAAAApAIAAAgAAACsAgAA BwAAAAIAAAAMAAAAX1BJRF9ITElOS1MAAwAAABQAAABfQWRIb2NSZXZpZXdDeWNs ZUlEAAQAAAAOAAAAX0VtYWlsU3ViamVjdAAFAAAADQAAAF9BdXRob3JFbWFpbAAG AAAAGAAAAF9BdXRob3JFbWFpbERpc3BsYXlOYW1lAAcAAAAcAAAAX1ByZXZpb3Vz QWRIb2NSZXZpZXdDeWNsZUlEAAgAAAAZAAAAX1Jldmlld2luZ1Rvb2xzU2hvd25P bmNlAAIAAADkBAAAQQAAABQBAAAMAAAAAwAAAGoAQwADAAAAAwAAAAMAAAAAAAAA AwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAKgAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAQwBhAHQAaABlAHIAaQBuAGUA LgBjAGEAbQBlAHIAbwBuAEAAYQBnAHIAZQBzAGUAYQByAGMAaAAuAGMAbwAuAG4A egAAAB8AAAABAAAAAAAAAAMAAABGAGYAAwAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAA HwAAACkAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AGwAaQBuAGQAcwBhAHkALgBtAGEAdAB0AGgA ZQB3AHMAQABhAGcAcgBlAHMAZQBhAHIAYwBoAC4AYwBvAC4AbgB6AAAAAAAfAAAA AQAAAAAAAAADAAAA1AtxJh4AAAAaAAAAU25yIHNjaWVudGlzdCBBdWcgMDMyLmRv YwBEAB4AAAAeAAAAa2l0dHkuYnVydG9uQGFncmVzZWFyY2guY28ubnoAbnQeAAAA DgAAAEJ1cnRvbiwgS2l0dHkAZ3IDAAAAVp1QpR4AAAABAAAAAHVydAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAACAAAAAwAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAA CQAAAAoAAAALAAAADAAAAA0AAAAOAAAADwAAABAAAAARAAAAEgAAABMAAAD+//// FQAAABYAAAAXAAAAGAAAABkAAAAaAAAAGwAAAP7///8dAAAAHgAAAB8AAAAgAAAA IQAAACIAAAAjAAAAJAAAACUAAAAmAAAAJwAAACgAAAApAAAA/v///ysAAAAsAAAA LQAAAC4AAAAvAAAAMAAAADEAAAD+////MwAAADQAAAA1AAAANgAAADcAAAA4AAAA OQAAAP7////9////PAAAAP7////+/////v////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABYABQH//////////wMAAAAGCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkFjGvxiGwwE+AAAAgAAAAAAAAABEAGEAdABhAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CgACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAABQAAAAAEAAAAAAAADEAVABhAGIAbABlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAIBAQAAAAYAAAD///// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAGEaAAAAAAAA VwBvAHIAZABEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABoAAgECAAAABQAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJSYAAAAAAAAFAFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkA SQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA KAACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACoAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAUARABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkA SQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAIBBAAAAP////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMgAAAAAQAAAAAAAA AQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAagAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAD+//////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// AQD+/wMKAAD/////BgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARhgAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCBE b2N1bWVudAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAAAABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjgA9DmycQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABSAG8AbwB0ACAARQBuAHQA cgB5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FgAFAf//////////AwAAAAYJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwGNwA z4fDAUUAAABABQAAAAAAAEQAYQB0AGEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAAIB//////////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAAAAAAQAAAAAAAA MQBUAGEAYgBsAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAgEBAAAABgAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcAAAAYRoAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQAbwBjAHUA bQBlAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA GgACAQIAAAAFAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAlJgAAAAAAAAEAAAACAAAAAwAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAA CQAAAAoAAAALAAAADAAAAA0AAAAOAAAADwAAABAAAAARAAAAEgAAABMAAAD+//// FQAAABYAAAAXAAAAGAAAABkAAAAaAAAAGwAAAP7///8dAAAAHgAAAB8AAAAgAAAA IQAAACIAAAAjAAAAJAAAACUAAAAmAAAAJwAAACgAAAApAAAA/v///ysAAAAsAAAA LQAAAC4AAAAvAAAAMAAAADEAAAD+//////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////0QAAAD9/////v///0MAAAD+//// /v///0IAAAD///////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// AQAAAP7///8DAAAABAAAAAUAAAAGAAAABwAAAAgAAAAJAAAACgAAAAsAAAAMAAAA DQAAAA4AAAAPAAAAEAAAABEAAAASAAAAEwAAABQAAAD+//////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////8DAAAAMAIAAAQAAABAAgAA BQAAAMACAAAGAAAADAMAAAcAAAA4AgAABwAAAAIAAAAMAAAAX1BJRF9ITElOS1MA AwAAABQAAABfQWRIb2NSZXZpZXdDeWNsZUlEAAQAAAAOAAAAX0VtYWlsU3ViamVj dAAFAAAADQAAAF9BdXRob3JFbWFpbAAGAAAAGAAAAF9BdXRob3JFbWFpbERpc3Bs YXlOYW1lAAcAAAAcAAAAX1ByZXZpb3VzQWRIb2NSZXZpZXdDeWNsZUlEAAgAAAAZ AAAAX1Jldmlld2luZ1Rvb2xzU2hvd25PbmNlAAIAAADkBAAAQQAAABQBAAAMAAAA AwAAAGoAQwADAAAAAwAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAKgAAAG0AYQBpAGwA dABvADoAQwBhAHQAaABlAHIAaQBuAGUALgBjAGEAbQBlAHIAbwBuAEAAYQBnAHIA ZQBzAGUAYQByAGMAaAAuAGMAbwAuAG4AegAAAB8AAAABAAAAAAAAAAMAAABGAGYA AwAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAACkAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AGwA aQBuAGQAcwBhAHkALgBtAGEAdAB0AGgAZQB3AHMAQABhAGcAcgBlAHMAZQBhAHIA YwBoAC4AYwBvAC4AbgB6AAAAAAAfAAAAAQAAAAAAAAADAAAA73OlFgMAAADUC3Em HwAAADwAAABQAG8AcwBpAHQAaQBvAG4AcwAgAGYAbwByACAAYQAgAFMAYwBpAGUA bgB0AGkAcwB0ACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AHcAbwAgAHAAbwBzAHQAIABkAG8AYwBzACAA IABpAG4AIABOAGUAdwAgAFoAZQBhAGwAYQBuAGQAAAAfAAAAIgAAAGwAaQBuAGQA cwBhAHkALgBtAGEAdAB0AGgAZQB3AHMAQABhAGcAcgBlAHMAZQBhAHIAYwBoAC4A YwBvAC4AbgB6AAAAHwAAABIAAABNAGEAdAB0AGgAZQB3AHMALAAgAEwAaQBuAGQA cwBhAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BQBTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAqAAAAABAAAAAAAAAFAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4A dABTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OAACAQQAAAD//////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAIAAACYBAAAAAAAAAEAQwBvAG0AcABPAGIAagAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAIA//////////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGoAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAP7/AwoAAP////8GCQIA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGGAAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIERvY3VtZW50AAoAAABNU1dv cmREb2MAEAAAAFdvcmQuRG9jdW1lbnQuOAD0ObJxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP7/AAAFAQIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAC1c3V nC4bEJOXCAArLPmuRAAAAAXVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a5gAQAAHAEAAAwAAAABAAAA aAAAAA8AAABwAAAABQAAAIgAAAAGAAAAkAAAABEAAACYAAAAFwAAAKAAAAALAAAA qAAAABAAAACwAAAAEwAAALgAAAAWAAAAwAAAAA0AAADIAAAADAAAAPwAAAACAAAA 5AQAAB4AAAAOAAAAVE1QIFdvcmxkd2lkZQBvAAMAAAATAAAAAwAAAAUAAAADAAAA gAoAAAMAAAB7EAoACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAAeEAAA AQAAACgAAABhbmltYWwgYmVoYXZpb3IgYW5kIHdlbGZhcmUgLSBzY2llbnRpc3QA DBAAAAIAAAAeAAAABgAAAFRpdGxlAAMAAAABAAAAAAA4AwAACAAAAAAAAABIAAAA AQAAAAwBAAACAAAAFAEAAA== --Boundary_(ID_kpEkuaLGYUDRz/zGhXY50Q)-- From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 2-OCT-2003 08:05:23.62 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fwd: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in Journal Report --Boundary_(ID_kvsYa49cfXDQ1jNCY4+JWg) Content-id: Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Note: forwarded message attached. I thought some people on the list might find this interesting. It doesn't talk much about the importance of socialising these captive animals to humans and how much that can improve their lives. When I talk about socialization, I mean studying the social behavior of a certain species and adjusting your behavior to fit in to it's social structure. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com --Boundary_(ID_kvsYa49cfXDQ1jNCY4+JWg) Content-type: message/rfc822 --------- Forwarded Message --------- DATE: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:43:20 From: cougartime@aol.com To: undisclosed-recipients:; Cc: Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in Journal Report October 2, 2003 By MARK DERR Polar bears, lions, tigers, cheetahs and other wide-ranging carnivores do so poorly in captivity that zoos should either drastically improve their conditions or stop keeping them altogether, biologists from Oxford University report today in the journal Nature. Zookeepers have long recognized that some species thrive in captivity while others languish. Today the researchers, Dr. Georgia Mason and Dr. Ros Clubb, say the problems - including high infant mortality and a tendency to pace around and around in the cage - are directly related to the size of the animal's home range in the wild. The typical zoo enclosure for a polar bear is one-millionth the size of its home range in the wild, which can reach 31,000 square miles, the authors said. Some captive polar bears spend 25 percent of their day in what scientists call stereotypic pacing, and infant mortality for captive animals is around 65 percent. The director of the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, Dr. Dan Wharton, praised the report but said many zoos had already begun work to provide more variety and stimulation for their animals. In 1998, he noted, a redesigned polar bear exhibition opened in Central Park. The exhibit has a gravel pit where the zoo's three bears can dig for food, a snow bank, a redesigned pool and machinery that can turn it into an artificial river. Last May, the Bronx Zoo opened a new tiger exhibit that incorporates new concepts in architecture and enrichment programs, including a spinning ball scented with various odors. "There is a heroic effort afoot to create exhibitions so that zoological gardens can present animals with their complete behavioral repertoire," said Dr. Wharton, a biologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, which runs both zoos. "It's not perfect yet," he continued, "but there is a profession-wide effort to bring everything to bear on it - architecture and knowledge of the animal's behavior, social structure and habitat." Dr. Mason, the Oxford researcher, said animals that had comparatively smaller ranges, including grizzly bears, American mink, red and Arctic foxes, and Eurasian lynxes, seemed to do well in captivity. The direct relationship of home range size to abnormal behavior and high infant mortality in captivity existed independent of factors like the size and design of the enclosure and feeding schedules, the researchers report. They based their findings on an analysis of some 1,200 journal articles covering four decades of observations of animals in the wild and at 500 zoos worldwide. It is unclear why natural home-range size is so important. "It could be that some carnivores roam because they are very sensitive to changing prey densities, or some species find roaming pleasurable, so they roam," Dr. Mason said. "They might be designed in such a way that roaming makes their central nervous system develop properly." At the least, zoos must do better at providing mental stimulation and enrichment for their wide-ranging carnivores and other animals to compensate for the loss of room to roam, the Oxford biologists said. Zoos unable to do so should not keep those species, they added. Dr. Marc Bekoff, an animal ethicist who studies animal behavior patterns at the University of Colorado, called the new study "one of the most important papers I've seen on carnivores' well-being in captivity," and added, "Zookeepers will have to reckon with the results." But Dr. Michael Hutchins, director of conservation science for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, which accredits American zoos, said he found "broad generalizations" and "real weaknesses" in the study. He noted that it did not list all the species in question. Other studies have shown that the three factors most important in causing stress were a lack of variety in diet, lack of barriers that allow an animal to hide from view, and inconsistency in its relationship with its caretakers, Dr. Hutchins said. A number of American zoos have already built large, naturalistic enclosures that provide stimulation for the animals, he said. They have also begun feeding large carnivores whole carcasses so they can engage in more natural feeding behavior and encouraging caretakers to be more consistent in their treatment of the animals. "I haven't seen any evidence of pacing at these facilities," Dr. Hutchins said. Dr. Mason praised efforts that successfully compensate for the loss of a large natural home range. "That's what zoos should be aiming for," she said. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/science/02CAGE.html?ex=1066090353&ei=1& en=20c91a3151670046 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: excat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------- End Forwarded Message --------- From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 2-OCT-2003 09:23:16.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in Journal Report Hi CeAnn -- You make a very good point in your description of socialization! This is exactly the point I attempt to make during seminars and presentations. I find that many people, until I explain, think that Kerwood's socialized wolves are "tame" and that the socialization process has somehow equated them to domesticated dogs. I have always looked at socialization as habituation taken a number of steps further, with the key being focus on the species' innate physicial, mental, emotional, and social requirements. I too think the article was lacking in its defiency in discussing socialization for captive wildlife. As you know, it makes a world of difference! At Kerwood, we actually make distinctions concerning varying types of wildlife. Those we consider truly wild are born that way, outside of captivity and consequently, have minimal or no contact with civilization or with humans as a whole. We also refer to "captive born non-domestics" of two varieties. The first are those members of a wild species that are born in captivity and live, for the most part, without human intervention or socialization of any sort with their human keepers. The second are those captive born non-domestics which are hand-reared (bottle-raised from a very young age) and properly socialized to humans and their altered environment. Personally, I think for a variety of reasons (which I could actually turn into an essay!) that all facilities should socialize captive wildlife whenever and if at all possible. Vivian. > Note: forwarded message attached. > I thought some people on the list might find this > interesting. > It doesn't talk much about the importance of > socialising these captive animals to humans and how > much that can improve their lives. > When I talk about socialization, I mean studying the > social behavior of a certain species and adjusting > your behavior to fit in to it's social structure. > CeAnn From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" "Virginia Bowen" 2-OCT-2003 10:30:44.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List", IN%"ANIMAL-EDUCATORS@yahoogroups.com" CC: Subj: Coyote question Hi all: I'm hoping someone out there is an expert on coyote behaviors in the wild (smj?). I've got two miniature donkeys (36" at withers). They have been known to chase coyotes who come into their pasture area (about an acre out of our 6 acre lot). In the past few months, though, they've seemed to reach an "agreement" with at least one of the coyotes who we've seen drinking out of their pasture water tub while the donkeys kept eating several feet away. So far nothing that worries me. In fact, I kind of like that their water tub has become the local watering hole -- the roadrunners also drink out of it). I figured that's just fine and if the donkeys were bothered by the coyote, they'd run it off. (FYI, I once witnessed one of my donkeys chase down my dog who startled her when he ran through their pasture -- she chased him down, flipped him over and then stomped on either side of him -- a very clear warning. So I know they are capable of some defense of themselves -- and standard donkeys are actually used as livestock guardians to protect against coyotes specifically). This morning, though, there was coyote scat in their pasture, right next to one of their toys. I know the donkeys didn't drop the toy there since it was in the same place it was when I did bed check on them last night. I'm not sure if I should worry about this kind of level of comfort on the coyote's part. I'm hoping someone can shed some light. A bit of background might help, too: I live in a semi-rural area which is growing (unfortunately). The HOA does have a 5 acre minimum on home sites, but almost all the sites around us are being built on now except for an 11 acre parcel right next door to us. When we moved in, there were probably 2 coyotes living in that parcel next door -- I saw them regularly. As building started in the area, I started seeing more coyotes there. In the past few months, judging from the howling and the ones I've seen crossing our property heading over there, there may be more trying to live over there now. The numbers of scat left in our driveway which borders that property has increased dramatically in the last few months. I took that to be the ones that live there marking their territory very clearly because of the displacement of others in the area. Is that correct? Then the number of scat around our barn has increased too -- that's on the other side of our property. Primarily, it's increased around our donkey manure pile. We do have a lot of ground squirrels, gophers, rabbits and rodents on the property. But I'm beginning to wonder if there's enough prey for the numbers of coyotes that are getting displaced? There is a national forest about 2 miles to the north of us, an ecological preserve about 5 miles to the south of us and Camp Pendleton Marine base is about 10 miles to the west. So there is open space around -- but is it too far for the displaced coyotes to move to? Will the ones living next door be able or want to keep others out of there? I guess I'm trying to determine if I should worry that they might start trying to hassle our donkeys. Thanks! Any thoughts are much appreciated. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 2-OCT-2003 12:47:22.76 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" "Virginia Bowen" Subj: RE: Coyote question Hello Virginia, I'm sure that CeAnn on this list (from Indiana Coyote Rescue Center) can answer this question far better than I, however, I'll give you some of my own input because it may be of some help. Our wolf centre here in Ontario does house two captive coyotes and we're surrounded (for many miles) by interspersed farmland and bush which houses large coyote populations. We ourselves have miniature horses and also a miniature donkey. Our smallest miniature horse is not much larger than a German Shepherd dog. None of the horses or the donkey have ever been harassed in any way by coyotes in our area. Granted, our facility is fully perimeter fenced, which is a deterrent to some degree. Also, I believe the scent of our wolves may be a factor in keeping wild coyotes at bay (because wolves, for the most part, predate coyotes in the wild). We have a large number of free ranging ducks and geese wandering our property and these, I think, are a much bigger draw for coyotes than our larger "prey." None of our poultry have been bothered on our property, except by birds of prey. That having been said, we are closely in touch with the farming community and the only reports we have ever received of coyote predation is on very young and helpless animals (example: lambs) and this usually occurs where the farmers have improper fencing (no hotwire top and bottom) and/or where they have illegally dumped their dead stock in their bush (thus giving coyotes a welcomed free meal and familiarizing them with this food source). I believe that, unless a "pack" of coyotes were to attack your donkeys (which is rare because coyotes have different social systems than wolves and very rarely pack), your donkeys are quite safe. You are quite correct in saying that standard donkeys are used as livestock guardians but don't underestimate your miniatures. I have seen our own jack that we had in "attack mode" and believe that even a miniature would be quite an adversary for even a few hungry coyotes. Coyotes are very very adaptive (much more so than wolves) and since you have suitable habitat not too far away for the growing coyote population I believe that many will disperse into those areas. Use your own donkeys' behaviors as a guide - if they begin to show concern at the presence of the coyotes, you should too. Hope this helps. Vivian ________ Vivian Singer-Ferris Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc. www.kerwoodwolf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Virginia Bowen" To: "Applied Ethology List" ; Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:12 AM Subject: Coyote question > Hi all: > > I'm hoping someone out there is an expert on coyote behaviors in the > wild (smj?). I've got two miniature donkeys (36" at withers). They > have been known to chase coyotes who come into their pasture area (about > an acre out of our 6 acre lot). In the past few months, though, they've > seemed to reach an "agreement" with at least one of the coyotes who > we've seen drinking out of their pasture water tub while the donkeys > kept eating several feet away. So far nothing that worries me. In fact, > I kind of like that their water tub has become the local watering hole > -- the roadrunners also drink out of it). I figured that's just fine > and if the donkeys were bothered by the coyote, they'd run it off. > (FYI, I once witnessed one of my donkeys chase down my dog who startled > her when he ran through their pasture -- she chased him down, flipped > him over and then stomped on either side of him -- a very clear warning. > So I know they are capable of some defense of themselves -- and standard > donkeys are actually used as livestock guardians to protect against > coyotes specifically). > > This morning, though, there was coyote scat in their pasture, right next > to one of their toys. I know the donkeys didn't drop the toy there > since it was in the same place it was when I did bed check on them last > night. I'm not sure if I should worry about this kind of level of > comfort on the coyote's part. I'm hoping someone can shed some light. > > A bit of background might help, too: > > I live in a semi-rural area which is growing (unfortunately). The HOA > does have a 5 acre minimum on home sites, but almost all the sites > around us are being built on now except for an 11 acre parcel right next > door to us. When we moved in, there were probably 2 coyotes living in > that parcel next door -- I saw them regularly. As building started in > the area, I started seeing more coyotes there. In the past few months, > judging from the howling and the ones I've seen crossing our property > heading over there, there may be more trying to live over there now. > The numbers of scat left in our driveway which borders that property has > increased dramatically in the last few months. I took that to be the > ones that live there marking their territory very clearly because of the > displacement of others in the area. Is that correct? > > Then the number of scat around our barn has increased too -- that's on > the other side of our property. Primarily, it's increased around our > donkey manure pile. > > We do have a lot of ground squirrels, gophers, rabbits and rodents on > the property. But I'm beginning to wonder if there's enough prey for > the numbers of coyotes that are getting displaced? There is a national > forest about 2 miles to the north of us, an ecological preserve about 5 > miles to the south of us and Camp Pendleton Marine base is about 10 > miles to the west. So there is open space around -- but is it too far > for the displaced coyotes to move to? Will the ones living next door be > able or want to keep others out of there? I guess I'm trying to > determine if I should worry that they might start trying to hassle our > donkeys. > > Thanks! Any thoughts are much appreciated. > > Virginia > Murrieta, CA > > "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun > and bray in the night." > > From: IN%"lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk" "lucy GRAY" 2-OCT-2003 12:47:44.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Separation Anxiety in Horses I hoping someone can help me here, unfortunately I don't have a great deal of information but I am looking for a paper on separation anxiety that was done at Southampton University. I don't know who did the research and I am trying to find out the typical length of time that this problem has been effectively treated in. How long is a piece of string, I know considering all the factors that need to be considered, etc. Any help greatly appreciated. Lucy. From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 2-OCT-2003 15:34:02.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Coyote question Virginia, On a visit to Wolf Haven, which also has some coyotes, the staff said a research project showed coyotes in areas like yours got a good share of their diet from stealing dog food from dogs fed outside. The population might actually be increasing as coyotes find the humans and their companion animals provide a new food source. They might also be eating grain fed to horses and other livestock. We have quite a few coyotes, some cougar and bobcat, black bear and also some dogs that are packing up and roaming. The dogs recently attacked a neighbor's goats and killed 2. But their 3 miniature donkeys have not been harmed by any of the predators in 4 years living in this area. Perhaps better at detecting a threat? Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Virginia Bowen" To: "Applied Ethology List" ; Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:12 AM Subject: Coyote question > Hi all: > > I'm hoping someone out there is an expert on coyote behaviors in the > wild (smj?). I've got two miniature donkeys (36" at withers). They > have been known to chase coyotes who come into their pasture area (about > an acre out of our 6 acre lot). In the past few months, though, they've > seemed to reach an "agreement" with at least one of the coyotes who > we've seen drinking out of their pasture water tub while the donkeys > kept eating several feet away. So far nothing that worries me. In fact, > I kind of like that their water tub has become the local watering hole > -- the roadrunners also drink out of it). I figured that's just fine > and if the donkeys were bothered by the coyote, they'd run it off. > (FYI, I once witnessed one of my donkeys chase down my dog who startled > her when he ran through their pasture -- she chased him down, flipped > him over and then stomped on either side of him -- a very clear warning. > So I know they are capable of some defense of themselves -- and standard > donkeys are actually used as livestock guardians to protect against > coyotes specifically). > > This morning, though, there was coyote scat in their pasture, right next > to one of their toys. I know the donkeys didn't drop the toy there > since it was in the same place it was when I did bed check on them last > night. I'm not sure if I should worry about this kind of level of > comfort on the coyote's part. I'm hoping someone can shed some light. > > A bit of background might help, too: > > I live in a semi-rural area which is growing (unfortunately). The HOA > does have a 5 acre minimum on home sites, but almost all the sites > around us are being built on now except for an 11 acre parcel right next > door to us. When we moved in, there were probably 2 coyotes living in > that parcel next door -- I saw them regularly. As building started in > the area, I started seeing more coyotes there. In the past few months, > judging from the howling and the ones I've seen crossing our property > heading over there, there may be more trying to live over there now. > The numbers of scat left in our driveway which borders that property has > increased dramatically in the last few months. I took that to be the > ones that live there marking their territory very clearly because of the > displacement of others in the area. Is that correct? > > Then the number of scat around our barn has increased too -- that's on > the other side of our property. Primarily, it's increased around our > donkey manure pile. > > We do have a lot of ground squirrels, gophers, rabbits and rodents on > the property. But I'm beginning to wonder if there's enough prey for > the numbers of coyotes that are getting displaced? There is a national > forest about 2 miles to the north of us, an ecological preserve about 5 > miles to the south of us and Camp Pendleton Marine base is about 10 > miles to the west. So there is open space around -- but is it too far > for the displaced coyotes to move to? Will the ones living next door be > able or want to keep others out of there? I guess I'm trying to > determine if I should worry that they might start trying to hassle our > donkeys. > > Thanks! Any thoughts are much appreciated. > > Virginia > Murrieta, CA > > "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun > and bray in the night." > > From: IN%"t-friend@tamu.edu" "Friend, Theodore H." 2-OCT-2003 15:34:39.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in Journal Report Thanks CeAnn for posting a summary of their report. Was this a continuation of Clubb & Mason's work for the RSPCA? They were commissioned by the RSPCA to conduct a review of the welfare of zoo elephants in Europe, which was published in 2002 by the RSPCA. That report had the same general conclusions as the report published in Nature. CeAnn asked about the importance of socialization. Interestingly, Marthe Kiley-Worthington was commissioned by the RSPCA to conduct an 18 month study on animals in British circuses. One of the things that really impressed Martha was the high degree of socilization (or bonding) that she observed between circus animals and their trainers. We have seen socialization in U.S. circuses as well, and I think that is a very important positive factor with certain species. Such socialization is much harder to achieve in zoo situations. The RSPCA refused to publish Marthe's report, so Marthe ended up publishing it herself in 1990 in book form with little fanfare. The book is Animals in Circuses and Zoos, Chirons' World?, 1990. Little Eco-Farms Publishing. It includes the report she labeled as "the independent scientific report commissioned by the RSPCA on animals in circuses". Ted Friend -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 8:05 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Fwd: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in Journal Report Note: forwarded message attached. I thought some people on the list might find this interesting. It doesn't talk much about the importance of socialising these captive animals to humans and how much that can improve their lives. When I talk about socialization, I mean studying the social behavior of a certain species and adjusting your behavior to fit in to it's social structure. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 2-OCT-2003 16:22:12.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Separation Anxiety in Horses Hi Lucy - I'm afraid I don't have any info on the paper you are looking for - but, depending on the specifics of the situation, some problems of separation anxiety (and I'm referring to those involving geldings and mares) can be resolved quite rapidly in many cases. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: lucy GRAY [mailto:lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: Friday, 3 October 2003 5:54 a.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Separation Anxiety in Horses I hoping someone can help me here, unfortunately I don't have a great deal of information but I am looking for a paper on separation anxiety that was done at Southampton University. I don't know who did the research and I am trying to find out the typical length of time that this problem has been effectively treated in. How long is a piece of string, I know considering all the factors that need to be considered, etc. Any help greatly appreciated. Lucy. From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 2-OCT-2003 16:22:21.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: Canine vision and nose length http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s953902.htm Does anyone have any more information on this topic? Or comments on the article? Thanks. Cissy From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 2-OCT-2003 16:44:52.66 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: infanticide Hi everybody, I doubt if my scant knowledge on this subject will shed any light, but here it is. No doubt everyone here knows that young or first-time mammalian mothers will sometimes neglect, even kill their young. My only experience is with mice, and I witnessed infanticide in first-time mothers AND when the mother's environment was crowded with conspecifics Very basic, but maybe it will trigger something :) Jo _________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 2-OCT-2003 16:47:48.43 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Canine vision and nose length No comments except it was interesting and questions. Is this an either or case with the two types of eyes or is there a spectrum with some dogs in between the two? And how closely linked are the two traits? Would a cross between a long nosed and short nosed breed produce a dog with a long nose and the central sharp eye? Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "cissy stamm" To: "ethology" Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:28 PM Subject: Canine vision and nose length > http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s953902.htm > > Does anyone have any more information on this topic? Or comments on the > article? > > Thanks. > > Cissy > From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 3-OCT-2003 06:52:34.75 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Separation Anxiety in Horses At 18:54 02/10/03 +0100, lucy GRAY wrote: >I hoping someone can help me here, unfortunately I don't have a great deal of information >but I am looking for a paper on separation anxiety that was done at Southampton >University. I don't know who did the research and I am trying to find out the typical >length of time that this problem has been effectively treated in. How long is a piece of >string, I know considering all the factors that need to be considered, etc. Any help >greatly appreciated. Lucy. It is likely that either Debbie Goodwin, or one of her students or colleagues did this research. According to George Waring's directory at http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/waring/equineresdir.html Dr Goodwin's email address is: d.goodwin@soton.ac.uk Francis From: IN%"daisyberthoud@yahoo.com" "daisy berthoud" 3-OCT-2003 10:20:48.45 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: mounting behaviour across species dear all, i have repeatedly observed how entire male dogs have an interest in neutered male dogs and start to mount them. yesterday one neutered male mounted neutered one and was himself mounted by an entire one. anyway, what i am wondering is whether this reaction towards neutered animals also occurs in other species. especially domesticated animals came to my mind, as it is them who tend to be neutered/castrated: horses, cats, rabits, guinea pigs and what have you. does anyone know if this behaviour is seen in other species than the dog ? what are other species' reactions to castrated males ? i am looking forward to your replies, regards, daisy berthoud anglia polytechnic university ===== THIS IS MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: daisyberthoud@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 3-OCT-2003 10:56:07.06 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: mounting behaviour across species Not that you asked, but female dogs mount, too. My observations are that they do not discriminate between males or females - neutered or not. I'm sorry I can't add more to the discussion. Dogs are all I know. Cissy daisy berthoud wrote: > dear all, > > i have repeatedly observed how entire male dogs have > an interest in neutered male dogs and start to mount > them. yesterday one neutered male mounted neutered one > and was himself mounted by an entire one. > > anyway, what i am wondering is whether this reaction > towards neutered animals also occurs in other species. > especially domesticated animals came to my mind, as it > is them who tend to be neutered/castrated: horses, > cats, rabits, guinea pigs and what have you. does > anyone know if this behaviour is seen in other species > than the dog ? what are other species' reactions to > castrated males ? > > i am looking forward to your replies, > > regards, > > > daisy berthoud > anglia polytechnic university > > ===== > THIS IS MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: daisyberthoud@yahoo.com > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 3-OCT-2003 17:18:16.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Taming/Socialization E Price wrote: > > Dear Jo, > > Good question! If we think of tameness (a state of mind) as different > from taming (a process), animals which can be approached by humans > without fleeing (showing avoidance) can be thought of as tame even when > they have not experienced a taming process. I believe there are > populations of animals living where there are no predators (e.g. island > populations) which are inherently tame towards humans. They may not have > experienced a taming process; nevertheless, they are tame. The "tameness" of various members of the Galapagos fauna is legendary (and nowadays the object of touristic exploitation). The conventional explanation is that their escape responses to large predators have been eliminated by selection owing to the absence of such predators from their environment. From the point of view of selection theory it might be interesting to revisit that idea more thoroughly . Metabolically and/or developmentally "expensive" structures are eliminated quite rapidly by selection - so rapidly that active selection for suppressor genes appears to be involved. Blind cave fishes are a classical example. A corollary is that in case of "need" such structures can quickly be "re-evolved" since the gene complexes that produce them have not actually been lost. The recent story about switching wing production off and on during the evolution of stick insects is a striking example. What about behaviors which, in the absence of appropriate stimuli, are never used? There are also a number of animals which, while possessing perfectly functional escape behavior in their normal lives in the wild, quickly abandon it in captivity. You can capture adults of those species and they are immediately tame. A well known example is provided by the kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp) of North America. The ecologically and phenotypically similar, but quite unrelated jerboas (Jaculus and Allactaga) of the Old World deserts behave in the same way (my personal experience is limited to Jaculus jaculus, the common jerboa of eastern Saudi Arabia). Yet another example is the Arabian hare (Lepus arabicus, sometimes considered part of the African L. capensis), a most curious case because its behavior in that respect is radically different from that of any other leporid I know about (zoo people have told me most leporids are difficult to keep in captivity because even when hand reared they retain their hair-trigger escape responses and are prone to injury or death from dashing against the confines of their enclosure). Animals from the high Arctic are often also fearless of humans. I have personally experienced that in the case of Arctic falcons (Gyrfalcons and Peregrines, the latter trapped on migration or on their winter ranges in temperate or even tropical regions). The tameness of wild caught Gyrfalcons, and of the migratory "Tundra" Peregrines (Falco peregrinus tundrius) of arctic America, is well known in the falconry literature. I have made the same observations on Siberian peregrines (F. p. calidus or F. p. leucogenys) wintering along both coasts of Saudi Arabia. Having trapped one in the morning, I had it feeding bareheaded on my hand the same evening. On one occasion, as a sort of test, I was able to approach within three feet of a perfectly wild Peregrine I had watched killing a gull. The falcon then flew away, but only because there was nothing left to eat . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 3-OCT-2003 17:18:24.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Taming/Socialization Andy Beck wrote: > Equally an animal may be tame with respect to one person and not at all tame > to others. My cats come on trips round the farm with the dogs - but quickly > disappear if a strange dog - or person - turns up. Perceived membership of a > social group might then be a factor in 'tameness'? The hand-reared female Arabian wolf with whom I shared my house for two years displayed an interesting version of that kind of behavior. In our home, unfamiliar visitors were greeted effusively - though some of my Saudi Arabian academic colleages were a bit startled by having a full grown wolf jump into their laps and start licking their ears . Out in the desert, in stark contrast, unfamiliar humans were given a very wide berth. If we stopped to talk with a Bedouin shepherd, Lulu (meaning "Pearl" in Arabic) would disappear, and you could just make her out with binoculars, peering over the top of a distant sand dune or rock, ears flattened, nothing showing against the skyline. She would rejoin us only when the stranger had moved on to a safe distance, which she considered to be about half a mile. If however we went out to meet some Bedouin friends (previously unknown to her) and made camp with them, she immediately accepted them as part of the group and showed no avoidance behavior toward them. The same ability to classify members of a given species into different categories occurs also in the context of predation. My Saluki hounds are active hunters and quite accustomed to pursue, capture and kill quarry of various kinds. They are deadly to feral cats (or would be, if I allowed it). At home they lived in amicable peace with our house cats, a peace which also extended to the great outdoors where they regarded any unfamiliar cat as "fair game." One of our cats used to accompany us on long walks into the desert. She would then disappear, only to reappear several hundred yards away, triggering the hounds to pursuit. When they reached her, she would greet them, and they would greet her, it was all a game. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 4-OCT-2003 11:50:42.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: captive behavior You wrote: There are also a number of animals which, while possessing perfectly functional escape behavior in their normal lives in the wild, quickly abandon it in captivity. You can capture adults of those species and they are immediately tame. A well known example is provided by the kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp) of North America. =====I found this quite intriguing. What are theories on what "switches" either on or off in such an adult animal to allow it to abandon escape behavior when put in captivity? How long is "quickly"? (referring to "quickly abandon it in captivity). Could such tameness also be functional for adult? Jo _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 4-OCT-2003 12:11:14.21 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior --- Jo Angleberger wrote: > You wrote: > > There are also a number of animals which, while > possessing perfectly > functional escape behavior in their normal lives in > the wild, quickly > abandon it in captivity. You can capture adults of > those species and they > are immediately tame. .> . I have not found this to be true with coyotes. Not so with foxes either. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 4-OCT-2003 13:18:54.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in JournalReport Vivian at "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." wrote: > Hi CeAnn -- > > You make a very good point in your description of socialization! This is > exactly the point I attempt to make during seminars and presentations. I > find that many people, until I explain, think that Kerwood's socialized > wolves are "tame" and that the socialization process has somehow equated > them to domesticated dogs. I have always looked at socialization as > habituation taken a number of steps further, with the key being focus on the > species' innate physicial, mental, emotional, and social requirements. I too > think the article was lacking in its defiency in discussing socialization > for captive wildlife. As you know, it makes a world of difference! I think two rather different processes are involved. One is habituation to stimuli which would otherwise induce escape behavior. Reduction of flight distance is one consequence (not the only one) of that process. The other process involves animals reacting to human beings as if they were a) conspecifics, and/or b) members of the social group. Various degrees of imprinting may or may not be involved in that latter (wild caught falcons, for example, when they become really tame, will often direct social and sometimes even sexual behavior toward humans, without however being in the least confused about their own species identity - they continue to interact normally with their conspecifics, for example in a breeding facility. > At Kerwood, we actually make distinctions concerning varying types of > wildlife. Those we consider truly wild are born that way, outside of > captivity and consequently, have minimal or no contact with civilization or > with humans as a whole. We also refer to "captive born non-domestics" of two > varieties. The first are those members of a wild species that are born in > captivity and live, for the most part, without human intervention or > socialization of any sort with their human keepers. The second are those > captive born non-domestics which are hand-reared (bottle-raised from a very > young age) and properly socialized to humans and their altered environment. Again, in those latter cases you have varying amounts of imprinting, which is however not the only component in "socialization." > Personally, I think for a variety of reasons (which I could actually turn > into an essay!) that all facilities should socialize captive wildlife > whenever and if at all possible. That surely depends very much on the purpose of the facility, for instance on whether or not the animals in question are intended to spend their entire lives in captivity. Animals intended for release into the wild should generally *not* be socialized at all to human beings, since tameness puts most wild animals, in most environments, at excessive risk - and if the animal is (for example) a bear (or even a deer), it also puts humans at considerable risk. In breeding facilities, there are of course very great inter-species differences, but (for example) birds intended for breeding should not be imprinted on humans, since that will make it difficult or even impossible for them to form normal pair bonds with their own species. In the artificial rearing of birds intended for breeding facilities, quite elaborate precautions are often necessary to avoid their becoming imprinted on the humans who take care of them. One-way glass, glove boxes and more or less lifelike puppets of their own species are all part of the paraphernalia of such facilities. At various times in my life I've had occasion to give raptor demonstrations at schools, game fairs and other public occasions. Paradoxical as it may seem, I much prefer to work with really tame wild-caught hawks, rather than with ones which have been hand reared and are more or less human imprinted. Of the multiple reasons for that preference, I will mention two. First, a properly "manned" wild-caught bird is much steadier and calmer than an imprint, and less likely for example to take a personal dislike to some member of the audience, with possibly embarrassing results . Second, if a bird does get lost (sh** happens) the wild caught one has at least a fighting chance of survival in the big wild world, while an imprint, as soon as it gets hungry, is likely to approach humans and may usually get killed as a result. I should add that if a hawk has several years of falconry experience hunting wild game, there is in the end, often, little difference between a wild caught bird and an imprint. By that time the imprint has become almost as proficient a hunter as the wild bird, and the wild bird almost as tame as an imprint, and neither of them is much disposed to approach humans other than individuals they know well. Both of them are then almost equally capable of surviving in the wild, and there are many examples of their doing so, in some cases over many years. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"slindsay@ix.netcom.com" "Steve Lindsay" 4-OCT-2003 13:25:47.99 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Canine vision and nose length I haven't seen the original report, so I'll limit my comments to the genera= l assertions and claims made in the transcript pertaining to eye size, polymorphic variations affecting the canine visual streak and central area (area centralis), and discuss some functional implications. Frankly, though= , there is not much that appears very new here, with the possible exception o= f finding some dogs that might not express a visual streak. Over a decade ago, Leo Peichl, at the Max Planck Institute (Frankfurt, Germany), performed a series of comprehensive studies comparing dog and wol= f eye structure and physiology that explored and addressed virtually all of the questions raised in the transcript. For example, with regard to eye size, Peichl (1992a) measured the eye size of beagles, dachshunds, German shepherds, and Dobermann pinschers and found that eye size among these breeds varied with body size. Peichl also found significant interindividual and breed variations with regards to the expression of visual streaks. In general, dogs were found to express either pronounced or moderate visual streaks, with little transitional variation between these two prominent types. No dogs were reported to express central area receptor concentration= s without visual streaks. Interestingly, beagles from 2 well-defined strains (S1 and S2) exhibited opposite patterns of pronounced and moderate visual streaks. Among S1 beagles 10 dogs expressed moderate streaks and 1 expressed a pronounced streak, whereas among S2 beagles 3 expressed moderate streaks and 11 expressed pronounced streaks. With the exception of the beagles and German shepherds, all dog breeds (e.g., dachshund, boxer, Basset hound, Dobermann pinscher, and Entlebucher) studied expressed moderate streaks. In comparison, all wolf eyes examined expressed pronounced visual streaks (N=3D8). Dogs expressing moderate visual streaks also had decreased central area densities.=20 Peichl also studied the various types of visual-receptor cells and their distribution on the retina (1991 and 1992b) and made numerous precise structural measurements of the eyes of different dog breeds and wolves. Perhaps, most striking, he found that the total number of receptor cells expressed by the dog retina was approximately half of that expressed by the wolf retina (1992a), findings consistent with Hemmer's (1990) environmental-appreciation hypothesis. Despite fewer overall numbers of receptor cells expressed by the dog retina, the central area densities of some dogs was found to be comparable to the central area densities expresse= d by the wolf retina. Dogs combining a prominent visual streak and a well-developed central area would likely exhibit better abilities to follow moving objects and to detect and recognize stationary ones. Possessing a well-developed visual streak would be particularly useful for predators that chase prey that use sudden sharp turns to evade capture. According to this hypothesis, sharp turns made by the prey along the visual horizon line might stimulate motion-sensitive receptor cells that form aggregate fields in the peripheral visual streak. Visual signals projecting from the peripheral visual streak is probably relayed by dedicated pathways to the superior colliculus, which collects, processes, and projects visual information pertaining to flicker, global shape, and motion to the cortex, coordinates eye and head movements via the brainstem, and performs numerous other integrative sensorimotor functions associated with orienting behavior= . As a result, movement detected in the peripheral retinal field appears to trigger ballistic saccades that reflexively aim the eye in the direction of stimulation. These involuntary saccadic eye movements precede and anticipat= e the sudden changes of direction and rapid motor adjustments that occur in the process of chasing a fleeing target. Given the above, S2 beagles with pronounced visual streaks would likely perform more efficiently while on th= e trail of a fleeing rabbit than S1 beagles expressing moderate visual streaks. ----------------- Steven R. Lindsay=20 References Hemmer H (1990). Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Peichl L (1991). Catecholaminergic amacrine cells in the dog and wolf retina. Vis Neurosci, 7:575-587. Peichl L (1992a). Topography of ganglion cells in the dog and wolf retina. = J Comp Neurol, 324:603-620. Peichl L (1992b). Morphological types of ganglion cells in the dog and wolf retina. J Comp Neurol, 324:590-602. PS ----------------- "Narration: But was there anything the area centralis kind of eye was particularly good at? Alison took a closer look at the retinas. And that=B9s when the team got their biggest surprise of all. It turned out Bertie=B9s are= a centralis had three times the density of nerve endings as a visual streak. It means that short nosed dogs with their area centralis see in much higher definition than other dogs. And there=B9s one thing that=B9s really good for =8A Dr Paul McGreevey: So when they=B9re looking at the owners face and different nuances of the owners expressions maybe they=B9re getting a bit more information than a long nose dog. This is perhaps a way of explaining how attentive and charming short nosed dogs are. Narration: And it might just help explain something else. Jonica Newby: Would this explain his tendency to watch Tv? Dr Alison Harman: Yes it does, and he does watch television quite often" ----------------- For the record, regarding TV viewing, my dog, a moderately long-nosed Malinois, is an avid TV viewer, who is as quick as lightning when chasing a frisbee, or a ball taking a bad bounce, or hurrying a squirrel away from th= e birdfeeder. He can snatch a tennis ball from the air thrown across his line of sight and never misses a pistachio nut tossed his way. All this while remaining as "attentive and charming" as any dog I have ever known. Conversely, I have known a great many short-nosed dogs that had excellent eyesight but were neither attentive nor charming toward people. SRL on 10/2/03 5:28 PM, cissy stamm at stammwood@rcn.com wrote: > http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s953902.htm >=20 > Does anyone have any more information on this topic? Or comments on the > article? >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > Cissy =20 From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 4-OCT-2003 14:31:06.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" Subj: RE: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in JournalReport ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Burchard" To: "Applied ethology list" Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in JournalReport > Vivian at "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." wrote: > > > Hi CeAnn -- > > > > You make a very good point in your description of socialization! This is > > exactly the point I attempt to make during seminars and presentations. I > > find that many people, until I explain, think that Kerwood's socialized > > wolves are "tame" and that the socialization process has somehow equated > > them to domesticated dogs. I have always looked at socialization as > > habituation taken a number of steps further, with the key being focus on the > > species' innate physicial, mental, emotional, and social requirements. I too > > think the article was lacking in its defiency in discussing socialization > > for captive wildlife. As you know, it makes a world of difference! > > I think two rather different processes are involved. One is habituation to > stimuli which would otherwise induce escape behavior. Reduction of flight > distance is one consequence (not the only one) of that process. The other > process involves animals reacting to human beings as if they were a) > conspecifics, and/or b) members of the social group. Various degrees of > imprinting may or may not be involved in that latter (wild caught falcons, for > example, when they become really tame, will often direct social and sometimes > even sexual behavior toward humans, without however being in the least confused > about their own species identity - they continue to interact normally with their > conspecifics, for example in a breeding facility. You're very right John. Habituation and socialization are indeed two very different processes. That's why, as I said above, I look at socialization as taking habituation a number of steps further. > > > At Kerwood, we actually make distinctions concerning varying types of > > wildlife. Those we consider truly wild are born that way, outside of > > captivity and consequently, have minimal or no contact with civilization or > > with humans as a whole. We also refer to "captive born non-domestics" of two > > varieties. The first are those members of a wild species that are born in > > captivity and live, for the most part, without human intervention or > > socialization of any sort with their human keepers. The second are those > > captive born non-domestics which are hand-reared (bottle-raised from a very > > young age) and properly socialized to humans and their altered environment. > > Again, in those latter cases you have varying amounts of imprinting, which is > however not the only component in "socialization." Right again. Imprinting is certainly not the only component of socialization. That's why I said that the second type of captive born non-domestic is "hand-reared...AND properly socialized to humans and their altered environment." > > > Personally, I think for a variety of reasons (which I could actually turn > > into an essay!) that all facilities should socialize captive wildlife > > whenever and if at all possible. > > That surely depends very much on the purpose of the facility, for instance on > whether or not the animals in question are intended to spend their entire lives > in captivity. Animals intended for release into the wild should generally *not* > be socialized at all to human beings, since tameness puts most wild animals, in > most environments, at excessive risk - and if the animal is (for example) a bear > (or even a deer), it also puts humans at considerable risk. You got me here! I should have qualified my statement to say that only captive wildlife slated for a life in captivity should be socialized to humans. It's certainly very true that wild species intended for release in the wild (example: at a wildlife rehabilitation facility) should NOT be socialized to humans at all. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to approach a hand-raised bear that's recently been set free! Vivian From: IN%"slindsay@ix.netcom.com" "Steve Lindsay" 4-OCT-2003 15:48:15.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior From Epictetus, The Discourses, Book 4, Ch 1 ("About Freedom") http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.4.four.html "Now consider in the case of animals, how we employ the notion of liberty. Men keep tame lions shut up, and feed them, and some take them about; and who will say that this lion is free? Is it not the fact that the more he lives at his ease, so much the more he is in a slavish condition? and who if he had perception and reason would wish to be one of these lions? Well, these birds when they are caught and are kept shut up, how much do they suffer in their attempts to escape? and some of them die of hunger rather than submit to such a kind of life. And as many of them as live, hardly live and with suffering pine away; and if they ever find any opening, they make their escape...I am formed by nature to fly where I choose, to live in the open air, to sing when I choose: you deprive me of all this, and say, 'What harm is it to you?' For this reason we shall say that those animals only are free which cannot endure capture, but, as soon as they are caught, escape from captivity by death." ----------------- Steven R. Lindsay on 10/4/03 1:50 PM, Jo Angleberger at warblerneck@hotmail.com wrote: > You wrote: > > There are also a number of animals which, while possessing perfectly > functional escape behavior in their normal lives in the wild, quickly > abandon it in captivity. You can capture adults of those species and they > are immediately tame. A well known example is provided by the kangaroo rats > (Dipodomys spp) of > North America. > > =====I found this quite intriguing. What are theories on what "switches" > either on or off in such an adult animal to allow it to abandon escape > behavior when put in captivity? How long is "quickly"? (referring to > "quickly abandon it in captivity). Could such tameness also be functional > for adult? > Jo From: IN%"info@kerwoodwolf.com" "Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc." 4-OCT-2003 17:55:37.46 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"slindsay@ix.netcom.com" "Steve Lindsay" Subj: RE: captive behavior Very interesting passage. It makes me wonder how happy my well socialized wolves are! They seem totally content in every way but now I wonder, if they had a chance to leave and could actually survive in the wild (successfully hunt etc. etc.) would they voluntarily come back "home?" Can we measure an animal's true happiness (domestic or wild) by how willing it is to stay with us? Vivian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Lindsay" To: Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 4:48 PM Subject: Re: captive behavior > From Epictetus, The Discourses, Book 4, Ch 1 ("About Freedom") > http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.4.four.html > > "Now consider in the case of animals, how we employ the notion of liberty. > Men keep tame lions shut up, and feed them, and some take them about; and > who will say that this lion is free? Is it not the fact that the more he > lives at his ease, so much the more he is in a slavish condition? and who if > he had perception and reason would wish to be one of these lions? Well, > these birds when they are caught and are kept shut up, how much do they > suffer in their attempts to escape? and some of them die of hunger rather > than submit to such a kind of life. And as many of them as live, hardly live > and with suffering pine away; and if they ever find any opening, they make > their escape...I am formed by nature to fly where I choose, to live in the > open air, to sing when I choose: you deprive me of all this, and say, 'What > harm is it to you?' For this reason we shall say that those animals only are > free which cannot endure capture, but, as soon as they are caught, escape > from captivity by death." > > ----------------- > Steven R. Lindsay From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 4-OCT-2003 21:56:44.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior Jo Angleberger wrote: > > You wrote: > > There are also a number of animals which, while possessing perfectly > functional escape behavior in their normal lives in the wild, quickly > abandon it in captivity. You can capture adults of those species and they > are immediately tame. A well known example is provided by the kangaroo rats > (Dipodomys spp) of > North America. > > =====I found this quite intriguing. What are theories on what "switches" > either on or off in such an adult animal to allow it to abandon escape > behavior when put in captivity? How long is "quickly"? (referring to > "quickly abandon it in captivity). Could such tameness also be functional > for adult? Interesting questions, to some of which I don't have answers. As for "quickly" - it can be virtually instantaneous. At least sometimes, the "tame" animal can still show fully developed escape behavior if the appropriate situation arises. So perhaps this is a "critical distance" phenomenon in which the animal just switches off escape behavior upon being captured. Depending on the predator, not struggling might have survival value. For example, hares which struggle when captured by Salukis are killed instantly. If they do not struggle they are quite likely to be retrieved alive and uninjured. Might give them another chance to make a dash for it, if somebody isn't paying close attention ... I remember an apparently quite tame Jerboa which thanks to my clumsiness got out into the street in front of my house in Saudi Arabia. It took off down the (dirt) road at a tremendous pace, much faster than a human could run, and disappeared into the desert at the end of the road. Its flight behavior was evidently still in full working order . A friend here in California had several Dipodomys living in his house. If you were quiet they would come out and act quite tame, coming up to you to take food from your hand. They could be picked up and handled without signs of fear. If you moved about noisily and clumsily they remained out of sight, at least if you were a stranger ... John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 4-OCT-2003 21:56:59.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior Cecilia Lambert wrote: > --- Jo Angleberger wrote: > > You wrote: Well, actually I wrote the below: > > > > There are also a number of animals which, while > > possessing perfectly > > functional escape behavior in their normal lives in > > the wild, quickly > > abandon it in captivity. You can capture adults of > > those species and they > > are immediately tame. .> > . > > I have not found this to be true with coyotes. Not > so with foxes either. No, I would not expect it in either case. What about Arctic foxes, in regions of the high Arctic where humans rarely penetrate? I hope I made it clear that "instant tameness" is a peculiarity of certain species, and a rather uncommon peculiarity. I think I mentioned all the rather few examples I know about. There is another side to this, which is that an animal which acts very "tame" while unrestrained, fearlessly approaching humans, might still behave very differently if captured or restrained, or if a human makes aggressive moves toward it. The tragic Dingo incident at Fraser Island seemed to me to fall into that category. So of course do some incidents with bears. I was speaking specifically of animals which *when captured* appear to be tame more or less immediately. Some (not all) Arctic falcons fall into that category. So do a couple of ecologically and phenotypically similar but not closely related desert rodents (kangaroo rats in the New World, jerboas in the Old) and at least some individuals of the Arabian desert hare. Perhaps there are others (the Fennec fox used to have that reputation). The Galapagos buzzard (a buteo, we call them "hawks" in the U.S., it is similar to our Redtail) is notoriously tame in the wild state, but not having been there I don't know whether they would calmly accept being captured and restrained (I suspect not). In temperate regions the Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is one of the shyest and wildest of all wild creatures (except that in North America, but not in Eurasia, it will fiercely defend its nest against human intrusion). It is one of life's wonders that such a bird can be induced, within about ten days after capture, not only to tolerate human presence, but when released to return voluntarily to a human for food. Birds of the same species from the Siberian Arctic are not necessarily "instantly tame" but certainly do become tame much more quickly and easily than ones from, say, central Europe. It typically takes several weeks before a Central European bird is more or less fully at ease around even unfamiliar humans. Some of the Siberian birds reach the same stage in a matter of several days. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 4-OCT-2003 21:57:06.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Canine vision and nose length Steve Lindsay wrote: > I haven't seen the original report, so I'll limit my comments to the general > assertions and claims made in the transcript pertaining to eye size, > polymorphic variations affecting the canine visual streak and central area > (area centralis), and discuss some functional implications. Frankly, though, > there is not much that appears very new here, with the possible exception of > finding some dogs that might not express a visual streak. > > Over a decade ago, Leo Peichl, at the Max Planck Institute (Frankfurt, > Germany), performed a series of comprehensive studies comparing dog and wolf > eye structure and physiology that explored and addressed virtually all of > the questions raised in the transcript. For example, with regard to eye > size, Peichl (1992a) measured the eye size of beagles, dachshunds, German > shepherds, and Dobermann pinschers and found that eye size among these > breeds varied with body size. Peichl also found significant interindividual > and breed variations with regards to the expression of visual streaks. In > general, dogs were found to express either pronounced or moderate visual > streaks, with little transitional variation between these two prominent > types. No dogs were reported to express central area receptor concentrations > without visual streaks. It's a pity no sighthounds were included in that study. They are, much more than any other dogs, specialized in the visual pursuit of rapidly fleeing prey. > Interestingly, beagles from 2 well-defined strains (S1 and S2) exhibited > opposite patterns of pronounced and moderate visual streaks. Among S1 > beagles 10 dogs expressed moderate streaks and 1 expressed a pronounced > streak, whereas among S2 beagles 3 expressed moderate streaks and 11 > expressed pronounced streaks. With the exception of the beagles and German > shepherds, all dog breeds (e.g., dachshund, boxer, Basset hound, Dobermann > pinscher, and Entlebucher) studied expressed moderate streaks. In > comparison, all wolf eyes examined expressed pronounced visual streaks > (N=8). Dogs expressing moderate visual streaks also had decreased central > area densities. > > Peichl also studied the various types of visual-receptor cells and their > distribution on the retina (1991 and 1992b) and made numerous precise > structural measurements of the eyes of different dog breeds and wolves. > Perhaps, most striking, he found that the total number of receptor cells > expressed by the dog retina was approximately half of that expressed by the > wolf retina (1992a), findings consistent with Hemmer's (1990) > environmental-appreciation hypothesis. Despite fewer overall numbers of > receptor cells expressed by the dog retina, the central area densities of > some dogs was found to be comparable to the central area densities expressed > by the wolf retina. Dogs combining a prominent visual streak and a > well-developed central area would likely exhibit better abilities to follow > moving objects and to detect and recognize stationary ones. Again, it's a pity no sighthounds were included. If any dog were to have visual abilities comparable with those of a wolf, it would probably be one of the sighthound breeds. My bet would fall on the most archaic, least "civilized" ones, i.e. the "Saluqi" of the Arab world (from which the Western breeds "Saluki" and "Sloughi" are derived) and the almost identical "Tazi" of Turkey, Kurdistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. > Possessing a well-developed visual streak would be particularly useful for > predators that chase prey that use sudden sharp turns to evade capture. > According to this hypothesis, sharp turns made by the prey along the visual > horizon line might stimulate motion-sensitive receptor cells that form > aggregate fields in the peripheral visual streak. Visual signals projecting > from the peripheral visual streak is probably relayed by dedicated pathways > to the superior colliculus, which collects, processes, and projects visual > information pertaining to flicker, global shape, and motion to the cortex, > coordinates eye and head movements via the brainstem, and performs numerous > other integrative sensorimotor functions associated with orienting behavior. > > As a result, movement detected in the peripheral retinal field appears to > trigger ballistic saccades that reflexively aim the eye in the direction of > stimulation. These involuntary saccadic eye movements precede and anticipate > the sudden changes of direction and rapid motor adjustments that occur in > the process of chasing a fleeing target. Given the above, S2 beagles with > pronounced visual streaks would likely perform more efficiently while on the > trail of a fleeing rabbit than S1 beagles expressing moderate visual > streaks. Thanks for this most interesting and informative commentary. AFAIK, beagles typically follow fleeing rabbits by scent rather than by sight. I would expect those abilities to be best developed in sighthounds which do pursue fleeing game (hares, which run much faster than rabbits, and also larger quarry such as gazelles) by sight. Hares in particular are notorious for the sudden changes of direction they can make - at 35 mph or more in some species - when hotly pursued by a hound. We have video of sighthounds pursuing hares (not rabbits) from which it is apparent that a considerable "dialogue" sometimes takes place between pursuer and pursued, with the hare "faking" turns and the hound "parrying" those feints (by changing leads), before the hare actually makes a sudden turn. If the hare can manage to catch the hound "wrong-footed" it will gain at least several yards. A hare can anyway turn more quickly than a hound weighing six or eight times as much. [snip] > For the record, regarding TV viewing, my dog, a moderately long-nosed > Malinois, is an avid TV viewer, who is as quick as lightning when chasing a > frisbee, or a ball taking a bad bounce, or hurrying a squirrel away from the > birdfeeder. He can snatch a tennis ball from the air thrown across his line > of sight and never misses a pistachio nut tossed his way. All this while > remaining as "attentive and charming" as any dog I have ever known. > Conversely, I have known a great many short-nosed dogs that had excellent > eyesight but were neither attentive nor charming toward people. My Salukis are at times avid TV watchers, namely when the subject matter is of interest to them - hare coursing or lure chasing. Their interest generally lasts only a moment or two, however. They seem quite aware that the image on the screen is not "real." The strongest reaction occurs when you take them unawares, so to speak. Not surprisingly, the appearance of a hare on the screen is most likely to rivet their attention . The strongest reaction is not surprisingly shown by hounds which have not seen a TV before. After a moment or two, however, they are likely to go up to it and take a sniff, or look behind it to see if it is some kind of "window on reality" - after which they tend to lose interest . I have had one, out of more than a dozen, who would watch coursing videos with interest not by the hour, but at least for many minutes at a time. She was an extremely clever animal, conspicuously so in a house full of clever animals . I don't for a minute think she was "fooled" by the moving images (she knew the reality well enough, indeed she herself figures in a lot of that video) but she did find them entertaining to watch. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 5-OCT-2003 09:11:26.93 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior Hi Jo, I wonder if we are confusing a lack of escape behavior with the freeze component of the fear complex (fear-->flight, fight or freeze). We could be assuming that because a captive wild animal is not trying to escape, it has adapted or is less concerned about the captive conditions. But it could be just as frightened, but shutting down its responses to prevent injury. If you took internal physiological measures of fear (heart rate, hormonal responses) you might find that is just as afraid of your presence as the animal that flees at the first sight of you--it is simply expressing a different outward reaction to the fear. Additionally, humans that have been in harrowing captive conditions (as well as women in abusive relationships) sometimes adopt a psychological state of "learned helplessness". They become very accepting and docile although the frightening nature of the circumstances continues. I'm not sure what all this state entails psychologically but perhaps captive animals that appear to have adapted and are no longer fleeing have entered this state. I would think that the difference between these two possibilities and habituation is that habituation would also involve a loss of fear of along with a loss of flight. Learned helplessness and freeze would retain a high level of fear, although not outwardly expressed. A concern, for those who work with captive wild animals, would be that high levels of fear are also very stressful and could reduce the animal's health and welfare. Of course, how you measure for fear without further stressing the animal is the real dicey question........ Janice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jo Angleberger" To: Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 10:50 AM Subject: captive behavior > You wrote: > > There are also a number of animals which, while possessing perfectly > functional escape behavior in their normal lives in the wild, quickly > abandon it in captivity. You can capture adults of those species and they > are immediately tame. A well known example is provided by the kangaroo rats > (Dipodomys spp) of > North America. > > =====I found this quite intriguing. What are theories on what "switches" > either on or off in such an adult animal to allow it to abandon escape > behavior when put in captivity? How long is "quickly"? (referring to > "quickly abandon it in captivity). Could such tameness also be functional > for adult? > Jo > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- > sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup > From: IN%"slindsay@ix.netcom.com" "Steve Lindsay" 5-OCT-2003 11:38:22.45 To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: Canine vision and nose length John Burchard wrote: > It's a pity no sighthounds were included in that study. They are, much m= ore > than any other dogs, specialized in the visual pursuit of rapidly fleeing > prey. Hi John, Yes, it'd be very interesting to see how eye structure and physiology might differ in the case of sight hounds in comparison to scent hounds, such as trailing/tracking dogs (e.g., bloodhounds). In addition to a prominent visual streak and central area, I'd suspect that the sight hound might also express a novel assemblage and distribution of motion-sensitive receptor cells. > AFAIK, beagles typically follow fleeing rabbits by scent rather than by s= ight. > I would expect those abilities to be best developed in sighthounds which = do > pursue fleeing game (hares, which run much faster than rabbits, and also > larger quarry such as gazelles) by sight. With respect to the value of a pronounced visual streak in the beagle, I have no doubt about the central importance of scent in the pursuit phase of the chase. Beagles do, however, appear to combine skills that depend on bot= h sight and scent in the process of hunting (For a nice summary, see http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence/amhbandmbha.htm). Upon springing = a rabbit, the beagle gives chase using sight as long as it can, and then rapidly turns to scent as it loses sight of the fleeing rabbit. Apparently= , some beagles are genetically prepared to perform the initial search and jum= p sequence (jump dog), whereas other beagles appear to be prepared to stay on trail and maintain the pursuit phase of the chase (trail dog). The ideal hunting pack appears to consist of both types of beagle: Begin quote "You normally need two kinds of dogs to hunt rabbits effectively: jump dogs and trail dogs. If you don't have a good jump dog, then you won't bag many rabbits. A good jump dog will eagerly approach any brush pile or briar thicket looking for the prey. If a rabbit is in the pile or thicket and stubbornly wants to stay there (maybe thinking it is immune from major disturbance) the jump dog will go in after it, crawling into seemingly impossible places to get the rabbit running. The trail dog meanwhile might sniff around the brush pile, or even enter it somewhat, but not with the zeal of the jump dog. When the rabbit's nerves will take it no longer, it will burst from the cover and flee. The trail dogs take over the hunt and pursue, the jump dog= s follow. Some people refer to the chase as a race=8AI have seen the rabbit outsmart the dogs many times. The rabbit will sometimes backtrack about 50 feet, then jump about 5 feet to one side of the path it took. It hides there, motionless, as the dogs with their noses to the ground go by in single file. At the end of the trail, the dogs lose the scent and wander about looking for it again" (http://www.mtsu.edu/~csmack/index3.html#jump). End quote =20 While better sight would be of little use to the trail dog, and might actually interfere with scenting efficiency, the jump dog would probably benefit from the increased visual acuity and sensitivity to motion afforded by a pronounced visual streak when performing the jump phase of the chase and when casting about for a lost rabbit. As such, the beagle pack appears to represent a cooperative unit combining different behavioral traits and sensory propensities that cannot be genetically integrated and expressed by a single dog.=20 Therefore, to further refine the previously outlined hypothesis, S1 beagles (a strain expressing a moderate visual streak and central area) might be expected to most efficiently perform the trailing phase of the chase; whereas S2 beagles (a strain expressing a pronounced visual streak and central area) would likely perform most efficiently during the initial casting and jump phase of the chase. Such ocular information may be of considerable value in the selection of beagles to perform these two tasks. > The strongest reaction is not surprisingly shown by hounds which have not= seen > a TV before. After a moment or two, however, they are likely to go up to= it > > and take a sniff, or look behind it to see if it is some kind of "window > on reality" - after which they tend to lose interest . My dog rarely misses another dog appearing on TV, by first hearing a whine or bark, and then establishing an orientation to the image on the screen. He, too, showed the interesting behavior of chasing the image across the screen and then briefly looked about and behind the TV to find the "real" dog. As you point out, the habit seemed to give way to a recognition that the image and action were not actually there. He is also a great lover of televised ball games, especially soccer. As odd as it may sound, whereas in the case of seeing other dogs he becomes consistently excited and playful, he usually shows a distinctly more reserved and intrigued demeanor when watching wild canids on TV. Best regards, Steve ----------------- Steven R. Lindsay=20 From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-OCT-2003 15:54:06.60 To: IN%"bntpics2@yahoogroups.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: hard dominant dogs, rare but real With some of the recent discussion on dog training, there were a number of people who voiced the opinion that all dogs can be trained with purely positive methods. I believe those who believe this have never encountered a truly hard dominant dog. These are not bad dogs nor unpredictable. In the appropriate job with a skillful handler they are an enormous asset. And must be handled with the same care as you would a powerful firearm that is loaded. The following links are to a kennel whose trainers are experienced with hard dogs. Before reaching any conclusions that they are only harsh in their methods please scan some of the links. They do use positive methods but also use corrections as necessary and that varies with the dog and circumstances. Some of their dogs are therapy dogs, service assistance dogs as well as being family protectors. The video clips are very good, showing relaxed family outings and examples of defending owners from an attacking stranger as well as accepting a friendly stranger. I suggest reading both threads on hard dogs as some of the descriptions of what a hard dog is truly like is critical to understanding what is necessary to train one to be reliable under extreme working conditions. This is not something to try at home. http://www.red-star-kennel.com/presa/pptraining/pptraining.html description of personal protection dogs http://red-star-kennel.com/video/video.html video clips http://pub57.ezboard.com/fworkingpresacanariofrm12.showMessageRange?topicID=33.topic&start=1&stop=20 hard dogs, first discussion http://pub57.ezboard.com/fworkingpresacanariofrm10.showMessage?topicID=282.topic second discussion The discussion boards can be read by anyone but to respond you need to sign up, only takes moments. Alex has extended an invitation to anyone who thinks they can train a truly hard dog with purely positive methods to visit and demonstrate. His kennel is located outside Minneapolis in case anyone wishes to do so. My purpose in posting this is that there are some dogs that are beyond what the average trainer will ever see and can not truly imagine. I fear that these dogs will be labeled bad dangerous dogs and killed when they can be in a situation where they are highly useful. Here is an expert who has done it and while using positives when possible will do what works effectively. Julie Alexander From: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 5-OCT-2003 19:42:01.59 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: therapy dogs On Sunday, October 5, 2003, at 02:53 PM, Julie Alexander wrote: > Some of their dogs are therapy dogs, service > assistance dogs as well as being family protectors. The video clips are > very good, showing relaxed family outings and examples of defending > owners from an attacking stranger as well as accepting a friendly > stranger. I don't claim to know about all requirements of all certifying agencies for therapy pets, however, I am a Delta Society Evaluator for Pet Therapy dogs. I do know that Delta Society will not certify a dog that has ever bitten a person OR is protection trained. This may be a liability issue. Trisha From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-OCT-2003 21:40:00.19 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: therapy dogs > I don't claim to know about all requirements of all certifying agencies > for therapy pets, however, I am a Delta Society Evaluator for Pet > Therapy dogs. I do know that Delta Society will not certify a dog that > has ever bitten a person OR is protection trained. > > This may be a liability issue. > > Trisha That's regrettable as a good trained protection dog is very reliable under more extreme circumstances than most therapy dogs would probably ever encounter. Here's a website for a breeder/trainer of Beaucerons whose dogs are certified police K9's, certified for all areas of SAR, titled about as much as possible in Ringsport, scent detection, you name it. Her own bitch is her personal mobility assistance dog, a Therapy Dogs International certified therapy dog and a certified K9 patrol dog. One dog from an early litter is a dual trained protection/mobility assistance dog. http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/beauceron/ I find it difficult to imagine dogs more stable under extreme circumstances than Sue's dogs. Not dogs for everyone but with the right handler, even handicapped owners, incredible working and companion dogs. A dog from one of our litters, all littermates made good protection/family dogs, is a mobility assistance dog. We have no doubt he'd have done well as a protection dog without detracting from his assistance work. http://sdog.danawheels.net/whyadoberman.shtml The Delta Society is ruling out perhaps some of their best possible therapy dogs. Julie Alexander From: IN%"paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au" "Paul McGreevy" 6-OCT-2003 06:00:40.75 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Canine vision and nose length Dear Julie Thanks indeed for your interest in and enthusiasm for this work. >No comments except it was interesting and questions. Is this an either >or case with the two types of eyes or is there a spectrum with some dogs >in between the two? There is a spectrum. The variation we have found in ganglion cell density within a single species is quite unique. Intriguingly, the ratio of peak ganglion cell density in the area centralis to visual streak was highly negatively correlated with skull length (r = -0.795, N = 22) and positively correlated with cephalic index (0.687, N = 22). A paper based on this work has been accepted for publication by Brain, Behaviour and Evolution. It is due to appear in January but in the meantime you can find more details in the Proceedings of the 4th Int Vet Behav Med (Caloundra, Australia, 2003). With all best wishes Paul -- Paul McGreevy, BVSc, PhD, MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour Faculty of Veterinary Science Room 206, Gunn Building (B19) Regimental Crescent University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Phone: 61 2 9351 2810 Fax: 61 2 9351 3957 email: paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au web page: http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/pmcgreevy.shtml VEIN page: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/behaviour.html From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 6-OCT-2003 13:00:26.05 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Canine vision and nose length For those like me who don't know what "cephalic index" means: "ratio of the breadth of the head to its length. Expressed as a percental number, it provides the simplest description of the geometric relation of two dimensions. The index is obtained by dividing the maximum width of the cranium by its maximum length and multiplying by 100. In anthropometry , the cephalic index has been the favored measurement. A cephalic index of 80 or more is called brachycephalic or broad; a measurement between 75 and 80 is mesaticephalic; below 75 is considered dolicocephalic or long. The cranial index is the same ratio taken on a skull." Anyone care to speculate on where this research fits in with regard to the predatory motor patterns described by the Coppingers? Cissy Paul McGreevy wrote: > Dear Julie > > > Thanks indeed for your interest in and enthusiasm for this work. > > >> No comments except it was interesting and questions. Is this an either >> or case with the two types of eyes or is there a spectrum with some dogs > >> in between the two? > > > There is a spectrum. The variation we have found in ganglion cell > density within a single species is quite unique. Intriguingly, the > ratio of peak ganglion cell density in the area centralis to visual > streak was highly negatively correlated with skull length (r = -0.795, N > = 22) and positively correlated with cephalic index (0.687, N = 22). > > > A paper based on this work has been accepted for publication by Brain, > Behaviour and Evolution. It is due to appear in January but in the > meantime you can find more details in the Proceedings of the 4th Int Vet > Behav Med (Caloundra, Australia, 2003). > > > With all best wishes > > > Paul > > -- > > > Paul McGreevy, BVSc, PhD, MRCVS > > Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour > Faculty of Veterinary Science > Room 206, Gunn Building (B19) > Regimental Crescent > University of Sydney > NSW 2006 > Australia > > Phone: 61 2 9351 2810 > Fax: 61 2 9351 3957 > email: paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au > > web page: http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/pmcgreevy.shtml > > VEIN page: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/behaviour.html > From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" "Virginia Bowen" 6-OCT-2003 13:10:10.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology List" CC: Subj: RE: mounting behaviour across species Another unasked for comment, but I know that female donkeys also mount each other. I particularly observe it with the lower of my two jennies mounting the more dominant one, then requesting play, as if to say "I was just joking." My very unscientific discussion with other donkey owners indicates mounting between jennies, between gelding and jennies and between jennies and jacks as well as the expected jack to jenny mounting. Now closer to your question - I have also seen a large number of breeders noting intact male donkeys (jacks) being extra aggressive toward geldings, seemingly not recognizing them as non-threatening, but just as typical rivals, leading most breeders to keep their geldings in enclosures with only jennies. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." -----Original Message----- From: cissy stamm [mailto:stammwood@rcn.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 9:56 AM Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: mounting behaviour across species Not that you asked, but female dogs mount, too. My observations are that they do not discriminate between males or females - neutered or not. I'm sorry I can't add more to the discussion. Dogs are all I know. Cissy daisy berthoud wrote: > dear all, > > i have repeatedly observed how entire male dogs have > an interest in neutered male dogs and start to mount > them. yesterday one neutered male mounted neutered one > and was himself mounted by an entire one. > > anyway, what i am wondering is whether this reaction > towards neutered animals also occurs in other species. especially > domesticated animals came to my mind, as it is them who tend to be > neutered/castrated: horses, cats, rabits, guinea pigs and what have > you. does anyone know if this behaviour is seen in other species > than the dog ? what are other species' reactions to > castrated males ? > > i am looking forward to your replies, > > regards, > > > daisy berthoud > anglia polytechnic university > > ===== > THIS IS MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: daisyberthoud@yahoo.com > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 6-OCT-2003 15:19:07.17 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior ====Of Course, this makes perfect sense--I wrote my first response before seeing this note. Thanks. Is it this list where I read a note about how raising animals in captivity for release can deselect many natural behaviors, such as knowing how to climb trees, escape from predators? No, I remember seeing this, esp the golden tamarins who were raised on thick, round logs and then who did not know how to clamber around in tree branches because of their various sizes, orientation, etc. Fascinating!! But unfortunate for animals intended for reintroduction as the tamarins were. Jo Interesting questions, to some of which I don't have answers. As for "quickly" - it can be virtually instantaneous. At least sometimes, the "tame" animal can still show fully developed escape behavior if the appropriate situation arises. So perhaps this is a "critical distance" phenomenon in which the animal just switches off escape behavior upon being captured. Depending on the predator, not struggling might have survival value. For example, hares which struggle when captured by Salukis are killed instantly. If they do not struggle they are quite likely to be retrieved alive and uninjured. Might give them another chance to make a dash for it, if somebody isn't paying close attention ... I remember an apparently quite tame Jerboa which thanks to my clumsiness got out into the street in front of my house in Saudi Arabia. It took off down the (dirt) road at a tremendous pace, much faster than a human could run, and disappeared into the desert at the end of the road. Its flight behavior was evidently still in full working order . A friend here in California had several Dipodomys living in his house. If you were quiet they would come out and act quite tame, coming up to you to take food from your hand. They could be picked up and handled without signs of fear. If you moved about noisily and clumsily they remained out of sight, at least if you were a stranger ... John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com _________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 6-OCT-2003 15:22:04.