From: IN%"m.haskell@ed.sac.ac.uk" "Marie Haskell" 1-SEP-2000 02:14:57.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: business and farmers: improving animal welfare Dear All, Does anyone know whether the farmers benefit at all from complying with the new, more welfare-friendly rules? The impression that you get from the actual producers is that they get very little monetary gain from raising welfare standards (which usually has some cost attached), other than the fact that they have at least got a large scale buyer in the form of these super-companies. It is these retail giants that seem to take the credit (and probably the profit!). Case in point: a dairy farmer declined to participate in a study of ours because it might lead to new, clearer ways of assessing welfare on farm. This in turn might (possibly) lead to new welfare guidelines, more things for farmers to comply with and more costs without compensation. This doesn't seem to be a common viewpoint, but I think that he was definitely waving a banner for the plight of farmers, who are generally having a tough time in the UK at the moment. Another ha'penny's worth..... Cheers, Marie M.J.Haskell SAC, Edinburgh, UK From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 1-SEP-2000 03:14:09.44 To: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." CC: IN%"s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk" "'Steve Appleyard'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "'chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk'" Subj: RE: (Fwd) Re: Improving Animal Welfare via McDonald's Dear All, I think that, in general, when making improvements in animal welfare, the ends justifies the means. So, I am not overly concerned by McDonalds coporate mightiness, and there potentially dubious intent in these changes. My concern is how sustainable it is to make purported animal welfare improvements based on a company's decision which obviously is centered upon its shareholders' financial returns, rather than the welfare of the animals. I do not believe these two can always be put on the same scale of assessment. Another problem is that now that changes are going to be made at great expense and with much 'ruffling of feather' from the farming community, there will be considerable resistance to further changes to husbandry in the future. I suspect that most people working in poultry behaviour and welfare would think of these McDonald's improved cages as a step forward, but, certainly not ideal. How then do we argue with McDonalds when we have scientific evidence strongly indicating that cage sizes should be increased further, the birds given a dustbath, a nest, a perch etc. As for Joe's comments below, I believe strongly that culture has an all pervasive influence on our perception of animal welfare...this is immediately evident even between adjacent countries within Europe. So, I'm not sure Transatlantic differences in welfare attitude are necessarily due to differences in willingness of scientists and business to work together (I'm not suggesting this doesn't contribute). The North American laws on farm animal welfare are, as I understand it, considerably different from those in Europe. I suspect this has a major impact on the way many people feel, think and behave toward farm animals - in a way that is probably subconscious (of course this would also be true for Europeans). I really must take issue with one specific point Joe made. > These welfare > standards have the potential to change the US meat and egg industry, and > public opinion, far more rapidly than the changes which we saw in the UK in > the last decade. The rapidity of change to the industry is not necessarily the best indicator of animal welfare. Although the great changes to the housing of hens in the EU (and sows in the UK) have taken a long time, these changes will, in my opinion, considerably improve the welfare of these birds. Although McDonald's might have woken up one morning and decided to increase the size of their cages, how long will they now be asleep for before they wake up and decide to give hens, perches, nestboxes, dustbaths, etc? Again, as I finished my last e-mail, maybe the awareness raising of this action really is the long-term benefit. Regards, Chris On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:11:15 -0700 "Garner, Joseph P." wrote: > I'm sure i have said this before, but the disparity between the state of > animal welfare in the US and UK, i belive is largely due to the fact that in > the UK scientists, lobbyist and industry have been prepared to work > together: "good welfare is good buisness". > > In the US the animal welfare movement is far more antagonistic towards the > meat industry (e.g. PETA) and so the meat industry sees no profitability in > improving welfare. without a mainstream supplier of high welfare meat and > eggs, there is little demonstartion that these products sell, and so I am > sure that few in the industry is prepared to belive there is a market for > it. > > What is so remarkeable, and so amazing, about the McDonalds welfare > standards is that they have litterally jump-started this whole process and > forced the whole industry to move forward in a huge step, and certainly this > step is greater than McDonalds needed to make for PR reasons. These welfare > standards have the potential to change the US meat and egg industry, and > public opinion, far more rapidly than the changes which we saw in the UK in > the last decade. McDonalds are under a lot of pressure from producers right > now, and so we should be supporting what they have done. Not least becuase > overnight they demarginalised animal welfare issues in the states. So what > if they are getting ahead of the curve? I really do belive that the only way > of improving the welfare of farmed animals is to persaude producers that > good welfare is good business. > > just my ha'penny's worth > > cheers > > Joe > > ___________________________ > > Dr. Joseph Garner > University of California > Department of Animal Science > One Shields Avenue > Davis > CA 95616 > USA > > Phone: (530) 754 5291 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Appleyard [mailto:s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk] > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 5:28 AM > > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > > Subject: (Fwd) Re: Improving Animal Welfare via McDonald's > > > > > > Chris asked me to forward this, because he forgot to. > > > > Steve > > > > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > > From: Chris Sherwin > > Date sent: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:16:42 +0100 > > To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca > > Subject: Re: Improving Animal Welfare via McDonald's > > Copies to: Steve Appleyard > > Priority: NORMAL > > > > > > > > > > Call me an old cynic if you like (with not too much emphasis > > on the 'old' > > please!), but I am not as convinced by others at the sincerity and > > usefulness of improving animal welfare by McDonald's corporate means. > > I > > can not speak for the committee that advised McDonald's on > > this issue, > > but > > I doubt very much whether they would have recommended that hens > > should be > > provided with cages that prevent wing-stretching, perching and > > dustbathing. > > There has (understandably) been a compromise by McDonald's; their > > final > > decision on cage design has, it appears, been based largely upon > > socio-economic issues, rather than animal welfare. As such, I wonder > > what > > will happen if the economics of animal production or consumer > > spending > > take > > a different turn, and McDonald's suddenly realises it is no > > longer viable > > to produce eggs from hens in these 'improved' conditions. Will they > > reduce > > the cage sizes, will they risk consumer revolt by increasing > > prices, or > > will they simply decide to make a little less profit that year? In the > > first 2 options either hens or humans suffer, whereas in the 3rd... > > > > I think we should remember that animal welfare is an absolute; Simply > > because the hens now have more space, this does not necessarily > > mean the > > animals are without suffering. Although McDonald's might be > > making less > > profit, this does not mean the proposed housing system for the hens is > > perfect. Whilst I applaud (perhaps mutedly!) any such steps > > taken toward > > improving welfare, we should not become complacent. > > > > Perhaps the most important issue to arise from this is the awareness > > raising, particularly of such issues as forced-moulting and > > beak-trimming, > > at which point I will get off the e-soap-box and get on with > > some work. > > > > > > > > Regards to all, > > > > Chris > > > > ---------------------- > > Dr. C.M. Sherwin > > Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > > Division of Animal Health and Husbandry > > University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 > > Langford House Fax: > > (0117) 928 9582 > > Langford > > Bristol E-mail: > > chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > BS40 5DU > > > > > > ------- End of forwarded message ------- > > "There's no art > > To find the mind's construction in the face" > > Shakespeare, Macbeth, 12 > > _______________________________________________ > > Steve Appleyard, > > Department of Behavioural Sciences, > > Division of Animal Biology, > > Scottish Agricultural College, > > Edinburgh. > > Scotland > > > > Tel. +44 131 535 3243 > > FAX: +44 131 535 3121 > > > > http://www.sac.ac.uk/ > > __________________________________________________ > > > ---------------------- Dr. C.M. Sherwin Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 Langford Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk BS40 5DU From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 1-SEP-2000 04:06:53.11 To: IN%"s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk" "Steve Appleyard" CC: IN%"Rexxie1@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: article from Feedstuffs re McDonalds Dear Steve, I suspect the situation might be even worse than you think. A recently published article indicated that to induce moulting, some companies withdraw food to achieve a target weight loss of 35% of initial body weight. (I don't know about you, but I would not like to be starved to lose 27 kg or 60 lbs!). In the study, achieving this weight loss required food withdrawl for a period of 21 days. Chris On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:27:22 +0100 Steve Appleyard wrote: > Date sent: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:05:10 -0400 (EDT) > From: Rexxie1@aol.com > Subject: article from Feedstuffs re McDonalds > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > > > * McDonald's has said food and water withdrawal for the purposes of > > induced moulting must be halted by the end of the first quarter of next > > year. > > > > Induced moulting is a common industry practice, with about 75-80% of hens > > moulted, to rejuvenate mature layers and stretch their productive lives, and > > birds do moult in nature to re-feather and strengthen their bones. > > The article sent in by Rexxie1 (??!) from the Feedstuffs Magazine was > really interesting. There were lots of points in there that are worthy of > comment but this exert in particular really got me fuming! > > Why do some people feel that because we have always done it that way > there can't anything wrong with it. Relating induced moulting to what > birds would do naturally is absolutely ridiculous. Birds don't starve > themselves of food and deprive themselves of water for 14 days in order > to moult their feathers! > > Best wishes, > Steve > > > "There's no art > To find the mind's construction in the face" > Shakespeare, Macbeth, 12 > _______________________________________________ > Steve Appleyard, > Department of Behavioural Sciences, > Division of Animal Biology, > Scottish Agricultural College, > Edinburgh. > Scotland > > Tel. +44 131 535 3243 > FAX: +44 131 535 3121 > > http://www.sac.ac.uk/ > __________________________________________________ > ---------------------- Dr. C.M. Sherwin Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 Langford Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk BS40 5DU From: IN%"supereeyore@hotmail.com" "Eddie Fernandez" 3-SEP-2000 17:26:24.13 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Big cat work. Hey all, ORCA, our animal training group here at the University of North Texas, has been given an opportunity to work with some REALLY big kitties...as in Bengal tigers, leopards, cougars, etc, etc. They all live in a big sanctuary out here in the middle of Texas. One of the problems we're looking at is their clawing behavior. As many of you know, most cats must dull their claws, and for up to 500+ lb. kitties, this can be a VERY destructive process. The sanctuary owners at present estimate they go through about $10,000 in plywood boards each year. The other problem with this is that the plywood they're scratching on happens to be their lounging platforms, shade setups, housing units, etc. What we're hoping to do is introduce some type of material/objects into their living units that they could scratch on instead, then train them through clicker training and targeting to use the big, psuedo-kitty posts and hopefully have the natural contingencies of using such posts kick in. Any ideas what type of material we might be able to use that would be at least somewhat natural for the cats to use, cheap and durable? Also, any comments or ideas on the training procedure would be greatly appreciated too. Thanks, Eddie F... UNT Sign up on the Animal Reinforcement Forum (ARF) listserv! http://www.scs.unt.edu/mailman/listinfo/arf ORCA webpage - http://tarantula.scs.unt.edu/Zope/orca _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From: IN%"matchdog@chello.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard" 3-SEP-2000 18:08:49.99 To: IN%"supereeyore@hotmail.com" "Eddie Fernandez", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Big cat work. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_2uAsOTKHYcjoS+KVNICSSQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hello Eddie, I have to admit I am a bit jealous! Would love such a challenge! About your question: for material to use, how about very thick rope, = made out of natural fiber, wound around poles or treetrunks? The kind of = rope they use to anchor big ships with? About how to get them to use their new kitty posts... isn't the scent of = the scratchmarks very incentive to them? Would there be a possibility to = transfer the scent from earlier scratchmarks to the new posts? Or do = they also have a fondness of certain herbs, like catnip? These cats are very inquisitive, wouldn't they just approach new items = in their surroundings by themselves? If not, clickertraining would be a = good idea, I suppose, and then you'll have to take it step by step. If = they are very hesitant the first step would be to click for looking at = the object, gradually changing over to clicking for approach, then for = sniffing and finally for touching and scratching. I wish you lots of fun, and hope you keep us posted! Bianca Bianca Uittenbogaard www.listen.to/click matchdog@chello.nl Success is a journey, not a destination Any ideas what type of material we might be able to use that would be = at=20 least somewhat natural for the cats to use, cheap and durable? Also, = any=20 comments or ideas on the training procedure would be greatly = appreciated=20 too. Thanks, Eddie F... UNT --Boundary_(ID_2uAsOTKHYcjoS+KVNICSSQ) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Eddie,
 
I have to admit I am a bit jealous! = Would love such=20 a challenge!
 
About your question: for material to = use, how about=20 very thick rope, made out of natural fiber, wound around poles or = treetrunks?=20 The kind of rope they use to anchor big ships with?
 
About how to get them to use their new = kitty=20 posts... isn't the scent of the scratchmarks very incentive to them? = Would there=20 be a possibility to transfer the scent from earlier scratchmarks to the = new=20 posts? Or do they also have a fondness of certain herbs, like=20 catnip?
 
These cats are very inquisitive, = wouldn't they just=20 approach new items in their surroundings by themselves? If not, = clickertraining=20 would be a good idea, I suppose, and then you'll have to take it step by = step.=20 If they are very hesitant the first step would be to click for looking = at the=20 object, gradually changing over to clicking for approach, then for = sniffing and=20 finally for touching and scratching.
 
I wish you lots of fun, and hope you = keep us=20 posted!
 
Bianca
 
Bianca Uittenbogaard
 
www.listen.to/click
matchdog@chello.nl
 
Success is a journey, not a=20 destination

Any ideas what type of material we = might be able=20 to use that would be at
least somewhat natural for the cats to = use, cheap=20 and durable?  Also, any
comments or ideas on the training = procedure=20 would be greatly appreciated
too.  Thanks,


Eddie=20 F...
   UNT
--Boundary_(ID_2uAsOTKHYcjoS+KVNICSSQ)-- From: IN%"aap28@hermes.cam.ac.uk" "Anabela Pinto" 4-SEP-2000 02:38:27.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Big cat work and cork Do you have cork in USA? Big chunks of cork trees outer layer spread around the fields or tied up around the other tree would protect the trees and serve the cats. It works with domestic and feral cats, but they prefer to scratch the inside of the cork layer rather than the outside . You can buy cork in Portugal. =Dr. Anabela de Assis Pinto= Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Medicine Cambridge University Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ES phone: +44 (0)1223-339 865 fax: +44 (0)1223-330 886 mobile:+44 (0)7775-843 179 in Portugal:+351-919 559 975 http://131.111.54.39/index.html From: IN%"morris@posta.unizar.es" "Morris Villarroel" 4-SEP-2000 03:26:45.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: business and farmers: improving animal welfare Dear All, I agree with Marie Haskell about considering how farmers benefit. In Spain the general impression that beef cattle farmers give me is that every month they have to pay more and comply with more things. Many have declined or complain about participating in studies we are carrying out, although regional and national beef meat associations do see a benefit from improving welfare.=20 The future most Spanish farmers see (while rushing to comply with many European directives) is what Marie says, more things to comply with and more costs without compensation. None of the farmers I know want their kids to have their jobs.=20 Morris ****************************** Morris Villarroel Current address: Departamento de Producci=F3n Animal y Ciencia de los Alimentos Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza Miguel Servet, 177 E-50013 Zaragoza, Spain Tel: 34 976 761000 (ext.4149) Fax: 976 761612 e-mail: morris@posta.unizar.es =20 From: IN%"research@scz.org" "Emily Weiss" 4-SEP-2000 08:29:36.08 To: IN%"supereeyore@hotmail.com" "Eddie Fernandez", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Big cat work. Here at the Sedgwick County Zoo we supply our big cats with the most natural scratching post around - tree trunks and heavy limbs. No training necessary for this behavior (Although we do train for other behaviors). We change out the limbs often which helps to increase the scratching behavior - as one purpose for the behavior is to leave scent. Emily Weiss, Ph.D. Curator of Behavior and Research Sedgwick County Zoo (316) 942-2212 ex. 257 ----- Original Message ----- From: Eddie Fernandez To: Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 6:26 PM Subject: Big cat work. > Hey all, > ORCA, our animal training group here at the University of North Texas, has > been given an opportunity to work with some REALLY big kitties...as in > Bengal tigers, leopards, cougars, etc, etc. They all live in a big > sanctuary out here in the middle of Texas. > > One of the problems we're looking at is their clawing behavior. As many > of you know, most cats must dull their claws, and for up to 500+ lb. > kitties, this can be a VERY destructive process. The sanctuary owners at > present estimate they go through about $10,000 in plywood boards each year. > The other problem with this is that the plywood they're scratching on > happens to be their lounging platforms, shade setups, housing units, etc. > > What we're hoping to do is introduce some type of material/objects into > their living units that they could scratch on instead, then train them > through clicker training and targeting to use the big, psuedo-kitty posts > and hopefully have the natural contingencies of using such posts kick in. > Any ideas what type of material we might be able to use that would be at > least somewhat natural for the cats to use, cheap and durable? Also, any > comments or ideas on the training procedure would be greatly appreciated > too. Thanks, > > > Eddie F... > UNT > > Sign up on the Animal Reinforcement Forum (ARF) listserv! > http://www.scs.unt.edu/mailman/listinfo/arf > > ORCA webpage - http://tarantula.scs.unt.edu/Zope/orca > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > > From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 4-SEP-2000 12:09:40.85 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "'Chris Sherwin'", IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." CC: IN%"s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk" "'Steve Appleyard'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: (Fwd) Re: Improving Animal Welfare via McDonald's Hi chris, hi everyone, I think i must have been having a stunning lack of eloquence last week. I blame flu, but it could just be ingrowing stupidity :-) Anyhow, I am in virtually complete agreement with Chris here... and don... and Joe (stookey)... as long as the change is being made i am happy. like chris i would be even happier if i knew that nothing but ethics was motivating this decision, but i'm still really happy about it. Chris is right to point out the role of cultural attitudes towards animal welfare, and i would not want to be misconstrued as thinking that the ONLY difference between the US and UK was in the interactions between industry, scientists and pressure groups. In fact, what i was trying to get at was the cultural importance of this move, and i agree with chris that the long term main-street-USA awarness-raising that will occur is one of the most important consequences of McDonald's move. The shot in the arm for the moralle of animal welfare campaigners and scientists in the US should also not be underestimated. I guess that was why i was so excited last week and managed to get a couple of toes in my mouth. Anyhow, thanks chris for pointing out my excesses (not the first time you've kept me in check as i recall)! oh, and as for the perches and dustbaths.... we're looking at a number of different angles to try and put together a "good buisness" argument. cheers Joe ___________________________ Dr. Joseph Garner University of California Department of Animal Science One Shields Avenue Davis CA 95616 USA Phone: (530) 754 5291 > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Sherwin [mailto:chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 2:11 AM > To: Garner, Joseph P. > Cc: 'Steve Appleyard'; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca; > 'chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk' > Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: Improving Animal Welfare via McDonald's > > > > > Dear All, > I think that, in general, when making improvements in animal > welfare, the ends justifies the means. So, I am not overly > concerned by > McDonalds coporate mightiness, and there potentially dubious > intent in these > changes. My concern is how sustainable it is to make purported animal > welfare improvements based on a company's decision which > obviously is centered > upon its shareholders' financial returns, rather than the > welfare of the > animals. I do not believe these two can always be put on the > same scale of > assessment. Another problem is that now that changes are > going to be made at > great expense and with much 'ruffling of feather' from the > farming community, > there will be considerable resistance to further changes to > husbandry in the > future. I suspect that most people working in poultry > behaviour and welfare > would think of these McDonald's improved cages as a step > forward, but, > certainly not ideal. How then do we argue with McDonalds > when we have > scientific evidence strongly indicating that cage sizes > should be increased > further, the birds given a dustbath, a nest, a perch etc. > > > As for Joe's comments below, I believe strongly that culture > has an all > pervasive influence on our perception of animal > welfare...this is immediately > evident even between adjacent countries within Europe. So, > I'm not sure > Transatlantic differences in welfare attitude are necessarily due to > differences in willingness of scientists and business to work > together (I'm > not suggesting this doesn't contribute). The North American > laws on farm > animal welfare are, as I understand it, considerably > different from those in > Europe. I suspect this has a major impact on the way many > people feel, > think and behave toward farm animals - in a way that is probably > subconscious (of course this would also be true for Europeans). > > > I really must take issue with one specific point Joe made. > > > These welfare > > standards have the potential to change the US meat and egg > industry, and > > public opinion, far more rapidly than the changes which we > saw in the UK in > > the last decade. > > The rapidity of change to the industry is not necessarily the > best indicator > of animal welfare. Although the great changes to the housing > of hens in > the EU (and sows in the UK) have taken a long time, these > changes will, in my > opinion, considerably improve the welfare of these birds. > Although McDonald's > might have woken up one morning and decided to increase the > size of their > cages, how long will they now be asleep for before they wake > up and decide to > give hens, perches, nestboxes, dustbaths, etc? Again, as I > finished my last > e-mail, maybe the awareness raising of this action really is the > long-term benefit. > > Regards, > > Chris > > > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:11:15 -0700 "Garner, Joseph P." > wrote: > > > I'm sure i have said this before, but the disparity between > the state of > > animal welfare in the US and UK, i belive is largely due to > the fact that in > > the UK scientists, lobbyist and industry have been prepared to work > > together: "good welfare is good buisness". > > > > > In the US the animal welfare movement is far more > antagonistic towards the > > meat industry (e.g. PETA) and so the meat industry sees no > profitability in > > improving welfare. without a mainstream supplier of high > welfare meat and > > eggs, there is little demonstartion that these products > sell, and so I am > > sure that few in the industry is prepared to belive there > is a market for > > it. > > > > What is so remarkeable, and so amazing, about the McDonalds welfare > > standards is that they have litterally jump-started this > whole process and > > forced the whole industry to move forward in a huge step, > and certainly this > > step is greater than McDonalds needed to make for PR > reasons. These welfare > > standards have the potential to change the US meat and egg > industry, and > > public opinion, far more rapidly than the changes which we > saw in the UK in > > the last decade. McDonalds are under a lot of pressure from > producers right > > now, and so we should be supporting what they have done. > Not least becuase > > overnight they demarginalised animal welfare issues in the > states. So what > > if they are getting ahead of the curve? I really do belive > that the only way > > of improving the welfare of farmed animals is to persaude > producers that > > good welfare is good business. > > > > just my ha'penny's worth > > > > cheers > > > > Joe > > > > ___________________________ > > > > Dr. Joseph Garner > > University of California > > Department of Animal Science > > One Shields Avenue > > Davis > > CA 95616 > > USA > > > > Phone: (530) 754 5291 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Steve Appleyard [mailto:s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 5:28 AM > > > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > > > Subject: (Fwd) Re: Improving Animal Welfare via McDonald's > > > > > > > > > Chris asked me to forward this, because he forgot to. > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > > > From: Chris Sherwin > > > Date sent: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 10:16:42 +0100 > > > To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca > > > Subject: Re: Improving Animal Welfare via McDonald's > > > Copies to: Steve Appleyard > > > Priority: NORMAL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Call me an old cynic if you like (with not too much emphasis > > > on the 'old' > > > please!), but I am not as convinced by others at the sincerity and > > > usefulness of improving animal welfare by McDonald's > corporate means. > > > I > > > can not speak for the committee that advised McDonald's on > > > this issue, > > > but > > > I doubt very much whether they would have recommended that hens > > > should be > > > provided with cages that prevent wing-stretching, perching and > > > dustbathing. > > > There has (understandably) been a compromise by McDonald's; their > > > final > > > decision on cage design has, it appears, been based largely upon > > > socio-economic issues, rather than animal welfare. As > such, I wonder > > > what > > > will happen if the economics of animal production or consumer > > > spending > > > take > > > a different turn, and McDonald's suddenly realises it is no > > > longer viable > > > to produce eggs from hens in these 'improved' conditions. > Will they > > > reduce > > > the cage sizes, will they risk consumer revolt by increasing > > > prices, or > > > will they simply decide to make a little less profit that > year? In the > > > first 2 options either hens or humans suffer, whereas in > the 3rd... > > > > > > I think we should remember that animal welfare is an > absolute; Simply > > > because the hens now have more space, this does not necessarily > > > mean the > > > animals are without suffering. Although McDonald's might be > > > making less > > > profit, this does not mean the proposed housing system > for the hens is > > > perfect. Whilst I applaud (perhaps mutedly!) any such steps > > > taken toward > > > improving welfare, we should not become complacent. > > > > > > Perhaps the most important issue to arise from this is > the awareness > > > raising, particularly of such issues as forced-moulting and > > > beak-trimming, > > > at which point I will get off the e-soap-box and get on with > > > some work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards to all, > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > Dr. C.M. Sherwin > > > Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > > > Division of Animal Health and Husbandry > > > University of Bristol Phone: > (0117) 928 9486 > > > Langford House Fax: > > > (0117) 928 9582 > > > Langford > > > Bristol E-mail: > > > chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > > BS40 5DU > > > > > > > > > ------- End of forwarded message ------- > > > "There's no art > > > To find the mind's construction in the face" > > > Shakespeare, Macbeth, 12 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Steve Appleyard, > > > Department of Behavioural Sciences, > > > Division of Animal Biology, > > > Scottish Agricultural College, > > > Edinburgh. > > > Scotland > > > > > > Tel. +44 131 535 3243 > > > FAX: +44 131 535 3121 > > > > > > http://www.sac.ac.uk/ > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > > > ---------------------- > Dr. C.M. Sherwin > Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Division of Animal Health and Husbandry > University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 > Langford House Fax: > (0117) 928 9582 > Langford > Bristol E-mail: > chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > BS40 5DU > > From: IN%"maslow@spin.net.au" "A. Eenink & K.M. Cornack" 4-SEP-2000 20:47:33.21 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ultrasonic collars and devices I am commenting on the use ultrasonic devices for the local RSPCA here. These products are new onto the market in Australia. Does anyone have any expereince with the use of these devices: either antibarking collars or containment systems or cat repellent devices? Do you endorse them? Do you feel they are cruel or harmful? Regards Kathy Cornack Veterinary ANimal Behaviourist From: IN%"keckert@larc.ucsf.edu" "Eckert, Katie" 4-SEP-2000 20:55:00.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: McDonald's Website All, It is interesting that to find the information on the new welfare standards on McDonald's website, one has to do a search for the topic "welfare." It's not obviously tied to any of their major links on the homepage, including the corporate press releases. If the decision to enforce stricter standards is motivated by, as many have postulated, a marketing ploy...why was it that it is the HSUS that released this information and not a press release from McDonalds directly into every newspaper in the country? Why aren't they more obvious about celebrating this achievement on the internet? The fact that they are featuring promotional toys from the Disney Tigger movie is obviously of far higher commercial value than the well being of the chickens that lay their eggs. Perhaps McDonalds deserves more credit than they are getting for actually being concerned about these subjects. Note that Temple Grandin is their chief welfare consultant, and that McDonald's has been affiliated with the Environmental Defense Fund for over 10 years. Cheers, Katie ps. I suppose the obvious answer is that not very many people really care, but the information is there for those that do. ************************************************* Katherine Eckert Environmental Enrichment Technician UCSF Laboratory Animal Resource Center 513 Parnassus Ave Box 0564 San Francisco, CA 94143-0564 Email: KEckert@larc.ucsf.edu Fax: (415) 502-6107 From: IN%"supereeyore@hotmail.com" "Eddie Fernandez" 4-SEP-2000 23:08:13.94 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Big kitty training... Hey all, I wanted to thank everyone for the great ideas and insight into what I can try and what has been done in working with these big kitties and changing their clawing behavior! I'll attempt to go through what i've got and thank everyone along the way, but if i miss you, please know that your help is greatly appreciated regardless! Also, if you e-mailed me privately, I (hopefully!) did not thank you openly, since I don't want to do so without your permission to openly state your ideas, (but my regards all the same). Thanks! Bob Bailey, Debi Davis, and Claire Duder gave ideas for the use of large ropes to wrap around trees, such as sisal or marine hawser. I think this is wonderful, because it should last for at least a short duration, deter some of the scratching occurring in other places either by itself or with a small amount of training, and be relatively cheap. Also, as Robin McHale Ehn, Aaron Felker, and Marni Fowler remarked, wooden stakes, telephone polls, tree trunks, or other wooden objects could be nailed and angled out of the ground, and then either left alone or have rope wrapped around it. I also think this would be a good idea. One aspect, however, that I failed to mention is that many of the enclosures already contain either trees or the stumps of trees. However, in some enclosures, tornadoes have taken out the trees. In those enclosures where they have been taken out, these devices may work. In the enclosures with the trees existing already, we might be able to try the rope around those trees. Emily Weiss and Anne Copeland mentioned possibly using dead trees or heavy limbs left in their enclosures. Another thing I failed to mention is that smaller limbs that were torn down from tornados have been included, but the cats do not claw them. Also, it did not appear that the cats clawed the trees themselves much. Perhaps we could use their existing limbs and train some clawing to them. Or, since many of the limbs are not very large, maybe larger wooden structures that were laid about, such as the tree trunks that Emily Weiss suggested, would work. Both Bianca Uittenbogaard and Bob Bailey talked about possibly using catnip on the boards to encourage scratching. Bob Bailey even mentioned a neat little study that could easily be done involving poles/trees with catnip vs. ones without. I think this would be good, and could readily decrease the amount of training necessary, if even needed, to get the cats to use their new scratching posts. I've also received some comments on using different materials, such as tin, to rap around the plywood boards that exist, or using material other than the plywood for their rises and housing units. I like this idea, but I do want to be a bit careful...I don't want to change too much if it's not necessary, and if the scratching post ideas work alone, then all the better. I also got a lot of great ideas for using various materials for wrapping, such as Catherine Crawmer's idea for using deck matting or Anabela Pinto's idea for using cork. Also, there are some ideas for changing the platforms to make them more durable, such as Debbie Burkey's idea of using manzanita, or Deborah Weeks idea of using granite. I'm going to have to cost compare all of the above items, and maybe even run some mini-experiments, along with researching if any of the above materials have been tried out or used in different zoos. I'll keep everyone updated. Finally, both Jennifer Shields and Helen Zulch brought up two issues that are very crucial to both training and the tiger's enrichment: play toys that can be scratched and ways of delivering treats to the tigers. I really like the idea of the giant "sewer pigs" as heavy balls to play with. These cats destroy almost any toy they get, and so far, the only thing that appears to have lasted for any substantial amount of time in their cages are bowling balls! With that in mind, what I use to get near their lovely little jaws is quite helpful, and I thank both of you for thinking of us ORCAns safety with how to deliver their food. :) Once again, thanks to everyone for their comments. It looks like we'll be shooting for a small group of bengal tigers initially, and only one enclosure. I'll be proposing these ideas to the rest of the ORCA group on Friday, and then to the sanctuary later that day. I'll keep everyone updated, and yes, I'll try to include a picture, (as long as it doesn't involve the cats enjoying their first Cuban meal that is!) :) Eddie F... UNT ORCA webpage - http://tarantula.scs.unt.edu/Zope/orca Sign up on the Animal Reinforcement Forum (ARF) listserv! http://www.scs.unt.edu/mailman/listinfo/arf _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" 5-SEP-2000 00:56:31.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: ultrasonic collars and devices Dear Kathy, We have the ultrasonic devices you are talking about on german market. To my opinion and as i heard from Users they simply do not work. Antibarking lasts since the dog is adapted, that there will be some ultrasonic signal after it barks. cat repellent device will work since the cats had learned that this wont harm them. We have some ultrasonic devices to rpell martins (wild living ferrets) either which have been shown to work above 400 Watt speaker energy. But they work only on very limited space (e. g. cars). I dont know if there are studies on sideeffects on wildlife but its likely that ultrasonic sounds influence almost initially also birds, mice and other wildlife. Best regards Andreas Briese ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Institut fuer Tierhygiene und Tierschutz Tieraerztliche Hochschule Hannover Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Buenteweg 17p 30559 Hannover Tel.: (0511) 953-8836 (0511) 120 2102 Fax.: (0511) 953-8588 (0511) 120 99 2102 e-mail: Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de alternativ (grosse Attachments): Andreas_Briese@animcare-sci.de ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"bjorn.forkman@zoologi.su.se" "Bjorn Forkman" 5-SEP-2000 01:14:08.85 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "Dangerous dogs" Dear all, Until fairly recently we haven't had many problems with "Dangerous dogs" (inverted commas because in my opinion in many cases it is the owner, not the dog, that is dangerous). Things are starting to change however, a number of incidents with so called fighting dogs (e.g. Pitbulls etc.) has alarmed the public (and the politicians). One of suggestion has been to make a test to be able to test for "Dangerous dogs", as opposed to legislating against certain races. Does anyone know of such a test? Are there any other countries trying to use tests instead of prohibiting certain races? I would be grateful for any information. Best regards, Björn ************************************************ Björn Forkman, PhD Dept of Zoology University of Stockholm 106 91 Stockholm Sweden phone: +46 (0)8 164048 fax:+46 (0)8 167715 From: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl" "Erik Hendriksen" 5-SEP-2000 02:39:57.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "dangerous" dogs Dear Bj=F6rn, In the Netherlands a test has been developed to determine to wichs level a= =20 dog shows Dear Bj=F6rn, In the Netherlands a test has been developed to determine to witch level a= =20 dog shows aggression. The reason for develop ping this test is to exclude=20 aggressive individuals from breeding. The authors (Willem J. Netto and=20 Doreen J.U. Planta) published this work in: Applied Animal Behaviour=20 Science 52 (1997) 243-263. The test is very comprehensive and may also be useful for your purpose. Regards, Erik Hendriksen H. Hendriksen Institute for Neurobiology University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320 1098 SM Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5257622 fax: +31-20-5257709 From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 5-SEP-2000 02:52:28.96 To: IN%"maslow@spin.net.au" "A. Eenink & K.M. Cornack" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: ultrasonic collars and devices Dear Kathy, Over 10 years ago I was involved in a project in Australia looking at the feasibility of using ultra-sound 'beams' as fences for cattle and sheep. The prototype we constructed had an obvious effect (the animals could hear it and would attend to the direction of the sound), but it did not stop them walking through the 'fence'. I doubt very much that any form of sound will have a long-term deterrent effect on animals because they so readily habituate (for example, think of the thousands of mice that live in the underground railway systems, birds that regularly flock in close proximity to airports, our own ability to sleep near railway lines oblivious to the 05:30 from London to Edinburgh). If sound is to be used as a deterrent, replication of predator calls might be most effective, although this has been tried for many species such as fruit-bats, possums, raptors etc, with highly variable effectiveness. In short, I don't think ultra-sound is likely to be very useful in containing/deterring animals, although it did provide an hilarious sight when garage door remote controls used to be ultrasound and all the dogs in the street would go nuts when just one person opened their garage! Regards, Chris On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:46:58 +1000 "A. Eenink & K.M. Cornack" wrote: > I am commenting on the use ultrasonic devices for the local RSPCA here. > These products are new onto the market in Australia. > Does anyone have any expereince with the use of these devices: either > antibarking collars or containment systems or cat repellent devices? > Do you endorse them? Do you feel they are cruel or harmful? > Regards > Kathy Cornack > Veterinary ANimal Behaviourist > > ---------------------- Dr. C.M. Sherwin Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 Langford Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk BS40 5DU From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 5-SEP-2000 03:01:49.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "Dangerous dogs" I haven't been following this drama recently, but the address for a discussion list on it is: http://www.egroups.com/list/dogholocaust I know there have been "tests" invented in Germany which attempt to see if a puppy of the accused breed is dangerous by setting aggressive dogs on it or beating it with sticks, to provoke a defense reaction. You can read the archive of the above list for more details. Of course it is my belief also that responsible dog owners can safely own any breed, while cruel and irresponsable ones can make any dog dangerous. -L.M.M. >Dear all, > >Until fairly recently we haven't had many problems with "Dangerous dogs" >(inverted commas because in my opinion in many cases it is the owner, not >the dog, that is dangerous). Things are starting to change however, a numbe= r >of incidents with so called fighting dogs (e.g. Pitbulls etc.) has alarmed >the public (and the politicians). > >One of suggestion has been to make a test to be able to test for "Dangerous >dogs", as opposed to legislating against certain races. Does anyone know of >such a test? Are there any other countries trying to use tests instead of >prohibiting certain races? > >I would be grateful for any information. > > >Best regards, > >Bj=F6rn > > >************************************************ >Bj=F6rn Forkman, PhD > >Dept of Zoology >University of Stockholm >106 91 Stockholm >Sweden > >phone: +46 (0)8 164048 >fax:+46 (0)8 167715 From: IN%"lauraquinlivan@hotmail.com" "Laura Quinlivan" 5-SEP-2000 07:12:11.57 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Big cat work and cork Cork sounds as though it might be dangerous if swallowed. Is this the sanctuary in Boyd that you're speaking of? These people have done alot of good for big cats that have been abandoned and mistreated. I'm a bit jealous myself, I resently moved away from the area and can no longer visit them. Good luck with the project- Laura >From: Anabela Pinto >To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >Subject: Re: Big cat work and cork >Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:43:08 +0100 > >Do you have cork in USA? > >Big chunks of cork trees outer layer spread around the fields or tied up >around the other tree would protect the trees and serve the cats. > >It works with domestic and feral cats, but they prefer to scratch the >inside of the cork layer rather than the outside . > >You can buy cork in Portugal. >=Dr. Anabela de Assis Pinto= >Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group >Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Medicine >Cambridge University >Madingley Road >Cambridge CB3 0ES >phone: +44 (0)1223-339 865 >fax: +44 (0)1223-330 886 >mobile:+44 (0)7775-843 179 >in Portugal:+351-919 559 975 >http://131.111.54.39/index.html _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From: IN%"JNM@dmu.ac.uk" "Jeremy Marchant" 5-SEP-2000 07:59:06.37 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Rabbits and farrowing gilts Dear All, Somewhere in my memory I have an image of an article in a pig industry magazine about farmers, I think in the Netherlands, putting rabbits in with gilts before farrowing in order to get them used to having small things moving around and prevent savaging. Has anyone out there got any information on this that I could get a copy of? Many thanks, Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Jeremy Marchant, Senior Research Fellow, School of Agriculture, De Montfort University, Caythorpe, Grantham, Lincs., NG32 3 EP, UK. +44 1400 275682 jnm@dmu.ac.uk http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/Agriculture/staffcvs/Dr.JeremyN.Marchant.htm http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/Agriculture/pigs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 5-SEP-2000 08:13:08.24 To: IN%"JNM@dmu.ac.uk" "Jeremy Marchant" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Rabbits and farrowing gilts Dear Jeremy, I think this subject was discussed sometime ago on this bulletin board. I have a vague recollection I sent a reference from an article published in Pig International. You could try the archives of this e-mail bulletin board, or stsrt thumbing through Pig International. Hope this helps. Regards, Chris On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:57:26 +0100 Jeremy Marchant wrote: > Dear All, > > Somewhere in my memory I have an image of an article in a pig industry > magazine about farmers, I think in the Netherlands, putting rabbits in with > gilts before farrowing in order to get them used to having small things > moving around and prevent savaging. Has anyone out there got any information > on this that I could get a copy of? > > Many thanks, > > Jeremy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dr. Jeremy Marchant, > Senior Research Fellow, > School of Agriculture, > De Montfort University, > Caythorpe, > Grantham, > Lincs., NG32 3 EP, UK. > +44 1400 275682 > jnm@dmu.ac.uk > http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/Agriculture/staffcvs/Dr.JeremyN.Marchant.htm > http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/Agriculture/pigs > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > ---------------------- Dr. C.M. Sherwin Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 Langford Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk BS40 5DU From: IN%"JNM@dmu.ac.uk" "Jeremy Marchant" 5-SEP-2000 08:40:53.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Rabbits and farrowing gilts Thanks Chris and Julie, I found the previous discussion in the archives (11-13th Feb 98) and, yes Chris, you did post the reference! For those interested, it was : Pig International, November 1997, vol 27, No. 11, page 22. Thanks again, Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Jeremy Marchant, Senior Research Fellow, School of Agriculture, De Montfort University, Caythorpe, Grantham, Lincs., NG32 3 EP, UK. +44 1400 275682 jnm@dmu.ac.uk http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/Agriculture/staffcvs/Dr.JeremyN.Marchant.htm http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/Agriculture/pigs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ From: IN%"lcpmf@cca.ufsc.br" 5-SEP-2000 13:44:53.71 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Improving HUMAN Welfare via McDonald's ? Dear all: It is really good that McDonalds is taking steps to improve animal welfare. I really hope that now they will take steps to improve HUMAN WELFARE of their worker. A McDonalds employee earns around US$ 130,00 (one hundred and thirty US dollars) A MONTH to work 40 hours per week in Brazil. Cost of living here is similar to US. Down here, I am not applauding them. Best wishes, Carlos. Luiz Carlos Pinheiro Machado Filho, Ph.D LETA - Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada Depto. de Zootecnia e Des. Rural - CCA Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Rodovia Admar Gonzaga, 1346, Itacorubi. Florianópolis, SC, BRASIL. 88.034-001 FAX: (+5548) 331-5350 Phone: (+55 48) 331-5349 / 331-5353 E-mail: LCPMF@cca.ufsc.br Please visit the home page: 34th Congress of International Society for Applied Ethology, 17 - 20 October 2000. Florianópolis, BRAZIL. http://www.cca.ufsc.br/isae2000/ From: IN%"Heleen_Vandeweerd@adas.co.uk" "Heleen Van De Weerd" 6-SEP-2000 01:53:40.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs To Bjorn and others interested, :o) :o) :o) :o) :o) :o) :o) Dr. H.A. van de Weerd ADAS Terrington Terrington St. Clement Kings Lynn Norfolk PE34 4PW, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1553 828621 Fax: +44 (0) 1553 827229 email: Heleen_vandeweerd@adas.co.uk :o) :o) :o) :o) :o) :o) :o) >>> Erik Hendriksen 09/05/00 10:38am >>> >>>In the Netherlands a test has been developed to determine to witch level= a dog shows aggression. The reason for develop ping this test is to exclud= e aggressive individuals from breeding. The authors (Willem J. Netto and Do= reen J.U. Planta) published this work in: Applied Animal Behaviour=20 Science 52 (1997) 243-263.<<<< This research and was performed by the Animal Welfare Centre, Utrecht Univ= ersity). Contact address on their website: www.icwd.nl Regards, Heleen=20 H. Hendriksen Institute for Neurobiology University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320 1098 SM Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5257622 fax: +31-20-5257709 This message has been checked for known viruses. ADAS Postmaster Postmaster@adas.co.uk For more information on ADAS, visit our website at http://www.adas.co.uk. The information transmitted is intended only for the addressee and=20 may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by parties other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Opinions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of ADAS are neither given nor endorsed by it. From: IN%"Paul.Koene@Etho.VH.WAU.NL" 6-SEP-2000 08:46:54.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Permanent position Dear Jan, I sent an application for the position of which you sent information over the network. However, I did not get any response. I am a bit worried that my mail did not arrive in Copenhagen. Did it arrive? Thanks, Paul Paul Koene, PhD Ass. Professor Ethology Animal Husbandry Group Department of Animal Sciences Wageningen University P.O. Box 338 / 6700 AH Wageningen Building 531 / Marijkeweg 40/ 6709 PG Wageningen The Netherlands Telephone +31 (0)317 482896 / 483120 Telefax +31 (0)317 485006 Mobile +31 (0)6 22572162 E-mail: Paul.Koene@etho.vh.wau.nl E-mail: Paul.Koene@etho.vh.wag-ur.nl Internet: www.zod.wageningen-ur.nl/etho - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A permanent (tenured) position at the associate professor level is available at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University at Copenhagen, Denmark. For details check the attached file, our home page http://www.kvl.dk/news/jobs/research/internat/sf31oplektoreng.htm or me Best regards Jan Ladewig - - - - - - - - - - - - End of Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 6-SEP-2000 13:38:48.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs --Boundary_(ID_ciAVRsQJNIaQAh7TwKmwdw) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable =46rom another list, translated by A. Andrews, Eclectic Translations Below is the translation of a letter from a family in Wiesbaden whose dog Baxter, an 8 year old Pit, was confiscated and apparently killed by the authorities. The documents describing the events can be found at http://www.maulkorbzwang.de Our dog Baxter 1. We bought Baxter 8 years ago when he was 6 weeks old. 2. He was neutered when he was 10 months old. 3. In 1999 we had him microchipped. 4. Three weeks ago he received his annual vaccination boosters. 5. We've carried dog liability insurance for the past 5 years through Hamburg-Mannheimer insurance company. 6. He's been licensed from the beginning. 7. He was in daily contact with children, friends of our children. 8. He was accepted by the [condo]Association and loved by the neighbours. 9. He grew up with our three children (ages 10, 14, 17). 10. He was sweet, faithful, and loving and even cleaned our gerbil's rear. On 7/18/00 we sent registered letters with our request and justification for being allowed to keep Baxter to the local and regional authorities.... On 7/31/00 we had a visit at our home (with 10 minutes notice) from the authorities to notify us that Baxter would have to be temperament tested the following Wednesday, Friday at the latest. (Why the rush???) He petted Baxter and commented that he saw no problems with Baxter since he is such a really nice dog. Our appointment was set for Friday, 8/4/00 at 8:45 a.m. in Rambach. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS DURING BAXTER'S TEMPERAMENT TEST, FRIDAY, 8/4/2000 (Written witness statements are attached!!!) We arrived promptly at 8:45 a.m. at the testing location. Mr. Beyer (from the authorities) and the examiner approached us and told us that, if the dog doesn't pass, they would immediately take him away. We had no concerns because we knew that Baxter was very trusting with people. That he doesn't like other dogs we'll tell you about shortly. The examiner and I got Baxter from the car and he was immediately confronted by another dog. A friend and I had to remove his muzzle and walk toward a police car in which there were three very excited and aggressive German Shepherds in crates. They were barking at Baxter. I was told to pull Baxter up against the crates which caused all dogs to bark furiously. Then I was told to stand with Baxter by the street. Baxter was still very confused. The examiner told me to stand still so he could slap Baxter (without the muzzle on) in the face with his ring binder and also once or twice on the head. Using his legs he pushed Baxter back and forth but none of that bothered our Baxter. Nor was our dog disturbed in the least by a jogger, bicycle rider, or pedestrians. Well, after 7-10 minutes the test was over, I had to put the muzzle back on him, and we walked over to where Herr Beyer stood. The examiner and Herr Beyer had a short consultation and then came the devastating decision by the examiner: "Your dog shows an extraordinarily EXAMPLARY conduct toward people, there is no doubt about it. BUT! - he displayed notably aggressive behaviour toward other dogs. Hence, we have to classify him as dangerous." It should be expected that Baxter might get out of the house and attack other animals (this has never happened once in eight years!) and that would be irresponsible. Our Baxter was confiscated immediately and we had to tie him to a fence. Herr Beyer and the examiner explained to us that we had no chance of getting Baxter back and that he would be euthanized that afternoon. Herr Beyer suggested we should drive to the courthouse and request a cease-and-desist action because Baxter's time was short. They still wouldn't have returned Baxter to us. It would have meant that Baxter (who never in his life had been alone, confined, or vicious) would have been forced to be without his family. Confined for many weeks! That, too, would have been a death sentence for him ... We were literally declared incapable and were sent away without hope, left alone with Baxter's sorrow and our pain. We still hear Baxter's crying and barking, Baxter - who no longer understood what was happening, as we walked away from him tied to the fence. A family member was torn from us. Time passes but the pain remains. Our son Marvin, age 10, tries to deal with his grief on his own. He takes Baxter's leash to bed at night. My daughter Selina (14) takes Baxter's blanket to bed with her and our daughter Nadine (17) goes to sleep with Baxter's collar clutched tightly in her hand. Our children are trying to be strong by we know and sense that they suffer deeply from this great loss which was brought to us, and we hope for "JUSTICE". Baxter had never before been at any other test and he only ever barked at other dogs. [End of letter] Cathy Daugaard madchen@adelphia.net Kaos von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchI, PT, CDX, TDI H=E4lle von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchII, CD (titles to be continued) Mitch von Eiserfeld, SchI (titles to be continued) Katja von Essenbach (titles under construction) --Boundary_(ID_ciAVRsQJNIaQAh7TwKmwdw) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: "dangerous" dogs
From another list, translated by A. Andrews, Eclectic Translations
Below is the translation of a letter from a family in Wiesbaden whose dog
Baxter, an 8 year old Pit, was confiscated and apparently killed by the
authorities. The documents describing the events can be found at
http://www.maulkorbzwang.de


