A study recently published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior examined the abilities of owners to detect distress in their dogs.  The study by Chiara Mariti*, and her colleagues at the University of Pisa, in Italy interviewed over 1,100 dog owners asking them what they thought stress was, what the behavioral signs of stress were and how stressed they thought their dogs were on average.

They found that most people could define stress in an accurate way, and that most could identify the most extreme signs of stress such as crying and trembling. But these are the only two out of 19 stress related behaviors that the majority of owners could consistently identify.  Said another way, fewer than half of the 1100 owners surveyed were aware of any but the most extreme signs of stress in their dogs.

That’s a scary and disconcerting finding, not only for the welfare of dogs but also for being able to have safe interactions with them.  Dogs that are stressed and anxious typically pose more of a risk of biting than those that are calm and relaxed.  And dogs under chronic stress are not only not living quality lives, but are also more prone to stress related diseases and illnesses.

As the authors point out, owners are in need of better education about what distresses dogs and how to recognize the more subtle signs of distress.  Education in this area is a service pet professionals who are knowledgeable about dog behavior and body language can, and should provide to their clients. 

One helpful resource is our DVD on Canine Body Postures.  How many of the other 17 stress related behaviors from the study do you think you could identify? The study also identified differences in the ability to recognize distress in their dogs between men and women, older versus younger people and those with and without high school educations.  What do you think the results were?

We provide these and other results from the study in a comprehensive review of this paper for the members of our Behavior Education Network.   Monthly reviews of scientific papers are just one of the many benefits of being a member of BehaviorEducationNetwork.

*Mariti, C., Gazzano, A., Moore, J.L., Baragli, P., Chelli, L. & Sighieri, C. 2012. Perception of dogs’ stress by their owners. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 7, 213-219.

Typical scenarios might be when the owner approaches the dog when he is near a toy, a pig’s ear or other “chewie” he’s been given; when he has a “forbidden” item taken from the trash or other off limits location; or when he’s lying on a favorite resting spot the owner wants him to vacate.

While some dogs may be carrying the items and actively moving away from their owners, just as frequently the dogs are often lying down (often under a table, in a corner, or other somewhat protected location) have placed the “resource” on the floor next to themselves, and begin threatening when someone approaches.

By labeling this behavior “resource guarding” the immediate assumption has been made that this is a competitive situation and the dog’s motivation is to maintain control of the “resource”.  But is that really the case in every instance?  We think not.

In our own experience with these problems, the body language of these dogs was usually quite defensive – ears back, head lowered, small bouts of direct eye contact (or avoidance of eye contact all together) rather than a direct stare, and if teeth were bared we would see a clear defensive threat gape as opposed to an offensive one.  In many of our cases, there was a history as well of owners prying open the dog’s mouth to take things away, and of other confrontational methods – scruff shakes, pin downs, sometimes even hitting.

More recent activities that got us to thinking about interpreting these problems differently were our review of two of John Bradshaw’s writings in preparation for a webinar about science and social dominance we’ll be giving (see the What’s New in ABA section of this ezine).  The first publication was his 2009 article in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior and the second was his recent book “Dog Sense”.

Bradshaw writes about alternatives to interpreting behaviors based on “dominance”, and one component of this re-interpretation is the dog’s expectations regarding an interaction. A dog’s behavior will be partly determined by his expectations about what’s going to happen next – based on what happened the last time in a similar situation.

The behavioral history of many of the “resource guarding” dogs, we saw revealed they had come to expect a bad outcome when their owners approached them when a “resource” was nearby or when they were occupying certain locations on a bed or couch.

For these dogs, we believe their behavior isn’t about maintaining control of the “resource”, but about preventing being man-handled and about stopping threatening behavior from their owners. Their expectations could also be viewed in terms of contextual learning.  The context consists of the dog, the “resource”, and a certain type of approach by the owner predict “bad things” that the dog can prevent by displaying threatening or aggressive behavior and keeping his owner at bay. 

Like most behavior problems, ones involving dogs that are threatening or aggressive in association with “resources” may have multiple causes.  For some dogs this may be a true competitive interaction, but a growing body of evidence suggests this is likely the exception, not the rule. 

To discover more about alternatives to the “dominance model” of dog-human interactions, attend the “sizzling” webinar we’ll be conducting for the Association of Pet Dog Trainers on July 4th AND members of Behavior Education Network have access to several of our prior presentations on this subject and additional articles within BEN. 
 

The idea is that animals are ruled by their instincts and drives which guides and determines their behavior.  Many, many years ago, people thought that one of the main differences between people and animals was that people were rational and guided by thought and experience while the “dumb animals” were ruled by their instincts. As we’ve learned more about behavior in people and animals we know that this dichotomy simply isn’t true, and many animals are capable of learning from their experiences.

The terms instinct and drive have scientific definitions that differed from everyday use.  Over time these words have largely fallen out of use in the scientific community because they haven’t really added to our understanding of behavior. 

Some dog owners and pet professionals have promoted the so-called Drive Theory of dog behavior.  In this theory, dogs have a handful of “drives” that motivate their behavior.  These drives are viewed as personality traits that dogs are born with.  Dogs are said to vary in the amount or intensity of these drives. Hunting dogs are expected to have more prey drive than sled dogs.