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior Hi Jo, I wonder if we are confusing a lack of escape behavior with the freeze component of the fear complex (fear-->flight, fight or freeze). We could be assuming that because a captive wild animal is not trying to escape, it has adapted or is less concerned about the captive conditions. But it could be just as frightened, but shutting down its responses to prevent injury. If you took internal physiological measures of fear (heart rate, hormonal responses) you might find that is just as afraid of your presence as the animal that flees at the first sight of you--it is simply expressing a different outward reaction to the fear. ====thank you for pointing this out--a very worthwhile dissection A concern, for those who work with captive wild animals, would be that high levels of fear are also very stressful and could reduce the animal's health and welfare. Of course, how you measure for fear without further stressing the animal is the real dicey question........ ======my information is not recent, but a couple years ago I learned of monitoring devices that could be implanted, even swallowed by an animal, that relayed physiological responses in a variety of situations. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 6-OCT-2003 15:22:07.73 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior =====I also enjoyed the excerpt, but unless I'm missed a big point, don't understand how it relates to what happens to an animal suddenly in captivity that causes it to behave tamely toward its captors. And Vivian's question below, "can we measure..." reminds me of a story of a couple living in the Arctic with captive wolves, they wrote "Arctic Wild", and I think the name is Lois Cris, can't remember husband's name. EXTREMELY interesting, if anecdotal, details about all the wolves they encountered and/or kept over the years they lived there--human/wolf relationships and wolf/wolf relationships. Jo Very interesting passage. It makes me wonder how happy my well socialized wolves are! They seem totally content in every way but now I wonder, if they had a chance to leave and could actually survive in the wild (successfully hunt etc. etc.) would they voluntarily come back "home?" Can we measure an animal's true happiness (domestic or wild) by how willing it is to stay with us? Vivian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Lindsay" To: Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 4:48 PM Subject: Re: captive behavior > From Epictetus, The Discourses, Book 4, Ch 1 ("About Freedom") > http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.4.four.html > > "Now consider in the case of animals, how we employ the notion of liberty. > Men keep tame lions shut up, and feed them, and some take them about; and > who will say that this lion is free? Is it not the fact that the more he > lives at his ease, so much the more he is in a slavish condition? and who if > he had perception and reason would wish to be one of these lions? Well, > these birds when they are caught and are kept shut up, how much do they > suffer in their attempts to escape? and some of them die of hunger rather > than submit to such a kind of life. And as many of them as live, hardly live > and with suffering pine away; and if they ever find any opening, they make > their escape...I am formed by nature to fly where I choose, to live in the > open air, to sing when I choose: you deprive me of all this, and say, 'What > harm is it to you?' For this reason we shall say that those animals only are > free which cannot endure capture, but, as soon as they are caught, escape > from captivity by death." > > ----------------- > Steven R. Lindsay _________________________________________________________________ Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 6-OCT-2003 16:22:37.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Reference needed on students' attitudes about animals Dear All, Mike Appleby mentioned to me that there was a study done at Liverpool approximately 10 yrs ago that looked at changes in (veterinary?)students' attitudes about animals as they progressed through the curriculum from freshmen to seniors. I'm working on a similar project and could really use this reference. Does anyone have it or know where it might be available? Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 6-OCT-2003 16:25:14.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Roy Horn vs. tiger Hi everybody, I've made a brief search on the internet, cannot find news about the tiger attack on Roy other than what I've heard on the radio. News gives only condition of Roy, does anybody know what happened to the tiger? I HATE animal shows, can anyone say anything good about them? S&R live at a hotel--the Mirage--with their tigers who have no natural habitat that I can find out about. I hope the tiger wasn't killed... Jo _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 6-OCT-2003 16:38:02.93 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: hard dominant dogs, rare but real I really agree! I have a very difficult dog of my own (a mixed canaan). We have really tried every possible method with him, and three trainers over the years. This is a very dominant dog and i think Julie was right when she said that some dogs cannot be trained using only positive reinforcement. Besides, when dogs want to correct a subordinate they deffinetly don't use positive signals... Hilit -----Original Message----- From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 11:54 PM To: bntpics2@yahoogroups.com; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: hard dominant dogs, rare but real With some of the recent discussion on dog training, there were a number of people who voiced the opinion that all dogs can be trained with purely positive methods. I believe those who believe this have never encountered a truly hard dominant dog. These are not bad dogs nor unpredictable. In the appropriate job with a skillful handler they are an enormous asset. And must be handled with the same care as you would a powerful firearm that is loaded. The following links are to a kennel whose trainers are experienced with hard dogs. Before reaching any conclusions that they are only harsh in their methods please scan some of the links. They do use positive methods but also use corrections as necessary and that varies with the dog and circumstances. Some of their dogs are therapy dogs, service assistance dogs as well as being family protectors. The video clips are very good, showing relaxed family outings and examples of defending owners from an attacking stranger as well as accepting a friendly stranger. I suggest reading both threads on hard dogs as some of the descriptions of what a hard dog is truly like is critical to understanding what is necessary to train one to be reliable under extreme working conditions. This is not something to try at home. http://www.red-star-kennel.com/presa/pptraining/pptraining.html description of personal protection dogs http://red-star-kennel.com/video/video.html video clips http://pub57.ezboard.com/fworkingpresacanariofrm12.showMessageRange?topicID= 33.topic&start=1&stop=20 hard dogs, first discussion http://pub57.ezboard.com/fworkingpresacanariofrm10.showMessage?topicID=282.t opic second discussion The discussion boards can be read by anyone but to respond you need to sign up, only takes moments. Alex has extended an invitation to anyone who thinks they can train a truly hard dog with purely positive methods to visit and demonstrate. His kennel is located outside Minneapolis in case anyone wishes to do so. My purpose in posting this is that there are some dogs that are beyond what the average trainer will ever see and can not truly imagine. I fear that these dogs will be labeled bad dangerous dogs and killed when they can be in a situation where they are highly useful. Here is an expert who has done it and while using positives when possible will do what works effectively. Julie Alexander From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 6-OCT-2003 18:13:07.15 To: IN%"t-friend@tamu.edu" "Friend, Theodore H." CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in Journal Report Hi Ted, I just received more of this report from Marc Bekoff. Would you or anyone on the Ethology list like to receive a copy? CeAnn --- "Friend, Theodore H." wrote: > Thanks CeAnn for posting a summary of their report. > > Was this a continuation of Clubb & Mason's work for > the RSPCA? They were commissioned by the RSPCA to > conduct a review of the welfare of zoo elephants in > Europe, which was published in 2002 by the RSPCA. > That report had the same general conclusions as the > report published in Nature. > > CeAnn asked about the importance of socialization. > Interestingly, Marthe Kiley-Worthington was > commissioned by the RSPCA to conduct an 18 month > study on animals in British circuses. One of the > things that really impressed Martha was the high > degree of socilization (or bonding) that she > observed between circus animals and their trainers. > We have seen socialization in U.S. circuses as well, > and I think that is a very important positive factor > with certain species. Such socialization is much > harder to achieve in zoo situations. The RSPCA > refused to publish Marthe's report, so Marthe ended > up publishing it herself in 1990 in book form with > little fanfare. The book is Animals in Circuses and > Zoos, Chirons' World?, 1990. Little Eco-Farms > Publishing. It includes the report she labeled as > "the independent scientific report commissioned by > the RSPCA on animals in circuses". > > Ted Friend > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 8:05 AM > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Fwd: [excat] Big Beasts, Tight Space and a > Call for Change in > Journal Report > > > > Note: forwarded message attached. > I thought some people on the list might find this > interesting. > It doesn't talk much about the importance of > socialising these captive animals to humans and how > much that can improve their lives. > When I talk about socialization, I mean studying > the > social behavior of a certain species and adjusting > your behavior to fit in to it's social structure. > CeAnn > > > ===== > CeAnn Lambert > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > www.WolfPark.org/ICRC > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > http://shopping.yahoo.com ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 6-OCT-2003 19:04:02.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: S&R vs tiger I just found this on Animal Planet News website-- Siegfried and Roy — both of whom were born in Germany — have become fixtures of the Las Vegas scene and are known across the world for their extravagant costumes and daring stunts with wild animals. The rare white tigers, which the men raise from cubs, are a signature part of their act. The show has been cancelled indefinitely and people who have already bought tickets will receive refunds, Feldman said. The tiger, Montecore, who has appeared in the show for several years, was placed under quarantine at the Mirage hotel following the attack. His ultimate fate remains unknown. The Humane Society of the United States, the largest U.S. animal protection organization, said its officials had spoken to Horn several years ago "about the dangers of untrained people keeping big cats as pets." "When the best-trained and most experienced handlers of big cats can be attacked and dragged around like rag dolls, it is plainly obvious that untrained private citizens should not keep big cats as pets," said the group's director, Wayne Pacelle. _________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 6-OCT-2003 19:07:20.26 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Roy Horn and the tiger At 02:25 PM Monday 10/6/2003, you wrote: >Hi everybody, > >I've made a brief search on the internet, cannot find news about the tiger >attack on Roy other than what I've heard on the radio. News gives only >condition of Roy, does anybody know what happened to the tiger? I HATE >animal shows, can anyone say anything good about them? S&R live at a >hotel--the Mirage--with their tigers who have no natural habitat that I >can find out about. I hope the tiger wasn't killed... News reports say that the 7 year old 600 pound white tiger is in quarantine at the Mirage. "[Siegfried & Roy Manager] Yuman said Horn loves his animals and doesn't want any harm to come to the tiger. "This has nothing to do with the tiger," Yuman said. "He's the last one to lay blame (on the tiger). This is an unfortunate accident." "When they wheeled him out of the ambulance, he said, 'Don't kill the cat. It's a good cat,' " [Roy's friend] Fink said. " http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-06-Mon-2003/news/22309267.html I was at The Mirage Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas 3 weeks ago. While there, I toured the "Siegfried & Roy's Secret Garden and Dolphin Habitat" exhibit where the big cats and elephant used by Siegfried & Roy in their Las Vegas show are housed. I did not see the show. According to news reports, Siegfried & Roy have 63 lions, tigers, and leopards. I saw a small percentage of them. I got the impression that the "Secret Garden" exhibit rotates the cats in and out of the enclosures that the public can see. I thought that these enclosures are better... larger and more natural... than I've seen at most zoos. They are open air, with lots of grass, pools of water, rocky cliffs, trees, etc. Three tigers were snoozing on a large tree branch in one of the enclosures. The exhibit at the Mirage stresses that Siegfried & Roy work cooperatively with zoos and conservationists, and are part of a program to breed & preserve "snow white tigers", "striped white tigers" and "white lions". There are some "heterozygous lions" in the Mirage exhibit, presumably carriers of the white recessive gene, as part of this breeding program. I doubt if they need 38 white tigers simply for their stage show, but that's how many they have at the Mirage according to their website. That's out of a population of only 200 white tigers in the world, again per their website http://www.siegfriedandroy.com/conservation/habitat.php As an aside, while watching the lions in their "Secret Garden" enclosure, I noticed behaviors in a male-female pair that are likely familiar to many dog owners. The adult male lion was fascinated when an adult female lioness urinated, and after she walked away, he sniffed and then licked her urine off the grass. I have seen my adult male GSD do the same with intact female dogs; yet he will not lick the urine of spayed female dogs. I was more concerned about the welfare of the lone elephant at the Mirage. The environment in the "Secret Garden" elephant enclosure was decent enough, but something didn't seem right to me that an elephant should be living alone, without other elephants. The Mirage Hotel also has eleven Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in pools totalling 2.5 million gallons. These pools include natural looking sandy bottoms and artificial reefs. Most of the dolphins there were born at the Dolphin Habitat at the Mirage. They show a video of the birth of the first dolphin born there. It's difficult to judge given the glitzy, "magical", and "mystical" spin that the Mirage puts on their wild animal exhibits. My overall impression is of an operation that's on par with that of a good large city zoo, with goals of wildlife conservation and education that overlap with the goals of zoos. I imagine that Siegfried & Roy... and the Mirage... have much deeper pockets than zoos. Siegfried & Roy's stage show grosses more than $40 million per year, with perhaps an additional few million dollars in admission fees at the "Secret Garden & Dolphin Habitat". Laura Sanborn From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 6-OCT-2003 19:43:00.09 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ethics and inbreeding was: S&R vs tiger White tigers are likely inbred since almost all albanic mutations are due to a recessive defective pigment producing enzyme. I know that inbred animals frequently have other disorders including behavioral ones. I would think that dealing with albinos is generally more difficult and dangerous than dealing with more heterozygotic individuals. I thought this the last summer I was at the mirage hotel in Vegas while I was watching the tigers swim in their pool. I generally do not have a problem with a human voluntarily and knowingly taking a risk. I also do not have a problem with performers like sigfried and roy, who clearly love and care for their animals, using them to put on shows. What I do have a problem with is the ethics of intensive inbreeding and the problems it causes, whether in white tigers or german shepherds. Inbreeding is age old and widespread in animal husbandry, but I think that our attitude towards it has become too cavalier. Incest is abhorrent to our species for good reason. We rate it as a vile form of abuse for us. Shouldn't we give animals at least some of that consideration, especially since we now know enough about genetics so that we can still select for traits without the same intensity of inbreeding? It takes more work, but the animals will be healthier and more valuable for this. Anyone who is truly concerned about animal welfare and who breeds animals should seriously consider this if they haven't. Consumers like me also can play a role by deliberately not buying pure bred animals. I like Labradors very much but I will not buy one because it is pure bred. Perhaps we can convince the AKC to start up a cross and mutt category in their dog shows ;-) From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 6-OCT-2003 19:47:01.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Roy Horn vs. tiger and a note about seeing - looking Jo Angelberger: > I've made a brief search on the internet, cannot find news about the tiger > attack on Roy other than what I've heard on the radio. News gives only > condition of Roy, does anybody know what happened to the tiger? I HATE > animal shows, can anyone say anything good about them? S&R live at a > hotel--the Mirage--with their tigers who have no natural habitat that I can > find out about. I hope the tiger wasn't killed... > margory cohen: Siegfreid & Roy. _That_'s a good thing. That's an extraordinary thing. These are lives that have done and created exceptional Work and some pretty amazing Animal Happiness. I see that Laura Sanborn posted links for more and have to note that yesterday in one report the word from the Humane Society had a less exploitative quote than another I caught on the fly that I think Ms. Angelberger wrote in here. I was to The Mirage when Siegfried & Roy and the dolphins first took up residence; and I've had the thrill to see Siegfried & Roy perform some years before that. I look forward and hope for Roy Horn's recovery. His words on this will to my mind tell more about The Relationship we all work and study so much about than I think anybody. I'm even more on the run than usual, so I'd like to take this chance to say some appreciation to Messrs. Lindsay and Burchard and McGreevy. Another sighthound friend influences my reading of all of this and so I'm absorbing yours as well. A project of my own is about to take off so I'll not be too active for a time and I bid everyone good wishes with a recommendation on the topic of seeing, _About Looking_, John Berger's collection of essays on that topic. Yours very truly, -margory cohen San Francisco Scottish Deerhounds From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 6-OCT-2003 20:03:48.93 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Ethics and inbreeding was: S&R vs tiger I agree with you about the risks of excessive homozygosity. Inbreeding is widespread in many dog breeds, especially when breeding for success in the conformation show ring.... much less so when breeding for a working function. I could be completely wrong here, but I don't think that white tigers and white lions are necessarily inbred. If white is a simple recessive in tigers and lions, then it should not be at all difficult to outcross to non-white animals to increase the population size of white animals while also increasing genetic diversity in the white genepool. The references to Siegfried & Roy's "heterozygous tigers" and "heterozygous lions" (normal color, but carriers of "white") on the their website and at their exhibit at the Mirage imply to me that this is what's being done, though I could be wrong. A question that occurred to me is, what is the value in trying to preserve the white genes in lions and tigers? What is the survival value in the wild of being white? Is this simply a genetic flaw, that natural selection would eliminate, but pops up from time to time due to random mutation? Laura Sanborn At 06:40 PM Monday 10/6/2003, you wrote: >White tigers are likely inbred since almost all albanic mutations are due >to a recessive defective pigment producing enzyme. I know that inbred >animals frequently have other disorders including behavioral ones. I would >think that dealing with albinos is generally more difficult and dangerous >than dealing with more heterozygotic individuals. I thought this the last >summer I was at the mirage hotel in Vegas while I was watching the tigers >swim in their pool. > >I generally do not have a problem with a human voluntarily and knowingly >taking a risk. I also do not have a problem with performers like sigfried >and roy, who clearly love and care for their animals, using them to put on >shows. What I do have a problem with is the ethics of intensive inbreeding >and the problems it causes, whether in white tigers or german shepherds. > >Inbreeding is age old and widespread in animal husbandry, but I think that >our attitude towards it has become too cavalier. Incest is abhorrent to >our species for good reason. We rate it as a vile form of abuse for us. >Shouldn't we give animals at least some of that consideration, especially >since we now know enough about genetics so that we can still select for >traits without the same intensity of inbreeding? It takes more work, but >the animals will be healthier and more valuable for this. Anyone who is >truly concerned about animal welfare and who breeds animals should >seriously consider this if they haven't. > >Consumers like me also can play a role by deliberately not buying pure >bred animals. I like Labradors very much but I will not buy one because it >is pure bred. Perhaps we can convince the AKC to start up a cross and mutt >category in their dog shows ;-) From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 6-OCT-2003 20:47:12.07 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: animal shows and captive conditions Hi Jo, This IS my area of expertise. I would be happy to step up on the soap box to say something good about animal shows: animal shows have done more to improve the treatment of animals and their habitat than any other single effort. Oh, and the animals and the trainers often LOVE doing them, and the public LOVES watching them. I did shows for years and loved every minute of it, as did my animals (they need not do anything they did not want to do!). I shared an intimate glimpse of thinking, interacting animals - often quite jokesters, by the way, with millions of people. We had a ball, and sometimes, the laughter brought the people thronging so that they literally paved the way for as far as they could possibly see or hear. We included the public in the animal training and interplay, the training was voluntary, we never had any acccidents, and my animals were very long lived. I had children working directly with these animals, from the age of 11 on - with a perfect safety record. Many of these early trainers have now become scientists and trainers at major institutions throughout the world, where they continue to serve animals. Together we helped to advance cooperation in medical procedures and standards for husbandry. I also have stacks of letters from people telling me how seeing and interacting with animals changed their lives - many of these children from the "Make a Wish" foundation, or their parents, thanking us for making treasured last dreams come true. When I was responsible for the polar bears at the National Zoo, I was invited by Kenneth and Irving Feld to attend any of their circuses that came to town, and interact with their trainers. I met the legendary Ursula Baetcher and her magnificent polar bears. The circus was being hounded by activists who seemed very ignorant. They were complaining about the bears and their transport cages. However, if one actually objectively assessed the bears, one saw beautiful animals in prime condition, no stereotypy, actively interacting with all around them in positive ways. The bears had exercise in the big cage, which was filled with gymnastic equipment. They also had an active intellectual and social life. I would have given my eye teeth to have my bears in the same mental and physical condition as Ursula's were. Welfare is largely a state of mind. Meaningful activity, good company and intellectual challenge are perhaps much more important to an animal's state of being than cage size, and "naturalness". It was also a thrill to meet and observe the work of Gunther Gebel Williams, as he lay down on a swinging platform with an entire group of leopards. Amazing! Solitary cats that are amongst the most difficult to train and work, and he made it look like child's play. And the cats were relaxed, gorgeous, engaging - teaching us about the flexibility of behavior when managed well. I would also like to make the point that the recent report that stated that wide ranging animals appear not to adapt to captivity as well as those with smaller ranges made it clear that space did not seem to be the issue. So some are apparently jumping to erroneous conclusions. Pelagic dolphins are not as resiliant in captivity as intercostal dolphins. That does not mean that we do not need to learn about them and their needs. Failure to adapt is often not related to lack of space, but rather intensity and quality of noise, weather and water conditions, boredom, and overcleaning. (Ursula's bears had little horizontal space but a lot of vertical space, which they used very creatively and effectively in meeting their needs). In my experience, mental activity and focus are instrumental to successful adaptation to captivity. At the Quebec Aquarium, where I have partnered in staff development, the bears are involved in all kinds of communication and discrimination activities and experiments. They are eager to work and very quick to respond. Of course, the bears then demonstrate these things to the public, which now has a picture of bears as very intelligent animals rather than just as dangerous, garbage raiding nuisances. People from many countries still kill whales and dolphins and seals - often senselessly. Now we are learning to protect animals. People only protect what they care about. They care about animals when they learn about them and make "contact" with them. The television show "Flipper" may have done more to change the public perception of dolphins than any other thing. I absolutely believe that my animals were acutely aware of their ambassadorial role. I don't see how anyone could watch my huge sea lion, Norman, with a dying child, and doubt that for a moment. I don't like to see anyone diminish the importance of their contribution, and I am proud to have participated with them. By the way, Norman and Maureen (California sea lions) are still healthy and performing at the National Zoo, at the age of 25+, as are Gunnar and Selkie (grey seals) at 30+. The latter were also graduates of the US Naval marine mammal program. Most sincerely, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Jo Angleberger wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I > HATE animal shows, can anyone say anything good about them? From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 6-OCT-2003 21:03:33.66 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethics and inbreeding was: S&R vs tiger Hi Laura, White tigers and black panthers are recessive color phases, I believe. I do not have much experience with black panthers (leopards), but I know that white tigers have some sensitivities and susceptibilities that caused the National Zoo to quit allowing theirs to breed in the 80's. These included dilution of immune competence, tendency to be cross eyed, narrower heads, and higher reactivity. I used to tuck Mohini and her brood in at nights in the summer time and spent quite a bit of time observing them and their differences from the other tigers. Mohini and her mate were gifts from an Indian Maharaja, and for a long time were the source of all other white tigers in America. I do not know if this ever changed, nor how often the white tiger spontaneously occurs in the wild. Many people just like the look of the white tigers, and so continue to breed them. Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Laura Sanborn wrote: > I could be completely wrong here, but I don't think that white tigers > and white lions are necessarily inbred. If white is a simple recessive > in tigers and lions, then it should not be at all difficult to outcross > to non-white animals to increase the population size of white animals > while also increasing genetic diversity in the white genepool. The > references to Siegfried & Roy's "heterozygous tigers" and "heterozygous > lions" (normal color, but carriers of "white") on the their website and > at their exhibit at the Mirage imply to me that this is what's being > done, though I could be wrong. > > A question that occurred to me is, what is the value in trying to > preserve the white genes in lions and tigers? What is the survival > value in the wild of being white? Is this simply a genetic flaw, that > natural selection would eliminate, but pops up from time to time due to > random mutation? > > Laura Sanborn > From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 6-OCT-2003 21:10:23.94 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethics and inbreeding was: S&R vs tiger You bring up some interesting points, but these are not albino tigers. There is a dilution of pigment, not an absence of it. Kayce Michalchik@aol.com wrote: > White tigers are likely inbred since almost all albanic mutations are > due to a recessive defective pigment producing enzyme. I know that > inbred animals frequently have other disorders including behavioral > ones. I would think that dealing with albinos is generally more > difficult and dangerous than dealing with more heterozygotic > individuals. I thought this the last summer I was at the mirage hotel > in Vegas while I was watching the tigers swim in their pool. From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 6-OCT-2003 22:21:42.43 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethics and inbreeding was: S&R vs tiger At 08:07 PM Monday 10/6/2003, kcover wrote: >Hi Laura, > >White tigers and black panthers are recessive color phases, I believe. I >do not have much experience with black panthers (leopards), but I know >that white tigers have some sensitivities and susceptibilities that caused >the National Zoo to quit allowing theirs to breed in the 80's. These >included dilution of immune competence, tendency to be cross eyed, >narrower heads, and higher reactivity. I used to tuck Mohini and her >brood in at nights in the summer time and spent quite a bit of time >observing them and their differences from the other tigers. Mohini and >her mate were gifts from an Indian Maharaja, and for a long time were the >source of all other white tigers in America. I do not know if this ever >changed, nor how often the white tiger spontaneously occurs in the wild. Kayce, Intereresting comments. I recall seeing the white tigers at the National Zoo years ago, I think around the time the exhibit first opened. The problems you report of "immune competence, tendency to be cross eyed, narrower heads, and higher reactivity" suggest to me that the National Zoo white tigers may indeed have been excessively inbred. Certainly it's well known that the immune system is more likely to be compromised as inbreeding increases. FWIW, anecdotally, I've heard that inbreeding is far less common in working dog bloodlines than in conformation show dog bloodlines because behavioral problems such as "higher reactivity" tend to occur at a higher frequency with inbreeding.... and these problems are less tolerated in working dogs. I don't know about cross eyes and narrower heads. Assuming that these woes were simply the result of excessive inbreeding and not directly caused by the white gene(s), I wonder if it was really necessary to stop breeding the white tigers at the National Zoo to alleviate these problems? Outcrossing to normal color tigers to spread the white recessive into a broader genepool might have undone these other problems if they were simply products of inbreeding. Then, one could backcross to increase the genepool of whites while increasing genetic diversity.... and health. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 6-OCT-2003 23:06:06.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior Jo Angleberger wrote: > =====I also enjoyed the excerpt, but unless I'm missed a big point, don't > understand how it relates to what happens to an animal suddenly in captivity > that causes it to behave tamely toward its captors. > And Vivian's question below, "can we measure..." reminds me of a story of a > couple living in the Arctic with captive wolves, they wrote "Arctic Wild", > and I think the name is Lois Cris, can't remember husband's name. EXTREMELY > interesting, if anecdotal, details about all the wolves they encountered > and/or kept over the years they lived there--human/wolf relationships and > wolf/wolf relationships. Lois Crisler, I think. The end of that story was sad. Getting involved with wild animals has a way of confronting one with difficult and often painful choices ... but I am no advocate of NOT getting involved, or of the principle of "out of sight, out of mind" and if you don't know about it, it doesn't hurt ... John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 6-OCT-2003 23:07:14.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: captive behavior Janice Willard wrote: > I wonder if we are confusing a lack of escape behavior with the freeze > component of the fear complex (fear-->flight, fight or freeze). We could be > assuming that because a captive wild animal is not trying to escape, it has > adapted or is less concerned about the captive conditions. But it could be > just as frightened, but shutting down its responses to prevent injury. If > you took internal physiological measures of fear (heart rate, hormonal > responses) you might find that is just as afraid of your presence as the > animal that flees at the first sight of you--it is simply expressing a > different outward reaction to the fear. I just want to emphasize that in the examples I was talking about, except for the hares while actually being retrieved by a hound, there was no question of "freezing." Those animals were "tame" in the sense that they went about their normal life activities more or less as if nothing had happened. A fairly extreme example: an Arabian hare, after being hotly pursued by a brace of Salukis for a mile or so, jumped into an adjacent shallow estuary and started to swim across (escape by swimming is not unusual in the hare behavior repertoire). My Bedouin companion, with longer legs than either hare or hounds, waded into the thigh deep water, overtook the hare and retrieved it, unharmed except for being soaking wet. For lack of anything better I upended a large cardboard carton which happened to be in the back of my Range Rover, so the hare could shelter beneath it. A little later I gathered some green stuff, of kinds I knew the local hares eat, and put it in the back near the carton. We went on our way for an hour or so, driving up and down and round about in sand dune country, and then stopped for a tea break. In the course of getting out tea making things I walked past the back of my car and peered in the window. The hare was calmly eating the green stuff, and didn't stop when I put my face to the window. It behaved similarly in an enclosure after I took it home, and for the three weeks it lived with me might almost as well have been a domestic rabbit, so far as its escape behavior was concerned. Or consider the Peregrine Falcon already mentioned, which after having been captured at midmorning in a rather traumatic way (it fell into the ocean and had to be rescued by swimming) was calmly feeding, unhooded, on my gloved hand (and in the presence of several other people talking and moving about) that same evening. What I didn't mention was that the bird couldn't possibly have been particularly hungry - we had been trying to catch it for two and a half days, during which time it had consumed no less than four fat pigeons, having avoided capture for so long because we couldn't frighten it sufficiently to make it drop the pigeon and so get its toes entangled in the attached nooses . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 6-OCT-2003 23:09:18.79 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethics and inbreeding was: S&R vs tiger It's for exactly those reasons we started crossbreeding and backcrossing in Dobermans. The founding numbers were small and the breed's longevity has decreased with health problems rising. We found that in the first backcross we got several dogs nearly identical to their purebred relatives. http://talismandogs.homestead.com Julie Alexander Inbreeding is age old and widespread in animal husbandry, but I think that our attitude towards it has become too cavalier. Incest is abhorrent to our species for good reason. We rate it as a vile form of abuse for us. Shouldn't we give animals at least some of that consideration, especially since we now know enough about genetics so that we can still select for traits without the same intensity of inbreeding? It takes more work, but the animals will be healthier and more valuable for this. Anyone who is truly concerned about animal welfare and who breeds animals should seriously consider this if they haven't. Consumers like me also can play a role by deliberately not buying pure bred animals. I like Labradors very much but I will not buy one because it is pure bred. Perhaps we can convince the AKC to start up a cross and mutt category in their dog shows ;-) From: IN%"appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk" "David Appleby" 7-OCT-2003 00:27:09.64 To: IN%"lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk" "lucy GRAY", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Separation Anxiety in Horses Not horses but it is separation problems by people at Southampton: Bradshaw JWS, McPherson JA, Casey RA, et al. Aetiology of separation related behaviour in the domestic dog. Vet Rec 2002;151:43–6. Hope it helps. Best wishes, David ---------------------------------------- Name: David Appleby MSc Address: The Pet Behaviour Centre, Upper Street, Defford, Worcestershire. WR8 9AB. England. Phone: +44(0)1386 750615 Fax: +44(0)1386 750743 E-mail: appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.petbcent.demon.co.uk ---------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: lucy GRAY [mailto:lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 02 October 2003 18:54 To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Separation Anxiety in Horses I hoping someone can help me here, unfortunately I don't have a great deal of information but I am looking for a paper on separation anxiety that was done at Southampton University. I don't know who did the research and I am trying to find out the typical length of time that this problem has been effectively treated in. How long is a piece of string, I know considering all the factors that need to be considered, etc. Any help greatly appreciated. Lucy. From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 7-OCT-2003 06:22:40.21 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethics and inbreeding some of the recent comments on inbreeding clearly illustrate the need for quantitative genetics in the curriculum. : ) g -- G. F. Barbato http://gfb.cas.psu.edu From: IN%"JDohner@aol.com" 7-OCT-2003 09:59:04.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: inbreeding I'm afraid I have to disagree with this comment. Do not confuse landrace breeds developed by humans who worked in partnership with their animals with the current AKC breed concept. Dogs that result from radical inbreeding and breeding overly strictly to a standard are not the same as breeds that were historically developed by their human partners. If you abandon breeds, where will you find your herding dog or seeing eye dog? Or your retrieving or hunting dog? By randomingly hoping that you will find a mutt with the ability to herd? Seeing eye programs have long established breeding programs so that they can reliably produce dogs with the necessary traits to be a successful partner with a blind person. Instead, look for breeders who intelligently produce dogs from a working breed. There are still hardworking, healthy, intelligent Labradors (or other breeds) who are true to their heritage. Jan Dohner The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds, Yale Univ. Press From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 7-OCT-2003 11:16:34.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions Dear Kayce, I am so glad you answered my question. Unfortunately, I do not know any of the people you referenced since I have not taken time to learn more about animal shows and handlers. I find your insight to be unique and I'm delighted that you wrote about it. In fact, I wish you would address more of the topics that come up here. Maybe you have--I've only been here a couple weeks myself. I am more familiar with small local zoos, and a few rehabilitators with whom I'm only slightly more impressed than with the zoos. I studied wildlife and behavior in the 80's, and probably have not kept up like I should. I think this list will continue to be quite valuable to me personally. Even though my inbox is filling up, your long note is a keeper :) Thanks, Jo _________________________________________________________________ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 7-OCT-2003 14:14:32.31 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions Dear Jo, It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about this work I have loved so much. Thank you for your open mindedness and willingness to reevaluate. All of us concerned professionals need to bond together to share what is good and improve what needs improving, where animals are concerned. It is a bit of a drive, but I invite you to come, as my guest, the next time I am at the HorseNet rescue facility (Sykesville, MD), working with their horses. You get to see how the animals really do love to work and interact with us on a totally voluntary basis, and how quickly we develop a mutual culture. It may change the way you see trained animals hereafter, and it will help prepare some horses for being adopted into good homes. In my career, I did have to learn to coerce animals to be safe, whether they wanted to be or not. This is for their safety as well as ours. For example, if a grey seal (naturally pretty aggressive species) cannot work in direct contact with people, safely, then they must be handled with anesthesia. But this is inherently high risk with seals. So safe interaction saves the seals from exposure to anesthesia, while saving us from being bitten. Further, once I learned to coerce them, I wanted to be able to never coerce and always motivate. I wanted the work to be as important and enjoyable to the animals as it was for us. I think we have achieved that. Looking forward to meeting one of these days soon, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com9 Jo Angleberger wrote: > Dear Kayce, > > I am so glad you answered my question. > > Unfortunately, I do not know any of the people you referenced since I > have not taken time to learn more about animal shows and handlers. I > find your insight to be unique and I'm delighted that you wrote about > it. In fact, I wish you would address more of the topics that come up > here. Maybe you have--I've only been here a couple weeks myself. I am > more familiar with small local zoos, and a few rehabilitators with whom > I'm only slightly more impressed than with the zoos. I studied wildlife > and behavior in the 80's, and probably have not kept up like I should. > I think this list will continue to be quite valuable to me personally. > > Even though my inbox is filling up, your long note is a keeper :) Thanks, > Jo From: IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" "Joseph Barber" 8-OCT-2003 06:45:40.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions Dear all, I think that there are several issues surrounding the animal show debate that are relevent for continued discussion, and I would like to provide a counter-point. One of these issues is whether or not these kinds of shows are ethical. As with all things ethical, whether we think these shows are right or wrong often comes down to our personal opinions. Some people will say it is, others will say it isn't, and we often don't get very far. There are, however, various factors that contribute towards our ethical decision making, including the welfare of the animals, the educational value of the shows and so on. The welfare of the animals is one of the factors that people use most frequently to support their opinion that these shows are unethical, and there are welfare issues that need to be discussed. I am in no way refuting that certain animals under certain conditions freely interact with people during training sessions for these shows. The cognitive stimulation, the social interaction, and the activity that are often involved in any training can be seen as enriching for the animals based on most definitions of this term. However, most definitions of enrichment also talk about promoting species-appropriate behaviours, as well as providing opportunites and control for the animals. Species-appropriate behaviours don't just mean those behaviours seen during the shows, but all behaviours including resting, sleeping, nest building, territory patrolling, foraging, social interactions, hunting, etc. In an optimal environment an animal should have the opportunity to perform all and any behaviours from its ethogram, and have some degree of control over its environment throughout the day. My concern is that many animals used in shows are not provided with this optimal environment outside of training sessions with humans. For example, an animal in a transport cage has little control over its environment, and few opportunities to perform many species-appropriate behaviours. It has to wait for humans to provide those opportunities when its suits the humans, not the bears. Meeting the motivational needs of animals is something that plays an important role in ensuring that they can cope effectively with their environment. Is it possible to meet the needs of animals in a strict training regimine without compromising their welfare to a certain degree? Another interesting debate concerning animal shows (and this will take us off on a tangent from applied ethology, my apologies) involves what educational or inspirational messages people take away after interacting/touching/watching shows with wild animals. People say that animal shows are educational, which means that people have learned something new. However, is education by its very nature a good thing, or can education also lead to people taking away the wrong message? When people see trainers interact with tigers etc., what are they learning? Do they take away that tigers are endangered, that tigers are wonderful creatures, that tigers don't make good pets, that tigers do make good pets, that people should be able to touch tigers, that tigers are possessions that we should have the right to own, that people should support the conservation of tigers in their range states? Are there any studies out there that address this? What would seeing seven naturally solitary animals (that would more than likely be aggressive to each other if they were in the wild) all performing behaviours together teach people? Does it teach people about the wonder of the animal and its natural history, or simply enforce the fact that humans are good at manipulating behaviour for their own ends? There are many welfare-related questions that could be asked about this situation too. Are these solitary animals cooperating with each other, or are their stress-responses, if they are occurring, simply being manifested physiologically? What is the behaviour of these animals back-stage? Do they choose to be in each other's presence? Do they have the option not to be? I have many more questions, and I fear that there are relatively few answers. It would be great to see some objective data if it did exist. I have serious concerns about many types animal shows both from a welfare persepctive and from an educational perspective. My question at the end is: do the public leave animal shows 'loving' them for all the wrong reasons? I guess it comes back to ethics. If one feels as if it is ethical to have animal shows, then the messages that one would want people to leave with will reflect that position, albeit subconciosuly in certain cases. I suppose it would be quite diffcult to educate people about how animals shows are unethical whilst performing in an animal show! Please take this counter-point as prompt for more objective discussion on this topic. Thanks, Joseph __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 8-OCT-2003 07:33:39.78 To: IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" "Joseph Barber", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions --- Joseph Barber wrote: > Dear all, > . > > What would seeing seven naturally solitary animals > (that would more than likely be aggressive to each > other if they were in the wild) all performing > behaviours together teach people? . Joseph, I am so glad that you brought up some of these points. Since social aggression would be a species-appropriate behavior, I have always wondered how these animals were housed and whether they were able to exercise their social aggression whether it be by living together in enclosures big enough for this to occur or by interacting through a fence. (fence fighting) When this behavior can not occur, is it any surprise that when it eventually does, that we usually see it happen against it's owner and trainer? CeAnn > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > http://shopping.yahoo.com ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 08:10:49.91 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" CC: IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" "Joseph Barber", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions Well actually, CeAnn, aggression does not normally happen against the owner or trainer. Also, considering there are over 15,000 pet tigers kept in America alone, it seems that there are not many problems with owner directed aggression, as it is big news when it happens. And aggression between members of a social group is not a big part of life in well adapted animal groups. And allowing animals to fight through a fence is not considered good policy. In my experience, the animals are managed for peaceable contact, which is conducive to group harmony and individual health and well being. In the wild, animals set out and mark territories, have social signals, etc to minimize angst between them. Are you saying that in coyote keeping, or as you keep coyotes, that you encourage the opportunity to fight across fences or to fight with conspecifics? Best, Kayce Cecilia Lambert wrote: > Joseph, > I am so glad that you brought up some of these > points. Since social aggression would be a > species-appropriate behavior, I have always wondered > how these animals were housed and whether they were > able to exercise their social aggression whether it be > by living together in enclosures big enough for this > to occur or by interacting through a fence. (fence > fighting) > When this behavior can not occur, is it any surprise > that when it eventually does, that we usually see it > happen against it's owner and trainer? > CeAnn From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 09:09:18.93 To: IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" "Joseph Barber" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions Dear Joseph, I have strong opinions on this subject but am preparing for a long seminar tour in Australia and cannot participate much on this list for the next three months. I don't welcome such a debate as they tend to devolve into harangues of opinions and there is very little relevant data. For example: I recently attended an elephant management conference and nobody really knows what the animals do or need and whether they are really "well" or how to assess same - whether looking at captive or wild groups!!! This is from leading researchers, not animal trainers. The federal government sets many standards for animal care and treatment, mostly based on opinion and often totally erroneous. One that has been changed was the amount of haul out area for marine mammals. Zoos were required to spend a lot of money on "land" area in their exhibits. However, the seals and sea lions tend to use very little of it, and prefer to sleep piled together. The resources can be better shifted to better water area. If we look at humans, we see a grand experiment in how natural an animal tends to want to be. I know many people who love living in New York, none of whom would consider it a favor to be airlifted into natural setting so they could nest build and eat raw meat. So starting with our members, who here has a "natural" lifestyle which they can compare against their experience living an "unnatural" lifestyle? Evidence is that aboriginal people tend to choose to acquire the accoutrements of civilization, rather than maintain their "natural" lifestyles. I have a friend who is from Tahiti. "Why did you leave?" I asked in wonder. "Because it was boring and limited." Astronauts, pilots, deep sea explorers - all willingly subject themselves to cramped conditions for long periods of time and compete rigorously for the opportunity to do so. If the had to stop flying because someone considered their conditions inhumane, they would not be thanking anyone. Many on this list have advanced degrees which they invested heavily to get. Talk about inhumane situations! Most of the students I have known express incredible stress during grad school, and yet they choose it, and the lack of sleep and the sitting in chairs, etc. One very telling fact is that is is exceedingly difficult to release animals into the wild, and have them stay released, once they are adapated to being out of it. At Scripps, the sea lions could leave anytime they wanted (they could have even come and gone). They stayed, voluntarily. A number of places allow their animals to roam and the animals show up in time for work. The Navy no longer even attempts to release marine mammals upon retirement from their programs, because the animals keep returning - even when they have been operating in that environment, have contact with other conspecifics, etc. All my animals work at liberty and choose to stay. I had a colony of lovebirds in Florida which were inadvertantly released by a worker. Within 15 minutes, all had returned to their cage. DNR workers have big problems relocating animals which have learned to take advantage of the fruits of civilization. As the Nature Via Nurture view holds, there is no such thing as "natural" behavior that can be extracted and labelled, and ALL behavior is "natural" or the animal would not spontaneously produce it. I myself have studied the violin, crocheting, sewing, woodcarving, ceramics, dance - are any of these things "natural" behaviors? Meanwhile, my horse and dog love dance and will spontaneously leave food to come participate, unasked, when the music comes on. Is that natural? I have never heard flamenco guitar any time I was in the wilderness, but my horse spontaneous likes it. Fact is, I am for integration of animals and peoples, however that can happen. I see the destruction of natural habitats and think that this is the only way that animals will be allowed to continue to survive in any appreciable numbers. Part of that integration is to have people and animals working together for mutual benefit. This close association creates an appreciation of one another's needs, and the opportunity to learn more about them. It also invests us all in one another's welfare. It is wonderful to think that we can provide little ivory tower reserves for animals to go into that are immune from the pressures of increasing population, etc. But it is not a very realistic goal. In zoos, there are problems of what to do with the prepondance of the male population, surplus animals, old animals, etc. And those parks and zoos which are breeding to return animals to reestablish wild populations find that it is extremely difficult to find places where there is any chance the animals can thrive. And encroachment makes problems critical for wild populations still at large. There are over 100 deaths a year from elephants living in proximity to humans. The elephants, being very smart, wait till crops are ripe and then migrate to fields to raid them. Further, they devastate the whole crop, not just eating things, but tearing everything up. This is devastating to the farmers. People in Africa are terrified of the elephants and cannot leave their homes at dawn and dusk in some of these areas because if they meet up with elephants, it is likely to be fatal. Scientists, seeking to facilitate success between the groups, have taken to riding children to and from school, and men to meetings in the evening, to reduce the danger from elephants and promote the welfare of villagers. So, before we get too involved in listing all the deficiencies of working partnerships between people and animals, I ask: What are the alternatives? What is "natural". Who really knows what is best? What will animals choose for themselves, given the choice, and, what have humans chosen. I firmly believe that no animal in my work group would choose to be anywhere else. They all have many opportunities to leave, and none have to do any of the jobs they take on. I respect their choices and their ability to make choices and resent the idea that someone else may theorize and decree that our conditions are somehow insufficient. Getting bogged down in theoretical ethics questions does not help the reality. Perhaps some hard data giving us better understanding of how to make the best of the reality would. That is what I hope for on this list. I have spent 30 years grappling with difficult animal situations and how to resolve them. It is incredibly difficult to navigate the various interests, shortages, demands and pressures. I am sick to death of people with limited knowledge of the situation, and less grasp of the animals, preaching untested and impractical positions. If anyone thinks that the situation needs to be changed, let them also offer a better solution. I dare them. Sincerely, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Joseph Barber wrote: > Dear all, > > I think that there are several issues surrounding the > animal show debate that are relevent for continued > discussion, and I would like to provide a > counter-point. One of these issues is whether or not > these kinds of shows are ethical. As with all things > ethical, whether we think these shows are right or > wrong often comes down to our personal opinions. Some > people will say it is, others will say it isn't, and > we often don't get very far. There are, however, > various factors that contribute towards our ethical > decision making, including the welfare of the animals, > the educational value of the shows and so on. > > The welfare of the animals is one of the factors that > people use most frequently to support their opinion > that these shows are unethical, and there are welfare > issues that need to be discussed. I am in no way > refuting that certain animals under certain conditions > freely interact with people during training sessions > for these shows. The cognitive stimulation, the social > interaction, and the activity that are often involved > in any training can be seen as enriching for the > animals based on most definitions of this term. > However, most definitions of enrichment also talk > about promoting species-appropriate behaviours, as > well as providing opportunites and control for the > animals. Species-appropriate behaviours don't just > mean those behaviours seen during the shows, but all > behaviours including resting, sleeping, nest building, > territory patrolling, foraging, social interactions, > hunting, etc. In an optimal environment an animal > should have the opportunity to perform all and any > behaviours from its ethogram, and have some degree of > control over its environment throughout the day. My > concern is that many animals used in shows are not > provided with this optimal environment outside of > training sessions with humans. For example, an animal > in a transport cage has little control over its > environment, and few opportunities to perform many > species-appropriate behaviours. It has to wait for > humans to provide those opportunities when its suits > the humans, not the bears. Meeting the motivational > needs of animals is something that plays an important > role in ensuring that they can cope effectively with > their environment. Is it possible to meet the needs of > animals in a strict training regimine without > compromising their welfare to a certain degree? > > Another interesting debate concerning animal shows > (and this will take us off on a tangent from applied > ethology, my apologies) involves what educational or > inspirational messages people take away after > interacting/touching/watching shows with wild animals. > People say that animal shows are educational, which > means that people have learned something new. However, > is education by its very nature a good thing, or can > education also lead to people taking away the wrong > message? When people see trainers interact with tigers > etc., what are they learning? Do they take away that > tigers are endangered, that tigers are wonderful > creatures, that tigers don't make good pets, that > tigers do make good pets, that people should be able > to touch tigers, that tigers are possessions that we > should have the right to own, that people should > support the conservation of tigers in their range > states? Are there any studies out there that address > this? > > What would seeing seven naturally solitary animals > (that would more than likely be aggressive to each > other if they were in the wild) all performing > behaviours together teach people? Does it teach people > about the wonder of the animal and its natural > history, or simply enforce the fact that humans are > good at manipulating behaviour for their own ends? > There are many welfare-related questions that could be > asked about this situation too. Are these solitary > animals cooperating with each other, or are their > stress-responses, if they are occurring, simply being > manifested physiologically? What is the behaviour of > these animals back-stage? Do they choose to be in each > other's presence? Do they have the option not to be? I > have many more questions, and I fear that there are > relatively few answers. It would be great to see some > objective data if it did exist. > > I have serious concerns about many types animal shows > both from a welfare persepctive and from an > educational perspective. My question at the end is: do > the public leave animal shows 'loving' them for all > the wrong reasons? I guess it comes back to ethics. If > one feels as if it is ethical to have animal shows, > then the messages that one would want people to leave > with will reflect that position, albeit subconciosuly > in certain cases. I suppose it would be quite diffcult > to educate people about how animals shows are > unethical whilst performing in an animal show! > > Please take this counter-point as prompt for more > objective discussion on this topic. > > Thanks, > > Joseph > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 09:25:35.09 To: IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" "Joseph Barber" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Reality versus Ethics Dear colleagues, It suddenly struck me, just as I sent my preceding post,that what I really wanted to say is: Theoretical ethics is neither scientific nor productive. There is a reality which may bear improving. Let's hear some concrete solutions, based on burgeoning scientific understanding and practical experience. Rather than criticising what is, lead the way to what is better. Sincerely, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Joseph Barber wrote: > Dear all, > > I think that there are several issues surrounding the > animal show debate that are relevent for continued > discussion, and I would like to provide a > counter-point. One of these issues is whether or not > these kinds of shows are ethical. As with all things > ethical, whether we think these shows are right or > wrong often comes down to our personal opinions. Some > people will say it is, others will say it isn't, and > we often don't get very far. There are, however, > various factors that contribute towards our ethical > decision making, including the welfare of the animals, > the educational value of the shows and so on. From: IN%"sbc@kvl.dk" "Stine B Christiansen" 8-OCT-2003 09:46:54.15 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com", IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Vedr.: Reality versus Ethics Dear Kayce, I'm glad to see that you wanted to expand on that point. I wanted to = comment already on the first post where you said: "Getting bogged down in theoretical ethics questions does not help the=20 reality. Perhaps some hard data giving us better understanding of how=20 to make the best of the reality would." As I see it, ethical reflection helps us to ask the right questions, eg = what kind of data are we looking for, what is relevant? And it helps us = identify what we consider to be "the best of reality" and to understand = why agreement on what is best can not always be reached. In that way = ethics can be very productive. But maybe we understand something different = by "ethics"? Stine Stine B. Christiansen cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. Det Dyreetiske R=E5d/The Danish Animal Ethics Council Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering/Centre for Bioethics and Risk = Assessment Den Kgl. Veterin=E6r- og Landboh=F8jskole/The Royal Veterinary and = Agricultural University Bioetik/Bioethics Gr=F8nneg=E5rdsvej 8 1870 Frederiksberg C Copenhagen Denmark tlf./ph.: +45 3528 3075 fax: +45 3528 3022 e-mail: sbc@kvl.dk=20 >>> kcover 08-10-03 17:21 >>> Dear colleagues, It suddenly struck me, just as I sent my preceding post,that what I=20 really wanted to say is: Theoretical ethics is neither scientific nor productive. There is a=20 reality which may bear improving. Let's hear some concrete solutions,=20 based on burgeoning scientific understanding and practical experience. Rather than criticising what is, lead the way to what is better. Sincerely, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com=20 Joseph Barber wrote: > Dear all, >=20 > I think that there are several issues surrounding the > animal show debate that are relevent for continued > discussion, and I would like to provide a > counter-point. One of these issues is whether or not > these kinds of shows are ethical. As with all things > ethical, whether we think these shows are right or > wrong often comes down to our personal opinions. Some > people will say it is, others will say it isn't, and > we often don't get very far. There are, however, > various factors that contribute towards our ethical > decision making, including the welfare of the animals, > the educational value of the shows and so on. From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 8-OCT-2003 09:54:30.47 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions --- kcover wrote: .> > Are you saying that in coyote keeping, or as you > keep coyotes, that you > encourage the opportunity to fight across fences or > to fight with > conspecifics? > > Best, > Kayce > . Encourage? I do not intervere unless I see blood. Social aggression is a part of their ethogram. My coyotes are not used to entertain people. If they were, maybe I would feel differantly. My coyotes are here so that people can learn about their social behaviors in captivity, much like the wolves at Wolf Park where I first began with my interest in social behaviors in canids. I am aware that the big cats are different. I try to make sure that my coyotes are able to exercise as many of their social bahviors as possible while they are in captivity. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 10:19:32.76 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: validity of ethograms 1) Under what conditions was the original ethogram data collected, and how were observations achieved. (wild population or captive population) How much data was collected, over what span, with how many animals, what time of year and under what conditions? Can the data be shown, statistically, to be generalizable over all populations? 2) Did you replicate the conditions under which the ethogram was produced. Otherwise, that ethogram is not necessarily predictive for your group. 3) Why would you interefere when you saw blood, if that is natural? There is lots of variability amongst populations of the same species of animal, depending on time of year, group size and composition, environmental pressures, etc. An ethogram can give a false sense of understanding. Many are comprised of very limited, short term data collection. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Cecilia Lambert wrote: > --- kcover wrote: > .> > >>Are you saying that in coyote keeping, or as you >>keep coyotes, that you >>encourage the opportunity to fight across fences or >>to fight with >>conspecifics? >> >>Best, >>Kayce >> >> > . Encourage? I do not intervere unless I see blood. > Social aggression is a part of their ethogram. My > coyotes are not used to entertain people. If they > were, maybe I would feel differantly. My coyotes are > here so that people can learn about their social > behaviors in captivity, much like the wolves at Wolf > Park where I first began with my interest in social > behaviors in canids. I am aware that the big cats are > different. > I try to make sure that my coyotes are able to > exercise as many of their social bahviors as possible > while they are in captivity. > CeAnn > > ===== > CeAnn Lambert > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > www.WolfPark.org/ICRC > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 8-OCT-2003 10:50:51.51 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: validity of ethograms --- kcover wrote: > 1) Under what conditions was the original ethogram > data collected, and > how were observations achieved. (wild population or > captive population) > How much data was collected, over what span, with . > > 3) Why would you interefere when you saw blood, if > that is natural? I hope that I am not the type of person that would stand by and let animals that I dearly love and respcet tear each other apart without interfering. CeAnn > > > There is lots of variability amongst populations of > the same species of > animal, depending on time of year, group size and > composition, > environmental pressures, etc. An ethogram can give > a false sense of > understanding. Many are comprised of very limited, > short term data > collection. > > Best, > Kayce > > Kayce Cover > Syn Alia Training Systems > http://www.synalia.com > > Cecilia Lambert wrote: > > > --- kcover wrote: > > .> > > > >>Are you saying that in coyote keeping, or as you > >>keep coyotes, that you > >>encourage the opportunity to fight across fences > or > >>to fight with > >>conspecifics? > >> > >>Best, > >>Kayce > >> > >> > > . Encourage? I do not intervere unless I see > blood. > > Social aggression is a part of their ethogram. My > > coyotes are not used to entertain people. If they > > were, maybe I would feel differantly. My coyotes > are > > here so that people can learn about their social > > behaviors in captivity, much like the wolves at > Wolf > > Park where I first began with my interest in > social > > behaviors in canids. I am aware that the big cats > are > > different. > > I try to make sure that my coyotes are able to > > exercise as many of their social bahviors as > possible > > while they are in captivity. > > CeAnn > > > > ===== > > CeAnn Lambert > > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > > www.WolfPark.org/ICRC > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > > > > > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 11:02:24.21 To: IN%"sbc@kvl.dk" "Stine B Christiansen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Vedr.: Reality versus Ethics Hi Stine, Thanks for your response. It appears, from the fact that you are a candidate for a grad degree, that you are commencing on your career. I hope they are treating you well (both humanely and ethically) in your program? As for your points, EXACTLY. Particularly your last one. My problem stems that in my experience, it often boils down to the fact that agreement can not be reached on what is best, and I believe there is no single best set of conditions. I have chosen to endure great privation, and enjoyed it (camping, for example, grad school, for another one). Alternatively, I have known numbers of people living in the lap of luxury who were miserable and seeking escape from their "confinement". Give me the set of perfect conditions and I can show you where it does not serve. There are very few absolutes in scientific enquiry. I personally know of none. I don't want to be regulated by someone else's limited understanding, albeit well-intentioned. Case in point: In the US all institutional keepers of monkeys, for example, are regulated by the USDA standards, which require epoxied floors and large drains - for the welfare of the animals, of course! These regs are oriented toward lab facilities, but apply to all keepers of primates, and they are in no way natural. Yet, we must go through special efforts for dispensations to keep animals on natural substrates, etc. Like you (judging from your signature) I have invested a lot of time studying these issues. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Stine B Christiansen wrote: > As I see it, ethical reflection helps us to ask the right questions, eg what kind of data are we looking for, what is relevant? And it helps us identify what we consider to be "the best of reality" and to understand why agreement on what is best can not always be reached. In that way ethics can be very productive. But maybe we understand something different by "ethics"? > > Stine > > Stine B. Christiansen > cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 8-OCT-2003 11:53:11.54 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Reference needed on students' attitudes about animals Thanks to all of you who responded to my request for a reference. I don't think I tracked down the exact study in question but several of you provided references that were just as helpful, one of which may have been done by the researchers originally in question. For those who requested it and others who might be interested, below is the list of references I received. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes Martin F., Ruby, K., & Farnum, J. (2003). Importance of the human-animal bond for pre-veterinary, first, and fourth year veterinary students in relation to their career choice. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. Vol 30 (1), pp. 67-72. Paul ES, Podberscek AL. Veterinary education and students' attitudes towards animal welfare, Veterinary Record, 2000 Mar 4, 146(10):269-72 Williams S, Butler C, Sontag MA. Perceptions of fourth-year veterinary students about the human-animal bond in veterinary practice and in veterinary college curricula, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 1999 Nov 15 215(10):1428-32. Other comments that some might find helpful I believe Mike is right - I seem to remember hearing about this when working at the Vet School in Liverpool. Its worth asking either Hilary Dobson or Agnes Winder - I know they've done student attitudes work and if they weren't involved in the study you mention they will probably know who was. Their emails are h.dobson@liverpool.ac.uk and a.winter@liverpool.ac.uk I don't have that reference, but also check out studies done by Scott Plous a psychologist in USA who has looked at attitudes of psychology students to animal use in research. Maybe he has a website? From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 8-OCT-2003 12:17:29.95 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com", IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics In a message dated 10/8/2003 8:42:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, synalia@synalia.com writes: Theoretical ethics is neither scientific nor productive. There is a reality which may bear improving. Let's hear some concrete solutions, based on burgeoning scientific understanding and practical experience. Rather than criticising what is, lead the way to what is better. That is a very good point. One of the great follies of men is to use the reason that nature gave him to master the natural world, instead to invent a fictitious supernatural world the only utility of which is to damn, blast, and hold in contempt the world in which he lives. This serves nothing but man's vanity and addiction to pleasant illusions. This is the way I view most religion but I think it also applies to ethics. There is nothing quite so immoral as a morality that ignores reality and condemns improvements because of their inadequacies. From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 8-OCT-2003 12:41:16.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions CeAnn wrote: I try to make sure that my coyotes are able to exercise as many of their social bahviors as possible while they are in captivity. Tony asks: Do your coyotes not know that their ability to freely express their behaviour has been compromised by their captivity? What allowances do you make in your observations to account for the wild animal's ability to adapt (and thus cope) with being held captive? What prompted these questions is your mention that you intervene when blood is drawn. With that, do you not compromise the observation of 'their' social behaviour? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 13:18:12.26 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: validity of ethograms Hi CeAnn, I am not asking for justifications or Erich's personal attention. I am asking under what conditions is Erich Klinghammer's ethogram valid, if that is what you are referencing. I am also asking if your conditions for your coyotes are essentially the same as those under which the ethogram information was collected? One way that data is collected for ethograms is to spot check for what category of behavior is occurring at a selected instant. Even if you collect a thousand instants of that kind of data, it can still be less than 17 minutes of actual observation time. Critical evaluation of research results is an important part of assessing the validity of research results. Not all research is created equal or even valid. And, as for your animals drawing blood - natural is good, but only up to a point, which you are free to determine? How natural is that? Death is natural too. So is pain. However, while I question your logic, I agree with your decision. I would not allow it either. And while it is natural for people to murder one another, we try not to allow that with humans. However, I also do not allow my animals to aggress against one another in my presence, and I manage them to minimalize their aggression amongst themselves at any time, whether or not aggression, pain, injury or death are natural. You can't have it both ways. If happenstance is superior to managed, then you must abide by the consequences or you are being hypocritical. I prefer to manage, although I spend a lot of effort assessing my standards, results, the latest research etc. I also get a lot of help from expert colleagues. For the record, I managed wolves for a number of years, at the National Zoo. They were all trained also. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Cecilia Lambert wrote: > I don't intend to justify Erich Klinghammers thirty > years of developing an ethogram to you. I will let him > know that you are interested and show him your > questions as soon as he is out of the hospital. If he > wants to answer you, he can. > CeAnn AND . > > 3) Why would you interefere when you saw blood, if > that is natural? I hope that I am not the type of person that would stand by and let animals that I dearly love and respcet tear each other apart without interfering. CeAnn > --- kcover wrote: > >>1) Under what conditions was the original ethogram >>data collected, and >>how were observations achieved. (wild population or >>captive population) >>How much data was collected, over what span, with >>how many animals, what >>time of year and under what conditions? Can the >>data be shown, >>statistically, to be generalizable over all >>populations? >> >>2) Did you replicate the conditions under which the >>ethogram was >>produced. Otherwise, that ethogram is not >>necessarily predictive for >>your group. >> >>3) Why would you interefere when you saw blood, if >>that is natural? >> >> >>There is lots of variability amongst populations of >>the same species of >>animal, depending on time of year, group size and >>composition, >>environmental pressures, etc. An ethogram can give >>a false sense of >>understanding. Many are comprised of very limited, >>short term data >>collection. >> >>Best, >>Kayce >> >>Kayce Cover >>Syn Alia Training Systems >>http://www.synalia.com >> >>Cecilia Lambert wrote: >> >> >>>--- kcover wrote: >>>.> >>> >>> >>>>Are you saying that in coyote keeping, or as you >>>>keep coyotes, that you >>>>encourage the opportunity to fight across fences >>>> >>or >> >>>>to fight with >>>>conspecifics? >>>> >>>>Best, >>>>Kayce >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>. Encourage? I do not intervere unless I see >>> >>blood. >> >>>Social aggression is a part of their ethogram. My >>>coyotes are not used to entertain people. If they >>>were, maybe I would feel differantly. My coyotes >>> >>are >> >>>here so that people can learn about their social >>>behaviors in captivity, much like the wolves at >>> >>Wolf >> >>>Park where I first began with my interest in >>> >>social >> >>>behaviors in canids. I am aware that the big cats >>> >>are >> >>>different. >>> I try to make sure that my coyotes are able to >>>exercise as many of their social bahviors as >>> >>possible >> >>>while they are in captivity. >>>CeAnn >>> >>>===== >>>CeAnn Lambert >>>Indiana Coyote Rescue Center >>>www.WolfPark.org/ICRC >>> >>>__________________________________ >>>Do you Yahoo!? >>>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product >>> >>search >> >>>http://shopping.yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ===== > CeAnn Lambert > Indiana Coyote Rescue Center > www.WolfPark.org/ICRC > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 8-OCT-2003 14:12:09.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: A post-doc Opportunity Post-doctoral fellowship: Genetic variability of social behaviour in sheep (12 months) A post-doc position is available for 12 months in the animal behaviour and welfare group (Research Unit on Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Ferrand, France) This post-doc is at the start of a new long term study (5 years) on social behaviour and genetics on sheep reared outside. The main objective is to develop observations and tests to estimate the behavioural reactivity on 350 ewes at lambing and 500 lambs at weaning. In addition to the experimental approach, a second objective is to contribute to the validation of the results we obtained in the previous series of studies on four genotypes of ewes. Fieldwork will take place in spring (March-April) and summer (June-July) at an INRA research station 300 km south of Clermont-Ferrand. During this time, the position holder will be based at the research station. The rest of the time, the post-doc will be based at INRA in Clermont-Ferrand during data analysis and will visit INRA in Toulouse to carry out the statistical analysis in collaboration with geneticists there (J. Bouix). This position is fixed for one year (January 2004-December 2004). We are looking for an applicant with a PhD in behaviour, preferably on domestic ungulates, and a background in quantitative genetic analysis would be appreciate. Ideally, she/he should have research and practical experience with farm ungulates in outside conditions. The post-holder must have a driving license in order to move between the farm end the lab (300kms), and should have an aptitude to interact with people. A basic knowledge of French will enable her/him to interact with staff on the farm. The amount of the grant is about 1450.00 Euros per month (for 12 months). For further information you can contact Alain Boissy (boissy@clermont.inra.fr) web site INRA : http://www.inra.fr/. CV with an accompanying letter must be sent by email to Alain Boissy Applications close 31 October 2003. __________________________________________________________________ Alain Boissy URH Equipe Adaptation et Comportements Sociaux, INRA - Centre de Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Tel. +33 (0) 473 62 42 98 / Fax +33 (0) 473 62 41 18 / email boissy@clermont.inra.fr Web site INRA : http://www.inra.fr/ __________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" "Joseph Barber" 8-OCT-2003 14:17:30.38 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics Dear all, Kayce makes some very good points in terms of thinking about the practicality of ethical or theoretical concerns. By flying at such high altitude one doesn’t necessarily deal with issues on the ground. The questions that I had brought up were based on such high altitude observations and did involve a lot of theoretical musings. However, that really was one of the points that I was making. There is often insufficient evidence out there to determine what actual, real-life issues exist, not necessarily because the tools to be able to assess these issues don’t exist, but because they may not be used frequently. I understand that there are many different types of animal shows, and many different types of animals used for many different types of activities within these shows. For the animals used, and based on current assessment methods, some would be shown to have good welfare while others would be shown to experience poor welfare. It is just not possible to lump everything together under the term ‘animal shows’. This is a complicated issue; there is no doubt about that. As we know, there are no magical cut-off points between what is good and bad welfare, and there are no ultimate guidelines that tell us what is ethical or not ethical. There are going to be disagreements too, even when it comes down to the interpretation of objective data. There are things that can be done. It would be great to have more research about the messages that people take away from the whole variety of different animals shows that are out there. It would be great to develop and implement measures so that we can determine how much control an animal has (or needs) over its environment, how many behavioural opportunities it can perform, and which species-appropriate behaviours are important. Regardless of how these animals are used, this should be something that everyone has an interest in, since it will be in the best interest for the animals. I am not in a position to enforce my beliefs or philosophies upon anyone, nor would I want to, and so all I can do is ask those questions that I believe should be asked. And the questions that I want to ask are hopefully scientific questions that can be answered scientifically. Asking questions is important; on this point there seems to be agreement. Joseph __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 8-OCT-2003 15:38:07.33 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions --- Tony Ancheta wrote: > CeAnn wrote: > I am a small rescue facility that is just trying to > learn a little bit about social behavior in captive > coyotes. I am not doing a big study for a > Universaty > or for a degree for myself. I am just observing > coyotes. > > Tony comments: .Or, CeAnn, do you see a time > that they (the coyotes - > not Sigfreid and Roy) might be kept as pets and thus > your work is to offer a > baseline of management technique? I hope that they will not be kept as pets. > > If that's not the case ... of what importance is > observing the behaviour of > a captured wild animal? Tony, all of my coyotes were injured or orphaned coyote puppies. I do not buy, sell, breed, or release. Cindy Schulze will be doing a study with them. She can talk about it if she wants, she is on this list. I also have someone from Ohio State who is doing some vocalization studies. I have participated in another study being done in D.C. One of the things that I would b e interested in is letting people know how they can live with the coyotes in their area without killing them and doing some of the other terrible things to them that humans feel the need to do. When they are brought to me, I have a choice of euthanizing them or giving them the best home I can for the rest of their life. My oldest is 16. I choose to give them a home. CeAnn > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 8-OCT-2003 16:31:45.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: S&R article http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=136626 _________________________________________________________________ Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 17:40:55.43 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: keeping pets... I think you hit on something, Tony. Let's forget coyotes for a moment. In the spirit of studying the complex issue closely, I will volunteer to keep Sigfried and Roy as pets, as long as that will give me access to their modest compound. Shoot, I'll volunteer to be their pet, same conditions. Where do I sign up? Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com > --- Tony Ancheta wrote: >>Tony comments: >> > .Or, CeAnn, do you see a time > >>that they (the coyotes - >>not Sigfreid and Roy) might be kept as pets and thus >>your work is to offer a >>baseline of management technique? From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 8-OCT-2003 18:46:14.59 To: IN%"duz_16@yahoo.com" "Joseph Barber" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics Dear Joseph, You build some great bridges. I agree that your questions are important, and that by flying at altitude one may gain perspective. You make it easy to ally with you. Thanks. Best, Kayce Joseph Barber wrote: > Dear all, > > Kayce makes some very good points in terms of thinking > about the practicality of ethical or theoretical > concerns. By flying at such high altitude one doesn't > necessarily deal with issues on the ground. The > questions that I had brought up were based on such > high altitude observations and did involve a lot of > theoretical musings. However, that really was one of > the points that I was making. There is often > insufficient evidence out there to determine what > actual, real-life issues exist, not necessarily > because the tools to be able to assess these issues > don't exist, but because they may not be used > frequently. > and other good points... > I am not in a position to enforce my beliefs or > philosophies upon anyone, nor would I want to, and so > all I can do is ask those questions that I believe > should be asked. And the questions that I want to ask > are hopefully scientific questions that can be > answered scientifically. Asking questions is > important; on this point there seems to be agreement. From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 8-OCT-2003 19:34:23.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: keeping pets... and a reminder that 'liberty' got a boost in the circus Kayce Cover: > I think you hit on something, Tony. Let's forget coyotes for a moment. > In the spirit of studying the complex issue closely, I will volunteer to > keep Sigfried and Roy as pets, as long as that will give me access to > their modest compound. Shoot, I'll volunteer to be their pet, same > conditions. > > Where do I sign up? margory: Me too!! Writing in to offer as to animals and people performing together - good long flight reading, perhaps you know it already: Diana Star Cooper: _Night After Night_. Washington, D.C., Island Press Shearwater Books, 1994. Absolutely enchanting book about the Big Apple Circus. To which I append that I'm enjoying reading of your experiences in this area, Kayce, very much. Also comes to mind Theatre du Cheval, but sadly, it went belly-up ($$$). A traveling band of riders, acrobats, musicians and horses, in a breath-taking, heart-stirring concoction choreographed by one of the originators of Cirque du Soliel. Honestly, when they came thru San Francisco Area last year or so, I was ready to pack up the deerhounds and run away with them. (Saw us in the opening scene, there was a horse-drawn cart....) -margory Margory Cohen San Francisco, California Liberty -- I wonder where in the thought about tameness liberty lives. I'll have to think about that. From: IN%"reedbarney@hotmail.com" "Barney Reed" 9-OCT-2003 04:01:05.46 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com", IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers

Dear Kayce -

Can I ask where you found the figure of '15,000 pet tigers kept in America alone'. This seems to me an enormous number especially if you then add on top those held in captivity in zoos, circuses and animal shows (incidentally, is there a place where these numbers can be found too?). It is my view that keeping animals in these places can do little to aid the conservation and survival of this species. Not only are the vast majority of the animals kept as pets or in circuses for example, unlikely to be involved in any form of over-arching or structured conservation breeding programs, but additionally, even if they were to be, much is already known concerning the difficulty of successfully releasing to the wild animals that have been held in captivity (particularly carnivores). Captive born animals, tend to be used simply to breed more animals who will only ever live in captivity.