Our dog Baxter
1. We bought Baxter 8 years ago when he was 6 weeks old.
2. He was neutered when he was 10 months old.
3. In 1999 we had him microchipped.
4. Three weeks ago he received his annual vaccination boosters.
5. We've carried dog liability insurance for the past 5 years through
Hamburg-Mannheimer insurance company.
6. He's been licensed from the beginning.
7. He was in daily contact with children, friends of our children.
8. He was accepted by the [condo]Association and loved by the neighbours.
9. He grew up with our three children (ages 10, 14, 17).
10. He was sweet, faithful, and loving and even cleaned our gerbil's rear.
On 7/18/00 we sent registered letters with our request and justification
for being allowed to keep Baxter to the local and regional authorities....
On 7/31/00 we had a visit at our home (with 10 minutes notice) from the
authorities to notify us that Baxter would have to be temperament tested
the following Wednesday, Friday at the latest. (Why the rush???)
He petted Baxter and commented that he saw no problems with Baxter since he
is such a really nice dog. Our appointment was set for Friday, 8/4/00 at
8:45 a.m. in Rambach.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS DURING BAXTER'S TEMPERAMENT TEST, FRIDAY, 8/4/2000
(Written witness statements are attached!!!)
We arrived promptly at 8:45 a.m. at the testing location. Mr. Beyer (from
the authorities) and the examiner approached us and told us that, if the
dog doesn't pass, they would immediately take him away. We had no concerns
because we knew that Baxter was very trusting with people. That he doesn't
like other dogs we'll tell you about shortly.
The examiner and I got Baxter from the car and he was immediately
confronted by another dog. A friend and I had to remove his muzzle and walk
toward a police car in which there were three very excited and aggressive
German Shepherds in crates. They were barking at Baxter. I was told to pull
Baxter up against the crates which caused all dogs to bark furiously.
Then I was told to stand with Baxter by the street. Baxter was still very
confused.
The examiner told me to stand still so he could slap Baxter (without the
muzzle on) in the face with his ring binder and also once or twice on the
head. Using his legs he pushed Baxter back and forth but none of that
bothered our Baxter. Nor was our dog disturbed in the least by a jogger,
bicycle rider, or pedestrians.
Well, after 7-10 minutes the test was over, I had to put the muzzle back
on him, and we walked over to where Herr Beyer stood. The examiner and Herr
Beyer had a short consultation and then came the devastating decision by
the examiner:
"Your dog shows an extraordinarily EXAMPLARY conduct toward people, there
is no doubt about it. BUT! - he displayed notably aggressive behaviour
toward other dogs. Hence, we have to classify him as dangerous."
It should be expected that Baxter might get out of the house and attack
other animals (this has never happened once in eight years!) and that would
be irresponsible. Our Baxter was confiscated immediately and we had to tie
him to a fence. Herr Beyer and the examiner explained to us that we had no
chance of getting Baxter back and that he would be euthanized that
afternoon.
Herr Beyer suggested we should drive to the courthouse and request a
cease-and-desist action because Baxter's time was short. They still
wouldn't have returned Baxter to us. It would have meant that Baxter (who
never in his life had been alone, confined, or vicious) would have been
forced to be without his family. Confined for many weeks! That, too, would
have been a death sentence for him ...
We were literally declared incapable and were sent away without hope, left
alone with Baxter's sorrow and our pain. We still hear Baxter's crying and
barking, Baxter - who no longer understood what was happening, as we walked
away from him tied to the fence.
A family member was torn from us.
Time passes but the pain remains.
Our son Marvin, age 10, tries to deal with his grief on his own. He takes
Baxter's leash to bed at night.
My daughter Selina (14) takes Baxter's blanket to bed with her and our
daughter Nadine (17) goes to sleep with Baxter's collar clutched tightly in
her hand.
Our children are trying to be strong by we know and sense that they suffer
deeply from this great loss which was brought to us, and we hope for
"JUSTICE".
Baxter had never before been at any other test and he only ever barked at
other dogs.
[End of letter]