When one compares the figure of 15,000 tigers kept as pets in US alone, to the estimated figure of a total of fewer than 7,000 wild tigers across the 5 sub-species in the whole world it certainly makes me once again question whether society is educating people in the right ways.

I have heard the argument that seeing animals in animal shows means the public may be inspired and more willing to learn about these creatures and want to aid their survival, but if showing animals in this way merely stimulates further demand for these creatures as pets and show animals then I would argue that this sort of education we can do without.

If animal shows offer an education value, what is the 'take-home message' provided for the public at the time ?....other than 'aren't these animals great, look how we have trained them to sit on tables when commanded and jump through flaming hoops' -how is the average member of an animal show audience then likely to relate this to the plight of these animals being persecuted in the wild, hunted by man for trophies or as pests and for bodily parts use in alternative medicines? The message I think they are likely to take home is that for as long as humans are in charge, animals are simply there for human use in whatever form we like and that simply 'entertaining' humans is a perfectly acceptable use with little further consideration on their part for either individual animal wellbeing or the conservation of the species.

I do not dispute that 'some' of the training methods used for training animals for display in animal shows little compromise animal wellbeing and the same methods can benefit both parties in human-animal interactions in other areas of animal use e.g. for training animals in laboratories so that certain experimental and routine husbandry procedures can be undertaken more easily and with less stress caused to the animal -but that is just an example of where similar techniques are used in different settings, it is not the same as saying that the existence of animal shows is directly improving animal wellbeing.

I do not believe that entertainment for humans per se is an acceptable criteria for keeping and breeding more animals (or for further depleting the wild population if animals are gained illegally, which in some cases I understand they still are) into unnatural environments and social groupings. Sadly, if demand is there for obtaining these animals, unscrupulous people will continue to strive to make money by attempting to provide them.

It is a sad world where tigers are found in 6th story flats in the middle of major cities (a story recently in the news) and it would not surprise me if such occurrences are partly fuelled by the inconsistencies caused by us showing the public that 'these magnificent animals are being hunted, trapped and killed in the wild and their numbers are plummeting on the one hand, but don't worry, we still have enough of them to put on a show for you where they can be induced to perform tricks (while spending the rest of their time often living in unnatural and totally unsuitable environments)'.

-Barney Reed


Stay connected whilst on the move. Now you can get Hotmail sent directly to your mobile phone. Click here for details. From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 9-OCT-2003 08:01:16.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics Dear all, This discussion on animals in shows has been wonderful. I realize this is an issue that is viewed in many different ways by the members of the list and that opinions may be very strong. Everyone has done such an amazing job of asking tough questions in fair ways and also of answering these questions in well-thought, meaningful ways. I agree that the high standards of ethics and reality cannot always meet easily, but I think in discussions of this sort we bring the two more closely together and also pave the way for some extremely interesting research on human-animal interactions and welfare. I think this discussion is a model for those we should have on the list: many points of view represented in fair language and respect given to all participants. And it makes me really wish I had something to contribute on this topic! Best regards, Janice Janice Siegford, PhD Animal Behavior and Welfare Group Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax kcover writes: > Dear Joseph, > > You build some great bridges. I agree that your questions are important, > and that by flying at altitude one may gain perspective. > > You make it easy to ally with you. Thanks. > > Best, > Kayce > > Joseph Barber wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Kayce makes some very good points in terms of thinking >> about the practicality of ethical or theoretical >> concerns. By flying at such high altitude one doesn't >> necessarily deal with issues on the ground. The >> questions that I had brought up were based on such >> high altitude observations and did involve a lot of >> theoretical musings. However, that really was one of >> the points that I was making. There is often >> insufficient evidence out there to determine what >> actual, real-life issues exist, not necessarily >> because the tools to be able to assess these issues >> don't exist, but because they may not be used >> frequently. >> > > and other good points... > > >> I am not in a position to enforce my beliefs or >> philosophies upon anyone, nor would I want to, and so >> all I can do is ask those questions that I believe >> should be asked. And the questions that I want to ask >> are hopefully scientific questions that can be >> answered scientifically. Asking questions is >> important; on this point there seems to be agreement. > From: IN%"t-friend@tamu.edu" "Friend, Theodore H." 9-OCT-2003 08:22:15.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers By now a number of people on this net have seen the CNN - Larry King interview with Siegfried and their manager, or some of the other interviews that Siegfried gave yesterday. In case you missed the interviews, Siegfried insists that the tiger did not attack Roy. Roy lost his balance and fell over backwards - the tiger was merely protecting Roy. Siegfried believes that the tiger thought Roy was in danger and merely picked Roy up, as it would a cub, and carried Roy back to a secluded spot back stage and turned Roy loose. The fire extinguishers came after the tiger, Montigue, released Roy. (It will be interesing to see if the extinguishers were really needed at all, or if over-excited people made the situation much worse.) Siegfried said that if the tiger wanted to attack Roy, it would have killed him in a few seconds. They also maintain that it was not a mauling, but an attempt to aide Roy when he fell. All of the coverage in the media has billed it as an attack or mauling, it will be interesting to see if the media corrects their reporting. Nothing has happend to the tiger, and Roy's last words were that it not be hurt. Ted Friend From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 9-OCT-2003 08:31:03.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: I would like to agree with Janice here. The subject is very difficult to approach. It seems to me that ethics are an essential part, or should be, of our dealings with animals - whether wild, captive or domesticated. How, for instance, should we regard a top level international dressage horse kept in such a way that it suffers stomach ulcer condition? Clearly the horse has, what might well be considered, productive work to engage in - but equally clearly it engages, or is forced to do so, in this work at a cost. I raise this particular scenario to illustrate the potential for a great superficial appearance to exist, even if only as far as the viewing public's perception is concerned, while there is a real underlying welfare issue. And this in an animal considered commonplace, rather than exotic. If the public is to be educated to the importance of protecting and managing resources so that the greatest diversity of species can exist in as natural a condition as possible would television and web-based video streaming not be better mediums than travelling shows, circus or zoos? Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 9-OCT-2003 08:34:56.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics -----Original Message----- Dear all, This discussion on animals in shows has been wonderful. I realize this is an issue that is viewed in many different ways by the members of the list and that opinions may be very strong. Everyone has done such an amazing job of asking tough questions in fair ways and also of answering these questions in well-thought, meaningful ways. I agree that the high standards of ethics and reality cannot always meet easily, but I think in discussions of this sort we bring the two more closely together and also pave the way for some extremely interesting research on human-animal interactions and welfare. ------ Whoa! Whoa! Let's hold on just a bit here and not get carried away with compromise. Yes, it is not appropriate to attack other persons as individuals, but it is perfectly acceptable to attack the idea's of others, when they are wrong. It is wrong, today, to exploit wild animals for human entertainment. It may be considered to be "practical" by some persons to continue such practices - because it is "practical" financially and otherwise for them individually to continue these activities. But practicality is ultimately not the basis for an ethical position. Ethics is ultimately doing what is right. In today's world it is _wrong_ to exploit other beings simply for human entertainment and gratification - full stop! From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 9-OCT-2003 08:36:42.38 To: IN%"t-friend@tamu.edu" "Friend, Theodore H.", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers I saw Siegfreid on the morning news. He did say that Roy tripped. His pain was almost more than I could bear, seeing it. It must be overwhelming for him. My heart and thoughts go to the two of them. CeAnn --- "Friend, Theodore H." wrote: > By now a number of people on this net have seen the > CNN - Larry King interview with Siegfried and their > manager, or some of the other interviews that > Siegfried gave yesterday. In case you missed the > interviews, Siegfried insists that the tiger did not > attack Roy. Roy lost his balance and fell over > backwards - the tiger was merely protecting Roy. > Siegfried believes that the tiger thought Roy was in > danger and merely picked Roy up, as it would a cub, > and carried Roy back to a secluded spot back stage > and turned Roy loose. The fire extinguishers came > after the tiger, Montigue, released Roy. (It will be > interesing to see if the extinguishers were really > needed at all, or if over-excited people made the > situation much worse.) Siegfried said that if the > tiger wanted to attack Roy, it would have killed him > in a few seconds. They also maintain that it was > not a mauling, but an attempt to aide Roy when he > fell. > > All of the coverage in the media has billed it as an > attack or mauling, it will be interesting to see if > the media corrects their reporting. > > Nothing has happend to the tiger, and Roy's last > words were that it not be hurt. > > > Ted Friend > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 9-OCT-2003 08:40:37.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Re: Reality versus Ethics >Dear Joseph, > >You build some great bridges. I agree that your questions are >important, and that by flying at altitude one may gain perspective. > >You make it easy to ally with you. Thanks. > > Dear All, Some of the misinformation included in the discussion of ethics has been almost as egregious as that of other recent topics, especially that about inbreeding. (Stine, I congratulate you on your considerable restraint and diplomacy.) However, all the recent mutualism over the importance of addressing real world problems, practically as viewed from the high altitudes, etc. may have its purpose. Just this morning, by chance, I received a message asking for information that seems most appropriate for people with such a view. The message is pasted in below, and I will happily pass on to the student all responses from those persons who view the world only from the perspective of "practical" knowledge and actions. -------------------------------------- Dr. Stricklin- This may sound like an odd e-mail, but I thought maybe you could help me out. Some friends and I were debating over whether or not birds actually "aim" when they defecate. I am unable to find any actual accredited or scientific information online about this subject. If you could let me know your opinion on the subject, or at least where I might be able to find the information, I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time. Brian Undergraduate Food Science W. Ray STRICKLIN University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Email:ws31@umail.umd.edu (ws31) Phone: 301-405-1382 From: IN%"Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov" 9-OCT-2003 09:07:58.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers I was thinking the same. An adult tiger could easily dispatch a human in a matter of seconds, if that were the intent. Possibly the public misinterpretation referring to this as a "mauling" was fueled by the media hype to sell papers. Recanting their original mauling accounts will not sell papers. Those that dislike wild creatures will use this as one more reason to kill them. It is our responsability to point the public to the truth and loosen this deeply entrenched negative attitude. > Siegfried said that if the > > tiger wanted to attack Roy, it would have killed him > > in a few seconds. > > Ted Friend > > Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 9-OCT-2003 09:25:11.82 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers CeAnn wrote: I saw Siegfreid on the morning news. He did say that Roy tripped. His pain was almost more than I could bear, seeing it. It must be overwhelming for him. My heart and thoughts go to the two of them. Tony comments: My thoughts are of those that witnessed it. Surely, Siegfreid and Roy have accepted, long ago, the risks of their endeavor ... But for those that merely paid to watch a magic show, what of them? I do agree that the cat did not intend to kill Roy. Where I live, I have witnessed numerous mountain lion kills. If that cat wanted Roy dead ... he'd be dead. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 9-OCT-2003 09:27:18.81 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: [Fwd: FW: Re: Reality versus Ethics] Hi, Ray Stricklin asked me to post the following message. Like Ray says, it turns out that occassionally it is good to have a few from up high. Cheers, Joe -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: Re: Reality versus Ethics Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:58:35 -0400 From: Ray Stricklin To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca Joe, Would you post? UofMD has again changed our email address setup. Best regards, Ray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >You build some great bridges. I agree that your questions are >important, and that by flying at altitude one may gain perspective. > >You make it easy to ally with you. Thanks. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, Some of the misinformation included in the discussion of ethics has been almost as egregious as that of other recent topics, especially that about inbreeding. (Stine, I congratulate you on your considerable restraint and diplomacy.) However, all the recent mutualism over the importance of addressing real world problems, practically as viewed from the high altitudes, etc. may have its purpose. Just this morning, by chance, I received a message asking for information that seems most appropriate for people with such a view. The message is pasted in below, and I will happily pass on to the student all responses from those persons who view the world only from the perspective of "practical" knowledge and actions. -------------------------------------- Dr. Stricklin- This may sound like an odd e-mail, but I thought maybe you could help me out. Some friends and I were debating over whether or not birds actually "aim" when they defecate. I am unable to find any actual accredited or scientific information online about this subject. If you could let me know your opinion on the subject, or at least where I might be able to find the information, I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time. Brian Undergraduate Food Science W. Ray STRICKLIN University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 9-OCT-2003 09:39:33.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Allergies to pets reduced with pet keeping Hi, I realize the news clipping I am posting has nothing to do with animal behaviour, but it does provide some evidence that the removal of pets from homes because of the children's allergies is unfounded. Therefore this study has some relevance to the welfare and disposal of some unwanted pets. I think the findings deserve widespread media attention. Joe ========================================= Avoiding pets may not prevent allergies, from the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology October 8, 2003 From a press release MILWAUKEE -- Exposure to high levels of cat allergen as a child may prevent the development of allergies, according to a study published in the October 2003 Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI). The JACI is the peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). Researchers found that avoiding having cats or dogs as pets may not protect against the development of allergies. Eva Ronmark, PhD, and colleagues from the Obstructive Lung Disease in Northern Sweden Study Group and the University of Virginia at Charlottesville studied 2,454 children in Northern Sweden, ages 7 to 8 years. The children were skin tested originally in 1996 and again in 2000. In addition, parents completed questionnaires each year asking about risk factors. The study found that, despite cat being the most common allergens of sensitization, keeping these animals at home was not related to an increased risk for the development of sensitization between age 7 and age 11. Children who continually owned cats or dogs had a lower incidence of developing allergies to the animal compared to new pet owners and to those who had only been exposed earlier in life. Among the children allergic to cats, 80% had never kept a cat at home. Researchers found that persistent exposure to high levels of cat and dog allergen appears to be protective against the development of an allergy among both boys and girls. The fact that allergy symptoms increase when a person who is allergic is exposed to the allergen has resulted in the assumption that avoiding cats and other pets at home protects against the development of an allergy to the animal. The current findings from the October JACI study go against traditional thinking that increased exposure to cats and dogs results in more severe symptoms. -- Joseph M. Stookey Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine 52 Campus Drive University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4 From: IN%"D.Lee@mcri.ac.uk" "Diane Lee" 9-OCT-2003 09:40:23.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers I didn't see the attack or the interviews, but I think it's worth remembering that this isn't a 'wild' tiger. It is one in captivity (I believe, but may be wrong, that he was born captive - correct me if I'm wrong!) and therefore 'hunting' instincts, for want of a better description, are not exactly honed in the same way as they would be in the wild, as the tigers presumably do not get the opportunity. I say presumably as I know little about Siegfried and Roy's set up. Of course, the media could make one of my kitty scratches look like a mauling. Diane > I was thinking the same. An adult tiger could easily dispatch a human in a > matter of seconds, if that were the intent. Possibly the public > misinterpretation referring to this as a "mauling" was fueled by the media > hype to sell papers. Recanting their original mauling accounts will not sell > papers. Those that dislike wild creatures will use this as one more reason > to kill them. It is our responsability to point the public to the truth and > loosen this deeply entrenched negative attitude. > From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 9-OCT-2003 09:43:39.13 To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics Dear Ray, I was not implying compromise of standards. What I was saying is that people have different viewpoints and you cannot bash them on the head to change these viewpoints. And I also did not imply that reality dictates ethics. I merely pointed out the fact that reality and ethics do not come together in many areas of life, I did not say this was a desirable state and by having such discussions which inform people and encourage research we can change this. We need to encourage discussions which allow people to express differences in open dialogue. In order to change things that we don't like about reality we must first understand where people are coming from and what the current state is. We cannot do this if people are afraid to discuss their opinions, particularly when they are controversial. We must have respect for all life and that includes respect for each other as fellow human beings. You are free to label something outrightly as wrong and others are free to disagree with your viewpoint. "Right" has been defined ethically in many different ways in many different times and places by thinkers far greater than myself. I respect your opinion that animals should not be exploited for human gratification and entertainment. No life should ever be exploited. Ideally our interactions should be mutualistic. While working toward this ideal, however, I realize that this not currently reality and in order to change that reality care must be taken. Regards, Janice Janice Siegford, PhD Animal Behavior and Welfare Group Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax Ray Stricklin writes: > > > -----Original Message----- > > Dear all, > This discussion on animals in shows has been wonderful. I realize this is an > issue that is viewed in many different ways by the members of the list and > that opinions may be very strong. Everyone has done such an amazing job of > asking tough questions in fair ways and also of answering these questions in > well-thought, meaningful ways. I agree that the high standards of ethics and > reality cannot always meet easily, but I think in discussions of this sort > we bring the two more closely together and also pave the way for some > extremely interesting research on human-animal interactions and welfare. > ------ > > > Whoa! Whoa! Let's hold on just a bit here and not get carried away with > compromise. > > Yes, it is not appropriate to attack other persons as individuals, but it is > perfectly acceptable to attack the idea's of others, when they are wrong. > > It is wrong, today, to exploit wild animals for human entertainment. It may > be considered to be "practical" by some persons to continue such practices - > because it is "practical" financially and otherwise for them individually to > continue these activities. But practicality is ultimately not the basis for > an ethical position. Ethics is ultimately doing what is right. > > In today's world it is _wrong_ to exploit other beings simply for human > entertainment and gratification - full stop! From: IN%"Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov" "Schulze, Cindy, VHACIN" 9-OCT-2003 09:45:17.44 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" "'wheep@igrin.co.nz'" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: You are right on track. This is how we at ICRC plan to educate the public about the environmental importance of our large predators. >If the public is to be educated to the importance of protecting and managing >resources so that the greatest diversity of species can exist in as natural >a condition as possible would television and web-based video streaming not >be better mediums than travelling shows, circus or zoos? >Regards >Andy Beck > Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 9-OCT-2003 10:01:06.90 To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics Hi again, Ray, A) This is no scientific argument. B) This is not just a discussion of ethics. It is also discussion of the practical needs of people and animals and how to mesh the two. C) If you are looking for unethical situations to battle, there are many much more horrible, in your industry of food production, yet you make your living there, and pronounce these other activities as flatly wrong. Does this allow you to turn away from huge and perhaps impossible issues where the need for reform is extreme, in order to criticise something where you have no personal responsibility? I don't accept you as an arbiter of right versus wrong in this issue. Neither do all other animal scientists or ethicists. There is no consensus of opinion. And, if you have been following the conversation, the animals involved in the entertainment industry are not necessarily there only for entertainment and gratification. But we all have to pay the bills. And as was revealed time and again in your animal welfare symposia, the high ideals of many activists, would condemn many animals to extinction. I don't see that as an improvement. I was then, and remain, a practical integrationist. Whether we like every aspect of our situation or not, it behooves us to learn to live and work with animals, if we would continue to have them in our world. Who is going to pay for the high minded keeping of animals for posterity? The Smithsonian is scheduled to shut down CRC at Front Royal, next year I think. It is irreplaceable. If the Smithsonian is abandoning its efforts to protect animal populations, and you find zoos and other forms of animal keeping insufferable, where are these animals to go? Do you think that the people of third world countries, with burgeoning populations, who are in direct competition with these animals, and where most of the natural reservoirs of these populations exist, are going to preserve the animals over themselves? I will tell you who is willing to pay for it. Private individuals and pet owners. Think about it. I would say that some practical thinking is definitely in order. And perhaps some humility. We will need to work together to improve things. Sincerely, Kayce Kayce Cover, BS Animal Science, (UMCP), MSED, Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Ray Stricklin wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > Whoa! Whoa! Let's hold on just a bit here and not get carried away with > compromise. > > Yes, it is not appropriate to attack other persons as individuals, but it is > perfectly acceptable to attack the idea's of others, when they are wrong. > > It is wrong, today, to exploit wild animals for human entertainment. It may > be considered to be "practical" by some persons to continue such practices - > because it is "practical" financially and otherwise for them individually to > continue these activities. But practicality is ultimately not the basis for > an ethical position. Ethics is ultimately doing what is right. > > In today's world it is _wrong_ to exploit other beings simply for human > entertainment and gratification - full stop! > > From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 9-OCT-2003 10:11:35.64 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fence fighting Hi Kayce, I just wanted to clarify what I mean by "fence fighting". I think that is where our misunderstanding came from. When I talk about fence fighting, I am talking about posturing and threatening through the fence. I am not talking about actual pulling and tearing at the fence. That can sometimes happen, but not very often. The running back and forth, growling, looking as big as possible, making eye contact, and holding that eye contact and sometimes picking up a toy and shaking it , while doing all these other aggressive posturings seems to relieve the aggression build up. I can even go in the pen to do maintenance at that time. They are so completly focused on each other that they don't pay any attention to me. I am not very good at putting my thoughts in writing. Also, I am very quick to take offense when it involves my coyotes. Sorry. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 9-OCT-2003 10:18:00.70 To: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics Janice, my comments about the dangers of compromise were given in reference to the direction the discussion, in total, was tending - not directed toward you individually. (And again, not directed toward you individually, but rather for the many who have recently implied that ethics and "right" is simply definitional, subjective, etc. I refer each to the recent report on the concept of "fairness" found in capuchin monkeys. There is a very high degree of consensus regarding what is "right" among humans - maybe even primates. This is typically overlooked by persons who take the simplistic view that "science-based objectivity" is the only legitimate basis for discussion of human actions.) -----Original Message----- From: Janice M Siegford Dear Ray, I was not implying compromise of standards. What I was saying is that people From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 9-OCT-2003 10:47:11.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: misinformed ethics discussion? Hi Ray, It appears that the student feels this to be your purvue. I look forward to seeing what you offer him. And, you visit this discussion to hit a glancing blow. Why not take a minute more and lead us to greater understanding, if indeed you can offer that, rather than criticise without improving the situation? Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com ws31 wrote: Dear All, Some of the misinformation included in the discussion of ethics has been almost as egregious as that of other recent topics, especially that about inbreeding. (Stine, I congratulate you on your considerable restraint and diplomacy.) However, all the recent mutualism over the importance of addressing real world problems, practically as viewed from the high altitudes, etc. may have its purpose. Just this morning, by chance, I received a message asking for information that seems most appropriate for people with such a view. The message is pasted in below, and I will happily pass on to the student all responses from those persons who view the world only from the perspective of "practical" knowledge and actions. -------------------------------------- Dr. Stricklin- This may sound like an odd e-mail, but I thought maybe you could help me out. Some friends and I were debating over whether or not birds actually "aim" when they defecate. I am unable to find any actual accredited or scientific information online about this subject. If you could let me know your opinion on the subject, or at least where I might be able to find the information, I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time. Brian Undergraduate Food Science W. Ray STRICKLIN University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Email:ws31@umail.umd.edu (ws31) Phone: 301-405-1382 From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 9-OCT-2003 10:48:55.92 To: IN%"reedbarney@hotmail.com" "Barney Reed", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers Hi Barney, You can find statistics on pet tiger ownership in America in the USDA records, on a recent special by National Geographic, from the organization Phoenix Exotics, and yes, it is thought that there are more pet tigers than wild tigers now. Numbers of zoo tigers can be fairly well estimated via ISIS records and the tiger studbook keeper, which individual I cannot identify offhand. And it is true that they are not usually included in any breeding programs, although they may be participants in either ISIS or in more localized efforts, as Siegfried and Roy and RBBB have been. There are a number of reasons why cooperation between lay owners (many of which are retired zoo personnel, or trainers, and highly expert, by the way, and which have phenomenal facilities that rival any zoo - again, like Sigfried and Roy) and institutions is not more prevalent. One being that cross breeding is feared and the institutions are not interested. I can understand that concern, but also think that the viability of tigers as a groups depends on genetic variability, (a huge problem with cheetahs where the whole population is the equivalent of virtually identical twins, but in both sexes), and at some point it may be more important to preserve tigers than subspecies of tigers. Another reason is that lay owners do not necessarily want to be encumbered by the demands and paperwork imposed by AZA and ISIS for example. Or their membership fees. Another is failure of private owners to comply with AZA rules, which by their own admission may be completely arbitrary and based on someone's best guess. AZA started out as a service organization, and now accredits zoos, and they are the only game in town and people who don't have relevant background are perfectly happy to be led by them (as in politicians, academic councils, etc). I am actually not criticizing AZA, but rather saying that people afford them authority without questioning their basis. For example, this year, if things go as planned, three exhibits of elephants are being closed down or the zoos will lose their accreditation, and therefore many other considerations, because those exhibits do not meet AZA's new elephant facility standards. However, when asked if any wellbeing assessment had been made of the elephants in question, or whether their behavior had been evaluated in comparison to that of other elephants either in the wild or in conforming exhibits, the answer, directly from the AZA liaison was NO. It was explained that the standards were the best guess of some well-intentioned committee members. There is no real basis for assessment yet. People are working hard to create this. I am not faulting them. But it does not exist yet. I don't believe this is an acceptable basis to grant one member the right to own elephants, while taking that right from another. Looks can be deceiving, and my experience is that the emotional experience of the animal equals the physical experience, or supercedes it, where wellbeing is concerned. Further, a facility make look shabby or small and yet suit an animal better than something more extensive and modern. Again, look to keeping people or domestic animals. Consider the problem with choosing the best hospital to stay in. There is a new hospital in Maryland that looks beautiful and apparently has resistant staff contamination problem. I personally know of of 3 people with infections contracted during surgery, this year, at this hospital. Meanwhile, one of these people was musing that her husband had his surgery in an old, relatively shabby hospital - with no complications. Similarly, I keep my horse at a very shabby looking stable, because I feel that the managers are calm, have good judgment, and a lot of the most important considerations are covered, but most of all, all the animals in residence are calm, friendly and happy, and in good condition. I have been in plenty of stables with faux marble walls and brass finials with agitated and dissociated horses, and serious deficiencies in the animal welfare (like one road out which could be blocked by a rising river in an area subject to floods and fires, or one road for both cars and horses and the road so steep that it was grooved to help the horses maintain traction on its concrete surface. I look past the condition of the fence or the size of the transport cage and look at the animal itself, to see what it tells me about its life. If the animal is in prime condition, interactive, engaged, active, no stereotypy or overt signs of stress, confident - I can see that it is well adapted, so somehow, it is getting what it needs. And I also believe that we are all doing the best we can and that people are generally well intentioned and will improve as they can with education and that nothing is perfect anyway, so if I insist on perfection, I condemn the situation from the outset. Of course, not all tiger owners are created equal, but just the fact that you had no idea that there are that many pet tigers argues for the fact that many are successfully kept without any problems. You are much more likely to die from a bee sting than from a bite from a pet tiger. The major cause of deaths from animals in America is from venomous insect, snakes, dogs and bulls, or horses. Yet people hardly think twice about seeing a bull, and most people that die with horses are in riding accidents, rather than being attacked, but horseback riding is statistically more dangerous than riding motorcycles. But that is all okay, while people rant about private exotic ownership with very little basis for complaint in the preponderance of cases. So, there is this huge paranoia and lack of education on the part of the people who are so ready to criticize private owners. I work with private and institutional owners both, and have had to meet the rigors of institutional demands, and would prefer not to, although I was very successful at doing this (my division at the National Zoo was the only one, while I was there, to pass every suprize inspection with flying colors - we used to enjoy the inspections as a chance to chat with the USDA vets and compare notes). I have maintained a private USDA licensed facility and no longer want to be bothered. With the animal rights activism, there is all kinds of ridiculous red tape - for example, one is expected to file a schedule for where they will be for the entire year ahead, and to notify the USDA of any change of schedule - who else is required to do this? Though I was licensed, I had only one dog, one monkey, and one parrot - but we worked together, so I maintained a license. But, the USDA inspections are impromptu, so sometimes we would all go out for a walk together, and I would get home to a notice on my door that read - "There was no personnel available to allow inspection by the USDA inspector" . This was a bit before cell phones, so that might work out better now. In any case, I was not about to hire a babysitter to stay at the house and wait for the USDA inspector, just in case. The parrot was perfectly fine, unsupervised for an hour or so! And yes, there are some pet owners that are negligent and some animals that are abused, and some are left to be cared for by others, but there are also many extremely responsible, proactive pet owners, who band together in associations like the ISZ and Phoenix Exotics, and who may take in animals that need refuge. I will not get involved in worrying about tiger ownership more than we worry about the stewardship of children. Whatever criticisms you have leveled at private owners, happens with greater frequency with children, and we are much more likely to suffer from criminal attack or personal loss as a result of someone's badly reared child than from any animal problem, period. So, take care of problems in the order of their importance and prevalence, such as that of abused children. AND, if you really want to take on the plight of animals, forget about the pet exotics, and start with institutionalized research animals - often going mad with boredom and isolation, or conversely, over crowding, and leading very bleak lives (often overseen by scientists, no less) and pet dogs and cats, which are destroyed in huge numbers. The LD 50 test (dosing animals with some substance till 50% of some prescribed number die, to establish safe dosing thresholds for pharmaceutics), mandated by the FDA requires the senseless death of hordes of critters, although hopefully that situation has been changed since I had to deal with it in the 70's. So, people get all up at arms over pet tigers, with very little reason to do so - although the cases of problems get huge press and intense scrutiny, and totally overlook huge, ubiquitous problems with children, pet dogs and cats, farm animals, venomous insects, and lab animals. Maybe we need to get some perspective here. As a child, I was fascinated with animals from the word go. My ealiest memories are of playing with a cocker spanial and looking for squirrel holes in trees in New York, both when I was a year and a half old. I spent my first money getting bird cards (six), got a set of bird guides for my eighth Christmas, and had decided to become a dolphin trainer from the age of nine. I used to keep my sisters awake at night, telling them stories of the animals I would work with - including a monkey - all of which came to pass. I would argue that animal enthusiasts are born, not made. And regardless of how I saw animals presented, I took my own analysis away from each encounter. And all of us here, are products of upbringings that included circuses, shows, pet stores, etc, and we turned out alright, no? Again, you want to worry about the picture people are getting of reality? Worry about soap operas, videos, cartoons and movies where reality is incredibly distorted and figures/actors are violently destroyed to appear again in another production, possibly giving our children a total lack of appreciation of real life consequences. Again, perspective is needed. So, I don't think there is any reason to wonder if "society" is educating its members correctly, or effectively. It is not, in spite of the longest interment of children in school in the history of mankind! (just finished a masters in education ) I would argue that there are more pressing priorities, however, and until we can figure out how to solved those more pressing problems, it is self-indulgent to focus on exotic animal pets, and the delicate ethics thereof. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Barney Reed wrote: > Dear Kayce - > > Can I ask where you found the figure of '15,000 pet tigers kept in > America alone'. This seems to me an enormous number especially if you > then add on top those held in captivity in zoos, circuses and animal > shows (incidentally, is there a place where these numbers can be found > too?). It is my view that keeping animals in these places can do little > to aid the conservation and survival of this species. Not only are the > vast majority of the animals kept as pets or in circuses for example, > unlikely to be involved in any form of over-arching or structured > conservation breeding programs, but additionally, even if they were to > be, much is already known concerning the difficulty of successfully > releasing to the wild animals that have been held in captivity > (particularly carnivores). Captive born animals, tend to be used simply > to breed more animals who will only ever live in captivity. > > When one compares the figure of 15,000 tigers kept as pets in US alone, > to the estimated figure of a total of fewer than 7,000 wild tigers > across the 5 sub-species in the whole world it certainly makes me once > again question whether society is educating people in the right ways. > > I have heard the argument that seeing animals in animal shows means the > public may be inspired and more willing to learn about these creatures > and want to aid their survival, but if showing animals in this way > merely stimulates further demand for these creatures as pets and show > animals then I would argue that this sort of education we can do without. > > If animal shows offer an education value, what is the 'take-home > message' provided for the public at the time ?....other than 'aren't > these animals great, look how we have trained them to sit on tables when > commanded and jump through flaming hoops' -how is the average member of > an animal show audience then likely to relate this to the plight of > these animals being persecuted in the wild, hunted by man for trophies > or as pests and for bodily parts use in alternative medicines? The > message I think they are likely to take home is that for as long as > humans are in charge, animals are simply there for human use in whatever > form we like and that simply 'entertaining' humans is a perfectly > acceptable use with little further consideration on their part for > either individual animal wellbeing or the conservation of the species. > > I do not dispute that 'some' of the training methods used for training > animals for display in animal shows little compromise animal wellbeing > and the same methods can benefit both parties in human-animal > interactions in other areas of animal use e.g. for training animals in > laboratories so that certain experimental and routine husbandry > procedures can be undertaken more easily and with less stress caused to > the animal -but that is just an example of where similar techniques are > used in different settings, it is not the same as saying that the > existence of animal shows is directly improving animal wellbeing. > > I do not believe that entertainment for humans per se is an acceptable > criteria for keeping and breeding more animals (or for further depleting > the wild population if animals are gained illegally, which in some cases > I understand they still are) into unnatural environments and social > groupings. Sadly, if demand is there for obtaining these animals, > unscrupulous people will continue to strive to make money by attempting > to provide them. > > It is a sad world where tigers are found in 6th story flats in the > middle of major cities (a story recently in the news) and it would not > surprise me if such occurrences are partly fuelled by the > inconsistencies caused by us showing the public that 'these magnificent > animals are being hunted, trapped and killed in the wild and their > numbers are plummeting on the one hand, but don't worry, we still have > enough of them to put on a show for you where they can be induced to > perform tricks (while spending the rest of their time often living in > unnatural and totally unsuitable environments)'. > > -Barney Reed > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Stay connected whilst on the move. Now you can get Hotmail sent directly > to your mobile phone. Click here for details. > From: IN%"Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk" "Moira Harris" 9-OCT-2003 10:49:34.96 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it Dear Kayce and dear all, Does anybody know why a repeated sentiment appearing on this list of late has been that possession of a Ph.D. is incompatible with a) any practical experience of working with animals; and b) any commonsense whatever? It has appeared as a very strong implication in the past, and now again has been expressed by Kayce in reference to Ray Stricklin's comments. I happen to have around my house several bits of paper attesting to the fact that I have earned several degrees, yet I have also worked with animals a fair bit and do also have a modicum (a small amount) of commonsense. I've heard a rumour (Ray, can you confirm this?) that even Professor Stricklin has on occasion interacted with the odd animal or two. I am very, very happy to listen to the viewpoints of, and learn from, people who have 'real life' experience and no paper qualifications. All I would ask is for I and others with those annoying letters after our names to be accorded the same respect in return. Could we perhaps start from the assumption that we are all reasonably informed and have something to share? Best wishes, - Moira ------------------------------------- Dr. Moira Harris Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk From: IN%"Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk" "Moira Harris" 9-OCT-2003 11:19:22.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: bird defecation Or alternatively (for those who like being categorical and dislike discussion) .... In reply to Ray's student's question about bird shit (substitute 'bird poop' here if the word shit offends you), I have watched birds defecating and they do not aim. I do not welcome any discussion on this because I know I am right. Best wishes, - Moira ------------------------------------- Dr. Moira Harris Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 9-OCT-2003 11:23:35.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it Dear Moira, On the contrary, I have alluded many times to the reliance I have on colleagues that are experts, credentialled or otherwise, the rigors of degree programs, etc. I received private letters thanking me for my acknowledgement of the relevance/achievement of degrees. I did say that I did not accept Ray Strickin as the arbiter of what is right or wrong, with no reference to any degree. Moreover, lest it look like I don't partake, I included, as I normally do not, my own alphabets, and I was about to start a Ph.D. program but consulting took off to such a degree that I am extremely busy and prefer to continue in that. I am an integrationist - animals, people, races, academics - it's all good ! We are all in this together and we best get along. Best, Kayce BS Animal Science, MSED Moira Harris wrote: > Dear Kayce and dear all, > > Does anybody know why a repeated sentiment appearing on this list of > late has been that possession of a Ph.D. is incompatible with a) any > practical experience of working with animals; and b) any commonsense > whatever? > It has appeared as a very strong implication in the past, and now again > has been expressed by Kayce in reference to Ray Stricklin's comments. > > I happen to have around my house several bits of paper attesting to the > fact that I have earned several degrees, yet I have also worked with > animals a fair bit and do also have a modicum (a small amount) of > commonsense. I've heard a rumour (Ray, can you confirm this?) that even > Professor Stricklin has on occasion interacted with the odd animal or two. > > I am very, very happy to listen to the viewpoints of, and learn from, > people who have 'real life' experience and no paper qualifications. All > I would ask is for I and others with those annoying letters after our > names to be accorded the same respect in return. Could we perhaps start > from the assumption that we are all reasonably informed and have > something to share? > > Best wishes, > - Moira > > ------------------------------------- > > Dr. Moira Harris > > Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol > Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk > > Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick > Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk > From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 9-OCT-2003 11:38:40.07 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" CC: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: apology I apologise to the list and to Ray. It is inappropriate for me to question his personal ethics or decisions, or question his motives. Sincerely, Kayce kcover wrote: > C) If you are looking for unethical situations to battle, there are > many much more horrible... From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 9-OCT-2003 11:49:57.11 To: IN%"Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk" "Moira Harris" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it Dear Moira, I'm not sure if I resent or resemble (as Garfield would say) that sentiment as I have an MS and a PhD, have and do work with animals, and do have commonsense (though my husband may debate this in certain areas). I'm not going to be defensive about it either way. Those of us in the list come from as many different backgrounds as the animals we study and the methods we use. I agree with your sentiment that we are all reasonably informed and have something to contribute. And so we should continue to do so without forming lines. Now, back to the tigers, defecating birds, and other such topics. Janice Janice Siegford, MS, PhD Animal Behavior and Welfare Group Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-432-8212 office 517-432-1396 lab 517-353-1699 fax Moira Harris writes: > Dear Kayce and dear all, > > Does anybody know why a repeated sentiment appearing on this list of late > has been that possession of a Ph.D. is incompatible with a) any practical > experience of working with animals; and b) any commonsense whatever? > It has appeared as a very strong implication in the past, and now again > has been expressed by Kayce in reference to Ray Stricklin's comments. > > I happen to have around my house several bits of paper attesting to the > fact that I have earned several degrees, yet I have also worked with > animals a fair bit and do also have a modicum (a small amount) of > commonsense. I've heard a rumour (Ray, can you confirm this?) that even > Professor Stricklin has on occasion interacted with the odd animal or two. > > I am very, very happy to listen to the viewpoints of, and learn from, > people who have 'real life' experience and no paper qualifications. All I > would ask is for I and others with those annoying letters after our names > to be accorded the same respect in return. Could we perhaps start from > the assumption that we are all reasonably informed and have something to > share? > > Best wishes, > - Moira > > ------------------------------------- > > Dr. Moira Harris > > Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol > Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk > > Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick > Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 9-OCT-2003 12:12:20.02 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bird defecation Dear Moira et al > I do not welcome any discussion on this I was going to say 'Tough poop' but that doesn't sound right. > I have watched birds defecating and they do not aim. As you well know, you should have said 'they did not aim.' It's an interesting question whether birds ever do, and whether they ever could. I am reminded of the sequence in Mel Brooks' spoof of Hitchcock's The Birds in 'High Anxiety', when birds target him mercilessly. Of course that was fiction, but perhaps birds could learn to do this? Perhaps, at least, they could be actively taught to do so. There is one story, at least, of a bird learning to defaecate in a certain context, to achieve a reward. Why then should they not learn to defaecate in a certain place? At this point we must, of course, remember Larsen's cartoon of A bird's eye view of the world, in which all humans have targets painted on their heads. The story I mean is in a book which I sometimes think is the only necessary reference on animal behaviour (No, I don't really, but it is a great read): Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring. It concerns... "a Blumenau's parakeet which belonged to Prof. Karl von Frisch. The scientist only let the bird fly freely when he had just watched it have an evacuation of the bowels, so that, for the next ten minutes, his well-kept furniture was not endangered. The parakeet learned very quickly to associate these facts and, as he was passionately fond of leaving his cage, he would force our a minute dropping with all his might, every time Prof. von Frisch came near the cage. He even squeezed desperately when it was impossible to produce anything, and really threatened to do himself an injury by the violence of his straining. You just had to let the poor thing out every time you saw him!" So can birds be 'house-trained'? I knew a house-trained rabbit once. Its cage stood open and it had the run of the house, but it only defaecated in its cage. Mike Michael C. Appleby (Dr) Vice-President Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA Switchboard 1 202 452 1100 Direct 1 301 258 3111 Fax 1 301 258 3081 Email mappleby@hsus.org -----Original Message----- From: Moira Harris [mailto:Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:17 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: bird defecation Or alternatively (for those who like being categorical and dislike discussion) .... In reply to Ray's student's question about bird shit (substitute 'bird poop' here if the word shit offends you), I have watched birds defecating and they do not aim. I do not welcome any discussion on this because I know I am right. Best wishes, - Moira ------------------------------------- Dr. Moira Harris Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick Moira.Harris@warwick.ac.uk From: IN%"mikwoo@iafrica.com" "Mike Wood" 9-OCT-2003 13:17:25.88 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics Hi all Excuse me for jumping in here, by way of introduction, but this is just too rich even for a habitual lurker like myself.. On 9 Oct 2003 at 12:06, kcover wrote: > Do you think that the people of third world countries, > with burgeoning populations, who are in direct competition with these > animals, and where most of the natural reservoirs of these populations > exist, are going to preserve the animals over themselves? Perhaps the second last sentence should read "Where most of the natural resources of these populations have managed to survive without being hunted to extinction by those who felt they 'just had to pay the bills'"? If I understand your argument correctly, the future of the world's wildlife heritage is best guaranteed by American animal-shows, circuses and private collectors rather than the accumulated and internationally acknowledged conservation expertise in this and other developing countries? We in the venal south/east obviously have much to learn.. > I will tell you who is willing to pay for it. Private individuals and > pet owners. Think about it. Well here it is local taxpayers and foreign ecotourists who would rather spend their money witnessing animals in the behavioural ecosystems to which they have evolved than on acquiring captive wild animals as trophy toys in a backyard cage... > I would say that some practical thinking is definitely in order. > > And perhaps some humility. We will need to work together to improve > things. Couldn't have put it better myself, especially the humility part! Mike Animal Behaviourist MD, Cape Animal Behaviour Centre cc Little Lumley Hout Bay Cape Town South Africa -- Regards Mike Wood Animal Behaviourist MD, Cape Animal Behaviour Centre cc (021) 790 9787 behaviourcentre@ananzi.co.za From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 9-OCT-2003 13:51:58.79 To: IN%"Moira.Harris@bristol.ac.uk" "Moira Harris", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bird defecation -----Original Message----- ... and they do not aim. I do not welcome any discussion on this because I know I am right. Best wishes, - Moira ------------------------------------- Dear Moira et al., Some 30+ years ago at the US Army post at Fort Riley, Kansas, while standing in company formation awaiting inspection by the battalion commander, the company First Sergeant was "hit" by a bird. This bird managed to target his hat, tie, shirt, belt, pants, socks and shoes with the same "shot." Regardless of whether or not it was due to the bird's intentional and good aiming ability, divine intervention, or some perverse system of universal social justice through random acts, we soldiers in that formation would have gladly awarded the bird a medal for his actions. In recent years when I have parked my vehicle under locations of a tree frequented by birds, it has of course been "hit" repeatedly. I have wondered if some of these hits might not be based on "intentional" attempts by the birds to discourage my automobile from occupying this site. And Moira, continuing my right as a Colonialist to speak out, I remember as a boy seeing Meadow Larks defecate soon after taking flight from the ground - sometimes when flushed by a dog. It would seem that dropping extra weight at that time would be beneficial - and maybe dropping it such that it would tend to discourage the dog from continuing the chase might also be beneficial. So there, Moira! And now that I have demonstrated my ability to be "practical," I do hope that you feel sufficiently chastised. Best wishes - and maybe I will see you at the next ISAE meeting? Ray From: IN%"Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov" 9-OCT-2003 14:00:59.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: FW: animal shows - tigers Cindy L. Schulze Research Associate Cincinnati Addiction Research Center 3210 Jefferson Ave Cin., Ohio 45220 (513) 861-3100 x 4783 cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: kcover [SMTP:synalia@synalia.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 3:03 PM > To: Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov > Subject: Re: FW: animal shows - tigers > > Absolutely, Cindy. Please share this with the list. People need to see > these situations and face these realities. People like you and CeAnn > help to pick up the pieces. > > Cindy.Schulze@med.va.gov wrote: > > > Excellent point. And one other issuse that is just as important, what > > happens to the animals in the institutions when they are forced to > close? I > > imagine these governing bodies don't think that far ahead. We recently > were > > contacted by an employee at the Manhattan Zoo which was suffering from > major > > financial constrictions and possibly being forced to close. They were > > looking ahead to place a coyote. The employee told us that all the other > > animals would most likely be adopted out but no one has any interest in > > coyotes, therefore, it is very difficult to place them. Instead of > cutting > > off funding and pulling the carpet out from under these institutions, > these > > regulatory bodies need to assist these institutions to gain compliance. > > Animal welfare is a young science and there is no clear be-all > definition, > > so different places may have different guidelines. What is needed is a > > socially, scientifically agreed upon definition of animal welfare that > is > > species specfic. It is impossible to design enrichment tools w/o a > > comprehensive knowledge of the animal and it's behaviors. (Our coyotes > love > > their "kongs", those rubber toys that are hollow. These can be packed > with > > all kinds of goodies and provide much enjoyment). The wolves at Wolfpark > get > > pumpkins stuffed w/ goodies at Halloween, a tree with candy at xmas and > an > > Easter egg hunt. Enrichment can be simple or complex. It is a > fundamental > > aspect in captive wildlife. A great way to reduce the stress of > captivity. > > > > > > > >>For example, this year, > >>if things go as planned, three exhibits of elephants are being closed > >>down or the zoos will lose their accreditation, and therefore many other > > >>considerations, because those exhibits do not meet AZA's new elephant > >>facility standards. However, when asked if any wellbeing assessment had > > >>been made of the elephants in question, or whether their behavior had > >>been evaluated in comparison to that of other elephants either in the > >>wild or in conforming exhibits, the answer, directly from the AZA > >>liaison was NO. It was explained that the standards were the best guess > > >>of some well-intentioned committee members. There is no real basis for > >>assessment yet. People are working hard to create this. I am not > >>faulting them. But it does not exist yet. > >> > > > > > > > > Cindy L. Schulze > > Research Associate > > Cincinnati Addiction Research Center > > 3210 Jefferson Ave > > Cin., Ohio 45220 > > (513) 861-3100 x 4783 > > cindy.schulze@med.va.gov > > > > > > > From: IN%"mary@fusiondesignuk.com" "mary doran" 9-OCT-2003 14:23:56.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Training bids to defecate-the reality Just wanted to add my two penneth worth! Yes birds CAN be taught to defecate in a particular place..AND on command. I am talking about parrots. I have used this technique successfully to a degree , but the danger is that a parrot will become 'over conditioned' to releiving itself on command. In other words the poor thing will wait until its absolutely bursting before it will 'go' if it is not told to. Now less intelligent species of bird..I am not so sure how trainable they are, but then again I have heard it is supposed to be lucky to have a pidgeon get a direct hit on you Mary Doran He who does not know and 'asks' is a fool for five minutes. He who does not know and does NOT ask....is a fool forever. From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 9-OCT-2003 14:37:09.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: bird defecation Another reply that came to me ... Mike -----Original Message----- From: Trisha Simonet [mailto:PSimonet@PeTalk.org] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:56 PM To: Michael Appleby Subject: Re: bird defecation On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 11:07 AM, Michael Appleby wrote: > > ... > So can birds be 'house-trained'? I knew a house-trained rabbit once. > Its > cage stood open and it had the run of the house, but it only defaecated > in its cage. > > Mike > Hello Mike, my evidence is anecdotal. I have two parrots with whom I share my home. They too will defecate in specific locations within their cages. I have not trained this behavior. It makes cleaning much easier than if they went everywhere. But whether they aim, I cannot say. Trisha From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 9-OCT-2003 14:56:08.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bird defecation Dear Ray, Mike, Moira and other bird observers, That far side reference reminded me of another recent take on birds targeting folks with their droppings. Does anyone remember the car commercial which had a flock of pigeons in formation (animated) trying to target the spotlessly clean car before it entered it's garage? Unfortunately the car beats the pigeons and several of them go careening into the walls and garage door. This would be a very fun (for the advisors at least) master's thesis! Janice Ray Stricklin writes: > > > -----Original Message----- > ... and they do not aim. I do not welcome any discussion on this because I > know I am right. > > Best wishes, > - Moira > > ------------------------------------- > > Dear Moira et al., > > Some 30+ years ago at the US Army post at Fort Riley, Kansas, while standing > in company formation awaiting inspection by the battalion commander, the > company First Sergeant was "hit" by a bird. This bird managed to target his > hat, tie, shirt, belt, pants, socks and shoes with the same "shot." > Regardless of whether or not it was due to the bird's intentional and good > aiming ability, divine intervention, or some perverse system of universal > social justice through random acts, we soldiers in that formation would have > gladly awarded the bird a medal for his actions. > > In recent years when I have parked my vehicle under locations of a tree > frequented by birds, it has of course been "hit" repeatedly. I have > wondered if some of these hits might not be based on "intentional" attempts > by the birds to discourage my automobile from occupying this site. > > And Moira, continuing my right as a Colonialist to speak out, I remember as > a boy seeing Meadow Larks defecate soon after taking flight from the > ground - sometimes when flushed by a dog. It would seem that dropping extra > weight at that time would be beneficial - and maybe dropping it such that it > would tend to discourage the dog from continuing the chase might also be > beneficial. > > So there, Moira! And now that I have demonstrated my ability to be > "practical," I do hope that you feel sufficiently chastised. > > Best wishes - and maybe I will see you at the next ISAE meeting? > > Ray From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 9-OCT-2003 15:52:17.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ethics-Doing the Right Thing "It is wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to other beings." Every reasonable person agrees with the above stated ethical principle. I most firmly believe that no member of this discussion group would endorse the statement that, "It is permissible to cause other beings unnecessary pain and suffering." It is not the ethical principle per se that results in disagreement. The disagreement arises in relation to the terms "unnecessary" and "other beings." (And unfortunately, there is still quite frequent disagreement over defining animal pain and suffering.) Defining "unnecessary" relative to animals is often a considerable challenge - especially when the animals are the source of food, draft power, etc. for humans. And even defining "other beings" is not a simple task - as in the case of placing an exact measure as to when a developing human fetus reaches this criterion. Additionally, the term "unnecessary" is one that must have constant scrutiny, I would argue. Simply continuing practices on the basis of tradition does not mean that it is "necessary" to continue this as a contemporary activity if it causes unnecessary pain and suffering to other beings. Therefore, I contend that the use of wild animals for human entertainment and gratification is not necessary in today's world - and I believe such practices do cause damage (if not pain and suffering) to the animals as individuals and as species, as has been mentioned by others on this list. And for the benefit of those persons who have just joined this group in recent times (the last couple of years) and have not seen the achieves of previous posts, I absolutely believe that what I have stated above applies to all use of animals - food production, companion animals, or otherwise. Regards, W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 9-OCT-2003 17:11:30.22 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: aimed defecation A few years ago, a neighbor brought us 5 baby birds. They turned out to be nuthatches. He had dropped a dead snag, we chewed him out over that but took the hatchlings. Featherless, eyes closed and attentive to noise, begging for food. We successfully raised all 5 to the surprised delight of a wildlife biologist with chopped worms, scrambled egg and raw hamburger. And from the first meal, after feeding they left the nesting area, straw in a corner of a box, to defecate. I've heard that many nesting species infant birds do the same. They have the sense not to eliminate where they sleep. Now my husband would like to pass on a joke he thinks pertinent. An attractive blonde woman takes her seat on an airliner. She takes out a book to read but the man next to her starts to engage her in conversation. He says that airlines encourage passengers to chat so that the time seems to fly by. She considers her answer and asks him what he'd like to discuss. He says "how about nuclear energy?" She responds. "alright, I'll discuss this if you can answer me this question. Horses, cattle and deer all eat about the same diet, grass, leaves and twigs. How is it that horses produce a dry ball shaped manure, cows a wet sloppy patty and deer small dry pellets?" He replies, "wow, I don't have any idea!" She comes back with "if you don't know sh**, what makes you qualified to talk about nuclear energy?" She then returned to her book and was left in peace for the flight. regards Julie Alexander From: IN%"deethom@erols.com" "Dee Thompson" 9-OCT-2003 17:50:11.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bird defecation..depends what you mean by "aim". I have at least a dozen "potty trained" parrots here right now and have easily trained a few dozen more. They will go when asked, on a perch, when held out the car door etc...very handy for traveling birds...or they give a warning nip on my ear when they are sitting on my shoulder while I type on the computer and I'll just hold them over the wastebasket and give the command. Some flighted ones simply leave for their cage tops and return when done. With thousands of bird species to assess for this ability, perhaps the question should be rephrased... you wouldn't classify all mammals together, after all! I have worked with cranes that would choose a certain area of their pen. No training, just totally undomesticated, untame birds in outside pens. I've clicker trained a chicken, although not to poop on command, considering the size, time between defecations and general firmness of their defecation, I would think it possible..within limits. Especially since they do have good control and are food motivated. ( A setting hen will sit for 12 hours and not relieve herself til she is away from her nest) Birds are not going to hold indefinitely although there are legends to the contrary! Basic physiology will take over, just as it does with the best trained house dog. The first parrot I trained to do this, (back in the 80's without any advice on the subject to tell me it couldn't be done) was always asked to "go poop" before he was picked up. Even if unable to actually defecate, he would make a big display of straining, abdominal dipping and the ending tail wag, as if he were going. This was a wild caught timneh I tamed as a full adult and quite a biter, definitely not a hand raised bird. My macaws, greys, senegal, and amazons are all "potty trained'. Conures have a very fast manner and quicker everything...It's like a puppy vs a mature dog with better physical control for longer periods...I gota be quick with them, they go fast and often. The senegal however is small, and totally trained, so it is not just body size. Wild bird nestlings, even when their eyes are still closed will instinctively back out over the edge to go outside the nest. I'd call that "aiming"! This may be anecdotal, but I have worked with hundreds of birds over the years. Dee Parrot Rescue Maryland From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 9-OCT-2003 17:59:13.25 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "dog" CC: Subj: political note -- AKC alert and PETA v. Sigfried and Roy Hello. Whilst I've had to step away from my computer for a developing project, this today I can't resist: AKC legislative alert wherein the Supreme Court ruled against the Doris Day Animal League; but from the other side, a note at the MSNBC site that PETA, et. al. are already campaigning for demonstration at The Mirage in Las Vegas while Roy Horn lies still in critical condition, and even after Siegfried Fischbacher was able speak publicly with a voice of experience that knows far more about these creatures than so many of the quick-to-judge pundits. Yes, I have already written to The Mirage at the address below with a note of support against this type of exploitation of tragedy and with prayer for Roy Horn. Years ago I saw one of their performances and then some years later, saw the animals when they first moved to The Mirage. There's no illusion about that work and those relationships. Yours for _real_ rights, -margory cohen San Francisco, CA > A new Legislative Alert has been posted on the AKC's Web site. To view this alert, please click on the following link: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=1868 > Supreme Court Denies DDAL Appeal [Thursday, October 09, 2003] AKC has learned that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied the Doris Day Animal League's (DDAL) petition to appeal a case against the USDA that would have made all residential breeders of dogs and cats subject to federal licensing and inspection. The decision, which upholds an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, supports the current exemption of residential breeders who sell dogs only at retail from regulation under the Animal Welfare Act. *********** and ************* www.msnbc.com website, word of this: http://www.pamelaanderson.com/news/news.asp?item=1600 On the Pamela Anderson website: Upon learning that Siegfried & Roys 200-plus employees have been advised to find other jobs, PETA and I are urging the show to use some of the millions of dollars it has made from exotic animals to build a state-of-the-art sanctuary and immediately retire all the animals in the Mirage compound. Please write to Roy Horn and Siegfried Fishbacher expressing your hope that Roy will make a full recovery but also urging the duo to retire their animals and build a sanctuary for them: Siegfried & Roy c/o MGM Mirage 3600 Las Vegas Blvd. South Las Vegas, NV 89109 Phone: 702-693-7120 Fax: 702-693-8626 On Saturday, October 11 at noon, PETA members will gather outside the Mirage for a "Retire the Tigers" rally - please join them if you can. From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 9-OCT-2003 18:15:45.22 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: Inbreeding revisited At 08:35 AM Thursday 10/9/2003, you wrote: >Some of the misinformation included in the discussion of ethics has been >almost as egregious as that of other recent topics, especially that about >inbreeding. (Stine, I congratulate you on your considerable restraint and >diplomacy.) Diplomacy seems to be sorely lacking. Rather than launching missiles such as the one quoted above, I would very much appreciate it if Ray, Stine, and/or others would educate us regarding the "egregious" comments that were made here as part of recent discussions on inbreeding. I'm here to learn, but it's becoming increasingly difficult when discussion consists of condescending remarks such as those above, and yet little to nothing is provided to educate. Thanks. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 9-OCT-2003 19:39:33.04 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: viewpoints, attitudes and compromise or lack of it At 10:49 AM Thursday 10/9/2003, Janice wrote: >Those of us in the list come from as many different backgrounds as the >animals we study and the methods we use. I agree with your sentiment that >we are all reasonably informed and have something to contribute. And so we >should continue to do so without forming lines. As a few examples of crossing "lines", I thought I'd share this. My husband and his German Shepherd Dog are high level national competitors in the Schutzhund dog sport. Out of a population of perhaps 5000-10,000 such dogs in America, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of dogs who were raised and trained by their owner/handler who are as successful in this demanding performance venue. When my husband is asked for dog training book recommendations, he provides a list. But he stresses that, for him, the best dog training books are Steven R Lindsay's "Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training"... "Volume 1: Adaptation and Learning" and "Volume 2: Etiology and Assessment of Behavior Problems". These are quite different than typical dog training books. They are packed full of discussion about academic work and published research studies, and their relevance to practical dog training and behavior. I'm glad to see that Mr. Lindsay is on this list. :-) My husband's dog training mentor is Ivan Balabanov. Ivan is probably the most accomplished schutzhund trainer and coach in America today. Ivan was quoted in an interview last year: "You don't learn dog training by reading a dog training book or watching a dog training video. You learn different techniques but you don't understand why they work or don't work, or why you're using them. Really, the best thing is to read more serious textbooks and understand as much as possible about animal learning and behavior. That would be the first thing if you want to do any kind of dog training or animal training." Of Steven R Lindsay's two books mentioned above: "Recommended by Ivan Balabanov as a must-have for the serious student of dog behavior and training." I'm not trying to make a plug for Mr Lindsay's books, but am rather trying to make a point. Those who excel absorb information from a wide variety of sources, as Janice said, "without forming lines". Laura Sanborn From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 9-OCT-2003 19:42:33.20 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Reality versus Ethics ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Wood" To: Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: Re: Reality versus Ethics > Perhaps the second last sentence should read "Where most of the > natural resources of these populations have managed to survive > without being hunted to extinction by those who felt they 'just had to > pay the bills'"? > > If I understand your argument correctly, the future of the world's > wildlife heritage is best guaranteed by American animal-shows, > circuses and private collectors rather than the accumulated and > internationally acknowledged conservation expertise in this and other > developing countries? We in the venal south/east obviously have > much to learn.. > Mike and all, I live in the far north east of the US, a few miles south of Canada in a fairly remote, low human populated area. And there is increasing pressure between humans and cougar. The human population is currently lower than it was a century ago but predation by cougar against livestock and even small dogs has increased suddenly in the past decade. In part, local ranchers believe that a ban on hunting cougar with dogs led to a very bad side effect. The cougars are now less frightened of both humans and dogs, leading to a marked increase on attacks on horses and cattle. Also, there may be some selection going on as the cougar that were less avoidant of humans are no longer being hunted and reproducing more successfully. The recent drought has changed deer behavior, drawing them down to lower altitude ranges and closer to human/livestock populations. The ban on hunting with dogs will probably be lifted but now some permits are being issued to kill the cougar that are coming so close to homes that they will kill pet dogs within 100 feet of the house. In other areas, recent zoning changes have resulted in an increase of homes on areas ranging from a few acres to 20 acres or more. This is putting more humans into areas that are cougar territory. Neighbors have found cougar in their barns and in a nearby town, a cougar was sighted on main street early one morning. Incidents like these make many local residents frightened enough to want to shoot on sight. While they often can appreciate having cougars still alive in the wild, they don't want them in their backyard. I fear that in the not too distant future, cougar will be gone from this area and to see some, I would need to go to a zoo, game park, or animal act. I would prefer this to having them extinct. Below are some links to articles on how humans world wide are impacting animal species. This is not a developed Vs developing country problem. It is something to remind us that all cultures and countries are engaged in behaviors that are conflicting with other species. This is not new, ice age hunters may have wiped out species such as mammoth by seeking out pregnant females as the unborn infants were choice food. In the so called 'modern' countries, there has been within a few generations, a shift from rural to urban life. I believe this has caused many people to lose awareness and any sense of understanding of animals, plants and biosystems in general. Children often think milk and eggs come from plastic cartons and the reality if they ever find out, upsets them. Be it having a pet hamster, goldfish, a trip to the petting zoo or seeing tigers in a magic act, such experiences do teach urbanized humans that animals are not stuffed toys, do not come with software, have different needs and their diverse forms and behaviors are marvelous. Gaining such awareness does lead to a hunger to understand and from there to respecting the need to conserve and cohabitate with. And also to keep us humans humble. When I see animals in an act, I do not think how amusing it is to see the animal beg for food. I think how wonderful the partnership is and it give me hope that humans might make peace with each other. Julie Alexander http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3171380.stm lion populations decrease by 90% in 20 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3173942.stm Sonar 'may cause whale deaths' http://www.delphinschutz.org/wankelpreis.htm noise pollutions causes deafness in sperm whales. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031009/ap_on_re_us/bear_attack_5 Alaska Bear Mauling Recorded on Tape, An experienced bear observer makes a fatal error From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 9-OCT-2003 20:04:14.13 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: another deliberate bird poop story Forwarded with permission, From: "Francoise Joiris" Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 5:31 am Subject: lying ADVERTISEMENT I would be inclined to believe that dogs are capable of lying. It seems silly to me, on the surface of it, that we are perfectly willing to see similarities between their and our other organs (heart, lungs, etc.) as these are easily proven, but don't expand that to entertain the possibility that they have similar emotional capabilities. There is no point in listing examples, I think it's one of those things one either believes or doesn't. There seem to be a number of people who are willing to accept that dogs share our 'good' emotions and behaviors, but cannot see the flip side. To answer Mark, believing that a dog is lying or manipulating does not need to change the actions taken to re-train the behavior. We know from dealing with people, who are definitely capable of deception, that anger and punishment rarely have any sort of desired effect, so whether an animal acts out of instinct, spite, or any other motivation does not need to be relevant to the solution. Stamp enjoys learning new behaviors. Simple statement, but it implies that I can understand and interpret his emotional state, and that I believe he understands that he is learning. Bartok enjoys angering people. That also implies that I can interpret an emotional state and that I believe he understands he is angering people. I have found that many, if not most trainers are completely comfortable with the first statement, but not the second. It's an emotional reaction on our part, not a difference in the fundamental logic of the two statements. I can add, for those who care, that the reason I think Bartok enjoys angering people is that he will usually laugh and tell himself what a good boy he is when he's just done something particularly frustrating like pooping on a book I'm in the middle of reading (Bartok is a parrot, for those who don't know about him). Living with an animal trainer, he is well aware of praise and uses it with 100% accuracy when speaking to the other animals. Any time a dog or cat does what he or someone else asks it to do correctly he will say 'good boy'. He praises himself the same way, cheering himself on when he learns a new trick etc. So telling himself good boy when he's pissed me off is a pretty good indication that he knows what he's talking about. sassie From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 9-OCT-2003 20:28:40.20 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: S and R,more details Gary Waddell, Anchor Steve Wynn Gives Exclusive Interview Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version (Oct. 8) -- Casino mogul Steve Wynn is one of the people who know Siegfried and Roy best. He is one of the duos closest of friends and hired the illusionists when he built The Mirage in 1990. He even built a special theater just for their show. Wynn gave an exclusive interview to Eyewitness News Anchor, Gary Waddell on Wednesday. He says that, "What happened Friday night was a fluke, something that never should have occurred. And something that no one could have foreseen." He continued to say, "That even as Roy was being carried off stage by the tiger, he was saying he didn't want anything to happen to the cat." Even though Wynn was in Idaho on Friday night when the incident happened on stage, he was one of the first people called. He flew home Saturday morning and went staright to the hospital to visit Roy. He then began the task of trying to figure out how something like this could happen. Wynn said for sure that Montecore did not attack Roy Horn. He said that reports that Roy was attacked are false. A string of unfortunate events led to the tiger carrying Roy of stage as if he were a cub. "Montecore would never attack Roy. In a way, the tiger was trying to protect him." Wynn spoke to many people who were on the scene and pieced together the following new information: "As Roy was leading Montecore out to stage front on a leash, the cat became fascinated and distracted by woman with a big hairdo in the front row. Instead of Montecore going down facing forward with Roy, he did a 90-degree turn and faced sideways towards the woman with the big hairdo. For whatever reason, Montecore was fascinated and distracted by the guest sitting ringside." "Montecore got down on all fours and puts his 26-inch head four inches away from of the woman. She thinks this is adorable and part of the show and reaches out to try and rub him under his chin. Roy is talking and sees this move. That's way wrong all the way around. As usual the heroic fellow that he is, Roy jumps between the woman and the tiger." At that point, Roy tried to get the tiger's attention by pulling back on the leash and saying, "No, no, no, no. Come on, get up". Montecore, as if to say, "No, I'm not ready yet" does not respond. Roy continued to command him to get up. "The tiger gently reached up and grabbed Roy's right arm with his jaws between Roy's elbow and wrist in a very gentle way." Roy did not receive so much as a scratch on his arm, nor was his costume torn. "That's how gentle Montecore's grip was on Roy." This behavior is similar to how a housecat or a dog might react -- as a gentle warning -- without hurting the person it loves. "Roy loudly commanded the cat to release its grip by saying, "No, no, no, no. Release, release," several times. He had to whack him with the rubber microphone several times to try and get the tiger to release the grip. This didn't hurt the tiger, but it did make a loud noise." "Roy continued to pull on Montecore's leash not realizing that the cat had put its big paw behind one of his legs. Roy falls backwards on stage over the paw of Montecore lying flat on his back. Four stagehands rush out and jump on the cat. Montecore gets confused; he's supposed to be with Roy walking off stage. What's going on?" "Roy is lying down in front of him with his feet towards the audience, his head towards the curtain. Montecore gets up and as cool as a cucumber, leans over and picks up Roy like a cub on the right side of his neck. Not a bite, not an attack. He picks him up." "There was no damage to Roy's neck, but there were two puncture wounds and one of those teeth went through Roy's vertebral artery. Severed it, the one behind his neck that's what caused the stroke and massive bleeding putting him in a near death situation." "Montecore picked up Roy with all the excitement and walks with perfect blocking according to the act. Does his exit at the right speed, right off stage left and goes into his cage, which is where he goes to get transported home." "He goes into the cage and tries to bring Roy in with him. Stagehands backstage used a technique that made Montecore release Roy. They closed the door on Montecore and Roy lay on the floor bleeding." Roy was then rushed to UMC. Wynn underscores that Montecore was acting to protect Roy. He explained that during a lethal attack, a predator's instinct is to violently grab its prey by the neck, vigorously shakes its head snapping the neck of its prey. This is not what happened. While Gary Waddell was with Steve Wynn today, he got a call from Bernie Yuman, Siegfried and Roy's manager. Yuman said that they had just brought Roy's dog to visit him in the hospital and that Roy had responded by petting the dog. That's good news. And probably pretty good therapy for a man whose life's work has been loving and caring for animals. Wynn also says he's been told that they are starting to ween Roy off the life support systems in order to let his body function on its own. If that's successful, that will be a very big step in Roy's recovery. From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 10-OCT-2003 02:29:32.40 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: horses and ulcers Andy and other equine specialists, do dressage (and other sports) horses get ulcers because their life with competitions, transports etc is stressful or because they are fed a grain-based diet with very littler roughage? If the former, then high-level competition and welfare really seem incompatible, if the latter a bit of openmindedness and flexibility of the trainer and rider to accept a change of diet will probably help a lot. Anna From: IN%"d.lee@mcri.ac.uk" "Diane Lee" 10-OCT-2003 04:51:15.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: horses and ulcers Hi Anna et al, There is a great deal of research I believe going on in this field at the moment. One notable exception to the management rule is Lucinda MacAlpine, who competes up to Grand Prix level with horses kept in a 'natural' environment (out 24/7/365 unrugged, barefoot) and fed on a roughage based diet. She is based at the Brackenhill Stud and has her own website if you wish to find out more. Diane on 10.10.2003 9:29, Anna Olsson at olsson@ibmc.up.pt wrote: Andy and other equine specialists, do dressage (and other sports) horses get ulcers because their life with competitions, transports etc is stressful or because they are fed a grain-based diet with very littler roughage? If the former, then high-level competition and welfare really seem incompatible, if the latter a bit of openmindedness and flexibility of the trainer and rider to accept a change of diet will probably help a lot. Anna From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 10-OCT-2003 07:48:37.05 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Ethics and inbreeding Below is a message that I first attempted to post to this group on Oct 7, 03. Just keeping my computer functioning now takes more time than I can spare, and I am struggling to find adequate time to teach the students who are paying tuition to attend my classes. Therefore, correcting mistakes made on e-discussion groups is not a justifiable investment for me and probably this is the same for most other faculty members. In fact I have witnessed the continuing trend for fewer and fewer of the mis-statements on this discussion group to be addressed by established persons in the applied ethology profession. This bothers me from the viewpoint that in too many cases the presentation of misinformation is being made to the young students of ethology - without rebuttal. In the past, I have recommended that my undergraduate students subscribe to Applied-Ethology. This year I have not done so and likely will not for I believe the misinformation these students would receive overweighs the benefits. Additionally, I believe some of the current discussion gives students the impression that the professionals in Applied Ethology endorse the use of training of wild animals for entertainment purposes - and I do not believe this to be true for the majority of the membership of ISAE. (In fact, it can be argued that training itself has little to do with Ethology.) Therefore, recently I have tried to take a bit of time and point out that 1) the discussion about inbreeding contained a number of errors and 2) there are some serious ethical issues associated with the use of wild animals for human entertainment. Good luck to those serious students who will now pursue for themselves the details and additional information related to these and other topics rooted in Ethology. I intend to be one of these "students." W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:04 AM To: G. F. Barbato; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Ethics and inbreeding ------------------- some of the recent comments on inbreeding clearly illustrate the need for quantitative genetics in the curriculum. : ) G. F. Barbato ------------------ I very much agree with the above - but one could simply say that there is a real need for true Ethology in the curriculum - because Ethology (the study of behavior as an adaptive trait) has quantitative genetics as its very foundation. One of the major difficulties with the recent comments on inbreeding is the number of partial and half "truths" included in the comments. As a consequence, it would take several text book chapters to sort out all the details. A few simple points follow: 1) "Rapid evolutionary progress" (or genetic change in artificial selection) is attained in a population as a consequence of mild inbreeding followed by rapid outbreeding. 2) Historically, inbreeding in humans has been routinely practiced and endorsed - among the ruling elite. 3) Inbreeding, per se, does not "cause" genetic defects; inbreeding increases homozygosity, which results in a greater frequency of expression of traits that are based on homozygous recessive genes. 4) The proper use of inbreeding in food producing animals can, and has, benefited the welfare of animals (for example, through the identification and purging of a deleterious recessive gene from a population). 5) Because of the hybrid vigor (heterosis) exhibited by outcrossed individuals, a strong welfare-based argument can be made against the endorsement of "purebred" animals as pets. W.R. Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 10-OCT-2003 10:10:14.12 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: ISCP/SEPC joint 2004 meeting FYI - but some problems with link at this time. Ray -----Original Message----- From: ISCP-L - International Society for Comparative Psychology [mailto:ISCP-L@listserv.tcu.edu]On Behalf Of Papini, Mauricio Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:53 AM To: ISCP-L@listserv.tcu.edu Subject: ISCP/SEPC joint 2004 meeting * * * APOLOGIES FOR CROSSPOSTING * * * CALL FOR PAPERS 12th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Comparative Psychology (ISCP) 16th Congress of the Spanish Society for Comparative Psychology (SECP) Joint International Meeting. September 15-18, 2004. Oviedo, Spain. The ISCP and SEPC invite you to participate in their joint 2004 meeting. The following is a nonexhaustive list of relevant research areas: * Applied comparative psychology * Associative learning in animals * Behavior genetics * Brain evolution and behavior * Conditioning and human learning * Developmental psychobiology * Field studies of animal behavior * History of comparative psychology * Animal memory and cognition * Motivation, emotion, and aversive learning * Neurobiology of learning and behavior * Theory and models of animal behavior The meeting will include oral presentations (20-min, including Q&A time), posters, and symposia on special topics. Submit your abstract (250 words maximum, specify oral or poster) and symposium proposals in English (and also in Spanish, if possible) to either the ISCP Program Chair or to the SEPC Program Chair. Submission forms and further information may be found at: http://www.uniovi.es/SECP Mauricio R. Papini ISCP Program Chair Department of Psychology Texas Christian University Box 298920 Fort Worth, TX 76129 U.S.A. m.papini@tcu.edu Matías López SEPC Program Chair Departamento de Psicología Universidad de Oviedo Plaza Feijoo, s/n 33003 Oviedo Spain mlopez@correo.uniovi.es Submission deadline: April 30, 2004 Further information and submission form at: www.uniovi.es/SECP From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 10-OCT-2003 10:13:58.83 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: S and R,more details =====Julie, thank you for these details. I'll take them at face value, although it's hard to know sometimes just when the sensational press clips stop and the real facts are finally presented. Jo Gary Waddell, Anchor Steve Wynn Gives Exclusive Interview Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version (Oct. 8) -- Casino mogul Steve Wynn is one of the people who know Siegfried and Roy best. He is one of the duos closest of friends and hired the illusionists when he built The Mirage in 1990. He even built a special theater just for their show. Wynn gave an exclusive interview to Eyewitness News Anchor, Gary Waddell on Wednesday. He says that, "What happened Friday night was a fluke, something that never should have occurred. And something that no one could have foreseen." He continued to say, "That even as Roy was being carried off stage by the tiger, he was saying he didn't want anything to happen to the cat." Even though Wynn was in Idaho on Friday night when the incident happened on stage, he was one of the first people called. He flew home Saturday morning and went staright to the hospital to visit Roy. He then began the task of trying to figure out how something like this could happen. Wynn said for sure that Montecore did not attack Roy Horn. He said that reports that Roy was attacked are false. A string of unfortunate events led to the tiger carrying Roy of stage as if he were a cub. "Montecore would never attack Roy. In a way, the tiger was trying to protect him." Wynn spoke to many people who were on the scene and pieced together the following new information: "As Roy was leading Montecore out to stage front on a leash, the cat became fascinated and distracted by woman with a big hairdo in the front row. Instead of Montecore going down facing forward with Roy, he did a 90-degree turn and faced sideways towards the woman with the big hairdo. For whatever reason, Montecore was fascinated and distracted by the guest sitting ringside." "Montecore got down on all fours and puts his 26-inch head four inches away from of the woman. She thinks this is adorable and part of the show and reaches out to try and rub him under his chin. Roy is talking and sees this move. That's way wrong all the way around. As usual the heroic fellow that he is, Roy jumps between the woman and the tiger." At that point, Roy tried to get the tiger's attention by pulling back on the leash and saying, "No, no, no, no. Come on, get up". Montecore, as if to say, "No, I'm not ready yet" does not respond. Roy continued to command him to get up. "The tiger gently reached up and grabbed Roy's right arm with his jaws between Roy's elbow and wrist in a very gentle way." Roy did not receive so much as a scratch on his arm, nor was his costume torn. "That's how gentle Montecore's grip was on Roy." This behavior is similar to how a housecat or a dog might react -- as a gentle warning -- without hurting the person it loves. "Roy loudly commanded the cat to release its grip by saying, "No, no, no, no. Release, release," several times. He had to whack him with the rubber microphone several times to try and get the tiger to release the grip. This didn't hurt the tiger, but it did make a loud noise." "Roy continued to pull on Montecore's leash not realizing that the cat had put its big paw behind one of his legs. Roy falls backwards on stage over the paw of Montecore lying flat on his back. Four stagehands rush out and jump on the cat. Montecore gets confused; he's supposed to be with Roy walking off stage. What's going on?" "Roy is lying down in front of him with his feet towards the audience, his head towards the curtain. Montecore gets up and as cool as a cucumber, leans over and picks up Roy like a cub on the right side of his neck. Not a bite, not an attack. He picks him up." "There was no damage to Roy's neck, but there were two puncture wounds and one of those teeth went through Roy's vertebral artery. Severed it, the one behind his neck that's what caused the stroke and massive bleeding putting him in a near death situation." "Montecore picked up Roy with all the excitement and walks with perfect blocking according to the act. Does his exit at the right speed, right off stage left and goes into his cage, which is where he goes to get transported home." "He goes into the cage and tries to bring Roy in with him. Stagehands backstage used a technique that made Montecore release Roy. They closed the door on Montecore and Roy lay on the floor bleeding." Roy was then rushed to UMC. Wynn underscores that Montecore was acting to protect Roy. He explained that during a lethal attack, a predator's instinct is to violently grab its prey by the neck, vigorously shakes its head snapping the neck of its prey. This is not what happened. While Gary Waddell was with Steve Wynn today, he got a call from Bernie Yuman, Siegfried and Roy's manager. Yuman said that they had just brought Roy's dog to visit him in the hospital and that Roy had responded by petting the dog. That's good news. And probably pretty good therapy for a man whose life's work has been loving and caring for animals. Wynn also says he's been told that they are starting to ween Roy off the life support systems in order to let his body function on its own. If that's successful, that will be a very big step in Roy's recovery. _________________________________________________________________ Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 10-OCT-2003 10:29:38.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Predator behavior Would one of the Ethologist on the list interested in predator behavior please contact me personally. I think that I have it worked out why the tiger attacked Roy. ( from an ethological perpective) Erich is still in the hospital, so I don't want to bother him by asking if I am correct. CeAnn ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 10-OCT-2003 10:56:12.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers Barney wrote: If animal shows offer an education value, what is the 'take-home message' provided for the public at the time ?....other than 'aren't these animals great, look how we have trained them to sit on tables when commanded and jump through flaming hoops' -how is the average member of an animal show audience then likely to relate this to the plight of these animals being persecuted in the wild, hunted by man for trophies or as pests and for bodily parts use in alternative medicines? The message I think they are likely to take home is that for as long as humans are in charge, animals are simply there for human use in whatever form we like and that simply 'entertaining' humans is a perfectly acceptable use with little further consideration on their part for either individual animal wellbeing or the conservation of the species. =====I must agree that most spectators will not consider anything past their own entertainment at the moment. I saw a brilliant psychologist in the 1980's for 3 years when I was having to greatly modify my own behavior (severe social anxiety), but I had one unwelcome insight into his own personality/behavior----I had said how wrong I thought it was for animals to be trained for human entertainment, and he answered yes, but it's so entertaining. I'm not basing my first sentence on that one incident, but on my observations of people at zoos and aquariums. I do not believe that the general public will learn to care unless directly educated during animal shows. In fact, I am wondering why the shows must only involve tricks and props. I am no doubt showing my ignorance here again, so I'll ask first what shows or handlers use an animal's natural behavior in a "natural" setting without props to entertain an audience; e.g., stalking, parental behavior, etc. Though these behaviors can now be seen in many large zoos, it is usually without accompanying education. As for the different views presented here about ethics, research protocols, educational value, etc., I firmly believe all are valuable and I try hard to absorb them all. Diversity of viewpoints is as healthy and synergistic as is the diversity of animal life on this planet, and I feel lucky to have access to them here. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 10-OCT-2003 11:34:50.14 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bird behavior Mike wrote: As you well know, you should have said 'they did not aim.' It's an interesting question whether birds ever do, and whether they ever could. I am reminded of the sequence in Mel Brooks' spoof of Hitchcock's The Birds in 'High Anxiety', when birds target him mercilessly. Of course that was fiction, but perhaps birds could learn to do this? Perhaps, at least, they could be actively taught to do so. There is one story, at least, of a bird learning to defaecate in a certain context, to achieve a reward. Why then should they not learn to defaecate in a certain place? Michael C. Appleby (Dr) =====as a longtime birdwatcher, I have noticed a tendency in many bird individuals to perhaps "avoid" observation by humans (my experience is with neotropical warblers breeding on the East Coast of US). This so-called avoidance seems to take 3 forms: 1) branch perching in a way that leaves are between it and the observer, 2) perching against the sun so that it is backlit (and person is blinded), and 3) perching, in stages, to the very top of a tree (thus my userid, warblerneck). Be assured I'm not claiming that birds do this for humans, but if true, it's likely a behavior developed to escape predator, conspecific detection. My theory seems plausible, esp. when considering the accepted theory that many bird songs and calls are at such frequency and modulation to avoid revealing location. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 10-OCT-2003 11:50:19.72 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers As former assistant director of conservation education at the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) I thought I'd respond to this. I won't share my views on "animal shows", in which zoos might arguably be included, as I'm terribly conflicted on this topic. A major part of the "take home message" or rationale for maintaining animals in zoos and aquaria today is based on the idea that we only conserve those resources, such as animals, that we care about. One of the earliest, most vivid and (usually) pleasurable experiences many people have is that of visiting zoos. Presumably (and I believe there a few studies suggesting this to be true) many people therefore develop a level of concern for animals, and theoretically for those they see in zoos. To that end, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums have education departments geared towards "teaching" about the animals and about conservation. These folks are responsible for the signage regarding animals on display (which not enough people read). They also offer programs that use animals as ambassadors to educate people about why exotic animals shouldn't be kept as pets (many of these animal ambassadors are former exotic pets of people who couldn't safely contain them, abandoned them or had them confiscated). Some education departments do animal shows as "edutainment", many with raptors that cannot be released into the wild for one reason or another, often hurt or debilitated as a result of human ignorance or plain stupidity. Other programs are done not just at Zoos, but in countries where endangered species are problematic from a scientific, cultural and economic standpoint. The bushmeat crisis, which has led to the bushmeat education project is a good example of this. Experts from around the world, including Jane Goodall advise and participate in this project. These are just a couple examples of the education efforts done at many facilities lambasted for exploiting animals for "stupid, human entertainment". I have seen several instances in which this is probably an accurate statement and more where it is not. At accredited zoos, the general plan is to do direct as well as indirect education, and many efforts are aimed at doing this in a way that is "fun" for the average attendee, since boring people to tears is usually not a good educational strategy. The question then becomes, is any harm done to the animals used for these purposes outweighed by the potential benefits to society? This is where we struggle, particularly with welfare issues of wild animals in captivity. And by the way, this is when those theoretical ethics come into play, hopefully nudging the folks "in the field" with bills to pay into thinking more about the long-term and broader implications of their decisions regarding animals. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: Jo Angleberger [mailto:warblerneck@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:56 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: animal shows - tigers Barney wrote: If animal shows offer an education value, what is the 'take-home message' provided for the public at the time ?....other than 'aren't these animals great, look how we have trained them to sit on tables when commanded and jump through flaming hoops' -how is the average member of an animal show audience then likely to relate this to the plight of these animals being persecuted in the wild, hunted by man for trophies or as pests and for bodily parts use in alternative medicines? The message I think they are likely to take home is that for as long as humans are in charge, animals are simply there for human use in whatever form we like and that simply 'entertaining' humans is a perfectly acceptable use with little further consideration on their part for either individual animal wellbeing or the conservation of the species. =====I must agree that most spectators will not consider anything past their own entertainment at the moment. I saw a brilliant psychologist in the 1980's for 3 years when I was having to greatly modify my own behavior (severe social anxiety), but I had one unwelcome insight into his own personality/behavior----I had said how wrong I thought it was for animals to be trained for human entertainment, and he answered yes, but it's so entertaining. I'm not basing my first sentence on that one incident, but on my observations of people at zoos and aquariums. I do not believe that the general public will learn to care unless directly educated during animal shows. In fact, I am wondering why the shows must only involve tricks and props. I am no doubt showing my ignorance here again, so I'll ask first what shows or handlers use an animal's natural behavior in a "natural" setting without props to entertain an audience; e.g., stalking, parental behavior, etc. Though these behaviors can now be seen in many large zoos, it is usually without accompanying education. As for the different views presented here about ethics, research protocols, educational value, etc., I firmly believe all are valuable and I try hard to absorb them all. Diversity of viewpoints is as healthy and synergistic as is the diversity of animal life on this planet, and I feel lucky to have access to them here. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 10-OCT-2003 12:07:07.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows/zoos ======Thank you for this note. Perhaps I'm approaching this from a too-personal perspective. I was, and remain, the original Why? child. My need to know things, to analyze, and my strivings to be thorough have annoyed many people. So I've been disappointed in the past with the brief notes on zoo and aquarium signs. To meet my need, an expert would have to be available for each animal to teach and to answer questions. Though pamphlets are made available, it seems a hit-or-miss educational method that depends on osmosis. BTW, do you know how many zoos are AZA accredited and also how many zoos exist without accreditation? Jo As former assistant director of conservation education at the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) I thought I'd respond to this. I won't share my views on "animal shows", in which zoos might arguably be included, as I'm terribly conflicted on this topic. A major part of the "take home message" or rationale for maintaining animals in zoos and aquaria today is based on the idea that we only conserve those resources, such as animals, that we care about. One of the earliest, most vivid and (usually) pleasurable experiences many people have is that of visiting zoos. Presumably (and I believe there a few studies suggesting this to be true) many people therefore develop a level of concern for animals, and theoretically for those they see in zoos. To that end, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums have education departments geared towards "teaching" about the animals and about conservation. These folks are responsible for the signage regarding animals on display (which not enough people read). They also offer programs that use animals as ambassadors to educate people about why exotic animals shouldn't be kept as pets (many of these animal ambassadors are former exotic pets of people who couldn't safely contain them, abandoned them or had them confiscated). Some education departments do animal shows as "edutainment", many with raptors that cannot be released into the wild for one reason or another, often hurt or debilitated as a result of human ignorance or plain stupidity. Other programs are done not just at Zoos, but in countries where endangered species are problematic from a scientific, cultural and economic standpoint. The bushmeat crisis, which has led to the bushmeat education project is a good example of this. Experts from around the world, including Jane Goodall advise and participate in this project. These are just a couple examples of the education efforts done at many facilities lambasted for exploiting animals for "stupid, human entertainment". I have seen several instances in which this is probably an accurate statement and more where it is not. At accredited zoos, the general plan is to do direct as well as indirect education, and many efforts are aimed at doing this in a way that is "fun" for the average attendee, since boring people to tears is usually not a good educational strategy. The question then becomes, is any harm done to the animals used for these purposes outweighed by the potential benefits to society? This is where we struggle, particularly with welfare issues of wild animals in captivity. And by the way, this is when those theoretical ethics come into play, hopefully nudging the folks "in the field" with bills to pay into thinking more about the long-term and broader implications of their decisions regarding animals. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: Jo Angleberger [mailto:warblerneck@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:56 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: animal shows - tigers Barney wrote: If animal shows offer an education value, what is the 'take-home message' provided for the public at the time ?....other than 'aren't these animals great, look how we have trained them to sit on tables when commanded and jump through flaming hoops' -how is the average member of an animal show audience then likely to relate this to the plight of these animals being persecuted in the wild, hunted by man for trophies or as pests and for bodily parts use in alternative medicines? The message I think they are likely to take home is that for as long as humans are in charge, animals are simply there for human use in whatever form we like and that simply 'entertaining' humans is a perfectly acceptable use with little further consideration on their part for either individual animal wellbeing or the conservation of the species. =====I must agree that most spectators will not consider anything past their own entertainment at the moment. I saw a brilliant psychologist in the 1980's for 3 years when I was having to greatly modify my own behavior (severe social anxiety), but I had one unwelcome insight into his own personality/behavior----I had said how wrong I thought it was for animals to be trained for human entertainment, and he answered yes, but it's so entertaining. I'm not basing my first sentence on that one incident, but on my observations of people at zoos and aquariums. I do not believe that the general public will learn to care unless directly educated during animal shows. In fact, I am wondering why the shows must only involve tricks and props. I am no doubt showing my ignorance here again, so I'll ask first what shows or handlers use an animal's natural behavior in a "natural" setting without props to entertain an audience; e.g., stalking, parental behavior, etc. Though these behaviors can now be seen in many large zoos, it is usually without accompanying education. As for the different views presented here about ethics, research protocols, educational value, etc., I firmly believe all are valuable and I try hard to absorb them all. Diversity of viewpoints is as healthy and synergistic as is the diversity of animal life on this planet, and I feel lucky to have access to them here. Jo _________________________________________________________________ Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es _________________________________________________________________ Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 10-OCT-2003 12:14:33.12 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Ethics and inbreeding At 06:48 AM Friday 10/10/2003, you wrote: >correcting mistakes made on e-discussion groups is not a justifiable >investment for me and >probably this is the same for most other faculty members. Many of us here, not just the "faculty members", have professional lives that consume much of our time. However, if I'm going to dispute what someone has said on an email list, I try to either come to the plate with some data to back up my opinion, or I don't post at all. >In the past, I have recommended that my undergraduate students subscribe to >Applied-Ethology. This year I have not done so and likely will not for I >believe the misinformation these students would receive overweighs the >benefits. Additionally, I believe some of the current discussion gives >students the impression that the professionals in Applied Ethology endorse >the use of training of wild animals for entertainment purposes Then perhaps you could view these discussions as an opportunity to explain why, backed up with pertinent data, you believe wild animals should not be trained for entertainment purposes. I have eagerly read all of the posts on this subject, waiting for someone to represent this point of view with something beyond opinion and conjecture. So far I have only seen pronouncements of what is or is not ethical, about what *ought* to do harm, with little or no data to back up these assertions. I think many of us, including your undergraduate students, could benefit from more dialogue on this subject. I'm here to learn. OTOH, others, primarily Kayce, have posted here about trained wild animals, some used for entertainment purposes, who from actual long term observation did not have their welfare compromised. Kayce provided thought provoking examples of how these animals, their species, and humanity have *mutually* benefited from these relationships. Frankly, much of what she said were things I had never thought of before. I think a key statement she made is this: "People only protect what they care about. They care about animals when they learn about them and make "contact" with them". In theory, humanity should care about wild animals without having to make "contact". In reality, I can see what Kayce said is largely true. And as an aside, yes Kayce, "Flipper" is what opened my eyes to caring about the welfare of marine mammals. >Therefore, recently I have tried to take a bit of time and point out that 1) >the discussion about inbreeding contained a number of errors and 2) there >are some serious ethical issues associated with the use of wild animals for >human entertainment. > >Good luck to those serious students who will now pursue for themselves the >details and additional information related to these and other topics rooted >in Ethology. I intend to be one of these "students." Regarding the inbreeding topic, some of us here who posted on that subject are also on several canine genetics discussion lists, and have attempted to study the subject as lay persons. We too are "students". Being members of this list is part of our attempt to learn. >One of the major difficulties with the recent comments on >inbreeding is the number of partial and half "truths" included in the >comments. As a consequence, it would take several text book chapters to >sort out all the details. A few simple points follow: > >1) "Rapid evolutionary progress" (or genetic change in artificial selection) >is attained in a population as a consequence of mild inbreeding followed by >rapid outbreeding. > >2) Historically, inbreeding in humans has been routinely practiced and >endorsed - among the ruling elite. > >3) Inbreeding, per se, does not "cause" genetic defects; inbreeding >increases homozygosity, which results in a greater frequency of expression >of traits that are based on homozygous recessive genes. > >4) The proper use of inbreeding in food producing animals can, and has, >benefited the welfare of animals (for example, through the identification >and purging of a deleterious recessive gene from a population). > >5) Because of the hybrid vigor (heterosis) exhibited by outcrossed >individuals, a strong welfare-based argument can be made against the >endorsement of "purebred" animals as pets. I fail to see disconnects between what you have said above and what was posted here recently regarding inbreeding. Perhaps you read more into what was posted than was intended? Regarding your third point, inbreeding depression does not only result from the expression of traits that are based on homozygous recessive genes. Lack of heterozygosity can directly lead to inbreeding depression (e.g. lack of diversity of the MHC). Regarding your last point, this seems to imply that purebred animals invariably suffer from inbreeding depression. Actually, the extent of inbreeding within purebred dog populations varies considerably between the different breeds, and within different bloodlines of breeds. For example, what data can anyone point to which suggests that any purebred dog population such one of my companion dogs comes from... European working line GSDs... a dog who, typical of this bloodline, has no 5 generation linebreeding and a 10 generation COI of just 2.1%... would experience any significant hybrid vigor by outcrossing to another breed? Canine geneticist Dr. John Armstrong studied standard poodle populations and found that the group with 10 generation COIs of less than 6.25% had survivorship comparable to non-inbred (e.g. mixed breed) dog populations. It was the SP groups with 10 generation COIs greater than 6.25% that had significantly shorter longevity. http://www.canine-genetics.com/lifespan.html Is there any documented heterosis benefit in populations with 10 generation COIs of 0% vs. those with say 2%, or 5%? As best I can tell from subsampling, a large majority of GSDs from the European working bloodlines have 10 generation COIs less than 6.25%, Dr. Armstrong's stated cutoff for SPs. For many of us, these GSDs make terrific companions. Also, the ISDS (working) border collie population has a very low full pedigree COI (extending back to 1910) of about 7%, and 6 generation COIs of about 2%. This is probably among the least inbred purebred dog populations. I hope no one falsely infers from this that working bred border collies generally make great pets ;-) http://home.tiscali.nl/~palado/bcdb/article1/WSN1c4.htm High levels of inbreeding tend to occur in domestic dog populations that are bred for success in the conformation show ring. Not all purebred dogs are bred for this goal. Many are still bred for a working function, and in these populations assortative mating and relatively lower levels of inbreeding tend to predominate. The impact of high levels of inbreeding on the welfare of dogs is a common topic on the canine genetics discussion lists. A premise that the welfare of all "purebred" dogs suffers from inbreeding depression is probably not valid. Laura Sanborn Senior Staff Engineer, Hydroprocessing Technology Specialist Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc. M.S. Chemical Engineering From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 10-OCT-2003 12:18:51.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Catoctin Mountain Zoo credentials Hi, Candance and all I went to the web site produced by a local zoo here in Maryland. These are the credentials presented, plus a claim that staff participate in continuing education by AZA and others. Could you explain these credentials please? Is AZA the only accreditation availab.e? Jo Licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior Animal Welfare Divisions The founding institution of the Wildlife Exhibitors and Breeders Association, a national association of both private and public wildlife professionals. A participating facility in AZA Studbook records A participating facility in ISIS animal collections records _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 10-OCT-2003 12:33:29.36 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Catoctin Mountain Zoo credentials Jo, I've never heard of this place. All official US zoos fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA. I don't see the zoo you mentioned on the AZA website. It's possible since they are participating in AZA programs that they are in the process of becoming accredited but haven't met all requirements yet. The best thing to do if people have this sort of question is to contact AZA or see their site (www.aza.org). I should say for fairness' sake (as said to Jo privately) accreditation does not mean that there are no animal welfare problems in these zoos. It simply means that AZA's requirements regarding animal care, management, education (and a lot of other factors) have been met. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: Jo Angleberger [mailto:warblerneck@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:19 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Catoctin Mountain Zoo credentials Hi, Candance and all I went to the web site produced by a local zoo here in Maryland. These are the credentials presented, plus a claim that staff participate in continuing education by AZA and others. Could you explain these credentials please? Is AZA the only accreditation availab.e? Jo Licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior Animal Welfare Divisions The founding institution of the Wildlife Exhibitors and Breeders Association, a national association of both private and public wildlife professionals. A participating facility in AZA Studbook records A participating facility in ISIS animal collections records _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 10-OCT-2003 13:13:15.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions Cecilia Lambert wrote: > --- kcover wrote: > .> > > Are you saying that in coyote keeping, or as you > > keep coyotes, that you > > encourage the opportunity to fight across fences or > > to fight with > > conspecifics? > > > > Best, > > Kayce > > > . Encourage? I do not intervere unless I see blood. > Social aggression is a part of their ethogram. My > coyotes are not used to entertain people. If they > were, maybe I would feel differantly. My coyotes are > here so that people can learn about their social > behaviors in captivity, much like the wolves at Wolf > Park where I first began with my interest in social > behaviors in canids. I am aware that the big cats are > different. > I try to make sure that my coyotes are able to > exercise as many of their social bahviors as possible > while they are in captivity. I would not call fence fighting a natural social behavior. It is a game that dogs (and wolves and coyotes) play. Some of them use it for amusement, others to stoke their aggression; but natural social behavior it is not. A very great deal of what we know about ethology has been learned by observing the interactions of captive animals, mostly with human beings as much as with each other. It is not "natural" for an imprinted bird to direct social or sexual behavior toward humans; but it can be enormously informative; and it does not necessarily prevent that bird from living out many other of its life functions in a quasi-natural manner, provided only that the environment is safe enough that it can be kept in some kind of semi-liberty (in an increasingly crowded world, that is becoming increasingly difficult; consider also that the pioneering work of Lorenz and others would not have been possible following some definitions of "ethical" which have recently appeared on this list). IMO the life of animals in captivity or semicaptivity is never "natural" and rather than pursuing the chimerical goal of "as natural as possible" (which largely excludes interaction with humans) we might better aim at "as fulfilling as possible" which is not necessarily quite the same thing. It may be that a large parrot in the Amazonian or African forest is more fulfilled than another individual of the same species which is human imprinted (having been hand reared) and living in an "artificial" environment of social interactions with humans (as well as, perhaps, with its own species). We cannot know that; nor is it intellectually or ethically honest to *assume* it. If you take the position that captivity itself, or interactions with humans, is inherently evil, no dialogue is possible and we will just have to agree to differ. My own interactions with animals of various species, both wild and domestic, have convinced me that such simplistic absolutism is untenable. Its sole merit, if merit that be, is to relieve the individual adopting such a position of the necessity of thinking about the complexity of actual situations. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 10-OCT-2003 13:14:34.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: bird defecation Moira Harris wrote: > Or alternatively (for those who like being categorical and dislike > discussion) .... > > In reply to Ray's student's question about bird shit (substitute 'bird > poop' here if the word shit offends you), I have watched birds defecating > and they do not aim. I do not welcome any discussion on this because I > know I am right. There are, however, birds which use aimed defecation as a method of defense against predators. Example: the Houbara bustard (Chlamydotis undulata), with three subspecies in western Asia, North Africa and the Canary Islands. It is able, on occasion, to disable an attacking falcon by squirting it with glutinous, semiliquid excrement. This is not a joke, but a well known fact, and a behavior which I myself have observed on several occasions. Slightly off topic, there are also birds which use aimed regurgitation as a defensive weapon Example: the unfledged young of many species of Procellariiformes (fulmars, shearwaters, petrels, albatrosses etc.). It is always a bit dangerous to be categorical . John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 10-OCT-2003 13:44:24.38 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: the content of animal shows Dear Jo and Barney, I appreciate your concerns. For what it is worth, my shows were all about the animals, their needs, habitat, conservation, ecology, behavior, intelligence, adaptations and abilities. Each and every behavior was showcased in this context. We promoted ecotourism, volunteer programs, and classroom education. These naturalistic presentations have impact, due to people's fascination with animals, and because we involved the audiences directly with the animals. Zoo audiences really want "contact" with the animals. We gave it to them. Audiences assisted in training, were privy to discussions re situations (why one was in holding, breeding plans and activity, management issues), decisions, challenges... And the shows are very popular. It has been conservatively estimated that 2.5 million people attended shows during my tenure. The real number is significantly higher. It is nice to think that some of the ecotourists funding animal conservation in South Africa might have been influenced by our information. But, I'm no better than my colleagues working in straight entertainment. People have to start somewhere. Initial experiences at zoos, circuses, and Las Vegas acts may start a lifelong concern and involvement with animal and conservation issues. By the way, in supporting themselves and their mission, zoos don't have a clear field. They compete with movies, video games, sports, music, dining... But maybe they are doing okay. The last time I read, more people went to zoos than to any other form of "entertainment" in America. Best, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com Jo Angleberger wrote: > =====I must agree that most spectators will not consider anything past > their own entertainment at the moment. I saw a brilliant psychologist > in the 1980's for 3 years when I was having to greatly modify my own > behavior (severe social anxiety), but I had one unwelcome insight into > his own personality/behavior----I had said how wrong I thought it was > for animals to be trained for human entertainment, and he answered yes, > but it's so entertaining. > > I'm not basing my first sentence on that one incident, but on my > observations of people at zoos and aquariums. I do not believe that the > general public will learn to care unless directly educated during animal > shows. In fact, I am wondering why the shows must only involve tricks > and props. I am no doubt showing my ignorance here again, so I'll ask > first what shows or handlers use an animal's natural behavior in a > "natural" setting without props to entertain an audience; e.g., > stalking, parental behavior, etc. Though these behaviors can now be > seen in many large zoos, it is usually without accompanying education. > > As for the different views presented here about ethics, research > protocols, educational value, etc., I firmly believe all are valuable > and I try hard to absorb them all. Diversity of viewpoints is as > healthy and synergistic as is the diversity of animal life on this > planet, and I feel lucky to have access to them here. > Jo From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 10-OCT-2003 14:08:48.29 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows and captive conditions Thank you John, for an informed logical viewpoint. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Burchard" To: "Applied ethology list" Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:46 AM Subject: Re: animal shows and captive conditions > Cecilia Lambert wrote: > > > --- kcover wrote: > > .> > > > Are you saying that in coyote keeping, or as you > > > keep coyotes, that you > > > encourage the opportunity to fight across fences or > > > to fight with > > > conspecifics? > > > > > > Best, > > > Kayce > > > > > . Encourage? I do not intervere unless I see blood. > > Social aggression is a part of their ethogram. My > > coyotes are not used to entertain people. If they > > were, maybe I would feel differantly. My coyotes are > > here so that people can learn about their social > > behaviors in captivity, much like the wolves at Wolf > > Park where I first began with my interest in social > > behaviors in canids. I am aware that the big cats are > > different. > > I try to make sure that my coyotes are able to > > exercise as many of their social bahviors as possible > > while they are in captivity. > > I would not call fence fighting a natural social behavior. It is a game that > dogs (and wolves and coyotes) play. Some of them use it for amusement, others > to stoke their aggression; but natural social behavior it is not. > > A very great deal of what we know about ethology has been learned by observing > the interactions of captive animals, mostly with human beings as much as with > each other. It is not "natural" for an imprinted bird to direct social or > sexual behavior toward humans; but it can be enormously informative; and it does > not necessarily prevent that bird from living out many other of its life > functions in a quasi-natural manner, provided only that the environment is safe > enough that it can be kept in some kind of semi-liberty (in an increasingly > crowded world, that is becoming increasingly difficult; consider also that the > pioneering work of Lorenz and others would not have been possible following some > definitions of "ethical" which have recently appeared on this list). > > IMO the life of animals in captivity or semicaptivity is never "natural" and > rather than pursuing the chimerical goal of "as natural as possible" (which > largely excludes interaction with humans) we might better aim at "as fulfilling > as possible" which is not necessarily quite the same thing. > > It may be that a large parrot in the Amazonian or African forest is more > fulfilled than another individual of the same species which is human imprinted > (having been hand reared) and living in an "artificial" environment of social > interactions with humans (as well as, perhaps, with its own species). We cannot > know that; nor is it intellectually or ethically honest to *assume* it. If you > take the position that captivity itself, or interactions with humans, is > inherently evil, no dialogue is possible and we will just have to agree to > differ. My own interactions with animals of various species, both wild and > domestic, have convinced me that such simplistic absolutism is untenable. Its > sole merit, if merit that be, is to relieve the individual adopting such a > position of the necessity of thinking about the complexity of actual situations. > > John > -- > Dr. John Burchard > Tepe Gawra Salukis > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > saluqi@ix.netcom.com > > From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 10-OCT-2003 15:47:22.69 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Ethics and inbreeding -----Original Message----- From: Laura Sanborn [mailto:laura@xul.com] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:21 PM To: Applied ethology Subject: Re: FW: Ethics and inbreeding Then perhaps you could view these discussions as an opportunity to explain why, backed up with pertinent data, you believe wild animals should not be trained for entertainment purposes. I have eagerly read all of the posts on this subject, waiting for someone to represent this point of view with something beyond opinion and conjecture. So far I have only seen pronouncements of what is or is not ethical, about what *ought* to do harm, with little or no data to back up these assertions. I think many of us, ------------------------------------ Can one seriously suggest that ethics are to be based on "data?" Does any person believe that the rights of women somehow came about as the result of _data_? Was slavery abolished because the _data_ indicated that it should be stopped? It is not necessary for me to have _data_ to make a statement that slavery is wrong. And no data are needed by me to argue for the rights of women. These are not statements made on the basis of science - much less data. These statements have to do with ethics. These positions have to do with granting appropriate treatment to other beings! Does anyone from this group wish to argue that these statements are simply an opinion, and that what the group needs is a diversity of opinions by others on these topics? Accordingly, no data are needed to hold a position regarding how wild animals should be treated. Wild animal acts are not ethically defensible simply from the blatantly obvious fact that the manipulation of an animal's natural state into a subjugated, subordinate role relative to the human trainer and "master" has absolutely no benefit to the animal. But if there are persons who contend that they need data before they can hold a belief and also hold a position in support of using wild animals for human entertainment, then I would ask that they show _their data_ that documents the benefits that have accrued to tigers used in the Vegas show. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 10-OCT-2003 18:29:22.17 To: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: This list Hey Jo, I agree on all counts. This list has been a great resource for learning and for sounding ideas. I am glad for the members that are willing to support their ideas and claims and engage in critical discussion, but I'm thankful I learn from everyone. Exposure to diverse opinions develops the critical skills of everyone, essential for all of us students. There cannot be any single correct perspective that all hold in common and must guide students toward. As in genetics, diversity is crucial to optimization. We wouldn't want to support too much inbreeding, intellectual or otherwise.;> Best, Kayce Jo Angleberger wrote: > As for the different views presented here about ethics, research > protocols, educational value, etc., I firmly believe all are valuable > and I try hard to absorb them all. Diversity of viewpoints is as > healthy and synergistic as is the diversity of animal life on this > planet, and I feel lucky to have access to them here. > Jo From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 10-OCT-2003 18:33:16.32 To: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" Subj: RE: captive behavior Piercingly true, John! As you say, it's expensive to leave the ivory tower. In the middle of the problem, one can't duck facing tortuous choices, or the responsibility to make them. Or the consequences of them. Thank you for this. Best, Kayce John Burchard wrote: > Getting involved with wild animals has a way of confronting one with difficult > and often painful choices ... but I am no advocate of NOT getting involved, or > of the principle of "out of sight, out of mind" and if you don't know about it, > it doesn't hurt ... > > John > From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 10-OCT-2003 19:49:27.01 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Ethics At 02:47 PM Friday 10/10/2003, you wrote: >Can one seriously suggest that ethics are to be based on "data?" Does any >person believe that the rights of women somehow came about as the result of >_data_? Was slavery abolished because the _data_ indicated that it should >be stopped? In part... yes, and yes. Massive amounts of "data" demonstrated the _harm_ caused by those forms of oppression. It's apparent that, from your perspective, evidence need not be supplied to support an *absolutist* position that _harm_ is done .... the "damage" and "pain and suffering" from the "use of wild animals for human entertainment and gratification", as you said earlier. More telling, it's apparent that all evidence to the contrary will continue to be ignored. So I'm not sure if there's any point in our continuing this particular line of discussion? Laura Sanborn From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 10-OCT-2003 22:09:28.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Ethics Just had to interject, here. In science we use data - it is part of the scientific method to rely on data and not on emotion. Emotion can propel the work, provide drive. Emotion can give flashes of insight. But, we rely on data -- not skewed data, not fabricated data. When writing of animal rights and animal welfare I have encountered folks who are zealots. Sure, it is kind and ethical to not want to harm an animal or remove it from its natural environment. But that is where any rational discussion seems to end. AND it is the same for backyard rabbit meat breeders, for example. Some you simply can't talk with. Is a Cause intensely felt, valid, simply from feeling? There is a danger in humanity for believing that anything felt very very intensely means that the feeling must be true. In the Civil war, brothers faced off - each feeling their beliefs intensely. In Ireland for centuries there has been death because both religions feel their beliefs intensely. The Trade Towers were destroyed by people with intense feelings, who believed that the experience of those feelings made their beliefs true. Maybe those who believe very intensely something (in Copernicus' day it was that the Earth was flat, if I remember right) can berate "Data". But in science and in rational thought, it is about all we have. If you loved someone with all your heart, deeply deeply, intensely loved that person and data showed you that this person was married to 5 other people - would you believe the feeling or the data? If someone showed you that it was very very very unlikely that the Trade Towers could have been impacted by large planes without first being intercepted by air defense - would you base your opinion on the validity of their data? Ethics is not science, but it IS based on proofs. Philosophy is the same. If we abandon this construct then we have "opinion" and anything goes. H.mcmurray -----Original Message----- From: Laura Sanborn [mailto:laura@xul.com] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 7:56 PM To: Applied ethology Subject: RE: FW: Ethics At 02:47 PM Friday 10/10/2003, you wrote: >Can one seriously suggest that ethics are to be based on "data?" Does any >person believe that the rights of women somehow came about as the result of >_data_? Was slavery abolished because the _data_ indicated that it should >be stopped? In part... yes, and yes. Massive amounts of "data" demonstrated the _harm_ caused by those forms of oppression. It's apparent that, from your perspective, evidence need not be supplied to support an *absolutist* position that _harm_ is done .... the "damage" and "pain and suffering" from the "use of wild animals for human entertainment and gratification", as you said earlier. More telling, it's apparent that all evidence to the contrary will continue to be ignored. So I'm not sure if there's any point in our continuing this particular line of discussion? Laura Sanborn From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 10-OCT-2003 23:10:42.54 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: BBC NEWS Health Brain scan shows rejection pain.htm BBC NEWS | Health | Brain scan shows rejection painPerhaps a time out is actually a +P and not a -P? Julie Alexander NEWS SPORT WEATHER WORLD SERVICE A-Z INDEX SEARCH Low Graphics version | Change editionFeedback | Help News Front Page Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East South Asia UK Business Health Medical notes Science/Nature Technology Entertainment ----------------- Have Your Say ----------------- Country Profiles In Depth ----------------- Programmes -----------------RELATED SITES Last Updated: Friday, 10 October, 2003, 00:17 GMT 01:17 UK E-mail this to a friend Printable version Brain scan shows rejection pain The same brain area "lit up" on the scan Being snubbed socially provokes exactly the same brain response as being physically hurt, say US researchers. Volunteers were asked to play a computer game designed to fool them into feeling excluded, while brain scans were taken at the same time. After the computerised snub, the scan detected activity in an area of the brain linked to physical pain. Experts say the study, from the journal Science, is a hint to the importance the brain places on social ties. The researchers involved in the study, from the University of California at Los Angeles, used an MRI scanner to probe the brains of their test subject as their feelings were manipulated. These scanners can detect subtle changes in blood flow to various parts of the brain - which indicate when the region is active. To provoke the right response, they devised an ingenious computer simulation designed to be reminiscent of a playground game. The participants were shown a screen which gave the appearance of a "ball-throwing" game involving both the volunteer and two other figures, represented by animated characters. Psychological pain in humans, especially grief and intense loneliness, may share some of the same neural pathways that elaborate physical pain Dr Jaak Panksepp, Bowling Green State University, Ohio The test subjects were told that real people were controlling the other two "people", and the game took the form of throwing the ball in turn between all three of them. Of course, this was an elaborate hoax - there were no other human players, and the other characters in the game were controlled entirely by the computer. At first, the game proceeded as it should, with the ball coming at regular intervals to the player controlled by the human volunteer. Mean machine However, after a while, the two computer controlled characters started throwing the ball only to each other, apparently excluding the test subject from the game. It was at this point that the brain reactions were measured by the scanner. The researchers noticed one key area of the brain "lighting up" on the scan when this happened. This area, the anterior cingulate cortex, is already known to be associated with the brain's response to the unpleasant feelings linked to physical pain. This was not just a frustrated reaction to not being able to play - researchers had already tested this by having a short period at the start of the game in which the controls appeared not to work properly. The researchers wrote: "Evidence suggests that some of the same neural machinery recruited in the experience of pain may also be associated with social separation or rejection." Powerful feelings Dr Jaak Panksepp, from the Centre for Neuroscience, Mind and Behavior at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, said that feelings of social exclusion were powerful instincts in animals and humans. He said: "The feelings induced by experimental games in the laboratory, are a pale shadow of the real-life feelings that humans and other animals experience in response to the sudden loss of social support. "Psychological pain in humans, especially grief and intense loneliness, may share some of the same neural pathways that elaborate physical pain. "Given the dependence of mammalian young on their caregivers, it is hard not to comprehend the strong survival value conferred by common neural pathways that elaborate both social attachment and the affective qualities of physical pain." E-mail this to a friend Printable version LINKS TO MORE HEALTH STORIES SelectAntibiotics may delay Alzheimer'sBad back link to driving postureEgyptian Siamese twins face surgeryStudies 'put many women off HRT'Blood pressure a lifelong fightBreast drug cuts cancer comebackAir pollution 'increases stroke risk'Vatican in HIV condom rowMothers obsessed by child healthReport warns of HIV catastropheQuality sleep 'rescues memories'Virus 'protects against asthma'Pre-marital sex 'usual' in ChinaUS pair share Nobel chemistry prizeTeen told to eat more junk foodParalysed girl's 'miracle' stepsGeneticists hunt control patternsCancer: The factsHeart disease and strokeA guide to pregnancy SEE ALSO: Happy images 'make depressed sad' 04 Oct 03 | Health Brain clue to stress disorder 12 Jul 03 | Health Brain scans prove pain responses differ 24 Jun 03 | Health RELATED INTERNET LINKS: Science UCLA The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites TOP HEALTH STORIES NOW Antibiotics may delay Alzheimer's Bad back link to driving posture Egyptian Siamese twins face surgery Studies put women off HRT E-mail services | Desktop ticker | News on mobiles/PDAs Back to top ^^ News Front Page | Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East | South Asia UK | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature | Technology | Health Have Your Say | Country Profiles | In Depth | Programmes BBCi Homepage >> | BBC Sport >> | BBC Weather >> | BBC World Service >> Help | Feedback | News sources | Privacy | About the BBC From: IN%"sbc@kvl.dk" "Stine B Christiansen" 11-OCT-2003 09:19:18.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Ethics Hi all, Beware * there are two issues here. One concerns the quality of life, the = other the justifications for using animals. In ethics different theories or principles have been developed on these = issues. They coexist and therefore ethics can provide more than one = socalled true answer to the questions raised in this debate.=20 When I see the arguments put forward, I see at least two perceptions of "a = good life" represented:=20 Perfectionism * the animal should live a natural life and therefore a wild = animal should not perform in shows. Hedonism * the animal should feel good as much as possible and therefore a = wild animal can be accepted as performning in shows as long as it does not = suffer from this and perhaps even enjoys performing. Both can face problems within the philosophical framework and when applied = to animal welfare science, and as such one approach cannot be taken to be = more superior than the other. The values of the individual in question = will decide whether one ends up with one or the other (or yet another = approach) as the primary starting point for assessing the acceptability = from a welfare perspective of what the animal is put through.=20 On top of this is the question of whether or not the use of (wild) animals = in shows is legitimate. This type of discussion is often seen in what I'll = call "the luxury cases" e.g. use of animals for production of fur vs. = meat/milk/eggs or use of animals in testing of cosmetics vs. medical = research. (The issue of what can be classified as a luxury and who should = decide this is yet another topic). If one finds that the purpose (in this case (wild) animals in shows) is = not legitimate then there is not necessarily any need for further = information, data etc. This can simply be a matter of principle. If one finds that the welfare of the animal must be weighed against the = purpose (and potential harm), the perfectionist only needs to know which = kind of life that animal has evolved to live in order to be able to assess = the acceptability. The hedonist, however, needs information on the mental = state of the animal in regard to the purpose in question in order to = decide, whether it is acceptable or not. (The weighing can be developed = further by adding e.g. the issue of what people get out of seeing the = performance). My point here is not to label anyone or their opinions but simply to = illustrate that the discussion so far is dealing with two issues that are = nor clearly seperated and has presented different approaches, which from = an ethical point of view can be considered equally valid. Quite often, = when people claim that something is "unethical" this conclusion is based = on assumptions, such as those illustrated by the principles listed above, = and the conclusion is only obvious to those who share the same underlying = assumptions. People with different sets of values, however, may easily = reach different conclusions. I'm sure everyone on this list thinks that = exchange of opinions, knowledge, values, experiences etc. is very valuable = (why else be on the list), but sometimes one has to draw the line and in = mutual respect accept and agree to disagree.=20 Stine Stine B. Christiansen cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. Det Dyreetiske R=E5d/The Danish Animal Ethics Council Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering/Centre for Bioethics and Risk = Assessment Den Kgl. Veterin=E6r- og Landboh=F8jskole/The Royal Veterinary and = Agricultural University Bioetik/Bioethics Gr=F8nneg=E5rdsvej 8 1870 Frederiksberg C Copenhagen Denmark tlf./ph.: +45 3528 3075 fax: +45 3528 3022 e-mail: sbc@kvl.dk=20 From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 11-OCT-2003 09:29:57.64 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows It seems that there are persons on this list who either express contempt or else dodge arguments based on ethics and insist that "science" is (or should be) the only legitimate basis for determining human attitudes and actions. (And for the record, I strongly disagree, for I believe animal welfare should ultimately be determined through a consensus of the informed citizens of the world as a collective - not dictated by any select group such as scientists, politicians, educators, a single government, animal owners, etc.). Nevertheless, in recent discussions of this group, the prevailing view of the vocal proponents of wild animal shows apparently holds that science, not ethics, must be the basis for determining the proper human attitude regarding treatment and exhibition of trained wild animals. OK - So let's go there. A fundamental definition of science is "consensus among those scientists knowledgeable about the topic." Applied Ethology is the primary discipline within science that deals with animal welfare. The International Society of Applied Ethology (ISAE) is the primary professional organization for scientists working on the topics of applied animal behavior and welfare. The membership of ISAE is approximately 500-600 grad students and professionals from around the world. Thus, the membership of ISAE represents the knowledgeable (active, published, informed, etc.) body of scientists today on the topic of animal welfare. Accordingly, let us view this issue as solely a question of "science" and measure the degree of consensus among scientists of animal welfare as determined by the number of positive responses by current ISAE scientists to the following statement: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF APPLIED ETHOLOGY, AND MY SCIENTIFIC OPINION IS THAT THERE ARE _NOT_ WELFARE CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF TRAINING WILD ANIMALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXHIBITING THEM FOR HUMAN ENTERTAINMENT. ACCORDINGLY, BASED ON MY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION, I ENDORSE AND OFFER MY SUPPORT TO THOSE PERSONS WHO ADVOCATE CONTINUATION OF TRAINING AND EXHIBITING WILD ANIMALS. NAME____________________________________________ POSITION________________________________________ COUNTRY_________________________________________ (The above statement is one made by individual persons and not an official statement, position, function or activity of the ISAE). From: IN%"behaviorist@bellsouth.net" "Liz Hoffmaster" 11-OCT-2003 09:53:28.74 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows Please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek. I would never sign such a statement. Whether or not a person agrees with keeping wild animals for entertainment should have no bearing on whether or not there are welfare concerns. How can anyone agree with such a blanket statement giving anybody who wants to train a wild animal carte blanche? How can we scientifically ignore welfare issues? Welfare can be translated into something scientifically measurable by studying the physical health and behavior of captive animals. I find this totally relevant to the sciences of behavior and ethology. Science is not based on opinions, it is based on facts and predictions and measurable data. Any opinion about this matter is therefore necessarily a personal opinion. Liz Hoffmaster > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > --------------- > I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF APPLIED ETHOLOGY, AND MY > SCIENTIFIC OPINION IS THAT THERE ARE _NOT_ WELFARE CONCERNS ASSOCIATED > WITH > THE USE OF TRAINING WILD ANIMALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXHIBITING THEM FOR > HUMAN ENTERTAINMENT. ACCORDINGLY, BASED ON MY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND > OPINION, I ENDORSE AND OFFER MY SUPPORT TO THOSE PERSONS WHO ADVOCATE > CONTINUATION OF TRAINING AND EXHIBITING WILD ANIMALS. > > > NAME____________________________________________ > > POSITION________________________________________ > > COUNTRY_________________________________________ > > > (The above statement is one made by individual persons and not an > official > statement, position, function or activity of the ISAE). > > Liz Hoffmaster http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-behaviorist Animal Behaviorist M.S. student, FIT ABA Program Melbourne, FL (321) 213-0397 From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 11-OCT-2003 11:44:06.76 To: IN%"sbc@kvl.dk" "Stine B Christiansen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Ethics -----Original Message----- From: Stine B Christiansen [mailto:sbc@kvl.dk] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:18 AM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: FW: Ethics Hi all, Beware * there are two issues here. One concerns the quality of life, the other the justifications for using animals. In ethics different theories or principles have been developed on these issues. They coexist and therefore ethics can provide more than one socalled true answer to the questions raised in this debate. When I see the arguments put forward, I see at least two perceptions of "a good life" represented: Perfectionism * the animal should live a natural life and therefore a wild animal should not perform in shows. Hedonism * the animal should feel good as much as possible and therefore a wild animal can be accepted as performning in shows as long as it does not suffer from this and perhaps even enjoys performing. Both can face problems within the philosophical framework and when applied to animal welfare science, and as such one approach cannot be taken to be more superior than the other. The values of the individual in question will decide whether one ends up with one or the other (or ----- Stine and all, Your comments - as a person formally educated on the topic of ethics - are most appreciated. And, it is not my purpose to disagree with what you have written, for I am very much aware, as you said, that you were not attempting to cover all views. But I would like to expand a bit regarding what I think is maybe a third view (or maybe at least a synthesis position) - which I will call "dominionism." For any group of animals that I can think of just now, I do not advocate or endorse a strict argument based on naturalism (perfectionism). And specifically for wild animals I believe their exhibition without training (as in some zoos) is a different issue - and that it alone, can be acceptable. (But I guess I should acknowledge that overall my position on the topic of wild animals is one more closely tied to perfectionism.) And I also reject Hedonism alone and thus do not see this utilitarian view as either a defensible basis or the sole alternative position - for I do not believe that the only issue here is the "pleasure and pain" experienced by the animal. (And I will address below) I believe that what I think is a deontological position opposing "dominionism" can be defended here that appears to me to be essentially independent of both hedonism and perfectionism. That is, I would contend that animal quality of life is not a particularly relevant issue in relationship to training wild animals for exhibition. Let me try on this - without a lot of detail. I think it can be argued that the wild animal shows of today are basically anachronistic or remnants from human behavior and attitudes of the Middle Ages - or earlier. The dancing bear was exhibited for human amusement and demonstration of the human mastery over nature. The subdued bear was shown to be clumsy in its ability to walk upright and dance - and the human viewer could thus feel a sense of superiority over this generally feared wild creature of nature. Despite the degree of hilarity shown by the audience, these exhibitions had little humor per se. The laughter derived from the ridicule of the animal because of its inability to perform tasks mastered by humans. I contend that the modern large cat shows, some circus acts, etc. are a continuation of this exploitation of animals and is done primarily, if not solely, for the purpose of humans demonstrating their dominion over other beings. We researchers always are in need of more support - both labor and financial. There are numerous young persons in parts of the world today who face a very bleak future if they remain in the position they were born into. We could "capture" a few of these young persons and bring them to our part of the world. We could feed them well, provide medical services, educate them, and give them access to the many types of entertainment we experience - so long as they continue to serve our needs through their labor and service. And obviously our science would benefit greatly from this activity. (And by the way, there is absolutely no scientific principle that says that this would not be acceptable!) And we could measure the level of pleasure these persons experience. We could document with reams of "data" that they experience much, much better welfare - as in health, more pleasure, less pain, disease, discomfort, etc. - compared to their age peers back in their homeland. But would this be acceptable? Of course not. Slavery is wrong. It is wrong because it involves one being intentionally dominating another. It is wrong even if the individual dominated is better off as a consequence of the slavery than the quality of life he or she would experience in their "natural state." It is wrong no matter how great the magnitude of benefits to the dominant party or the amount of pleasure experienced by the dominated slave. To try and tie this together, I do not believe that animals must or should always live in a natural state. Neither do I accept that determination of what is considered to be acceptable treatment of animals can always be based solely on the amount of pleasure the animal experiences. Rather, I contend that in today's world, animal shows - that continue to present humans in the position of dominating the wild beasts of nature - is not acceptable. I contend that this is because of the wrongness that results from the dominionism of one being over another - in the pursuit of pleasure or profit. Accordingly, I hold that expression of human dominionism over wild animals is not acceptable regardless of the amount of pleasure gained by the exhibited animal or its likely status in its natural state. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 11-OCT-2003 11:47:24.93 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows At 08:29 AM Saturday 10/11/2003, you wrote: >It seems that there are persons on this list who either express contempt or >else dodge arguments based on ethics and insist that "science" is (or should >be) the only legitimate basis for determining human attitudes and actions. >(And for the record, I strongly disagree, for I believe animal welfare >should ultimately be determined through a consensus of the informed citizens >of the world as a collective - not dictated by any select group such as >scientists, politicians, educators, a single government, animal owners, >etc.). No one has said that only scientists should determine "human attitudes and actions". A request has been made that data be supplied to support a sweeping ethical position. Asking for data is not the equivalent of saying that an issue is wholly within the sphere of science. Far from it. On dog training lists, if someone states that such and such dog training method doesn't work and always leads to problems, I ask list members for specific examples where they've seen this method applied... examples where it worked, and examples where it failed or led to problems. Mainly, I try to dig deeper, to understand under what circumstances the method fails or succeeds. There are likely valuable lessons to be gleaned from all sides, success or failure depends on the application. Those are the subtleties I try to understand. IMO, combining learnings from multiple sources into a logical framework is how insight occurs. One cannot get there without first mucking around in the data. This is also why, on this list, I've asked for more information on the wild animal training/shows discussion. One side has already provided "data" as well as conclusions derived from their data. The other has provided little or no data. I don't assume that one side must be right and another side must be wrong. I start with a premise that there are useful things to learn from everyone. In dog training circles, I don't use the word "data" when I ask these probing questions, though that's what I mean. I don't use the word "data" mainly because in non-scientific circles I think this term is misunderstood or viewed narrowly... a faulty premise that "data" is just for those ivory tower folks. I hadn't realized this misunderstanding could occur on an applied science discussion list. If we use the word "evidence" rather than "data", would that be less offensive? Or would some incorrectly infer that we are speaking narrowly about court room trial evidence? I've no desire to enter into an argument about semantics. Call it whatever you wish. Automobile license plates in Missouri include the phrase: "Show-Me State". I doubt if scientists are responsible for that slogan. Nor do scientists have a monopoly on expectations that evidence be supplied by supporters of a non-religious position that others are expected to adhere to. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 11-OCT-2003 12:24:59.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers Jo Angleberger wrote: > =====I must agree that most spectators will not consider anything past their > own entertainment at the moment. I saw a brilliant psychologist in the > 1980's for 3 years when I was having to greatly modify my own behavior > (severe social anxiety), but I had one unwelcome insight into his own > personality/behavior----I had said how wrong I thought it was for animals to > be trained for human entertainment, and he answered yes, but it's so > entertaining. > > I'm not basing my first sentence on that one incident, but on my > observations of people at zoos and aquariums. I do not believe that the > general public will learn to care unless directly educated during animal > shows. In fact, I am wondering why the shows must only involve tricks and > props. I am no doubt showing my ignorance here again, so I'll ask first > what shows or handlers use an animal's natural behavior in a "natural" > setting without props to entertain an audience; e.g., stalking, parental > behavior, etc. Though these behaviors can now be seen in many large zoos, > it is usually without accompanying education. I've been involved in animal shows on a sporadic basis for more than fifty years, beginning as a schoolboy when I went round to other schools with a marine life demonstration designed and executed by myself but supported (via providing transportation, since I was too young to drive) by the Boston Museum of Science, where my high school mentor was Director of Education. Most of my later "show" activity has involved demonstrations of raptors (I've been a practicing falconer for 40+ years). The focus of those demonstrations has always been the natural behavior of the birds, and their natural ecology; and in the earlier years my primary objective was to persuade people not to kill every "hawk" on sight. Peregrine falcons were already protected by law in the mid 1960s in Europe, for example, but they were still often shot by hunters and farmers, and any falcon found down with quarry was likely to be beaten to death by the first human who arrived on the scene. Showing people the birds, live and close up, able to be touched, and then the same bird free flying and demonstrating its power, speed and agility in simulated prey capture (lure flying usually), makes an impression I wouldn't know how to achieve any other way. There are marvelous nature films showing animals in their native environment. I even made a few films myself, though I'm certainly not in a league with the great masters of that genre . Films do not, however, achieve the same immediacy as seeing the "real thing" a couple of feet in front of your nose (I can lurefly a bird so it passes at high speed between the heads of people sitting in the audience). The vertical stoop of a large raptor (say an eagle) is amazing on film; but it makes an incomparably more vivid impression when the braking maneuver is ten feet over your head, with accompanying sound effects . Zoos, safari parks and the like certainly have an educational function, and the best of them discharge that function most admirably. Beyond that, however, there is IMO still a large and important place in our educational arsenal for live animal performances. I have been a teacher most of my life, mostly at University level, but recently I have also tried my hand again in the elementary and high school classrooms I left when I myself went away to college. There are excellent (and also not so excellent, alas) books and teaching materials, and wonderful videos. From experience I can tell you, however, that you will get an entirely different level of attention and response, and create much more lasting memories, by going into that same classroom with a live animal. Even the troublemakers will then suddenly start paying attention. You can then, if you wish, use that rapt attention to convey all kinds of messages about conservation, stewardship, the interrelations of animals with one another, with their environment, with humans ... it is one of the best mind-opening keys I know. The shows I have put on were designed not as entertainment, but as education. In order to educate people, however, you must first somehow capture their attention ... which in the era of TV advertising and the 15 second attention span seems to be more difficult than ever before. This is another area where we must, I think, evaluate individual cases on their merits, rather than taking the undoubtedly easier route of blanket condemnation. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "Johanna =?iso-8859-1?q?V=E4is=E4nen?=" 11-OCT-2003 12:41:31.49 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: hedonism Hi, This is an intresting disscussion and I'd have a loads to comment on this but just start with a short question. Namely, the term hedonism has been used here and I may have missed something (excuse me just jumping in this disscussion so erratically) because I did not get it why this term is used in this context. It does not seem to refer to us humans here. From an atropomorphistic point of view most of the animals appear as hedonistic beings. That's unavoidably an idea I get when looking at my dogs anyway...But as I see it hedonism, from several alternateve choices(which animals really do not have), is a conciously chosen way of leading life or parts of ones life and as it follows possible onlyfor those living beings who have the potential ability to define it, that is us. I can't, unfortunately, to apply this tempting philosophy this weekend to my life as I have to clean up and do laundry...But what I am trying to say here is that I do not think hedonism can be used in assessing the ethical acceptability of showing animals from an animal's point of view . It can be used, though from our point of view, but this was not the case here or was it ? Please correct, if I am wrong here. cheers :-) Johanna Johanna Väisänen, PhD student in Ethology Department of Biology IFM University of Linköping SE-58183 Linköping Sweden Phone: +46-13-281243 Mobile: +46-70-2254817 (+358-40-7462498 during summer time) Fax: +46-13-281399 Emails:johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se & johanna_vaisanen@jippii.fi From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 11-OCT-2003 12:44:59.