Cathy Daugaard
madchen@adelphia.net
Kaos von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchI, PT, CDX, TDI
H=E4lle von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchII, CD (titles to be continued)
Mitch von Eiserfeld, SchI (titles to be continued)
Katja von Essenbach (titles under construction)
--Boundary_(ID_ciAVRsQJNIaQAh7TwKmwdw)-- From: IN%"orion1432@juno.com" "D. B. Cameron" 6-SEP-2000 17:02:25.32 To: IN%"supereeyore@hotmail.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Big cat work. Eddie, I am building a house with a deck, and among the items that are available as decking material is a wood product called "Iron wood". It is very dense, strong, and weather resistant. To install it, all nail or screw holes must be pre-drilled. It costs about $2.00 per lineal foot for a 5 inch board, but that would seem cheap if it is tiger resistant. If you use it, please let me know of the results. DBC On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:26:08 -0500 (CDT) Eddie Fernandez writes: > Hey all, > ORCA, our animal training group here at the University of North > Texas, has > been given an opportunity to work with some REALLY big kitties...as > in > Bengal tigers, leopards, cougars, etc, etc. They all live in a big > sanctuary out here in the middle of Texas. > > One of the problems we're looking at is their clawing behavior. > As many > of you know, most cats must dull their claws, and for up to 500+ lb. > > kitties, this can be a VERY destructive process. The sanctuary > owners at > present estimate they go through about $10,000 in plywood boards > each year. > The other problem with this is that the plywood they're scratching > on > happens to be their lounging platforms, shade setups, housing units, > etc. > > What we're hoping to do is introduce some type of material/objects > into > their living units that they could scratch on instead, then train > them > through clicker training and targeting to use the big, psuedo-kitty > posts > and hopefully have the natural contingencies of using such posts > kick in. > Any ideas what type of material we might be able to use that would > be at > least somewhat natural for the cats to use, cheap and durable? > Also, any > comments or ideas on the training procedure would be greatly > appreciated > too. Thanks, > > > Eddie F... > UNT > > Sign up on the Animal Reinforcement Forum (ARF) listserv! > http://www.scs.unt.edu/mailman/listinfo/arf > > ORCA webpage - http://tarantula.scs.unt.edu/Zope/orca > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > ^ ^ D. B. Cameron, DVM Animal Behavior Clinic < \ / > ! ! "Always remember YOU are unique . . . . . .. just like everyone else." Anonymous From: IN%"Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be" "Marc Vandenheede" 7-SEP-2000 04:56:49.21 To: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs Dear all, We are in Belgium busy to think seriously about "what to do with so-called agressive dogs". I would like to know if somebody can confirm this story and/or maybe give me some informations about the mentioned "tests" and laws. Thank you. Marc A 14:29 6/09/2000 -0600, sheltie1@ix.netcom.com a =E9crit :=20 >>>> From another list, translated by A. Andrews, Eclectic Translations Below is the translation of a letter from a family in Wiesbaden whose dog Baxter, an 8 year old Pit, was confiscated and apparently killed by the authorities. The documents describing the events can be found at 0000,0000,ffffhttp://www.maulkorbzwang.de Our dog Baxter 1. We bought Baxter 8 years ago when he was 6 weeks old. 2. He was neutered when he was 10 months old. 3. In 1999 we had him microchipped. 4. Three weeks ago he received his annual vaccination boosters. 5. We've carried dog liability insurance for the past 5 years through Hamburg-Mannheimer insurance company. 6. He's been licensed from the beginning. 7. He was in daily contact with children, friends of our children. 8. He was accepted by the [condo]Association and loved by the neighbours. 9. He grew up with our three children (ages 10, 14, 17). 10. He was sweet, faithful, and loving and even cleaned our gerbil's rear. On 7/18/00 we sent registered letters with our request and=20 justification for being allowed to keep Baxter to the local and regional authorities.... On 7/31/00 we had a visit at our home (with 10 minutes notice) from the authorities to notify us that Baxter would have to be temperament=20 tested the following Wednesday, Friday at the latest. (Why the rush???) He petted Baxter and commented that he saw no problems with Baxter since he is such a really nice dog. Our appointment was set for Friday, 8/4/00=20 at 8:45 a.m. in Rambach. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS DURING BAXTER'S TEMPERAMENT TEST, FRIDAY, 8/4/2000 (Written witness statements are attached!!!) We arrived promptly at 8:45 a.m. at the testing location. Mr. Beyer (from the authorities) and the examiner approached us and told us that, if=20 the dog doesn't pass, they would immediately take him away. We had no concerns because we knew that Baxter was very trusting with people. That he doesn't like other dogs we'll tell you about shortly. The examiner and I got Baxter from the car and he was immediately confronted by another dog. A friend and I had to remove his muzzle and walk toward a police car in which there were three very excited and aggressive German Shepherds in crates. They were barking at Baxter. I was told to pull Baxter up against the crates which caused all dogs to bark furiously. Then I was told to stand with Baxter by the street. Baxter was still very confused. The examiner told me to stand still so he could slap Baxter (without=20 the muzzle on) in the face with his ring binder and also once or twice on the head. Using his legs he pushed Baxter back and forth but none of that bothered our Baxter. Nor was our dog disturbed in the least by a=20 jogger, bicycle rider, or pedestrians. Well, after 7-10 minutes the test was over, I had to put the muzzle=20 back on him, and we walked over to where Herr Beyer stood. The examiner and Herr Beyer had a short consultation and then came the devastating decision=20 by the examiner: "Your dog shows an extraordinarily EXAMPLARY conduct toward people, there is no doubt about it. BUT! - he displayed notably aggressive behaviour toward other dogs. Hence, we have to classify him as dangerous." It should be expected that Baxter might get out of the house and attack other animals (this has never happened once in eight years!) and that would be irresponsible. Our Baxter was confiscated immediately and we had to tie him to a fence. Herr Beyer and the examiner explained to us that we had no chance of getting Baxter back and that he would be euthanized that afternoon. Herr Beyer suggested we should drive to the courthouse and request a cease-and-desist action because Baxter's time was short. They still wouldn't have returned Baxter to us. It would have meant that Baxter (who never in his life had been alone, confined, or vicious) would have been forced to be without his family. Confined for many weeks! That, too, would have been a death sentence for him ... We were literally declared incapable and were sent away without hope, left alone with Baxter's sorrow and our pain. We still hear Baxter's crying and barking, Baxter - who no longer understood what was happening, as we walked away from him tied to the fence. A family member was torn from us. Time passes but the pain remains. Our son Marvin, age 10, tries to deal with his grief on his own. He takes Baxter's leash to bed at night. My daughter Selina (14) takes Baxter's blanket to bed with her and our daughter Nadine (17) goes to sleep with Baxter's collar clutched tightly in her hand. Our children are trying to be strong by we know and sense that they suffer deeply from this great loss which was brought to us, and we hope for "JUSTICE". Baxter had never before been at any other test and he only ever barked at other dogs. [End of letter] Cathy Daugaard madchen@adelphia.net Kaos von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchI, PT, CDX, TDI H=E4lle von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchII, CD (titles to be continued) Mitch von Eiserfeld, SchI (titles to be continued) Katja von Essenbach (titles under construction) <<<<<<<<
ffff,0000,0000Marc Vandenheede Universit=E9 de Li=E8ge Facult=E9 de M=E9decine V=E9t=E9rinaire Service d'Hygi=E8ne et Bioclimatologie (Ethologie appliqu=E9e aux animaux domestiques) Bd de Colonster, B=E2t. B43 4000 Li=E8ge Belgium t=E9l.: 32/(0)4/366.41.48 fax.: 32/(0)4/366.41.22 0000,0000,ffffemail: Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be
From: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl" "Erik Hendriksen" 7-SEP-2000 07:37:18.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "dangerous" dogs Dear all, sheltie1@ix.netcom.com wrote: >Below is the translation of a letter from a family in Wiesbaden whose dog >Baxter, an 8 year old Pit, was confiscated and apparently killed by the >authorities. This is a disturbing story and I 've heard (newspaper knowledge) of some=20 comparable cases in the Netherlands. However, we must keep in mind that not= =20 the test itself is to blame for this situation but the interpretation and=20 criteria for labeling a dog as dangerous are the issues that have to be=20 taken into account here. Tests like this are in my opinion suitable for=20 excluding dogs from breeding. Life and dead judgments upon the results of=20 this test is jet another issue. So if the test is sound, the regulations=20 about interpretation of the outcome of the test and the level of aggression= =20 that is tolerated by "society" are the real topics in this matter.This kind= =20 of tests can be an aid for breeding less aggressive dogs and with that.=20 Making things more safe and preventing dog bites. The problem with the=20 implementation of tests in the way as described in the example is that it=20 takes away the rights as well as the responsibility from dog owners and it= =20 judges before real harm is done. Now don't misunderstand me, one should not= =20 wait for bite incidents to happen. But less drastic options than killing=20 the dog are possible to prevent dogbites (careful breeding programs, proper= =20 training, responsible dog ownership (forced by law if necessary), let=20 owners bear full responsibility for their dogs actions and penalize=20 irresponsible dog owners if something goes wrong). Making test programs=20 solely responsible for judgments on breeding programs or matters of life=20 and dead won't solve the problem of "dangerous" dogs. Stepping of the soapbox now=85. Regards, Erik Hendriksen ******************************* H. Hendriksen Institute for Neurobiology University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320 1098 SM Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5257622 fax: +31-20-5257709 From: IN%"Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be" "Marc Vandenheede" 7-SEP-2000 09:32:17.78 To: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl" "Erik Hendriksen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs Dear all, I agree with Erik's comments, except for two things: - what about the heritability of aggressivity in dogs? I don't think that= experimental results demonstrate high values so we have to work rather on= the environmental effects; - a validated test is needed to measure agressivity towards man. But if I= have well understood, the dog here was killed because of his level of= intraspecific aggressivity! In dogs, ritualised agressive behaviour, even= if it is impressive for most people, is part of the ethogram of the= species. The control of the bite is normally acquired during infancy and= wounds are rare. We don't have to counfound "dangerous dogs" (uncontroled= agressivity towards man) and "aggressive dogs" (towards other dogs, often= normal). Sincerely yours, Marc A 15:34 7/09/2000 +0100, Erik Hendriksen a =E9crit : > >Dear all, > >sheltie1@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > >Below is the translation of a letter from a family in Wiesbaden whose dog > >Baxter, an 8 year old Pit, was confiscated and apparently killed by the > >authorities. > > > >This is a disturbing story and I 've heard (newspaper knowledge) of some=20 >comparable cases in the Netherlands. However, we must keep in mind that not= =20 >the test itself is to blame for this situation but the interpretation and= =20 >criteria for labeling a dog as dangerous are the issues that have to be=20 >taken into account here. Tests like this are in my opinion suitable for=20 >excluding dogs from breeding. Life and dead judgments upon the results of= =20 >this test is jet another issue. So if the test is sound, the regulations=20 >about interpretation of the outcome of the test and the level of aggression= =20 >that is tolerated by "society" are the real topics in this matter.This kind= =20 >of tests can be an aid for breeding less aggressive dogs and with that.=20 >Making things more safe and preventing dog bites. The problem with the=20 >implementation of tests in the way as described in the example is that it= =20 >takes away the rights as well as the responsibility from dog owners and it= =20 >judges before real harm is done. Now don't misunderstand me, one should not= =20 >wait for bite incidents to happen. But less drastic options than killing=20 >the dog are possible to prevent dogbites (careful breeding programs, proper= =20 >training, responsible dog ownership (forced by law if necessary), let=20 >owners bear full responsibility for their dogs actions and penalize=20 >irresponsible dog owners if something goes wrong). Making test programs=20 >solely responsible for judgments on breeding programs or matters of life=20 >and dead won't solve the problem of "dangerous" dogs. > >Stepping of the soapbox now=85. > > >Regards, > >Erik Hendriksen > > > > >******************************* > >H. Hendriksen >Institute for Neurobiology >University of Amsterdam >Kruislaan 320 >1098 SM Amsterdam >The Netherlands >tel: +31-20-5257622 >fax: +31-20-5257709 > >
ffff,0000,0000Marc Vandenheede Universit=E9 de Li=E8ge Facult=E9 de M=E9decine V=E9t=E9rinaire Service d'Hygi=E8ne et Bioclimatologie (Ethologie appliqu=E9e aux animaux domestiques) Bd de Colonster, B=E2t. B43 4000 Li=E8ge Belgium t=E9l.: 32/(0)4/366.41.48 fax.: 32/(0)4/366.41.22 0000,0000,ffffemail: Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be
From: IN%"s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk" "Steve Appleyard" 7-SEP-2000 10:13:04.06 To: IN%"Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be" "Marc Vandenheede" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs Dear Marc, Erik, applied-ethologists, Just because the heritability of aggression is not high does not mean that it is not worth trying to breed out aggression. Compared to the hundreds of potential environmental factors that might influence aggressiveness, genetics might still be the largest single factor. Just a minor point ;-) Regards, Steve Appleyard > I agree with Erik's comments, except for two things: > - what about the heritability of aggressivity in dogs? I don't think that > experimental results demonstrate high values so we have to work rather on > the environmental effects; "There's no art To find the mind's construction in the face" Shakespeare, Macbeth, 12 _______________________________________________ Steve Appleyard, Department of Behavioural Sciences, Division of Animal Biology, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh. Scotland Tel. +44 131 535 3243 FAX: +44 131 535 3121 http://www.sac.ac.uk/ __________________________________________________ From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 7-SEP-2000 23:42:50.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs Is there a species of mammal with the aggression "bred out"? It seems to me that the test trys to provoke a fight or flight response, which any normal mammal displays if sufficiently frightened. Of course this response is heritable. Virtually any species in the animal kingdom has it. The incidence of a genetically determined, abnormally aggressive temperament is exceedingly low in dogs. Much more common is a faulty, abusive environment which stresses genetically normal dogs until they display seemingly abnormal behaviors as a response. -L.M.M. >Dear Marc, Erik, applied-ethologists, > >Just because the heritability of aggression is not high does not mean >that it is not worth trying to breed out aggression. Compared to the >hundreds of potential environmental factors that might influence >aggressiveness, genetics might still be the largest single factor. > >Just a minor point ;-) > >Regards, >Steve Appleyard > >> I agree with Erik's comments, except for two things: >> - what about the heritability of aggressivity in dogs? I don't think that >> experimental results demonstrate high values so we have to work rather on >> the environmental effects; > > "There's no art >To find the mind's construction in the face" > Shakespeare, Macbeth, 12 >_______________________________________________ >Steve Appleyard, >Department of Behavioural Sciences, >Division of Animal Biology, >Scottish Agricultural College, >Edinburgh. >Scotland > >Tel. +44 131 535 3243 >FAX: +44 131 535 3121 > >http://www.sac.ac.uk/ >__________________________________________________ From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 7-SEP-2000 23:45:08.47 To: IN%"Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be" "Marc Vandenheede", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs --Boundary_(ID_fkAcrhoNVKDVuIPi/3kO9A) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Mor information can be found at: http://www.maulkorbzwang.de and http://www.egroups.com/list/dogholocaust -L.M.M. >Dear all, > >We are in Belgium busy to think seriously about "what to do with >so-called agressive dogs". I would like to know if somebody can >confirm this story and/or maybe give me some informations about the >mentioned "tests" and laws. > >Thank you. > >Marc > > > >A 14:29 6/09/2000 -0600, sheltie1@ix.netcom.com a =E9crit : > >>>> >>From another list, translated by A. Andrews, Eclectic Translations >>Below is the translation of a letter from a family in Wiesbaden whose dog >>Baxter, an 8 year old Pit, was confiscated and apparently killed by the >>authorities. The documents describing the events can be found at >>http://www.maulkorbzwang.de >> >> >>Our dog Baxter >>1. We bought Baxter 8 years ago when he was 6 weeks old. >>2. He was neutered when he was 10 months old. >>3. In 1999 we had him microchipped. >>4. Three weeks ago he received his annual vaccination boosters. >>5. We've carried dog liability insurance for the past 5 years through >>Hamburg-Mannheimer insurance company. >>6. He's been licensed from the beginning. >>7. He was in daily contact with children, friends of our children. >>8. He was accepted by the [condo]Association and loved by the neighbours. >>9. He grew up with our three children (ages 10, 14, 17). >>10. He was sweet, faithful, and loving and even cleaned our gerbil's rear. >>On 7/18/00 we sent registered letters with our request and justification >>for being allowed to keep Baxter to the local and regional authorities.... >>On 7/31/00 we had a visit at our home (with 10 minutes notice) from the >>authorities to notify us that Baxter would have to be temperament tested >>the following Wednesday, Friday at the latest. (Why the rush???) >>He petted Baxter and commented that he saw no problems with Baxter since h= e >>is such a really nice dog. Our appointment was set for Friday, 8/4/00 at >>8:45 a.m. in Rambach. >>DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS DURING BAXTER'S TEMPERAMENT TEST, FRIDAY, 8/4/20= 00 >>(Written witness statements are attached!!!) >>We arrived promptly at 8:45 a.m. at the testing location. Mr. Beyer (from >>the authorities) and the examiner approached us and told us that, if the >>dog doesn't pass, they would immediately take him away. We had no concerns >>because we knew that Baxter was very trusting with people. That he doesn't >>like other dogs we'll tell you about shortly. >>The examiner and I got Baxter from the car and he was immediately >>confronted by another dog. A friend and I had to remove his muzzle and wal= k >>toward a police car in which there were three very excited and aggressive >>German Shepherds in crates. They were barking at Baxter. I was told to pul= l >>Baxter up against the crates which caused all dogs to bark furiously. >>Then I was told to stand with Baxter by the street. Baxter was still very >>confused. >>The examiner told me to stand still so he could slap Baxter (without the >>muzzle on) in the face with his ring binder and also once or twice on the >>head. Using his legs he pushed Baxter back and forth but none of that >>bothered our Baxter. Nor was our dog disturbed in the least by a jogger, >>bicycle rider, or pedestrians. >>Well, after 7-10 minutes the test was over, I had to put the muzzle back >>on him, and we walked over to where Herr Beyer stood. The examiner and Her= r >>Beyer had a short consultation and then came the devastating decision by >>the examiner: >>"Your dog shows an extraordinarily EXAMPLARY conduct toward people, there >>is no doubt about it. BUT! - he displayed notably aggressive behaviour >>toward other dogs. Hence, we have to classify him as dangerous." >>It should be expected that Baxter might get out of the house and attack >>other animals (this has never happened once in eight years!) and that woul= d >>be irresponsible. Our Baxter was confiscated immediately and we had to tie >>him to a fence. Herr Beyer and the examiner explained to us that we had no >>chance of getting Baxter back and that he would be euthanized that >>afternoon. >>Herr Beyer suggested we should drive to the courthouse and request a >>cease-and-desist action because Baxter's time was short. They still >>wouldn't have returned Baxter to us. It would have meant that Baxter (who >>never in his life had been alone, confined, or vicious) would have been >>forced to be without his family. Confined for many weeks! That, too, would >>have been a death sentence for him ... >>We were literally declared incapable and were sent away without hope, left >>alone with Baxter's sorrow and our pain. We still hear Baxter's crying and >>barking, Baxter - who no longer understood what was happening, as we walke= d >>away from him tied to the fence. >>A family member was torn from us. >>Time passes but the pain remains. >>Our son Marvin, age 10, tries to deal with his grief on his own. He takes >>Baxter's leash to bed at night. >>My daughter Selina (14) takes Baxter's blanket to bed with her and our >>daughter Nadine (17) goes to sleep with Baxter's collar clutched tightly i= n >>her hand. >>Our children are trying to be strong by we know and sense that they suffer >>deeply from this great loss which was brought to us, and we hope for >>"JUSTICE". >>Baxter had never before been at any other test and he only ever barked at >>other dogs. >>[End of letter] >> >>Cathy Daugaard >>madchen@adelphia.net >>Kaos von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchI, PT, CDX, TDI >>H=E4lle von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchII, CD (titles to be continued) >>Mitch von Eiserfeld, SchI (titles to be continued) >>Katja von Essenbach (titles under construction) >> ><<<< > > > >Marc Vandenheede > >Universit=E9 de Li=E8ge >Facult=E9 de M=E9decine V=E9t=E9rinaire >Service d'Hygi=E8ne et Bioclimatologie >(Ethologie appliqu=E9e aux animaux domestiques) > >Bd de Colonster, B=E2t. B43 >4000 Li=E8ge >Belgium > >t=E9l.: 32/(0)4/366.41.48 >fax.: 32/(0)4/366.41.22 > >email: Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be --Boundary_(ID_fkAcrhoNVKDVuIPi/3kO9A) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: "dangerous" dogs
Mor information can be found at:

http://www.maulkorbzwang.de

and

http://www.egroups.com/list/dogholocaust

-L.M.M.




Dear all,

We are in Belgium busy to think seriously about "what to do with so-called agressive dogs". I would like to know if somebody can confirm this story and/or maybe give me some informations about the mentioned "tests" and laws.

Thank you.

Marc



A 14:29 6/09/2000 -0600, sheltie1@ix.netcom.com a =E9crit :
>>>>
From another list, translated by A. Andrews, Eclectic Translations
Below is the translation of a letter from a family in Wiesbaden whose dog
Baxter, an 8 year old Pit, was confiscated and apparently killed by the
authorities. The documents describing the events can be found at
http://www.maulkorbzwang.de


Our dog Baxter
1. We bought Baxter 8 years ago when he was 6 weeks old.
2. He was neutered when he was 10 months old.
3. In 1999 we had him microchipped.
4. Three weeks ago he received his annual vaccination boosters.
5. We've carried dog liability insurance for the past 5 years through
Hamburg-Mannheimer insurance company.
6. He's been licensed from the beginning.
7. He was in daily contact with children, friends of our children.
8. He was accepted by the [condo]Association and loved by the neighbours.
9. He grew up with our three children (ages 10, 14, 17).
10. He was sweet, faithful, and loving and even cleaned our gerbil's rear.
On 7/18/00 we sent registered letters with our request and  justification
for being allowed to keep Baxter to the local and regional authorities....
On 7/31/00 we had a visit at our home (with 10 minutes notice) from the
authorities to notify us that Baxter would have to be temperament  tested
the following Wednesday, Friday at the latest. (Why the rush???)
He petted Baxter and commented that he saw no problems with Baxter since he
is such a really nice dog. Our appointment was set for Friday, 8/4/00  at
8:45 a.m. in Rambach.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS DURING BAXTER'S TEMPERAMENT TEST, FRIDAY, 8/4/2000
(Written witness statements are attached!!!)
We arrived promptly at 8:45 a.m. at the testing location. Mr. Beyer (from
the authorities) and the examiner approached us and told us that, if  the
dog doesn't pass, they would immediately take him away. We had no concerns
because we knew that Baxter was very trusting with people. That he doesn't
like other dogs we'll tell you about shortly.
The examiner and I got Baxter from the car and he was immediately
confronted by another dog. A friend and I had to remove his muzzle and walk
toward a police car in which there were three very excited and aggressive
German Shepherds in crates. They were barking at Baxter. I was told to pull
Baxter up against the crates which caused all dogs to bark furiously.
Then I was told to stand with Baxter by the street. Baxter was still very
confused.
The examiner told me to stand still so he could slap Baxter (without  the
muzzle on) in the face with his ring binder and also once or twice on the
head. Using his legs he pushed Baxter back and forth but none of that
bothered our Baxter. Nor was our dog disturbed in the least by a  jogger,
bicycle rider, or pedestrians.
Well, after 7-10 minutes the test was over, I had to put the muzzle  back
on him, and we walked over to where Herr Beyer stood. The examiner and Herr
Beyer had a short consultation and then came the devastating decision  by
the examiner:
"Your dog shows an extraordinarily EXAMPLARY conduct toward people, there
is no doubt about it. BUT! - he displayed notably aggressive behaviour
toward other dogs. Hence, we have to classify him as dangerous."
It should be expected that Baxter might get out of the house and attack
other animals (this has never happened once in eight years!) and that would
be irresponsible. Our Baxter was confiscated immediately and we had to tie
him to a fence. Herr Beyer and the examiner explained to us that we had no
chance of getting Baxter back and that he would be euthanized that
afternoon.
Herr Beyer suggested we should drive to the courthouse and request a
cease-and-desist action because Baxter's time was short. They still
wouldn't have returned Baxter to us. It would have meant that Baxter (who
never in his life had been alone, confined, or vicious) would have been
forced to be without his family. Confined for many weeks! That, too, would
have been a death sentence for him =2E..
We were literally declared incapable and were sent away without hope, left
alone with Baxter's sorrow and our pain. We still hear Baxter's crying and
barking, Baxter - who no longer understood what was happening, as we walked
away from him tied to the fence.
A family member was torn from us.
Time passes but the pain remains.
Our son Marvin, age 10, tries to deal with his grief on his own. He takes
Baxter's leash to bed at night.
My daughter Selina (14) takes Baxter's blanket to bed with her and our
daughter Nadine (17) goes to sleep with Baxter's collar clutched tightly in
her hand.
Our children are trying to be strong by we know and sense that they suffer
deeply from this great loss which was brought to us, and we hope for
"JUSTICE".
Baxter had never before been at any other test and he only ever barked at
other dogs.
[End of letter]

Cathy Daugaard
madchen@adelphia.net
Kaos von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchI, PT, CDX, TDI
H=E4lle von Arbeiten M=E4dchen, SchII, CD (titles to be continued)
Mitch von Eiserfeld, SchI (titles to be continued)
Katja von Essenbach (titles under construction)

<<<<



Marc Vandenheede

Universit=E9 de Li=E8ge
Facult=E9 de M=E9decine V=E9t=E9rinaire
Service d'Hygi=E8ne et Bioclimatologie
(Ethologie appliqu=E9e aux animaux domestiques)

Bd de Colonster, B=E2t. B43
4000 Li=E8ge
Belgium

t=E9l.: 32/(0)4/366.41.48
fax.: 32/(0)4/366.41.22

email: Marc.Vandenheede@ulg.ac.be

--Boundary_(ID_fkAcrhoNVKDVuIPi/3kO9A)-- From: IN%"amandahan@kimo.com.tw" "Amanda" 7-SEP-2000 23:51:39.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Greetings from Amanda Dear all, It's my first time joining to this network. I am an animal protection inspector in Taiwan. I am interest in animal behaviour and sociology. Nice to meet you from all over the world. With best regards Amanda Han amandahan@kimo.com P.O.Box 84-282 Taipei, 100 Taiwan -------------------------------------------------------------------- ©_¼¯¹q¤l«H½c¡E·¾³q¤ß¥@¬É http://mail.kimo.com.tw < §A ¤µ ¤Ñ KIMO ¤F ¶Ü¡H > http://www.kimo.com.tw From: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl" "Erik Hendriksen" 8-SEP-2000 05:35:05.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "dangerous" dogs Dear L.M.M. and others, Let's take your points one at a time. >Is there a species of mammal with the aggression "bred out"? Not that I know of. However, there are many mouse and rat models that seem show genetically determined response patterns towards threats. So selective breeding in these animals has let to "high aggressive" animals and "low aggressive animals". In the low aggressive animals aggression still can be provoked however not as easy as in the high aggressive animals. So the level of aggression (or aggressive responsiveness) can change due to selective breading (in these examples). > It seems to me that the test tries to provoke a fight or flight response Yes indeed this is the case. When one wants to test whether dogs are prone to react with aggressive behaviour, a test to investigate a number of potential aggression provoking situations has to be applied. How else can one determine the level of aggression and the threshold for aggressive response if not by potential aggression provoking situations? To test the threshold for aggression one has to set up situations with different levels of threat. So one can determine at witch level of threat the response of the dog is aggressive. What will be tolerated and what not is a political issue not an issue that can arise in the test. >The incidence of a genetically determined, abnormally aggressive temperament is exceedingly low in dogs. As you stated in your mail (Virtually any species in the animal kingdom has it.) aggression is part of "normal" behavior of dogs. Abnormal aggressive behavior is not the issue here. Most of the dogbites are due to"normal (=not pathological) aggressive behavior. Lets call it: " high levels of "normal" aggressive behavior or a low threshold for aggressive behaviour" So this are dogs that are easily provoked towards aggressive responses. > Much more common is a faulty, abusive environment which stresses genetically normal dogs until they display seemingly abnormal behaviours as a response. I haven't seen nor do I not know of any statistics that supports this. Dogs that bite are not by definition dogs from abusive environments. But I do agree with you that environmental influences are important and a real solution for the "Dangerous" dog problem has to involve this factor. I think Steve Appleyard is right in saying" Just because the heritability of aggression is not high does not mean that it is not worth trying to breed out aggression. Regards, Erik Hendriksen ******************************* H. Hendriksen Institute for Neurobiology University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320 1098 SM Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5257622 fax: +31-20-5257709 From: IN%"EnjoyYourPet@aol.com" 8-SEP-2000 13:44:29.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "Dangerous dogs" Comment upon L.M.M., Hendriksen, et al., It seems odd to me to discuss selectively breeding against "aggression" given that multiple types of canine aggression have been identified (see, for example, thirteen subtypes of canine aggression with diagnostic criteria proposed by Overall, 1997). There are undoubtedly multiple etiologies by which a dog can develop a propensity to bite, with the involvement and interaction of numerous genetic loci, as well as environmental influences. As has been the case in the study of human psychiatric illnesses, careful delineation of behavioral phenotype is a necessary first step toward identifying candidate genes. Using Overall's diagnostic criteria, Giger & Jezyk (1992) found dominance aggression in dogs was correlated with abnormal amounts of urinary glutamine. (Similar results have been obtained in several human studies.) This finding suggests that abnormalities of NMDA receptors may be involved. In the long run, the widespread application of a well-validated diagnostic screening procedure and DNA sampling would give us the best chance of unraveling the mystery of the heritability of aggression. Amelia D. Compton, Ph.D. Behavioral Psychologist & Certified Canine Trainer Instructor of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University Animal Behavior Solutions, Inc. 5101-B Lakeside Avenue Richmond, VA 23228 phone: 804 264-4540 Amelia D. Compton, Ph.D. Behavioral Psychologist & Certified Canine Trainer Animal Behavior Solutions, Inc. 5101-B Lakeside Avenue Richmond, VA 23228 phone: 804 264-4540 From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 8-SEP-2000 14:15:32.44 To: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs At 12:44 AM 9/8/00 -0600, you wrote: First of all, I wanted to say that the case of Baxter was certainly very moving and shows that, if this did occur, there was definitely a lack of either proper understanding of dog behavior or any kind of due process. Several things have come to my mind as I read this discussion. First of all I wanted to ask whether it would be possible to design a test that can accurately predict potentially injurious aggressive behavior in a dog that has never shown it before? Of course, the test described in the Baxter case would not be an accurate judge as it was simply threatening the dog and seeing if they could push it to a point where it defended itself, which, as was pointed out, just about any animal, even a rabbit which has been cornered by a predator, will do. Another question which I considered was that this test, administered in the way described, is likely to "create" an aggressive dog by putting it in a position where it is hurt and frightened by strangers. How is this dog going to react when it is next approached by a stranger? Another thing that comes to mind is that the dogs put in the aforementioned test are being held to a higher ethical standard than even humans are. If a human is being threatened or injured by another human and they fight back and the other person is injured or killed, then the person who fought back can claim that this was done in self-defense. A human who fights back in self defense is forgiven by the legal system. But if this account is to be believed, then a dog who fights back in self defence is killed as vicious. So the dog is being held to a higher standard than a human. And if a test were to be designed to measure the likelihood of dog-on-dog aggression as this one was, then the test dogs should not be behaving aggressively to start with. I was also disturbed by the lack of due process. >Is there a species of mammal with the aggression "bred out"? It seems >to me that the test trys to provoke a fight or flight response, which >any normal mammal displays if sufficiently frightened. Of course this >response is heritable. Virtually any species in the animal kingdom >has it. Well, the sheep probably comes closest in our domestic animals. And big, tough, predatory human that I am, I have been chased clear across the barn by a ewe protecting her lamb. Doesn't happen often, but it's happened.....(after which, I felt rather sheepish ;-) ). As to whether aggression can be breed out, well, that is a pretty difficult question to answer with a simple yes or no. This is not a simple question because the causes of aggression are not simple. Certainly there genetic and environmental factors and more importantly, the interaction between the two. Also there are many different types of aggression and these would have their own genetic components and levels of heritability. For example, some dogs are fear biters. Shyness has been studied in a number of species and is often characterized as an initial tendency to avoid novelty. I recall that evidence has shown that there is a fairly high genetic component in shyness. However, there needs to be a few more factors considered before a shy animal becomes a fear biter. So a genetic component here would be to try to breed away from excessively shy personality types. But then you get to the other end of the personality spectrum. A bold, confident, and highly energetic dog might be just what you want in a sporting breed or show dog. But as you breed towards this, you might also be increasing the likelihood that this highly energetic and responsive individual will respond aggressively as well. Again, it isn't the heritability of aggression here, but the underlying personality traits that might be more likely to respond aggressively if they are pushed. What you may be selecting for is level of inhibition. But I doubt that you could breed all the aggressiveness out and have a dog that is capable of working in the end. It takes a bit of assertiveness and willingness to work independently for a Border Collie to plunge into a flock of sheep each much larger than itself and separate out the selected ewe, it takes a lot of boldness for a Retriever to leap from a boat into frigid water to go after a duck and it takes a lot of energy for a terrier to go after rats on a farm. It takes a certain amount of the bold personality to work effectively, and the difficulty with this personality type is to stop before you get too much of it. But you can also look at some types of dogs which have been purposefully breed for a willingness to fight, like the Pit Bull, Shar Pei and other fighting breeds. Here we have probably breed for specific factors leading to a increased likelihood to behave aggressively. Although we are still dealing in probabilities here. Certainly there are individuals of all of these "dangerous" breeds who are sweet and wonderful pets. And then there are the dogs with a high degree of predatory behavior. In the US, there are breeders of wolf-dog hybrids. A recent letter to the editor in the AVMA journal pointed out that these "dogs" preferentially killed children, showing a predatory, rather than territorial or other aggressive, pattern. And while the hybrid enthusiasts would no doubt disagree with me, the wolf does have a high genetic potential to hunt, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the hybrids would retain much of that. And other dogs show predatory behavior as well, and I'll have to say that these probably concern me the most. So this was a long way to answer the question of breeding for less aggression. It is not a simple thing. I think that you can safely say that there is a genetic component, but you need a clear picture of what traits you are actually selecting for and against. Janice Janice Willard, DVM, MS Moscow, ID, USA >The incidence of a genetically determined, abnormally aggressive >temperament is exceedingly low in dogs. Much more common is a faulty, >abusive environment which stresses genetically normal dogs until they >display seemingly abnormal behaviors as a response. > From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 8-SEP-2000 19:57:52.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs >But you can also look at some types of dogs which have been purposefully >breed for a willingness to fight, like the Pit Bull, Shar Pei and other >fighting breeds. Here we have probably breed for specific factors leading >to a increased likelihood to behave aggressively. Although we are still >dealing in probabilities here. Certainly there are individuals of all of >these "dangerous" breeds who are sweet and wonderful pets. From the experience I got working as an all-breed dog groomer, I think it would be more helpful to look at contexts for aggression rather than levels. Dogs are like most domestic animals in that their overall level of arousal and need for aggression is low--they have no need to constantly defend themselves from competitors or kill their food. The troublesome part for humans is in dealing with dogs in circumstances that they are not acclimated to. One dog may respond aggressively to nail trimming, one may attack vacuum cleaners, one may be crate-shy. Are these context-specific aggressive behaviors a genetic flaw? I know more shetland sheepdogs attack the vacuum cleaner than newfoundlands. The tendency to want to herd a moving vacuum cleaner could be a necessary trait, genetically the same as their instinct to herd sheep. Shar peis and pit bulls, in my experience, do not have a noticably higher level of aggression than any other breed. Their trouble is that they have been used for dogfighting and since the context of aggression towards other dogs is a normal and reproducable breed trait with them it is easy to identify and single out as abherrant. If vacuum cleaner-aggression or nail clipping-aggression was the problem of the day then a different breed would surely take the spotlight. -L.M.M. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 8-SEP-2000 20:34:19.83 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs >Dear L.M.M. and others, > >Let's take your points one at a time. > >>Is there a species of mammal with the aggression "bred out"? > >Not that I know of. However, there are many mouse and rat models >that seem show genetically determined response patterns towards >threats. So selective breeding in these animals has let to "high >aggressive" animals and "low aggressive animals". In the low >aggressive animals aggression still can be provoked however not as >easy as in the high aggressive animals. So the level of aggression >(or aggressive responsiveness) can change due to selective breading >(in these examples). From the standpoint of practicality this analogy seems like a poor solution to me. Simply not provoking dogs, and teaching them not to bite when they are young, makes much more sense than trying to coordinate a global selection process towards lack of aggressive response. Maybe in a wild mouse the level of aggression is excessive, but tame pet shop mice and domestic dogs have already undergone plenty of genetic selection to make them acceptable pets. > > It seems to me that the test tries to provoke a fight or flight response > >Yes indeed this is the case. When one wants to test whether dogs are >prone to react with aggressive behaviour, a test to investigate a >number of potential aggression provoking situations has to be >applied. How else can one determine the level of aggression and the >threshold for aggressive response if not by potential aggression >provoking situations? To test the threshold for aggression one has >to set up situations with different levels of threat. So one can >determine at witch level of threat the response of the dog is >aggressive. What will be tolerated and what not is a political issue >not an issue that can arise in the test. As a child, certainly it makes sense to poke a dog with a stick a bit, then a bit harder, then really poke, just to see if the dog will react. I hope that the trend of governments behaving like abusive children ends soon, because I see no benefit in treating dogs this way. Animals are subject to their instincts when severely threatened. Dogs can't read a law, so it is up to the owner to make sure the animal is handled and trained properly to prevent it from being driven to such a response. It doesn't matter what a dog's genes are when it is pushed beyond its capacity to tolerate tormenting. > >The incidence of a genetically determined, abnormally aggressive >temperament is exceedingly low in dogs. > >As you stated in your mail (Virtually any species in the animal >kingdom has it.) aggression is part of "normal" behavior of dogs. >Abnormal aggressive behavior is not the issue here. Most of the >dogbites are due to"normal (=not pathological) aggressive behavior. >Lets call it: " high levels of "normal" aggressive behavior or a low >threshold for aggressive behaviour" So this are dogs that are easily >provoked towards aggressive responses. See my post on context. I have yet to meet a dog that couldn't be provoked to aggression easily in one context or another. > > Much more common is a faulty, abusive environment which stresses >genetically normal dogs until they display seemingly abnormal >behaviours as a response. > >I haven't seen nor do I not know of any statistics that supports >this. Dogs that bite are not by definition dogs from abusive >environments. But I do agree with you that environmental influences >are important and a real solution for the "Dangerous" dog problem >has to involve this factor. Statistically, there are a number of markers that indicate severe dogbites are the result of abuse and/or neglect. Such as: -the dog was running loose -the dog was left alone unsupervised with a small child -the dog was not spayed or neutered(typically in the USA responsible dog owners will spay or neuter their pets) -there were prior repeat biting incidents, and the dog owner did not address the problem -the dog was left alone tied up in a yard all the time and not trained or socialized -the neighbors had previously reported the dog owner for not providing enough food/water/or shelter for the dog or for letting it run loose -the dog was being trained or used for guarding or protection by a teenager or some other amateur not affiliated with a training club If you search for news accounts or studies on this subject you can verify these commonalities, or ask and I'll provide references. I can't think of a story of a dog bite that made the news that didn't have at least two or three of these characteristics. >I think Steve Appleyard is right in saying" Just because the >heritability of aggression is not high does not mean that it is not >worth trying to breed out aggression. > >Regards, > > Erik Hendriksen In families of dogs with a verifyable neurological disorder, certainly it makes sense to breed out such a problem. On the other hand I have seen nothing good come of the idea that certain dogs have genes for desirable levels of aggression while others do not. It is better to raise and train all dogs with peacefullness and good manners in mind. -L.M.M. From: IN%"amandahan@kimo.com.tw" "Amanda" 9-SEP-2000 08:24:55.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dog behaviour Dear all, I would like to know if any of you know why dogs like to rub their body against dead mice, dead snails... and the reason of this kind of behaviour. Second, if you can provide me some material talking about the comparison of dog-dog interaction and dog-human interaction. I know owners should dominante their pets. I would like to know that, except the dominance, what are the difference between these two kinds of interaction. Please forgive me these are silly questions. However, in my country, there are very limited material and no friends like you. It would be too expensive for me to subscribe journals or ordering volumns of books. I deeply appreciate your help. Amanda Han Animal Protection Inspector amandahan@kimo.com P.O.Box 84-282 Taipei, 100 Taiwan -------------------------------------------------------------------- ©_¼¯¹q¤l«H½c¡E·¾³q¤ß¥@¬É http://mail.kimo.com.tw < §A ¤µ ¤Ñ KIMO ¤F ¶Ü¡H > http://www.kimo.com.tw From: IN%"craftafflicted@yahoo.com" "craft afflicted" 9-SEP-2000 19:52:48.16 To: IN%"amandahan@kimo.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: dog behaviour This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_qs/KzpaCwcj9a5qu1TJnWA) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear Amanda I too am a first at this - however I am a professional dog trainer in = Australia and have observed a lot of weird behaviour from dogs (and = their owners) in this time. The reason dogs rub their bodies on smelly = dead things I believe is to disguise their own scent for hunting = purposes. This is an inbuilt (genetic) response and a dogs sense of = smell is a couple of million times of ours, so even if you cant really = smell much - the dog can. On the subject of Dominance - dogs have = different degrees of dominance as they are pack animals & in order to = survive there must be a pack order or the end result would be constant = fighting - no hunting - and no survival. There are two distinct = socialization periods with dogs development 1. The dog socialisation = period and 2. The human socialization period. Dog socialization and = human socialization are 2 completely different things once established = and do not necessarily have anything to do with each other apart from = the fact that YOU must establish dominance over your dog so that he/she = respects YOU AS ITS PACK LEADER. If your dog does not learn this the = nature of the dog is to become the pack leader itself as there is just = no democracy involved where dogs are concerned and they are constantly = trying to climb the pack ladder. DO NOT BE FOOLED whether a dog is = large or small - their brains and instincts are the same. In order to = gain dominance over your dog - if this is your aim - I have many = suggestions, but the single most important thing is to do OBEDIENCE = TRAINING and MAKE your dog comply with your commands, example - always = be in a position to make your dog comply if it chooses not to - give = your command (i.e. SIT) if the dog does not comply physically put it = intro position and HOLD IT THERE until you give it a release word = (perhaps FREE or PLAY). Please remember the more the dog struggles and = fails to get up (which is its aim to gain its freedom) the quicker it = will learn YOU are the Boss. Do not be concerned if your dog throws a = temper tantrum - screams and struggles (provided you are not physically = hurting the animal) and NEVER release it until it is calm and compliant. = Once released, play and pet your dog. Also, if during any struggles = the dog happend to win (i.e. get up) it will only fight harder the next = time you try - as it will remember, fight harder, and make your job sooo = much harder. Rather than go on forever here, if you want to know more = please mail me at the following address. regards, Di Australian Dog Training craftafflicted@yahoo.com --Boundary_(ID_qs/KzpaCwcj9a5qu1TJnWA) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Amanda
 
I too am a first at this - however I am = a=20 professional dog trainer in Australia and have observed a lot of weird = behaviour=20 from dogs (and their owners) in this time.  The reason dogs rub = their=20 bodies on smelly dead things I believe is to disguise their  own = scent for=20 hunting purposes.  This is an inbuilt (genetic) response and a dogs = sense=20 of smell is a couple of million times of ours, so even if you cant = really smell=20 much - the dog can.  On the subject of Dominance - dogs have = different=20 degrees of dominance as they are pack animals & in order to survive = there=20 must be a pack order or the end result would be constant fighting - no = hunting -=20 and no survival.  There are two distinct socialization periods with = dogs=20 development  1. The dog socialisation period and 2. The human = socialization=20 period.  Dog socialization and human socialization are 2 completely = different things once established and do not necessarily have anything = to do=20 with each other apart from the fact that YOU must establish dominance = over your=20 dog so that he/she respects YOU AS ITS PACK LEADER.  If your dog = does not=20 learn this the nature of the dog is to become the pack leader itself as = there is=20 just no democracy involved where dogs are concerned and they are = constantly=20 trying to climb the pack ladder.  DO NOT BE FOOLED whether a dog is = large=20 or small - their brains and instincts are the same.  In order to = gain=20 dominance over your dog - if this is your aim - I have many suggestions, = but the=20 single most important thing is to do OBEDIENCE TRAINING and MAKE = your dog=20 comply with your commands, example - always be in a position to = make your=20 dog comply if it chooses not to - give your command (i.e. SIT) if the = dog does=20 not comply physically put it intro position and HOLD IT THERE until you = give it=20 a release word (perhaps FREE or PLAY).  Please remember the = more the=20 dog struggles and fails to get up (which is its aim to gain its freedom) = the=20 quicker it will learn YOU are the Boss.  Do not be concerned if = your dog=20 throws a temper tantrum - screams and struggles (provided you are not = physically=20 hurting the animal) and NEVER release it until it is calm and=20 compliant.  Once released, play and pet your dog.  Also, if = during any=20 struggles the dog happend to win (i.e. get up) it will only fight harder = the=20 next time you try - as it will remember, fight harder, and make your job = sooo=20 much harder. Rather than go on forever here, if you want to know = more=20 please mail me at the following address.
 
regards,
Di
Australian Dog Training
 
craftafflicted@yahoo.com
--Boundary_(ID_qs/KzpaCwcj9a5qu1TJnWA)-- From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 9-SEP-2000 21:19:28.52 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behaviour --Boundary_(ID_6wtGhNMAim5zsugjKONCtg) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Dear Amanda > >I too am a first at this - however I am a professional dog trainer >in Australia and have observed a lot of weird behaviour from dogs >(and their owners) in this time. The reason dogs rub their bodies >on smelly dead things I believe is to disguise their own scent for >hunting purposes. This is an inbuilt (genetic) response and a dogs >sense of smell is a couple of million times of ours, so even if you >cant really smell much - the dog can. On the subject of Dominance - >dogs have different degrees of dominance as they are pack animals & >in order to survive there must be a pack order or the end result >would be constant fighting - no hunting - and no survival. There >are two distinct socialization periods with dogs development 1. The >dog socialisation period and 2. The human socialization period. Dog >socialization and human socialization are 2 completely different >things once established and do not necessarily have anything to do >with each other apart from the fact that YOU must establish >dominance over your dog so that he/she respects YOU AS ITS PACK >LEADER. If your dog does not learn this the nature of the dog is to >become the pack leader itself as there is just no democracy involved >where dogs are concerned and they are constantly trying to climb the >pack ladder. DO NOT BE FOOLED whether a dog is large or small - >their brains and instincts are the same. In order to gain dominance >over your dog - if this is your aim - I have many suggestions, but >the single most important thing is to do OBEDIENCE TRAINING and MAKE >your dog comply with your commands, example - always be in a >position to make your dog comply if it chooses not to - give your >command (i.e. SIT) if the dog does not comply physically put it >intro position and HOLD IT THERE until you give it a release word >(perhaps FREE or PLAY). Please remember the more the dog struggles >and fails to get up (which is its aim to gain its freedom) the >quicker it will learn YOU are the Boss. Do not be concerned if your >dog throws a temper tantrum - screams and struggles (provided you >are not physically hurting the animal) and NEVER release it until it >is calm and compliant. Once released, play and pet your dog. Also, >if during any struggles the dog happend to win (i.e. get up) it will >only fight harder the next time you try - as it will remember, fight >harder, and make your job sooo much harder. Rather than go on >forever here, if you want to know more please mail me at the >following address. > >regards, >Di >Australian Dog Training > >craftafflicted@yahoo.com There are a number of resources for force-free dog training, which uses the principles of classical and operant conditioning to teach dogs how to behave. It is helpful when the dog is larger or stronger than the owner, and especially good if there are children in the family who also need to be able to handle the dog safely. For many people it is dangerous to *make* their dog sit. If the dog becomes frightened and struggles, it may bite, and at the least learn to fear rather than trust its owner. I recommend: http://www.egroups.com/list/clickersolutions http://www.egroups.com/list/agbeh and http://www.goof.com/~pmurphy/shy-k9s-faq.html for more information on safe training techniques, counseling on dog aggression, and on shyness, respectively. Pack order and rank are meaningful concepts when studying the behavior of wild wolves, but perhaps misapplied to the dog/human relationship. A wolf asserts dominance through body language and display of leadership ability, not by physically positioning other wolves in obedience postures. A dog will naturally look for structure, routine, and strong leadership, and will be content when humans assume that role. In my experience, people often misapply the term "dominance" to exuberant, untrained behavior in their pets. A well trained and managed dog is happy to its owner for leadership. -L.M.M. --Boundary_(ID_6wtGhNMAim5zsugjKONCtg) Content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: dog behaviour
Dear Amanda
 
I too am a first at this - however I am a professional dog trainer in Australia and have observed a lot of weird behaviour from dogs (and their owners) in this time.  The reason dogs rub their bodies on smelly dead things I believe is to disguise their  own scent for hunting purposes.  This is an inbuilt (genetic) response and a dogs sense of smell is a couple of million times of ours, so even if you cant really smell much - the dog can.  On the subject of Dominance - dogs have different degrees of dominance as they are pack animals & in order to survive there must be a pack order or the end result would be constant fighting - no hunting - and no survival.  There are two distinct socialization periods with dogs development  1. The dog socialisation period and 2. The human socialization period.  Dog socialization and human socialization are 2 completely different things once established and do not necessarily have anything to do with each other apart from the fact that YOU must establish dominance over your dog so that he/she respects YOU AS ITS PACK LEADER.  If your dog does not learn this the nature of the dog is to become the pack leader itself as there is just no democracy involved where dogs are concerned and they are constantly trying to climb the pack ladder.  DO NOT BE FOOLED whether a dog is large or small - their brains and instincts are the same.  In order to gain dominance over your dog - if this is your aim - I have many suggestions, but the single most important thing is to do OBEDIENCE TRAINING and MAKE your dog comply with your commands, example - always be in a position to make your dog comply if it chooses not to - give your command (i.e. SIT) if the dog does not comply physically put it intro position and HOLD IT THERE until you give it a release word (perhaps FREE or PLAY).  Please remember the more the dog struggles and fails to get up (which is its aim to gain its freedom) the quicker it will learn YOU are the Boss.  Do not be concerned if your dog throws a temper tantrum - screams and struggles (provided you are not physically hurting the animal) and NEVER release it until it is calm and compliant.  Once released, play and pet your dog.  Also, if during any struggles the dog happend to win (i.e. get up) it will only fight harder the next time you try - as it will remember, fight harder, and make your job sooo much harder. Rather than go on forever here, if you want to know more please mail me at the following address.
 
regards,
Di
Australian Dog Training
 
craftafflicted@yahoo.com



There are a number of resources for force-free dog training, which uses the principles of classical and operant conditioning to teach dogs how to behave. It is helpful when the dog is larger or stronger than the owner, and especially good if there are children in the family who also need to be able to handle the dog safely. For many people it is dangerous to *make* their dog sit. If the dog becomes frightened and struggles, it may bite, and at the least learn to fear rather than trust its owner.

I recommend:

http://www.egroups.com/list/clickersolutions

http://www.egroups.com/list/agbeh

and

http://www.goof.com/~pmurphy/shy-k9s-faq.html


for more information on safe training techniques, counseling on dog aggression, and on shyness, respectively.

Pack order and rank are meaningful concepts when studying the behavior of wild wolves, but perhaps misapplied to the dog/human relationship. A wolf asserts dominance through body language and display of leadership ability, not by physically positioning other wolves in obedience postures. A dog will naturally look for structure, routine, and strong leadership, and will be content when humans assume that role. In my experience, people often misapply the term "dominance" to exuberant, untrained behavior in their pets. A well trained and managed dog is happy to its owner for leadership.

-L.M.M.
--Boundary_(ID_6wtGhNMAim5zsugjKONCtg)-- From: IN%"supereeyore@hotmail.com" "Eddie Fernandez" 9-SEP-2000 21:31:37.32 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behaviour... and "dominance" Amanda and all, To play devil's advocate and clearly paint a picture, I must state that their is a philosophy to dog and animal training that does not believe or follow the extrapolated beliefs of dominance theories, and is successful at highly intricate and obedient training without the use of forced, physically guided responding. Many of you are aware of this training, and know of it as operant conditioning, clicker training, or OC training methods. Any OC trainer can tell you that they use almost exclusively positive, touchless methods to training, and do not have problems with "deviant" or "unsubmissive" dogs. Obviously, OC trainers acknowledge that dogs, in the wild, have hierarchies for certain responses. However to assume that you have somehow managed to generalize your responses, being human and all, to the same types of responses that a pack leader would exhibit, is probably not very scientific or accurate. Also, punishment and aversive techniques work, and can work effectively for dogs, as well as people. However, they are both difficult and unnecessary to use, can create extremely volitile situations when used to control aggressive responses, (see Azrin and his work with operant and respondent aggression for a more complete understanding of why this occurs), and still in the end must rely on reinforcers for their effectiveness, (i.e. the release of a choke chain when the dog moves in the right direction, praise for accurately sitting, etc, etc). In the least, do yourself a favor and examine a form of training that does not rely on aversive techniques or a necessity to continually "dominate" your animals. Hope this helps... Eddie F... UNT _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 9-SEP-2000 21:57:47.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs I've had private requests for references on dog bite statistics with regard to the role of abuse and neglect in the most severe bite instances. Overall, the Centers for Disease Contol has the most scientific research, available for download as adobe acrobat files at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm I'm not sure if case studies are included in the above or not, but a lot of dog bite reports describing abused dogs and bite victims in poor, high crime areas can be found by searching archives of the New York Times or the Associated Press at a library. As to breed involvement, usually the most common breeds in an area are also the most frequent biters. AKC keeps its most recent statistics on which breeds have the highest population at: http://www.akc.org/breeds/regstats_pg5.cfm I'm sure other registries have similar records. An an excellent international compilation of which breeds had the most reported bites in each area is available from: http://www.sathy.org/ just click on "SATHY Which dogs bite? Statistics". Also this text is available from the same site in hard copy, as a small booklet. "The Culture Clash", and "Dogs are From Neptune", by Jean Donaldson "Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals", by Karen Overall "Dealing With Your Dog's Aggressive Behavior", by Houpt & Watanabe, ed. "Bandit, Dossier of a Dangerous Dog" by Vicki Hearne "How Dogs Learn" by Mary Burch, Ph.D. & Jon S. Bailey, Ph.D. are all excellent books dealing with the prevention and treatment of dog aggression problems, and can be purchased from http://www.dogwise.com and/or http://www.amazon.com -L.M.M. From: IN%"EnjoyYourPet@aol.com" 10-SEP-2000 11:45:13.12 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: dog behavior I think it is a mistake to think of canine learning/training as a dichotomy between innate versus conditioned behavior. As in all animals, the dance between genetics and environmental influence is complex and interactive. Moreover, it is possible to mis-apply classical and operant conditioning techniques and amplify a dog's propensity to be aggressive. I find certain clients simply cannot grasp clicker training and/or click at the right moment--often these same folks can learn to apply an appropriatly timed, gentle correction and train successfully. To me, the challenge of this work is to choose techniques that are well-suited to both the dog and the owner. Amelia D. Compton, Ph.D. Behavioral Psychologist & Certified Canine Trainer Animal Behavior Solutions, Inc. 5101-B Lakeside Avenue Richmond, VA 23228 phone: 804 264-4540 From: IN%"karen@galliform.psy.mq.edu.au" "Karen Bayly" 10-SEP-2000 13:19:18.14 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behaviour... and "dominance" >Amanda and all, > To play devil's advocate and clearly paint a picture, I must state >that their is a philosophy to dog and animal training that does not >believe or follow the extrapolated beliefs of dominance theories, >and is successful at highly intricate and obedient training without >the use of forced, physically guided responding. Many of you are >aware of this training, and know of it as operant conditioning, >clicker training, or OC training methods. Any OC trainer can tell >you that they use almost exclusively positive, touchless methods to >training, and do not have problems with "deviant" or "unsubmissive" >dogs. > > Obviously, OC trainers acknowledge that dogs, in the wild, have >hierarchies for certain responses. However to assume that you have >somehow managed to generalize your responses, being human and all, >to the same types of responses that a pack leader would exhibit, is >probably not very scientific or accurate. Also, punishment and >aversive techniques work, and can work effectively for dogs, as well >as people. However, they are both difficult and unnecessary to use, >can create extremely volitile situations when used to control >aggressive responses, (see Azrin and his work with operant and >respondent aggression for a more complete understanding of why this >occurs), and still in the end must rely on reinforcers for their >effectiveness, (i.e. the release of a choke chain when the dog moves >in the right direction, praise for accurately sitting, etc, etc). >In the least, do yourself a favor and examine a form of training >that does not rely on aversive techniques or a necessity to >continually "dominate" your animals. Hope this helps... > >Eddie F... >UNT > Devil's advocacy aside ... surely the very fact that you are training an animal to do what you want to do, when you want it to do it, is putting into action the principles of dominance. Dominance does not have to be brutal - in it's broadest sense it involves imposing an order which benefits some individuals more than others but which serves to reduce aggression and upheaval within a social group. Humans, like dogs, are hierarchical animals but we do have choices about how we impose our hierarchies onto the domestic animals with whom we share our lives. Do unto others ... Karen -- ****************************************************************** Karen L Bayly Animal Behaviour Laboratory c /- Department of Biological Sciences Division of Life and Environmental Sciences Macquarie University NSW 2109 Australia Telephone: +61 2 9850 9441 Facsimile: +61 2 9850 9231 Email: karen@galliform.psy.mq.edu.au http://galliform.psy.mq.edu.au/ ****************************************************************** From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 10-SEP-2000 16:34:21.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "dangerous" dogs - bite info ----- Original Message ----- From: To: hello LLM -- > I've had private requests for references on dog bite statistics with > regard to the role of abuse and neglect in the most severe bite > instances. thanks for this post; i commend your organization. and i like most of your reading list. one thing, however: > "Bandit, Dossier of a Dangerous Dog" by Vicki Hearne Bandit didn't have a bite problem. in terms of how things in the system when a dog is accused can go terribly wrong, this book is invaluable. for general dog purposes, this book is invaluable. _Adam's Task_, same author, also. margory cohen From: IN%"supereeyore@hotmail.com" "Eddie Fernandez" 10-SEP-2000 18:49:04.57 To: IN%"EnjoyYourPet@aol.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior Amelia, I agree whole-heartidly that genetic and environmental influences on behavior are complex and interactive. All my statements were in conjunction with this belief. However, what I did state is that I do not believe that "dominance" theories for training your animals are exactly scientific or exact. To believe that someone, as a human, provides the same functions that a dog pack leader would provide, especially when the difference in behaviors is pushing a dog into a sit behavior or sitting on your dog as compared to growling or sneering at another dog when it comes close to its food or other such responses, is generally the exact types of generalizations that good science has avoided in engaging in. To extrapolate such data in such a way is simply unsound. As far as corrections being easier to teach for training purposes than clicker training, this may be true if your only desire is to have a dog sit in one place and that's all...and even that I find hard to believe. Correction collar use is much more difficult to engage in...one must learn to not only apply a correction with the same timing necessary for clicker training, but one must also learn how to apply a release in the same timely fashion and for the correct behavior...therefore twice the work, timing, and criteria necessary. I may not agree with Karen Pryor completely when she states that clicker training is a forgiving effort, but in comparison to the use of correction collars, this statement shines through. Using corrections incorrectly often leads to an overuse of correction, which can easily lead to an injured or habituated dog. Once a dog becomes slightly habituated to the aversive snap of a collar, the only remedy left for the trainer is to increase the strength of his snaps. I've come across this experience enough times with correction collar trainers to label it a common experience. However, with clicker training, generally the worst thing you get is a full dog. If you've been clicking incorrectly, you can stop for the day, and start new tomorrow. Where as the dog who has habituated to your snaps will still pose the problem, this dog will now be hungry for his special treats once again. As for combining the two methods, I've also found this rather less then optimal. The fact is, there's enough evidence to demonstrate that not only can one use the same positive techniques to just as easily and efficiently train behaviors trained with a correction collar or other aversive techniques, they are generally trained more easily and more pleasantly for the experienced clicker trainer. I have yet to see an area of training where some type of reinforcement could not be implemented instead... Eddie F... UNT _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 10-SEP-2000 20:10:50.27 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior >I think it is a mistake to think of canine learning/training as a dichotomy >between innate versus conditioned behavior. As in all animals, the dance >between genetics and environmental influence is complex and interactive. > >Moreover, it is possible to mis-apply classical and operant conditioning >techniques and amplify a dog's propensity to be aggressive. I find certain >clients simply cannot grasp clicker training and/or click at the right >moment--often these same folks can learn to apply an appropriatly timed, >gentle correction and train successfully. To me, the challenge of this work >is to choose techniques that are well-suited to both the dog and the owner. > >Amelia D. Compton, Ph.D. >Behavioral Psychologist & Certified Canine Trainer > >Animal Behavior Solutions, Inc. >5101-B Lakeside Avenue >Richmond, VA 23228 >phone: 804 264-4540 There is a lot of philosophical resistance to positive training among people who have habitually trained with corrections. It is a new skill, and all new skills require some open mindedness, learning, and practice to implement sucessfully. To encourage pet dog owners' interest in the techniques and benefits of using a clicker, trainers often use an untrained dog or a human volunteer to demonstrate learning a new behavior. Since the results are fast and readily apparant with the trainer's good timing, the rest of the class can see the benefits of sharpening their observation skills and clicking at just the right moment. Most large dogs move slowly enough that there is plenty of time to click the right behavior before they do something else. A bad click and reward here or there will not confuse or upset a dog nearly as much as a poorly timed correction. I'd also like to point out that a correction, if it is gentle enough to do no harm, probably will have to be repeated a lot because it won't stop a dog from trying the same thing again. I can look up the reference if people need it to a study where choke chain collars were associated with undiagnosed spinal and/or trachea injuries in the majority of dogs who wore them. The prong collar is less physically injurious, but a number of anecdotal reports are out about previously calm dogs developing aggression problems from wearing them. Field trainers use electric shock collars extensively, and wash out a lot of potential hunting trial dogs because they develop phobic behavior from being repeatedly shocked. Although it is certainly possible to train for increased aggression by rewarding a dog for it, it is just as easy to decrease it by clicking and rewarding the dog when it stays calm. Any training program with reinforcement for specific desirable behaviors could also be used to teach an undesirable behavior. -L.M.M. From: IN%"craftafflicted@yahoo.com" "craft afflicted" 11-SEP-2000 05:21:12.03 To: IN%"jessnbob@ihug.co.nz" "Jessica van der Pol" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Dog behaviour This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_w7lhyrcAMi5T+n5PFm7RbA) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jessica, Just a quick note to let you know - I have wrestled many very large & = aggressive Rottweilers and in fact breed & train these dogs very = successfully. I Have an OC (Obedience championship) with one of my = rotties, which is very rare and involves competition obedience to the = highest level e.g.CD, OPEN AND UD (3 passes to be gained at each level) = and 6 levels of Tracking. It is virtually impossible to teach a dog the = tasks required unless they are willing and eager to learn. I achieved = this title with an originally VERY dominant and aggressive young pup by = the time she was 3 years old. I have been a professional and accredited = dog trainer for many years now and have read widely on the subject of = dog training - including a study (Book form) by Konrad Lorenz titled "On = Aggression" and also one called "The dog's mind" by Fogle. regards --Boundary_(ID_w7lhyrcAMi5T+n5PFm7RbA) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
    Dear = Jessica,
 
Just a quick note to let you know - I = have wrestled=20 many very large & aggressive Rottweilers and in fact breed & = train these=20 dogs very successfully.   I Have an OC (Obedience = championship) with=20 one of my rotties, which is very rare and involves competition obedience = to the=20 highest level e.g.CD, OPEN AND UD (3 passes to be gained at each level) = and 6=20 levels of Tracking.  It is virtually impossible to teach a dog the = tasks=20 required unless they are willing and eager to learn.  I achieved = this title=20 with an originally VERY dominant and aggressive young pup by the time = she was 3=20 years old.  I have been a professional and accredited dog trainer = for many=20 years now and have read widely on the subject of dog training - = including a=20 study (Book form) by Konrad Lorenz titled "On Aggression"  and = also=20 one called "The dog's mind" by Fogle.
 
    =20 regards
--Boundary_(ID_w7lhyrcAMi5T+n5PFm7RbA)-- From: IN%"craftafflicted@yahoo.com" "craft afflicted" 11-SEP-2000 05:38:10.19 To: IN%"jessnbob@ihug.co.nz" "Jessica van der Pol" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Aggressive dog behaviour This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_1aImbs+cg9HZffSJBIQqpg) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jessica, I forgot to mention - why do you think there is no Police or Defence = Force dog squads in the world who depend on their dogs (and the dog's = training) for their very lives, and the lives of others - who employ the = methods you recommend? --Boundary_(ID_1aImbs+cg9HZffSJBIQqpg) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Jessica,
 
I forgot to mention - why do you think = there is no=20 Police or Defence Force dog squads in the world who depend on = their =20 dogs (and the dog's training) for their very lives, and the lives of = others -=20 who employ the methods you recommend?
--Boundary_(ID_1aImbs+cg9HZffSJBIQqpg)-- From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 11-SEP-2000 06:33:27.80 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion but I can sit back no longer. I have used both compulsion, food and clicker training, all with great success and have trained dogs in obedience, flyball, agility, and retriever field trials. The positive-only dog trainers have a zelous fervor for how they train bordering on fanaticism. I have learned that there are several things that you do not discuss: politics, religion, English/French relations (I am Canadian), and the merits of compulsion versus positive-only dog training In a message dated 10/09/2000 7:20:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sheltie1@ix.netcom.com writes: > I'd also like to point out that a correction, if it is gentle enough > to do no harm, probably will have to be repeated a lot because it > won't stop a dog from trying the same thing again. I can look up the > reference if people need it to a study where choke chain collars were > associated with undiagnosed spinal and/or trachea injuries in the > majority of dogs who wore them. The prong collar is less physically > injurious, but a number of anecdotal reports are out about previously > calm dogs developing aggression problems from wearing them. Field > trainers use electric shock collars extensively, and wash out a lot > of potential hunting trial dogs because they develop phobic behavior > from being repeatedly shocked. > I find that most people who talk about the negative aspects of choke chains or other compulsion methods have never trained with them. The corrections can indeed be gentle enough to cause no harm and not destroy your relationship with the dog. There is only one study that discusses choke chains and canine spinal injuries. It is a restrospective study in Sweden, 91% of spinal injury dogs had a history of leash pulling. In this sub-group of dogs, choke chains were over-represented meaning that there were more dogs with choke collars in the spinal group than other dogs ( I do not know if there was a control group or not). Unfortunately this is a two page abstract from a confrence in Edinburough (Hallgren A: Spinal injuries in dogs. ABCN? 9(3):3-4, 1992). I have had no luck in trying to get this reference and would love if someone has it, that they could send me a copy. As far as anaecdotal reports about prong collars, I don't put much stock in them. There are many anaecdotal reports of neck injuries from head halters but each has proven false when examined. How many field trial dogs have you seen that became phobic from repeated shocking? Most field trial dogs "wash out" because they do not have the talent to make the top level of field trials and this has nothing to do with the use of electric collars. Operant conditioning is an integral component of compulsion training. There are a lot of misconceptions of the terms reinforcement, reward and punishment. And as far as dominance goes, I really will stay out of that one. Gerry Flannigan DVM From: IN%"DebHdvm@aol.com" 11-SEP-2000 07:01:20.40 To: IN%"craftafflicted@yahoo.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Aggressive dog behaviour I too have refrained from getting into this discussion about training because it can be so volatile. However, I would like to make one point. The method of training should be varied depending on the trainer, what you are training the animal (or person) to do and the skill of the trainer. What accomplished trainers can get an animal to do and what a novice trainer or pet owner can get an animal to do are very different. In general, novice trainers/pet owners can accomplish things easier with positive methods and do less harm with them as well. I have the greatest respect for trainers who can get animals to accomplish many amazing things and I am greatly disappointed with trainers who do not understand people who cannot do the same. Many of us have worked with pet owners who have tried traditional training methods and ended up with disasters often because they were unable to use the training method properly. That is where flexibility in training becomes important for both the instructor and the owner. Debbie Horwitz, DVM DACVB Veterinary Behavior Consultations 12462 G. Natural Bridge Road Bridgeton, Missouri 63044 phone: 314-739-1510 fax: 314-291-2116 e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com From: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl" "Erik Hendriksen" 11-SEP-2000 08:17:08.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dear L.M.M. and others, >From the standpoint of practicality this analogy seems like a poor solution to me. Some dogs are provoked by many things in everyday life. >Simply not provoking dogs, and teaching them not to bite when they are young, makes much more sense than trying to coordinate a global >selection process towards lack of aggressive response. One does not have to choose between the one or the other. Educate owners and select for less aggression in the dog. It is not selection for a lack of aggression but a higher threshold for aggression. >Maybe in a wild mouse the level of aggression is excessive, but tame pet shop mice >and domestic dogs have already undergone plenty of >genetic selection to make them >acceptable pets. Of course these are just examples I used to show that aggressive behaviour has genetic components and selective breeding can affect the threshold of aggressive responsiveness. (It's not a plied for testing mice for aggressiveness) I don't agree with your suggestion that we can stop with selective breeding. We should constantly select the best breeding animals. And not only the best looking animals but also the animals that display the preferred behavioural features. > >As a child, certainly it makes sense to poke a dog with a stick a bit, then a bit harder, then really poke, just to see if the dog will react. I hope >that the trend of governments behaving like abusive children ends soon, because I see no benefit in treating dogs this way. Ridicule serious ideas from people does not often contribute to solutions. I don't believe the aggression test in the Netherlands (Planta et al.) was set up to behave like children. I think it was developed in an attempt to make a contribution to the problem of dogbites. >It doesn't matter what a dog's genes are when it is pushed beyond its capacity to tolerate tormenting. There is no tormenting going on in this test. As I explained to you if you want to test the threshold for aggression one has to set up situations witch can evoke aggression. And test at what point an animal responds aggressive. I don't see an other way of testing it. What will be acceptable is another matter. >See my post on context. I have yet to meet a dog that couldn't be provoked to >aggression easily in one context or another. I agree with you here. In the test developed by Planta et all. There are 43 sub-tests to meet different situations witch may lead to aggressive behaviour. Then the next step for you is to see that some dogs are responding with aggression more easily then others. Some dogs will respond with aggression in, for example, 5 of the sub-tests and others in 25 of the sub tests. With the complete test more aggressive animals can be selected. >Statistically, there are a number of markers that indicate severe dogbites are the result of abuse and/or neglect. Such as: Yes you are right here. However this reaction is beside the point I made. All those things you mentioned can have effect on the response of dogs. This still does not say a thing about the absence of a genetic component. You stated that faulty, abusive environment is a more common factor than genetic factors. Please give me one publication that compared the influence of genetic (I don't mean neuro-pathologies) components and environmental components in the matter of dogbites (how would one exclude the genetic factor in those cases). I think with genetic factors you mean genetic aberrations, but that is not the issue here at all. >If you search for news accounts or studies on this subject you can verify these >commonalities, or ask and I'll provide references. I can't think of a story of a dog bite >that made the news that didn't have at least two or three of these characteristics. News stories are not the most reliable source of information. Often things are left out or emphasised for sake of sensation. Moreover it is always easy to tell what went wrong after the dogbite and then blame the owner itself or the victim itself. But it does not solve the problem I'm afraid. The same situations you can read in the newspaper about a serious dogbite would not have let to dogbites with many other dogs. >On the other hand I have seen nothing good come of the idea that certain dogs have >genes for desirable levels of aggression while others do not. It is a big misunderstanding and an huge over-simplification that aggression can be pinpointed to just one or two genes a dog has or hasn't. All dogs have the complete genetic makeup to display aggressive behaviour. It is probably a subtle modulation of the expression of those genes that changes the threshold for an aggressive response. >It is better to raise and train all dogs with peacefullness and good manners in mind. Again I can only agree with the thought that owner should train their dogs and make them safe. Still breeding towards less aggressive dogs is an option that one should not throw away. Regards, Erik Hendriksen ******************************* H. Hendriksen Institute for Neurobiology University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320 1098 SM Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5257622 fax: +31-20-5257709 From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 11-SEP-2000 09:36:15.23 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior ----- Original Message ----- From: Gerry Flannigan Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 5:33 AM > I find that most people who talk about the negative aspects of choke chains > or other compulsion methods have never trained with them. The corrections > can indeed be gentle enough to cause no harm and not destroy your > relationship with the dog. There is only one study that discusses choke > chains and canine spinal injuries. It is a restrospective study in Sweden, > 91% of spinal injury dogs had a history of leash pulling. In this sub-group > of dogs, choke chains were over-represented meaning that there were more dogs > with choke collars in the spinal group than other dogs ( I do not know if > there was a control group or not). Unfortunately this is a two page abstract > from a confrence in Edinburough (Hallgren A: Spinal injuries in dogs. ABCN? > 9(3):3-4, 1992). I have had no luck in trying to get this reference and would > love if someone has it, that they could send me a copy. hello. if that report is available, me too -- would be most obliged for a copy and i certainly appreciate the reference here; if i ever uncover it as well, will forward. and i daresay, i do agree with you and some others who posted to this business -- i find on this topic of aggression i feel aggression myself -- the only equipment i believe that ever hurts the dog is the hand that holds the lead, that doesn't know a proper and fair correction, that confuses correction with punishment, that excuses incorrect (human) behaviour with love. grrrrrrrrrrr== _Adam's Task_ by Vicki Hearne -- it's re-published. it should be mandatory reading for anybody working with dogs. thanks again for this reference. margory From: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl" "Erik Hendriksen" 11-SEP-2000 09:40:18.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: "Dangerous dogs" Amelia D. Compton wrote: >Comment upon L.M.M., Hendriksen, et al., >It seems odd to me to discuss selectively breeding against "aggression" given >that multiple types of canine aggression have been identified (see, for >example, thirteen subtypes of canine aggression with diagnostic criteria >proposed by Overall, 1997). I'm wondering whether there is consensus on this view of multiple types off aggression. (I thought this was a rather "old" view on aggression but I may be completely wrong here) Maybe other on this list can share their thoughts on this. As I understood from Roger Abrantes on the mater of aggression there is one type of aggression namely aggression. The circumstances in which it is displayed may differ, the trigger may differ, other emotions (fear for example) can be a trigger, but it still is aggression. >As has been the case in the study of human psychiatric illnesses, careful >delineation of behavioural phenotype is a necessary first step toward >identifying candidate genes. Be careful here aggression is a "normal" behaviour for dogs and not an illness. I don't think it can be pinpointed to one or two genes. >Using Overall's diagnostic criteria, Giger & .>Jezyk (1992) found dominance aggression in dogs was correlated with abnormal >amounts of urinary glutamine. (Similar results have been obtained in several >human studies.) This finding suggests that abnormalities of NMDA receptors >may be involved. But is it dominance or aggression that is correlated with the glutamine change in urine. I would not be surprise if the NMDA receptor were "involved in aggression". The NMDA receptor is also involved in: learning tasks, epilepsy, stroke, and hypoxia. So it plays a role in different neurological processes. Aberrations in this receptor may lead to different pathologies, also involving behavioural changes. >In the long run, the widespread application of a well-validated diagnostic >screening procedure and DNA sampling would give us the best chance of >unraveling the mystery of the heritability of aggression. I think we are talking about the long, long run here. Identifying genes that are involved with complex behaviours is one thing. Getting a more or less complete picture is another. Of course these studies are very interesting and will provide more insight in the factors that play a role in specific behaviours. ******************************* H. Hendriksen Institute for Neurobiology University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320 1098 SM Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5257622 fax: +31-20-5257709 From: IN%"LilleBird@aol.com" 11-SEP-2000 09:49:09.69 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior In a message dated 9/11/00 11:36:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, margory@dnai.com writes: << the only equipment i believe that ever hurts the dog is the hand that holds the lead, that doesn't know a proper and fair correction, that confuses correction with punishment, that excuses incorrect (human) behaviour with love. grrrrrrrrrrr== >> This all being true but the average owner cannot even walk their dog on a flat collar without the dog pulling. I train them and watch them in my neighborhood (dense dog population in NYC) They don't even know you can have a dog not pull let alone good dog manners, basic dog behavior and body language. These are the people I would prefer not have slip collars. Lure/reward training at least keeps these people from getting into the punitive mode because once there it just execrates and gives permission to wail with the choke chain on the dog. I see it with children and I see it with dog owners under of the guise of the child/dog being stubborn If we could just get them into a class this would be a start. elaine bcushabum red dog training lillebird@aol.com From: IN%"LilleBird@aol.com" 11-SEP-2000 09:59:51.39 To: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "Dangerous dogs" I am not the scientist there so bear with me but in the training community fear agression and dominance agression, and then behavior issues like food guarding, posession guarding which may include human possession etc and are delt with entirely differently. Fear being the most common cause. If you are breeding for passivity i.e. less agressive then don't you run into the problem of more fearfull animals. Isn't the cause ( of agression) so complex that we risk breeding animals so comatose( I am exagerating) as to have no life. we do need need this gene so have a level of self protectiveness. elaine buchsbaum red dog training lillebird@aol.com From: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" 11-SEP-2000 12:09:42.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "Dangerous dogs" I do not feel inclined to "bear" with any of this. There have been = wonderful debates on this list in the past in which all these topics = have been discussed. The recent contributions have been the banal = squabbling that one might expect of the "dog lists". At a time when the animal husbandry and farming which I loved is in = ruins I find myself concerned with pig farming and stock rearing and = welfare issues. I feel inclined to leave the issues of dogs to one side = although I have a great interest in them also. Please depart to a "clicker" list or something of that type. Robin Walker From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 11-SEP-2000 13:46:14.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Aggressive dog behaviour --Boundary_(ID_kPEfWI42+MrpJd7o4gF6ZQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Dear Jessica, > >I forgot to mention - why do you think there is no Police or Defence >Force dog squads in the world who depend on their dogs (and the >dog's training) for their very lives, and the lives of others - who >employ the methods you recommend? In fact there are. I will look this up and post references when I have more time. -L.M.M. --Boundary_(ID_kPEfWI42+MrpJd7o4gF6ZQ) Content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: Aggressive dog behaviour
Dear Jessica,
 