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: captive conditions John wrote: A very great deal of what we know about ethology has been learned by observing the interactions of captive animals, mostly with human beings as much as with each other. It is not "natural" for an imprinted bird to direct social or sexual behavior toward humans; but it can be enormously informative; and it does =====may I suggest that imprinting and other behaviors toward humans are indeed natural, but that they are not ecologically adaptive. IMO the life of animals in captivity or semicaptivity is never "natural" and rather than pursuing the chimerical goal of "as natural as possible" (which largely excludes interaction with humans) we might better aim at "as fulfilling as possible" which is not necessarily quite the same thing. ====My belief is that all animal behaviors in captivity or semi-captivity are natural. And that a response or set of reactions to a stimulus--no matter how unnatural the stimulus is--is natural for the animal. If you take the position that captivity itself, or interactions with humans, is inherently evil, no dialogue is possible and we will just have to agree to differ. My own interactions with animals of various species, both wild and domestic, have convinced me that such simplistic absolutism is untenable. Its sole merit, if merit that be, is to relieve the individual adopting such a position of the necessity of thinking about the complexity of actual situations. ====I admit that I used to think that humans are an evil curse upon the planet, and in hindsight I see that such a distressing viewpoint was fostered by my Christian upbringing combined with my love for the diversity of species and cultures and habitats on this planet. Since the two did not reconcile for me, I sided for a while on the religious viewpoint until I began to think for myself around age 22 and became agnostic. My view now is that humans are part of the ecology in nearly all habitats. Even if some of us consider humans to be invasive alien species in most habitats, it is a natural progression which has occurred before in geological time--but here I digress from behavioral topics. Jo _________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 11-OCT-2003 12:50:30.02 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows - tigers - and lions and bears and dogs walking in the street Barney: The message I think they are likely to take home is that for as long as humans are in charge, animals are simply there for human use in whatever form we like and that simply 'entertaining' humans is a perfectly acceptable use with little further consideration on their part for either individual animal wellbeing or the conservation of the species. Jo Angleberger: > =====I must agree that most spectators will not consider anything past their > own entertainment at the moment. margory cohen, on the fly (not A fly;)) -- My own hounds appeared on stage with San Francisco Opera and American Conservatory Theater. I can't speak for all those spectators or Average Persons which I am one of by the way, but I can tell you that _years_ after people approached me in the street with complete delight in recognition and chance for first-hand meeting for the hounds they saw "perform." I am of course always and will be the human in charge when it comes to these hounds. I think anybody does everybody else a disservice when "Joe Blow" or "Average Person" is suspected of being so very much less than the person dispensing services or studying as a specialty. And I daresay that what I write in the subject line about dogs walking in the street -- there are towns in the U.S. where dogs in fact are not welcome in the town square and more and more municipalities are banning dogs from parks and common areas and certainly from alot of apartment buildings for instance and really that's a ban on people because attached to those animals is always a person, but I do think it's real important that always underneath any of the displays, whether it's a tent or a zoo or where Dr. Burchard is able to be in the natural world naturally with his desert dogs -- always it's The Relationship that one gets a glimpse into and who can imagine living without THAT. No matter where some of us in this group stand on some things, there are still those who say any of us should not have the deep contact we do. Off I go. I really do mean to not be on-line. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 11-OCT-2003 13:29:47.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows You wrote: (And for the record, I strongly disagree, for I believe animal welfare should ultimately be determined through a consensus of the informed citizens of the world as a collective - not dictated by any select group such as scientists, politicians, educators, a single government, animal owners, etc.). ====Would not "informed citizens" be a select group? How would you determine who is adequately informed? So much of the world population is impoverished that their collective opinion--even if it is well informed--may abandon any concept of animal welfare when their uppermost thoughts and needs are of their daily survival--food, shelter, warmth and clothes. A fundamental definition of science is "consensus among those scientists knowledgeable about the topic." =====is this not a better definition for an accepted scientific theory? Accordingly, let us view this issue as solely a question of "science" and measure the degree of consensus among scientists of animal welfare as determined by the number of positive responses by current ISAE scientists to the following statement: --------------- I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF APPLIED ETHOLOGY, AND MY SCIENTIFIC OPINION IS THAT THERE ARE _NOT_ WELFARE CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF TRAINING WILD ANIMALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXHIBITING THEM FOR HUMAN ENTERTAINMENT. ACCORDINGLY, BASED ON MY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION, I ENDORSE AND OFFER MY SUPPORT TO THOSE PERSONS WHO ADVOCATE CONTINUATION OF TRAINING AND EXHIBITING WILD ANIMALS. ========My response to this is not based on science or data, but on my observations of and interactions with experts of many disciplines: people know and express what they have been taught. Unless students/scientists take seriously the responsibility of reading widely, deeply and continuously, not only in their chosen field but in disciplines relevant to their chosen field, statements such as that above--indicating a mind closed to further debate and new developments--are grievously made. Jo _________________________________________________________________ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 11-OCT-2003 13:49:30.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Science Today Today, most persons first learn about the "scientific method" at about age 13 years or so. All too frequently, it seems, many of these persons go on and attain any number of advanced degrees and yet, they do not learn about "science" beyond this very elementary level. This is not my idea. This is a subject that has been discussed in some detail in several books - and I would suggest that the basic lack of understanding regarding "what is science" - and what is not - is a major part of the lack of finding a basis for understanding among members of this group. I will mention three books on the topic of "science" - as it currently is practiced. The first book is entitled _Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method_, by Henry H. Bauer (1992; University of Illinois Press, Urbana; ISBN 0-252-01856-7). Bauer is a professor of chemistry and science at VPI&SU. The primary contention of Bauer is that today there indeed is much ignorance about science - and much of this ignorance exists among the persons who claim to have knowledge of science and technology! As a chemist he points out that many, many major breakthroughs in physics and chemistry did not come about from the scientific process of hypothesis testing and data collection. Much of science comes about as a consequence of a person being able to synthesize information attained from any number of sources - not from this juvenile view that science is simply a process of determining facts on the basis of data. Additionally, particularly pertinent to some recent comments made by others, Bauer roots his definition of science in the statement, "consensus of opinion" by those knowledgeable about the topic. (And by the way, "science as consensus about a body of knowledge" is also taught, I expect, in every course that deals with philosophy of science.) And especially important relative to this recent discussion, Bauer additionally contends that the social sciences and topics such as animal welfare are _not_ sciences!!! He contends these are not sciences because they lack of a consensus of opinion on the critical issues on the topics they each respectively attempt to deal with. (And for the record, I happen to agree with Bauer that animal welfare is not a science. Hence, the basis in part for my contention that animal welfare - because it ultimately deals with what "ought to be" - is ultimately a matter of ethics. Yes, of course, it should be consistent with the knowledge of behavior, health, etc. - but determination of a consensus opinion regarding how animals ought to be treated will never emerge from such research.) The second book is _The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age_ by John Horgan (1996; Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York; ISBN 0-201-62679-9). The basic argument presented is that if one contends that humans have the ability to determine the rational basis and function of the universe, then one also must believe that theoretically there could be a time when this is attained. Specially, Horgan presents that this time could be near for he contends that all the big questions have now been answered - that there will be no better explanation for the events and processes currently explained by the big bang, evolution, atomic theory/relativity/thermodynamics, etc. What he says is that the scientists of today are simply filling in a few details. And I think that it is in this book (but it may be one of the others) that the argument is presented that because the big questions have been answered, the result is that "science" is now spilling over into topics that are in fact not ones of science (such as animal welfare) and this is causing some major confusion and problems within our society. Overall, the book is held to be not well written and did not receive favorable reviews. However, I believe it presents an interesting central argument - and the book is based on a number of interviews of some most interesting persons including Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Roger Penrose, Francis Crick, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen Jay Gould, Steven Hawking, Thomas Kuhn and others. The third book is _Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science_ by P.R. Gross and N. Levitt (1994; John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore). The basic contention of this book is that with postmodernism a type of academic fascism has emerged as a consequence of humanists and social scientists on the "academic left" criticizing science from viewpoints of radical feminism, radical environmentalism, animal rights, multiculturalism, etc. As a consequence Gross and Levitt argue that with today's culture dictating political correctness, we have brought about an academic culture where all viewpoints are supposed to be allowed. An excerpt from the book follows, "Today we find ourselves, as scientists, confronting an ignorance even more profound - when it is not, in fact, simply displaced by a sea of misinformation. That ignorance is now conjoined with a startling eagerness to judge and condemn in the scientific realm. A respect for the larger intellectual community of which we are part urges us to speak out against such an absurdity. This, we consider, is one of the duties of the scientific thinker, a duty commonly ignored." From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 11-OCT-2003 13:56:07.03 To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows Who would sign such statements? How can a scientist, dealing with animals or animal welfare can sign something which opposes the freedom of wild animals? Maybe i misunderstood you? I hope so. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 5:30 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows It seems that there are persons on this list who either express contempt or else dodge arguments based on ethics and insist that "science" is (or should be) the only legitimate basis for determining human attitudes and actions. (And for the record, I strongly disagree, for I believe animal welfare should ultimately be determined through a consensus of the informed citizens of the world as a collective - not dictated by any select group such as scientists, politicians, educators, a single government, animal owners, etc.). Nevertheless, in recent discussions of this group, the prevailing view of the vocal proponents of wild animal shows apparently holds that science, not ethics, must be the basis for determining the proper human attitude regarding treatment and exhibition of trained wild animals. OK - So let's go there. A fundamental definition of science is "consensus among those scientists knowledgeable about the topic." Applied Ethology is the primary discipline within science that deals with animal welfare. The International Society of Applied Ethology (ISAE) is the primary professional organization for scientists working on the topics of applied animal behavior and welfare. The membership of ISAE is approximately 500-600 grad students and professionals from around the world. Thus, the membership of ISAE represents the knowledgeable (active, published, informed, etc.) body of scientists today on the topic of animal welfare. Accordingly, let us view this issue as solely a question of "science" and measure the degree of consensus among scientists of animal welfare as determined by the number of positive responses by current ISAE scientists to the following statement: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF APPLIED ETHOLOGY, AND MY SCIENTIFIC OPINION IS THAT THERE ARE _NOT_ WELFARE CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF TRAINING WILD ANIMALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXHIBITING THEM FOR HUMAN ENTERTAINMENT. ACCORDINGLY, BASED ON MY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION, I ENDORSE AND OFFER MY SUPPORT TO THOSE PERSONS WHO ADVOCATE CONTINUATION OF TRAINING AND EXHIBITING WILD ANIMALS. NAME____________________________________________ POSITION________________________________________ COUNTRY_________________________________________ (The above statement is one made by individual persons and not an official statement, position, function or activity of the ISAE). From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 11-OCT-2003 14:19:34.51 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows It is extremist, AND it jumps tracks. According to this and Ray's previous statements, either all training of wild animals is unethical, or you have to agree that there are no welfare issues in the training of wild animals. I note, he has also taken us from ethics to welfare which are two different issues. No animal trainers that I know believe that there are never welfare issues when training wild animals. In fact, we spend a lot of energy trying to address them, do this successfully in many cases. Kayce Liz Hoffmaster wrote: > Please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek. ... > Science is not based on opinions, it is based on facts and predictions > and measurable data. Any opinion about this matter is therefore > necessarily a personal opinion. > > Liz Hoffmaster > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----- >> --------------- >> I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF APPLIED ETHOLOGY, AND MY >> SCIENTIFIC OPINION IS THAT THERE ARE _NOT_ WELFARE CONCERNS > From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 11-OCT-2003 15:06:00.77 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows In what way is the statement (petition to ISAE membership) extreme? Please be specific - or else let your silence speak for itself. And if any of the wild animal trainers currently bombarding this discussion group feels that my draft of the petition does not fairly represent the issue, then please tell me know how the statement should be changed. I absolutely want an unbiased statement regarding the use of training wild animals for exhibition so that the membership of ISAE can clearly communicate to you its position on this issue. I will be happy to accept any modifications in wording that do not change the intent/meaning. And regarding other misinformation in the message below, animal welfare absolutely has to do with ethics! There is no jumping of the track between animal welfare and ethics. In fact only a few of the "dinosaurs" of the past still hanging on today would even contend that science itself is void of ethics. Animal welfare is ultimately a question of how we ought to treat animals. And Ethics by definition deals with "what ought to be!" Science is a process that we use to gain a rational understanding of our universe in all its components and complexity. Thus, science attempts to deal with "what is" - but because every choice and action associated with science involves a value judgment, never is science completely separate from ethics. Simply deciding what research topic to pursue involves a value judgment. To contend that animal welfare is separate from ethics is not at all a defensible position. And for current students of Applied Ethology - or even science in general for that matter, please watch out for such statements by persons who are not within the discipline - especially those who would espouse such an old and out-of-date idea. -----Original Message----- From: kcover [mailto:synalia@synalia.com] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 4:23 PM To: Applied ethology Subject: Re: Scientific Consensus on Wild Animal Shows It is extremist, AND it jumps tracks. According to this and Ray's previous statements, either all training of wild animals is unethical, or you have to agree that there are no welfare issues in the training of wild animals. I note, he has also taken us from ethics to welfare which are two different issues. No animal trainers that I know believe that there are never welfare issues when training wild animals. In fact, we spend a lot of energy trying to address them, do this successfully in many cases. Kayce Liz Hoffmaster wrote: > Please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek. ... > Science is not based on opinions, it is based on facts and predictions > and measurable data. Any opinion about this matter is therefore > necessarily a personal opinion. > > Liz Hoffmaster > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----- >> --------------- >> I AM A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF APPLIED ETHOLOGY, AND MY >> SCIENTIFIC OPINION IS THAT THERE ARE _NOT_ WELFARE CONCERNS > From: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "Johanna =?iso-8859-1?q?V=E4is=E4nen?=" 11-OCT-2003 15:23:52.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Wild animals in shows Even though I did not have possibility to read the first messages concerning the ethics disscussion I have now realised that wild animals are aloud in shows in US ie. this is not a phenomenon occurring only in Irwing's Hotel New Hampshere. I'd hope I had misinterpreted this because it gives me creeps. How is it really aloud in a developed country, I just can not get it. I have grown up in Finland and wild animals haven't been aloud there in circuses after 1980 if I recall the year right. Dolphinarium was however introduced for the first time there in the 80's and in no time at all the public attacked this action so vigorously that no new dolphins will be imported there, ever again. Well, this is a country with a law forbidding see through aquariums and keeping any living tropical fish, not even a small guppy, in a a tank below 40 liters... Due to my growing environment I really haven't seen wild animal shows. The first ones have been in Sweden and Thailand this year. Dolphins and raptor birds are being shown in a Swedish zoo. I can somehow understand the raptor show, because it is completely based on the birds' natural behaviour and is given in educational purpose, even though it does not make me happy, of course. But the dolphins, well I think it is so sad that these wonderful, intelligent animals are kept in those boring pools. I indeed have the naturalistic ideal in my mind. Wild animals should ideally be living in the ecological conditions in the nature they belong to, however, I can accept safari parks and zoos in conservational and educational purposes, although with some restrictions. On my holiday in Thailand in this spring I got really upset to see baby elephant show and even worse, a monkey show were the monkey, carrying a collar and a leash was rolling cocos nuts off from a brach, that's what these monkeys are trained there for. Collecting cocos nuts from trees. But Thailand is not a developed country. And Elephants are on they way to be extinct there. There is less and less use for tame elephants in forestry, so the tourism and shows serve as a conservational purpose. When I try to remember that it calms me down a bit, even though knowing the destiny of the elephants is not what it should be really. regards, Johanna Johanna Väisänen, PhD student in Ethology Department of Biology IFM University of Linköping SE-58183 Linköping Sweden Phone: +46-13-281243 Mobile: +46-70-2254817 (+358-40-7462498 during summer time) Fax: +46-13-281399 Emails:johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se & johanna_vaisanen@jippii.fi From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 11-OCT-2003 16:19:44.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: animal welfare "Animal welfare" is not a science - but neither is it something which = has to do with what humans think is right or wrong to do to animals. = Animal welfare is a summary concept for how well an animal fares, either = a) how well it is doing physically or b) how well it feels or c) how = well it is able to develop its nature (given we follow Fraser & Duncan's = (see Animal Welfare 1997 edited by Mike Appleby & Barry Hughes) list of = three definitions of animal welfare). It is a subjective concept - but = subjective from the animal's point of view !! I can't see why the = attempts to measure this welfare could not be a scientific endeavor, = even though the ultimate truth might be forever hidden to us. But aren't = all the truths ultimately hidden? A theory is only valid because it is = the most plausible explanation, not because we KNOW it's the ONLY = explanation. Now, this is in the ideal theoretical world. In the real world where = most of us are dwelling, we as scientists are not able to throw off our = personal beliefs and opinions when we change into the lab coat / = coveralls. That is, even if we attempt to objectively study animal = welfare, both the questions we ask and the way we interpret the results = is influenced by what we think is good or bad for animals. Possibly also = by what we think should and should not be done to animals.=20 Anyway, there's not much more to be said about what is science and what = is something else that Sandoee and Simonsen didn't write in their 1992 = paper in Animal Welfare, see abstract posted below. Anna Olsson PS For an alternative view of the study of animal welfare as something = science spills over into when all the big questions are resolved, see = Marian Dawkins=20 Dawkins MS (1998) Evolution and animal welfare. The Quarterly Review of = Biology 73, 305-328. Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 ASSESSING ANIMAL WELFARE: WHERE DOES SCIENCE END AND PHILOSOPHY BEGIN?=20 P Sand=F8e1 and H B Simonsen2 1 Department of Education, Philosophy and Rhetorics, University of = Copenhagen, Njalsgade 80, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark=20 2 Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, Royal Veterinary and = Agricultural University, Denmark Abstract Animal Welfare 1992, 1: 257-288 To be able to assess animal welfare the researcher must presuppose a = number of background assumptions that cannot be tested by means of = ordinary empirical data collection. In order to substantiate these = assumptions two sorts of inferences have to be relied upon, which the = authors designate by the terms `analogies' and `homologies'. Analogies = are evaluative, philosophical reflections by means of which it is made = clear what provisions or states constitute the welfare of humans and = other animals. By means of analogies it may, for example be argued that = animal welfare consists of subjective experiences such as pain, boredom, = pleasure and expectation. Also by means of analogies the relative = `weight' of these states can be decided. Homologies are part of = theoretical science. They serve to clarify how the relevant experiences = are linked to measurable anatomical, physiological and behavioural = parameters. An account is given of the steps which have to be taken to give a full = answer to a question concerning the welfare of animals. In the account = only farm animals are mentioned, but the same steps, of course, also = have to be taken to answer questions concerning the welfare of other = kinds of animals be they companion, laboratory, zoo or wild. Eight steps = are described, and it is argued that both analogies and homologies are = needed at very fundamental levels. Therefore, if animal welfare science = is to provide relevant, rational and reliable answers to questions = concerning animal welfare, it must be an interdisciplinary inquiry = involving philosophical reflections and theoretical biology. Keywords: animal welfare, ethics, methodology, philosophy, subjective = experiences From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 11-OCT-2003 16:33:36.82 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: birdcam / nestcam Dear all, I'm looking for information about these tiny little cameras which can be placed into a bird's nestbox, usually termed birdcams or nestcams. Technical information, supplier contacts as well as your own experiences of using the cameras would be most welcome. Best wishes Anna Olsson Anna Olsson Postdoctoral research fellow Animal Behaviour & Welfare - Bioethics Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology Rua Campo Alegre 823 4150-180 Porto, Portugal Phone +351 22 607 4900 Faz +351 22 609 9157 From: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover" 11-OCT-2003 16:36:53.93 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ethics: situational and relative Stine eloquently puts forth that ethical conclusions depend on initial premises. I add, even if the same premises are shared, ethical conclusions depend on situations. Here are some wiggley situations that come to mind: It is sometimes ethical to deprive someone of liberty. Prison is a form of slavery. Once a murderer is incarcerated, it may be more ethical that he work for his upkeep than that others have to pay for him. Enforced labor. Women's rights, and the rights of all in general, may be suspended during times of war (Marshall Law in America), extreme privation (rationing), or quarantine - for the greater good. Killing another may be ethical if it prevents that person from killing others. Suicide is "wrong", but when someone knowingly spends his life to save another's, that is called heroism. One can't corner ethics. Although religions have tried, and the motive is control. There can be no single, valid, ethical, successful ethical stance. Kayce From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 11-OCT-2003 18:47:00.74 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: head bobbing in parrots I have an amazon green or conure (not sure which) on indefinite loan from a friend, anyway I have only ever had mammals and snakes for pets and birds definitely think differently. Hard to put my finger on it. They seem to have as high a level of awareness as any mammal, but seem to be emotionally different in a way that I have a hard time relating to. Anyway, I am doing what I can to get into its head, something I have always found easy with mammals. So, occasionally I am greeted with some head bobbing, and if I bob back the bird responds quite enthusiastically. It seems to only do this in a good mood. So I am pretty sure that it is positive, some sort of flirtation, but I was wondering if anyone knows more about what this means? From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 11-OCT-2003 19:20:26.17 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Science Today -- scientific method and Science Dear Dr. Stricklin, thanks for summarizing the three books that you cited. I want to make a comment regarding a few things you wrote. >"In fact only a few of the "dinosaurs" of the past still hanging on today >would even contend that science itself is void of ethics" Scientific method and "science" seem to be used in the same breath on this list. They are different. Science relies on scientific method. Scientific method does not assign "ethics". It is a method. The entire process of scientific endevour involves as you pointed out though, flashes of intuition, ethical decisions, etc. >"It seems that there are persons on this list who either express contempt >or else dodge arguments based on ethics and insist that "science" is (or >should be) the only legitimate basis for determining human attitudes and >actions." A new book by Richard Dawkins is in the bookstore which I just purchased. In the frontspiece it says that it contains a letter to his young daughter asking her to base her decisions/opinion on "evidence". I thought this was a good way to say it. Scientific method yields data and we use the data as evidence. But, there are many ways to provide evidence - most have in common a respect for theoretical constructs (proofs) put together either in mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology or the humanities by people whose opinions have been tested by their peers very thoroughly. Every so often these constructs abruptly change (Kuhn's theories) but still are based on the best authorities/educated people/most "read" people possible (ideally) who try to use as much "evidence" as possible. Over the centuries scientific method has yielded incredible insights into the natural world which people could not themselves "see" without the scientific method. That is why I personally place a great deal of reliance on this method over beliefs proven through other means. When used in basic research, scientific method can yield information to the scientist which is like giving sight to blind people. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 1:49 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Science Today "Today, most persons first learn about the "scientific method" at about age 13 years or so. All too frequently, it seems, many of these persons go on and attain any number of advanced degrees and yet, they do not learn about "science" beyond this very elementary level. This is not my idea. This is a subject that has been discussed in some detail in several books [see ori. Msg for rest of text cut here....]" -- as I pointed out before, "scientific method" is a subset of "science". I for one trust scientific method over other forms of proof. When a scientist shows that lab animals brains show abnormal patterns and he postulates that lab animals are insane, then I expect "Science" to stand up and notice, because this same researcher hypothesizes that all the physiological data done on New Zealand White Rabbits kept singlely in cages without hay, without toys, without allogrooming -- that it is all skewed and possibly invalid. Why doesn't "Science" do more studies like this? Why doesn't "Science" stand up and notice? Because although "Science" is based on scientific method, not enough basic research is funded to impact the theoretical constructs, the process of peer review, etc. "Science" can be political, it can be skewed, it can be "wrong". That is why, if you read a book about someone's research (Dr. Ann McBride's work on rabbits in the U.K.) and a statement is made that it is cruel to turn a rabbit on its back to hold it -- it is necessary to look at the original data she based this assumption on (Because many rabbits actually seem to like this position, and many nursing or sleeping rabbits adopt this same position). Unfortunately in this example, the original data is not available through the colleges etc. I have contacted. The point is, here, the original data can yield different "evidence" depending upon the tests/questions/comparisons you run it through. That doesn't devalue the data all the time. It just means that if anyone has a question about the "Science" you always go back to the original data. This is something that everyone on this list who, by list definition is involved (or interested) in "applied ethology" must be extremely careful to realize --- the impact funding sources, peers, dogma, whatever, has on the interpretation of the data (or the original design of the data collection) they've collected using scientic method. H.mcmurray From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 12-OCT-2003 07:35:33.55 To: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Johanna_V=E4is=E4nen?=", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: hedonism Johanna, Below is info that I have quickly "cut and pasted" from the web site of Gary Varner http://www-phil.tamu.edu/%7Egary/bioethics/index.html. I highly recommend reviewing all the material he has very generously shared with others, and especially recommend that the material on teaching Animal Welfare and Animal Rights be viewed. (And had you taken my Bioethics course at Ultuna, then I hope you would have known... And in taking another quick look at your original message and the info from Varner, one point that maybe should be added is that the originator of Utilitarianism (Bentham) did in fact consider the pain and pleasure experienced by animals in his arguments. Best wishes, and see you in Helsinki.) Ray ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/awvar/lecture/utilitarianism.html Hedonistic utilitarianism In ethical theory, a "hedonist" is not someone who excessively pursues pleasures, but rather someone who holds a particular belief about what has intrinsic value, namely the view that pleasure is the only intrinsically good thing and pain (suffering) the only intrinsically bad thing. When a utilitarian defines "happiness" in hedonistic terms, the resulting view is called hedonistic utilitarianism: Hedonistic utilitarianism =df the view that morally right actions and institutions maximize aggregate pleasure and/or minimize aggregate pain. On the hedonistic conception, an individuals are happy to the extent that they experience pleasure and avoid pain, although hedonists generally construe "pleasure" and "pain" very broadly, to include not only physical pleasures and pains (e.g., those accompanying orgasms and third-degree burns) but various kinds of pleasant and unpleasant psychological states (e.g. glee, exhilaration, tension, and nervousness). The most famous exponent of this view was John Stuart Mill, who further held that there are qualitative differences between intellectual pleasures and bodily pleasures. ------------------------------------------------------- - -----Original Message----- From: Johanna Väisänen [mailto:johva@ifm.liu.se] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 2:41 PM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: hedonism Hi, This is an intresting disscussion and I'd have a loads to comment on this but just start with a short question. Namely, the term hedonism has been used here and I may have missed something (excuse me just jumping in this disscussion so erratically) because I did not get it why this term is used in this context. It does not seem to refer to us humans here. From an atropomorphistic point of view most of the animals appear as hedonistic beings. That's unavoidably an idea I get whe From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 12-OCT-2003 08:09:58.48 To: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare -----Original Message----- From: Anna Olsson [mailto:olsson@ibmc.up.pt] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 6:20 PM To: applied ethology Subject: animal welfa PS For an alternative view of the study of animal welfare as something science spills over into when all the big questions are resolved, see Marian Dawkins Dawkins MS (1998) Evolution and animal welfare. The Quarterly Review of Biology 73, 305-328. ----------------------- Anna, I have the utmost respect for M. Dawkins and in fact have said I consider her to be the standard bearer for applied ethology - and I use two of her books, one in my Behavior class and the other my Animal Welfare class. However, I believe that it is a mistake to attempt to move animal welfare strictly into the realm of science (not that she is attempting to do so, entirely). One major reason that I argue that it is a mistake is that the Americans will - and have already - used "science" to block the views of the EU and others. Essentially, what has been happening on a world scale is in many ways parallel to what has been occurring on a smaller scale in this discussion group. The wild animal trainers of this group (mostly Americans?) have repeatedly been saying "prove scientifically that we are doing is wrong." It cannot be done! Basically one would have to "prove" the negative. Also, by saying that only science is the basis of decisions on GMOs, animal hormone growth promoters, animal welfare itself, etc., one is saying that "that you Europeans must eat what we 'scientists' say you should eat, unless you can prove scientifically that we are wrong! And increasingly in trade policy discussions, it is being argued that the treatment of animals around the world continue as it is because one cannot prove "scientifically" that these animals should be treated differently. M. Dawkins deserves absolute credit for convincing some of the grand ole men of applied ethology that what animals experience - what they feel - is critical to the understanding of animal welfare. And I absolutely do not want this to be taken from her, or for this view be changed - for that matter. And I absolutely am NOT arguing against more welfare type of research. Indeed, we need much, much more - especially in behavior. However, lumping all the many disciplines that study welfare together and calling this "Animal Welfare Science" - I believe - is a mistake. First, it is not possible for a researcher to be up-to-date and proficient on all the included disciplines - and can and has resulted in some second and third rate research results. (I would much rather have applied ethology stick primarily to the topic of behavior - and not try to have it cover all of welfare.) I must quit this and do something else - but let me again say and very quickly, that the every popular mantra - especially used in the USA - "we must base all our decisions on science" is code for "we have no intention of changing our treatment of animals - for you cannot "prove" that what we are doing is negative for the animal." Therefore, I very much believe that it is critical that both science and ethics be argued as being necessary in dealing with animal welfare - especially on a global basis. Hastily prepared by, Ray Stricklin From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 12-OCT-2003 13:11:47.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare Richard Dawkins in his new collection of essays has a really good comment to make about statements such as the one you just made, Dr. Stricklin. I don't mean to be rude, but your statement that it cannot be scientifically tested that what wild animal trainers are doing is wrong is very scarey to me. It is akin in my opinion to the homeopathy practitioners that Richard Dawkins reviews, who say that it is not possible to use science to test the effects of their homeopathy treatments. "The wild animal trainers of this group (mostly Americans?) have repeatedly been saying "prove scientifically that we are doing is wrong." It cannot be done! " [and] "I must quit this and do something else - but let me again say and very quickly, that the every popular mantra - especially used in the USA - "we must base all our decisions on science" is code for "we have no intention of changing our treatment of animals - for you cannot "prove" that what we are doing is negative for the animal." Dr. Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Professor of "public understanding of science" and author of the selfish gene) writes on page 184 of "A Devil's Chaplain" ISBN 0618335404: " At this point we scrape the barrel of excuses. 'Some things are true on a human level, but they don't lend themselves to scientific testing. The sceptical atmosphere of the science lab is not conducive to the sensitive forces involved' . Such excuses are commonly totted out by practitioners of alternative therapies, including those that don't have homeopathy's peculiar difficulties of principle but which nevertheless consistently fail to pass double-blind tests in practice." He goes on on page 185 to say, "When, predictably, the 'aternative' technique ignominiously flunked the double-blind test, its practitioner delivered himself of the following immortal response: ' You see? That is why we never do double-blind testing any more. It never works!' ". Respectfully yours, h.mcmurray p.s. see the work of behavioral scientist Dr. Joseph Garner at the University of California in Davis, with changes in brain ganglia and stereotypical behaviors From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 12-OCT-2003 15:01:44.28 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: dominion, alinging beliefs and our behavior Ray, When I found these links to a publication you contributed to and the organization that published it, I was surprised to find how closely affiliated you are with animals in the food industry. http://www.nraes.org/publications/nraes84.html http://www.nraes.org/aboutnraes.html I some of what you have written appears to me to conflict with your area of employment. Perhaps you can clarify for me how your objections to non-domestic animals in captivity, whether trained for exhibition or not, is consistent with employment in the field of livestock management where animals are captive for consumption. How do you reconcile it being ethical for you to work in this field yet object on ethical grounds to other species living in captivity for education and entertainment? Most livestock is under human dominion for the purpose of consuming the flesh, milk, eggs, hides, fleece or feathers. Some other bodily functions such as pregnant mare urine are also consumed. Horses are more often used for entertainment, riding for pleasure or competition but are also used as stock horses as an aid to management of cattle used for consumption. There are still times and places where animals are used in place of mechanical equipment, horses, donkeys, mules, oxen, llamas, water buffalo, I'm sure I've left out a few. And not restricted to developing countries. The Amish is a population still using horses regularly. Locally, there are horse loggers regularly employed for selective logging in areas that mechanical logging would be too destructive. Hogs are highly intelligent and often kept in conditions that are to my way of thinking medieval torture chambers. Cattle, horses and even poultry have varying degrees of intelligence but are highly trainable. Is there any evidence that given a choice, all these species would not choose enriched environments designed for their personal preferences? Would cattle choose open range or feedlots? hogs choose to farrow in a tiny stall or under a log in a woodland? And so on for the other domestic species whose life and death is under human dominion for consumption and entertainment. Then there are the lab animals of so many species. For testing of products such as hair spray, I object to it being sprayed into the eyes of rabbits. For research into toxicity of chemical residues, and other health related areas, I support it but regret some of the methods needed. To keep in alignment as much as possible with that conflict, I purchase products as green as possible and live in a way that produces as low a footprint as possible. My husband and I find large scale food animal practices a dominion that is inhumane. And finding that a vegan diet makes us feel poorly, choose to align our beliefs and behavior by eating lamb we raise in a field, pork from a local farmer who has a large pasture and roomy farrowing stalls with turnouts, and beef that is range run grass fed and hormone free. We have our own poultry for eggs and meat. We have at times started with purchasing a live steer or hog and done our own butchering. This teaches us more respect for the life that gives to life and a determination not to waste anything. Scraps go into the dogs and also feed ravens and jays. Feathers are composted. Obviously this is not possible for many people. And buying organic range run meat is also not available to many. Each person must find a way to be in alignment with their beliefs about humans consuming non humans and which species are acceptable to eat according to their taboos, ethics and beliefs. I personally have a self imposed taboo or geas against eating dogs, house cats and horses. I would have to be in a state of starvation with no other possible way of surviving before killing and eating any of those species. And might choose not to survive rather than to do so, not a situation I have been tested in. Yet I have eaten legally hunted cougar. I do not have an abhorrence for those people or cultures who do eat those species although the methods of management and slaughter sometimes do. I eat species that are either sacred or taboo to some cultures, cattle and hogs. I don't tell them what to do and they don't tell me. A close friend is Native American. His spiritual and cultural beliefs including the hunting and eating of whales. Understanding the deep respect and spiritual connection along with the risk of death that is integral to such a practice allows me to accept this practice as ethical although it would not be one I would engage in even if permitted. The tribal councils to my satisfaction are more aware of the needs to conserve species and their actual numbers. Locally there was an outbreak of blue tongue that reduced deer populations. The tribes voluntarily stopped hunting to permit populations to recover. I would trust the tribes to run wildlife programs more than the government programs. I trust that their beliefs and practices are more in alignment with conservation than those currently in charge. So how is it that you are employed in a field that often has restricted housing, often is sensory and socially deprived and the end result for the animals involved is early death for consumption or longer life to be used for work, breeding or entertainment? How is this ethical but keeping endangered species in more stimulating conditions doing stimulating work they are rewarded for unethical? With exotic species, the emphasis is on keeping the animals healthy, happy and long lived. A few such as snakes may be milked for venom but are still kept alive not harvested. I object to dog racing, not on the racing part but that the dogs are most often slated for early killing when not competitive and not adopted. Many race horses are sold at auction to buyers but some are killed if not competitive. I choose to boycott both money making entertainments. And what of the lives of dogs, cats and other pets? There are wonderful owners and too many who are either ignorant and unable to provide a good life and some who are outright and intentionally cruel. For the wonderful owners with contented and often coddled animals, mutual entertainment is often one of the most prized rewards. For example, here is a photo of my husband 'entertaining' 2 dogs and being entertained in turn. Few pet animals would survive without human assistance. Not many dogs have true jobs any longer. Some are herding, hunting, doing assistance work, scent detection, police and military duty or protecting family or livestock from thieves or predators. Should we kill all the rest of them so they do not live under human dominion for the purposes of entertainment? Release them into the wild? Set up viewing areas at garbage dumps to watch them in feral state? What purpose do most pets have except to bring pleasure to their owners? Do the pets get fair compensation for doing so? When I see any animal, domestic or non, furred, finned, feathered or scaled, living or training with a human I do not see dominion or slavery; I see partnership, communication and cooperation. I see respect, trust and satisfaction on both sides. Is this always true? Of course not, just as not all humans treat each other so. But often the animals are teachers in how to gain these. From seeing the response of troubled teens, often abused with ADHD and self esteem problems, aggression and trust flock around our dogs and trying to establish a good relationship for just a moment, I see the dogs as role models and mirrors. The teens connect not just to the dogs but to us and each other talking about their dogs at home and how they miss them. Often the dogs were the only beings who loved them as is. The dogs don't care about grades, clothes, looks and tidy rooms. They care about how they are treated and so mirror back to us all our own behavior. Does your dog trust you? Then take a bow for you are trustworthy. Does your dog love you? Then you are loveable and loving. Recently the Balanced Trainers list discussed the prison training programs for dogs. There was criticism of having losers--inmates, training rescue dogs--many with behavioral problems, to be placed as service dogs or companions. And yet the outcomes are interesting. In one prison, I think maximum security, perhaps medium security, a small program, a dozen or so dogs were paired with screened inmates. A widespread result was that within a short time, inmate violent incidents were down about 60%! This makes it safer for correctional officers, plus support staff such as medical personnel. Prisoners would go out of their way to greet the dogs, who again reflected back to them when they were acceptable. They talked to each other about these dogs and ones who had touched their lives. Guards talked to prisoners, often the first time ever except for ordering them around. I myself can not separate domestic animals living with humans from non-domestics. Endangered species in the wild have a greater chance of surviving as a species if some are in captive breeding populations. Perhaps such efforts will keep them alive in the hope that in the future there will be a way to reintroduce them. If not, is it more ethical to kill 15,000 tigers than to permit them to be privately owned? Shall they all go extinct rather than have some in private hands? There is not enough space in zoos and game parks. I would imagine that all privately owned exotics give some measure of entertainment to their owners. That keeps them alive. How is it wrong for them to cooperate in entertaining many people rather than just the immediate owners? All who have written on this topic have the well being of animals as a high personal value but differ as to methods and procedures. How do each of us find ways to be in alignment with our values? Are there things in which we are not in alignment with because we didn't think it through? What have the differing opinions shown us that we didn't think of before? Do we need to re-evaluate our own behavior to be walking our talk or are we speaking with a forked tongue? I have often changed my point of view in the light of new information. I used to eat feed lot beef. I used to believe many people were good dog owners and have drastically revised downward the percentage. I hope to help some of the ones I don't think are good owners find ways to become good ones. They need to understand dogs are not stuffed toys with software programs that are upgraded. By learning to read, understand and communicate with their dogs, they can learn relationship skills to help them with themselves, family, friends and co workers. And from there, other cultures. Yes and maybe, just maybe, a way to stop hating and fighting. I still have some idealistic dreams left over from the 60's. And I believe that all species we live and work with offer us insight into how to communicate well enough to live with trust and respect for differing needs. Non domestic species offer us so much BECAUSE of their differences from us and domestics. This planet needs a whole lot of what they have to teach us before they die out. And to be preserved if at all possible, even in captivity. regards Julie Alexander From: IN%"deidre@rcn.com" "deidre muccio" 12-OCT-2003 16:30:04.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: further elaboration on "natural" vs... A friend who I have been discussing this debate with asked me to ask John to elaborate on some of the points he made in his post below. By the way, John, I relish/love the detail and vast first-hand experience described in your posts. I always have to refrain from wanting to address all kinds of side questions to you, things like how you think we can save the environment from the rampant disregard for life of all sorts. why, John, do you think the concept of animals living as fulfilling a life as possible is better than the concept of living as naturally as possible since you go on to say that you can never know if a parrot raised by humans is more or less fulfilled than one who grows up in the Amazon. As my friend says, "if he can't use it the concept, what good is it?" No credentials here other than the modest LMT. DM Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:46:41 -0700 From: John Burchard Subject: Re: animal shows and captive conditions To: Applied ethology list I would not call fence fighting a natural social behavior. It is a game that dogs (and wolves and coyotes) play. Some of them use it for amusement, others to stoke their aggression; but natural social behavior it is not. A very great deal of what we know about ethology has been learned by observing the interactions of captive animals, mostly with human beings as much as with each other. It is not "natural" for an imprinted bird to direct social or sexual behavior toward humans; but it can be enormously informative; and it does not necessarily prevent that bird from living out many other of its life functions in a quasi-natural manner, provided only that the environment is safe enough that it can be kept in some kind of semi-liberty (in an increasingly crowded world, that is becoming increasingly difficult; consider also that the pioneering work of Lorenz and others would not have been possible following some definitions of "ethical" which have recently appeared on this list). IMO the life of animals in captivity or semicaptivity is never "natural" and rather than pursuing the chimerical goal of "as natural as possible" (which largely excludes interaction with humans) we might better aim at "as fulfilling as possible" which is not necessarily quite the same thing. It may be that a large parrot in the Amazonian or African forest is more fulfilled than another individual of the same species which is human imprinted (having been hand reared) and living in an "artificial" environment of social interactions with humans (as well as, perhaps, with its own species). We cannot know that; nor is it intellectually or ethically honest to *assume* it. If you take the position that captivity itself, or interactions with humans, is inherently evil, no dialogue is possible and we will just have to agree to differ. My own interactions with animals of various species, both wild and domestic, have convinced me that such simplistic absolutism is untenable. Its sole merit, if merit that be, is to relieve the individual adopting such a position of the necessity of thinking about the complexity of actual situations. From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 12-OCT-2003 17:57:59.05 To: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare -----Original Message----- From: adopta bunny [mailto:pellingv@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:12 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: animal welfare Richard Dawkins in his new collection of essays has a really good comment to make about statements such as the one you just made, Dr. Stricklin. I don't mean to be rude, but your statement that it cannot be scientifically tested that what wild animal trainers are doing is wrong is very scarey to me. It is akin in my opinion to the homeopathy practitioners that Richard Dawkins reviews, who say that it is not possible to use science to test the effects of their homeopathy treatments. -------------------------- I think I understand your point. I believe you mean that it is scary to you that some persons may be taking this approach - and possibly getting away with it? To be clear - I am in agreement with Dawkins. At least I believe that I am in agreement based on what you quoted from him, but I have not read the book you mentioned. What he seems to be saying here is that some persons attempt to manipulate the inability of science to prove the negative. They do so in order to rationalize and continue their current activities - which was exactly my point. He is trying to prevent this from happening - which is what I am trying to do as well. Only in the case of animal welfare, I believe the problem may be somewhat different and may need a different type of approach from that dealing with the homeopathy hoaxers that Dawkins was addressing. I am arguing that the attempts to base animal welfare decisions solely on science is a mistake. And again, I am NOT arguing against science. I am arguing that we must use BOTH science and ethics. To restrict decisions to only things that can be "proven" by science has some major pitfalls. Let me give an example - The tails of dairy cows are increasingly removed from the animal - basically they are cut off. This is done because a swinging cow tail tends to sling and spread micro-organisms. i.e., manure. Some microbes, of course, will end up at the udder and some will then enter the teat. The cow is then more likely to get an infection of the udder - maybe a mild one - but the infection increases the somatic cell count in the milk. This is not good for the persons who would drink the milk. So the milk may be thrown out. The dairy producer looses money. Thus, the cow's tail is taken off! Now, I will challenge anyone to give me a strictly science basis (argument, data, etc.) for opposing tail-docking in dairy cows! (And to make it clear, I am opposed to docking the tails of dairy cows - on an ethical basis. In total, I believe no scientific basis is needed for me to hold and promote such a position. The spread of manure can be controlled without cutting off the cow's tail. And let me also say that I could take essentially any other welfare issue and make this same point - the point being that you cannot prove any given welfare-type need for an animal using science. In your message you mentioned, Joe Garner's work for example. Even when there are some apparently clear indicators from neuroanatomy or neurophysiology, there can still be other studies that can be interpreted as contradictory. In the case of stereotypy's, there is French work from some time back indicating that sows exhibiting stereotypy's have an increased endorphin production in their brain - when performing the behavior. In other words, these sows engage in the stereotypic behavior because it makes them "feel good!" On this basis, one could argue that the welfare is better for these animals when they perform a stereotypy - if you look at the scientific/research data only. Yes, again, I believe that we of course need the research data - but we also do not stop there. We then engage in a discussion of "what ought to be" the proper housing of sows - which has to do with ethics. And by the way, in previous messages by a couple of persons - or more - on this group, it has been implied or stated that science is objective and ethics is not! This is simply not so. And it is incredibly arrogant for scientists to make such statements. The process of building an ethical argument is in many ways is similar to the scientific method - not to mention that a legitimate ethical argument for animal welfare could not be made that was not inclusive of and consistent with what is known scientifically about the issue.) From: IN%"lewiskirkham@yahoo.com.au" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Lewis=20Kirkham?=" 12-OCT-2003 18:18:55.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology group" CC: Subj: RE: head bobbing in parrots Hi Michael, I have recently acquired a rainbow lorikeet that does the same thing. He/she seems to do it when excited - or so I believe. If I head bob as well he/she often responds/mimics me. Often if we laugh at him/her (because it does look funny) this seems to excite her more. Unfortunately I don't know anymore about it. My initial concern was that this may be a stereotypic behaviour but now I think probably not due to the context it is done in. regards Lewis --- Michalchik@aol.com wrote: > I have an amazon green or conure (not sure which) on > indefinite loan from a > friend, anyway I have only ever had mammals and > snakes for pets and birds > definitely think differently. Hard to put my finger > on it. They seem to have as > high a level of awareness as any mammal, but seem to > be emotionally different in > a way that I have a hard time relating to. Anyway, I > am doing what I can to > get into its head, something I have always found > easy with mammals. > > So, occasionally I am greeted with some head > bobbing, and if I bob back the > bird responds quite enthusiastically. It seems to > only do this in a good mood. > So I am pretty sure that it is positive, some sort > of flirtation, but I was > wondering if anyone knows more about what this > means? > http://search.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Search - Looking for more? Try the new Yahoo! Search From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-OCT-2003 18:25:36.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: captive conditions Jo Angleberger wrote: > John wrote: > > A very great deal of what we know about ethology has been learned by observing > the interactions of captive animals, mostly with human beings as much as with > each other. It is not "natural" for an imprinted bird to direct social or > sexual behavior toward humans; but it can be enormously informative; and it does > > =====may I suggest that imprinting and other behaviors toward humans are > indeed natural, but that they are not ecologically adaptive. I did not say imprinting was "unnatural" - only the resulting behavior . The lack of adaptiveness arises from the "unnatural" context in which the imprinting took place. Without those "errors" we would not even know of the existence of the phenomenon of imprinting. That could not have been discovered by observing undisturbed wild animals in their natural environment. > IMO the life of animals in captivity or semicaptivity is never "natural" and > rather than pursuing the chimerical goal of "as natural as possible" (which > largely excludes interaction with humans) we might better aim at "as fulfilling > as possible" which is not necessarily quite the same thing. > > ====My belief is that all animal behaviors in captivity or semi-captivity > are natural. And that a response or set of reactions to a stimulus--no > matter how unnatural the stimulus is--is natural for the animal. If you read my words again you will find I did not say the behaviors were not "natural" - but the *life* of animals in captivity is never entirely "natural" which is what I said. Many animals have a considerable ability to modify their responses by various kinds of learning, and in so doing achieve (sometimes) a better adaptation to conditions (for instance) of captivity. Sometimes indeed they learn to manipulate their captors. My hounds, who are not "wild" animals but are behaviorally more feral and less neotenic than most domestic dog breeds, are very proficient at manipulating humans to achieve their own objectives. The mutual adaptation of dog and man is not quite so much of a one way street as some people seem to think. If Ray thinks this is "dominion" I invite him to spend a day or two with me in the field . > If you take the position that captivity itself, or interactions with humans, > is inherently evil, no dialogue is possible and we will just have to agree > to differ. My own interactions with animals of various species, both wild > and domestic, have convinced me that such simplistic absolutism is > untenable. Its sole merit, if merit that be, is to relieve the individual > adopting such a position of the necessity of thinking about the complexity > of actual situations. > > ====I admit that I used to think that humans are an evil curse upon the > planet, and in hindsight I see that such a distressing viewpoint was > fostered by my Christian upbringing combined with my love for the diversity > of species and cultures and habitats on this planet. Since the two did not > reconcile for me, I sided for a while on the religious viewpoint until I > began to think for myself around age 22 and became agnostic. My view now is > that humans are part of the ecology in nearly all habitats. Even if some of > us consider humans to be invasive alien species in most habitats, it is a > natural progression which has occurred before in geological time--but here I > digress from behavioral topics. The moral issue with which I think all of us are struggling in various forms is that humans seem to have burst the normal ecological constraints on multiplication of a species and are now an overwhelming and mostly negative factor in the development and indeed survival of natural ecosystems. Having spent a considerable part of my professional life in the study of "environmental impact" I am very conscious of that. The scale of these things in the so-called "Third World" is hard to imagine unless you have been there. I think most of us realize - though the man in the street may not, or only dimly - that without some fairly major change in human behavior even those already diminished ecosystems with which we all grew up are not going to be around in recognizable form very much longer. I think most of us - this time including the man in the street - regard this prospect with dismay. That dismay cuts no ice whatsoever, as I have repeatedly observed, with the corporate managers, engineers, bankers and government officials whose decisions so largely drive our present modes of interaction with the natural world. It is not part of their perception of what is "real" and is therefore not allowed to influence their actions. A thoughtful treatment of these issues, in the context of the evolutionary history of modern man, may be found in Jonathan Kingdon's book "Self Made Man" ... John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 12-OCT-2003 19:21:39.36 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Apparently in your message below you are referring to the following article: Housing Design Based on Behavior and Computer Simulations W. Ray Stricklin and Harold W. Gonyou I am not sure what you mean that you were surprised to see this article - for I do not understand why you would be surprised that I would be interested in designing better housing for animals. Maybe you mean that you think that I should be totally opposed to the use of animals for food production? I am not. But before I address this specifically, I do believe that arguments for animal rights (as in Tom Regan) raises a serious question, and I discuss it in some detail with students - animals science students! And I believe that the question raised is serious enough that it must or should receive continued scrutiny and review - as I have said previously. And I certainly endorse the right of anyone to choose a vegetarian lifestyle, or vegan for that matter. If you were trying to ask how I view the issue of animal agriculture in total at this time, I will try to give a short answer. First, I believe that there is a strong and increasing need to make changes. Overall, I basically agree with Singer's original position that if the animal used for food production experiences a quality of life comparable to a wild counterpart, then an argument can be made for using animals for food production. (Singer has come to a position where he contends that it is not possible for the benefits (pleasure) to overweigh the costs (pain)). However, I still believe that it is possible - but I fear that the vast majority of animal agriculture is ignoring the issue - and continuing to use the argument that "we must use science" to determine what practices shall continue. I have no problem whatsoever holding that the issue of training wild animals is a completely separate category from food animals. There is no utility associated with the training and exhibition of wild animals. Whereas, food and numerous other products are derived from agricultural animals. The farmer does not own animals simply so that he or she can train the animal and demonstrate how they can be controlled and dominated. Food animals have utility in the form of products necessary for human sustenance (and before the vegetarians come at me on this point, I know that it is not "necessary" to eat animal products to exist.) But any acts of dominance of humans over food animals under production circumstances is (or should be) solely to facilitate the production of food, etc. - not for human gratification. Additionally, animal agriculture is biologically efficient when it is practiced in the appropriate manner (and this last phrase about appropriate is critical to my argument, i.e., animal agriculture today is not always appropriately practiced, in my opinion). What I mean by biological efficiency is that a natural ecosystem is based on both plants and animals. Agriculture to be appropriately practiced must be similarly designed such that it maximizes the utilization of energy and resources - thus it must include both plants and animals to be optimally efficient. In short, I argue that animal agriculture should maximize the costs and benefits (hedonism, if you will) for three basic life groups; 1) humans (animal owners, citizens, rural communities, etc.), 2) all the life-forms of the "natural" environment in total, and 3) the food animals specifically. What is implied here is something I learned from Singer's Animal Liberation; the quality of the life of a food animal should be included in the consideration of whether or not the practice is justified. What I am contending is that it can be argued that food animal actually benefit from their existence - PROVIDED the animal experiences sufficient quality of life. To me this is the challenge. The ball, so to speak, is in the court of animal agriculture to ensure that the animals do, indeed, meet this criterion - and regrettably, I do not see the needed/appropriate changes coming any time in the near future. And for the record, I am opposed to the use of agricultural animals when the activity is solely designed to show the dominion of humans over the animal - as in the case of bull fighting, for example. And I am opposed rodeo events such as calf roping and steer wrestling that have to do with the exhibition of human dominance over the animal. (I am not certain about a position on bull and bronco riding because it seems the animal may have basically an equal chance in these events.) So I do not believe that I am inconsistent in my position on the issue of using animals, wild or agricultural, when the purpose is solely to demonstrate human dominion over the beast - I am opposed to it. (Some of your comments below seem to be in reference to the holding of animals in captivity, independent of training and exhibition for showing how the animal has been mastered. I earlier said that under some circumstances, I believe there may be justification for some activities that hold captive wild animals - unless the purpose is demonstrate dominance and mastery.) Overall, I consider myself to be basically a reformer. I do not want to see animal agriculture destroyed - for I continue to hold for the agrarian ideal. To lose the rural lifestyle and rural communities, I believe, would be a major lose to society as a whole. At the same time, I cannot support a growing number of developments in animal agriculture. It is a personal dilemma - but life has many similar ones. I love university life but fear that current trends are not healthy for the long-term future of the institutions. I strongly disagree with many of the developments and trends in my own university - but I certainly do not wish to destroy it or the system. Rather, I want to see it reformed. Similarly, I want to see reform in animal agriculture. I might add that my opinions about animals have gone through a number of changes during my life - and I hope that I grow older I can remain open to learning and changing. W.R. Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 5:01 PM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: dominion, alinging beliefs and our behavior Ray, When I found these links to a publication you contributed to and the organization that published it, I was surprised to find how closely affiliated you are with animals in the food industry. http://www.nraes.org/publications/nraes84.html http://www.nraes.org/aboutnraes.html I some of what you have written appears to me to conflict with your area of employment. Perhaps you can clarify for me how your objections to non-domestic animals in captivity, whether trained for exhibition or not, is consistent with employment in the field of livestock management where animals are captive for consumption. How do you reconcile it being ethical for you to work in this field yet object on ethical grounds to other species living in captivity for education and entertainment? Most livestock is under human dominion for the purpose of consuming the flesh, milk, eggs, hides, fleece or feathers. Some other bodily functions such as pregnant mare urine are also consumed. Horses are more often used for entertainment, riding for pleasure or competition but are also used as stock horses as an aid to management of cattle used for consumption. There are still times and places where animals are used in place of mechanical equipment, horses, donkeys, mules, oxen, llamas, water buffalo, I'm sure I've left out a few. And not restricted to developing countries. The Amish is a population still using horses regularly. Locally, there are horse loggers regularly employed for selective logging in areas that mechanical logging would be too destructive. Hogs are highly intelligent and often kept in conditions that are to my way of thinking medieval torture chambers. Cattle, horses and even poultry have varying degrees of intelligence but are highly trainable. Is there any evidence that given a choice, all these species would not choose enriched environments designed for their personal preferences? Would cattle choose open range or feedlots? hogs choose to farrow in a tiny stall or under a log in a woodland? And so on for the other domestic species whose life and death is under human dominion for consumption and entertainment. Then there are the lab animals of so many species. For testing of products such as hair spray, I object to it being sprayed into the eyes of rabbits. For research into toxicity of chemical residues, and other health related areas, I support it but regret some of the methods needed. To keep in alignment as much as possible with that conflict, I purchase products as green as possible and live in a way that produces as low a footprint as possible. My husband and I find large scale food animal practices a dominion that is inhumane. And finding that a vegan diet makes us feel poorly, choose to align our beliefs and behavior by eating lamb we raise in a field, pork from a local farmer who has a large pasture and roomy farrowing stalls with turnouts, and beef that is range run grass fed and hormone free. We have our own poultry for eggs and meat. We have at times started with purchasing a live steer or hog and done our own butchering. This teaches us more respect for the life that gives to life and a determination not to waste anything. Scraps go into the dogs and also feed ravens and jays. Feathers are composted. Obviously this is not possible for many people. And buying organic range run meat is also not available to many. Each person must find a way to be in alignment with their beliefs about humans consuming non humans and which species are acceptable to eat according to their taboos, ethics and beliefs. I personally have a self imposed taboo or geas against eating dogs, house cats and horses. I would have to be in a state of starvation with no other possible way of surviving before killing and eating any of those species. And might choose not to survive rather than to do so, not a situation I have been tested in. Yet I have eaten legally hunted cougar. I do not have an abhorrence for those people or cultures who do eat those species although the methods of management and slaughter sometimes do. I eat species that are either sacred or taboo to some cultures, cattle and hogs. I don't tell them what to do and they don't tell me. A close friend is Native American. His spiritual and cultural beliefs including the hunting and eating of whales. Understanding the deep respect and spiritual connection along with the risk of death that is integral to such a practice allows me to accept this practice as ethical although it would not be one I would engage in even if permitted. The tribal councils to my satisfaction are more aware of the needs to conserve species and their actual numbers. Locally there was an outbreak of blue tongue that reduced deer populations. The tribes voluntarily stopped hunting to permit populations to recover. I would trust the tribes to run wildlife programs more than the government programs. I trust that their beliefs and practices are more in alignment with conservation than those currently in charge. So how is it that you are employed in a field that often has restricted housing, often is sensory and socially deprived and the end result for the animals involved is early death for consumption or longer life to be used for work, breeding or entertainment? How is this ethical but keeping endangered species in more stimulating conditions doing stimulating work they are rewarded for unethical? With exotic species, the emphasis is on keeping the animals healthy, happy and long lived. A few such as snakes may be milked for venom but are still kept alive not harvested. I object to dog racing, not on the racing part but that the dogs are most often slated for early killing when not competitive and not adopted. Many race horses are sold at auction to buyers but some are killed if not competitive. I choose to boycott both money making entertainments. And what of the lives of dogs, cats and other pets? There are wonderful owners and too many who are either ignorant and unable to provide a good life and some who are outright and intentionally cruel. For the wonderful owners with contented and often coddled animals, mutual entertainment is often one of the most prized rewards. For example, here is a photo of my husband 'entertaining' 2 dogs and being entertained in turn. Few pet animals would survive without human assistance. Not many dogs have true jobs any longer. Some are herding, hunting, doing assistance work, scent detection, police and military duty or protecting family or livestock from thieves or predators. Should we kill all the rest of them so they do not live under human dominion for the purposes of entertainment? Release them into the wild? Set up viewing areas at garbage dumps to watch them in feral state? What purpose do most pets have except to bring pleasure to their owners? Do the pets get fair compensation for doing so? When I see any animal, domestic or non, furred, finned, feathered or scaled, living or training with a human I do not see dominion or slavery; I see partnership, communication and cooperation. I see respect, trust and satisfaction on both sides. Is this always true? Of course not, just as not all humans treat each other so. But often the animals are teachers in how to gain these. From seeing the response of troubled teens, often abused with ADHD and self esteem problems, aggression and trust flock around our dogs and trying to establish a good relationship for just a moment, I see the dogs as role models and mirrors. The teens connect not just to the dogs but to us and each other talking about their dogs at home and how they miss them. Often the dogs were the only beings who loved them as is. The dogs don't care about grades, clothes, looks and tidy rooms. They care about how they are treated and so mirror back to us all our own behavior. Does your dog trust you? Then take a bow for you are trustworthy. Does your dog love you? Then you are loveable and loving. Recently the Balanced Trainers list discussed the prison training programs for dogs. There was criticism of having losers--inmates, training rescue dogs--many with behavioral problems, to be placed as service dogs or companions. And yet the outcomes are interesting. In one prison, I think maximum security, perhaps medium security, a small program, a dozen or so dogs were paired with screened inmates. A widespread result was that within a short time, inmate violent incidents were down about 60%! This makes it safer for correctional officers, plus support staff such as medical personnel. Prisoners would go out of their way to greet the dogs, who again reflected back to them when they were acceptable. They talked to each other about these dogs and ones who had touched their lives. Guards talked to prisoners, often the first time ever except for ordering them around. I myself can not separate domestic animals living with humans from non-domestics. Endangered species in the wild have a greater chance of surviving as a species if some are in captive breeding populations. Perhaps such efforts will keep them alive in the hope that in the future there will be a way to reintroduce them. If not, is it more ethical to kill 15,000 tigers than to permit them to be privately owned? Shall they all go extinct rather than have some in private hands? There is not enough space in zoos and game parks. I would imagine that all privately owned exotics give some measure of entertainment to their owners. That keeps them alive. How is it wrong for them to cooperate in entertaining many people rather than just the immediate owners? All who have written on this topic have the well being of animals as a high personal value but differ as to methods and procedures. How do each of us find ways to be in alignment with our values? Are there things in which we are not in alignment with because we didn't think it through? What have the differing opinions shown us that we didn't think of before? Do we need to re-evaluate our own behavior to be walking our talk or are we speaking with a forked tongue? I have often changed my point of view in the light of new information. I used to eat feed lot beef. I used to believe many people were good dog owners and have drastically revised downward the percentage. I hope to help some of the ones I don't think are good owners find ways to become good ones. They need to understand dogs are not stuffed toys with software programs that are upgraded. By learning to read, understand and communicate with their dogs, they can learn relationship skills to help them with themselves, family, friends and co workers. And from there, other cultures. Yes and maybe, just maybe, a way to stop hating and fighting. I still have some idealistic dreams left over from the 60's. And I believe that all species we live and work with offer us insight into how to communicate well enough to live with trust and respect for differing needs. Non domestic species offer us so much BECAUSE of their differences from us and domestics. This planet needs a whole lot of what they have to teach us before they die out. And to be preserved if at all possible, even in captivity. regards Julie Alexander From: IN%"deethom@erols.com" "Dee Thompson" 12-OCT-2003 19:34:18.21 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: head bobbing in parrots may I suggest you go to www.arndt-verlag.com and figure out what kind of bird you have before you try to assume the meaning of it's behaviors. Age, sex and genus means a lot in the animal world. It may be flirtation, ..or not. However, it's probably an attempt to engage you, though, and is generally positive. Wild parrots are flock animals (NOT pack) and social interaction is critical to their survival. It is an attempt to socialize, but they may also lure you into close range for a nip...so it depends on the bird. Don't try to relate to birds as mammals please. These marvelous, ancient creatures deserve a little time on your part to research into what it is, and how to meet it's needs. There are plenty of books about the sentient level of parrots, and Irene Pepperberg has done some interesting research to show that the intelligence of parrots is not just anecdotal. Parrots are amazingly intelligent and fascinating to work with, but they are prey animals, only a generation or 2 out of the wild and don't compare well to cats and dogs. Flight is their natural response to threat and it is all too often compromised in captive situations where people cut wing feathers of do not allow them out of cages at all. Do some research into diet and sunlight or UVB supplementation for calcium utilization as well. (ie..A high fat diet that keeps a macaw healthy will lead a cockatoo to an early grave with liver disease. A seed only diet is neither natural nor healthy.) Dee At 08:46 PM 10/11/03 -0400, Michalchik@aol.com wrote: >I have an amazon green or conure (not sure which) on indefinite loan from >a friend, anyway I have only ever had mammals and snakes for pets and >birds definitely think differently. Hard to put my finger on it. They seem >to have as high a level of awareness as any mammal, but seem to be >emotionally different in a way that I have a hard time relating to. >Anyway, I am doing what I can to get into its head, something I have >always found easy with mammals. > >So, occasionally I am greeted with some head bobbing, and if I bob back >the bird responds quite enthusiastically. It seems to only do this in a >good mood. So I am pretty sure that it is positive, some sort of >flirtation, but I was wondering if anyone knows more about what this means? From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 12-OCT-2003 19:53:28.41 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare At 07:09 AM Sunday 10/12/2003, you wrote: >The wild animal trainers of this group (mostly Americans?) have repeatedly >been saying "prove scientifically that we are doing is wrong." It cannot >be done! But are we then supposed to just accept statements such as the one below without any critical inquiry, without any evidence whatsoever? - "I think it can be argued that the wild animal shows of today are basically anachronistic or remnants from human behavior and attitudes of the Middle Ages - or earlier. The dancing bear was exhibited for human amusement and demonstration of the human mastery over nature. The subdued bear was shown to be clumsy in its ability to walk upright and dance - and the human viewer could thus feel a sense of superiority over this generally feared wild creature of nature. Despite the degree of hilarity shown by the audience, these exhibitions had little humor per se. The laughter derived from the ridicule of the animal because of its inability to perform tasks mastered by humans. I contend that the modern large cat shows, some circus acts, etc. are a continuation of this exploitation of animals and is done primarily, if not solely, for the purpose of humans demonstrating their dominion over other beings." Inquiry into this issue may not be science, but it's not supposed to be religion either, where we just accept such statements on faith. I contend that Dr Burchard's raptor shows, and Kayce Cover's sea lion shows, were/are NOT exhibitions involving "demonstration of the human mastery over nature" or for "the human viewer to feel a sense of superiority" or for "ridicule of the animal". AFAIK, these are the only wild animal trainers who have posted in this thread. One would have to be oblivious to all the blatantly obvious "data" from their posts here demonstrating that this is simply not the case. What they have written about (and I now thank them again publicly for their posts, as I have privately) are of respect and admiration for the animals they work with, and of "shows" that conveyed this to their audiences. They have written about their relationships with these animals as *partners", not as master and slave. The multifaceted utility of these shows should be apparent to anyone who opens their mind and reads the posts they have already made here. If not, ask them for more "data". Those who don't understand the relationship between trainer/handler and working dogs frequently harbor similar misconceptions of "dominion". As far as S&R tigers, I offer this as data: "After the mauling, fellow performers noted that while animal activists might not see a distinguishing line, Roy never made his tigers perform like circus animals. Parade them? Yes. Put them into illusions? Sure. But making them roll over or jump through hoops? Never. " "In interviews last week, Siegfried continued to push the notion of a glitzy Vegas spectacle with a hidden message of wildlife conservation: "Roy always said, `We have to show the audience. We can't tell them.' ... You have to educate the audience in an entertaining way." " http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-12-Sun-2003/news/22353568.html Laura Sanborn From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 12-OCT-2003 20:01:56.95 To: IN%"lewiskirkham@yahoo.com.au", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: head bobbing in parrots In a message dated 10/12/2003 5:17:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, lewiskirkham@yahoo.com.au writes: Hi Michael, I have recently acquired a rainbow lorikeet that does the same thing. He/she seems to do it when excited - or so I believe. If I head bob as well he/she often responds/mimics me. Often if we laugh at him/her (because it does look funny) this seems to excite her more. Unfortunately I don't know anymore about it. My initial concern was that this may be a stereotypic behaviour but now I think probably not due to the context it is done in. regards Lewis Well, speaking as a pet owner as opposed to my role as a scientist, it definitely seems like a communicative or social behavior. I doubt it is a stereotype because he didn't start doing it until he stopped being aggressive to me and coming to me and it does not happen when he is stressed. From: IN%"behaviorist@bellsouth.net" "Liz Hoffmaster" 12-OCT-2003 20:16:46.56 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: head bobbing in parrots Michael and Lewis, In many species of parrot, head bobbing is juvenile begging behavior. This is often accompanied by the wings being slightly extended from the body and quivering. Whether or not your two parrots could be exhibiting this behavior depends on their age, as once weaning occurs the behavior is no longer present. A different version of a head bob is when the neck is further outstretched and the bob is much more pronounced - after several bobs the parrot is seen to move the beak around. This is regurgitation, and is used in sexual courtship between both the male and female. A third version is simply an 'excited' bob, which many parrots will do imitatively with a person. I have never seen wild parrots do this with each other, so it seems to be a learned behavior. Ethology won't always tell the complete story! -wink- Hope this helps. Liz Liz Hoffmaster http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-behaviorist Animal Behaviorist M.S. student, FIT ABA Program Melbourne, FL (321) 213-0397 From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 12-OCT-2003 20:53:57.70 To: IN%"deethom@erols.