I forgot to mention - why do you think there is no Police or Defence Force dog squads in the world who depend on their  dogs (and the dog's training) for their very lives, and the lives of others - who employ the methods you recommend?



In fact there are. I will look this up and post references when I have more time.

-L.M.M.
--Boundary_(ID_kPEfWI42+MrpJd7o4gF6ZQ)-- From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 11-SEP-2000 14:26:25.67 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: husbandry concerns ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Walker" Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:06 AM > > At a time when the animal husbandry and farming which I loved is in ruins I find myself concerned with pig farming and stock rearing and welfare issues. I feel inclined to leave the issues of dogs to one side although I have a great interest in them also. > hello. certainly not writing to pry -- i caught the other day on American tv a feature on a "newsmagazine" (60 Minutes) about pigs being raised in England actually for use in organ transplants. and one also reads amazing reports of concerns to genetic/designed food (meanwhile, i am familiar too with concerns about country sports in England being under seige, which somehow to me seems part of the equation.). would any of this be connected to what you are concerned with? again, i don't ask to pry, but i do struggle for a grasp on these sorts of situations. it's always a pleasure to see your byline. margory cohen From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 11-SEP-2000 14:50:53.09 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: husbandry concerns The production of animals genetically modified to produce organs that are suitable for transplantaion into man is not an English phenomenon. Neither are genetically modified foods. GM foods are far more important in the US, where GM crops have left the tesing stage and are a common part of agriculture. One of the difficulties for UK food manufacturers is that most of the sya they use comes from the US, where almost all of it is GM or contaminated by GM. I would recommend that if you are concerned about either of these issues you begin to campaign in the US right away...although it is already far too late. The UK supporters of so called 'field sports' are merely hijacking real issues in our agricultire industry and are subverting the distress of country people to their own rotten cause. As somebody who lived in rural areas accross the UK I cannot remember a lot of support for hunting amongst typical farmers, who had far more pressing things to do with their time. Many of the issues concerning livestock welfare in this country relate to the fact that UK athorities seek ever improving methods of husbandry while cheap foreign imports from far less welfare friendly systems maintain low prices. Welfare costs money but consumers are not even aware of what they are buying. The only solution to this is to market UK produce on the basis that it is better, rather than competeing at commodity level prices. Welfare is not cheap or easy but it is essential. The way we treat our livestock and wildlife ultimately reflects upon the kind of society that we are. Jon From: IN%"PetherC@prose.dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" 11-SEP-2000 16:48:30.49 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "'Jon Bowen'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: husbandry concerns Jon and Robin I have great sympathy for the pig farmers in the UK (the piggery that my brother has managed for the last 20+ years has just folded and he is out of a job) but in an increasingly globalised world I believe this sort of thing will become more common. I agree that consumers must know what they are buying, and this is all about honest labelling. However, I believe that the vast majority of consumers only care about cost (although they may say otherwise in surveys etc) unless they perceive that there is a direct threat to their health. This is why the public feels so strongly about GM foods - it is such a big unknown with regard to safety. I believe that one of the main reasons that "Freedom Foods" has made such inroads to the markets there is BSE. There is the perception that products from 'welfare-friendly' systems are safe and healthy. Of course this is not necessarily true (consider the amount of bacterial contamination in free-range eggs compared to battery ones - not that I'm saying that free-range is necessarily welfare-friendly!), but that's the perception. I should also point out that the EU is using welfare as a trade barrier. We have been told that by 2003 Australia will have to have "equivalent standards of welfare" to export to the EU. I certainly hope that "equivalent" does not equate to "the same as". In a country the size of Australia, with such a small rural population and the extremes of climate that many parts of the country experience it would be impossible for us to have even similar standards to the EU. We are trying to sell the welfare message here by emphasising QA and maintaining overseas markets. If the EU sets too high standards then our farmers will be deprived of a market that is concerned about welfare and will simply continue to export to countries that don't give a stuff about animal welfare. If the standards are too high, then where is the incentive for farmers here to improve their practices? You might say that they need to change because of domestic pressures, but those pressures are very small at present - we don't have BSE here (or so we're told!)! Carol Petherick > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Bowen [SMTP:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:53 AM > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: husbandry concerns > > The production of animals genetically modified to produce organs that are > suitable for transplantaion into man is not an English phenomenon. > Neither are genetically modified foods. > GM foods are far more important in the US, where GM crops have left the > tesing stage and are a common part of agriculture. > One of the difficulties for UK food manufacturers is that most of the sya > they use comes from the US, where almost all of it is GM or contaminated > by > GM. > I would recommend that if you are concerned about either of these issues > you > begin to campaign in the US right away...although it is already far too > late. > > The UK supporters of so called 'field sports' are merely hijacking real > issues in our agricultire industry and are subverting the distress of > country people to their own rotten cause. > As somebody who lived in rural areas accross the UK I cannot remember a > lot > of support for hunting amongst typical farmers, who had far more pressing > things to do with their time. > > Many of the issues concerning livestock welfare in this country relate to > the fact that UK athorities seek ever improving methods of husbandry while > cheap foreign imports from far less welfare friendly systems maintain low > prices. > Welfare costs money but consumers are not even aware of what they are > buying. > > The only solution to this is to market UK produce on the basis that it is > better, rather than competeing at commodity level prices. > > Welfare is not cheap or easy but it is essential. > The way we treat our livestock and wildlife ultimately reflects upon the > kind of society that we are. > > Jon > > **************************DISCLAIMER******************************** The information in this e-mail message together with 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 this e-mail message is unauthorised. Opinions contained in this e-mail message and any attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and associated organisations. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any attachments from your computer and/or your computer system network. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 11-SEP-2000 20:29:49.44 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Aggressive dog behaviour --Boundary_(ID_vF6pESw3nQKrkKyYjA0xMw) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >>Dear Jessica, >> >>I forgot to mention - why do you think there is no Police or >>Defence Force dog squads in the world who depend on their dogs >>(and the dog's training) for their very lives, and the lives of >>others - who employ the methods you recommend? > Okay, for the reference to police and protection training dogs without aversives, I went to: http://www.egroups.com/messages/ClickerSolutions And did a search on "police" and "douglas johnson". Several messages contained info on this subject but since it isn't the main focus of that list you'd probably have to contact Mr. Johnson directly for more info. -L.M.M. --Boundary_(ID_vF6pESw3nQKrkKyYjA0xMw) Content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: Aggressive dog behaviour
Dear Jessica,
 
I forgot to mention - why do you think there is no Police or Defence Force dog squads in the world who depend on their  dogs (and the dog's training) for their very lives, and the lives of others - who employ the methods you recommend?




Okay, for the reference to police and protection training dogs without aversives, I went to:

http://www.egroups.com/messages/ClickerSolutions

And did a search on "police" and "douglas johnson".

Several messages contained info on this subject but since it isn't the main focus of that list you'd probably have to contact Mr. Johnson directly for more info.

-L.M.M.
--Boundary_(ID_vF6pESw3nQKrkKyYjA0xMw)-- From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 11-SEP-2000 22:10:23.48 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Re: >Dear L.M.M. and others, > > > >>From the standpoint of practicality this analogy seems like a poor >>solution to me. > >Some dogs are provoked by many things in everyday life. > >>Simply not provoking dogs, and teaching them not to bite when they >>are young, makes much more sense than trying to coordinate a >>global >selection process towards lack of aggressive response. > >One does not have to choose between the one or the other. Educate >owners and select for less aggression in the dog. It is not >selection for a lack of aggression but a higher threshold for >aggression. I can't think of a circumstance where it would be possible to compare two dogs as to overall threshold of aggression, especially if there are 43 different thresholds. Please explain. > >Maybe in a wild mouse the level of aggression is excessive, but >tame pet shop mice >and domestic dogs have already undergone plenty >of >genetic selection to make them >acceptable pets. > >Of course these are just examples I used to show that aggressive >behaviour has genetic components and selective breeding can affect >the threshold of aggressive responsiveness. (It's not a plied for >testing mice for aggressiveness) >I don't agree with your suggestion that we can stop with selective >breeding. We should constantly select the best breeding animals. And >not only the best looking animals but also the animals that display >the preferred behavioural features. Preferred behavioral features of dogs have traditionally been: -hunting -fighting -pulling sleds -managing livestock -personal protection -companionship or a combination of the above, such as small dogs which would kill rats, bark at a stranger coming in the house, and also be a companion. Of course there has always been selection for dogs to be docile with people, and I agree that this is a good thing, but if the lack of any aggressive response is a prefered feature stuffed toys would surpass all but the most highly trained dogs. Most tests, granted I have not read all of them, attempt to measure traits in a fully grown dog which are almost totally the product of the dog's environment. The environment, and especially the dog's owner, is what must pass or fail in attempting to acclimate the dog to frightening circumstance. It would be necessary to raise dogs in total isolation from people if you wanted an unclouded their genetic differences in behavioral traits. > > >>As a child, certainly it makes sense to poke a dog with a stick a >>bit, then a bit harder, then really poke, just to see if the dog >>will react. I hope >that the trend of governments behaving like >>abusive children ends soon, because I see no benefit in treating >>dogs this way. > >Ridicule serious ideas from people does not often contribute to solutions. >I don't believe the aggression test in the Netherlands (Planta et >al.) was set up to behave like children. I think it was developed in >an attempt to make a contribution to the problem of dogbites. Provoking aggression in a dog, perhaps demonstrating that it has not learned to trust humans, it seems to me, leads only to more aggression. There are obedience tests worlwide that can show if a dog is confident and calm. If the everyday activities of a dog uncover unwanted aggression issues, the owner should consult a trainer. If the dog never has a problem then such a test would be totally unnessary. I read your original post on that test and could only see shades of "Big Brother". Dog breeders know which of their animals have behavior problems and which ones don't. The only reason for a mental test of breeding animals is to arbitrarily exclude a portion of the population from reproducing. If such a test were in wide use, people would undoubtedly train their dogs to pass it if they wished to breed them. So in fact it would only display failing dogs if it were thrust upon people with no time to prepare, such as in the previous case of the dog in Germany. > >It doesn't matter what a dog's genes are when it is pushed beyond >its capacity to tolerate tormenting. > >There is no tormenting going on in this test. As I explained to you >if you want to test the threshold for aggression one has to set up >situations witch can evoke aggression. And test at what point an >animal responds aggressive. I don't see an other way of testing it. >What will be acceptable is another matter. Provoking aggression in dogs is the first step in training them to bite. I would never endorse it on a large scale, and in fact I avoid anyone who wants to tease and provoke a response in my dogs. One bad experience has the potential to turn into a phobia if the dog is sufficiently frightened. > >See my post on context. I have yet to meet a dog that couldn't be >provoked to >aggression easily in one context or another. > >I agree with you here. In the test developed by Planta et all. There >are 43 sub-tests to meet different situations witch may lead to >aggressive behaviour. Then the next step for you is to see that some >dogs are responding with aggression more easily then others. Some >dogs will respond with aggression in, for example, 5 of the >sub-tests and others in 25 of the sub tests. With the complete test >more aggressive animals can be selected. Accross time, moods, different environments and ages of dogs the results with something like this would be extremely inconsistent. > >Statistically, there are a number of markers that indicate severe >dogbites are the result of abuse and/or neglect. Such as: > >Yes you are right here. However this reaction is beside the point I made. >All those things you mentioned can have effect on the response of >dogs. This still does not say a thing about the absence of a genetic >component. >You stated that faulty, abusive environment is a more common factor >than genetic factors. Please give me one publication that compared >the influence of genetic (I don't mean neuro-pathologies) components >and environmental components in the matter of dogbites (how would >one exclude the genetic factor in those cases). I think with >genetic factors you mean genetic aberrations, but that is not the >issue here at all. I am totally comfortable with the level of aggression in dogs that are not genetic aberrations. To try to change them, or solve a dog bite problem by testing them, to me is simply chasing a chimera. The role of environment in dog bites is quite poorly understood by the general public and that is the only reason dog bites are common. Not that genetics aren't interesting. Of course they are. But all animals will bite in a faulty environment so there is no benefit in dulling their senses through selection. If this approach succeeded it could produce a pathetic animal with no sense of defending itself from harm. > >If you search for news accounts or studies on this subject you can >verify these >commonalities, or ask and I'll provide references. I >can't think of a story of a dog bite >that made the news that didn't >have at least two or three of these characteristics. > >News stories are not the most reliable source of information. Often >things are left out or emphasised for sake of sensation. Moreover it >is always easy to tell what went wrong after the dogbite and then >blame the owner itself or the victim itself. But it does not solve >the problem I'm afraid. The same situations you can read in the >newspaper about a serious dogbite would not have let to dogbites >with many other dogs. The most recent death attributed to a dogbite that I know of, in Hamburg Germany, involved a dog that had been starved for two days, injected with cocaine, attack trained in a schoolyard, and repeatedly allowed to run loose despite local leash laws. The owner was a previously convicted criminal. The victim was a child who happened to run by when the dog was being taught to bite. I have yet to read of a dog, even a mentally abherrant dog, who would do the same without predisposing environmental factors. Newspapers often miss facts or get them wrong, but they are good at portraying the general circumstances. Healthy dogs in impeccable environments do not end up as news stories. > >On the other hand I have seen nothing good come of the idea that >certain dogs have >genes for desirable levels of aggression while >others do not. > >It is a big misunderstanding and an huge over-simplification that >aggression can be pinpointed to just one or two genes a dog has or >hasn't. All dogs have the complete genetic makeup to display >aggressive behaviour. It is probably a subtle modulation of the >expression of those genes that changes the threshold for an >aggressive response. If you follow dog training, and the rehabilitation of dogs with problem aggression, you will find that environment can make drastic changes in the behaviors a single dog displays. Of course its genes may be subtly different from those of another dog, but there is no way to provoke and test a gene. > >It is better to raise and train all dogs with peacefullness and >good manners in mind. > >Again I can only agree with the thought that owner should train >their dogs and make them safe. Still breeding towards less >aggressive dogs is an option that one should not throw away. > >Regards, > > Erik Hendriksen I have spent a long time, most of my life in fact, around dog breeders. I don't know anyone who breeds dogs to have behavior problems. Most will want a smart, confident, energetic dog with appropriate behaviors for its breed. They do not want their families to be bitten any more than anyone else would. It comes accross as artificial and counterproductive to upset the habits of caring breeders by putting them under scrutiny instead of the people whose flawed animal husbandry practises create "dangerous" behavior. -L.M.M. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 11-SEP-2000 22:31:26.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior >----- Original Message ----- >From: Gerry Flannigan >Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 5:33 AM > > >> I find that most people who talk about the negative aspects of choke >chains >> or other compulsion methods have never trained with them. The corrections >> can indeed be gentle enough to cause no harm and not destroy your >> relationship with the dog. There is only one study that discusses choke >> chains and canine spinal injuries. It is a restrospective study in Sweden, >> 91% of spinal injury dogs had a history of leash pulling. In this >sub-group >> of dogs, choke chains were over-represented meaning that there were more >dogs >> with choke collars in the spinal group than other dogs ( I do not know if >> there was a control group or not). Unfortunately this is a two page >abstract >> from a confrence in Edinburough (Hallgren A: Spinal injuries in dogs. >ABCN? >> 9(3):3-4, 1992). I have had no luck in trying to get this reference and >would >> love if someone has it, that they could send me a copy. > >hello. >if that report is available, me too -- would be most obliged for a copy and >i certainly appreciate the reference here; if i ever uncover it as well, >will forward. > >and i daresay, i do agree with you and some others who posted to this >business -- i find on this topic of aggression i feel aggression myself -- > >the only equipment i believe that ever hurts the dog is the hand that holds >the lead, that doesn't know a proper and fair correction, that confuses >correction with punishment, that excuses incorrect (human) behaviour with >love. grrrrrrrrrrr== > >_Adam's Task_ by Vicki Hearne -- it's re-published. it should be mandatory >reading for anybody working with dogs. > >thanks again for this reference. >margory I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on them can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank him around. -L.M.M. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 11-SEP-2000 22:42:31.03 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: "Dangerous dogs" >I am not the scientist there so bear with me but in the training community >fear agression and dominance agression, and then behavior issues like food >guarding, posession guarding which may include human possession etc and are >delt with entirely differently. Fear being the most common cause. > >If you are breeding for passivity i.e. less agressive then don't you run into >the problem of more fearfull animals. Isn't the cause ( of agression) so >complex that we risk breeding animals so comatose( I am exagerating) as to >have no life. we do need need this gene so have a level of self >protectiveness. > >elaine buchsbaum >red dog training >lillebird@aol.com I agree 100%. There had been so much progress in understanding human/dog interaction among trainers in the past few years, and it doesn't seem to have filtered down to the general public or the scientific community. If everyone went out and read some of the materials by Jean Donaldson, Turid Rugaas, and Karen Pryor, they would not only have the tools to raise happy, compliant dogs but would also know how to encourage their families and coworkers to get along better without resorting to punishment. Its a lot easier than hoping everyone would just be genetically passive! -L.M.M. From: IN%"amandahan@kimo.com.tw" "Amanda" 11-SEP-2000 23:33:45.78 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior ----«H¥ó­ì¤å---- margory cohen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerry Flannigan > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 5:33 AM > > > > I find that most people who talk about the negative aspects of choke > chains > > or other compulsion methods have never trained with them. The corrections > > can indeed be gentle enough to cause no harm and not destroy your > > relationship with the dog. There is only one study that discusses choke > > chains and canine spinal injuries. It is a restrospective study in Sweden, > > 91% of spinal injury dogs had a history of leash pulling. In this > sub-group > > of dogs, choke chains were over-represented meaning that there were more > dogs > > with choke collars in the spinal group than other dogs ( I do not know if > > there was a control group or not). Unfortunately this is a two page > abstract > > from a confrence in Edinburough (Hallgren A: Spinal injuries in dogs. > ABCN? > > 9(3):3-4, 1992). I have had no luck in trying to get this reference and > would > > love if someone has it, that they could send me a copy. > > hello. > if that report is available, me too -- would be most obliged for a copy and > i certainly appreciate the reference here; if i ever uncover it as well, > will forward. > > and i daresay, i do agree with you and some others who posted to this > business -- i find on this topic of aggression i feel aggression myself -- > > the only equipment i believe that ever hurts the dog is the hand that holds > the lead, that doesn't know a proper and fair correction, that confuses > correction with punishment, that excuses incorrect (human) behaviour with > love. grrrrrrrrrrr== > > _Adam's Task_ by Vicki Hearne -- it's re-published. it should be mandatory > reading for anybody working with dogs. > > thanks again for this reference. > margory > If anybody have this paper (Hallgren A: Spinal injuries in dogs. ABCN? 9(3):3-4, 1992), I would also like to have one copy. Thanks a lot. -- null -------------------------------------------------------------------- ©_¼¯¹q¤l«H½c¡E·¾³q¤ß¥@¬É http://mail.kimo.com.tw < §A ¤µ ¤Ñ KIMO ¤F ¶Ü¡H > http://www.kimo.com.tw From: IN%"amandahan@kimo.com.tw" "Amanda" 12-SEP-2000 00:01:30.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dog behaviour.... dominance only? Dear all, Many thanks for replies and opinion from many people around the world. I know a lot about the different kinds of behavioural training methods as well as their advantages and disadvantages. I think pets are selected or trained to fit owner's daily life. People modify a dog's behaviour by different methods such as breeding, training, correction, etc. But if a group of dogs live together, they certainly have their own ways of living and interaction. I know a dog needs a pack statues. But I believe a dog need some other things too. I doubt whether a dog-dog relationship can be replaced by a pet-human relationship. Can human have a "complete partnership" with their dogs? Amanda. -- null -------------------------------------------------------------------- ©_¼¯¹q¤l«H½c¡E·¾³q¤ß¥@¬É http://mail.kimo.com.tw < §A ¤µ ¤Ñ KIMO ¤F ¶Ü¡H > http://www.kimo.com.tw From: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 12-SEP-2000 03:03:17.51 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Food prices Dear All This has little directly about animal behaviour, so I have put Food Prices as the subject and you can delete it if you like, but it does have powerful implications for farm animal behaviour and welfare, as you will see. Carol Petherick said: > However, I believe that the vast majority of consumers > only care about cost (although they may say otherwise in surveys etc) unless > they perceive that there is a direct threat to their health. I believe that this is largely mistaken and needs to be challenged. To the extent that it is true it also needs challenging. It confuses customers' actions at point-of-sale with the broader concerns that they have about other aspects of their lives (and food animals' lives) - or would have if they knew the connection with food prices, or perhaps I should say 'should have'. Offered the choice between two foods at different prices, people cannot be expected to make ethical judgements on all possible issues that those prices affect. They may reasonably expect 'someone else' (government?) to deal with such things. And I believe that given full information, they would - and will - accept higher food prices in consequence. We discussed this on the net a while ago and Jeff Rushen said something along the lines of 'Well, that would be a popular cause, wouldn't it? A campaign for dearer food!' Partly in response to that challenge, I am organizing, with colleagues in Scotland, a conference on the subject next year. Details are below, which expand some of the relevant arguments. The meeting will soon be on the website of the British Society for Animal Science, http://www.bsas.org.uk/ Mike What price cheap food? A meeting on the subject of prices paid for food by consumers Date and location Monday 25th and Tuesday 26th June 2001, in the John McIntyre Centre, Pollock Halls, Edinburgh Theme This meeting will challenge the widespread assumption that cheaper food for consumers is unequivocally desirable. The title ‘What price cheap food?’ suggests that challenge from the outset. The proportion of income that people spend on food has declined for many years, and this decline is generally regarded as beneficial. However, it can also be argued that pressure for cheap food production has been a major factor in many negative developments: unreliable farm incomes, pressures on small-scale producers, reduced food security, concerns over food safety, loss of competitiveness for third-world producers, problems for animal welfare and environmental damage. Cheap food involves other ‘prices’ that are not reflected in the monetary cost. Pressure for cheap food is sometimes attributed to the consumers themselves, but it would be more accurate to say that in recent years it primarily results from competition between producers. There is a small proportion of consumers who would have genuine difficulty in paying more for food, but this is insufficient argument for providing cheap food for everyone: such people could be supported in other ways. Most people could readily pay more for food. Indeed, most already pay more than necessary, some by buying ‘free range’ products and more by buying convenience foods. The meeting will concentrate on foods from animals and on the UK, on the grounds that we cannot do everything, but many of the issues clearly apply to crop production and worldwide. Approach The meeting will bring together farmers, consumer representatives, supermarket managers, legislators, animal welfare groups, environmentalists and animal scientists to discuss these issues. In addition to plenary talks, workshops will be arranged to explore ways in which the issues can be taken forward – to consider the balance that may be achieved between legislation and quality assurance, between public education and public consultation, between developments within and outside the UK. Organization The meeting is organized by the British Society for Animal Science in collaboration with the Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences. Programme and topics Monday morning Introduction Monday afternoon Talks and workshops on: Topic 1 Farm Incomes and Food Security Topic 2 Animal Welfare Tuesday morning Talks and workshops on: Topic 3 Environmental Impact Topic 4 Food Quality and Safety Tuesday afternoon Panel discussion and summary talks Michael Appleby Dr M.C. Appleby Director of Postgraduate Studies in Agriculture & Resource Economics Institute of Ecology and Resource Management University of Edinburgh West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Tel. +44 131 535 4098 Fax. +44 131 667 2601 Email michael.appleby@ed.ac.uk From: IN%"hendriksen@bio.uva.nl" "Erik Hendriksen" 12-SEP-2000 03:12:34.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Dangerous dogs L.M.M. wrote: >Accross time, moods, different environments and ages of dogs the results with >something like this would be extremely inconsistent. Read the test and see the statistics. Nothing extremely inconsistent there. This will be my last mail to this list on this subject (if you want we can continue this via private mail) The test developed by Planta et. Al. is a statistically sound test. In the Netherlands there is a call for less bite incidence. So something has to change. Aggression has heritable factors so breading can make a difference. Once more I'll say that selective breading should not and cannot replace training. However, a scientifically based selection to exclude excessive aggressive animals from breading will facilitate getting more "safe" dogs. It is part of one possible way to make things safer and keep dog as accepted animals in our society. The anecdotes from newspapers you mention, yes this are terrible things but those incidence are beside the main problem. Thanks for you input and view on this matter Regards, Erik Hendriksen ******************************* H. Hendriksen Institute for Neurobiology University of Amsterdam Kruislaan 320 1098 SM Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31-20-5257622 fax: +31-20-5257709 From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 12-SEP-2000 06:38:12.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior ----- Original Message ----- From: LMM Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:33 PM > I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except > for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on them > can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful > ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding > of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can > learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on > the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a > soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank > him around. > there's no "yanking" in the work Vicki Hearne describes; i suggest you look again. there's no "yanking: in longe work. i'm replying with a proper "correction", no yanking and also not dragging it out either -- as Robin said, it's not a dog list; when dogs come up, you can bet, i'm interested, they are my link to the natural world -- and all this other business impacts them hard to be sure -- but this is a debate i can't join in. there are other forums where real authentic respectful training is discussed. respectfully, margory cohen From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 12-SEP-2000 06:38:12.72 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Food prices ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Appleby" Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:00 AM > It confuses customers' actions at point-of-sale with the broader > concerns that they have about other aspects of their lives (and food > animals' lives) - or would have if they knew the connection with food > prices, or perhaps I should say 'should have'. Offered the choice > between two foods at different prices, people cannot be expected > to make ethical judgements on all possible issues that those > prices affect. They may reasonably expect 'someone else' > (government?) to deal with such things. And I believe that given full > information, they would - and will - accept higher food prices in > consequence. hi Mike - interesting. since most people, and i don't say this as a judgment, most don't know where the food in the market comes from. James Serpell writes to this. _In the Company of Animals_ comes to mind right away. and i suppose this is different from organic or not veg? (is "ethical" vegetarian?) i wonder if Kosher slaughter techniques falls in with all this. a recent front page feature in the ny times on slaughterhouses didn't even mention the process for the animals (this was a piece on race relations inside, a racial and economic strata). here in san francisco, a few years, ago there was an issue about how live chickens are kept and sold in Chinatown markets -- i don't know if cost ever entered that argument. PETA did. appreciate mentioning this; i'll watch for word. ultimately, it will impact my dogs, too. margory From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-SEP-2000 08:42:02.73 To: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: dog behavior What surprises me about this discussion with respect to which training methods are the most effective is that nobody has cited a reference to research studying this. There appear to be many dog trainers in business out there - has anybody independently studied which methods are the most effective - as has been done for other animals? This could involve either carefully controlled, scientifically rigorous studies, or perhaps meta-analysis or an epidemiological approach. Has this not been done to test the efficacy of these approaches, or have I missed something? Regards, Chris ---------------------- Dr. C.M. Sherwin Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 Langford Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk BS40 5DU From: IN%"speedy@into.ch" 12-SEP-2000 10:23:44.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Scent rubbing in wolves and dogs  

Amanda wrote:

Dear all,

I would like to know if any of you know why dogs like to rub their body against dead mice, dead snails...
and the reason of this kind of behaviour.


craft afflicted wrote:

Dear Amanda I too am a first at this - however I am a professional dog trainer in Australia and have observed a lot of weird behaviour from dogs (and their owners) in this time.  The reason dogs rub their bodies on smelly dead things I believe is to disguise their  own scent for hunting purposes.  .... regards,DiAustralian Dog Training craftafflicted@yahoo.com
.

I would like to make some critical remarks on the given explanation for coat rubbing in dogs and wolves (i.e. camoufflage), and offer another interpretation of it.
(Please do not mind some odd use of language - my vocabulary is detoriating...)
 

  • A moose is capable of smelling a wolf from a distance of about 1 mile. I doubt just some moose dung in the wolfs coat can make it pass undetected.
  • Wolves also roll on stuff like otter skats or carcasses. Neither of these smells would be very helpful for hunting a hare or so, and otters are not a wolfs ordinary prey.
  • When wolves find something new and interesting/exciting, after careful investigation, they will roll over this object.
  • When a wolf returns from a solitary trip, its packmates will intensely sniff its coat, particularly around the face (cheek), side of the neck, and the back.
  • The structure of the hair at the above mentioned parts allow taking on smell easily and keeping it for a long time.
Although the individual might have other, more proximate reasons for rolling and rubbing on objects, the behaviour does provide a lot of information to other members of the group, e. g. where the animal was and what it found there.

Sonja
 

     
--
**********************************************************
VERHALTENSTHERAPIEN
 FUER HUNDE

Consultancy for Behavior Problems
 in Dogs

Sonja Doll-Sonderegger
MSc Zoologist/Ethologist
Member VHVTS und V.I.E.T.A.

Phone.: +41 / (0)79 / 222-2579
Fax: +41 / (0)86079 / 222-2579
E-mail: speedy@into.ch