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: head bobbing in parrots In a message dated 10/12/2003 6:46:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, deethom@erols.com writes: may I suggest you go to www.arndt-verlag.com and figure out what kind of bird you have before you try to assume the meaning of it's behaviors. Age, sex and genus means a lot in the animal world. Good point, thing is I have been trying to get it identified and I keep getting mixed answers from the "experts". I looked through most of the pictures at that cite (thank you) and I am still puzzled. It has the physiognomy of a green conure (bill shape, and body shape). This is what the owner said the breeder said it was. Problem is that the coloration pattern is wrong. It is mostly green like a green conure should be, but the eyes are rimmed in white and underwing is a quite striking pattern of orange, yellow, and black. I haven't found anything close to that documented about green conures. As far as its treatment goes. I think we do well though it would be good to know the recommendations for the species. We feed a variety of natural and pelleted foods including fresh fruit and vegetables and rarely a small amount of meat and let it choose. It has its wings clipped and is open perched next to the back door on a sheltered porch (it gets quite upset about being caged). At night it open perches in the bedroom and it is pretty good about letting us know where it wants to go when. It gets really friendly and talkative when it wants to go some where. It attacks us if we carry it in the wrong direction. It also attacks or runs away when it wants to stay where it is for a while longer or doesn't want the food we are offering. If we carry it someplace it wants to go, it gets down gently then backs up and charges to tell us it wants to be here now so go away. If it were a human I would call it a mean, ungrateful, two-faced bastard, but since it is an animal it is just feisty and cute. Some more of its cute feistiness. It charges and attacks strangers and kids, unless they are pretty women, then it gets real happy and friendly. I took it to have its claws trimmed and its wings checked a couple of months ago and it didn't like that, despite the fact that it was being done gently by a pretty woman. After a bite or two it figured out that it wasn't getting its message across so it emitted a war cry, squirmed out of the gloves, but instead of fleeing, it went straight for the groomer and took a neat little chunk out of her upper breast. It seemed quite calm and happy after that and actually let another employee finish the job with only a little protest. I haven't figured out that one yet. Do parrots occasionally need to make a point? I couldn't see any difference in the way the two groomers handled her. From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 13-OCT-2003 02:38:40.16 To: IN%"synalia@synalia.com" "kcover", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethics: situational and relative Kcover wrote: >...Prison is a form of slavery... womans rights..may be suspended during times of war...suicide is "wrong", but when someone knowlingly spends his life ... There can be no single, valid, ethical, successful ethical stance.< This sounds like a unreflected mixed up list of personal believings and public opinions to me: law, religion, polls ...Come on, Kayce! So you don't think, that there might be choices for actions definitly "better" than others? You're calling for pure arbitrary action, do you? No rights or wrongs out there? You mean, action should depend on lucky random, cultural tradition or personal believings? You can't be serious and this is a test for the auditory, isn't it? Andreas Date sent: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:40:33 -0400 From: kcover Subject: Ethics: situational and relative To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Stine eloquently puts forth that ethical conclusions depend on initial > premises. I add, even if the same premises are shared, ethical > conclusions depend on situations. > > > Here are some wiggley situations that come to mind: > > It is sometimes ethical to deprive someone of liberty. Prison is a form > of slavery. Once a murderer is incarcerated, it may be more ethical that > he work for his upkeep than that others have to pay for him. Enforced labor. > > Women's rights, and the rights of all in general, may be suspended > during times of war (Marshall Law in America), extreme privation > (rationing), or quarantine - for the greater good. > > Killing another may be ethical if it prevents that person from killing > others. Suicide is "wrong", but when someone knowingly spends his life > to save another's, that is called heroism. > > One can't corner ethics. Although religions have tried, and the motive > is control. > > There can be no single, valid, ethical, successful ethical stance. > > Kayce > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 13-OCT-2003 04:32:57.66 To: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed Hi Heather, drug testing and animal welfare are apples and potatoes! Let's say: 0. welfare is the individual status of the animal based on it's state of psychological and physiological equilibrium. 1. The individual welfare of an animal at the certain moment of his life can be assessed scientifically (almost to a big extend). But 2.not any individual can be tested and also in bigger numbers the influence of inspecies genetic variance relevant to welfare might be underrepresented 3. and there are no (and will not be) universal cut-off levels for physiological or psyhological parameters (remember the recent welfare indicator discussion on this list) 4. and data is not (and will never) covering all possible life conditions because only a few welfare assessments could take place in the indiviuals livespan (due to funding, method ....). Furthermore, the minimum number of testings to come to a valid scientific result will increase exponantially to the extend of variability of the potential conditions, the length of life span and P/P abilities of the individual animal (i.e learning, adolescence ...). The closer the animal lives with humans the higher the variability of life conditions either. In short, best bit is, that science might give scientific evidence only through work with big numbers of shortliving genetically oligoform animals with little P/P abilities in short-termed, highly standardized conditions! Maybe for broilers this'll apply. In any other you might come to conclude: Science can't give ultimate proofs for positive or negative reglement of animal handling and husbandry that cover all possible circumstances etc. but science might give us information about plausible stressors for animals. Nonetheless community might decide politically on this base about what is an animal welfare issue and how to deal with them! Therefore i line up with others to believe, that those, asking for last scientific proofs do it to shield their interests for example at the WTO. Andreas Date sent: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:11:30 -0600 From: adopta bunny Subject: RE: animal welfare To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Richard Dawkins in his new collection of essays has a really good > comment to make about statements such as the one you just made, Dr. > Stricklin. I don't mean to be rude, but your statement that it cannot > be scientifically tested that what wild animal trainers are doing is > wrong is very scarey to me. It is akin in my opinion to the homeopathy > practitioners that Richard Dawkins reviews, who say that it is not > possible to use science to test the effects of their homeopathy > treatments. > > "The wild animal trainers of this group (mostly Americans?) have > repeatedly been saying "prove scientifically that we are doing is > wrong." It cannot be done! " > [and] > "I must quit this and do something else - but let me again say and very > quickly, that the every popular mantra - especially used in the USA - > "we must base all our decisions on science" is code for "we have no > intention of changing our treatment of animals - for you cannot "prove" > that what we are doing is negative for the animal." > Dr. Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Professor of "public > understanding of science" and author of the selfish gene) writes on > page 184 of "A Devil's Chaplain" ISBN 0618335404: " At this point we > scrape the barrel of excuses. 'Some things are true on a human level, > but they don't lend themselves to scientific testing. The sceptical > atmosphere of the science lab is not conducive to the sensitive forces > involved' . Such excuses are commonly totted out by practitioners of > alternative therapies, including those that don't have homeopathy's > peculiar difficulties of principle but which nevertheless consistently > fail to pass double-blind tests in practice." He goes on on page 185 > to say, "When, predictably, the 'aternative' technique ignominiously > flunked the double-blind test, its practitioner delivered himself of the > following immortal response: ' You see? That is why we never do > double-blind testing any more. It never works!' ". > > Respectfully yours, > h.mcmurray > p.s. see the work of behavioral scientist Dr. Joseph Garner at the > University of California in Davis, with changes in brain ganglia and > stereotypical behaviors > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"olsson@ibmc.up.pt" "Anna Olsson" 13-OCT-2003 05:12:41.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology" CC: Subj: animal welfare, science, philosophy and politics Hi Andreas, Hi Ray, Hold on a minute - before you've discredited science in animal welfare studies altogether!! Ray, Thanks for your message which resolved some misunderstandings. I see the point you're making, that it's not a good idea to lump all disciplines involved in studying hte well-being of animals into one and call it animal welfare science. This point is interesting and merits more discussion among those of us who are involved - you're not possibly thinking of bringing it up for discussion at the next ISAE meeting? I take it neither Ray nor Andreas are arguing that animal welfare can't be the subject of scientific study. It would be an interesting position to take, a week after the publication in Nature of Ros Cubb's and Georgia Mason's study of health and behaviour problems in large captive carnivores, under the title Animal welfare - captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. (I'm not saying that what decides whether or not something is science is whether or not it can be published in Nature - although I'd argue that for a number of scientists that's the watershed - and consequently Georgia has made a great contribution to the scientific acceptability of applied ethology (whether or not wired towards the study of animal welfare). BTW, it surprises me that during this week of discussion of keeping large carnivores in shows nobody referred to this study. Read more and find hte references to the original paper at http://www.sciencenews.org/20031004/fob1.asp I agree with both Ray and Andreas that the ultimate decision would have to be a political one - would or would we not accept that animals are handled/housed/bred in this way? But the political decision can't be made in a sensible way if we don't have KNOWLEDGE to back it up- and this knowledge is produced through scientific study! If we didn't have scientific study of welfare-related disciplines, we wouldn't know that natural home-range size is a strong predictor for health and behaviour problems in captive carnivores (Cubb & Mason, see above), we wouldn't know that cannibalism in non-caged laying hens is related to absence of perches during rearing (Gunnarsson et al 1999), we wouldn't know that slatted floors and no straw increases the risk for tail-biting in fattening pigs (Moinard et al 2003), we wouldn't know that the number of times cows stand up and lie down (rather than simply the time they spend lying) is the most adequate measure of floor comfort (Rushen et al) - and I could make an endless list of findings that are relevant for arguing the welfare issue with stakeholders in the case. Whilst there will never be the ultimate scientific proof that a practice is or is not good for animal welfare, the discussion would be terribly hampered without science. We would have antropomorphism and cultural relativism all the way! Anna Olsson PS For those of you who are interested in this issue, there are a number of interesting papers on the way, in the Special issue of the journal Animal Welfare which contains the proceedings of the UFAW conference Science in the service of animal welfare, and which should be out some time later this year. I can also recommend Jeff Rushen's Wood Gush Memorial Lecture at the ISAE conference 1999, Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research, published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 199.214 From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 13-OCT-2003 07:19:17.02 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Ray, Thank you for clarifying. What was your part in this study below? At the time of the study did you believe that this was an acceptable and appropriate way to house veal and do you now find it acceptable? I have long boycotted veal as I was aware the calves were kept in tiny stalls. I did not realize just how tiny and that many were tethered. I have to admit the final paragraph appalling in its conclusions as to what is acceptable. Julie Alexander HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found For Producer's Connection INDIVIDUAL STALLS vs. PENS: GROWTH, BEHAVIOR, DISTRESS AND CARCASS TRAITS Research conducted and reported by Lowell L. Wilson and Tammy L. Terosky, Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Penn State University, Carolyn L. Stull, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis and William R. Stricklin, Department of Animal Science, University of Maryland, College Park. This research was supported by research funds administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Penn State University appropriations. Appreciation is extended to Marian and John Evans for their cooperation in this study. The special-fed veal production industry is criticized by some segments of the general public due to several components utilized in the veal production system. One system component criticized is the use of tethers to restrain calves in individual stalls. Although there has been a small increase in the use of individual pens without tethers in the US, most calves are tethered in individual open stalls. However, the individual pen system is the predominant method used in Europe, although group rearing is also increasing. Previous research has demonstrated that there are advantages to individually housing calves compared to rearing in group pens. However, there is a lack of research critically comparing individual stalls and pens. The research study discussed here was a comprehensive comparison of calves tethered in individual stalls compared to calves untethered in individual pens. In addition, three different widths (22, 26, 30 inch) of both stalls and pens were compared. In order to answer all questions in this comparison of housing design and size, growth performance, behavior, physiological indicators of stress level, calf cleanliness, structural soundness, and carcass characteristics were evaluated. Calves: Three groups of 36 Holstein calves (total of 108 calves) were obtained from livestock auctions and were randomly allotted upon arrival at the veal farm to either individual stalls or pens of three different widths. Initial weight was the pay weight at the auctions. Additionally, the calves were weighed at week 8 and upon exiting the veal barn. Average daily gain was calculated from the time the calves arrived to week 8, and from week 8 through the final weight, as well as over the entire trial. Carcass weight and other carcass traits (visual and colorimeter evaluation of muscle color) were obtained, as well as a wide variety of behavior, health/treatments, and soundness traits. Stalls and Pens: All construction consisted of oak boards; the total length of the stall or pen floor was 72 inches. Oak slats were positioned across the front part of the stall or pen floor for 24 inches with vinyl-coated expanded metal diagonal-shaped flooring placed 48 inches at the rear of the stall (total length of 72 inches). The sides and fronts of the stalls and pens were 46 inches high from the oak-slat floor which was 15 inches above a concrete floor. Widths of 22, 26, and 30 inches were used for both individual stalls and individual pens, resulting in six different combinations of housing types and widths. The housing types and widths were randomly located in two different central rows of a four-row room. Use of Statistical Significance: In research, we statistically analyze data primarily to determine if the differences between treatment alternatives are repeatable. A statistical test determines if the differences between the tested treatments or management alternatives happened by chance or can be expected to happen again if these alternatives are used under similar conditions in industry. In this study, there were few statistically significant differences in the comparison of stalls and pens or among the different widths of individual housing types. Live and Carcass Weights: The calves averaged 18 weeks at slaughter, with live and carcass weights (hide-on) averaging 444 and 302 pounds, respectively. Although there was a tendency for calves in stalls to grow more rapidly than calves in individual pens, there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of housing. Calves in wider pens or stalls did not grow statistically more rapidly than calves in narrower housing. Dressing percent (hide-on) averaged 68 percent and was not influenced by housing type or width. Blood Traits: There were essentially no differences in hemoglobin, hematocrit, white or red blood cell counts. Hemoglobin averaged 7.3 g/dL at slaughter, which is less than the hemoglobin levels of veal calf groups previously used in Penn State research. Earlier studies conducted by Penn State and the University of California, Davis averaged 7.8 and 8.2 g/dL, respectively, in field studies involving over 2,700 calves. Body Cleanliness Scores: The calves were scored at different times during the trials, but the most important score for cleanliness was just prior to slaughter. Body cleanliness at slaughter is important since it reflects the amount of excrement and other materials taken from the barn to the packing plant. This is a concern even though veal calves are washed before and/or after slaughter. Although there were no differences in apparent cleanliness of the forequarters and belly, the hindquarters of calves reared in enclosed pens accumulated more fecal material than calves reared in stalls. It should be mentioned that the stalls used in this study were oak which is more porous and more difficult to clean than the harder, more dense imported lumber usually used in the construction of individual pens. Width of stall or pen did not affect calf cleanliness score at slaughter. Joint, Navel and Overall Body Condition: There were statistically significant differences in left knee swelling scores with a general increase in swelling as stall or pen width decreased. Although this difference was rather small, the observation does suggest that calves in smaller housing units had greater difficulty in extending their front legs and changing from a lying to a standing position. French researchers also concluded that calves housed in smaller-sized pens tended to keep knees and hocks bent while lying. Maintaining this posture may have contributed to more joint swelling in the smaller pens. There were no differences in navel (e.g., inflammation, redness) or overall body condition (body condition primarily based on apparent degree of fatness). Only minor differences were observed in health status and treatments (e.g., medications) among the stalls or pens of different widths. Ambulation, Behavior and Excitability: The majority of the animals (88 percent) when housed in their stalls or pens scored between 2.5 and 3.5 (possible scores of 1 to 5) for excitability and behavior. This is well within the range of acceptability. None of the calves were either apathetic (score of 1) or extremely difficult to handle (score of 5). Calves in stalls tended to be more excitable than were calves in pens. There was little effect of housing design or width on ambulatory ability. Most calves (92 percent) either moved normally or exhibited modest staggering or stiffness of leg joints when released for loading. Calves moved with some hesitation while being loaded, perhaps due to the novelty of the experience rather than due to a physical impairment. This agrees with conclusions by French researchers. Hairball Count and Organ Condition: The abomasum (one of the four stomach compartments) was palpated on the slaughter line and the number and size of hairballs were recorded. The number of hairballs was assumed to be an indirect determination of the intensity of self- and/or neighbor-grooming due to the housing regime. Hairballs do not develop in calves fed solid feeds with or without milk replacer. The calves averaged 1.9 hairballs 2 inches or less in diameter, .67 hairballs between 2 and 4 inches, and .05 hairballs greater than 4 inches. However, there were no housing design or width effects on hairball count or diameter, and there were no apparent health or growth impairments from hairball accumulation. The accumulation of hairballs suggests that grooming does occur in stalls and pens of different widths. Self-grooming could not be differentiated from neighbor-grooming. However, since there were dividers on the fronts of the pens and stalls which prevented most neighbor-grooming, the hairball accumulation resulted primarily from self-grooming. Conditions of the liver, lung and spleen were also evaluated at slaughter. All but one calf in the 26-inch stall treatment exhibited excellent liver condition; eight calves exhibited less than excellent lung condition, and all calves had excellent spleen condition. Blood Indicators of stress: Three different blood components were analyzed on all the calves in this study to determine the level of distress that might have been caused by housing design or stall/pen width (cortisol, acute phase proteins, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio). All of these were determined each 28 days throughout the three different group production cycles. There were no differences between stalls or pens of different widths in any of these characteristics . The averages of these traits were within the ranges of calves in non-veal management systems. Other Behavior Traits: Twelve calves within each of the three production groups, representing both housing designs and the three widths, were videorecorded five times in each of weeks 9, 13 and 18. A film frame was recorded every 1/20 second with 24 hours of observation recorded on a 2-hour tape. The videotapes were observed for 15 seconds each hour and half-hour for the entire 24-hour recorded periods. Over 26 different behaviors were observed, recorded and analyzed. The observing of a particular behavior occurring was the numerical information recorded for statistical analysis. Of particular attention was the appearance of "stereotypies" which are a highly repetitive abnormal behaviors, such as tongue rolling. Although the frequency of the primary stereotype observed, such as tongue rolling, increased between week 9 and week 18, there was no statistically significant difference between stalls and pens of different widths. French researchers determined that calves in smaller pens spent more time rolling their tongues than did calves in larger pens. Another stereotypic type of behavior observed was "sham chewing," which occurred at a very low frequency; however, the frequency of "sham chewing" tended to increase as stall or pen size decreased. The various behavioral traits that were observed, recorded and analyzed are too numerous to mention here, but included almost every activity or change in position or posture that the calf could make. If any reader is interested in these specific traits, a list can be provided to them. Carcass Color and Grade: All carcasses were subjected to visual evaluation and mechanical measurement (colorimeter) of muscle color (carcass grade) at slaughter and 24 hours later. There were no differences due to housing design or width in either the visual evaluations or mechanical measurements at either time after slaughter. It is interesting to note that muscle color lightened between slaughter and 24 hours post-slaughter, which has been noted in earlier research at Penn State and elsewhere. Economic Implications: When housing designs (tethered in stalls vs. non-tethered in individual pens) are compared critically, there is little or no difference in calf well-being, performance, behavior, health status, signs of distress, carcass desirability or other factors. Calves tethered in open stalls did not exhibit any increased stereotypies, distress, or other indicators of abnormal behavior as compared to calves in individual pens. If it is assumed that calf age and weight will remain about the same or perhaps increase slightly over the next few years, there is justification to use stalls at least 26 inches wide and pens at least 30 inches wide. If calf size increases significantly (e.g., to 23 weeks and 510 pounds) in the next few years, then 30-inch stalls and 30- to 36-inch pens would be justified from the standpoint of animal well-being and performance. It seems unlikely that slaughter age and weight will decrease. If calves continue to be plentiful for special fed-veal production, and age and weight decreases (e.g., to 16 weeks and 410 pounds), then 24-inch stalls and 30-inch pens may be acceptable. Increasing stall or pen size would reduce the number of calves per barn thus probably increasing production costs. Perhaps the veal industry should give more consideration to the total impact of further increases in slaughter age and weight. Based on the results of this study, there is no apparent advantage to adopt non-tethered veal productions systems from the calf's standpoint, but this change may be supported by public perception and marketability of veal products. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Home | Animal Welfare Programs | FAQ/An. Welfare | INFO/An. Welfare | Top ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 13-OCT-2003 07:28:36.03 To: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare -----Original Message----- From: adopta bunny [mailto:pellingv@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:55 PM To: 'Ray Stricklin' Subject: RE: animal welfare If you don't mind, I will locate Dr. Dawkin's email address and ask him if he'd be kind enough to answer your question, since I am a bit bewildered by your logic. Again, I think that "science" and "scientific method" are being mixed in discussion. There is nothing that can't be tested in my opinion. H.mcmurray -------------------------------------- My point is not a difficult one - and it is not MY logic that was presented by me. What I presented was a discussion of a very basic concept of Science. Science CANNOT prove the negative. One cannot PROVE that angels ARE NOT the forces that control the universe. One cannot PROVE that I DO NOT have the ability to communicate with aliens on Mars. Science can and has provided what I would say is wonderful information on these topics. But for the persons who want to believe in angels, science will NEVER be able to PROVE they are wrong. And for those persons on the group whom I have irritated to point that they now resort to nothing but name calling and labeling of others, try as they might - they cannot PROVE that I - or anyone else - does not have supernatural abilities. But of course I do not have such powers - and I do not consider angels to be the best explanation for events in my life. Science gives us information to help us determine the rational basis for making decisions about events we experience - and in some cases, information related to how we can make decisions that can lead to a better world for ourselves and other beings. But science CANNOT tell us yes or no answers to some of the most perplexing questions of life. Science cannot explicitly tell us whether or not it is acceptable to cut off the tail of a cow. I have no objection to your asking Dawkins - but I think I can within some degree of accuracy predict what he is likely to say (not on my supernatural abilities - only because I have a number of his books!). I believe that he might argue that the tail of a cow is an "adaptation" - one that is essential to a cow for her to be considered a complete organism - that to remove the tail is to diminish the cow. A tail provides certain abilities to the cow; removing flies, scratching an itch, maybe communicating with other cows, or just enjoying a good swing of the tail. And this is exactly the argument that I would use - and have used. This argument is rooted in science - i.e., evolutionary biology. But this argument is not PROOF to those who will argue that they must take off the tail to limit mastitis - and ultimately it is an ethical argument. Important or critical to the current discussion about the relationship between science and ethics - what I just did in arguing on the basis of a tail being an adaptation is to start with science (evolutionary biology) and conclude with a statement about "what ought to be." I concluded that a cow "ought" to have a tail - and when one says or implies "ought," the argument has, at that point, become one of Ethics! And to tie to the earlier message by Stine, the argument that I presented that a cow must have a tail is one of Perfectionism - an argument based on what is natural. Thus, again even though I used knowledge about evolutionary biology - ethology, if you will - ultimately, my argument is an ethical one about what is natural for a cow and is one based on Perfectionism. What some Animal Welfare Scientists (and Applied Ethologists) have done is to move the boundaries of science such that they have now included much of the "ought to be" reasoning into their "science." I do not disagree with their end point or conclusions. But again, I do disagree with their changes the boundaries of science and believe it is better that we be aware of when, in fact, we are making this transition - be aware when we using Ethics in our conclusions and not solely Science. By being aware of when we have moved directly into Ethics, we should then be able to make certain that we work with the professionals who are educated and have a long, long history of having studied the topic of Ethics. Hope this helps - and hope that you do not mind my sharing part of your last message with the group. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 13-OCT-2003 09:13:36.92 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Ethics: situational and relative I read Kayce's post to mean that there are no moral absolutes. Not that there are no principles of morality. And I tend to agree. What would you consider to be moral absolutes? Cissy Andreas Briese wrote: > Kcover wrote: > >>...Prison is a form of slavery... womans rights..may be suspended during >> > times of war...suicide is "wrong", but when someone knowlingly spends his > life ... There can be no single, valid, ethical, successful ethical stance.< > > This sounds like a unreflected mixed up list of personal believings and public > opinions to me: law, religion, polls ...Come on, Kayce! From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 13-OCT-2003 09:39:34.97 To: IN%"deidre@rcn.com" "deidre muccio", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior -----Original Message----- From: deidre muccio [mailto:deidre@rcn.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 6:19 AM To: Ray Stricklin Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Twisted. >What is implied here is something I learned from Singer's Animal Liberation; >the quality of the life of a food animal should be included in the >consideration of whether or not the practice is justified. What I am >contending is that it can be argued that food animal actually benefit from >their existence - PROVIDED the animal experiences sufficient quality of >life. To me this is the challenge. The ball, so to speak, is in the court >of animal agriculture to ensure that the animals do, indeed, meet this >criterion - and regrettably, I do not see the needed/appropriate changes >coming any time in the near future. ---- Twisted? You believe that I twisted the ideas of Singer? Sorry, but I do not think that you understand Singer. My statements were not at all in conflict with the position he originally took in Animal Liberation. He, very much, does accept that provided the pleasure is greater than the pain, then a practice is acceptable. He is a strict and consistent Utilitarian in his arguments. He has even argued that sex with animals is acceptable provided it involves pleasure and not pain (a position that I disagree with) - as is discussed in the following : http://www.dadi.org/sexanmal.htm From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 13-OCT-2003 10:11:22.19 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed >Therefore i line up with others to believe, that those, asking for last >scientific proofs do it to shield their interests for example at the WTO. I find this repeated lumping of those who do not automatically condemn wild animal training/shows into the camp of those who promote GMOs or who "shield their interests at the WTO" to be disingenuous at best. Such statements are without any logical merit and are offensive. If someone here wishes to start a thread on GMOs or WTO issues, and can find some relevance to ethology, by all means start one. In the meantime, kindly refrain from launching additional ad hominem attacks. I don't believe anyone has asked for "last scientific proofs" (an oxymoron) on the issue of wild animal training/shows. A process of objective inquiry involving logic and evidence is not the equivalent of seeking the holy grail of "scientific proof". Research studies have been done and papers published assessing the welfare of 400+ pound (180+ kg) veal calves housed tethered in stalls that are 26x72 inches (0.66m x 1.83m). As such, surely the welfare of wild animals used in training/shows, as well as the "take home message(s)" of audiences who observe such shows, can be subject to objective inquiry. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"j.talling@csl.gov.uk" "Janet Talling" 13-OCT-2003 10:52:17.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: Wild animal shows There has been much debate recently about the welfare of wild animals performing shows and the need for scientific studies. I welcome this discussion and have some data to add. A student under my supervision recently looked at the behaviour and corticosteroid levels of macaws within a zoo. Half of the birds were trained to perform tasks for a show, and performed several shows a day. The other half of the birds were kept in large aviaries on display to the public. We observed the birds during three times, low, mid and high season, categorised due to numbers of visitors and therefore also number of shows performed. What we found was that the behaviour of the performing birds was more varied than the display birds, and that they performed a lower proportion of inactive behaviour. Additionally the corticosteroid levels of the performing birds were approximately half that of the display birds. These results suggest to us that in this zoo at least, the animals which were performing for the shows had the best welfare. - how this relates to macaws in the wild is another question? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Janet Talling Phone: +44 (0)1904 462208 Animal Welfare Team GTN: 5129 Central Science Laboratory Fax: +44 (0)1904 462111 Sand Hutton Email: j.talling@csl.gov.uk York YO41 1LZ Web: http://www.csl.gov.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer The information contained in this message may include privileged, proprietary or confidential information. Please treat it with the same respect that you would expect for your own information. If you have received it in error, we apologise, and ask that you contact the CSL sender immediately and erase it from your computer. Thank you for your co-operation. Further information on confidentiality of our communications, can be found at http://www.csl.gov.uk/email.htm ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 13-OCT-2003 11:46:19.75 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Dear Julie and All, I was involved in the data collection of this study so I will share with you a couple points. 1)I think this study and your comments reiterate the points Ray was making earlier. Based only on the science (as in the criteria measured), the authors drew the conclusion, which might loosely be interpreted as "there is nothing "wrong" with housing calves in very small crates, and leaving them tethered the entire time, subsisting only on milk fed for a few minutes twice a day". 2) Having been in those barns, based on what I saw, and on any of the theories described by Stine, Ray and others (hedonism, utilitarianism, etc), and on a more wholistic approach to animal welfare (including the impact on the animal's psychological well-being, which I do not believe was adequately addressed in this study) as well as pure ethology (what is the calf designed by nature to do?) I could not find this type of housing morally justifiable. Having said all that, if I were forced to decide whether or not I should eat veal based only on the science in this and other published articles, I would have very little basis on which to say veal production of this type was wrong, because it was bad for the animal. In fact, to muddy the waters further, what do we do when the science itself is not conclusive? As in, several studies say this sort of housing does not harm the animal, but others disagree. This is a good example of where scientific evidence cannot and should not be the sole basis for moral decision. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 6:19 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Ray, Thank you for clarifying. What was your part in this study below? At the time of the study did you believe that this was an acceptable and appropriate way to house veal and do you now find it acceptable? I have long boycotted veal as I was aware the calves were kept in tiny stalls. I did not realize just how tiny and that many were tethered. I have to admit the final paragraph appalling in its conclusions as to what is acceptable. Julie Alexander HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found For Producer's Connection INDIVIDUAL STALLS vs. PENS: GROWTH, BEHAVIOR, DISTRESS AND CARCASS TRAITS Research conducted and reported by Lowell L. Wilson and Tammy L. Terosky, Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Penn State University, Carolyn L. Stull, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis and William R. Stricklin, Department of Animal Science, University of Maryland, College Park. This research was supported by research funds administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Penn State University appropriations. Appreciation is extended to Marian and John Evans for their cooperation in this study. The special-fed veal production industry is criticized by some segments of the general public due to several components utilized in the veal production system. One system component criticized is the use of tethers to restrain calves in individual stalls. Although there has been a small increase in the use of individual pens without tethers in the US, most calves are tethered in individual open stalls. However, the individual pen system is the predominant method used in Europe, although group rearing is also increasing. Previous research has demonstrated that there are advantages to individually housing calves compared to rearing in group pens. However, there is a lack of research critically comparing individual stalls and pens. The research study discussed here was a comprehensive comparison of calves tethered in individual stalls compared to calves untethered in individual pens. In addition, three different widths (22, 26, 30 inch) of both stalls and pens were compared. In order to answer all questions in this comparison of housing design and size, growth performance, behavior, physiological indicators of stress level, calf cleanliness, structural soundness, and carcass characteristics were evaluated. Calves: Three groups of 36 Holstein calves (total of 108 calves) were obtained from livestock auctions and were randomly allotted upon arrival at the veal farm to either individual stalls or pens of three different widths. Initial weight was the pay weight at the auctions. Additionally, the calves were weighed at week 8 and upon exiting the veal barn. Average daily gain was calculated from the time the calves arrived to week 8, and from week 8 through the final weight, as well as over the entire trial. Carcass weight and other carcass traits (visual and colorimeter evaluation of muscle color) were obtained, as well as a wide variety of behavior, health/treatments, and soundness traits. Stalls and Pens: All construction consisted of oak boards; the total length of the stall or pen floor was 72 inches. Oak slats were positioned across the front part of the stall or pen floor for 24 inches with vinyl-coated expanded metal diagonal-shaped flooring placed 48 inches at the rear of the stall (total length of 72 inches). The sides and fronts of the stalls and pens were 46 inches high from the oak-slat floor which was 15 inches above a concrete floor. Widths of 22, 26, and 30 inches were used for both individual stalls and individual pens, resulting in six different combinations of housing types and widths. The housing types and widths were randomly located in two different central rows of a four-row room. Use of Statistical Significance: In research, we statistically analyze data primarily to determine if the differences between treatment alternatives are repeatable. A statistical test determines if the differences between the tested treatments or management alternatives happened by chance or can be expected to happen again if these alternatives are used under similar conditions in industry. In this study, there were few statistically significant differences in the comparison of stalls and pens or among the different widths of individual housing types. Live and Carcass Weights: The calves averaged 18 weeks at slaughter, with live and carcass weights (hide-on) averaging 444 and 302 pounds, respectively. Although there was a tendency for calves in stalls to grow more rapidly than calves in individual pens, there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of housing. Calves in wider pens or stalls did not grow statistically more rapidly than calves in narrower housing. Dressing percent (hide-on) averaged 68 percent and was not influenced by housing type or width. Blood Traits: There were essentially no differences in hemoglobin, hematocrit, white or red blood cell counts. Hemoglobin averaged 7.3 g/dL at slaughter, which is less than the hemoglobin levels of veal calf groups previously used in Penn State research. Earlier studies conducted by Penn State and the University of California, Davis averaged 7.8 and 8.2 g/dL, respectively, in field studies involving over 2,700 calves. Body Cleanliness Scores: The calves were scored at different times during the trials, but the most important score for cleanliness was just prior to slaughter. Body cleanliness at slaughter is important since it reflects the amount of excrement and other materials taken from the barn to the packing plant. This is a concern even though veal calves are washed before and/or after slaughter. Although there were no differences in apparent cleanliness of the forequarters and belly, the hindquarters of calves reared in enclosed pens accumulated more fecal material than calves reared in stalls. It should be mentioned that the stalls used in this study were oak which is more porous and more difficult to clean than the harder, more dense imported lumber usually used in the construction of individual pens. Width of stall or pen did not affect calf cleanliness score at slaughter. Joint, Navel and Overall Body Condition: There were statistically significant differences in left knee swelling scores with a general increase in swelling as stall or pen width decreased. Although this difference was rather small, the observation does suggest that calves in smaller housing units had greater difficulty in extending their front legs and changing from a lying to a standing position. French researchers also concluded that calves housed in smaller-sized pens tended to keep knees and hocks bent while lying. Maintaining this posture may have contributed to more joint swelling in the smaller pens. There were no differences in navel (e.g., inflammation, redness) or overall body condition (body condition primarily based on apparent degree of fatness). Only minor differences were observed in health status and treatments (e.g., medications) among the stalls or pens of different widths. Ambulation, Behavior and Excitability: The majority of the animals (88 percent) when housed in their stalls or pens scored between 2.5 and 3.5 (possible scores of 1 to 5) for excitability and behavior. This is well within the range of acceptability. None of the calves were either apathetic (score of 1) or extremely difficult to handle (score of 5). Calves in stalls tended to be more excitable than were calves in pens. There was little effect of housing design or width on ambulatory ability. Most calves (92 percent) either moved normally or exhibited modest staggering or stiffness of leg joints when released for loading. Calves moved with some hesitation while being loaded, perhaps due to the novelty of the experience rather than due to a physical impairment. This agrees with conclusions by French researchers. Hairball Count and Organ Condition: The abomasum (one of the four stomach compartments) was palpated on the slaughter line and the number and size of hairballs were recorded. The number of hairballs was assumed to be an indirect determination of the intensity of self- and/or neighbor-grooming due to the housing regime. Hairballs do not develop in calves fed solid feeds with or without milk replacer. The calves averaged 1.9 hairballs 2 inches or less in diameter, .67 hairballs between 2 and 4 inches, and .05 hairballs greater than 4 inches. However, there were no housing design or width effects on hairball count or diameter, and there were no apparent health or growth impairments from hairball accumulation. The accumulation of hairballs suggests that grooming does occur in stalls and pens of different widths. Self-grooming could not be differentiated from neighbor-grooming. However, since there were dividers on the fronts of the pens and stalls which prevented most neighbor-grooming, the hairball accumulation resulted primarily from self-grooming. Conditions of the liver, lung and spleen were also evaluated at slaughter. All but one calf in the 26-inch stall treatment exhibited excellent liver condition; eight calves exhibited less than excellent lung condition, and all calves had excellent spleen condition. Blood Indicators of stress: Three different blood components were analyzed on all the calves in this study to determine the level of distress that might have been caused by housing design or stall/pen width (cortisol, acute phase proteins, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio). All of these were determined each 28 days throughout the three different group production cycles. There were no differences between stalls or pens of different widths in any of these characteristics . The averages of these traits were within the ranges of calves in non-veal management systems. Other Behavior Traits: Twelve calves within each of the three production groups, representing both housing designs and the three widths, were videorecorded five times in each of weeks 9, 13 and 18. A film frame was recorded every 1/20 second with 24 hours of observation recorded on a 2-hour tape. The videotapes were observed for 15 seconds each hour and half-hour for the entire 24-hour recorded periods. Over 26 different behaviors were observed, recorded and analyzed. The observing of a particular behavior occurring was the numerical information recorded for statistical analysis. Of particular attention was the appearance of "stereotypies" which are a highly repetitive abnormal behaviors, such as tongue rolling. Although the frequency of the primary stereotype observed, such as tongue rolling, increased between week 9 and week 18, there was no statistically significant difference between stalls and pens of different widths. French researchers determined that calves in smaller pens spent more time rolling their tongues than did calves in larger pens. Another stereotypic type of behavior observed was "sham chewing," which occurred at a very low frequency; however, the frequency of "sham chewing" tended to increase as stall or pen size decreased. The various behavioral traits that were observed, recorded and analyzed are too numerous to mention here, but included almost every activity or change in position or posture that the calf could make. If any reader is interested in these specific traits, a list can be provided to them. Carcass Color and Grade: All carcasses were subjected to visual evaluation and mechanical measurement (colorimeter) of muscle color (carcass grade) at slaughter and 24 hours later. There were no differences due to housing design or width in either the visual evaluations or mechanical measurements at either time after slaughter. It is interesting to note that muscle color lightened between slaughter and 24 hours post-slaughter, which has been noted in earlier research at Penn State and elsewhere. Economic Implications: When housing designs (tethered in stalls vs. non-tethered in individual pens) are compared critically, there is little or no difference in calf well-being, performance, behavior, health status, signs of distress, carcass desirability or other factors. Calves tethered in open stalls did not exhibit any increased stereotypies, distress, or other indicators of abnormal behavior as compared to calves in individual pens. If it is assumed that calf age and weight will remain about the same or perhaps increase slightly over the next few years, there is justification to use stalls at least 26 inches wide and pens at least 30 inches wide. If calf size increases significantly (e.g., to 23 weeks and 510 pounds) in the next few years, then 30-inch stalls and 30- to 36-inch pens would be justified from the standpoint of animal well-being and performance. It seems unlikely that slaughter age and weight will decrease. If calves continue to be plentiful for special fed-veal production, and age and weight decreases (e.g., to 16 weeks and 410 pounds), then 24-inch stalls and 30-inch pens may be acceptable. Increasing stall or pen size would reduce the number of calves per barn thus probably increasing production costs. Perhaps the veal industry should give more consideration to the total impact of further increases in slaughter age and weight. Based on the results of this study, there is no apparent advantage to adopt non-tethered veal productions systems from the calf's standpoint, but this change may be supported by public perception and marketability of veal products. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Home | Animal Welfare Programs | FAQ/An. Welfare | INFO/An. Welfare | Top ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 13-OCT-2003 13:34:43.28 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Inbreeding (was: Re: FW: Ethics and inbreeding) well, i've been giving this a bit of thought this weekend, and have been bogged down .... but, (ignoring most of the other stuff) > Regarding your last point, this seems to imply that purebred animals > invariably suffer from inbreeding depression. to some extent, they probably do. although, i suppose it depends on what we are talking about (e.g., overall individual fitness, reproductive fitness or specific phenotye), which environment the animals are in, and what breeding scheme is being used. some of the comments on inbreeding and selection are also a bit misplaced. the paradox of selection is, in part, that it can increase, decrease or maintain variation in a population. this topic is probably sufficient for several chapters, if not books. for my $$, the best entry-level stuff was probably written by r.lewontin. the discussion of coefficients of inbreeding that follows (which i intentionally truncated) illustrates one of the problems with the web-citations of pedigree analysis. > For example, what data can anyone point to which suggests that any purebred > dog population such one of my companion dogs comes from [snip] >would experience any > significant hybrid vigor by outcrossing to another breed? [snip] found > that the group with 10 generation COIs of less than 6.25% had survivorship > comparable to non-inbred (e.g. mixed breed) dog populations. It was the SP > groups with 10 generation COIs greater than 6.25% that had significantly > shorter longevity. > http://www.canine-genetics.com/lifespan.html frankly, these calculations are misleading. In every case, the analysis assumes that the inbreeding (i.e., F) of the originating individuals was zero. this is clearly incorrec and accounts for the apparent conundrum between the low estimates of F and the low genetic diversity of the border collie breed (where it was suggested that there are only 8 genomes represented among the entire population http://home.tiscali.nl/~palado/bcdb/article1/WSN1c4.htm) as an analogy, this is similar to breeding a pair of C57BL/J mice .. the male from Paris and the female from New York ... then assuming that the offspring are completely heterozygous. while it is true that genes can be identical by descent, it is equally true that they can just be identical. if i find myself with time over the next few weeks i will concatenate the notes from my quantitative genetics course on inbreeding and heterosis (including inbreeding and selection) and post them. if i don't get around to it, feel free to register for next semester... there are still some seats available (for a limited time only) and i could use the cash. : ) guy -- G. F. Barbato http://gfb.cas.psu.edu From: IN%"topnotchdog@mindspring.com" "Barbara Shumannfang" 13-OCT-2003 13:48:56.87 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: heritability study of dog signalling ability (?) Hello listers, A friend recently returned from a conference, the topic of which was dog aggression. One of the speakers mentioned in passing a study of showed (paraphrasing now) that differences in a group of dogs' ability to signal were attributed to maternal effects (25%), environmental factors (50 %) and genetic factors (25%). I have emailed the speaker for the reference but have not had a reply. I thought perhaps someone on the list could help me out with a reference. Thanks, Barbara Barbara Shumannfang Durham, NC From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 13-OCT-2003 13:53:05.54 To: IN%"j.talling@csl.gov.uk" "'Janet Talling'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wild animal shows This seems to agree with what Kayce pointed out, that animals in captivity (or in the wild ; ) ) like challenges and mental/physical things to keep them engaged in life. Heather -----Original Message----- From: Janet Talling [mailto:j.talling@csl.gov.uk] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:52 AM To: Applied ethology Subject: Wild animal shows There has been much debate recently about the welfare of wild animals performing shows and the need for scientific studies. I welcome this discussion and have some data to add. A student under my supervision recently looked at the behaviour and corticosteroid levels of macaws within a zoo. Half of the birds were trained to perform tasks for a show, and performed several shows a day. The other half of the birds were kept in large aviaries on display to the public. We observed the birds during three times, low, mid and high season, categorised due to numbers of visitors and therefore also number of shows performed. What we found was that the behaviour of the performing birds was more varied than the display birds, and that they performed a lower proportion of inactive behaviour. Additionally the corticosteroid levels of the performing birds were approximately half that of the display birds. These results suggest to us that in this zoo at least, the animals which were performing for the shows had the best welfare. - how this relates to macaws in the wild is another question? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Janet Talling Phone: +44 (0)1904 462208 Animal Welfare Team GTN: 5129 Central Science Laboratory Fax: +44 (0)1904 462111 Sand Hutton Email: j.talling@csl.gov.uk York YO41 1LZ Web: http://www.csl.gov.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer The information contained in this message may include privileged, proprietary or confidential information. Please treat it with the same respect that you would expect for your own information. If you have received it in error, we apologise, and ask that you contact the CSL sender immediately and erase it from your computer. Thank you for your co-operation. Further information on confidentiality of our communications, can be found at http://www.csl.gov.uk/email.htm ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 13-OCT-2003 14:04:29.21 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "'Laura Sanborn'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed Hi, Laura, well said. I don't know how yet I agree/disagree on the issues but I, too, get upset with friends who reason that way. Disingenous is a good word. There is nothing wrong with asking for scientific proofs. There *is* something wrong when validity is assigned to scientific studies' results simply because it was done by a person(s) in science. As people trained in science should know, validity is demonstrated through peer review of the studies and ongoing questioning of the design/results of the studies. When that is not allowed or is skewed by the availability of funding for some types of studies and not others; or the lack of jobs for people in pure research in behavior -- then that is when "science" might get a bad name. If you have a science position in academia funded by pharmaceuticals and the animal industry; the organizations you belong to are primarily funded by corporate/private entities seeking economic advantages to the use of animal behavior; then, it is (I would think) much harder and much more important to show that any scientific study you do is properly evaluated by peoples not funded by or economically dependent on these same groups. Heather -----Original Message----- From: Laura Sanborn [mailto:laura@xul.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:16 AM To: Applied ethology Subject: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed >Therefore i line up with others to believe, that those, asking for last >scientific proofs do it to shield their interests for example at the WTO. I find this repeated lumping of those who do not automatically condemn wild animal training/shows into the camp of those who promote GMOs or who "shield their interests at the WTO" to be disingenuous at best. From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 13-OCT-2003 15:23:14.84 To: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Ethics: situational and relative I read Kayce's post to mean that there are no moral absolutes. Not that there are no principles of morality. And I tend to agree. What would you consider to be moral absolutes? ----------------- The following is taken from the book _Do the Right Thing: A Philosophical Dialogue on the Moral and Social Issues of Our Time_ by Francis J. Beckwith, 1996, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Massachusetts USA: "When people deny that we can reason about moral matters, they give up much more than they ever imagined. Consider the following example. In the following paraphrase of a tape-recorded conversation with one of his victims, serial murderer Ted Bundy (who murdered at least 30 young women; note by WRS) attempts to justify the murder of his victim: 'Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself - that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring - the strength of character - to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consisted in the insupportable "value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights?... Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlighten, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham, and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me - after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.' After a sharp scream, the tape clicks off. ... It is no secret that people disagree, sometimes vehemently, over a variety of moral and social issues... (But we all) agree on at least one thing: we can reason about moral matters." Just as Beckwith says above, I also most certainly hope and believe that we - not just persons in Applied Ethology, but all humans - can, indeed, agree that we have the ability to reason about moral issues - including those issues involving animals. I would add that because we have this ability, we also have the obligation to use it. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" 13-OCT-2003 15:38:40.17 To: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior You made me think about something here: Maybe we don't all interpret "science" the same way? Maybe, for me, science is also examining certain criteria which have to be included in ones ethogram before approaching such a study? What i mean is, that someone who reads such an article, also should have some common sense, and should think whether it is "normal" for a bovine to stand locked up in a cage, instead of grazing in open field, they way its ancestors did? I come from a scientific background, but when i read results such as these, i tend to ask myself if it isn't high time we changed some "scientific paradigms"? Hilit -----Original Message----- From: Croney, Candace [mailto:Candace.Croney@orst.edu] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:46 PM To: Julie Alexander; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Dear Julie and All, I was involved in the data collection of this study so I will share with you a couple points. 1)I think this study and your comments reiterate the points Ray was making earlier. Based only on the science (as in the criteria measured), the authors drew the conclusion, which might loosely be interpreted as "there is nothing "wrong" with housing calves in very small crates, and leaving them tethered the entire time, subsisting only on milk fed for a few minutes twice a day". 2) Having been in those barns, based on what I saw, and on any of the theories described by Stine, Ray and others (hedonism, utilitarianism, etc), and on a more wholistic approach to animal welfare (including the impact on the animal's psychological well-being, which I do not believe was adequately addressed in this study) as well as pure ethology (what is the calf designed by nature to do?) I could not find this type of housing morally justifiable. Having said all that, if I were forced to decide whether or not I should eat veal based only on the science in this and other published articles, I would have very little basis on which to say veal production of this type was wrong, because it was bad for the animal. In fact, to muddy the waters further, what do we do when the science itself is not conclusive? As in, several studies say this sort of housing does not harm the animal, but others disagree. This is a good example of where scientific evidence cannot and should not be the sole basis for moral decision. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 6:19 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Ray, Thank you for clarifying. What was your part in this study below? At the time of the study did you believe that this was an acceptable and appropriate way to house veal and do you now find it acceptable? I have long boycotted veal as I was aware the calves were kept in tiny stalls. I did not realize just how tiny and that many were tethered. I have to admit the final paragraph appalling in its conclusions as to what is acceptable. Julie Alexander HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found For Producer's Connection INDIVIDUAL STALLS vs. PENS: GROWTH, BEHAVIOR, DISTRESS AND CARCASS TRAITS Research conducted and reported by Lowell L. Wilson and Tammy L. Terosky, Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Penn State University, Carolyn L. Stull, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis and William R. Stricklin, Department of Animal Science, University of Maryland, College Park. This research was supported by research funds administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Penn State University appropriations. Appreciation is extended to Marian and John Evans for their cooperation in this study. The special-fed veal production industry is criticized by some segments of the general public due to several components utilized in the veal production system. One system component criticized is the use of tethers to restrain calves in individual stalls. Although there has been a small increase in the use of individual pens without tethers in the US, most calves are tethered in individual open stalls. However, the individual pen system is the predominant method used in Europe, although group rearing is also increasing. Previous research has demonstrated that there are advantages to individually housing calves compared to rearing in group pens. However, there is a lack of research critically comparing individual stalls and pens. The research study discussed here was a comprehensive comparison of calves tethered in individual stalls compared to calves untethered in individual pens. In addition, three different widths (22, 26, 30 inch) of both stalls and pens were compared. In order to answer all questions in this comparison of housing design and size, growth performance, behavior, physiological indicators of stress level, calf cleanliness, structural soundness, and carcass characteristics were evaluated. Calves: Three groups of 36 Holstein calves (total of 108 calves) were obtained from livestock auctions and were randomly allotted upon arrival at the veal farm to either individual stalls or pens of three different widths. Initial weight was the pay weight at the auctions. Additionally, the calves were weighed at week 8 and upon exiting the veal barn. Average daily gain was calculated from the time the calves arrived to week 8, and from week 8 through the final weight, as well as over the entire trial. Carcass weight and other carcass traits (visual and colorimeter evaluation of muscle color) were obtained, as well as a wide variety of behavior, health/treatments, and soundness traits. Stalls and Pens: All construction consisted of oak boards; the total length of the stall or pen floor was 72 inches. Oak slats were positioned across the front part of the stall or pen floor for 24 inches with vinyl-coated expanded metal diagonal-shaped flooring placed 48 inches at the rear of the stall (total length of 72 inches). The sides and fronts of the stalls and pens were 46 inches high from the oak-slat floor which was 15 inches above a concrete floor. Widths of 22, 26, and 30 inches were used for both individual stalls and individual pens, resulting in six different combinations of housing types and widths. The housing types and widths were randomly located in two different central rows of a four-row room. Use of Statistical Significance: In research, we statistically analyze data primarily to determine if the differences between treatment alternatives are repeatable. A statistical test determines if the differences between the tested treatments or management alternatives happened by chance or can be expected to happen again if these alternatives are used under similar conditions in industry. In this study, there were few statistically significant differences in the comparison of stalls and pens or among the different widths of individual housing types. Live and Carcass Weights: The calves averaged 18 weeks at slaughter, with live and carcass weights (hide-on) averaging 444 and 302 pounds, respectively. Although there was a tendency for calves in stalls to grow more rapidly than calves in individual pens, there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of housing. Calves in wider pens or stalls did not grow statistically more rapidly than calves in narrower housing. Dressing percent (hide-on) averaged 68 percent and was not influenced by housing type or width. Blood Traits: There were essentially no differences in hemoglobin, hematocrit, white or red blood cell counts. Hemoglobin averaged 7.3 g/dL at slaughter, which is less than the hemoglobin levels of veal calf groups previously used in Penn State research. Earlier studies conducted by Penn State and the University of California, Davis averaged 7.8 and 8.2 g/dL, respectively, in field studies involving over 2,700 calves. Body Cleanliness Scores: The calves were scored at different times during the trials, but the most important score for cleanliness was just prior to slaughter. Body cleanliness at slaughter is important since it reflects the amount of excrement and other materials taken from the barn to the packing plant. This is a concern even though veal calves are washed before and/or after slaughter. Although there were no differences in apparent cleanliness of the forequarters and belly, the hindquarters of calves reared in enclosed pens accumulated more fecal material than calves reared in stalls. It should be mentioned that the stalls used in this study were oak which is more porous and more difficult to clean than the harder, more dense imported lumber usually used in the construction of individual pens. Width of stall or pen did not affect calf cleanliness score at slaughter. Joint, Navel and Overall Body Condition: There were statistically significant differences in left knee swelling scores with a general increase in swelling as stall or pen width decreased. Although this difference was rather small, the observation does suggest that calves in smaller housing units had greater difficulty in extending their front legs and changing from a lying to a standing position. French researchers also concluded that calves housed in smaller-sized pens tended to keep knees and hocks bent while lying. Maintaining this posture may have contributed to more joint swelling in the smaller pens. There were no differences in navel (e.g., inflammation, redness) or overall body condition (body condition primarily based on apparent degree of fatness). Only minor differences were observed in health status and treatments (e.g., medications) among the stalls or pens of different widths. Ambulation, Behavior and Excitability: The majority of the animals (88 percent) when housed in their stalls or pens scored between 2.5 and 3.5 (possible scores of 1 to 5) for excitability and behavior. This is well within the range of acceptability. None of the calves were either apathetic (score of 1) or extremely difficult to handle (score of 5). Calves in stalls tended to be more excitable than were calves in pens. There was little effect of housing design or width on ambulatory ability. Most calves (92 percent) either moved normally or exhibited modest staggering or stiffness of leg joints when released for loading. Calves moved with some hesitation while being loaded, perhaps due to the novelty of the experience rather than due to a physical impairment. This agrees with conclusions by French researchers. Hairball Count and Organ Condition: The abomasum (one of the four stomach compartments) was palpated on the slaughter line and the number and size of hairballs were recorded. The number of hairballs was assumed to be an indirect determination of the intensity of self- and/or neighbor-grooming due to the housing regime. Hairballs do not develop in calves fed solid feeds with or without milk replacer. The calves averaged 1.9 hairballs 2 inches or less in diameter, .67 hairballs between 2 and 4 inches, and .05 hairballs greater than 4 inches. However, there were no housing design or width effects on hairball count or diameter, and there were no apparent health or growth impairments from hairball accumulation. The accumulation of hairballs suggests that grooming does occur in stalls and pens of different widths. Self-grooming could not be differentiated from neighbor-grooming. However, since there were dividers on the fronts of the pens and stalls which prevented most neighbor-grooming, the hairball accumulation resulted primarily from self-grooming. Conditions of the liver, lung and spleen were also evaluated at slaughter. All but one calf in the 26-inch stall treatment exhibited excellent liver condition; eight calves exhibited less than excellent lung condition, and all calves had excellent spleen condition. Blood Indicators of stress: Three different blood components were analyzed on all the calves in this study to determine the level of distress that might have been caused by housing design or stall/pen width (cortisol, acute phase proteins, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio). All of these were determined each 28 days throughout the three different group production cycles. There were no differences between stalls or pens of different widths in any of these characteristics . The averages of these traits were within the ranges of calves in non-veal management systems. Other Behavior Traits: Twelve calves within each of the three production groups, representing both housing designs and the three widths, were videorecorded five times in each of weeks 9, 13 and 18. A film frame was recorded every 1/20 second with 24 hours of observation recorded on a 2-hour tape. The videotapes were observed for 15 seconds each hour and half-hour for the entire 24-hour recorded periods. Over 26 different behaviors were observed, recorded and analyzed. The observing of a particular behavior occurring was the numerical information recorded for statistical analysis. Of particular attention was the appearance of "stereotypies" which are a highly repetitive abnormal behaviors, such as tongue rolling. Although the frequency of the primary stereotype observed, such as tongue rolling, increased between week 9 and week 18, there was no statistically significant difference between stalls and pens of different widths. French researchers determined that calves in smaller pens spent more time rolling their tongues than did calves in larger pens. Another stereotypic type of behavior observed was "sham chewing," which occurred at a very low frequency; however, the frequency of "sham chewing" tended to increase as stall or pen size decreased. The various behavioral traits that were observed, recorded and analyzed are too numerous to mention here, but included almost every activity or change in position or posture that the calf could make. If any reader is interested in these specific traits, a list can be provided to them. Carcass Color and Grade: All carcasses were subjected to visual evaluation and mechanical measurement (colorimeter) of muscle color (carcass grade) at slaughter and 24 hours later. There were no differences due to housing design or width in either the visual evaluations or mechanical measurements at either time after slaughter. It is interesting to note that muscle color lightened between slaughter and 24 hours post-slaughter, which has been noted in earlier research at Penn State and elsewhere. Economic Implications: When housing designs (tethered in stalls vs. non-tethered in individual pens) are compared critically, there is little or no difference in calf well-being, performance, behavior, health status, signs of distress, carcass desirability or other factors. Calves tethered in open stalls did not exhibit any increased stereotypies, distress, or other indicators of abnormal behavior as compared to calves in individual pens. If it is assumed that calf age and weight will remain about the same or perhaps increase slightly over the next few years, there is justification to use stalls at least 26 inches wide and pens at least 30 inches wide. If calf size increases significantly (e.g., to 23 weeks and 510 pounds) in the next few years, then 30-inch stalls and 30- to 36-inch pens would be justified from the standpoint of animal well-being and performance. It seems unlikely that slaughter age and weight will decrease. If calves continue to be plentiful for special fed-veal production, and age and weight decreases (e.g., to 16 weeks and 410 pounds), then 24-inch stalls and 30-inch pens may be acceptable. Increasing stall or pen size would reduce the number of calves per barn thus probably increasing production costs. Perhaps the veal industry should give more consideration to the total impact of further increases in slaughter age and weight. Based on the results of this study, there is no apparent advantage to adopt non-tethered veal productions systems from the calf's standpoint, but this change may be supported by public perception and marketability of veal products. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Home | Animal Welfare Programs | FAQ/An. Welfare | INFO/An. Welfare | Top ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 13-OCT-2003 15:43:23.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Hi, Dr. Stricklin, I have thought of what you said, too. But the crux of that argument is what you use as humane euthanasia for your food animals. As far as I have been able to determine, despite the Vet guides for humane euthanasia, animals used in mass food production do not have an end devoid of fear/pain. In fact, as it applies to rabbits, the rabbit meat industry is not much worried about that issue (if you look at the classic meat production books' page(s) devoted to the issue, which are nonexistent or negligible). Most people who are strong enough (women usually are not, and use a different, crueler method) break the rabbit's neck -- yet studies have demonstrated that afterwards the rabbit remains conscious for 15-20 seconds, long enough to be hung and started-on-butchering. Commercial methods for rabbits cannot be any better than what we have for chickens (both classified under same humane handling rules by USDA I believe) which is abysmal. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 9:39 AM To: deidre muccio; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior -----Original Message----- From: deidre muccio [mailto:deidre@rcn.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 6:19 AM To: Ray Stricklin Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Twisted. >What is implied here is something I learned from Singer's Animal Liberation; >the quality of the life of a food animal should be included in the >consideration of whether or not the practice is justified. What I am >contending is that it can be argued that food animal actually benefit from >their existence - PROVIDED the animal experiences sufficient quality of >life. To me this is the challenge. The ball, so to speak, is in the court >of animal agriculture to ensure that the animals do, indeed, meet this >criterion - and regrettably, I do not see the needed/appropriate changes >coming any time in the near future. ---- Twisted? You believe that I twisted the ideas of Singer? Sorry, but I do not think that you understand Singer. My statements were not at all in conflict with the position he originally took in Animal Liberation. He, very much, does accept that provided the pleasure is greater than the pain, then a practice is acceptable. He is a strict and consistent Utilitarian in his arguments. He has even argued that sex with animals is acceptable provided it involves pleasure and not pain (a position that I disagree with) - as is discussed in the following : http://www.dadi.org/sexanmal.htm From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 13-OCT-2003 15:58:28.66 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed -----Original Message----- From: Laura Sanborn [mailto:laura@xul.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:16 PM To: Applied ethology Subject: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed statements are without any logical merit and are offensive. If someone here wishes to start a thread on GMOs or WTO issues, and can find some relevance to ethology, by all means start one. In the meantime, kindly refrain from launching additional ad hominem attacks. ------- Maybe you truly do not understand. This is an APPLIED-ETHOLOGY discussion group. Take a look at the title-name of any message you receive from this group. It does say ETHOLOGY, but there is such group if that, in fact, is your interest. This is not an ETHOLOGY group - as in basic ethology. This is an APPLIED-ETHOLOGY group and maybe you do not know the breath of topics now dealt with by those of us working in applied ethology - so I will take a little time to inform you. Animal welfare is a MAJOR part of applied ethology - and this certainly true of agricultural animals. Agricultural animal welfare is a critical issue in world trade discussions today. Take for example the coming meeting in Paris in Feb on this topic http://www.oie.int/eng/Welfare_2004/home.htm Take a look at the program. The topics are very closely tied to the issues that I have been recently addressing on this group. And additionally, Mike Appleby organized a symposium on "What Price Cheap Food?" http://www.hsus.org/ace/15057 Maybe you would like to take a look at this web site (and the links http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/FOODLEAF.PDF) and then maybe you like to inform Dr. Appleby that he should not have done this work - because in your opinion based on your vast knowledge gained through experience you have concluded that his work is not a legitimate topic for a person working as an applied ethology. Again, this discussion group was started, and to my knowledge remains, at least in part for the purpose of serving those of us who work in Applied Ethology. This discussion group is here, in part, for us to communicate about topics we are currently dealing with. And animal training, wild animal shows, etc. have very to do with to do with Applied Ethology. My opinion is that you animal trainers are welcome to be included as members of this discussion group. However, you are not welcome in your attempts to thwart discussion on topics of Applied Ethology, as for example the attempt above, simply because the topics are not of interest to you. And I want to make one point very, very clear about a bigger issue, but one that is related to what I have said about the above message. I have recently entered this discussion group again in an active manner with the specific goal of STOPPING the type of attempted control of this group that has been taken on by some of the animal trainers in recent months. And in the past 4-5 days, I have received about 8 to 10 messages directed to me personally from applied ethology members of the group expressing different levels of frustration - even irritation - regarding the behavior of some of the animal trainers on this discussion board. Some of the members of this group are particularly angry at your driving away - or attempting to drive away - persons who do not agree with you. Because many of the members of this group are students or young professionals, they cannot speak out directly and freely. I do not have any such restrictions. Again, my opinion is that trainers are welcome to be members of this Applied-Ethology group - but training is a very, very minor topic within applied ethology. Accordingly, you most certainly will not dictate to me as a professional worker in applied ethology what is and is not an appropriate topic for us to discuss. And I will also make an attempt to keep this discussion group one where legitimate activities in Applied-Ethology can be discussed as needed by those of us are professionals. And most especially I want this to be a place where students and young professionals in Applied Ethology can feel safe in saying what they believe is important and relevant. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 13-OCT-2003 16:12:24.93 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior In answer to your question - Nope! I do not, in fact, agree with the final statement. And it might come as surprise to you, but I do not remember ever seeing this abstract! However, it also not uncommon for one in my position to have their name attached to statements they did make or agree with in total - especially when grad students at another location are given the task of writing a producer article, etc. (Not to say that I do not have some responsibility to ensure that this type does not happen, however.) I can tell you that the journal article (Journal of Animal Science, 1997; 75:1697-1703) that was published from this work included the following as the final statement: "(N)either increased costs nor lack of negative production or physiological data may be adequate justification for how veal calves are housed. The long-term consequences of negative perception associated with an existing production system should (sic) encourage an industry to change to an alternative system, perhaps ensuring that the questions of animal treatment, including space and freedom of movement, receive appropriate ethical consideration." This final statement was written by me - BUT the wording above is not mine completely and I consider the final version to be that was forced into a somewhat "watered down" condition by the editor - because the reviewers considered the info in this statement as being one that is "ethical" and not one based on "science!" My original wording was considerably less qualified. Hope that this helps. W.R. Stricklin P.S. And if you want to know my position on veal overall, somewhere I have an electronic version of testimony given by me on the topic some 15 years ago in California. (By the way, my experiences from this hearing resulted in my conducting "mock hearings on proposed veal legislation" in my welfare class. And by the way, this class exercise has been modified, expanded and used in classes at other institutions by persons who where at Univ of MD when I first started this activity.) I will try to take some time and locate this info and send it later. -----Original Message----- From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 9:19 AM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Ray, Thank you for clarifying. What was your part in this study below? At the time of the study did you believe that this was an acceptable and appropriate way to house veal and do you now find it acceptable? I have long boycotted veal as I was aware the calves were kept in tiny stalls. I did not realize just how tiny and that many were tethered. I have to admit the final paragraph appalling in its conclusions as to what is acceptable. Julie Alexander HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found For Producer's Connection INDIVIDUAL STALLS vs. PENS: GROWTH, BEHAVIOR, DISTRESS AND CARCASS TRAITS Research conducted and reported by Lowell L. Wilson and Tammy L. Terosky, Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Penn State University, Carolyn L. Stull, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis and William R. Stricklin, Department of Animal Science, University of Maryland, College Park. This research was supported by research funds administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Penn State University appropriations. Appreciation is extended to Marian and John Evans for their cooperation in this study. The special-fed veal production industry is criticized by some segments of the general public due to several components utilized in the veal production system. One system component criticized is the use of tethers to restrain calves in individual stalls. Although there has been a small increase in the use of individual pens without tethers in the US, most calves are tethered in individual open stalls. However, the individual pen system is the predominant method used in Europe, although group rearing is also increasing. Previous research has demonstrated that there are advantages to individually housing calves compared to rearing in group pens. However, there is a lack of research critically comparing individual stalls and pens. The research study discussed here was a comprehensive comparison of calves tethered in individual stalls compared to calves untethered in individual pens. In addition, three different widths (22, 26, 30 inch) of both stalls and pens were compared. In order to answer all questions in this comparison of housing design and size, growth performance, behavior, physiological indicators of stress level, calf cleanliness, structural soundness, and carcass characteristics were evaluated. Calves: Three groups of 36 Holstein calves (total of 108 calves) were obtained from livestock auctions and were randomly allotted upon arrival at the veal farm to either individual stalls or pens of three different widths. Initial weight was the pay weight at the auctions. Additionally, the calves were weighed at week 8 and upon exiting the veal barn. Average daily gain was calculated from the time the calves arrived to week 8, and from week 8 through the final weight, as well as over the entire trial. Carcass weight and other carcass traits (visual and colorimeter evaluation of muscle color) were obtained, as well as a wide variety of behavior, health/treatments, and soundness traits. Stalls and Pens: All construction consisted of oak boards; the total length of the stall or pen floor was 72 inches. Oak slats were positioned across the front part of the stall or pen floor for 24 inches with vinyl-coated expanded metal diagonal-shaped flooring placed 48 inches at the rear of the stall (total length of 72 inches). The sides and fronts of the stalls and pens were 46 inches high from the oak-slat floor which was 15 inches above a concrete floor. Widths of 22, 26, and 30 inches were used for both individual stalls and individual pens, resulting in six different combinations of housing types and widths. The housing types and widths were randomly located in two different central rows of a four-row room. Use of Statistical Significance: In research, we statistically analyze data primarily to determine if the differences between treatment alternatives are repeatable. A statistical test determines if the differences between the tested treatments or management alternatives happened by chance or can be expected to happen again if these alternatives are used under similar conditions in industry. In this study, there were few statistically significant differences in the comparison of stalls and pens or among the different widths of individual housing types. Live and Carcass Weights: The calves averaged 18 weeks at slaughter, with live and carcass weights (hide-on) averaging 444 and 302 pounds, respectively. Although there was a tendency for calves in stalls to grow more rapidly than calves in individual pens, there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of housing. Calves in wider pens or stalls did not grow statistically more rapidly than calves in narrower housing. Dressing percent (hide-on) averaged 68 percent and was not influenced by housing type or width. Blood Traits: There were essentially no differences in hemoglobin, hematocrit, white or red blood cell counts. Hemoglobin averaged 7.3 g/dL at slaughter, which is less than the hemoglobin levels of veal calf groups previously used in Penn State research. Earlier studies conducted by Penn State and the University of California, Davis averaged 7.8 and 8.2 g/dL, respectively, in field studies involving over 2,700 calves. Body Cleanliness Scores: The calves were scored at different times during the trials, but the most important score for cleanliness was just prior to slaughter. Body cleanliness at slaughter is important since it reflects the amount of excrement and other materials taken from the barn to the packing plant. This is a concern even though veal calves are washed before and/or after slaughter. Although there were no differences in apparent cleanliness of the forequarters and belly, the hindquarters of calves reared in enclosed pens accumulated more fecal material than calves reared in stalls. It should be mentioned that the stalls used in this study were oak which is more porous and more difficult to clean than the harder, more dense imported lumber usually used in the construction of individual pens. Width of stall or pen did not affect calf cleanliness score at slaughter. Joint, Navel and Overall Body Condition: There were statistically significant differences in left knee swelling scores with a general increase in swelling as stall or pen width decreased. Although this difference was rather small, the observation does suggest that calves in smaller housing units had greater difficulty in extending their front legs and changing from a lying to a standing position. French researchers also concluded that calves housed in smaller-sized pens tended to keep knees and hocks bent while lying. Maintaining this posture may have contributed to more joint swelling in the smaller pens. There were no differences in navel (e.g., inflammation, redness) or overall body condition (body condition primarily based on apparent degree of fatness). Only minor differences were observed in health status and treatments (e.g., medications) among the stalls or pens of different widths. Ambulation, Behavior and Excitability: The majority of the animals (88 percent) when housed in their stalls or pens scored between 2.5 and 3.5 (possible scores of 1 to 5) for excitability and behavior. This is well within the range of acceptability. None of the calves were either apathetic (score of 1) or extremely difficult to handle (score of 5). Calves in stalls tended to be more excitable than were calves in pens. There was little effect of housing design or width on ambulatory ability. Most calves (92 percent) either moved normally or exhibited modest staggering or stiffness of leg joints when released for loading. Calves moved with some hesitation while being loaded, perhaps due to the novelty of the experience rather than due to a physical impairment. This agrees with conclusions by French researchers. Hairball Count and Organ Condition: The abomasum (one of the four stomach compartments) was palpated on the slaughter line and the number and size of hairballs were recorded. The number of hairballs was assumed to be an indirect determination of the intensity of self- and/or neighbor-grooming due to the housing regime. Hairballs do not develop in calves fed solid feeds with or without milk replacer. The calves averaged 1.9 hairballs 2 inches or less in diameter, .67 hairballs between 2 and 4 inches, and .05 hairballs greater than 4 inches. However, there were no housing design or width effects on hairball count or diameter, and there were no apparent health or growth impairments from hairball accumulation. The accumulation of hairballs suggests that grooming does occur in stalls and pens of different widths. Self-grooming could not be differentiated from neighbor-grooming. However, since there were dividers on the fronts of the pens and stalls which prevented most neighbor-grooming, the hairball accumulation resulted primarily from self-grooming. Conditions of the liver, lung and spleen were also evaluated at slaughter. All but one calf in the 26-inch stall treatment exhibited excellent liver condition; eight calves exhibited less than excellent lung condition, and all calves had excellent spleen condition. Blood Indicators of stress: Three different blood components were analyzed on all the calves in this study to determine the level of distress that might have been caused by housing design or stall/pen width (cortisol, acute phase proteins, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio). All of these were determined each 28 days throughout the three different group production cycles. There were no differences between stalls or pens of different widths in any of these characteristics . The averages of these traits were within the ranges of calves in non-veal management systems. Other Behavior Traits: Twelve calves within each of the three production groups, representing both housing designs and the three widths, were videorecorded five times in each of weeks 9, 13 and 18. A film frame was recorded every 1/20 second with 24 hours of observation recorded on a 2-hour tape. The videotapes were observed for 15 seconds each hour and half-hour for the entire 24-hour recorded periods. Over 26 different behaviors were observed, recorded and analyzed. The observing of a particular behavior occurring was the numerical information recorded for statistical analysis. Of particular attention was the appearance of "stereotypies" which are a highly repetitive abnormal behaviors, such as tongue rolling. Although the frequency of the primary stereotype observed, such as tongue rolling, increased between week 9 and week 18, there was no statistically significant difference between stalls and pens of different widths. French researchers determined that calves in smaller pens spent more time rolling their tongues than did calves in larger pens. Another stereotypic type of behavior observed was "sham chewing," which occurred at a very low frequency; however, the frequency of "sham chewing" tended to increase as stall or pen size decreased. The various behavioral traits that were observed, recorded and analyzed are too numerous to mention here, but included almost every activity or change in position or posture that the calf could make. If any reader is interested in these specific traits, a list can be provided to them. Carcass Color and Grade: All carcasses were subjected to visual evaluation and mechanical measurement (colorimeter) of muscle color (carcass grade) at slaughter and 24 hours later. There were no differences due to housing design or width in either the visual evaluations or mechanical measurements at either time after slaughter. It is interesting to note that muscle color lightened between slaughter and 24 hours post-slaughter, which has been noted in earlier research at Penn State and elsewhere. Economic Implications: When housing designs (tethered in stalls vs. non-tethered in individual pens) are compared critically, there is little or no difference in calf well-being, performance, behavior, health status, signs of distress, carcass desirability or other factors. Calves tethered in open stalls did not exhibit any increased stereotypies, distress, or other indicators of abnormal behavior as compared to calves in individual pens. If it is assumed that calf age and weight will remain about the same or perhaps increase slightly over the next few years, there is justification to use stalls at least 26 inches wide and pens at least 30 inches wide. If calf size increases significantly (e.g., to 23 weeks and 510 pounds) in the next few years, then 30-inch stalls and 30- to 36-inch pens would be justified from the standpoint of animal well-being and performance. It seems unlikely that slaughter age and weight will decrease. If calves continue to be plentiful for special fed-veal production, and age and weight decreases (e.g., to 16 weeks and 410 pounds), then 24-inch stalls and 30-inch pens may be acceptable. Increasing stall or pen size would reduce the number of calves per barn thus probably increasing production costs. Perhaps the veal industry should give more consideration to the total impact of further increases in slaughter age and weight. Based on the results of this study, there is no apparent advantage to adopt non-tethered veal productions systems from the calf's standpoint, but this change may be supported by public perception and marketability of veal products. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Home | Animal Welfare Programs | FAQ/An. Welfare | INFO/An. Welfare | Top ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html 404 Object Not Found From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 13-OCT-2003 17:40:11.16 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior -----Original Message----- From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 9:19 AM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior I have long boycotted veal as I was aware the calves were kept in tiny stalls. I did not realize just how tiny and that many were tethered. I have to admit the final paragraph appalling in its conclusions as to what is acceptable. ------------------------------------------------------------ I do not endorse veal crates. I strongly believe that there are better systems. I also very much believe that systems, such as electronic feeding systems for groups of calves, should be made financially feasible, possibly subsidized by either taxpayers and/or animal protection advocates. Now, let me say again, I do not endorse veal crates. However, I fully anticipate that there will be some person or persons who will read what I prepared below and continue on their path of ignoring what I am actually saying and continue their attack. And this statement is not directed at anyone in particular. I simply know from experience that this most likely will occur. Let me try to quickly give some background on the topic of veal. In the USA meat system, veal is "any young bovine animal weighing under 500 pounds." (1 pound = 0.45 kilograms) What this means is that "veal" comes from a number of methods of production - not solely from calves raised in crates. The majority of the "crate-fed" veal (also called white veal, gourmet veal, or fancy veal) is sold through the hotel-restaurant markets. Unless one spends around $30 or more for an entrée', then likely the purchased meat does not in fact from calves raised in a crate - even though the product is entitled "veal" on the menu. The majority of the Kosher veal comes from beef calves (called suckler calves in some countries) and it is not produced in a crate. These calves come mostly from the Southeastern states and suckle from their dam on pasture until they are slaughtered. They are calves that are around 220-240 days of age at slaughter, are fatter than average, and are killed within a few days after weaning - often the same day. The part of the carcass that does meet Kosher standards is typically sold as "red veal" because of the color of the meat - but at a lower price than either Kosher or white veal. And also there is quite a bit of red veal slaughtered that is not Kosher kill. There is also a very complicating issue associated with veal production in that: Veal is basically a by-product of milk! What this means is that consuming milk is in a sense the source of the "problem" - not veal production per se. The veal calf does not come about because someone wishes to raise veal. Rather, veal calves come about because people drink milk! The crate-fed veal calves are the male calves from dairy cows that have no particular purpose in life other than that they are born so that the cow will come back into optimum levels of milk production. Thus, each year around 4 million male calves are born in the USA dairy industry. In my younger lifetime, many of these calves were killed on the farm because there was no market for them and they were simply buried - and when prices drop too low today, this can still happen. The stall system of veal production was basically imported into the USA from The Netherlands using the materials and dimensions of that time (~1960) - and little about the system has changed in part because little to no research has been directed to the topic. (Also, the majority of researchers avoid the topic of veal like the plague because it is such an easy target, basically "fresh meat" for anyone out to attack animal food production systems - or individual researchers for that matter.) In short what a veal producer does is take two by-products, male calves and whey, from the dairy industry and combine them and produce veal meat. And in some instances in the absence of the stall-fed veal as an endpoint, both the whey and the calf are "tanked" - one could say wasted. Of the 4 million plus male dairy calves, on average one-third go to crates and become white veal, one-third become dairy beef (typically housed in crates until the calf can eat solid food and then moved to groups and fed until they reach around 1200 pounds) and the remaining one-third are killed within the first few days after birth, and these are called wet veal or bob veal. The majority of veal in supermarkets come from this last category. The number of calves that fall into this category and are slaughtered at birth goes up when the price of white veal drops. Thus, the issue is maybe a bit more complex than simply eating veal versus not eating veal. If one drinks milk, does not one have some responsibility for having contributed to the birth of the calf? Is it better for a calf to be killed within a day or two of birth or to live 16 weeks in a crate? (I think a tough and fair question, but not one that is presented in justification for continuing the crate system.) Cannot a better production system be developed than crates - and why has this not been funded research? Bradley Miller and Bob Brown, both farm animal protection advocates, in past years waged very successful media advertising campaigns against veal. They each also tried to start an alternative system by raising range veal. Ironically - and I think regrettably, they found that the term "veal" had attained such a negative connotation, in part from their campaigns, that they could not market their own range veal products! People tend to see "veal" and think "crate" - and this is not necessarily so. I am not saying that one should not avoid eating veal. What I am saying is that this issue, like most all others, is more complex than simply taking a position that I will do the right thing by boycotting the product. I have problem saying that the crate is not an acceptable system and that it needs to be changed. I do not, however, believe that simply boycotting "veal" is the ultimate solution. Male calves will continue to be born (at least until we can control sex at conception - and permit the practice) as long as people drink milk. And I contend that there is an obligation to provide these calves an appropriate quality of life and what I would call an acceptable endpoint. I do not think that having everyone simply ignore that these calves have come into existence will solve the problem. When the calves are ignored they are more likely to be killed and composed on the farm on the day they are born - thus, the affected calf by those who avoid eating veal is not necessarily provided a better quality of life as a consequence of their choice and actions. Again, I believe the solution is to develop an alternative production system that is sustainable for the producer, and appropriate for the calf. Hope that this is helpful. W.R. Stricklin From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 13-OCT-2003 17:58:40.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: measuring intelligence - Parrots (primates) Damian posted this on a different ethology board and I thought it might be of interest. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pepperberg03/pepperberg_index.html Especially the part where she writes ".calls me over and says, "You told me that parrots are destructive foragers and that they don't really put things together, so come here and take a look." And there was Griffin, taking smaller caps and putting them into bigger caps, and picking up the pairs and throwing them off the side of the counter. This incident occurred at about the same time that he was saying things like "want walnut," and "green grape," and other combinations of that nature." Pet rabbit owners have long seen their rabbits fit objects together. It is not haphazard. The rabbit seems to take great pains to make the closest fit. I have seen a food dish (LARGE) just squeezed into a water dish. Toys are carefully stored in round dishes. Toys are sorted. Very interesting. Dr. Pepperberg compares her birds to 4-year old human children. Dr. Pepperberg's discussion of how people did not fund her initial work, and thought her crazy is interesting. I remmber going to one of her talks years ago and being very excited about it. My peers thought she was nuts. But she was able over time to carefully test many attributes of Alex's behavior. p.p.s. you've got to read the passage: "Thus we are trying to get him to sound out refrigerator letters, the same way one would train children on phonics. We were doing demos at the Media Lab for our corporate sponsors; we had a very small amount of time scheduled and the visitors wanted to see Alex work. So we put a number of differently colored letters on the tray that we use, put the tray in front of Alex, and asked, "Alex, what sound is blue?" He answers, "Ssss." It was an "s", so we say "Good birdie" and he replies, "Want a nut." Well, I don't want him sitting there using our limited amount of time to eat a nut, so I tell him to wait, and I ask, "What sound is green?" Alex answers, "Ssshh." He's right, it's "sh," and we go through the routine again: "Good parrot." "Want a nut." "Alex, wait. What sound is orange?" "ch." "Good bird!" "Want a nut." We're going on and on and Alex is clearly getting more and more frustrated. He finally gets very slitty-eyed and he looks at me and states, "Want a nut. Nnn, uh, tuh." Not only could you imagine him thinking, "Hey, stupid, do I have to spell it for you?" but the point was that he had leaped over where we were and had begun sounding out the letters of the words for us. " From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 13-OCT-2003 18:11:04.80 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Inbreeding (was: Re: FW: Ethics and inbreeding) At 12:32 PM Monday 10/13/2003, you wrote: > > Regarding your last point, this seems to imply that purebred animals > > invariably suffer from inbreeding depression. > >to some extent, they probably do. although, i suppose it depends on what we >are talking about (e.g., overall individual fitness, reproductive fitness or >specific phenotye), which environment the animals are in, and what breeding >scheme is being used. Then it shouldn't it be demonstrable, when fitness comparisons are made between populations? When COI is NOT taken into account and mean (or median) longevity of purebred dogs is compared to that of mixed breed dogs, the latter population is usually shown to outlive the former by 1-2 years. However, this misses the point that mean (or median) population longevity between and within breeds varies considerably. In the case of John Armstrong's study of standard poodles, reduced median longevity and the characteristic survivorship curve of inbred dogs were not found in the population of SPs with 10 generation COIs less than 6.25%. This is quite unlike the population of SPs with 10 generation COIs greater than 6.25%. The latter group had median longevity 2-4 years less than the least inbred SP group. http://www.canine-genetics.com/lifespan.html >the discussion of coefficients of inbreeding that follows (which i >intentionally truncated) illustrates one of the problems with the >web-citations of pedigree analysis. > > > For example, what data can anyone point to which suggests that any purebred > > dog population such one of my companion dogs comes from [snip] > >would experience any > > significant hybrid vigor by outcrossing to another breed? [snip] found > > that the group with 10 generation COIs of less than 6.25% had survivorship > > comparable to non-inbred (e.g. mixed breed) dog populations. It was the SP > > groups with 10 generation COIs greater than 6.25% that had significantly > > shorter longevity. > > http://www.canine-genetics.com/lifespan.html > >frankly, these calculations are misleading. In every case, the analysis >assumes that the inbreeding (i.e., F) of the originating individuals was >zero. As stated above, I was speaking only of 10 generation COIs. As I understand it, 10 generation COIs are independent of the inbreeding/relatedness of the originating individuals. One can calculate 10 generation COIs from complete 10 generation pedigrees. The more generations one includes in a COI analysis, the higher the calculated COI value typically will be. Can we ever hope to fully capture, with a calculated metric such as COI, all inbreeding that has accumulated going back who knows how far... 10,000+ years to the first domesticated dogs? I had been thinking that a key point is whether COI values calculated using 6 generations, 10 generations, 30 generations, full pedigrees, etc., correlate significantly with specific measures of inbreeding depression. If so, these less than ultimate COIs can have some value. Those who study COIs in pedigree dog breeds back to breed founders, as I have done for GSDs, are likely aware that the assumption that the founder dogs are unrelated is probably incorrect. As it says in the BC pedigree database study: "So at most 643 [founder] dogs influence the current gene pool. 'At most' is added because these dogs might originate from an even smaller number of dogs before the ISDS started the StudBooks." >this is clearly incorrec and accounts for the apparent conundrum >between the low estimates of F and the low genetic diversity of the border >collie breed (where it was suggested that there are only 8 genomes >represented among the entire population >http://home.tiscali.nl/~palado/bcdb/article1/WSN1c4.htm) Given that the original statement here that started this thread related to inbreeding depression... "Because of the hybrid vigor (heterosis) exhibited by outcrossed individuals, a strong welfare-based argument can be made against the endorsement of "purebred" animals as pets" ...it seemed to me that COI (F) is more relevant to this particular issue than are measures of genetic diversity in entire genepools. Do you disagree? Laura Sanborn From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 13-OCT-2003 18:19:49.53 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Hi, I am a meat eater -have been all my life. Love roasts, ox-roasts, hamburgers, pork chops, etc. LOVE them. Yet now that I am older, and have kept rabbits as companions, I've started to look at the meat industry --- whether or not it is really possible to euthanize an animal humanely in a mass meat production market; and the difference in "footprint" from a meat eater and a vegetarian on world resources. My increasing conviction is that the industry is cruel and mostly unsanitary (especially rendering). It is not that I don't like eating meat, but that my appetite is slowing getting lost. Same for milk But unfortunately to say these things these days tend to get close to violating many states' food laws about not saying publically anything bad about a particular foodstuff; and it impacts many important industries with a lot of money. Not to mention that anyone saying these things is branded an animal rights person automatically even if they aren't (or are simply an animal welfare advocate) and these days ALEC.org (see their top page) wants to put all animal "rights" and "ecology" activists in jail as terrorists. But, it is hard to ignore that all the questions Dr. Stricklin raised below would be mute if a person was vegetarian or vegan. Heather [text cut] "thus, the affected calf by those who avoid eating veal is not necessarily provided a better quality of life as a consequence of their choice and actions. Again, I believe the solution is to develop an alternative production system that is sustainable for the producer, and appropriate for the calf. Hope that this is helpful. W.R. Stricklin" From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 13-OCT-2003 18:27:18.47 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed At 02:58 PM Monday 10/13/2003, you wrote: > >> Therefore i line up with others to believe, that those, asking for last > >> scientific proofs do it to shield their interests for example at the WTO. > >statements are without any logical merit and are offensive. If someone >here wishes to start a thread on GMOs or WTO issues, and can find some >relevance to ethology, by all means start one. In the meantime, kindly >refrain from launching additional ad hominem attacks. >------- > >Maybe you truly do not understand. This is an APPLIED-ETHOLOGY discussion >group. Take a look at the title-name of any message you receive from this >group. It appears that you misunderstood what I wrote. I object to ad hominem attacks. I do not object to any topic as inappropriate subject matter for this list. Accusing anyone on this list with whom one disagrees of taking a position "to shield their interests for example at the WTO" is an ad hominem attack: "marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." (Incidentally, I do not train or own any wild animals, nor have any more "interest" in the matter than any other concerned individual. I haven't taken sides on any WTO issue either.) I do not judge whether GMO or WTO issues (or any other issues) are appropriate subject matter for the list. Would important and contentious WTO issues about cotton subsidies or steel tariffs, for example, be appropriate subject matter for this list? Your call. I'm not touching it. ;-)))) >And additionally, Mike Appleby organized a symposium on "What Price Cheap >Food?" http://www.hsus.org/ace/15057 Maybe you would like to take a look at >this web site (and the links http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/FOODLEAF.PDF) >and then maybe you like to inform Dr. Appleby that he should not have done >this work - because in your opinion based on your vast knowledge gained >through experience you have concluded that his work is not a legitimate >topic for a person working as an applied ethology. I have concluded nothing of the sort. Please, is there any chance that you might cease from misrepresenting what I and others have posted on this list? >My opinion is that you animal trainers are welcome to be included as members >of this discussion group. However, you are not welcome in your attempts to >thwart discussion on topics of Applied Ethology, as for example the attempt >above, simply because the topics are not of interest to you. I've only attempted to stop ad hominem debating tactics and misrepresentations of what I or others have posted here. Nothing more. > in the past 4-5 days, I have received about 8 to 10 messages directed to me >personally from applied ethology members of the group expressing different >levels of frustration - even irritation - regarding the behavior of some of >the animal trainers on this discussion board. Some of the members of this >group are particularly angry at your driving away - or attempting to drive >away - persons who do not agree with you. Once again. No one is trying to stop anyone from respectfully speaking freely. Nor am I "attempting to drive away" anyone, nor can I see any evidence that anyone else is attempting to do so. The first time you misrepresented me and/or others in this thread, I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was a simple miscommunication/misunderstanding. These can of course happen, especially in a communication medium such as this one. It is becoming increasingly difficult to hold on to this interpretation as more and more examples mount. As far as private messages received about the recent wild animal training/show/welfare thread, I hadn't thought to keep track of numbers, but since it's been brought it up.... over the past several days, I've received 17 private emails from list members expressing frustration and irritation with statements made on this email list. None of the frustration & irritation expressed in these emails, however, was directed at me or the animal trainers on the list. However, since it appears that both of us have unintentionally irritated and frustrated some of our fellow list members, I now apologize on my part for having done so. Regards, Laura Sanborn From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 14-OCT-2003 01:54:48.02 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed Hi Laura, i don't wanted to lump (what ever this is might be) or to line animal trainers up with the friends of global trading GMOs. You might take it, that my experiences also with exotic animal keepers (and other animal keepers) are, that they tend to ask for "ultimate" scientific proof to shield their interests. You might show them a study on wild elefant walking a day, they ask for 360 day observation. You bring up 360 day observational data, they only accept data coming from the tribe, their elefants are coming from. You gain data from this special tribe, they claim their elefants are from this tribe but born in europe. You look after european born elefants, they claim better show and training conditions than used in your cited study ... you even might do work on their elefants and they answer the elefants to be in a bad mood at the moment and present some witness for the elefants having been in better mood last week. (You might put in any animal instead of the elefant ) Thus i argue, that there is often evidence to act also if "ultimate" scientific proof is lacking. Everybody knows, that information and proof from AW science is restricted per se. And i argue, keepers or interst grooups asking for scientific proof often use it as a mean to reject any changes. Andreas Date sent: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:16:23 -0700 From: Laura Sanborn Subject: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed To: Applied ethology > > >Therefore i line up with others to believe, that those, asking for last > >scientific proofs do it to shield their interests for example at the WTO. > > I find this repeated lumping of those who do not automatically condemn wild > animal training/shows into the camp of those who promote GMOs or who "shield > their interests at the WTO" to be disingenuous at best. Such statements are > without any logical merit and are offensive. If someone here wishes to start a > thread on GMOs or WTO issues, and can find some relevance to ethology, by all > means start one. In the meantime, kindly refrain from launching additional ad > hominem attacks. > > I don't believe anyone has asked for "last scientific proofs" (an oxymoron) on > the issue of wild animal training/shows. A process of objective inquiry > involving logic and evidence is not the equivalent of seeking the holy grail of > "scientific proof". Research studies have been done and papers published > assessing the welfare of 400+ pound (180+ kg) veal calves housed tethered in > stalls that are 26x72 inches (0.66m x 1.83m). As such, surely the welfare of > wild animals used in training/shows, as well as the "take home message(s)" of > audiences who observe such shows, can be subject to objective inquiry. > > Laura Sanborn > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier„rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut fr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 14-OCT-2003 08:25:38.75 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare can't be assessed At 01:54 AM Tuesday 10/14/2003, you wrote: >You might take it, that my experiences also with exotic animal keepers (and >other animal keepers) are, that they tend to ask for "ultimate" scientific >proof >to shield their interests. > >You might show them a study on wild elefant walking a day, they ask for 360 >day observation. You bring up 360 day observational data, they only accept >data coming from the tribe, their elefants are coming from. You gain data >from this special tribe, they claim their elefants are from this tribe but >born in >europe. You look after european born elefants, they claim better show and >training conditions than used in your cited study ... you even might do work >on their elefants and they answer the elefants to be in a bad mood at the >moment and present some witness for the elefants having been in better >mood last week. (You might put in any animal instead of the elefant ) > >Thus i argue, that there is often evidence to act also if "ultimate" >scientific >proof is lacking. Everybody knows, that information and proof from AW >science is restricted per se. And i argue, keepers or interst grooups asking >for scientific proof often use it as a mean to reject any changes. I have seen no evidence that anyone on this list has been engaging in the cycle of "ultimate scientific proof" escalation that you describe. Sweeping condemnations and conclusions were repeatedly made here without being backed up by _any_ evidence presented here, with outright rejections of critical inquiry based on evidence. There is a vast difference between what you describe above and what has unfolded here. Related to the example you bring up, and NOT referring to anyone on this list, those who wish to impose their beliefs on others will often use science and studies out of context. Observe events unfold when a study is released pertaining to some hot political topic, and watch the special interests "spin" the study results to support their positions. They pick and choose what parts of the study they "believe". Their selection is not based on merit, but on whatever supports their interests. They derive sweeping conclusions from the study that are outside its scope, to attempt to impose their beliefs on to others. It goes both ways. Those who resist change are not the only ones who engage in such practices. Far from it. Advocates of change are often equally guilty. It does not logically follow that because some parents abuse their children that all (or even most) parents do so. It does not logically follow that because some domestic dog owners subject their dogs to conditions that lead to poor animal welfare that all (or even most) dog owners do so. Similarly it does not logically follow that if some tigers, bears, elephants, raptors, sea lions, etc. suffer in captivity, that all (or even most) do so. The issue to me in this discussion has always been, what specific circumstances of animal management lead to success, and what specific circumstances lead to failure? (and of course, defining success and failure are themselves worthy topics of discussion) Hence one does not reject the study of a wild elephant for a day, or for 360 days, or from some special tribe, etc. On the contrary, these can facilitate important insights. Instead, one attempts to learn why animals subjected to some specific conditions might have faired poorly relative to other animals who are subjected to different conditions. I had thought that all who are interested in animal welfare...as opposed to their own special "interests"... share this goal? Laura Sanborn From: IN%"gfb1@psu.edu" "G. F. Barbato" 14-OCT-2003 08:50:20.81 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Inbreeding (was: Re: FW: Ethics and inbreeding) On Monday 13 October 2003 08:17 pm, Laura Sanborn wrote: > At 12:32 PM Monday 10/13/2003, you wrote: > > > Regarding your last point, this seems to imply that purebred animals > > > invariably suffer from inbreeding depression. > > > >to some extent, they probably do. although, i suppose it depends on what > > we are talking about (e.g., overall individual fitness, reproductive > > fitness or specific phenotye), which environment the animals are in, and > > what breeding scheme is being used. > > Then it shouldn't it be demonstrable, when fitness comparisons are made > between populations? as i said, yes it is... just not in terms of any particular phenotype. in the case you cite the author only measures longevity. why should longevity be any better a measure of fitness than muscle mass, egg production, adiposity or antibody production? it depends on the genetic architecture of the population, selection pressures, natural history and environment. > [snip] In the case of John Armstrong's study of standard poodles, [snip] > http://www.canine-genetics.com/lifespan.html with all due respect, this study has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and i can see several major flaws in his analysis (not to mention lack of statistical rigor) and reasoning. to some degree this reflects a larger issue of web-citations, peer review, etc. >[snip] Can we ever hope to fully > capture, with a calculated metric such as COI, all inbreeding that has > accumulated going back who knows how far... 10,000+ years to the first > domesticated dogs? interesting question, and i suspect that, in the absence of molecular data (i.e., rflp band sharing, microsatellite polymorphisms etc). this will never happen. the caveat, of course, that molecular data also provides some interesting quirks. (e.g., Heredity, 2003,90:201-2; Science, 2002, 298:1540-2, 298:1610-1616 (inclusive), 298:1634-36) >[snip] Given that the original statement here that started this thread > related to inbreeding depression... > "Because of the hybrid vigor (heterosis) exhibited by outcrossed > individuals, a strong welfare-based argument can be made against the > endorsement of "purebred" animals as pets" > ...it seemed to me that COI (F) is more relevant to this particular issue > than are measures of genetic diversity in entire genepools. Do you > disagree? curious. again, this is one of those questions with many hidden assumptions and, perhaps, that is what led to my earlier, glib response. in stream of consciousness format: hybrid vigor is not always the result of outcrossing -- it depends on the genetic architecure of the phenotype. heterosis is not always 'positive'. btw.. the word 'hybrid' comes from the greek 'hubris'. it wasn't meant to be a compliment. i still don't know what the 'welfare-based' argument is... again, what phenotype are we talking about? longevity? in my house, shedding is a bigtime fitness trait, as i get ready to kill mickey.the.dog several times a year (no flames... its a joke). a more relevant question for me would be something to the effect of: what is the minimum effective population size for a breeding program to avoid fixation of deleterious genes by either inbreeding or drift for a reasonable number of generations (10 is ok with me). if reasonableness and thoughtfulness are a requisite for defining humaneness and welfare, i suspect that most hobbyist-breeders don't have the background to answer the question --- much less the resource to carry out this type of program. i'm sure this will be viewed as inflammatory, but.. here goes.. the websites that i have seen contain correct formulae, however they are usually misapplied and/or misinterpreted. this is way too long and meandering, and for that i apologize... i will, as promised, post my class notes when i get a chance to collate the relevant lectures. they will be more coherent. g -- G. F. Barbato http://gfb.cas.psu.edu From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 14-OCT-2003 09:22:30.65 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Inbreeding (was: Re: FW: Ethics and inbreeding) Thank you for your reply. > > [snip] In the case of John Armstrong's study of standard poodles, [snip] > > http://www.canine-genetics.com/lifespan.html > >with all due respect, this study has not been published in a peer-reviewed >journal and i can see several major flaws in his analysis (not to mention >lack of statistical rigor) and reasoning. to some degree this reflects a >larger issue of web-citations, peer review, etc. By way of background, the study I referenced was done by John Armstrong. Dr. Armstrong was Professor of Biology and Genetics at the University of Ottawa. Canine population genetics was one of his research specialities. My understanding is that a paper on this study for peer review publication was in some stage of completion when Dr. Armstrong died suddenly, two years ago. Dr. Armstrong's purpose in posting portions of the study on the web was for education, not for peer review of his methods, statistical analysis, etc. >this is way too long and meandering, and for that i apologize... >i will, as promised, post my class notes when i get a chance to collate the >relevant lectures. they will be more coherent. I look forward to it. Thanks again. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"warblerneck@hotmail.com" "Jo Angleberger" 14-OCT-2003 10:50:08.60 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal shows Hi, It's great learning about the individual experiences on this list. I do need to be careful about making blanket statements--I certainly did learn this at school so thanks for relaying your experiences and wonderful efforts. I'm in the process of putting together educational programs for schools and clubs--the subject is butterflies and native plants and I intend to go heavy on conservation issues. Yes, I will have live butterflies, maybe plants, too :) I love live demonstrations myself. Where can one go in Maryland to see raptors doing their thing? Jo You wrote: I've been involved in animal shows on a sporadic basis for more than fifty years, beginning as a schoolboy when I went round to other schools with a marine life demonstration designed and executed by myself but supported (via providing transportation, since I was too young to drive) by the Boston Museum of Science, where my high school mentor was Director of Education. Most of my later "show" activity has involved demonstrations of raptors (I've been a practicing falconer for 40+ years). The focus of those demonstrations has always been the natural behavior of the birds, and their natural ecology; and in the earlier years my primary objective was to persuade people not to kill every "hawk" on sight. Peregrine falcons were already protected by law in the mid 1960s in Europe, for example, but they were still often shot by hunters and farmers, and any falcon found down with quarry was likely to be beaten to death by the first human who arrived on the scene. Showing people the birds, live and close up, able to be touched, and then the same bird free flying and demonstrating its power, speed and agility in simulated prey capture (lure flying usually), makes an impression I wouldn't know how to achieve any other way. There are marvelous nature films showing animals in their native environment. I even made a few films myself, though I'm certainly not in a league with the great masters of that genre . Films do not, however, achieve the same immediacy as seeing the "real thing" a couple of feet in front of your nose (I can lurefly a bird so it passes at high speed between the heads of people sitting in the audience). The vertical stoop of a large raptor (say an eagle) is amazing on film; but it makes an incomparably more vivid impression when the braking maneuver is ten feet over your head, with accompanying sound effects . Zoos, safari parks and the like certainly have an educational function, and the best of them discharge that function most admirably. Beyond that, however, there is IMO still a large and important place in our educational arsenal for live animal performances. I have been a teacher most of my life, mostly at University level, but recently I have also tried my hand again in the elementary and high school classrooms I left when I myself went away to college. There are excellent (and also not so excellent, alas) books and teaching materials, and wonderful videos. From experience I can tell you, however, that you will get an entirely different level of attention and response, and create much more lasting memories, by going into that same classroom with a live animal. Even the troublemakers will then suddenly start paying attention. You can then, if you wish, use that rapt attention to convey all kinds of messages about conservation, stewardship, the interrelations of animals with one another, with their environment, with humans ... it is one of the best mind-opening keys I know. The shows I have put on were designed not as entertainment, but as education. In order to educate people, however, you must first somehow capture their attention ... which in the era of TV advertising and the 15 second attention span seems to be more difficult than ever before. This is another area where we must, I think, evaluate individual cases on their merits, rather than taking the undoubtedly easier route of blanket condemnation. John -- Dr. John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com _________________________________________________________________ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From: IN%"jraustin@telusplanet.net" "Farm Animal Welfare Insights" 14-OCT-2003 15:44:41.71 To: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin", IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: animal welfare Referring to the paragraph below – there have been studies showing that somatic cell counts and mastitis are not improved by tail docking in dairy cows. Cassandra Tucker, University of British Columbia, Dr. Ian Duncan, University of Guelph and Dr. L.R. Matthews of New Zealand each have done studies supporting this finding. Sorry, I do not have the complete references handy. I write a publication called Farm Animal Welfare Insights (formerly Farm Animal Welfare News - can be found on-line at www.afac.ab.ca/insights.htm ). Our first issue dealt with tail docking in dairy cows. The studies that I looked at showing improved somatic cell counts and cow cleanliness with docking, had very small sample sizes or did not appear to test for statistical significance (results were presented as cumulative averages). The largest study done by C. Tucker, using 500 animals, found no difference between docked and undocked cows regarding incidence of mastitis, cow cleanliness or somatic cell counts. Jackie Wepruk Insights Editor -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 4:58 PM To: adopta bunny; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: animal welfare Let me give an example - The tails of dairy cows are increasingly removed from the animal - basically they are cut off. This is done because a swinging cow tail tends to sling and spread micro-organisms. i.e., manure. Some microbes, of course, will end up at the udder and some will then enter the teat. The cow is then more likely to get an infection of the udder - maybe a mild one - but the infection increases the somatic cell count in the milk. This is not good for the persons who would drink the milk. So the milk may be thrown out. The dairy producer looses money. Thus, the cow's tail is taken off! Now, I will challenge anyone to give me a strictly science basis (argument, data, etc.) for opposing tail-docking in dairy cows! From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 14-OCT-2003 16:04:27.39 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ray a question on training <> How did you develop the belief that animals who perform are doing so for the sole purpose of demonstrating dominance and master? I am curious as to your experience with training any species and what behaviors you trained for. I can not think of any person I have met, face to face or in cyberspace who trains any species that I believe does so solely for those purposes. I can't think of one I think has that even as a major purpose. I can think of some whose egos are more involved than I consider healthy for them and the animal/s they work with. I can think of far more parents who appear to like to dominate their children. There are some behaviors that can be coerced with a master/slave relationship. And many that are not. I doubt that a Grand Prix dressage horse is dominated into a performance that wins. It would be possible to force one of our dogs into defending itself with enough pressure. It is not possible to force the dog into defending me, that comes only from mutual bonding and cooperation--I take care of the dog, s/he takes care of me. I can not imagine how you imagined that animals that are dominated and mastered like a slave could perform with obvious enjoyment. At one show with parrots and cockatoos, the trainer asked people to applaud as this meant a great deal to the birds. In particular, the cockatoos would raise their crests at the applause, the parrots also seemed quite pleased. Attention and appreciation are major rewards for many-perhaps most? humans and also for many species. Using the brain for problem solving or engaging in interesting behaviors seems to be hard wired for pleasure. Sensory deprivation, never succeeding at a task or being fed without doing something to acquire food lead to boredom, frustration, kennel blindness, learned helplessness or learned laziness--my thanks to Steve Lindsay for the last term. All of these deprive an animal, human or non, of learning how to cope and mental stimulation that is pleasurable and probably necessary for health. Dr. Janet Talling's post indicated a specific case. And how would this NOT be the case? Animals selected for performance aren't selected for being slow learners with a low threshold of satiation for novelty. Border collies are too often turning up in shelters because pet owners get one and don't give it a job to do! They want and need to perform something to stay sane. I've seen some interviews with dog trainers whose dogs perform in commercials, movies and television. Many, possibly most, of these dogs would rather work than become lotus eaters. Their brains and bodies feel good when they are engaged in challenging mental and or physical activity. Ask dog owners whose dogs are working agility or flyball. Do the dogs give evidence of desire to work again and again? Does cheering and applause from spectators add or detract from their performance? Are their dogs dominated servile mindless creatures? Or delighted partners whose major complaint is they don't get to perform often enough. If dissatisfied with their trainer they care quite capable of timing out the stupid human or refusing to work. Ray, I believe your perception of performing animals to be naive and antiquated, based on old zoo and circus acts. Whips, chairs and pistols have been gone for a while. And it is your opinion. I still find it that while employed in an industry whose end result is being killed and eaten can condemn those whose end result is education, entertainment and life. I have a hunch that when you think of an animal act, you perceive the audience as laughing at the animals and feeling superior. When I watch the audience or even people at a zoo, I see people who are laughing WITH and interested in the animals. Many will not understand the animals. But they will remember them with pleasure. And from there can come a hunger to know more and find out what the animals are truly like. Often the animals are humorous. And they are funny because they reflect back our own foibles in a gentle caricature of the foolish apes called human. We laugh not at the animals but at ourselves and learn not to take ourselves too seriously. Ray, you are in a field that has been attacked by animal rights groups. As much as I detest PETA, there are some valid points of criticism on aspects both of your field and animals in training. And a lot more I think are totally wrong. I would think you would reconsider throwing stones at the animal trainers as they often are the target of the same misguided groups. Your field has had many stones tossed at it, tossing them yourself makes you appear to me as one who is inconsistent. You find yourself consistent. That is your opinion. Mine is different. This is rather like one religion who bans dancing as immoral while others use dance as a religious ceremony. Criticizing the others spiritual beliefs is demeaning to both. I think PETA people would also find it inconsistent. I can find value in your work and also in the work of trainers whether for a pet dog, riding horse or entertainment. Ray, is it so difficult for you to understand how careful and motivated the trainers are for the well being of their partners? Many are just as highly skilled observers as you are. They are just as skilled at maintaining the health and happiness as you and often have far more options to do so than the constraints of food animal production. You have written details of your opinion and some such as I do not share them. I do not think you further your own work's public image by engaging in your critical opinions. Probably do more damage to your own image and therefore make your information and work more likely to be rejected by those PETA will try to influence. There would be more benefit in respectfully choosing to differ but still learn from each other. regards, Julie Alexander From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 14-OCT-2003 17:41:11.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: animal welfare Equally there have been studies done showing the reduction in milk yield resulting from increased stress caused by fly irritation to docked cows. This practice was common in NZ up to a few years ago but has now decreased greatly. One might then ask what the scientific evidence was to support docking in the first instance. Science is only ever as good as the questions asked. Many practices are based not on science but on custom - often with erroneous assumptions as their only root. Both science and philosophy offer means by which these old assumptions can be challenged - both are excellent tools so why should we choose either one above the other? Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Farm Animal Welfare Insights [mailto:jraustin@telusplanet.net] Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2003 11:51 a.m. To: Ray Stricklin; adopta bunny; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: animal welfare Referring to the paragraph below - there have been studies showing that somatic cell counts and mastitis are not improved by tail docking in dairy cows. Cassandra Tucker, University of British Columbia, Dr. Ian Duncan, University of Guelph and Dr. L.R. Matthews of New Zealand each have done studies supporting this finding. Sorry, I do not have the complete references handy. I write a publication called Farm Animal Welfare Insights (formerly Farm Animal Welfare News - can be found on-line at www.afac.ab.ca/insights.htm). Our first issue dealt with tail docking in dairy cows. The studies that I looked at showing improved somatic cell counts and cow cleanliness with docking, had very small sample sizes or did not appear to test for statistical significance (results were presented as cumulative averages). The largest study done by C. Tucker, using 500 animals, found no difference between docked and undocked cows regarding incidence of mastitis, cow cleanliness or somatic cell counts. Jackie Wepruk Insights Editor -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 4:58 PM To: adopta bunny; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: animal welfare Let me give an example - The tails of dairy cows are increasingly removed from the animal - basically they are cut off. This is done because a swinging cow tail tends to sling and spread micro-organisms. i.e., manure. Some microbes, of course, will end up at the udder and some will then enter the teat. The cow is then more likely to get an infection of the udder - maybe a mild one - but the infection increases the somatic cell count in the milk. This is not good for the persons who would drink the milk. So the milk may be thrown out. The dairy producer looses money. Thus, the cow's tail is taken off! Now, I will challenge anyone to give me a strictly science basis (argument, data, etc.) for opposing tail-docking in dairy cows! From: IN%"lindsay.matthews@agresearch.co.nz" "Matthews, Lindsay" 14-OCT-2003 18:26:40.96 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: animal welfare Could you please provide the reference for "studies done showing the reduction in milk yield resulting from increased stress caused by fly irritation to docked cows" best Lindsay Matthews -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2003 12:40 p.m. To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: FW: animal welfare Equally there have been studies done showing the reduction in milk yield resulting from increased stress caused by fly irritation to docked cows. This practice was common in NZ up to a few years ago but has now decreased greatly. One might then ask what the scientific evidence was to support docking in the first instance. Science is only ever as good as the questions asked. Many practices are based not on science but on custom - often with erroneous assumptions as their only root. Both science and philosophy offer means by which these old assumptions can be challenged - both are excellent tools so why should we choose either one above the other? Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Farm Animal Welfare Insights [mailto:jraustin@telusplanet.net] Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2003 11:51 a.m. To: Ray Stricklin; adopta bunny; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: animal welfare Referring to the paragraph below - there have been studies showing that somatic cell counts and mastitis are not improved by tail docking in dairy cows. Cassandra Tucker, University of British Columbia, Dr. Ian Duncan, University of Guelph and Dr. L.R. Matthews of New Zealand each have done studies supporting this finding. Sorry, I do not have the complete references handy. I write a publication called Farm Animal Welfare Insights (formerly Farm Animal Welfare News - can be found on-line at www.afac.ab.ca/insights.htm). Our first issue dealt with tail docking in dairy cows. The studies that I looked at showing improved somatic cell counts and cow cleanliness with docking, had very small sample sizes or did not appear to test for statistical significance (results were presented as cumulative averages). The largest study done by C. Tucker, using 500 animals, found no difference between docked and undocked cows regarding incidence of mastitis, cow cleanliness or somatic cell counts. Jackie Wepruk Insights Editor -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 4:58 PM To: adopta bunny; applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: animal welfare Let me give an example - The tails of dairy cows are increasingly removed from the animal - basically they are cut off. This is done because a swinging cow tail tends to sling and spread micro-organisms. i.e., manure. Some microbes, of course, will end up at the udder and some will then enter the teat. The cow is then more likely to get an infection of the udder - maybe a mild one - but the infection increases the somatic cell count in the milk. This is not good for the persons who would drink the milk. So the milk may be thrown out. The dairy producer looses money. Thus, the cow's tail is taken off! Now, I will challenge anyone to give me a strictly science basis (argument, data, etc.) for opposing tail-docking in dairy cows! ======================================================================= Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ======================================================================= From: IN%"paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au" "Paul McGreevy" 14-OCT-2003 21:45:24.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"gkaplan@pobox.une.edu.au" "Gisela Kaplan", IN%"lrogers@pobox.une.edu.au", IN%"nocentini@ozemail.com.au" "Sandro Nocentini", IN%"lynpin@bigpond.net.au" "Lynn Cole" Subj: Notes online Dear All On the occasion of Assoc Prof Judith Blackshaw's retirement from the University of Queensland, and in recognition of her outstanding contribution to applied ethology, it is with great pleasure that we announce the launch of a free e-book based on the third edition of her Notes on Topics in Applied Animal Behaviour. Judith has graciously granted us permission to update and publish the book online in the hope that it reaches as wide an audience as possible and can be of benefit to students of applied animal behaviour everywhere, especially in developing countries. The book is available at http://www.animalbehaviour.net/AppliedAnimalBehaviourTopics.htm With best wishes from The Blackshaw Book Project Team (Sandro Nocentini, Lynn Cole and Paul McGreevy) -- Paul McGreevy, BVSc, PhD, MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour Faculty of Veterinary Science Room 206, Gunn Building (B19) Regimental Crescent University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Phone: 61 2 9351 2810 Fax: 61 2 9351 3957 email: paulm@vetsci.usyd.edu.au web page: http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/pmcgreevy.shtml VEIN page: http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/behaviour.html From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 15-OCT-2003 00:23:06.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology (E-mail)" CC: Subj: horn development in cattle Can somebody help out with the above? I have a farming press article that states that horn grows from the skin and until 2 months or so of age the horn bud is free-floating in the skin and as the calf ages it attaches to the skull and the horn starts to grow. Consequently dehorning should be conducted before attachment occurs. I can't find anything on this in the "dehorning literature". Can anybody provide a reference, please? Thanks in anticipation. Carol "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Gandhi Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries PO Box 6014, Central Qld Mail Centre N. Rockhampton Queensland 4702 Australia Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au Website www.dpi.qld.gov.au Call Centre 13 25 23 ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: IN%"hilde@andenaes.com" "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hilde_Anden=E6s?=" 15-OCT-2003 01:46:02.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" CC: Subj: RE: Animal welfare Hi all, I'm following this discussion on the use of results from ethological = experiments and ethics with great interest.=20 I think the use of cow trainers, which is frequently used on tethered = cows in Norway, is an interesting example. Experiments have so far not = measured that it has negative effects on the cows, actually it results = in a cleaner area for the cow, which again results in better health for = the animal. How does one interpret these results and apply them? The = scientist performing these experiments can conclude that from this = experimental set-up, the cow trainer has not proven to have any negative = result on the cow, and that it is positive for the health of the animal. = Still the reader has to remember that the conclusions are based on this = specific experient. The scientist can personally believe that there is = something fundamentally wrong this housing system, since it is necessary = to use a cow trainer in order for the animal to have good health.=20 So, my question is, do scientists have a responsibility to communicate = their personal ethical views? After all, they are more informed on their = research area that many others, fex the consumers. And if so, how can = that be done without it being confounded into their results from = experiments? Or do scientists have less of an opportunity to express = their personal views, because they can be suspected of not being = objective in their scientific work. Best regards, Hilde Anden=E6s P.S. A cow trainer is a device that trains cows to step back to the rear = of their stalls to defecate and urinate by administraing electric = shocks. From: IN%"sbc@kvl.dk" "Stine B Christiansen" 15-OCT-2003 03:05:51.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Svar: Re: Animal welfare Hi Hilde, Your question "do scientists have a responsibility to communicate their = personal ethical views?" is very relevant and one that has been the focus = of a lot of discussion in "my" circles. I suspect a lot of scientists will answer no. They usually argue, that = their job is to report their findings as accurately and objectively as = possible and that discussions about what is acceptable should be left to = ethicists, legislators, the public etc. While I understand their wish for = things to be so, I disagree that this is in fact an option. As Ray = Stricklin has already pointed out, there is no such complete objectivity. = Ethics come into the decisionmaking at many stages before a paper is = published, e.g. the choice to study animal welfare issues, the particular = focus of research, the choice of parameters in the experiment, the = weighing of conflicting results, the topics to include in discussion and = the final conclusions which often touch upon implications for animal = welfare. As I have argued earlier in relation to the understanding of = animal welfare, there will be underlying assumptions about what is = important that determine the decision made. And such assumptions may = differ between scientists.=20 People like myself who are involved in the preparation of legislation make = good use of animal welfare science. There is a strong political wish to = legislate on the basis of knowledge. However, when looking to science for = answers there may be conflicting evidence. And sometimes these differences = seem to be based not on objective facts but on those underlying assumptions= . The key words here are "seem to". Because when the scientists have not = made such assumptions explicit we really don't know whether disagreement = is based on facts or value assumptions. Therefore, my answer to your = question is yes, and I strongly encourage scientists whenever given the = opportunity (and here was one again) to reflect themselves on those = assupumtions, their personal ethical views if you like, and make those = explicit. In that way their contribution to animal welfare science will = become much clearer, as it enables the reader to see clearly how a = conclusion was reached and decide whether he or she shares those assumption= s or would conclude differently. Also, it will keep me and others from = guessing - perhaps wrongly - on their part afterwards when their results = are put to use, and it will help legislation on animal welfare to move = forward. As for fear of being accused of loosing objectivity, one could argue that = the scientist who is aware of and make explicit his or her values and = assumptions is more objective than the one who denies that such assumptions= exist.=20 Stine Stine B. Christiansen cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. Det Dyreetiske R=E5d/The Danish Animal Ethics Council Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering/Centre for Bioethics and Risk = Assessment Den Kgl. Veterin=E6r- og Landboh=F8jskole/The Royal Veterinary and = Agricultural University Bioetik/Bioethics Gr=F8nneg=E5rdsvej 8 1870 Frederiksberg C Copenhagen Denmark tlf./ph.: +45 3528 3075 fax: +45 3528 3022 e-mail: sbc@kvl.dk=20 >>> Hilde Anden=E6s 15-10-03 09:47 >>> Hi all, I'm following this discussion on the use of results from ethological = experiments and ethics with great interest.=20 I think the use of cow trainers, which is frequently used on tethered cows = in Norway, is an interesting example. Experiments have so far not measured = that it has negative effects on the cows, actually it results in a cleaner = area for the cow, which again results in better health for the animal. How = does one interpret these results and apply them? The scientist performing = these experiments can conclude that from this experimental set-up, the cow = trainer has not proven to have any negative result on the cow, and that it = is positive for the health of the animal. Still the reader has to remember = that the conclusions are based on this specific experient. The scientist = can personally believe that there is something fundamentally wrong this = housing system, since it is necessary to use a cow trainer in order for = the animal to have good health.=20 So, my question is, do scientists have a responsibility to communicate = their personal ethical views? After all, they are more informed on their = research area that many others, fex the consumers. And if so, how can that = be done without it being confounded into their results from experiments? = Or do scientists have less of an opportunity to express their personal = views, because they can be suspected of not being objective in their = scientific work. Best regards, Hilde Anden=E6s P.S. A cow trainer is a device that trains cows to step back to the rear = of their stalls to defecate and urinate by administraing electric shocks. >>> Hilde Anden=E6s 15-10-03 09:47 >>> Hi all, I'm following this discussion on the use of results from ethological = experiments and ethics with great interest.=20 I think the use of cow trainers, which is frequently used on tethered cows = in Norway, is an interesting example. Experiments have so far not measured = that it has negative effects on the cows, actually it results in a cleaner = area for the cow, which again results in better health for the animal. How = does one interpret these results and apply them? The scientist performing = these experiments can conclude that from this experimental set-up, the cow = trainer has not proven to have any negative result on the cow, and that it = is positive for the health of the animal. Still the reader has to remember = that the conclusions are based on this specific experient. The scientist = can personally believe that there is something fundamentally wrong this = housing system, since it is necessary to use a cow trainer in order for = the animal to have good health.=20 So, my question is, do scientists have a responsibility to communicate = their personal ethical views? After all, they are more informed on their = research area that many others, fex the consumers. And if so, how can that = be done without it being confounded into their results from experiments? = Or do scientists have less of an opportunity to express their personal = views, because they can be suspected of not being objective in their = scientific work. Best regards, Hilde Anden=E6s P.S. A cow trainer is a device that trains cows to step back to the rear = of their stalls to defecate and urinate by administraing electric shocks. From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 15-OCT-2003 08:01:59.62 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training Sorry that I do not have time to give you a through reply - and I only took time to quickly scan your message. But let say at the start I am not simply giving you MY ideas. Rather, these are my thoughts based on years of reading what OTHERS have written - and also through discussing this with others, both professional and novice. Your final comments in this message questioning whether a professional applied ethologist, such as myself, is entitled to make comments about training can be interpreted to be quite insulting not only to applied ethologists but to all professionals in education. This past year I had the honor and privilege of participating in ongoing discussions about pedagogy with other Fellows of Teaching Excellence at the University of Maryland. A point that came up numerous times is that we professors should strive to educate students - not train them. An educated person can generalize information learned to other topics; whereas, a trained person can only perform a skill or regurgitate back, onto the exam, the info that the instructor has written on the blackboard. Regarding the issue of whether or not one has to have actually trained an animal in order to "know" about the topic, let me pose an exam question that addresses this matter; Does one have to eat a turd in order to be knowledgeable about the relationship between disease and ingesting e. coli? My recommendation to anyone sincerely interested in the topic of dominionism is that YOU invest some thing digging through the literature and reflecting upon what you read. (And if you find info that is relevant and/or you formulate an original synthesis statement of your ideas that ADD to what is known, then I recommend and would appreciate your sharing that document with the broader community of persons with this interest. In the meanwhile, I grow weary of members of the "internet generation" expecting one can simply send an email and then have someone who has spent a lifetime on a topic provide them with all they to need to know about the subject - in a single paragraph! I still contend that libraries have a purpose - and are not a substitute for web pages. That said, the internet, I believe, can be a useful starting point for persons beginning to learn about a topic. But I strongly recommend that true students (regardless of subject matter) not stop there, but rather continue their learning by going into the published literature. Therefore, as a beginning point in developing an answer to the question implied below, let me list some sites where the question of "why individuals in dominated positions" often behave in a manner that might be considered paradoxical to their situation. And I do NOT agree with all the info in these websites - only that they raise very important questions. Again, I do not have the time to sort out the junk from the beneficial information. The reader of the info will, therefore, have to take on some of this burden individually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome http://www.flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html http://www.sniggle.net/stock.php http://members.tripod.com/~heimstadt/stockhol.htm My purpose in bringing forth the implied question through the Stockholm Syndrome (or the ethic basis of intentionally exploiting dominance-subordinate relationships between beings) is NOT to attempt to place blame on any given group or individual - (even though I certainly do believe some actions have less justification than others, as I have already written about). Rather, I believe that it is incumbent upon us all in our relationships with others (humans and other animals) to question whether or not, in fact, we do at times use some or all of these tactics to control the behavior of others - and also to reflect upon when our actions become exploitive to the degree that they are not ethically defensible However, I expect these last comments will be 'leaves in the wind' to those persons who have been trained as opposed to educated - and that they will continue to address issues in a manner that 'nit pick' - at best. Regarding, my own thoughts on the topic, I gave a presentation at the 1992 International Society of Comparative Psychology at Brussels entitled, "Dominance, Domestication and Dominion." Basically I argued that historically, the relationship between humans and (some of) the other animals have tended to move through these stages, respectively. The electronic version of the abstract, I think, still exists, and I will try at some point to locate and post it. Meanwhile, anyone interested can find a short version of these ideas at the end section of the book chapter on "Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" where I again argued that we possibly have moved beyond what truly can be considered "domestication" in some our food animal production systems and now have reached a stage that is maybe more correctly one of "dominionism." The link to the site containing this chapter is: http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4 .pdf Hope this is helpful. W.R. Stricklin Lilly Fellow for Teaching Excellence (2002-'03) University of Maryland -----Original Message----- From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:05 PM To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Ray a question on training <> How did you develop the belief that animals who perform are doing so for the sole purpose of demonstrating dominance and master? I am curious as to your experience with training any species and what behaviors you trained for. I can not think of any person I have met, face to face or in cyberspace who trains any species that I believe does so solely for those purposes. I can't think of one I think has that even as a major purpose. I can think of some whose egos are more involved than I consider healthy for them and the animal/s they work with. I can think of far more parents who appear to like to dominate their children. There are some behaviors that can be coerced with a master/slave relationship. And many that are not. I doubt that a Grand Prix dressage horse is dominated into a performance that wins. It would be possible to force one of our dogs into defending itself with enough pressure. It is not possible to force the dog into defending me, that comes only from mutual bonding and cooperation--I take care of the dog, s/he takes care of me. I can not imagine how you imagined that animals that are dominated and mastered like a slave could perform with obvious enjoyment. At one show with parrots and cockatoos, the trainer asked people to applaud as this meant a great deal to the birds. In particular, the cockatoos would raise their crests at the applause, the parrots also seemed quite pleased. Attention and appreciation are major rewards for many-perhaps most? humans and also for many species. Using the brain for problem solving or engaging in interesting behaviors seems to be hard wired for pleasure. Sensory deprivation, never succeeding at a task or being fed without doing something to acquire food lead to boredom, frustration, kennel blindness, learned helplessness or learned laziness--my thanks to Steve Lindsay for the last term. All of these deprive an animal, human or non, of learning how to cope and mental stimulation that is pleasurable and probably necessary for health. Dr. Janet Talling's post indicated a specific case. And how would this NOT be the case? Animals selected for performance aren't selected for being slow learners with a low threshold of satiation for novelty. Border collies are too often turning up in shelters because pet owners get one and don't give it a job to do! They want and need to perform something to stay sane. I've seen some interviews with dog trainers whose dogs perform in commercials, movies and television. Many, possibly most, of these dogs would rather work than become lotus eaters. Their brains and bodies feel good when they are engaged in challenging mental and or physical activity. Ask dog owners whose dogs are working agility or flyball. Do the dogs give evidence of desire to work again and again? Does cheering and applause from spectators add or detract from their performance? Are their dogs dominated servile mindless creatures? Or delighted partners whose major complaint is they don't get to perform often enough. If dissatisfied with their trainer they care quite capable of timing out the stupid human or refusing to work. Ray, I believe your perception of performing animals to be naive and antiquated, based on old zoo and circus acts. Whips, chairs and pistols have been gone for a while. And it is your opinion. I still find it that while employed in an industry whose end result is being killed and eaten can condemn those whose end result is education, entertainment and life. I have a hunch that when you think of an animal act, you perceive the audience as laughing at the animals and feeling superior. When I watch the audience or even people at a zoo, I see people who are laughing WITH and interested in the animals. Many will not understand the animals. But they will remember them with pleasure. And from there can come a hunger to know more and find out what the animals are truly like. Often the animals are humorous. And they are funny because they reflect back our own foibles in a gentle caricature of the foolish apes called human. We laugh not at the animals but at ourselves and learn not to take ourselves too seriously. Ray, you are in a field that has been attacked by animal rights groups. As much as I detest PETA, there are some valid points of criticism on aspects both of your field and animals in training. And a lot more I think are totally wrong. I would think you would reconsider throwing stones at the animal trainers as they often are the target of the same misguided groups. Your field has had many stones tossed at it, tossing them yourself makes you appear to me as one who is inconsistent. You find yourself consistent. That is your opinion. Mine is different. This is rather like one religion who bans dancing as immoral while others use dance as a religious ceremony. Criticizing the others spiritual beliefs is demeaning to both. I think PETA people would also find it inconsistent. I can find value in your work and also in the work of trainers whether for a pet dog, riding horse or entertainment. Ray, is it so difficult for you to understand how careful and motivated the trainers are for the well being of their partners? Many are just as highly skilled observers as you are. They are just as skilled at maintaining the health and happiness as you and often have far more options to do so than the constraints of food animal production. You have written details of your opinion and some such as I do not share them. I do not think you further your own work's public image by engaging in your critical opinions. Probably do more damage to your own image and therefore make your information and work more likely to be rejected by those PETA will try to influence. There would be more benefit in respectfully choosing to differ but still learn from each other. regards, Julie Alexander From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 15-OCT-2003 08:47:52.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: horn development in cattle See http://loudoun.nv.cc.va.us/vetonline/vet111/Integument/integument_lesson.htm See also this patent for growing unicorns by displacing horn buds: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,429,685.WKU.&OS=PN/4,429,685&RS=PN/4,429,685 From: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert" 15-OCT-2003 10:09:24.95 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fwd: Ending use of nonhuman great apes in entertainment (fwd) I thought that some people on the list might be interested in this article. CeAnn Note: forwarded message attached. ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com --------- Forwarded Message --------- DATE: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:24:23 From: BEKOFF MARC To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Cc: From: Tony Smith ___ CHIMPANZEE COLLABORATORY Doris Day Animal League – Great Ape Project – Jane Goodall Institute – Friends of Washoe – Animal Legal Defense Fund – Center for Captive Chimpanzee Care – Great Ape World Heritage Species Project - Center for the Extension of Fundamental Rights FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 14, 2003 JANE GOODALL ASKS FILM AND TV INDUSTRY LEADERS TO END USE OF GREAT APES LOS ANGELES, CA – Dr. Jane Goodall, widely recognized as one of the world’s most eminent primatologists, met with leaders of the Hollywood-based film and television industries in Beverly Hills on Tuesday to ask them to end the use of chimpanzees and other great apes as performers. "The time has come to move beyond the misuse of creatures who are vulnerable to our exploitation precisely because they are so like us," Goodall said. Dr. Goodall, who was joined by members of the Collaboratory, also introduced Sarah Baeckler, a young woman who spent the last 14 months working with Hollywood animal trainers, researching the often cruel and inhumane methods they use to make chimpanzees and other primates perform. Baeckler’s testimony included numerous references to abusive behavior she observed while working at the Amazing Animal Actors training facility in Malibu. Baeckler logged over 1,000 hours at the facility, which features five chimpanzees among its menagerie. Baeckler said she saw trainers repeatedly kick, punch and beat chimps with hammers to make them obedient. The Chimpanzee Collaboratory’s appeal kicked off the “Serving a Life Sentence…For Your Viewing Pleasure†campaign, which will seek to get actors, writers, directors and producers in Hollywood to cease the use of great apes in films, TV and advertising. It is estimated that approximately 150 chimpanzees, orangutans and other great apes are held at entertainment training facilities in the U.S., yet the fact that most are “retired†after the age of eight condemns them to more than 50 years of idle imprisonment. The Collaboratory is asking leaders in Hollywood to sign a pledge calling for an immediate end to the use of great apes in entertainment and stating that they will refuse to work on productions that do. --------- End Forwarded Message --------- --Boundary_(ID_1UtAQP234riffq5daxYdJQ)-- From: IN%"pellingv@earthlink.net" "adopta bunny" 15-OCT-2003 10:20:31.38 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training "Your final comments in this message questioning whether a professional applied ethologist, such as myself, is entitled to make comments about training can be interpreted to be quite insulting not only to applied ethologists but to all professionals in education [txt cut] Regarding the issue of whether or not one has to have actually trained an animal in order to "know" about the topic, let me pose an exam question that addresses this matter; Does one have to eat a turd in order to be knowledgeable about the relationship between disease and ingesting e. coli?" Dear Dr. Stricklin, As an educator, you probably have extensive experience with logic. Please explain to me the validity of comparing eating-turds/disease:e.coli::animal behavior:training-animals. Although I believe I understand the use of the former in an exam, I do not feel it is a useful tool to clarify the comparison of a non-trainer of animals with someone experienced in training. Sure, theoretically the former might understand the material used by the latter -- just as a armchair biologist might theoretically understand the data collected by a field biologist. However, an armchair biologist doesn't contend with the rigors of field biology. Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think that armchair biologists are ever insulted at the suggestion that they don't know what fieldwork involves. The disciplines are different; and, hiring decisions often weighed for different jobs depending upon whether or not someone has the background appropriate for that particular discipline -- academia by necessity tends to initially create experts with very narrow focus. H. Mcmurray From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 15-OCT-2003 10:20:55.58 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training At 07:01 AM Wednesday 10/15/2003, you wrote: >Therefore, as a beginning point in developing an answer to the question >implied below, let me list some sites where the question of "why individuals >in dominated positions" often behave in a manner that might be considered >paradoxical to their situation. And I do NOT agree with all the info in >these websites - only that they raise very important questions. Again, I do >not have the time to sort out the junk from the beneficial information. The >reader of the info will, therefore, have to take on some of this burden >individually: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome >http://www.flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html >http://www.sniggle.net/stock.php >http://members.tripod.com/~heimstadt/stockhol.htm Thank you for providing that list of references. All but one appear to pertain to human - human relationships. The Suzanne Clothier article, "Of Hostages & Relationships", is about human - dog relationships. It might interest you to know that the Clothier article, and this topic in general, is a frequent topic of discussion on dog training lists. I will attempt to summarize below a small portion of that discussion. Like you, I find this to be a complex topic that is not easily amenable to "send an email and then have someone who has spent a lifetime on a topic provide them with all they to need to know about the subject - in a single paragraph!" In this case, it is a perspective of many lifetimes. Depravation and the effects of Stockholm Syndrome "hostage" keeping of the type described in the article can lead to success in competition obedience, but generally yields very poor results in real working dog functions. Dogs in competitive obedience need not work independently, indeed they are penalized for doing so. Nevertheless, even within the narrow sphere of competition obedience, the situation noted in the "hostage" article is uncommon. Most competition OB dogs are like most household pets.... companions who are heavily integrated into the lives of a human family. Most are not "Stockholm Syndrome" hostages. The "hostages" do not maintain the full functionality required of working dogs. Dogs in any real working dog function must work independently, and this is something that the "hostage" dogs have extreme difficulty with. A competition obedience dog is not a working dog. Working dogs are of breeds and types bred for a performance function. They excel in their working tasks not just because they possess instincts and physical attributes to do so, but because they possess the drives to do so. Driven dogs want to work, more than anything else. Drives are genetic. They cannot be "put in" to a dog by any means other than selective breeding. In some communities, working dog trainers use the term "drive": search/hunt drive, pack/social drive, prey drive, fight drive, defense drive, etc. In other communities they do not use this terminology. In the latter, one might hear terms such as "heart" and "keenness" used instead. When given the choice of highly attractive food or work, the working dog will choose work. When intact male working dogs are given the choice of a bitch in standing heat or work, they choose work. They are not motivated to do these things, or to make these choices, because anyone has manipulated them into doing so. They are motivated to do so because of their genetic drives to work are so powerful. Search & Rescue dogs search for lost people because they want to. "Go find!" is not a command. It is *permission* to search. Narcotics detection dogs spend hours searching for drugs through vehicles on the side of a busy noisy freeway, or throughout the innards of cargo ships, because they want to. Police patrol dogs enter dark buildings at night to search for and apprehend violent felony suspects because they want to. Retrievers dive into icy water to retrieve ducks because they want to. Sheepdogs herd sheep because they want to. The "keenness" of the sheepdog is his "motor", his desire to work sheep. Dr. Burchard's sighthounds chase down and kill hares because they want to. It is simply not possible to compel dogs to do these things at even a mediocre level of performance if they lack the appropriate genetic drive(s), no matter how clever the manipulation. It is not possible to put into dogs the drive to perform these tasks through any sort of "Stockholm Syndrome" manipulation. Those who try the latter approach fail. Their SAR dogs won't range out during a search. Their narcotics detection dogs fall apart under stress and stop searching. Their police patrol dogs are afraid to enter the dark building. And so on. "Hostages" are no longer whole dogs. That is why they fail. There are of course subtleties. Lesser effects than the more extreme Stockholm Syndrome "hostage". That is why one will frequently read on SAR dog, police dog, protection dog, or detection dog training lists and books advice to NOT teach a dog competitive obedience exercises (like precision heeling) before the dog matures and is well started on his working dog training. He needs to have his independent working abilities develop before he is taught exercises that might thwart this development. Too much early obedience training can sometimes result in excessive dependency. The latter dog is not a "Stockholm Syndrome hostage", however. He's more akin to a "Momma's boy" Now let's shift gears to the more common pet/companion dogs. One of the drives that dogs possess is commonly referred to as pack drive or social drive. This drive causes dogs to want to be with and interact with their pack. They want to fit into the relationship matrix of their pack. For most domestic companion dogs, their pack is the humans and sometimes other animals in the household, etc. Nearly all dogs naturally want to be in a relationship with a respectful, fair, and consistent pack leader. They are not "Stockholm Syndrome hostages" any more than all the subordinate wolves in wolf packs are "hostages". While the "Stockholm Syndrome hostage" analogy does apply to some human - dog relationships, in my experience it is a very small fraction. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 15-OCT-2003 12:07:43.75 To: IN%"ceannicrc@yahoo.com" "Cecilia Lambert", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ending use of nonhuman great apes in entertainment (fwd) Thanks for this posting about the use training of primates for entertainment. I personally would like to see large cats, bears and elephants added to this list. Ray Stricklin -----Original Message----- From: Cecilia Lambert [mailto:ceannicrc@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:09 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Fwd: Ending use of nonhuman great apes in entertainment (fwd) I thought that some people on the list might be interested in this article. CeAnn Note: forwarded message attached. ===== CeAnn Lambert Indiana Coyote Rescue Center www.WolfPark.org/ICRC __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 15-OCT-2003 12:35:44.26 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Veal, animal management and bad science My thanks to Candace, Ray and Frank for the information on veal production. In particular, I found the breed differences interesting, one of the differences that makes a difference. On a trail ride in dairy country, about 20 horses and riders passed many herds of Holsteins who ignored us except to perhaps raise a head. Passing a herd of Guernseys, we were amazed to see the entire herd gallop up to the fence to stare and follow us to the end of the fields. The cows were quite graceful consider their udders were swaying and rather full. They mooed and shuffled around to get the best viewpoint. Range cattle here also show different traits. Some such as longhorn are restricted from open range. High density or intensive animal production often is quite different from practices not too many decades ago and reflect the changes in society. From our present time we can look back at these changes and think how could anyone shove farm animals into such unnatural conditions? It seems so inhumane and blind. And yet like many human actions there was at least in Europe a humane reason. As I was told by Els van der Zanden from the Netherlands when we met at Kayce Cover's seminar at the Moss Landing Marine Lab's SLEWTH project facility. Dr. Jennifer Hurley started working with marine mammals using Bridge and Target with Kayce at the National zoo. http://www.mlml.calstate.edu/slewths/ Els and I were both interested in ecological issues. She told me of problems relating to high density livestock production in Europe. The salts from dung and urine which were removed and spread on fields were reaching high enough levels to show up in the water tables. She said Europe started practicing high intensity livestock production due to the food shortages suffered in W.W.II. People swore not to let it happen again. So there is a humane reason for starting such practices. And unforeseen consequences. Els has an interesting web site below describing her assistance in researching wild horses on reclaimed land and how the horses taught her many horse trainers know little of horses. Andy Beck, I think you'll find her site interesting. http://www.angelfire.com/az/clickryder/mona.html The typical handling of stallions in stalls Vs the open herd life that Andy, Els and some others have observed shows that even long standing practices do not show the full range of horse behaviors. Stallions can be handled with greater freedom and safety in some conditions and with some handlers. To the disbelief of many experienced trainers. So many paradigms need to be challenged. I suspect that some animal practices were conceived and dictated by people very removed from any experience with the animals. No knowledge of either species or breed specific needs/behaviors. And that brings up bad science. The article below is about an experiment that purportedly shows marijuana is as addictive as cocaine. The monkeys were put in isolation chambers with IV drips. I suspect whoever designed this experiment was ignorant of monkey needs. I would like to see a similar experiment with human subjects, preferably the researchers who did this experiment. Put them in isolation chambers with only one controllable stimulus. Use different stimuli, some chemicals such as alcohol, sugar, caffeine, theobromine and nicotine, some auditory such as rap music, classical or the sound of birdsong or drillhammers. How about tactile? when the subject presses the button at the light, a staff member comes over and gives a back scratch. This test might show that alcohol is as addictive under sensory deprivation as rap music or back scratching. But a positive intent, to find out what is addictive was there, rather ignorant of contextual factors perhaps. I can disapprove of the ignorance but approve the intent. regards, Julie Alexander http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/974449.stm BBC News Online: Health ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Monday, 16 October, 2000, 16:30 GMT 17:30 UK Cannabis 'may be as addictive as cocaine' Cannabis may be as addictive as hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, say US scientists. The finding comes as pressure grows in the UK for the drug to be legalised. This is the first clear demonstration that the active ingredient in marijuana has the same potential for abuse that other drugs such as heroin and cocaine do Dr Steven Goldberg, US National Institute on Drug Abuse scientists ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- The chief scientist at the UK's Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has also predicted that cannabis will be licensed for medical use within two years. In the US experiments, a team from the National Institute on Drug Abuse trained four squirrel monkeys to give themselves shots of intravenous cocaine supplied through a catheter. The animals did this by pressing a lever 10 times after a green light was illuminated in their isolation chamber. Monkey lever When saline was substituted for the cocaine, the monkeys stopped pressing the lever. But when the salt solution was swapped for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - the active ingredient in cannabis - they quickly started activating the lever again. In a typical one-hour session, they gave themselves 30 shots of THC - the equivalent in body size to an adult human smoking a marijuana cigarette. The researchers also showed that the monkeys' compulsion for THC was reduced when they were given a second drug that blocks receptors on the cannabinoid receptors in the brain. Lead researcher Dr Steven Goldberg told BBC News Online: "We compared the intensity of behaviour we that got with THC with the intensity of behaviour we got under exactly the same conditions with cocaine in another group of monkeys. "We found the levels of behaviour were identical in the two groups of animals. "So basically this is the first clear demonstration that the active ingredient in marijuana will maintain drug taking behaviour in experimental animals, and it indicates - from a pre-clinical standpoint - that it has the same potential for abuse that other drugs such as heroin and cocaine do." Dr Goldberg admitted that his research could not take into account the social factors that would inevitably come into play when assessing the potential for abuse of cannabis among human users. However, Dr Lester Grinspoon, a Harvard Medical School emeritus professor of psychiatry, dismissed the idea that the study proved that cannabis was addictive. He said: " "This drug is not addicting. Clinical experience says that." Medical use Professor Tony Moffat, chief scientist with the UK's RPS, said large scale clinical trials were currently taking place to test the medical benefit of cannabis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- I imagine that the results of those [tests] will show that cannabis does have therapeutic benefit for the treatment of multiple sclerosis Professor Tony Moffat, Royal Pharmaceutical Society ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- He said: "I imagine that the results of those will show that cannabis does have therapeutic benefit for the treatment of pain and spasms in multiple sclerosis. "Should that be the case then I believe that governments across the world will change their minds and make the use of cannabis for medicinal use legalised." Professor Moffat said the trials were designed to ascertain the right dose for patients to take so that the beneficial effects outweighed the possible side effects. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has ruled out legalising cannabis for social use. From: IN%"kblock+@pitt.edu" "Karen K Block" 15-OCT-2003 14:01:10.70 To: IN%"finklerh@post.tau.ac.il" "Hilit Finkler" CC: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" Subj: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior Dear All, It would be instructive to try to ride the caged bovine. Anyone whose horse has been subjected to varied access to "turn out", that is to free grazing with companions, can tell the difference in horse behavior often ascribed to the extent of free grazing. If a horse has not had much access to "turn out", it is regularly testified that the horse is badly behaved----spooking, silly, bucking and rearing. This can be documented via the verbal reports of riders of all levels including riders of eminence as reported upon by prestigious national publications. It is no treat to ride an equine who has not been turned out for a week. Therefor, if someone were to ride the caged bovine, which noted veterinarians have said are more suited to riding than equines, and that someone had a difficult time, this could be an empirical test of how cagedness affects behavior and the extent to which cagedness could potentially harm the rider of said bovine. In science, as referred to below, thgere is no role for comon sense because it is too idiosyncratic. By riding said bovine, common sense per se is not necessary because we have an argument byanalogy to equine behavior and can observe empiricaly the results of riding various degrees of cagedness. To wit! On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Hilit Finkler wrote: > You made me think about something here: > Maybe we don't all interpret "science" the same way? > Maybe, for me, science is also examining certain criteria which have to be > included in ones ethogram before approaching such a study? > What i mean is, that someone who reads such an article, also should have > some common sense, and should think whether it is "normal" for a bovine to > stand locked up in a cage, instead of grazing in open field, they way its > ancestors did? > > I come from a scientific background, but when i read results such as these, > i tend to ask myself if it isn't high time we changed some "scientific > paradigms"? > > Hilit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Croney, Candace [mailto:Candace.Croney@orst.edu] > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:46 PM > To: Julie Alexander; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior > > > Dear Julie and All, > > I was involved in the data collection of this study so I will share with > you a couple points. 1)I think this study and your comments reiterate > the points Ray was making earlier. Based only on the science (as in the > criteria measured), the authors drew the conclusion, which might loosely > be interpreted as "there is nothing "wrong" with housing calves in very > small crates, and leaving them tethered the entire time, subsisting only > on milk fed for a few minutes twice a day". > > 2) Having been in those barns, based on what I saw, and on any of the > theories described by Stine, Ray and others (hedonism, utilitarianism, > etc), and on a more wholistic approach to animal welfare (including the > impact on the animal's psychological well-being, which I do not believe > was adequately addressed in this study) as well as pure ethology (what > is the calf designed by nature to do?) I could not find this type of > housing morally justifiable. > > Having said all that, if I were forced to decide whether or not I should > eat veal based only on the science in this and other published articles, > I would have very little basis on which to say veal production of this > type was wrong, because it was bad for the animal. In fact, to muddy > the waters further, what do we do when the science itself is not > conclusive? As in, several studies say this sort of housing does not > harm the animal, but others disagree. This is a good example of where > scientific evidence cannot and should not be the sole basis for moral > decision. > > > > Candace Croney, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics > Oregon State University > Phone: (541) 737-1401 > Email: candace.croney@orst.edu > > "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! > Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" > --Calvin and Hobbes > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 6:19 AM > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: dominion, aligning beliefs and our behavior > > Ray, > Thank you for clarifying. > What was your part in this study below? At the time of the study did you > believe that this was an acceptable and appropriate way to house veal > and do you now find it acceptable? > > I have long boycotted veal as I was aware the calves were kept in tiny > stalls. I did not realize just how tiny and that many were tethered. I > have to admit the final paragraph appalling in its conclusions as to > what is acceptable. > > Julie Alexander > > HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 > Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html > 404 Object Not Found > > > For Producer's Connection > > INDIVIDUAL STALLS vs. PENS: > GROWTH, BEHAVIOR, DISTRESS AND CARCASS TRAITS > > Research conducted and reported by Lowell L. Wilson and Tammy L. > Terosky, Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Penn State University, > Carolyn L. Stull, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of > California, Davis and William R. Stricklin, Department of Animal > Science, University of Maryland, College Park. This research was > supported by research funds administered by the Pennsylvania Department > of Agriculture and Penn State University appropriations. Appreciation is > extended to Marian and John Evans for their cooperation in this study. > > The special-fed veal production industry is criticized by some segments > of the general public due to several components utilized in the veal > production system. One system component criticized is the use of tethers > to restrain calves in individual stalls. Although there has been a small > increase in the use of individual pens without tethers in the US, most > calves are tethered in individual open stalls. However, the individual > pen system is the predominant method used in Europe, although group > rearing is also increasing. Previous research has demonstrated that > there are advantages to individually housing calves compared to rearing > in group pens. However, there is a lack of research critically comparing > individual stalls and pens. The research study discussed here was a > comprehensive comparison of calves tethered in individual stalls > compared to calves untethered in individual pens. In addition, three > different widths (22, 26, 30 inch) of both stalls and pens were > compared. > > In order to answer all questions in this comparison of housing design > and size, growth performance, behavior, physiological indicators of > stress level, calf cleanliness, structural soundness, and carcass > characteristics were evaluated. > > Calves: Three groups of 36 Holstein calves (total of 108 calves) were > obtained from livestock auctions and were randomly allotted upon arrival > at the veal farm to either individual stalls or pens of three different > widths. Initial weight was the pay weight at the auctions. Additionally, > the calves were weighed at week 8 and upon exiting the veal barn. > Average daily gain was calculated from the time the calves arrived to > week 8, and from week 8 through the final weight, as well as over the > entire trial. Carcass weight and other carcass traits (visual and > colorimeter evaluation of muscle color) were obtained, as well as a wide > variety of behavior, health/treatments, and soundness traits. > > Stalls and Pens: All construction consisted of oak boards; the total > length of the stall or pen floor was 72 inches. Oak slats were > positioned across the front part of the stall or pen floor for 24 inches > with vinyl-coated expanded metal diagonal-shaped flooring placed 48 > inches at the rear of the stall (total length of 72 inches). The sides > and fronts of the stalls and pens were 46 inches high from the oak-slat > floor which was 15 inches above a concrete floor. Widths of 22, 26, and > 30 inches were used for both individual stalls and individual pens, > resulting in six different combinations of housing types and widths. The > housing types and widths were randomly located in two different central > rows of a four-row room. > > Use of Statistical Significance: In research, we statistically analyze > data primarily to determine if the differences between treatment > alternatives are repeatable. A statistical test determines if the > differences between the tested treatments or management alternatives > happened by chance or can be expected to happen again if these > alternatives are used under similar conditions in industry. In this > study, there were few statistically significant differences in the > comparison of stalls and pens or among the different widths of > individual housing types. > > Live and Carcass Weights: The calves averaged 18 weeks at slaughter, > with live and carcass weights (hide-on) averaging 444 and 302 pounds, > respectively. Although there was a tendency for calves in stalls to grow > more rapidly than calves in individual pens, there was no statistically > significant difference between the two types of housing. Calves in wider > pens or stalls did not grow statistically more rapidly than calves in > narrower housing. Dressing percent (hide-on) averaged 68 percent and was > not influenced by housing type or width. > > Blood Traits: There were essentially no differences in hemoglobin, > hematocrit, white or red blood cell counts. Hemoglobin averaged 7.3 g/dL > at slaughter, which is less than the hemoglobin levels of veal calf > groups previously used in Penn State research. Earlier studies conducted > by Penn State and the University of California, Davis averaged 7.8 and > 8.2 g/dL, respectively, in field studies involving over 2,700 calves. > > Body Cleanliness Scores: The calves were scored at different times > during the trials, but the most important score for cleanliness was just > prior to slaughter. Body cleanliness at slaughter is important since it > reflects the amount of excrement and other materials taken from the barn > to the packing plant. This is a concern even though veal calves are > washed before and/or after slaughter. Although there were no differences > in apparent cleanliness of the forequarters and belly, the hindquarters > of calves reared in enclosed pens accumulated more fecal material than > calves reared in stalls. It should be mentioned that the stalls used in > this study were oak which is more porous and more difficult to clean > than the harder, more dense imported lumber usually used in the > construction of individual pens. Width of stall or pen did not affect > calf cleanliness score at slaughter. > > Joint, Navel and Overall Body Condition: There were statistically > significant differences in left knee swelling scores with a general > increase in swelling as stall or pen width decreased. Although this > difference was rather small, the observation does suggest that calves in > smaller housing units had greater difficulty in extending their front > legs and changing from a lying to a standing position. French > researchers also concluded that calves housed in smaller-sized pens > tended to keep knees and hocks bent while lying. Maintaining this > posture may have contributed to more joint swelling in the smaller pens. > There were no differences in navel (e.g., inflammation, redness) or > overall body condition (body condition primarily based on apparent > degree of fatness). Only minor differences were observed in health > status and treatments (e.g., medications) among the stalls or pens of > different widths. > > Ambulation, Behavior and Excitability: The majority of the animals (88 > percent) when housed in their stalls or pens scored between 2.5 and 3.5 > (possible scores of 1 to 5) for excitability and behavior. This is well > within the range of acceptability. None of the calves were either > apathetic (score of 1) or extremely difficult to handle (score of 5). > Calves in stalls tended to be more excitable than were calves in pens. > There was little effect of housing design or width on ambulatory > ability. Most calves (92 percent) either moved normally or exhibited > modest staggering or stiffness of leg joints when released for loading. > Calves moved with some hesitation while being loaded, perhaps due to the > novelty of the experience rather than due to a physical impairment. This > agrees with conclusions by French researchers. > > Hairball Count and Organ Condition: The abomasum (one of the four > stomach compartments) was palpated on the slaughter line and the number > and size of hairballs were recorded. The number of hairballs was assumed > to be an indirect determination of the intensity of self- and/or > neighbor-grooming due to the housing regime. Hairballs do not develop in > calves fed solid feeds with or without milk replacer. The calves > averaged 1.9 hairballs 2 inches or less in diameter, .67 hairballs > between 2 and 4 inches, and .05 hairballs greater than 4 inches. > However, there were no housing design or width effects on hairball count > or diameter, and there were no apparent health or growth impairments > from hairball accumulation. The accumulation of hairballs suggests that > grooming does occur in stalls and pens of different widths. > Self-grooming could not be differentiated from neighbor-grooming. > However, since there were dividers on the fronts of the pens and stalls > which prevented most neighbor-grooming, the hairball accumulation > resulted primarily from self-grooming. > > Conditions of the liver, lung and spleen were also evaluated at > slaughter. All but one calf in the 26-inch stall treatment exhibited > excellent liver condition; eight calves exhibited less than excellent > lung condition, and all calves had excellent spleen condition. > > Blood Indicators of stress: Three different blood components were > analyzed on all the calves in this study to determine the level of > distress that might have been caused by housing design or stall/pen > width (cortisol, acute phase proteins, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio). > All of these were determined each 28 days throughout the three different > group production cycles. There were no differences between stalls or > pens of different widths in any of these characteristics . The averages > of these traits were within the ranges of calves in non-veal management > systems. > > Other Behavior Traits: Twelve calves within each of the three production > groups, representing both housing designs and the three widths, were > videorecorded five times in each of weeks 9, 13 and 18. A film frame was > recorded every 1/20 second with 24 hours of observation recorded on a > 2-hour tape. The videotapes were observed for 15 seconds each hour and > half-hour for the entire 24-hour recorded periods. Over 26 different > behaviors were observed, recorded and analyzed. The observing of a > particular behavior occurring was the numerical information recorded for > statistical analysis. Of particular attention was the appearance of > "stereotypies" which are a highly repetitive abnormal behaviors, such as > tongue rolling. Although the frequency of the primary stereotype > observed, such as tongue rolling, increased between week 9 and week 18, > there was no statistically significant difference between stalls and > pens of different widths. French researchers determined that calves in > smaller pens spent more time rolling their tongues than did calves in > larger pens. Another stereotypic type of behavior observed was "sham > chewing," which occurred at a very low frequency; however, the frequency > of "sham chewing" tended to increase as stall or pen size decreased. > > The various behavioral traits that were observed, recorded and analyzed > are too numerous to mention here, but included almost every activity or > change in position or posture that the calf could make. If any reader is > interested in these specific traits, a list can be provided to them. > > Carcass Color and Grade: All carcasses were subjected to visual > evaluation and mechanical measurement (colorimeter) of muscle color > (carcass grade) at slaughter and 24 hours later. There were no > differences due to housing design or width in either the visual > evaluations or mechanical measurements at either time after slaughter. > It is interesting to note that muscle color lightened between slaughter > and 24 hours post-slaughter, which has been noted in earlier research at > Penn State and elsewhere. > > Economic Implications: When housing designs (tethered in stalls vs. > non-tethered in individual pens) are compared critically, there is > little or no difference in calf well-being, performance, behavior, > health status, signs of distress, carcass desirability or other factors. > Calves tethered in open stalls did not exhibit any increased > stereotypies, distress, or other indicators of abnormal behavior as > compared to calves in individual pens. If it is assumed that calf age > and weight will remain about the same or perhaps increase slightly over > the next few years, there is justification to use stalls at least 26 > inches wide and pens at least 30 inches wide. If calf size increases > significantly (e.g., to 23 weeks and 510 pounds) in the next few years, > then 30-inch stalls and 30- to 36-inch pens would be justified from the > standpoint of animal well-being and performance. It seems unlikely that > slaughter age and weight will decrease. If calves continue to be > plentiful for special fed-veal production, and age and weight decreases > (e.g., to 16 weeks and 410 pounds), then 24-inch stalls and 30-inch pens > may be acceptable. Increasing stall or pen size would reduce the number > of calves per barn thus probably increasing production costs. Perhaps > the veal industry should give more consideration to the total impact of > further increases in slaughter age and weight. Based on the results of > this study, there is no apparent advantage to adopt non-tethered veal > productions systems from the calf's standpoint, but this change may be > supported by public perception and marketability of veal products. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > > Home | Animal Welfare Programs | FAQ/An. Welfare | INFO/An. Welfare | > Top > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > > > > HTTP/1.1 404 Object Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Mon, 13 > Oct 2003 12:54:36 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html > 404 Object Not Found > > > From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 15-OCT-2003 16:37:59.85 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome >http://www.flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html >http://www.sniggle.net/stock.php >http://members.tripod.com/~heimstadt/stockhol.htm Thank you for providing that list of references. All but one appear to pertain to human - human relationships. The Suzanne Clothier article, "Of Hostages & Relationships", is about human - dog relationships. It might interest you to know that the Clothier article, and this topic in general, ---------------------------------------------- Well, I cannot say that I did not predict such responses. However, I can say that I am nevertheless rather dumbfounded at the reasoning ability - or whatever one would call it - of some persons. I believe that the response of most rational persons to the fact that _humans_ can be manipulated as in the Stockholm Syndrome would not lead these persons to throw out this information when considering how other animals would be affected. I believe that most persons would say that if this can be done to humans, then quite probably it would be even easier to do this with other animals! I believe that most persons would say, "Wow, if Patti Hearse could be subordinated to the extent that she would carry a machine gun, help her captors rob a bank, help then extort money from her father - and later live relatively independent from total control by her captors for a couple of years, and yet still attempt to defend them when she was captured - then maybe, just maybe, that something similar could be done with an animal. In fact, just maybe it might be that because Ole Rover comes home every night does mean he does so because he has chosen to love me - and me alone out of the other people and other dogs in this world. Maybe Ole Rover, in fact, comes home when I turn him out because his whole concept of self was changed as a result of the total control and domination that I expressed over him when I took him from his dam and littermates, moved him to a strange new isolated location, smacked him with a newspaper every time he wanted to pee in spot not chosen by me, and made totally dependent on me for food, water, and access to the outside world. I believe, most persons would say that, compared to Patti Hearst, that maybe Ole Rover is easier to dominant because he does not have as much "free will" (another 'unscientific' statement by me that no doubt will bring on responses aimed at exposing my lack of enlightenment on such concepts and result in helping clog the circuits of internet servers around the world for a few days). So in total I guess I really am not able to see the world through the eyes of some of the persons who are dog trainers - for if I did, I would have to change to a perspective that would cause me to ignore all other information about a topic except that which is specifically and solely about dogs. And at this late stage in my life, I don't think that I am capable of making this transition. So I suppose I will have to live on as I am and not gain the benefits so valued by those who have the advantage of seeing the world in such a manner. (Let me made it clear to persons who are dog owners, or even dog trainers in general, regarding my intended purpose of this message. This message is NOT to made any judgment of dog owners for I too have gained great pleasure from being a dog owner myself - but I do hope that this message causes persons to think about the consequences of treatment that a dog receives, from the dog's perspective. And I do think the issue is worthy of continued consideration. However, over and above pointing out the lack of critical thinking in the above statement (regarding 3 of 4 links not referring to dogs), the PRIMARY purpose of this message is to go back to the statement that I originally made regarding wild animal shows that involve training. I very much contend that these are situations where the animal is subordinated to the extend that they are basically controlled in a manner - regardless of the methodology employed - that is not unlike states experienced by human victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, and additionally have no justifiable basis for being continued - even if the Stockholm Syndrome is not applicable.) From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 15-OCT-2003 17:43:28.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training At 03:37 PM Wednesday 10/15/2003, you wrote: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome > >http://www.flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html > >http://www.sniggle.net/stock.php > >http://members.tripod.com/~heimstadt/stockhol.htm > >Thank you for providing that list of references. All but one appear to >pertain to human - human relationships. The Suzanne Clothier article, "Of >Hostages & Relationships", is about human - dog relationships. It might >interest you to know that the Clothier article, and this topic in general, > >---------------------------------------------- >Well, I cannot say that I did not predict such responses. However, I can >say that I am nevertheless rather dumbfounded at the reasoning ability - or >whatever one would call it - of some persons. I am amazed at your ability to misread what is clearly written. The list members who sent me private emails thanking me for my post did not share this inability to understand it. In my post to which you have responded, I thought it best to focus this time on an area of agreement... like the fact that we agree that something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome can indeed occur in *some* human - animal relationships. I thought you might be interested to know that dog trainers also consider these issues and discuss them with other dog trainers. The latter was part of my sentence that you snipped off, above. >I believe that the response of most rational persons to the fact that >_humans_ can be manipulated as in the Stockholm Syndrome would not lead >these persons to throw out this information when considering how other >animals would be affected. I believe that most persons would say that if >this can be done to humans, then quite probably it would be even easier to >do this with other animals! If you would simply read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say that dogs or other animals cannot be manipulated as in the Stockholm Syndrome. I specifically gave the example of such in some competition obedience dogs. The thrust of my post was an attempt to explain why this form of manipulation doesn't succeed in _working_dog_ training. >So in total I guess I really am not able to see the world through the eyes >of some of the persons who are dog trainers - for if I did, I would have to >change to a perspective that would cause me to ignore all other information >about a topic except that which is specifically and solely about dogs. Nonsense. No one ever suggested anything of sort. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 15-OCT-2003 18:09:01.71 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training Well, very good. We first tired education and that, in fact, did produce some learning. Now it seems that the training is beginning to work. I would say that there is hope that proper respect and appreciate for the discipline of APPLIED ETHOLOGY (and both its professional membership and those subscribed persons who sincerely wish to learn more about the discipline) can be learned by those who are "guests" on this site. This is indeed a very good development. ----------------------------------------------- t human - dog relationships. It might >interest you to know that the Clothier article, and this topic in general, > >---------------------------------------------- >Well, I cannot say that I did not predict such responses. However, I can >say that I am nevertheless rather dumbfounded at the reasoning ability - or >whatever one would call it - of some persons. I am amazed at your ability to misread what is clearly written. The list members who sent me private emails thanking me for my post did not share this inability to understand it. In my post to which you have responded, I thought it best to focus this time on an area of agreement... like the fact that we agree that something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome can indeed occur in *some* human - animal relationships. I thought you might be interested to know that dog trainers also consider these issues and discuss them with other dog trainers. The latter was part of my sentence that you snipped off, above. >I believe that the response of most rational persons to the fact that >_humans_ can be manipulated as in the Stockholm Syndrome would not lead >these persons to throw out this information when considering how other >animals would be affected. I believe that most persons would say that if >this can be done to humans, then quite probably it would be even easier to >do this with other animals! If you would simply read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say that dogs or other animals cannot be manipulated as in the Stockholm Syndrome. I specifically gave the example of such in some competition obedience dogs. The thrust of my post was an attempt to explain why this form of manipulation doesn't succeed in _working_dog_ training. >So in total I guess I really am not able to see the world through the eyes >of some of the persons who are dog trainers - for if I did, I would have to >change to a perspective that would cause me to ignore all other information >about a topic except that which is specifically and solely about dogs. Nonsense. No one ever suggested anything of sort. From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 15-OCT-2003 18:17:08.22 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training At 05:08 PM Wednesday 10/15/2003, you wrote: >Well, very good. We first tired education and that, in fact, did produce >some learning. Now it seems that the training is beginning to work. I >would say that there is hope that proper respect and appreciate for the >discipline of APPLIED ETHOLOGY (and both its professional membership and >those subscribed persons who sincerely wish to learn more about the >discipline) can be learned by those who are "guests" on this site. This is >indeed a very good development. Excellent! I'm glad to hear that you now understand what I was posting about earlier today, and have learned some useful things from it pertaining to a topic of mutual interest. Progress! Kind regards, Laura Sanborn From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 15-OCT-2003 19:32:24.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training Ray, You can choose to be insulted or not as you wish. I do not intend to submit my remarks for your prior approval. And if you have limited experience in training animals, I don't care how much experience you have in professing your field when you address an area you are deficient in. Training is perhaps better referred to as teaching. I have been learning and improving my skills at martial arts, handgun and shoulder firearms practices for 13 years. And have exactly as much chance at becoming proficient at any of these without instruction and practice as I have of becoming a race car driver without instruction. I can understand the principles of an internal combustion engine and how to drive a manual transmission vehicle but without instruction and practice I have no business on a race track much less professing my opinion as an informed opinion on how to win the Indie 500 because I can drive an automatic SUV in rush hour. I know many horse and dog trainers who have little book learning and do not feel handicapped nor do their results appear deficient. There is a difference between rote training as is too often taught in public education and people who can think for themselves, integrate new information with previous experience and create an appropriate response at the moment. Training requires observational skills plus awareness of what the desired outcome--behavior--is, mental and physical requirements to achieve the outcome, understanding of motivation, rewards and good timing. Nothing will replace practice to hone those skills. And if you have not done much of it, your opinion is not an educated opinion but an armchair quarterback reviewing the latest ballgame. If you do not have the experiential knowledge of the mental and physical abilities involved, your opinion is based on hearsay. As far as eating feces, well the most expensive coffee in the world comes from a bean eaten by civets and harvested from their feces. Knowing that the roasting and brewing will kill bacteria does help in this case. We have 2 veterinarians we use most often. One grew up on a ranch and works with horses but has not trained dogs much. The other grew up on a dairy farm and trained hunting dogs. Neither will pretend they are qualified to give opinions on training problems of the animal they are unfamiliar with. But both grew up in livestock management, deal with management issues frequently and are unpretentious about what they are inexperienced with. Heather and Laura stated better than I would responses to your logic and references to the Stockholm Syndrome. I will add in a comment on the dogs handled as Suzanne Clothier describes that the ones who need such micromanagment not only are not whole as Laura described, they probably did not have the talent to show high in trial without such management. If you should ever see such dogs compete, they can appear focused and attentive but they are also robotic. Some handlers will accept this, some observers and judges praise it and others shake their heads and walk away pitying the poor sods who think this is the best there can be. I knew a woman who was for several years a professional ice skater and performed in the Ice Capades. And she was not whole. Her teen years were a push by a mother who wanted her to be the best, a worthy goal as long as it is balanced. This lady was not. She had been picked up every day after school to go to lessons or practice. And had no time for friends or to develop social skills. She regretted her lost time and thinks a better balance could have been found. She had no way to say no to her mother's pressure. So it is with some dogs and handlers. Thankfully those are few in number. The trainers of any species I know are almost all currently involved with the care and management of their animals. A few who've paid their dues may have assistants who do much of the routine. Any significant changes in eating or handling would be reported to the trainer. Knowing the animals' physical and mental state is critical. Trainer are by default somewhat experienced in management. It is not always true that those involved in animal management are experienced in the type of training the animals are capable of. Trainers can learn from animal management specialists. And the management specialists from trainer. If they have a mind that is open. It cuts both ways. While still in SEattle I made the aquaintance of several keepers at the Woodland Park Zoo. The head keeper for the elephants, Tom Wood, stated that this was the only occupation exempt from civil service seniority promotions. The animals basically were in charge of who was promoted. Academic credentials might help but skill with the animals is paramount. Ray, you seem to lack experience in training. This invalidates to me personally any of your criticisms as unqualified. Attached is a video clip of my husband with 2 protection trained male Dobermans at a local fair's obedience trial. We find AKC trials boring and had not entered any for 13 years. On 2 weeks notice, Mark was talked into entering in brace competition. There are some faults, not a perfect performance. But I think you can see they are not robotic and do not look like hostages. The 3 of them have a smooth flow and connection, much like dancers. I'd like to see some of your training results. regards Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Stricklin" To: "Julie Alexander" ; Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:01 AM Subject: RE: Ray a question on training > Sorry that I do not have time to give you a through reply - and I only took > time to quickly scan your message. But let say at the start I am not simply > giving you MY ideas. Rather, these are my thoughts based on years of reading > what OTHERS have written - and also through discussing this with others, > both professional and novice. > > Your final comments in this message questioning whether a professional > applied ethologist, such as myself, is entitled to make comments about > training can be interpreted to be quite insulting not only to applied > ethologists but to all professionals in education. This past year I had the > honor and privilege of participating in ongoing discussions about pedagogy > with other Fellows of Teaching Excellence at the University of Maryland. A > point that came up numerous times is that we professors should strive to > educate students - not train them. An educated person can generalize > information learned to other topics; whereas, a trained person can only > perform a skill or regurgitate back, onto the exam, the info that the > instructor has written on the blackboard. Regarding the issue of whether or > not one has to have actually trained an animal in order to "know" about the > topic, let me pose an exam question that addresses this matter; Does one > have to eat a turd in order to be knowledgeable about the relationship > between disease and ingesting e. coli? > > My recommendation to anyone sincerely interested in the topic of dominionism > is that YOU invest some thing digging through the literature and reflecting > upon what you read. (And if you find info that is relevant and/or you > formulate an original synthesis statement of your ideas that ADD to what is > known, then I recommend and would appreciate your sharing that document with > the broader community of persons with this interest. > > In the meanwhile, I grow weary of members of the "internet generation" > expecting one can simply send an email and then have someone who has spent a > lifetime on a topic provide them with all they to need to know about the > subject - in a single paragraph! I still contend that libraries have a > purpose - and are not a substitute for web pages. That said, the internet, > I believe, can be a useful starting point for persons beginning to learn > about a topic. But I strongly recommend that true students (regardless of > subject matter) not stop there, but rather continue their learning by going > into the published literature. > > Therefore, as a beginning point in developing an answer to the question > implied below, let me list some sites where the question of "why individuals > in dominated positions" often behave in a manner that might be considered > paradoxical to their situation. And I do NOT agree with all the info in > these websites - only that they raise very important questions. Again, I do > not have the time to sort out the junk from the beneficial information. The > reader of the info will, therefore, have to take on some of this burden > individually: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome > http://www.flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html > http://www.sniggle.net/stock.php > http://members.tripod.com/~heimstadt/stockhol.htm > > My purpose in bringing forth the implied question through the Stockholm > Syndrome (or the ethic basis of intentionally exploiting > dominance-subordinate relationships between beings) is NOT to attempt to > place blame on any given group or individual - (even though I certainly do > believe some actions have less justification than others, as I have already > written about). Rather, I believe that it is incumbent upon us all in our > relationships with others (humans and other animals) to question whether or > not, in fact, we do at times use some or all of these tactics to control the > behavior of others - and also to reflect upon when our actions become > exploitive to the degree that they are not ethically defensible However, I > expect these last comments will be 'leaves in the wind' to those persons who > have been trained as opposed to educated - and that they will continue to > address issues in a manner that 'nit pick' - at best. > > Regarding, my own thoughts on the topic, I gave a presentation at the 1992 > International Society of Comparative Psychology at Brussels entitled, > "Dominance, Domestication and Dominion." Basically I argued that > historically, the relationship between humans and (some of) the other > animals have tended to move through these stages, respectively. The > electronic version of the abstract, I think, still exists, and I will try at > some point to locate and post it. Meanwhile, anyone interested can find a > short version of these ideas at the end section of the book chapter on > "Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" where I again argued that > we possibly have moved beyond what truly can be considered "domestication" > in some our food animal production systems and now have reached a stage that > is maybe more correctly one of "dominionism." The link to the site > containing this chapter is: > http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4 > .pdf > > Hope this is helpful. > > W.R. Stricklin > Lilly Fellow for Teaching Excellence (2002-'03) > University of Maryland > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:05 PM > To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Ray a question on training > > > < in my position on the issue of using animals, wild or agricultural, when > the > purpose is solely to demonstrate human dominion over the beast - I am > opposed to it. (Some of your comments below seem to be in reference to > the > holding of animals in captivity, independent of training and exhibition > for > showing how the animal has been mastered. I earlier said that under > some > circumstances, I believe there may be justification for some activities > that > hold captive wild animals - unless the purpose is demonstrate dominance > and > mastery.)>> > > How did you develop the belief that animals who perform are doing so for > the sole purpose of demonstrating dominance and master? I am curious as > to your experience with training any species and what behaviors you > trained for. I can not think of any person I have met, face to face or > in cyberspace who trains any species that I believe does so solely for > those purposes. I can't think of one I think has that even as a major > purpose. I can think of some whose egos are more involved than I > consider healthy for them and the animal/s they work with. I can think > of far more parents who appear to like to dominate their children. > > There are some behaviors that can be coerced with a master/slave > relationship. And many that are not. I doubt that a Grand Prix dressage > horse is dominated into a performance that wins. It would be possible to > force one of our dogs into defending itself with enough pressure. It is > not possible to force the dog into defending me, that comes only from > mutual bonding and cooperation--I take care of the dog, s/he takes care > of me. > > I can not imagine how you imagined that animals that are dominated and > mastered like a slave could perform with obvious enjoyment. At one show > with parrots and cockatoos, the trainer asked people to applaud as this > meant a great deal to the birds. In particular, the cockatoos would > raise their crests at the applause, the parrots also seemed quite > pleased. Attention and appreciation are major rewards for many-perhaps > most? humans and also for many species. Using the brain for problem > solving or engaging in interesting behaviors seems to be hard wired for > pleasure. Sensory deprivation, never succeeding at a task or being fed > without doing something to acquire food lead to boredom, frustration, > kennel blindness, learned helplessness or learned laziness--my thanks to > Steve Lindsay for the last term. All of these deprive an animal, human > or non, of learning how to cope and mental stimulation that is > pleasurable and probably necessary for health. Dr. Janet Talling's post > indicated a specific case. > > And how would this NOT be the case? Animals selected for performance > aren't selected for being slow learners with a low threshold of > satiation for novelty. Border collies are too often turning up in > shelters because pet owners get one and don't give it a job to do! They > want and need to perform something to stay sane. I've seen some > interviews with dog trainers whose dogs perform in commercials, movies > and television. Many, possibly most, of these dogs would rather work > than become lotus eaters. Their brains and bodies feel good when they > are engaged in challenging mental and or physical activity. > > Ask dog owners whose dogs are working agility or flyball. Do the dogs > give evidence of desire to work again and again? Does cheering and > applause from spectators add or detract from their performance? Are > their dogs dominated servile mindless creatures? Or delighted partners > whose major complaint is they don't get to perform often enough. If > dissatisfied with their trainer they care quite capable of timing out > the stupid human or refusing to work. > > Ray, I believe your perception of performing animals to be naive and > antiquated, based on old zoo and circus acts. Whips, chairs and pistols > have been gone for a while. And it is your opinion. I still find it that > while employed in an industry whose end result is being killed and eaten > can condemn those whose end result is education, entertainment and life. > I have a hunch that when you think of an animal act, you perceive the > audience as laughing at the animals and feeling superior. When I watch > the audience or even people at a zoo, I see people who are laughing WITH > and interested in the animals. Many will not understand the animals. But > they will remember them with pleasure. And from there can come a hunger > to know more and find out what the animals are truly like. Often the > animals are humorous. And they are funny because they reflect back our > own foibles in a gentle caricature of the foolish apes called human. We > laugh not at the animals but at ourselves and learn not to take > ourselves too seriously. > > Ray, you are in a field that has been attacked by animal rights groups. > As much as I detest PETA, there are some valid points of criticism on > aspects both of your field and animals in training. And a lot more I > think are totally wrong. I would think you would reconsider throwing > stones at the animal trainers as they often are the target of the same > misguided groups. Your field has had many stones tossed at it, tossing > them yourself makes you appear to me as one who is inconsistent. > > You find yourself consistent. That is your opinion. Mine is different. > This is rather like one religion who bans dancing as immoral while > others use dance as a religious ceremony. Criticizing the others > spiritual beliefs is demeaning to both. I think PETA people would also > find it inconsistent. I can find value in your work and also in the work > of trainers whether for a pet dog, riding horse or entertainment. > > Ray, is it so difficult for you to understand how careful and motivated > the trainers are for the well being of their partners? Many are just as > highly skilled observers as you are. They are just as skilled at > maintaining the health and happiness as you and often have far more > options to do so than the constraints of food animal production. You > have written details of your opinion and some such as I do not share > them. I do not think you further your own work's public image by > engaging in your critical opinions. Probably do more damage to your own > image and therefore make your information and work more likely to be > rejected by those PETA will try to influence. There would be more > benefit in respectfully choosing to differ but still learn from each > other. > > regards, > Julie Alexander From: IN%"wrstrick@umd.edu" "Ray Stricklin" 15-OCT-2003 20:57:03.95 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ethology is NOT about Training Ray, you seem to lack experience in training. This invalidates to me personally any of your criticisms as unqualified. Attached is a video clip of my husband with 2 protection trained male Dobermans at a local fair's obedience trial. We find AKC trials boring and had not entered any for 13 years. On 2 weeks notice, Mark was talked into entering in brace competition. There are some faults, not a perfect performance. But I think you can see they are not robotic and do not look like hostages. The 3 of them have a smooth flow and connection, much like dancers. I'd like to see some of your training results. ----------------------------------- Wow. I am beginning to believe that a large percentage of the slow learners in the USA have chosen to become animal trainers. I will try very, very patiently again to tell you, "Approximately 99.9% of the APPLIED ETHOLOGISTS of the world could give in a Hoot in Hell about animal training - in the sense that you present it above!" Is that clear? I have NO interest in training animals. I aspire to be an Ethologist who works on animal behavior as related to issues that are of an applied nature - and none of the issues of concern to me have anything whatsoever to do with animal training. In fact in the strictest sense the principles basic to the discipline of Ethology are in _direct conflict_ with animal training. Let me be straightforward with you; it is my personal opinion that people who spend their time training animals as their means to attaining personal gratification would be better served trying to "GET A LIFE." Can I make it any more clear? I cannot name an Applied Ethologists who has more than a passing interest in animal training as a profession. We are interested in Animal Behavior - not Animal Training. Please try to understand. This is NOT a discussion group that has an interest in TRAINING ANIMALS, except when the issue also concerns APPLIED ETHOLOGY. You may find my comments harsh, but I consider it altogether reasonable and appropriate to call short any person who joins this group as an _outsider_ and then has the audacity to show disrespect for the discipline of APPLIED ETHOLOGY or its professionals. Now I want to say again, that it is my opinion that you are welcome to stay on this APPLIED ETHOLOGY list. But please stop cluttering up the email boxes around the world with information about issues that have nothing to do with APPLIED ETHOLOGY - unless you do it through a discussion group that has animal training as its subject of interest. From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 15-OCT-2003 21:30:05.21 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ray a question on training Julie, PLEASE do not send attachments to this list!! Secondly, this is not a training list. It is an ethology list. I have been on this list for years and have never seen such a poor level of respectfulness as has been evidenced in the past few months. I would respectfully request that this will not continue. Sincerely, Janice Janice Willard, DVM, MS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie Alexander" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:02 PM Subject: Re: Ray a question on training > Ray, > You can choose to be insulted or not as you wish. I do not intend to > submit my remarks for your prior approval. And if you have limited > experience in training animals, I don't care how much experience you > have in professing your field when you address an area you are deficient > in. > Training is perhaps better referred to as teaching. I have been learning > and improving my skills at martial arts, handgun and shoulder firearms > practices for 13 years. And have exactly as much chance at becoming > proficient at any of these without instruction and practice as I have of > becoming a race car driver without instruction. I can understand the > principles of an internal combustion engine and how to drive a manual > transmission vehicle but without instruction and practice I have no > business on a race track much less professing my opinion as an informed > opinion on how to win the Indie 500 because I can drive an automatic SUV > in rush hour. > > I know many horse and dog trainers who have little book learning and do > not feel handicapped nor do their results appear deficient. There is a > difference between rote training as is too often taught in public > education and people who can think for themselves, integrate new > information with previous experience and create an appropriate response > at the moment. Training requires observational skills plus awareness of > what the desired outcome--behavior--is, mental and physical requirements > to achieve the outcome, understanding of motivation, rewards and good > timing. Nothing will replace practice to hone those skills. And if you > have not done much of it, your opinion is not an educated opinion but an > armchair quarterback reviewing the latest ballgame. If you do not have > the experiential knowledge of the mental and physical abilities > involved, your opinion is based on hearsay. As far as eating feces, well > the most expensive coffee in the world comes from a bean eaten by civets > and harvested from their feces. Knowing that the roasting and brewing > will kill bacteria does help in this case. > > We have 2 veterinarians we use most often. One grew up on a ranch and > works with horses but has not trained dogs much. The other grew up on a > dairy farm and trained hunting dogs. Neither will pretend they are > qualified to give opinions on training problems of the animal they are > unfamiliar with. But both grew up in livestock management, deal with > management issues frequently and are unpretentious about what they are > inexperienced with. > > Heather and Laura stated better than I would responses to your logic and > references to the Stockholm Syndrome. I will add in a comment on the > dogs handled as Suzanne Clothier describes that the ones who need such > micromanagment not only are not whole as Laura described, they probably > did not have the talent to show high in trial without such management. > If you should ever see such dogs compete, they can appear focused and > attentive but they are also robotic. Some handlers will accept this, > some observers and judges praise it and others shake their heads and > walk away pitying the poor sods who think this is the best there can be. > > I knew a woman who was for several years a professional ice skater and > performed in the Ice Capades. And she was not whole. Her teen years were > a push by a mother who wanted her to be the best, a worthy goal as long > as it is balanced. This lady was not. She had been picked up every day > after school to go to lessons or practice. And had no time for friends > or to develop social skills. She regretted her lost time and thinks a > better balance could have been found. She had no way to say no to her > mother's pressure. So it is with some dogs and handlers. Thankfully > those are few in number. > > The trainers of any species I know are almost all currently involved > with the care and management of their animals. A few who've paid their > dues may have assistants who do much of the routine. Any significant > changes in eating or handling would be reported to the trainer. Knowing > the animals' physical and mental state is critical. Trainer are by > default somewhat experienced in management. It is not always true that > those involved in animal management are experienced in the type of > training the animals are capable of. Trainers can learn from animal > management specialists. And the management specialists from trainer. If > they have a mind that is open. It cuts both ways. > > While still in SEattle I made the aquaintance of several keepers at the > Woodland Park Zoo. The head keeper for the elephants, Tom Wood, stated > that this was the only occupation exempt from civil service seniority > promotions. The animals basically were in charge of who was promoted. > Academic credentials might help but skill with the animals is > paramount. > > Ray, you seem to lack experience in training. This invalidates to me > personally any of your criticisms as unqualified. > > Attached is a video clip of my husband with 2 protection trained male > Dobermans at a local fair's obedience trial. We find AKC trials boring > and had not entered any for 13 years. On 2 weeks notice, Mark was talked > into entering in brace competition. There are some faults, not a perfect > performance. But I think you can see they are not robotic and do not > look like hostages. The 3 of them have a smooth flow and connection, > much like dancers. > > I'd like to see some of your training results. > > regards > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Stricklin" > To: "Julie Alexander" ; > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:01 AM > Subject: RE: Ray a question on training > > > > Sorry that I do not have time to give you a through reply - and I only > took > > time to quickly scan your message. But let say at the start I am not > simply > > giving you MY ideas. Rather, these are my thoughts based on years of > reading > > what OTHERS have written - and also through discussing this with > others, > > both professional and novice. > > > > Your final comments in this message questioning whether a professional > > > applied ethologist, such as myself, is entitled to make comments about > > training can be interpreted to be quite insulting not only to applied > > ethologists but to all professionals in education. This past year I > had the > > honor and privilege of participating in ongoing discussions about > pedagogy > > with other Fellows of Teaching Excellence at the University of > Maryland. A > > point that came up numerous times is that we professors should strive > to > > educate students - not train them. An educated person can generalize > > information learned to other topics; whereas, a trained person can > only > > perform a skill or regurgitate back, onto the exam, the info that the > > instructor has written on the blackboard. Regarding the issue of > whether or > > not one has to have actually trained an animal in order to "know" > about the > > topic, let me pose an exam question that addresses this matter; Does > one > > have to eat a turd in order to be knowledgeable about the relationship > > between disease and ingesting e. coli? > > > > My recommendation to anyone sincerely interested in the topic of > dominionism > > is that YOU invest some thing digging through the literature and > reflecting > > upon what you read. (And if you find info that is relevant and/or you > > formulate an original synthesis statement of your ideas that ADD to > what is > > known, then I recommend and would appreciate your sharing that > document with > > the broader community of persons with this interest. > > > > In the meanwhile, I grow weary of members of the "internet generation" > > expecting one can simply send an email and then have someone who has > spent a > > lifetime on a topic provide them with all they to need to know about > the > > subject - in a single paragraph! I still contend that libraries have > a > > purpose - and are not a substitute for web pages. That said, the > internet, > > I believe, can be a useful starting point for persons beginning to > learn > > about a topic. But I strongly recommend that true students (regardless > of > > subject matter) not stop there, but rather continue their learning by > going > > into the published literature. > > > > Therefore, as a beginning point in developing an answer to the > question > > implied below, let me list some sites where the question of "why > individuals > > in dominated positions" often behave in a manner that might be > considered > > paradoxical to their situation. And I do NOT agree with all the info > in > > these websites - only that they raise very important questions. Again, > I do > > not have the time to sort out the junk from the beneficial > information. The > > reader of the info will, therefore, have to take on some of this > burden > > individually: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome > > http://www.flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html > > http://www.sniggle.net/stock.php > > http://members.tripod.com/~heimstadt/stockhol.htm > > > > My purpose in bringing forth the implied question through the > Stockholm > > Syndrome (or the ethic basis of intentionally exploiting > > dominance-subordinate relationships between beings) is NOT to attempt > to > > place blame on any given group or individual - (even though I > certainly do > > believe some actions have less justification than others, as I have > already > > written about). Rather, I believe that it is incumbent upon us all in > our > > relationships with others (humans and other animals) to question > whether or > > not, in fact, we do at times use some or all of these tactics to > control the > > behavior of others - and also to reflect upon when our actions become > > exploitive to the degree that they are not ethically defensible > However, I > > expect these last comments will be 'leaves in the wind' to those > persons who > > have been trained as opposed to educated - and that they will continue > to > > address issues in a manner that 'nit pick' - at best. > > > > Regarding, my own thoughts on the topic, I gave a presentation at the > 1992 > > International Society of Comparative Psychology at Brussels entitled, > > "Dominance, Domestication and Dominion." Basically I argued that > > historically, the relationship between humans and (some of) the other > > animals have tended to move through these stages, respectively. The > > electronic version of the abstract, I think, still exists, and I will > try at > > some point to locate and post it. Meanwhile, anyone interested can > find a > > short version of these ideas at the end section of the book chapter on > > "Evolution and Domestication of Social Behavior" where I again argued > that > > we possibly have moved beyond what truly can be considered > "domestication" > > in some our food animal production systems and now have reached a > stage that > > is maybe more correctly one of "dominionism." The link to the site > > containing this chapter is: > > > http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851993974/0851993974Ch4 > > .pdf > > > > Hope this is helpful. > > > > W.R. Stricklin > > Lilly Fellow for Teaching Excellence (2002-'03) > > University of Maryland > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julie Alexander [mailto:reddragn@bossig.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:05 PM > > To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > > Subject: Ray a question on training > > > > > > < > in my position on the issue of using animals, wild or agricultural, > when > > the > > purpose is solely to demonstrate human dominion over the beast - I am > > opposed to it. (Some of your comments below seem to be in reference > to > > the > > holding of animals in captivity, independent of training and > exhibition > > for > > showing how the animal has been mastered. I earlier said that under > > some > > circumstances, I believe there may be justification for some > activities > > that > > hold captive wild animals - unless the purpose is demonstrate > dominance > > and > > mastery.)>> > > > > How did you develop the belief that animals who perform are doing so > for > > the sole purpose of demonstrating dominance and master? I am curious > as > > to your experience with training any species and what behaviors you > > trained for. I can not think of any person I have met, face to face or > > in cyberspace who trains any species that I believe does so solely for > > those purposes. I can't think of one I think has that even as a major > > purpose. I can think of some whose egos are more involved than I > > consider healthy for them and the animal/s they work with. I can think > > of far more parents who appear to like to dominate their children. > > > > There are some behaviors that can be coerced with a master/slave > > relationship. And many that are not. I doubt that a Grand Prix > dressage > > horse is dominated into a performance that wins. It would be possible > to > > force one of our dogs into defending itself with enough pressure. It > is > > not possible to force the dog into defending me, that comes only from > > mutual bonding and cooperation--I take care of the dog, s/he takes > care > > of me. > > > > I can not imagine how you imagined that animals that are dominated and > > mastered like a slave could perform with obvious enjoyment. At one > show > > with parrots and cockatoos, the trainer asked people to applaud as > this > > meant a great deal to the birds. In particular, the cockatoos would > > raise their crests at the applause, the parrots also seemed quite > > pleased. Attention and appreciation are major rewards for many-perhaps > > most? humans and also for many species. Using the brain for problem > > solving or engaging in interesting behaviors seems to be hard wired > for > > pleasure. Sensory deprivation, never succeeding at a task or being fed > > without doing something to acquire food lead to boredom, frustration, > > kennel blindness, learned helplessness or learned laziness--my thanks > to > > Steve Lindsay for the last term. All of these deprive an animal, human > > or non, of learning how to cope and mental stimulation that is > > pleasurable and probably necessary for health. Dr. Janet Talling's > post > > indicated a specific case. > > > > And how would this NOT be the case? Animals selected for performance > > aren't selected for being slow learners with a low threshold of > > satiation for novelty. Border collies are too often turning up in > > shelters because pet owners get one and don't give it a job to do! > They > > want and need to perform something to stay sane. I've seen some > > interviews with dog trainers whose dogs perform in commercials, movies > > and television. Many, possibly most, of these dogs would rather work > > than become lotus eaters. Their brains and bodies feel good when they > > are engaged in challenging mental and or physical activity. > > > > Ask dog owners whose dogs are working agility or flyball. Do the dogs > > give evidence of desire to work again and again? Does cheering and > > applause from spectators add or detract from their performance? Are > > their dogs dominated servile mindless creatures? Or delighted partners > > whose major complaint is they don't get to perform often enough. If > > dissatisfied with their trainer they care quite capable of timing out > > the stupid human or refusing to work. > > > > Ray, I believe your perception of performing animals to be naive and > > antiquated, based on old zoo and circus acts. Whips, chairs and > pistols > > have been gone for a while. And it is your opinion. I still find it > that > > while employed in an industry whose end result is being killed and > eaten > > can condemn those whose end result is education, entertainment and > life. > > I have a hunch that when you think of an animal act, you perceive the > > audience as laughing at the animals and feeling superior. When I watch > > the audience or even people at a zoo, I see people who are laughing > WITH > > and interested in the animals. Many will not understand the animals. > But > > they will remember them with pleasure. And from there can come a > hunger > > to know more and find out what the animals are truly like. Often the > > animals are humorous. And they are funny because they reflect back our > > own foibles in a gentle caricature of the foolish apes called human. > We > > laugh not at the animals but at ourselves and learn not to take > > ourselves too seriously. > > > > Ray, you are in a field that has been attacked by animal rights > groups. > > As much as I detest PETA, there are some valid points of criticism on > > aspects both of your field and animals in training. And a lot more I > > think are totally wrong. I would think you would reconsider throwing > > stones at the animal trainers as they often are the target of the same > > misguided groups. Your field has had many stones tossed at it, tossing > > them yourself makes you appear to me as one who is inconsistent. > > > > You find yourself consistent. That is your opinion. Mine is different. > > This is rather like one religion who bans dancing as immoral while > > others use dance as a religious ceremony. Criticizing the others > > spiritual beliefs is demeaning to both. I think PETA people would also > > find it inconsistent. I can find value in your work and also in the > work > > of trainers whether for a pet dog, riding horse or entertainment. > > > > Ray, is it so difficult for you to understand how careful and > motivated > > the trainers are for the well being of their partners? Many are just > as > > highly skilled observers as you are. They are just as skilled at > > maintaining the health and happiness as you and often have far more > > options to do so than the constraints of food animal production. You > > have written details of your opinion and some such as I do not share > > them. I do not think you further your own work's public image by > > engaging in your critical opinions. Probably do more damage to your > own > > image and therefore make your information and work more likely to be > > rejected by those PETA will try to influence. There would be more > > benefit in respectfully choosing to differ but still learn from each > > other. > > > > regards, > > Julie Alexander > > > > > > > > > From: IN%"hmcmurra@hotmail.com" "hmcmurra" 16-OCT-2003 02:30:06.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Ethology is NOT about Training Dear Dr. Stricklin, Go to www.google.com and enter in the search terms, "applied ethology" and "animal training". You'll be taken to many links - one which is of special interest http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/ Under this list of APPLIED ETHOLOGY areas is included domestic animal behavior problems http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/problems.html Guess who fits the niche of solving those behavior problems for domestic animal owners? Yes, animal trainers. ( They even list an article regarding a topic close to the heart of this list awhile back - problem barking in dogs http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/behaviourproblems/bark ing.html - and the page recommends behavioral modification. How do dog trainers exibit their skills to peers? Obedience trials. ) Umm, yes, even the "applied ethology list" is included in the links from this site. Perhaps the owner of the site is mistaken. If you would like to tell them so, the site preparers are listed as: Joseph Stookey, Jon Watts & Derek Haley Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan CANADA -- S7N 5B4 Telephone: 306-966-7154 Facsimile: 306-966-7159 Please e-mail any questions or comments you may have to joseph.stookey@usask.ca or jon.watts@usask.ca or derek.haley@usask.ca -----Original Message----- From: Ray Stricklin [mailto:wrstrick@umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:57 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Ethology is NOT about Training Ray, you seem to lack experience in training. This invalidates to me personally any of your criticisms as unqualified. Attached is a video clip of my husband with 2 protection trained male Dobermans at a local fair's obedience trial. We find AKC trials boring and had not entered any for 13 years. On 2 weeks notice, Mark was talked into entering in brace competition. There are some faults, not a perfect performance. But I think you can see they are not robotic and do not look like hostages. The 3 of them have a smooth flow and connection, much like dancers. I'd like to see some of your training results. ----------------------------------- Wow. I am beginning to believe that a large percentage of the slow learners in the USA have chosen to become animal trainers. I will try very, very patiently again to tell you, "Approximately 99.9% of the APPLIED ETHOLOGISTS of the world could give in a Hoot in Hell about animal training - in the sense that you present it above!" Is that clear? I have NO interest in training animals. I aspire to be an Ethologist who works on animal behavior as related to issues that are of an applied nature - and none of the issues of concern to me have anything whatsoever to do with animal training. In fact in the strictest sense the principles basic to the discipline of Ethology are in _direct conflict_ with animal training. Let me be straightforward with you; it is my personal opinion that people who spend their time training animals as their means to attaining personal gratification would be better served trying to "GET A LIFE." Can I make it any more clear? I cannot name an Applied Ethologists who has more than a passing interest in animal training as a profession. We are interested in Animal Behavior - not Animal Training. Please try to understand. This is NOT a discussion group that has an interest in TRAINING ANIMALS, except when the issue also concerns APPLIED ETHOLOGY. You may find my comments harsh, but I consider it altogether reasonable and appropriate to call short any person who joins this group as an _outsider_ and then has the audacity to show disrespect for the discipline of APPLIED ETHOLOGY or its professionals. Now I want to say again, that it is my opinion that you are welcome to stay on this APPLIED ETHOLOGY list. But please stop cluttering up the email boxes around the world with information about issues that have nothing to do with APPLIED ETHOLOGY - unless you do it through a discussion group that has animal training as its subject of interest.