**********************************************************
  From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 12-SEP-2000 11:43:34.88 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Sherwin" Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:37 AM > What surprises me about this discussion with respect to which training > methods are the most effective is that > nobody has cited a reference to research studying this. There appear to be > many dog trainers in business out there - has anybody independently studied > which methods are the most effective - as has been done for other animals? hi - don't go away;-)). i talk to long-time trainers often (tho of course one wonders why veterinary schools haven't this sort of thing, when vets often are asked for referrals about behaviour........--just a mild affectionate tease there--). off-hand, i think titles on dogs are big credentials. let me see if i can ferret out for you something more "scientific." also, my observation --it's only in the last few years that the dog training business has seen "credentials" enter the picture -- always methods up for debate, now there are "behaviourists" and vets medicating and the dog business is big buck$$. back on this when i know more. margory From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 12-SEP-2000 12:32:30.43 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Food prices I think it is a shame that the impression of consumers is that they are largely dumb and make decisions purely on price. In many other areas of consumer spending there has been a cycle of innovation+high prices follwed rapidly by increased production, more innvoation, increased availability and lowering of prices. Walkmans, TV etc have all followed this trajectory, as have many foods like free range eggs, organic vegetables and imported exotic vegetables. A few years ago organic=loony, now several supermarkets are fighting to gain control of the market and there is about to be a dramatic reduction of costs. Organic foods now appear in mass market products from chains such as Iceland. There is no reason to assume that creation of a consumer aesthetic in favour of home produced high quality welfare-friendly food cannot achieve excellent results as long as the consumer sees something of benefit and labelling is meaningful. I disagree that the consumer will not see benefits, because it is very easy to engender a negative aesthetic against features such as 'imported', 'unhappy animals', 'untraceable quality control' etc. Such aesthetic comparisons will generally push consumers towards products that make them feel better or safer about purchasing. They have worked for many other kinds of products so why not welfare? This will of course be led by premium products for high value consumers but as long as a continuous series of improvements is visible then the top of the market will always be kept happy and improvements will filter down through all ranks of produce. Cost???? There has been a general trend towards obesity here and in the US, which indicates that people are buying and consuming more food that they need to. Cheap + high voume appears to = poor health. Organic has tended pushed towards smaller quantities and higher quality, as would welfare friendly produce. If consumers spent the same amount on these foods as they do on their current shopping then perhaps weight gain and increased health woudl be rapid direct benefits ;-) Currently there is nothing but commodity in the market, and without giving the consumer some credit for being able to make ethical decisions then how can anyone know what effect this might have? A whole market has sprung up on the basis of presenting consumers with meaningless decisions that enable them to exercise their decision making faculties on such things as Hi-Fi, mobile phones etc, etc. See all of the magazines on these subjetcs; people want to make decisions it is just that they are bombarded with pointless ones! Jon From: IN%"LilleBird@aol.com" 12-SEP-2000 14:08:46.60 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Scent rubbing in wolves and dogs In a message dated 9/12/00 4:07:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Lille Bird writes: << << rollingand rubbing on objects, the behaviour does provide a lot of information to other members of the group, e. g. where the animal was and what it foundthere. Sonja >> I have noticed this behavior(sniffing of the face) on my animals(dogs) when I return with one of them but also they roll on new highly prized toys. I assume this in a marking of sorts for possession. elaine buchsbaum red dog training lillebird@aol.com From: IN%"PetherC@prose.dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" 12-SEP-2000 16:56:23.26 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "'Jon Bowen'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Food prices Jon Let me say that consumers are not dumb - they are just , for the most part, uninformed - at least on the topic of animal products. That's what I meant by honest labelling. From what you say, it seems that here we are some years behind the UK (dare I say it - as usual!), as the organic fad is just taking off! Everybody is jumping on the band-wagon! I wonder when it will peak and settle as you seem to suggest it has there. The reason it has taken off comes back, again, to the perception that organic products are safe to eat (no chemical residues etc.) and there is no direct threat to the consumers health. What you are talking about seems to me to have little to do with cost/price per se, but a lot to do with marketing. I would also say that the reason for increasing obesity is not so much about quantity of food, but also quality (high fat, high sugar) and reduced energy expenditure on the part of the people eating those foods (ie lack of exercise!). I'm sorry if this appears to be a derogatory comment about the public in general (I don't wish to belittle particular groups), but I think you and Mike Appleby give them more credit than they are due. Remember that you tend to mix with the "educated elite" and have very little contact (I suspect) with the uneducated/minimally educated members of the lower socio-economic groups. These people have other priorities in life than wondering/worrying about how their egg or milk was produced. Also, there is a huge amount of ignorance out there - there are kids in cities who do not know where cheese/butter comes from - they think it is manufactured by humans and comes in plastic wrappers and boxes (I suspect that there are kids who also don't make the connection between hamburgers and cattle!). I agree that maybe the well-educated, well-off people may choose animal products from 'welfare-friendly' systems (we know that concern for animal welfare is symptomatic of an affluent society) if they knew what they were buying, but these people are in the minority at present - at least in this country. Maybe things are different in the UK. I would like to raise the issue, again, about using welfare standards as trade barriers. Is it ethical to use animal welfare to protect your own markets, particularly when the standards may be totally impractical and inappropriate for other countries to meet? Carol Petherick > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Bowen [SMTP:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 4:32 AM > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Food prices > > I think it is a shame that the impression of consumers is that they are > largely dumb and make decisions purely on price. > > In many other areas of consumer spending there has been a cycle of > innovation+high prices follwed rapidly by increased production, more > innvoation, increased availability and lowering of prices. > > Walkmans, TV etc have all followed this trajectory, as have many foods > like > free range eggs, organic vegetables and imported exotic vegetables. > A few years ago organic=loony, now several supermarkets are fighting to > gain > control of the market and there is about to be a dramatic reduction of > costs. > Organic foods now appear in mass market products from chains such as > Iceland. > > There is no reason to assume that creation of a consumer aesthetic in > favour > of home produced high quality welfare-friendly food cannot achieve > excellent > results as long as the consumer sees something of benefit and labelling is > meaningful. > > I disagree that the consumer will not see benefits, because it is very > easy > to engender a negative aesthetic against features such as 'imported', > 'unhappy animals', 'untraceable quality control' etc. > Such aesthetic comparisons will generally push consumers towards products > that make them feel better or safer about purchasing. > They have worked for many other kinds of products so why not welfare? > > This will of course be led by premium products for high value consumers > but > as long as a continuous series of improvements is visible then the top of > the market will always be kept happy and improvements will filter down > through all ranks of produce. > > Cost???? > There has been a general trend towards obesity here and in the US, which > indicates that people are buying and consuming more food that they need > to. > Cheap + high voume appears to = poor health. > Organic has tended pushed towards smaller quantities and higher quality, > as > would welfare friendly produce. > If consumers spent the same amount on these foods as they do on their > current shopping then perhaps weight gain and increased health woudl be > rapid direct benefits ;-) > > Currently there is nothing but commodity in the market, and without giving > the consumer some credit for being able to make ethical decisions then how > can anyone know what effect this might have? > > A whole market has sprung up on the basis of presenting consumers with > meaningless decisions that enable them to exercise their decision making > faculties on such things as Hi-Fi, mobile phones etc, etc. > See all of the magazines on these subjetcs; people want to make decisions > it > is just that they are bombarded with pointless ones! > > Jon > > **************************DISCLAIMER******************************** The information in this e-mail message together with 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 this e-mail message is unauthorised. Opinions contained in this e-mail message and any attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and associated organisations. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any attachments from your computer and/or your computer system network. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 12-SEP-2000 19:10:48.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior The training methods I espouse were developed by B.F. Skinner in experiments on rats, and continue to be studied by many experimental psychologists including Bob and Marian Bailey who have trained hundreds of species of animals. I don't know of any specific use of dogs in psychological research on training. Most serious psychologists specializing in learning theory research would drop a study using correction based methods of dog training offhand because they have never been proven scientifically useful in other species. Some links to the Bailey's operant conditioning seminar are: http://www.clickersolutions.com/clickersolutions/articles/howitrained.htm http://www.clickersolutions.com/clickersolutions/articles/diary.htm http://www.clickersolutions.com/clickersolutions/articles/chickennotes.htm I know the Baileys have had their research published but can't find a reference right now. Perhaps someone else has access to a college library which can get you more info on their work. -L.M.M. >What surprises me about this discussion with respect to which training >methods are the most effective is that >nobody has cited a reference to research studying this. There appear to be >many dog trainers in business out there - has anybody independently studied >which methods are the most effective - as has been done for other animals? >This could involve either carefully controlled, scientifically rigorous >studies, or perhaps meta-analysis or an epidemiological approach. Has this >not been done to test the efficacy of these approaches, or have I missed >something? > >Regards, > >Chris > >---------------------- >Dr. C.M. Sherwin >Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) >Division of Animal Health and Husbandry >University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 >Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 >Langford >Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk >BS40 5DU From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 12-SEP-2000 19:20:46.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior >----- Original Message ----- >From: LMM >Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:33 PM > > >> I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except >> for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on them >> can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful >> ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding >> of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can >> learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on >> the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a >> soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank >> him around. >> > >there's no "yanking" in the work Vicki Hearne describes; i suggest you look >again. >there's no "yanking: in longe work. > >i'm replying with a proper "correction", no yanking and also not dragging it >out either -- as Robin said, it's not a dog list; when dogs come up, you can >bet, i'm interested, they are my link to the natural world -- and all this >other business impacts them hard to be sure -- but this is a debate i can't >join in. there are other forums where real authentic respectful training is >discussed. > >respectfully, >margory cohen Her description of allowing a 70 or 80 lb dog to charge to the end of a leash and recieve its full body weight as force on its trachea was more than enough for me. There is no way an animal can understand the nobility and fairness of such a dangerous practice, whether the trainer jerks or merely allows it to jerk itself. Recently a 7 week old puppy in my area was killed by a trainer misusing a choke chain. Call me crazy but my new pup, trained totally positive, loves to heel correctly on a loose leash and a buckle collar. Knowing the alternative, I would never go back to hurting a dog for training. It's taken years for me to unlearn the kind of things Kohler et. al. would teach, and I regret not knowing better when I was training my first dog. If this isn't a good list topic, please read the training materials I referenced off-list. I didn't reinvent the wheel, I'm just one more person who has gotten some use out of it! -L.M.M. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 12-SEP-2000 19:39:37.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Dangerous dogs >L.M.M. wrote: > >>Accross time, moods, different environments and ages of dogs the >>results with >something like this would be extremely inconsistent. > > >Read the test and see the statistics. Nothing extremely inconsistent there. > >This will be my last mail to this list on this subject (if you want >we can continue this via private mail) > >The test developed by Planta et. Al. is a statistically sound test. >In the Netherlands there is a call for less bite incidence. So >something has to change. Aggression has heritable factors so >breading can make a difference. Once more I'll say that selective >breading should not and cannot replace training. However, a >scientifically based selection to exclude excessive aggressive >animals from breading will facilitate getting more "safe" dogs. >It is part of one possible way to make things safer and keep dog as >accepted animals in our society. >The anecdotes from newspapers you mention, yes this are terrible >things but those incidence are beside the main problem. > >Thanks for you input and view on this matter > >Regards, > >Erik Hendriksen Are there studies on the problem of dogs biting in the Netherlands? I know the environmental factors which are to blame for dog bites in my own area, but it is possible that yours is different. I recall a television program several years ago that said large guard-dog breeds were more common pets there than they are here in the USA. Has your society split in two--a group that cherishes trained guard dogs and another that believes all dogs should be nonaggressive? If so then politically it is a battle of wills between how people *want* the dogs to behave that is the trouble...There are a great many "safe" Belgian Malinois, for instance, but the breed requires good management and could not be sustained in its present form without "safe" owners. This subject is of great interest to me because I know that when an anti-dog movement developes over one dog biting, the public and government put all non-biting dogs under the same scrutiny. -L.M.M. From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 12-SEP-2000 19:40:56.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Dangerous dogs >L.M.M. wrote: > >>Accross time, moods, different environments and ages of dogs the >>results with >something like this would be extremely inconsistent. > >Read the test and see the statistics. Nothing extremely inconsistent there. Incidentally, I do plan the read the study but I probably won't be at the vet school library here for a couple of weeks. -L.M.M. From: IN%"westerfield@multipro.com" "Al & Patricia Westerfield" 12-SEP-2000 19:42:08.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Hummingbird activity I apologise in advance if this is not the appropriate venue for this question. I would appreciate it if someone could direct me to another ethology group if that is the case. I do enjoy the information and education I have gained from this group. Recently, two humming birds have been coming to our feeder one appears to be immature, the other is an adult male. The juvenile hovers near the male while he feeds. The male may brush the young one away, but does not go into aa aerial "dogfight" as I have seen adults perform. This is almost a ballet. My question is, do males help with the feeding of baby hummers? Is this solicitation or competition on the part of the juvenile? Could there be a family relationship between the two birds which would account for the "gentle" treatment by the adult. Just today I have spotted the young one feeding alone at my feeder. Thank you for any input. Patricia Westerfield From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 13-SEP-2000 03:13:07.64 To: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: learning theory and dog behavior Could you please explain whether there is a difference between 'negative reinforcement' and 'correction based methods of training'. Most serious > psychologists specializing in learning theory research would drop a > study using correction based methods of dog training offhand because > they have never been proven scientifically useful in other species. Are you suggesting that no work has ever shown that negative reinforcement can be a potent effector in learning? I thought there were many references showing this to be highly effective in a wide variety of species - please note, I am NOT advocating using stumuli which may cause pain or discomfort as a suitable method of learning...I am simply trying to understand a little more about how learning theory is currently being put into practice on a wide-scale. > The training methods I espouse were developed by B.F. Skinner in > experiments on rats, and continue to be studied by many experimental > psychologists including Bob and Marian Bailey who have trained > hundreds of species of animals. Yes, I am well aware of these! I'm currently using them to study social learning of operant key pecking by domestic hens. ---------------------- Dr. C.M. Sherwin Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 Langford Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk BS40 5DU From: IN%"s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk" "Steve Appleyard" 13-SEP-2000 03:36:11.58 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: learning theory and dog behavior Hi Chris and other Applied-Ethologists, > Could you please explain whether there is a difference between 'negative > reinforcement' and 'correction based methods of training'. It seems to me that the difference here could be a comparison between negative reinforcement and punishment. From my Open University Summer School tutors notes I can tell you that reinforcement, whether negative or positive, is always about strengthening a behaviour, whereas punishment is about reducing the frequency of a behaviour. In a way the difference is merely semantic. One example of negative reinforcement would be a rat pressing a lever to avoid a foot shock - doing the operant behaviour stops the negative stimulus, increasing lever pressing. An example of punishment is the rat getting a foot shock when it presses the lever - leading to reduced lever pressing. So negative reinforcements are applied when the animal does not do something what you want. Whereas punishment is applied when the animal does seomething you definitely don't want. Does that help? Steve _______________________________________________ Steve Appleyard, Department of Behavioural Sciences, Division of Animal Biology, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh. Scotland Tel. +44 131 535 3243 FAX: +44 131 535 3121 http://www.sac.ac.uk/ __________________________________________________ From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 13-SEP-2000 04:04:34.76 To: IN%"s.appleyard@ed.sac.ac.uk" "Steve Appleyard" CC: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: learning theory and dog behavior Please let's not get into ANOTHER semantic debate about +ve and -ve reinforcement. My point was that a message had been posted arguing that 'correction based methods of training' (which I assume involves using aversive stimuli, but I am not certain - hence my question) had 'never been proven scientifically useful' at training animals. This appears to contradict many published papers in which aversive stimuli have been used to teach animals to perform a wide variety of behaviours (again I would like to state I am NOT advocating the use of stimuli which may cause pain or distress to animals). Regards, Chris On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:34:18 +0100 Steve Appleyard wrote: > Hi Chris and other Applied-Ethologists, > > > Could you please explain whether there is a difference between 'negative > > reinforcement' and 'correction based methods of training'. > > It seems to me that the difference here could be a comparison between > negative reinforcement and punishment. From my Open University > Summer School tutors notes I can tell you that reinforcement, whether > negative or positive, is always about strengthening a behaviour, whereas > punishment is about reducing the frequency of a behaviour. In a way the > difference is merely semantic. > > One example of negative reinforcement would be a rat pressing a lever > to avoid a foot shock - doing the operant behaviour stops the negative > stimulus, increasing lever pressing. An example of punishment is the rat > getting a foot shock when it presses the lever - leading to reduced lever > pressing. So negative reinforcements are applied when the animal does > not do something what you want. Whereas punishment is applied when > the animal does seomething you definitely don't want. > > Does that help? > > Steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > Steve Appleyard, > Department of Behavioural Sciences, > Division of Animal Biology, > Scottish Agricultural College, > Edinburgh. > Scotland > > Tel. +44 131 535 3243 > FAX: +44 131 535 3121 > > http://www.sac.ac.uk/ > __________________________________________________ > ---------------------- Dr. C.M. Sherwin Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Division of Animal Health and Husbandry University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 Langford Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk BS40 5DU From: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" 13-SEP-2000 05:56:36.33 To: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" "'sheltie1@ix.netcom.com'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior Here is something I wrote earlier.=20 You just _had_ to rub my lamp! Now I am out and it is all your fault!=20 : - ) This appeared in the Veterinary Record (I forget the date). My = illustrated talk on the topic was part of the launch of the APDT and = caught the fancy of the national press. The rest is apparently entirely = forgotten history! " Check chains Sir, - In reply to Mr. Davidson's letter of March 12, I would like to = point out that on page 29 of her book, Handling a Problem Dog, Barbara = Woodhouse tells=20 us that the cure for vicious behaviour in a dog is=20 "to return violence with violence". She continues "...put the dog on a = long piece=20 of string attached to its choke chain (sic). When it attempts to bite = ..pick up=20 the string and suspend the dog for a few seconds off its front legs, = leaving its=20 back feet on the ground, and at the same time using a thunderous tone = of voice ...the=20 dog when suspended thus will feel like choking and will quickly realise = who is master=20 of the situation. Do not put the dog back on its front legs until it = shows signs of=20 discomfort (usually after about ten seconds). Now the dog will be = subdued, and you=20 should caress and praise it. Repeat this process every time the dog = persists in=20 the habit; you will certainly have to do so two or three times if the = vice is=20 deeply ingrained".1 Here Mrs. Woodhouse uses the term choke chain and = is=20 presumably using it properly.=20 The list of injuries that can be caused by repeatedly hanging a dog, = for=20 a slow count of ten, is impressive. From the Veterinary Hospital of the = University=20 of Pennsylvania, we learn that "It is never appropriate to recommend to = an owner=20 to hang a dog from a choke collar to subdue aggression. If the owner = cannot back=20 the dog down, and this may take a fight to the death, they are at risk = of being=20 injured. Furthermore, the dog is at risk of injured ocular vessels, = tracheal=20 and oesophageal damage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. In the = few=20 cases of the latter due to hanging by a choker seen at VHUP, all have = died=20 despite therapy that included a respirator". 2 =20 In 30 years of practice (including 22 as veterinary advisor to a = police=20 dog section) I have seen numerous severely sprained necks, cases of = fainting,=20 transient foreleg paresis and hind leg ataxia after robust use of the = "check"=20 chain. When the practice of slamming the dog sideways with a jerk that = brought=20 the foreparts clear of the ground and two or three feet towards the = handler,=20 became popular in the 1970's the resulting painful condition was known = as=20 'Woodhouse neck' in this practice. Some of these cases exhibited = misalignment=20 of cervical vertebrae on radiographs. My ophthalmology colleagues have = decided=20 views on the relation between compression of the neck , intrao-cular = pressure=20 disturbances and damage to the cervical sympathetic nerve chain = resulting=20 in Horner"s syndrome. I have personally seen a case of swollen eyes with = petechial scleral haemorrhage and a number of temporarily voiceless = dogs.=20 Using punishment to train dogs, horses or children works to the = satisfaction=20 of drill sergeants, traditional schoolmasters, horse breakers, dog = chokers and=20 jerkers in a broad majority of cases. It fails disastrously when it = creates=20 anxious casualties or violently defiant rebels. The question is very = simple.=20 When a punishment fails what do you do next? Do you relentlessly = increase the=20 punishment, or try alternative methods.? It is the ambition of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the = Association of=20 Pet Behaviour Counsellors and of many other groups interested in the = welfare of=20 children as well as pets, to persuade us to try the alternative method = first.=20 I hope that I am not alone in believing that the veterinary profession = should=20 embrace these issues as part of a general concern with Welfare" =20 R. E. Walker, 78, Bromyard Road, Worcester, WR2 5DA =20 1 Handling a Problem Dog, B. Woodhouse, Ring Press, 1992 2 K. Overall, Canine Aggression, Master class, B.S.A.V.A. Congress,=20 Birmingham 1993. -----Original Message----- From: sheltie1@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sheltie1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: 13 September 2000 03:23 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: dog behavior >----- Original Message ----- >From: LMM >Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:33 PM > > >> I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except >> for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on = them >> can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful >> ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding >> of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can >> learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on >> the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a >> soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank >> him around. >> > >there's no "yanking" in the work Vicki Hearne describes; i suggest you = look >again. >there's no "yanking: in longe work. > >i'm replying with a proper "correction", no yanking and also not = dragging it >out either -- as Robin said, it's not a dog list; when dogs come up, = you can >bet, i'm interested, they are my link to the natural world -- and all = this >other business impacts them hard to be sure -- but this is a debate i = can't >join in. there are other forums where real authentic respectful = training is >discussed. > >respectfully, >margory cohen Her description of allowing a 70 or 80 lb dog to charge to the end of=20 a leash and recieve its full body weight as force on its trachea was=20 more than enough for me. There is no way an animal can understand the=20 nobility and fairness of such a dangerous practice, whether the=20 trainer jerks or merely allows it to jerk itself. Recently a 7 week old puppy in my area was killed by a trainer=20 misusing a choke chain. Call me crazy but my new pup, trained totally=20 positive, loves to heel correctly on a loose leash and a buckle=20 collar. Knowing the alternative, I would never go back to hurting a=20 dog for training. It's taken years for me to unlearn the kind of=20 things Kohler et. al. would teach, and I regret not knowing better=20 when I was training my first dog. If this isn't a good list topic, please read the training materials I=20 referenced off-list. I didn't reinvent the wheel, I'm just one more=20 person who has gotten some use out of it! -L.M.M. From: IN%"chrisrutt@ntlworld.com" "chrisrutt" 13-SEP-2000 06:18:21.97 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior No more welcome genie than you Robin! And I hated that Woodhouse woman. I accept that check chains can be a problem, though I admit to having used them on many dogs in the past. Perhaps I was fortunate in that I had easily trained dogs and I was taught to use them lightly and quickly, with no sustained tightening. In a short time the mere sound of two links of the chain passing the ring informed the dog that an error had been made. I will also say I never ever had a dog suffer any health problem from use of these devices. I would like to ask how you feel about "domination" techniques such as putting pressure on the dogs fore quarters, or "pseudo mounting"? This is allegedly comparable to the domination of inferiors in a natural pack structure and I have found them effective in instilling the dog with a sense of its "pack" position in human families, particularly with the larger breeds. Best wishes Chris (UK) chris@lovebirdsUK.org www.lovebirdsUK.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Walker" To: ; "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" Sent: 13 September 2000 12:53 Subject: RE: dog behavior Here is something I wrote earlier. You just _had_ to rub my lamp! Now I am out and it is all your fault! : - ) This appeared in the Veterinary Record (I forget the date). My illustrated talk on the topic was part of the launch of the APDT and caught the fancy of the national press. The rest is apparently entirely forgotten history! " Check chains Sir, - In reply to Mr. Davidson's letter of March 12, I would like to point out that on page 29 of her book, Handling a Problem Dog, Barbara Woodhouse tells us that the cure for vicious behaviour in a dog is "to return violence with violence". She continues "...put the dog on a long piece of string attached to its choke chain (sic). When it attempts to bite ..pick up the string and suspend the dog for a few seconds off its front legs, leaving its back feet on the ground, and at the same time using a thunderous tone of voice ...the dog when suspended thus will feel like choking and will quickly realise who is master of the situation. Do not put the dog back on its front legs until it shows signs of discomfort (usually after about ten seconds). Now the dog will be subdued, and you should caress and praise it. Repeat this process every time the dog persists in the habit; you will certainly have to do so two or three times if the vice is deeply ingrained".1 Here Mrs. Woodhouse uses the term choke chain and is presumably using it properly. The list of injuries that can be caused by repeatedly hanging a dog, for a slow count of ten, is impressive. From the Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we learn that "It is never appropriate to recommend to an owner to hang a dog from a choke collar to subdue aggression. If the owner cannot back the dog down, and this may take a fight to the death, they are at risk of being injured. Furthermore, the dog is at risk of injured ocular vessels, tracheal and oesophageal damage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. In the few cases of the latter due to hanging by a choker seen at VHUP, all have died despite therapy that included a respirator". 2 In 30 years of practice (including 22 as veterinary advisor to a police dog section) I have seen numerous severely sprained necks, cases of fainting, transient foreleg paresis and hind leg ataxia after robust use of the "check" chain. When the practice of slamming the dog sideways with a jerk that brought the foreparts clear of the ground and two or three feet towards the handler, became popular in the 1970's the resulting painful condition was known as 'Woodhouse neck' in this practice. Some of these cases exhibited misalignment of cervical vertebrae on radiographs. My ophthalmology colleagues have decided views on the relation between compression of the neck , intrao-cular pressure disturbances and damage to the cervical sympathetic nerve chain resulting in Horner"s syndrome. I have personally seen a case of swollen eyes with petechial scleral haemorrhage and a number of temporarily voiceless dogs. Using punishment to train dogs, horses or children works to the satisfaction of drill sergeants, traditional schoolmasters, horse breakers, dog chokers and jerkers in a broad majority of cases. It fails disastrously when it creates anxious casualties or violently defiant rebels. The question is very simple. When a punishment fails what do you do next? Do you relentlessly increase the punishment, or try alternative methods.? It is the ambition of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors and of many other groups interested in the welfare of children as well as pets, to persuade us to try the alternative method first. I hope that I am not alone in believing that the veterinary profession should embrace these issues as part of a general concern with Welfare" R. E. Walker, 78, Bromyard Road, Worcester, WR2 5DA 1 Handling a Problem Dog, B. Woodhouse, Ring Press, 1992 2 K. Overall, Canine Aggression, Master class, B.S.A.V.A. Congress, Birmingham 1993. -----Original Message----- From: sheltie1@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sheltie1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: 13 September 2000 03:23 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: dog behavior >----- Original Message ----- >From: LMM >Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:33 PM > > >> I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except >> for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on them >> can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful >> ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding >> of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can >> learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on >> the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a >> soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank >> him around. >> > >there's no "yanking" in the work Vicki Hearne describes; i suggest you look >again. >there's no "yanking: in longe work. > >i'm replying with a proper "correction", no yanking and also not dragging it >out either -- as Robin said, it's not a dog list; when dogs come up, you can >bet, i'm interested, they are my link to the natural world -- and all this >other business impacts them hard to be sure -- but this is a debate i can't >join in. there are other forums where real authentic respectful training is >discussed. > >respectfully, >margory cohen Her description of allowing a 70 or 80 lb dog to charge to the end of a leash and recieve its full body weight as force on its trachea was more than enough for me. There is no way an animal can understand the nobility and fairness of such a dangerous practice, whether the trainer jerks or merely allows it to jerk itself. Recently a 7 week old puppy in my area was killed by a trainer misusing a choke chain. Call me crazy but my new pup, trained totally positive, loves to heel correctly on a loose leash and a buckle collar. Knowing the alternative, I would never go back to hurting a dog for training. It's taken years for me to unlearn the kind of things Kohler et. al. would teach, and I regret not knowing better when I was training my first dog. If this isn't a good list topic, please read the training materials I referenced off-list. I didn't reinvent the wheel, I'm just one more person who has gotten some use out of it! -L.M.M. From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" 13-SEP-2000 07:27:41.39 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Food prices On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:52:16 +1000 "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" wrote: > > I would like to raise the issue, again, about using welfare standards as > trade barriers. Is it ethical to use animal welfare to protect your own > markets, particularly when the standards may be totally impractical and > inappropriate for other countries to meet? > I think that this an excellent and timely question. And I believe that the answer is (generally) yes! I qualify my answer because I think that there can or should be exceptions - such as products from developing countries in some cases. (And I am also sympathetic to some of the concerns of Australia where for example portions of the Outback are dying because of a lack of market for agricultural products.) I agree with Carol that the European Union is using animal welfare (and also GM foods, etc.) as a trade barrier. However, I also believe that there are interest groups (many from within the USA) whose goal it is to force all people to accept the food standards determined by the interest groups to be "scientifically" what is best. More specifically, I think that the goal of some groups is to position themselves to be in control of a major portion of food production in the coming decades - because the world population is predicted to double shortly and those groups in control of food production and supply will hold enormous financial advantage and political power. And thus I support Europe and others in their attempts to remain in control of their food supply including determining the manner that it is to be produced. While it is true that a large segment of society is not aware of the conditions experienced by farm animals, this does not remove the burden of accountability from those persons who do know. Thus, I would argue that _if_ it is appropriate to impose trade sanctions on countries currently and(or) in the past (China, South Africa, Yugoslavia, Austria, etc.) because of human rights concerns, then there is some basis for also including animal treatment as a trade issue. After having commented as above, I should acknowledge that Carol posed the question by adding the phrase "when the standards may be totally impractical and inappropriate for other countries to meet?" Of course if the standards are not appropriate then this does raise the discussion to a different level. However, I believe that one of the major problems has been the total denial by the USA of the legitimacy of having welfare standards (which is apparently not the case for Australia). I agree that the Europeans should be _fair_ in their trade practices and should adopt standards that are appropriate to the animals relative to different world regions. But again, I contend that including animal welfare standards in trade policy is (or should be) a legitimate action by the EU - or others for that matter. Best regards, Ray ---------------------- W. Ray Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 13-SEP-2000 07:55:25.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Food prices On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, W. Ray Stricklin wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:52:16 +1000 "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" > wrote: > > > > > I would like to raise the issue, again, about using welfare standards as > > trade barriers. Is it ethical to use animal welfare to protect your own > > markets, particularly when the standards may be totally impractical and > > inappropriate for other countries to meet? > > > > I think that this an excellent and timely question. And I believe > that the answer is (generally) yes! I qualify my answer because I > think that there can or should be exceptions - such as products from > developing countries in some cases. (And I am also sympathetic to > some of the concerns of Australia where for example portions of the > Outback are dying because of a lack of market for agricultural > products.) > > I agree with Carol that the European Union is using animal welfare > (and also GM foods, etc.) as a trade barrier. This is not at all what the "average" person involved in either the GM or the animal welfare campaigns over here believes (at least in the UK). There is a very strong view indeed that the Americans are trying to force us to reduce our own standards. There is also a serious political point about the danger of effectively saying that moderate animal welfare groups won't be allowed to make any improvements because it legitimises the people who send letter bombs and burn cars. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 13-SEP-2000 08:21:29.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Food prices >>> "W. Ray Stricklin" 09/13 9:22 am >>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:52:16 +1000 "Petherick, Carol (TBC)"=20 wrote: >=20 > I would like to raise the issue, again, about using welfare standards as > trade barriers. Is it ethical to use animal welfare to protect your own > markets, particularly when the standards may be totally impractical and > inappropriate for other countries to meet? >=20 I think that this an excellent and timely question. And I believe=20 that the answer is (generally) yes! >>> This presupposes that the differences in standards really do reflect = differences between countries in the overall welfare of the animals. To do this, you would need to be able to actually = measure the welfare status of animals in different countries, which is practically difficult even if it is = theoretically possible. However, in reality, it is more likely that countries would use the existence of one particular practice = (rather than the state of welfare as a whole)=20 as a trade barrier. To take a theoretical example, European countries = might want to ban the import of dairy products from New Zealand on the grounds that Kiwi farmers tail dock cows, = which is illegal in Europe. However, in New Zealand there is greater use of pasture for cows and probably less = intense selection for high milk production. Arguably, the overall welfare the cows in New Zealand might be = higher than for cows in the EU,=20 despite the use of tail docking. Even if welfare status itself is = acceptable as a trade barrier, this does not mean=20 that non-compliance with certain EU laws is a morally acceptable reason = for limiting imports from certain countries. Jeff Rushen From: IN%"Knut.Niebuhr@vu-wien.ac.at" "Knut Niebuhr" 13-SEP-2000 09:25:09.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Food prices On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:52:16 +1000 "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" wrote: > > I would like to raise the issue, again, about using welfare > standards as trade barriers. Is it ethical to use animal welfare to > protect your own markets, particularly when the standards may be > totally impractical and inappropriate for other countries to meet? > As an European I would be very much interested in knowing how the EC is actually trying to built effective trade barriers for food from animals that are not produced according to their animal welfare standards. At least in the current discussion about labelling of eggs (cages, deep litter, free-range) and animal welfare standards in egg production I did not come accross such a move by the EC. As far as my knowledge goes, they only want a labelling. But I would like to add something else more practical than ethical. In my opinion the big supermarket chains are or will be the most important power in the field of animal welfare. They have (at least in Austria, and as far as I know also in Switzerland) realised, that there is a potential market in food from animal welfare friendly husbandry. And to a certain extent they are the ones who are making the guidelines and dictate the standards. To give you an example: In Austria almost all eggs produced in alternative systems are label products (app. 30% off eggs sold in supermarkets, two different labels). The guidelines for these labels go beyond the actual animal welfare standards laid down in our animal protection laws. All farms are controlled by an independent agency, which is owned by animal welfare societies. So, if you want to sell organic, free-range or deep litter eggs, you have firstly to comply with these guidelines or standards and secondly you have to be controlled by that agency. (By the way: The same happens in certain label products in export, e.g. if you want to sell eggs or pork from Austria to Switzerland). You could say, that there are trade-barriers built up that way, but the point is that they are not at all governamental but a development within a free-market. Just an observation Knut Dr. Knut Niebuhr Institut f=FCr Tierhaltung und Tierschutz Veterin=E4rmedizinische Universit=E4t Wien Veterin=E4rplatz 1 A-1210 Wien Tel. +43 (1) 250 77 4906, Fax +43 (1) 250 77 4990 e-mail: Knut.Niebuhr@vu-wien.ac.at From: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" 13-SEP-2000 09:45:41.91 To: IN%"chrisrutt@ntlworld.com" "'chrisrutt'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior Oh Chris - you are pulling my leg! You tease! Obviously dominance and submission constitute a transaction which is = actively conducted by both parties. The mood is evoked by the = inclination of the participants to respond. The outcome is not a product = of the "position". If it is I have seriously misled by the assumption = that merely tipping a lady onto her back does not induce her to mate!=20 The ploy of sitting in the dog basket is another of whose outcome I am = rather doubtful. Although it does make me laugh. In general the ordinary and predictable abuse of animals and humans must = be regarded as a "success" because we get away with it.=20 Eysenck,s experiment with rats is my favourite illustration. The animals = were trained to take a pellet of food from a trough when a buzzer sounded. A 'rule' was introduced to the effect = that, if the animal took the pellet immediately it dropped into the = trough, it would be shocked, while if it waited 3 seconds it could take = the pellet with impunity. The adaptive solution to the problem is to = wait 3 seconds and then take the food. Two kinds of maladaptive behaviour were observed: taking the food = quickly and receiving the punishment, or not taking the food at all. Eysenk compared the latter kind of (avoidance) behaviour with that of = the human neurotic with a phobia, for example; and the former kind with = the behaviour of another type of neurotic, the criminal or 'psychopath'. Both types of maladaptive behaviour were more common in the Reactive = strains of rats than in the Nonreactives. I think that useful tests of "temperament" or "latent tendencies" = designed along these lies may have real value. Some of the more spectacular mishaps with training children, dogs or = soldiers arise when there is neither the time nor the patience to pace = training with the emotional resilience of the subject. -----Original Message----- From: chrisrutt [SMTP:chrisrutt@ntlworld.com] Sent: 13 September 2000 13:16 To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca; Robin Walker Subject: Re: dog behavior No more welcome genie than you Robin! And I hated that Woodhouse woman. I accept that check chains can be a problem, though I admit to having = used them on many dogs in the past. Perhaps I was fortunate in that I had = easily trained dogs and I was taught to use them lightly and quickly, with no sustained tightening. In a short time the mere sound of two links of the chain passing the ring informed the dog that an error had been made. I = will also say I never ever had a dog suffer any health problem from use of = these devices. I would like to ask how you feel about "domination" techniques such as putting pressure on the dogs fore quarters, or "pseudo mounting"? This = is allegedly comparable to the domination of inferiors in a natural pack structure and I have found them effective in instilling the dog with a = sense of its "pack" position in human families, particularly with the larger breeds. Best wishes Chris (UK) chris@lovebirdsUK.org www.lovebirdsUK.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Walker" To: ; "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" Sent: 13 September 2000 12:53 Subject: RE: dog behavior Here is something I wrote earlier. You just _had_ to rub my lamp! Now I am out and it is all your fault! : - ) This appeared in the Veterinary Record (I forget the date). My = illustrated talk on the topic was part of the launch of the APDT and caught the = fancy of the national press. The rest is apparently entirely forgotten history! " Check chains Sir, - In reply to Mr. Davidson's letter of March 12, I would like to = point out that on page 29 of her book, Handling a Problem Dog, Barbara = Woodhouse tells us that the cure for vicious behaviour in a dog is "to return violence with violence". She continues "...put the dog on a = long piece of string attached to its choke chain (sic). When it attempts to bite = ..pick up the string and suspend the dog for a few seconds off its front legs, = leaving its back feet on the ground, and at the same time using a thunderous tone = of voice ...the dog when suspended thus will feel like choking and will quickly realise = who is master of the situation. Do not put the dog back on its front legs until it = shows signs of discomfort (usually after about ten seconds). Now the dog will be = subdued, and you should caress and praise it. Repeat this process every time the dog = persists in the habit; you will certainly have to do so two or three times if the = vice is deeply ingrained".1 Here Mrs. Woodhouse uses the term choke chain and = is presumably using it properly. The list of injuries that can be caused by repeatedly hanging a dog, = for a slow count of ten, is impressive. From the Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we learn that "It is never appropriate to recommend to = an owner to hang a dog from a choke collar to subdue aggression. If the owner = cannot back the dog down, and this may take a fight to the death, they are at risk = of being injured. Furthermore, the dog is at risk of injured ocular vessels, = tracheal and oesophageal damage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. In the = few cases of the latter due to hanging by a choker seen at VHUP, all have = died despite therapy that included a respirator". 2 In 30 years of practice (including 22 as veterinary advisor to a = police dog section) I have seen numerous severely sprained necks, cases of fainting, transient foreleg paresis and hind leg ataxia after robust use of the "check" chain. When the practice of slamming the dog sideways with a jerk that brought the foreparts clear of the ground and two or three feet towards the = handler, became popular in the 1970's the resulting painful condition was known = as 'Woodhouse neck' in this practice. Some of these cases exhibited misalignment of cervical vertebrae on radiographs. My ophthalmology colleagues have decided views on the relation between compression of the neck , intrao-cular pressure disturbances and damage to the cervical sympathetic nerve chain = resulting in Horner"s syndrome. I have personally seen a case of swollen eyes with petechial scleral haemorrhage and a number of temporarily voiceless = dogs. Using punishment to train dogs, horses or children works to the satisfaction of drill sergeants, traditional schoolmasters, horse breakers, dog = chokers and jerkers in a broad majority of cases. It fails disastrously when it = creates anxious casualties or violently defiant rebels. The question is very simple. When a punishment fails what do you do next? Do you relentlessly = increase the punishment, or try alternative methods.? It is the ambition of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the = Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors and of many other groups interested in the = welfare of children as well as pets, to persuade us to try the alternative method first. I hope that I am not alone in believing that the veterinary profession should embrace these issues as part of a general concern with Welfare" R. E. Walker, 78, Bromyard Road, Worcester, WR2 5DA 1 Handling a Problem Dog, B. Woodhouse, Ring Press, 1992 2 K. Overall, Canine Aggression, Master class, B.S.A.V.A. Congress, Birmingham 1993. -----Original Message----- From: sheltie1@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sheltie1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: 13 September 2000 03:23 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: dog behavior >----- Original Message ----- >From: LMM >Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:33 PM > > >> I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except >> for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on = them >> can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful >> ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding >> of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can >> learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on >> the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a >> soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank >> him around. >> > >there's no "yanking" in the work Vicki Hearne describes; i suggest you = look >again. >there's no "yanking: in longe work. > >i'm replying with a proper "correction", no yanking and also not = dragging it >out either -- as Robin said, it's not a dog list; when dogs come up, = you can >bet, i'm interested, they are my link to the natural world -- and all = this >other business impacts them hard to be sure -- but this is a debate i = can't >join in. there are other forums where real authentic respectful = training is >discussed. > >respectfully, >margory cohen Her description of allowing a 70 or 80 lb dog to charge to the end of a leash and recieve its full body weight as force on its trachea was more than enough for me. There is no way an animal can understand the nobility and fairness of such a dangerous practice, whether the trainer jerks or merely allows it to jerk itself. Recently a 7 week old puppy in my area was killed by a trainer misusing a choke chain. Call me crazy but my new pup, trained totally positive, loves to heel correctly on a loose leash and a buckle collar. Knowing the alternative, I would never go back to hurting a dog for training. It's taken years for me to unlearn the kind of things Kohler et. al. would teach, and I regret not knowing better when I was training my first dog. If this isn't a good list topic, please read the training materials I referenced off-list. I didn't reinvent the wheel, I'm just one more person who has gotten some use out of it! -L.M.M. From: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" 13-SEP-2000 10:33:22.92 To: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: RE: Food prices On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:15:22 -0400 Jeff Rushen wrote: >... To take a theoretical example, European countries might want to > ban the import of dairy > products from New Zealand on the grounds that Kiwi farmers tail dock cows, which is illegal in Europe. However, > in New Zealand there is greater use of pasture for cows and probably less intense selection for high milk > production. Arguably, the overall welfare the cows in New Zealand might be higher than for cows in the EU, > despite the use of tail docking. Dear All, If one were to accept the type of argument as presented above as valid, then _all_ welfare standards and guidelines everywhere would have to be abolished! (Using the same logic as above, one could also argue that because I treat my horse very, very well almost all the time then it is OK for me to beat him occasionally.) If persons in Europe (or elsewhere) do not want the milk they drink to be produced by cows that have had their tails removed, then these persons should have every right to make that choice - regardless of how well the cows are treated otherwise. And in my opinion this includes the ability to use trade barriers to protect this right. And I do not think that this is simply a question of labeling. If a society decides that the practice of tail docking of cows (or the use of growth hormones, GMO, or whatever) is not appropriate, then they should have the ability to impose this standard in total within the jurisdiction wherein they reside. And I will say again - that the people of Europe (or elsewhere for that matter) should _not_ have standards forced upon them by others. Therefore, it is my contention that they should be able to use trade barriers to protect the standards they adopt - but their standards should be _fair_ (which is not easily defined but nevertheless, I believe should be the primary focus of those persons engaged in international trade discussions). ---------------------- W. Ray Stricklin University of Maryland From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 13-SEP-2000 13:45:35.09 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: RE: Food prices I too believe that it is ethical to use welfare standards to regulate trade. However, I beleive that this should only be used in certain circumstances. For example where implementation of a specific welfare measure has a definite measurable effect on cost. A mild import surcharge could be used to level the playing field. It should not be used to block trade from developing countries but used to raise standards accross economic blocks like the EU. I still completely disagree with Carol about consumers and find it offensive to be regarded as an ivory tower dweller who only mixes with an elite. As a vet who has many friends from all sorts of backgrounds I believe that I am reasonably in touch with what goes on. Consumers may be ill informed but they are not idiots. Yes, pricing foods to reflect their qualities does involve marketing, but we live in what purports to be a free market. Free markets only function where innovation exists and the consumer is free to make decisions on the basis of a number of variables including cost. At the moment this simply is not the case for most basic food products like meat or fish. Jon From: IN%"karen@galliform.psy.mq.edu.au" "Karen Bayly" 13-SEP-2000 14:42:15.91 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: RE: Food prices >Consumers may be ill informed but they are not idiots. >Yes, pricing foods to reflect their qualities does involve marketing, but we >live in what purports to be a free market. >Free markets only function where innovation exists and the consumer is free >to make decisions on the basis of a number of variables including cost. I don't recall Carol saying that consumers were idiots. Her most interesting comment on consumers was that those in the lower socio-economic groups had other priorities. I can't speak for other countries but I do know that in Australia there are many single income families who have an income that is less than the so call "average wage" (I've never understood why they don't use the median wage as a socio-economic measure). Unfortunately there are many more such families than one would think, and these people base their decision on cost, no matter what they feel about the plight of animals. Giving your family food and providing for your children (which includes spending on toys and other leisure items) is the most important thing to many people. I come from such a background - my formal education has come much later in life - so I believe I have some understanding of the situation. So unless we find ways of making welfare friendly products economically viable (subsidies?) for these people, most of them will choose the cheaper and often less animal friendly alternative. The only other thing is to make animal welfare more important than owning a Game Boy (education of kids?). However, I agree in general that giving the consumer a number of variables on which to base their decisions is important. >At the moment this simply is not the case for most basic food products like >meat or fish. Excuse my ignorance on this one - in Australia, we have access to meat and dairy products that are intensively farmed, free range (except pork products) or organic, and I assumed this was common in most Western countries. I'm interested in knowing what happens elsewhere. Karen Bayly -- ****************************************************************** Karen L Bayly Animal Behaviour Laboratory c /- Department of Biological Sciences Division of Life and Environmental Sciences Macquarie University NSW 2109 Australia Telephone: +61 2 9850 9441 Facsimile: +61 2 9850 9231 Email: karen@galliform.psy.mq.edu.au http://galliform.psy.mq.edu.au/ ****************************************************************** From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 13-SEP-2000 14:48:46.67 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior - ever interested but i'm a bit off topic with this -- hello - today's ny times front page carries photo and story about gas situation in UK and i hope, personally, all of you are ok. i remember a time here in the states queing up for gasoline and paying close attention to ordinary driving needs. back soon as i can catch up on the dogs -- margory From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 13-SEP-2000 15:00:43.51 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: learning theory and dog behavior You are right of course that animals can learn from pain, of course there is plenty of scientific evidence for this. I was trying to say that applying pain to pet dog training hasn't been based in or tested by science. As Robin pointed out, it encourages avoidance and maladaptive behaviors rather than simply training the behavior the trainer is after. -L.M.M. > > >Please let's not get into ANOTHER semantic debate about +ve and -ve >reinforcement. > >My point was that a message had been posted arguing that 'correction based >methods of training' (which I assume involves using aversive stimuli, but I >am not certain - hence my question) had 'never been proven scientifically >useful' at training animals. This appears to contradict many published >papers in which aversive stimuli have been used to teach animals to perform >a wide variety of behaviours (again I would like to state I am NOT >advocating the use of stimuli which may cause pain or distress to animals). > >Regards, > >Chris > > >On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:34:18 +0100 Steve Appleyard > wrote: > >> Hi Chris and other Applied-Ethologists, >> >> > Could you please explain whether there is a difference between 'negative >> > reinforcement' and 'correction based methods of training'. >> >> It seems to me that the difference here could be a comparison between >> negative reinforcement and punishment. From my Open University >> Summer School tutors notes I can tell you that reinforcement, whether >> negative or positive, is always about strengthening a behaviour, whereas >> punishment is about reducing the frequency of a behaviour. In a way the >> difference is merely semantic. >> >> One example of negative reinforcement would be a rat pressing a lever >> to avoid a foot shock - doing the operant behaviour stops the negative >> stimulus, increasing lever pressing. An example of punishment is the rat >> getting a foot shock when it presses the lever - leading to reduced lever >> pressing. So negative reinforcements are applied when the animal does >> not do something what you want. Whereas punishment is applied when >> the animal does seomething you definitely don't want. >> >> Does that help? >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Steve Appleyard, >> Department of Behavioural Sciences, >> Division of Animal Biology, >> Scottish Agricultural College, >> Edinburgh. >> Scotland >> >> Tel. +44 131 535 3243 >> FAX: +44 131 535 3121 >> >> http://www.sac.ac.uk/ >> __________________________________________________ >> > >---------------------- >Dr. C.M. Sherwin >Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) >Division of Animal Health and Husbandry >University of Bristol Phone: (0117) 928 9486 >Langford House Fax: (0117) 928 9582 >Langford >Bristol E-mail: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk >BS40 5DU From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 13-SEP-2000 15:30:02.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Food prices Dear Karen, To quote from Carol... >Let me say that consumers are not dumb - they are just , for the most part, uninformed. Which agress with my own argument... >I'm sorry if this appears to be a derogatory comment about the >public in >general (I don't wish to belittle particular groups), but I think you >and >Mike Appleby give them more credit than they are due. Remember >that you >tend to mix with the "educated elite" and have very little contact (I >suspect) with the uneducated/minimally educated members of the >lower >socio-economic groups OK, maybe the term 'idiot' was a bit strong, but as someone with a working class background I found the second statement extremely offensive. In my own family a lack of money made people more sharp at making decisions and a lack of available information would have made informed choice impossible I accept the fact that economic priorities do come first for a lot of people, but for an equal number of others they do not. As in any area of supply and demand with novel products the initial lead is often taken by a small number of aspirational consumers who create an inital demand. As the idea is taken up more widely cost decreases. This has been exactly the experience with organic food in the UK. They were expensive and now they are a part of even the most conventional products such as own brand products at Iceland. We too have a range of different products; organic etc. The problem is that to most people these terms are actually meaningless. For meat and other animal products there is minimal labelling and certainly nothig that identifies 'intensivley farmed'. I don't see why anyone objects to making the choices and consequences of those choices clear to consumers. Nobody is suggesting that improvements will be instant or that cheap products would cease to be available for those that need them. The simple truth is that most people have no way to assess the value of meat other than through traditional knowledge about cut or cost so there is no way for them to make more complex decisions. Isn't someone who chooses to deny people this information on the grounds that other consumer priorities will not allow them to act on it is betraying their own elitism ;-) I am interested to know what the situation elsewhere too. From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 13-SEP-2000 15:32:45.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Food prices Dear Karen, To quote from Carol... >Let me say that consumers are not dumb - they are just , for the most part, uninformed. Which agress with my own argument... >I'm sorry if this appears to be a derogatory comment about the >public in >general (I don't wish to belittle particular groups), but I think you >and >Mike Appleby give them more credit than they are due. Remember >that you >tend to mix with the "educated elite" and have very little contact (I >suspect) with the uneducated/minimally educated members of the >lower >socio-economic groups OK, maybe the term 'idiot' was a bit strong, but as someone with a working class background I found the second statement extremely offensive. In my own family a lack of money made people more sharp at making decisions and a lack of available information would have made informed choice impossible I accept the fact that economic priorities do come first for a lot of people, but for an equal number of others they do not. As in any area of supply and demand with novel products the initial lead is often taken by a small number of aspirational consumers who create an inital demand. As the idea is taken up more widely cost decreases. This has been exactly the experience with organic food in the UK. They were expensive and now they are a part of even the most conventional products such as own brand products at Iceland. We too have a range of different products; organic etc. The problem is that to most people these terms are actually meaningless. For meat and other animal products there is minimal labelling and certainly nothig that identifies 'intensivley farmed'. I don't see why anyone objects to making the choices and consequences of those choices clear to consumers. Nobody is suggesting that improvements will be instant or that cheap products would cease to be available for those that need them. The simple truth is that most people have no way to assess the value of meat other than through traditional knowledge about cut or cost so there is no way for them to make more complex decisions. Isn't someone who chooses to deny people this information on the grounds that other consumer priorities will not allow them to act on it is betraying their own elitism ;-) I am interested to know what the situation elsewhere too. From: IN%"karen@galliform.psy.mq.edu.au" "Karen Bayly" 13-SEP-2000 16:01:13.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Food prices >I don't see why anyone objects to making the choices and consequences of >those choices clear to consumers. >Nobody is suggesting that improvements will be instant or that cheap >products would cease to be available for those that need them. >The simple truth is that most people have no way to assess the value of meat >other than through traditional knowledge about cut or cost so there is no >way for them to make more complex decisions. > >Isn't someone who chooses to deny people this information on the grounds >that other consumer priorities will not allow them to act on it is betraying >their own elitism ;-) Who is saying this? I for one am just suggesting that we may need other methods as well, not instead of, if we are to make welfare-friendly products attractive and accessible the widest possible range of consumers. And isn't that what we all want to achieve? Karen Bayly -- ****************************************************************** Karen L Bayly Animal Behaviour Laboratory c /- Department of Biological Sciences Division of Life and Environmental Sciences Macquarie University NSW 2109 Australia Telephone: +61 2 9850 9441 Facsimile: +61 2 9850 9231 Email: karen@galliform.psy.mq.edu.au http://galliform.psy.mq.edu.au/ ****************************************************************** From: IN%"margory@dnai.com" "margory cohen" 13-SEP-2000 18:53:01.37 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior (still, which is always good) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_9/ZsED+LkHvZ7P8Ebiwj/A) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable RE: dog behavior----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Robin Walker" =20 Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 8:42 AM=20 >>> Some of the more spectacular mishaps with training children, dogs or = soldiers arise when there is neither the time nor the patience to pace = training with the emotional resilience of the subject. if i may: i think some of the more "spectacular mishaps" with = understanding what is real training and a trained dog unfortunately = still end up with the same result: damage to the status of the dog. i understand those gentle leaders also are blamed now for some neck = problems. amazing to me is that never is the handler at fault; it's = always the equipment. in the States now, some trainers with connections to ADPT, have now = become involved with corporate dog-training at chain of pet supply = stores, and while the position appears to be one of holier-than-thou = training, i understand "off-lead" doesn't appear anywhere in that = marketing campaign. Koehler took heat for his, Vicki Hearne has for hers, but i stand by my = other posts about Vicki Hearne's books. =20 sometimes i think all the brouhaha about which collar and the click of a = choke chain (which frankly in years of using i've not heard, because = mine aren't popped or jerked; mind you they do jangle in my pocket when = my hounds are off-lead) or the (to me, offensive) click of plastic -- = sometimes i think this is subterfuge distraction from the real issue: = the status of the dog. now rampant in the States are campaigns to = remove the dog's protection as "property" to become a ward of its human = "guardian." =20 i enquired of some long-time trainers incidentially for published = studies on methods and some response i had i'm afraid was a bit biased; = that outside university, years of experience are "anecdotal" as opposed = to "scientific." =20 James Serpell is editor a new collection i've not seen yet; i don't know = any of this is addressed in this or not. anybody see this yet? =20 always interested, margory -----------i should say living with the hounds i do, sighthounds, = Scottish Deerhounds, a "different" hand has always been the norm, even = Sir Walter Scott wrote to a light hand with these hounds. so my = perspective is a little different too. margory=20 --Boundary_(ID_9/ZsED+LkHvZ7P8Ebiwj/A) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable RE: dog behavior

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 "Robin Walker" <robin@coape.win-uk.net>=20
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 8:42 AM =

>>> Some of the more spectacular mishaps with = training=20 children, dogs or soldiers arise when there is neither the time nor the = patience=20 to pace training with the emotional resilience of the = subject.


if i may:   i think some of the more = "spectacular=20 mishaps" with understanding what is real training and a trained dog=20 unfortunately still end up with the same result:  damage to the = status of=20 the dog.

i understand those gentle leaders also are blamed now = for some=20 neck problems.  amazing to me is that never is the handler at = fault; it's=20 always the equipment.

in the States now, some trainers with = connections to ADPT,=20 have now become involved with corporate dog-training at chain of pet = supply=20 stores, and while the position appears to be one of holier-than-thou=20 training, i understand "off-lead" doesn't appear anywhere in = that=20 marketing campaign.

Koehler took heat for his, Vicki Hearne has for = hers, but i=20 stand by my other posts about Vicki Hearne's books.   =20

sometimes i think all the brouhaha about which collar = and the=20 click of a choke chain (which frankly in years of using i've not heard, = because=20 mine aren't popped or jerked; mind you they do jangle in my pocket when = my=20 hounds are off-lead) or the (to me, offensive) click of plastic --  = sometimes i think this is subterfuge distraction from the real = issue: =20 the status of the dog.  now rampant in the States are campaigns to = remove=20 the dog's protection as "property" to become a ward of its human=20 "guardian." 

i enquired of some long-time trainers incidentially = for=20 published studies on methods and some response i had i'm afraid was a = bit=20 biased; that outside university, years of experience are "anecdotal" as = opposed=20 to "scientific."   

James Serpell is editor a new collection i've not = seen yet;=20 i don't know any of this is addressed in this or not.  anybody see = this=20 yet?  

always interested,
margory
 
-----------i should say living with the hounds i do, = sighthounds, Scottish Deerhounds, a "different" hand has always been the = norm,=20 even Sir Walter Scott wrote to a light hand with these hounds.  so = my=20 perspective is a little different too.
 


margory

--Boundary_(ID_9/ZsED+LkHvZ7P8Ebiwj/A)-- From: IN%"jjgl@paradise.net.nz" "Jenny and Garth" 13-SEP-2000 20:50:27.93 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: pasture damaged by outdoor farmed pigs This message is posted on behalf of Laura Jacobson Please direct replies to her email address below or to the list. Dear List members, Can anyone direct me to studies/literature they know of about the prevention of pasture damage by outdoor farmed pigs? (I have had only modest success with literature searches!). In particular, I am interested in investigations on the design and efficacy of types of both snout septum rings and clips/rings though the upper rim of the nasal disc (or any other types of systems or devices). Can anyone help? Many thanks in advance. Laura Jacobson Bio Developments Team Food Science Division AgResearch(MIRINZ Site) PO Box 3123 Hamilton New Zealand Ph + 64 7 838 5120 Fax + 64 7 838 5625 Email: jacobsonl@agresearch.cri.nz From: IN%"PetherC@prose.dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" 13-SEP-2000 21:26:27.08 To: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "'Robin Walker'", IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" "'sheltie1@ix.netcom.com'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior Robin This is getting off the dog issue but relates to the injuries you report about using a check chain. A claim made by the rodeo fraternity is that cattle are not injured during 'roping sports' (although in Qld it is considered 'bad form' and marks are deducted if, when calf-roping, the animal is jerked off its feet). Are the type of injuries you list for dogs likely to occur during steer-roping and similar? Does anybody know of any statistics/studies on this? Thanks Carol Petherick > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Walker [SMTP:robin@coape.win-uk.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:54 PM > To: 'sheltie1@ix.netcom.com'; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: RE: dog behavior > > Here is something I wrote earlier. > > You just _had_ to rub my lamp! Now I am out and it is all your fault! > > : - ) > > This appeared in the Veterinary Record (I forget the date). My illustrated > talk on the topic was part of the launch of the APDT and caught the fancy > of the national press. The rest is apparently entirely forgotten history! > > > " Check chains > > > Sir, - In reply to Mr. Davidson's letter of March 12, I would like to > point > out that on page 29 of her book, Handling a Problem Dog, Barbara > Woodhouse tells > us that the cure for vicious behaviour in a dog is > "to return violence with violence". She continues "...put the dog on a > long piece > of string attached to its choke chain (sic). When it attempts to bite > ..pick up > the string and suspend the dog for a few seconds off its front legs, > leaving its > back feet on the ground, and at the same time using a thunderous tone of > voice ...the > dog when suspended thus will feel like choking and will quickly realise > who is master > of the situation. Do not put the dog back on its front legs until it shows > signs of > discomfort (usually after about ten seconds). Now the dog will be subdued, > and you > should caress and praise it. Repeat this process every time the dog > persists in > the habit; you will certainly have to do so two or three times if the vice > is > deeply ingrained".1 Here Mrs. Woodhouse uses the term choke chain and > is > presumably using it properly. > The list of injuries that can be caused by repeatedly hanging a dog, for > > a slow count of ten, is impressive. From the Veterinary Hospital of the > University > of Pennsylvania, we learn that "It is never appropriate to recommend to an > owner > to hang a dog from a choke collar to subdue aggression. If the owner > cannot back > the dog down, and this may take a fight to the death, they are at risk of > being > injured. Furthermore, the dog is at risk of injured ocular vessels, > tracheal > and oesophageal damage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. In the > few > cases of the latter due to hanging by a choker seen at VHUP, all have died > > despite therapy that included a respirator". 2 > > In 30 years of practice (including 22 as veterinary advisor to a police > dog section) I have seen numerous severely sprained necks, cases of > fainting, > transient foreleg paresis and hind leg ataxia after robust use of the > "check" > chain. When the practice of slamming the dog sideways with a jerk that > brought > the foreparts clear of the ground and two or three feet towards the > handler, > became popular in the 1970's the resulting painful condition was known as > > 'Woodhouse neck' in this practice. Some of these cases exhibited > misalignment > of cervical vertebrae on radiographs. My ophthalmology colleagues have > decided > views on the relation between compression of the neck , intrao-cular > pressure > disturbances and damage to the cervical sympathetic nerve chain resulting > > in Horner"s syndrome. I have personally seen a case of swollen eyes with > petechial scleral haemorrhage and a number of temporarily voiceless dogs. > > Using punishment to train dogs, horses or children works to the > satisfaction > of drill sergeants, traditional schoolmasters, horse breakers, dog chokers > and > jerkers in a broad majority of cases. It fails disastrously when it > creates > anxious casualties or violently defiant rebels. The question is very > simple. > When a punishment fails what do you do next? Do you relentlessly increase > the > punishment, or try alternative methods.? > > It is the ambition of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the > Association of > Pet Behaviour Counsellors and of many other groups interested in the > welfare of > children as well as pets, to persuade us to try the alternative method > first. > I hope that I am not alone in believing that the veterinary profession > should > embrace these issues as part of a general concern with Welfare" > > > R. E. Walker, 78, Bromyard Road, > Worcester, WR2 5DA > > 1 Handling a Problem Dog, B. Woodhouse, Ring Press, 1992 > > 2 K. Overall, Canine Aggression, Master class, B.S.A.V.A. Congress, > Birmingham 1993. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sheltie1@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sheltie1@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: 13 September 2000 03:23 > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: dog behavior > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: LMM > >Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:33 PM > > > > > >> I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except > >> for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on them > >> can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful > >> ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding > >> of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can > >> learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on > >> the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a > >> soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank > >> him around. > >> > > > >there's no "yanking" in the work Vicki Hearne describes; i suggest you > look > >again. > >there's no "yanking: in longe work. > > > >i'm replying with a proper "correction", no yanking and also not dragging > it > >out either -- as Robin said, it's not a dog list; when dogs come up, you > can > >bet, i'm interested, they are my link to the natural world -- and all > this > >other business impacts them hard to be sure -- but this is a debate i > can't > >join in. there are other forums where real authentic respectful training > is > >discussed. > > > >respectfully, > >margory cohen > > > Her description of allowing a 70 or 80 lb dog to charge to the end of > a leash and recieve its full body weight as force on its trachea was > more than enough for me. There is no way an animal can understand the > nobility and fairness of such a dangerous practice, whether the > trainer jerks or merely allows it to jerk itself. > > Recently a 7 week old puppy in my area was killed by a trainer > misusing a choke chain. Call me crazy but my new pup, trained totally > positive, loves to heel correctly on a loose leash and a buckle > collar. Knowing the alternative, I would never go back to hurting a > dog for training. It's taken years for me to unlearn the kind of > things Kohler et. al. would teach, and I regret not knowing better > when I was training my first dog. > > If this isn't a good list topic, please read the training materials I > referenced off-list. I didn't reinvent the wheel, I'm just one more > person who has gotten some use out of it! > > -L.M.M. > > **************************DISCLAIMER******************************** The information in this e-mail message together with 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 this e-mail message is unauthorised. Opinions contained in this e-mail message and any attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and associated organisations. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any attachments from your computer and/or your computer system network. From: IN%"PetherC@prose.dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol (TBC)" 13-SEP-2000 22:16:40.42 To: IN%"jjgl@paradise.net.nz" "'Jenny and Garth'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: pasture damaged by outdoor farmed pigs Laura Ian Horrell from Hull Uni, UK has done some work on nose-rings for pigs. I have a copy of an abstract of a paper that he presented at an ISAE conference in 1997. Shall I fax it to you at the number below? Ian's e-mail is r.i.horrell@psy.hull.ac.uk You may want to contact him direct as he'll probably be able to give you more of the info. that you're after. Regards Carol Petherick > -----Original Message----- > From: Jenny and Garth [SMTP:jjgl@paradise.net.nz] > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 1:02 PM > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: pasture damaged by outdoor farmed pigs > > This message is posted on behalf of Laura Jacobson > > Please direct replies to her email address below or to the list. > > Dear List members, > Can anyone direct me to studies/literature they know of about the > prevention > of pasture damage by outdoor farmed pigs? (I have had only modest > success > with literature searches!). In particular, I am interested in > investigations > on the design and efficacy of types of both snout septum rings and > clips/rings though the upper rim of the nasal disc (or any other types > of > systems or devices). Can anyone help? > > Many thanks in advance. > > Laura Jacobson > Bio Developments Team > Food Science Division > AgResearch(MIRINZ Site) > PO Box 3123 > Hamilton > New Zealand > Ph + 64 7 838 5120 > Fax + 64 7 838 5625 > Email: jacobsonl@agresearch.cri.nz > > > > **************************DISCLAIMER******************************** The information in this e-mail message together with 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 this e-mail message is unauthorised. Opinions contained in this e-mail message and any attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and associated organisations. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any attachments from your computer and/or your computer system network. From: IN%"LilleBird@aol.com" 14-SEP-2000 00:22:21.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior In a message dated 9/12/00 9:18:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sheltie1@ix.netcom.com writes: << I know the Baileys have had their research published but can't find a reference right now. Perhaps someone else has access to a college library which can get you more info on their work. >> I know much was lost in a fire because I spent a week with them this summer training chickens and he told us this. They are extremely generous and can be contacted by their website. Bob is active on a few clicker lists and could speak to these references. However he is away for a few months as he is traveling to Terry Ryan's to do some chicken workshops. elaine buchsbaum red dog training lillebird@aol.com elaine From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 14-SEP-2000 02:03:55.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior (still, which is always good) --Boundary_(ID_oIKkeKtmY35f/m2OhieE9A) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >sometimes i think all the brouhaha about which collar and the click >of a choke chain (which frankly in years of using i've not heard, >because mine aren't popped or jerked; mind you they do jangle in my >pocket when my hounds are off-lead) or the (to me, offensive) click >of plastic Odd how the clicker can be a positive reinforcer for some and a negative for others. > -- sometimes i think this is subterfuge distraction from the real >issue: the status of the dog. now rampant in the States are >campaigns to remove the dog's protection as "property" to become a >ward of its human "guardian." Its a commentary on both the legal and lobbying framework that removes the rights of citizens, and the fact that as "property" it seems more acceptable to mistreat a dog whereas as a "ward" or "companion" the dog gets supposed legal rights that supercede those of an owner. I'd never give up my own dogs, I certainly try to rise to the task of pet ownership, but its easy for anyone to see the imperitive of removing an animal from the hands of those who mistreat it. >i enquired of some long-time trainers incidentially for published >studies on methods and some response i had i'm afraid was a bit >biased; that outside university, years of experience are "anecdotal" >as opposed to "scientific." There's a body of experience in training animals that goes back to the dawn of the human race. In India, the traditional way of training elephants involves capturing them, tying them up, and "breaking" them much in the way horse trainers in the west used to break horses. In fact the history of training animals whether cracking a whip at tigers in the circus or housetraining a dog by beating it with a newspaper is a very sad and unscientific tale indeed. A Sears Catelog of 1900 carried dog whips along with collars and leashes and dominance theory based on an erroneous view of wolf packs followed a few years after. Not that trial and error or years of experience don't teach anything, but as far as I can see the process of dog training has been crying out for a wakeup call from science for the entire 20th century and is only beginning to become a noble, kind, and beneficial act for both dog and owner. >James Serpell is editor a new collection i've not seen yet; i don't >know any of this is addressed in this or not. anybody see this >yet? It isn't at amazon.com yet, unless you mean his most recent work in 1996. >always interested, >margory > >-----------i should say living with the hounds i do, sighthounds, >Scottish Deerhounds, a "different" hand has always been the norm, >even Sir Walter Scott wrote to a light hand with these hounds. so >my perspective is a little different too. > > > >margory My perspective is: treat any dog with a light hand. It may make one unpopular with some trainers but surely not with dogs :) -L.M.M. --Boundary_(ID_oIKkeKtmY35f/m2OhieE9A) Content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" RE: dog behavior (still, which is always good)
sometimes i think all the brouhaha about which collar and the click of a choke chain (which frankly in years of using i've not heard, because mine aren't popped or jerked; mind you they do jangle in my pocket when my hounds are off-lead) or the (to me, offensive) click of plastic


Odd how the clicker can be a positive reinforcer for some and a negative for others.



 --  sometimes i think this is subterfuge distraction from the real issue:  the status of the dog.  now rampant in the States are campaigns to remove the dog's protection as "property" to become a ward of its human "guardian." 


Its a commentary on both the legal and lobbying framework that removes the rights of citizens, and the fact that as "property" it seems more acceptable to mistreat a dog whereas as a "ward" or "companion" the dog gets supposed legal rights that supercede those of an owner.

I'd never give up my own dogs, I certainly try to rise to the task of pet ownership, but its easy for anyone to see the imperitive of removing an animal from the hands of those who mistreat it.


i enquired of some long-time trainers incidentially for published studies on methods and some response i had i'm afraid was a bit biased; that outside university, years of experience are "anecdotal" as opposed to "scientific."   


There's a body of experience in training animals that goes back to the dawn of the human race. In India, the traditional way of training elephants involves capturing them, tying them up, and "breaking" them much in the way horse trainers in the west used to break horses. In fact the history of training animals whether cracking a whip at tigers in the circus or housetraining a dog by beating it with a newspaper is a very sad and unscientific tale indeed. A Sears Catelog of 1900 carried dog whips along with collars and leashes and dominance theory based on an erroneous view of wolf packs followed a few years after.

Not that trial and error or years of experience don't teach anything, but as far as I can see the process of dog training has been crying out for a wakeup call from science for the entire 20th century and is only beginning to become a noble, kind, and beneficial act for both dog and owner.


James Serpell is editor a new collection i've not seen yet; i don't know any of this is addressed in this or not.  anybody see this yet?  


It isn't at amazon.com yet, unless you mean his most recent work in 1996.


always interested,
margory
 
-----------i should say living with the hounds i do, sighthounds, Scottish Deerhounds, a "different" hand has always been the norm, even Sir Walter Scott wrote to a light hand with these hounds.  so my perspective is a little different too.
 

margory


My perspective is: treat any dog with a light hand. It may make one unpopular with some trainers but surely not with dogs :)

-L.M.M.

--Boundary_(ID_oIKkeKtmY35f/m2OhieE9A)-- From: IN%"Kenneth.Rutherford@bbsrc.ac.uk" "Kenneth Rutherford" 14-SEP-2000 02:51:47.16 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Food prices If anyone is interested here is a link to the WTO (World Trade Organisation) website which contains two recent statements from the EC on animal welfare within WTO negotiations. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negoti_e.htm I'm hardly an expert on all this but it seems that even if the EC did want to use animal welfare as a true trade barrier it would not be able to, given the power of the WTO. (The same applies to individual European countries using welfare as a barrier within the community). Maybe we need to consider mechanisms whereby the effect of free trade on current welfare standards and future progress is minimised, rather than trying to use welfare arguments to limit trade. This seems to basically be the position of the EC (officially at least). Working out what is the best way forward is beyond me, but hopefully there are better informed people thinking about it somewhere (and not just on this list!). Kenny Kenneth Rutherford Welfare Biology Group Roslin Institute (Edinburgh) Roslin Midlothian EH25 9PS Scotland From: IN%"rushenj@EM.AGR.CA" "Jeff Rushen" 14-SEP-2000 07:10:23.57 To: IN%"ws31@umail.umd.edu" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: RE: Food prices >>> "W. Ray Stricklin" 09/13 12:29 pm >>> If persons in Europe (or elsewhere) do not want the milk they drink=20 to be produced by cows that have had their tails removed, then these=20 persons should have every right to make that choice - regardless of=20 how well the cows are treated otherwise. And in my opinion this=20 includes the ability to use trade barriers to protect this right.>>> Trade barriers do not give people the right to choose which milk they = drink. They take away the right of people to drink what they want. The question is: do European = governments have the right to prevent their citizens drinking milk from New Zealand, even if NZ cows' = welfare is better, simply because tail docking is practiced? >>>>And I do not think that this is simply a question of labeling. If = a=20 society decides that the practice of tail docking of cows (or the use=20 of growth hormones, GMO, or whatever) is not appropriate, then they=20 should have the ability to impose this standard in total within the=20 jurisdiction wherein they reside.>>> It is governments, not "societies" that impose trade restrictions. = Governments (even those supported by a majority of citizens) do not have the right to pass whatever laws they feel like. If a Government wishes to prevent = its citizens from eating what they might otherwise have chosen to eat, then there has to be a good = justification for this. My original point was that the use of animal welfare standards in trade = barriers would only be justified if the standards really did differentiate between countries = on the basis of animal welfare.=20 Jeff Rushen From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 14-SEP-2000 08:34:14.71 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: RE: Food prices On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jeff Rushen wrote: > >>> "W. Ray Stricklin" 09/13 12:29 pm >>> > If persons in Europe (or elsewhere) do not want the milk they drink > to be produced by cows that have had their tails removed, then these > persons should have every right to make that choice - regardless of > how well the cows are treated otherwise. And in my opinion this > includes the ability to use trade barriers to protect this right.>>> > > Trade barriers do not give people the right to choose which milk they drink. They take away the > right of people to drink what they want. The question is: do European governments have the right > to prevent their citizens drinking milk from New Zealand, even if NZ cows' welfare is better, > simply because tail docking is practiced? > > >>>>And I do not think that this is simply a question of labeling. If a > society decides that the practice of tail docking of cows (or the use > of growth hormones, GMO, or whatever) is not appropriate, then they > should have the ability to impose this standard in total within the > jurisdiction wherein they reside.>>> > > It is governments, not "societies" that impose trade restrictions. Governments (even those supported > by a majority of citizens) do not have the right > to pass whatever laws they feel like. If a Government wishes to prevent its citizens from eating > what they might otherwise have chosen to eat, then there has to be a good justification for this. > My original point was that the use of animal welfare standards in trade barriers would only > be justified if the standards really did differentiate between countries on the basis of animal welfare. > My understanding is that the WTO is claiming that labelling by means of production constitutes a trade barrier if no tangible difference between the end products of different systems can be proved. So, for example, "Fair Trade", "Freedom Food" or "Produced by methods which would be illegal in Britain" might all be ruled out. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 14-SEP-2000 13:29:52.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: food prices There is one issue about the food prices debate that I would like to mention, as I have not seen it mentioned before in the discussion and I hope that I don't get roasted over the coals for bringing it up. This is not to say that the other issues mentioned are not also valid, but that this is another thing to consider. And that is the issue of taste. You see, my father worked for almost 50 years in the food processing industry developing food products. If you want to alter how people buy and consume food products than I feel that you first must look to the food processing industry for the lessons they have learned and are applying to gain customer support. This industry has been *very* successful. If you were to have entered a grocery market 100 years ago, all that you have found for sale there would have been the basics: beans and flour and salt and sugar, etc. Now go into a grocery store and look at how much of the display space is devoted to those basics? Not very much. Instead a majority of the display space is devoted to canned, boxed, processed foods; prefabricated foods that are convenient, quick and easy to prepare. And the food processors have known what ingredients to add to foods to make them more acceptable to the human palate. Because what people choose to eat is dependant on flavor and texture. If all we cared about was to fill our bellies when we feel hungry, then a steady diet of mashed potatoes would suffice. But we don't. Humans have a great desire to fill their mouths with a variety of tastes and textures. And we are highly motivated by specific tastes and textures. And the food processing industry knows this, which is why they add salt and sugar and MSG and fat and gums like carrageenam to their processed products. Look on the labels of the foods you eat, if you don't believe me. This is a behavioral issue like any other. Humans have specific flavors and textures we have evolved to seek out preferentially. The food industry knows how to provide these flavors and textures in a "counterfeit" way to increase the palatability of foods, without adding the natural food ingredients which cost more to the producers (just go to the store and try to buy beef bouillon that is not mostly MSG in one of its incarnations if you don't believe me). So the reason why these products are bought and consumed has very little to do with price. The basic products cost a fraction of what the processed versions do. So why would a person take home dried beans, soak and cook them and make chili when they can buy chili in a can that takes a fraction of the time to prepare and may even taste better than the homemade, since it contains MSG, which is a flavor enhancer. The issue here is not price, it is convenience, variety, flavor and texture. So, of course, some people have awakened to the understanding that not all the food that the food processing industry gives us is good for our health. Fads come and go and the food industry plays up to these fads to sell their products. As an example, after the fad of eating low fat foods became entrenched in the US, I noticed a number of candy makers adding the information "a low fat food" on the label as though eating a candy bar is now somehow good for your health! And I do in fact know of parents who load their children up on these "low fat" (but extremely high carbohydrate) foods in the mistaken belief that they are good for them. In other words, the food processing industry knows how to design foods that humans will preferentially eat because of our evolutionary endowment, they know the sociological factors of our work force and how to design foods for ease of preparation and they know how to market to the food fad mentality. If we are going to market foods to the public that come from animals raised with a concern for their welfare, then we need to understand these factors as well as the food processing industry does. And we need to know how to work with this industry, because they are the marketing geniuses in this equation. Now, I may be a decidedly weird case here, having a flavor chemist for a father, but I prefer to go to several local markets which stock local fruits and vegetables whenever I can, rather than buying from the big supermarket chains. The reason that I do this is taste. If I am going to eat a peach, I want it to taste like a peach, not be rubbery and hard and have almost no flavor, as the ones that are picked green so that they can be shipped long distances do. The small local markets may cost a fraction more, but the flavor difference is great, so I don't even care if the cost difference is 25% greater. What's the point in eating a peach if it doesn't taste like a peach? I think that a lot of Americans have forgotten what real food tastes like, which is why they consume some much junk food. They are searching for a better flavor than the factory farmed, long distance transported foods can provide. Real peaches are hard to come by, so they turn to convenience and artificial flavors to fill their flavor need. And these processed foods cost more than the real peaches do. And so where do animal products come into the equation? Well, the same small markets that sell the real peaches also carry free range eggs and milk from a small independent dairy. In both cases they cost more and in both cases, I purchase them preferentially. I would like to say that I am taking the moral high ground when I purchase these products, that I purchase them because of the better animal welfare and support of a local industry. But in all honesty, that is not why I buy them. I buy these products because they *taste* better. And they really do. If they were regularly in the larger supermarkets (convenience) and they were marketed for their better flavor, they would sell there too--even if the price were a bit higher. Ditto, if they are marketed for having a healthier content. If we do not understand why people eat the food that they eat, we will have no hope of encouraging consumers to purchase foods from animals raised with a greater concern for their welfare. I believe that flavor and convenience make up a large part of the equation of consumer choice. Food safety is also a concern, but much lower on the priorities. We would have a lot better luck marketing to a "primal need" (flavor and texture) than an abstract concept (welfare). And if you are going to roast me over the coals for these comments, I will but ask that you do so in olive oil, with a touch of garlic and basil. Janice Janice Willard, DVM, MS Moscow, ID, USA From: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" 14-SEP-2000 14:19:51.54 To: IN%"PetherC@prose.dpi.qld.gov.au" "'Petherick, Carol (TBC)'", IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" "'sheltie1@ix.netcom.com'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: dog behavior Carol, I have no special knowledge here but a few thoughts to offer. The bovidae are horn bearing and have a special anatomy adapted to employing horns in defence and offence. I believe ancient authors such as Aelianos and Democritus wondered a bout the utility of the bovine frontal sinuses and invented theories of their function. The massive areas of muscle insertion and the evolved engineering solutions of the problems of skull weight might be matched by interesting adaptations for muscular endurance and tolerance of the pain of colossal impacts and exertion. A rather special adaptation of the opioid analgesia systems seems likely. (I will leave side the question of the female birth canal and the boxer's nose although they are related). Just as there seem to be species typical tolerances of pain is some areas of the body; in others there are species typical sensitivities. In my experience dogs are particularly sensitive to neck pain and relatively stoical with regard to other areas of the body. Cats seem particularly upset by tail pain and relatively tolerant of wounds about the head and neck. These are most tentative suggestions! Robin -----Original Message----- From: Petherick, Carol (TBC) [SMTP:PetherC@prose.dpi.qld.gov.au] Sent: 14 September 2000 04:25 To: 'Robin Walker'; 'sheltie1@ix.netcom.com'; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: dog behavior Robin This is getting off the dog issue but relates to the injuries you report about using a check chain. A claim made by the rodeo fraternity is that cattle are not injured during 'roping sports' (although in Qld it is considered 'bad form' and marks are deducted if, when calf-roping, the animal is jerked off its feet). Are the type of injuries you list for dogs likely to occur during steer-roping and similar? Does anybody know of any statistics/studies on this? Thanks Carol Petherick > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Walker [SMTP:robin@coape.win-uk.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:54 PM > To: 'sheltie1@ix.netcom.com'; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: RE: dog behavior > > Here is something I wrote earlier. > > You just _had_ to rub my lamp! Now I am out and it is all your fault! > > : - ) > > This appeared in the Veterinary Record (I forget the date). My illustrated > talk on the topic was part of the launch of the APDT and caught the fancy > of the national press. The rest is apparently entirely forgotten history! > > > " Check chains > > > Sir, - In reply to Mr. Davidson's letter of March 12, I would like to > point > out that on page 29 of her book, Handling a Problem Dog, Barbara > Woodhouse tells > us that the cure for vicious behaviour in a dog is > "to return violence with violence". She continues "...put the dog on a > long piece > of string attached to its choke chain (sic). When it attempts to bite > ..pick up > the string and suspend the dog for a few seconds off its front legs, > leaving its > back feet on the ground, and at the same time using a thunderous tone of > voice ...the > dog when suspended thus will feel like choking and will quickly realise > who is master > of the situation. Do not put the dog back on its front legs until it shows > signs of > discomfort (usually after about ten seconds). Now the dog will be subdued, > and you > should caress and praise it. Repeat this process every time the dog > persists in > the habit; you will certainly have to do so two or three times if the vice > is > deeply ingrained".1 Here Mrs. Woodhouse uses the term choke chain and > is > presumably using it properly. > The list of injuries that can be caused by repeatedly hanging a dog, for > > a slow count of ten, is impressive. From the Veterinary Hospital of the > University > of Pennsylvania, we learn that "It is never appropriate to recommend to an > owner > to hang a dog from a choke collar to subdue aggression. If the owner > cannot back > the dog down, and this may take a fight to the death, they are at risk of > being > injured. Furthermore, the dog is at risk of injured ocular vessels, > tracheal > and oesophageal damage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. In the > few > cases of the latter due to hanging by a choker seen at VHUP, all have died > > despite therapy that included a respirator". 2 > > In 30 years of practice (including 22 as veterinary advisor to a police > dog section) I have seen numerous severely sprained necks, cases of > fainting, > transient foreleg paresis and hind leg ataxia after robust use of the > "check" > chain. When the practice of slamming the dog sideways with a jerk that > brought > the foreparts clear of the ground and two or three feet towards the > handler, > became popular in the 1970's the resulting painful condition was known as > > 'Woodhouse neck' in this practice. Some of these cases exhibited > misalignment > of cervical vertebrae on radiographs. My ophthalmology colleagues have > decided > views on the relation between compression of the neck , intrao-cular > pressure > disturbances and damage to the cervical sympathetic nerve chain resulting > > in Horner"s syndrome. I have personally seen a case of swollen eyes with > petechial scleral haemorrhage and a number of temporarily voiceless dogs. > > Using punishment to train dogs, horses or children works to the > satisfaction > of drill sergeants, traditional schoolmasters, horse breakers, dog chokers > and > jerkers in a broad majority of cases. It fails disastrously when it > creates > anxious casualties or violently defiant rebels. The question is very > simple. > When a punishment fails what do you do next? Do you relentlessly increase > the > punishment, or try alternative methods.? > > It is the ambition of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the > Association of > Pet Behaviour Counsellors and of many other groups interested in the > welfare of > children as well as pets, to persuade us to try the alternative method > first. > I hope that I am not alone in believing that the veterinary profession > should > embrace these issues as part of a general concern with Welfare" > > > R. E. Walker, 78, Bromyard Road, > Worcester, WR2 5DA > > 1 Handling a Problem Dog, B. Woodhouse, Ring Press, 1992 > > 2 K. Overall, Canine Aggression, Master class, B.S.A.V.A. Congress, > Birmingham 1993. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sheltie1@ix.netcom.com [SMTP:sheltie1@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: 13 September 2000 03:23 > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: dog behavior > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: LMM > >Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 10:33 PM > > > > > >> I agree with just about everything Vicki Hearne ever wrote, except > >> for her endorsement of choke chains. Not only because yanking on them > >> can damage a dog's neck and because there are kinder less painful > >> ways to teach, but because she thinks dog have a moral understanding > >> of deserving "just" corrections. Dogs can put up with a lot, and can > >> learn from harsh techniques, but given the choice I'd always err on > >> the side of motivating rather than force. My current puppy is such a > >> soft tempered soul he'd wilt and shut down if someone tried to yank > >> him around. > >> > > > >there's no "yanking" in the work Vicki Hearne describes; i suggest you > look > >again. > >there's no "yanking: in longe work. > > > >i'm replying with a proper "correction", no yanking and also not dragging > it > >out either -- as Robin said, it's not a dog list; when dogs come up, you > can > >bet, i'm interested, they are my link to the natural world -- and all > this > >other business impacts them hard to be sure -- but this is a debate i > can't > >join in. there are other forums where real authentic respectful training > is > >discussed. > > > >respectfully, > >margory cohen > > > Her description of allowing a 70 or 80 lb dog to charge to the end of > a leash and recieve its full body weight as force on its trachea was > more than enough for me. There is no way an animal can understand the > nobility and fairness of such a dangerous practice, whether the > trainer jerks or merely allows it to jerk itself. > > Recently a 7 week old puppy in my area was killed by a trainer > misusing a choke chain. Call me crazy but my new pup, trained totally > positive, loves to heel correctly on a loose leash and a buckle > collar. Knowing the alternative, I would never go back to hurting a > dog for training. It's taken years for me to unlearn the kind of > things Kohler et. al. would teach, and I regret not knowing better > when I was training my first dog. > > If this isn't a good list topic, please read the training materials I > referenced off-list. I didn't reinvent the wheel, I'm just one more > person who has gotten some use out of it! > > -L.M.M. > > **************************DISCLAIMER******************************** The information in this e-mail message together with 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 this e-mail message is unauthorised. Opinions contained in this e-mail message and any attachments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and associated organisations. If you received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any attachments from your computer and/or your computer system network. From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 14-SEP-2000 14:44:23.24 To: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: food prices I agree wholeheartedly with what Janice says, and it serves to underine the need for sophisticated marketing. jon From: IN%"robin@coape.win-uk.net" "Robin Walker" 14-SEP-2000 16:26:08.69 To: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "'Janice Willard'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: food prices Anyone who disagrees deserves to be "hauled over the coals" or "roasted before an open fire" (strictly speaking) -----Original Message----- From: Janice Willard [SMTP:jwillard@turbonet.com] Sent: 14 September 2000 19:23 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: food prices There is one issue about the food prices debate that I would like to mention, as I have not seen it mentioned before in the discussion and I hope that I don't get roasted over the coals for bringing it up. This is not to say that the other issues mentioned are not also valid, but that this is another thing to consider. And that is the issue of taste. From: IN%"mappleby@srv0.bio.ed.ac.uk" "Mike Appleby" 15-SEP-2000 02:51:42.25 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Grass shortage in UK Dear All Someone generously expressed the hope that the fuel protests in the UK weren't inconveniencing us too much. Well, we've just received the following message. Obviously the fuel shortage is affecting grass as well. > Due to the fuel shortage, the horse logging demonstration at > Bush [Estate, near Edinburgh] this morning has been cancelled. Incidentally, fuel costs are of course another factor in food prices, given the extent to which we transport food huge distances from farm to consumer. And whatever the monetary cost of the fuel, that energy consumption is another unseen 'price' of our food. Mike Michael Appleby Dr M.C. Appleby Director of Postgraduate Studies in Agriculture & Resource Economics Institute of Ecology and Resource Management University of Edinburgh West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Tel. +44 131 535 4098 Fax. +44 131 667 2601 Email michael.appleby@ed.ac.uk