Do dogs really have prey drives, pack drives and defensive drives?  There have been a few studies of dog personality and temperament that have investigated which behaviors in dogs seem to cluster together.  These studies have not substantiated that the behaviors purported to be related under the labels of “prey drive, pack drive, or defensive drive” really are. 

These studies have uncovered other sorts of behavioral traits in dogs but which traits are identified depend on how the research was conducted.  A study by Goodloe and Borchelt (1998) did find a factor for predation that involved chasing and killing small animals.  But it wasn’t related to behaviors such as chasing balls, chasing children or burying things as “prey drive” proponents claim.  Other studies have identified additional temperament traits in dogs.  So what does it all mean?

First of all, personality traits aren’t causes of behavior.  Second, the causes of behavior are complex and overly simplistic notions of “drives” don’t really help us explain dog behavior or make predictions about it.  This month, we’ve provided members of our Behavior Education Network with forms and templates for use with clients to help identify what is motivating the behavior of their pets. 

To learn more about the latest thinking about drives, instinct and motivation and how thinking clearly about these ideas will allow you to more successfully change behavior register for the webinar on drives and motivation we are presenting for the Association  of Pet Dog Trainers on July the 5th.  AND to get access to those helpful forms, become a member of Behavior Education Network today!
 

One of the critical elements of parenting both babies and pets together is appropriate supervision.  One of the things we liked most about Jennifer and Ellen’s presentation was a discussion of the different levels of supervision that parents can provide.  Everyone agrees that adult supervision of pets and babies is necessary, but few have described what that actually means in terms of parental behavior.

Jennifer’s categorization describes five levels of supervision based on the adult supervisor’s behavior.  That got us to thinking about what the elements of proper supervision are and how we can make parents aware of the quality of the supervision they are providing.  We think most parents believe that supervision merely means that either they, or some other responsible person, is present when their child and pet are together. It’s not that simple.
Parents or other adults can evaluate the quality of their own child/pet supervision at any time by asking themselves the following four questions"

1.  Is someone physically present such that there are “eyes on” the child and pet at all times (not around the corner or just in the kitchen)? If not, are the child and pet safely and securely separated from each other by a physical barrier (behind closed doors, dog in a crate or x-pen, child in a crib or playpen)?

2.  Is there a plan to deal with potential distractions (someone coming to the door) and emergencies (the stew on the stove has begun to boil over) so that child and pet aren’t left alone together, even for a moment? 

3. Is full attention being given to the child and pet, without the supervisor being distracted with text messages, phone calls, TV shows or reading? Full attention provides the safest environment for both pet and child but is difficult to achieve.  It’s actually quite difficult for anyone to devote their full attention to watching pets and babies without doing ANYTHING else, for any considerable length of time – it’s physically and mentally taxing!  With this in mind, it would be better for parents and other caregivers to take turns supervising or to limit the supervised interactions to just a few minutes and then separate pet and baby using one of the methods mentioned in Question One.  

4.  Is the supervisor proactive in preventing unsafe interactions between pet and child, or is it simply a case of reacting to unwanted situations once they have begun?  When a toddler approaches a sleeping dog, does the supervisor recognize the danger and proactively redirect the child BEFORE she reaches the dog, or reactively wait until the toddler is pulling the dog’s tail to intervene? If the supervisor finds herself reacting to more than just a few unwanted situations, then interactions needs better planning and/or the supervisor needs to be better at recognizing unpleasant emotions in the dog. 

Thinking ahead, anticipating undesirable interactions and taking action before they occur represents the highest level of supervision and prevents many potentially dangerous situations from arising. 

To be proactive and provide the safest supervision, parents must be able to recognize when their dogs are anxious, fearful or stressed during interactions with their child and be able to prevent these reactions as much as possible.  Our DVD “Canine Body Postures” teaches people to recognize canine emotions and to know what dogs are communicating through their body language.

It’s not uncommon for pets to be startled by the sounds babies make, including crying, screaming, and even loud sounds of excitement.  Prospective parents can accustom their pets to these sounds using “Preparing Fido™” – a CD full of high quality recordings of actual baby sounds. 

Our DVD “Helping Fido Welcome Baby” provides a complete set of plans to both prepare and introduce a dog to a new baby.  Purchase all three products so that you – or someone you know – will be fully prepared to create the safest and most satisfying family relationship between their dog and their child. 

Take advantage of our “Supervisor Special” by purchasing any two of the three programs -  “Preparing Fido™" , "Canine Body Postures", or "Helping Fido Welcome Your Baby" and take 20% off the combined purchase price! 

To receive your discount, enter the word “supervision” in the Coupon Box during check out in our shopping cart. 

Just click on the product names in the preceeding paragraphs to learn more about them and to purchase.

As a final side note, these same questions can be asked to evaluate other supervised interactions between pets in day care facilities, at dog parks, when new pets have been introduced to each other or where there are conflicts between pets.  We’ll talk about those situations in a future article. 

It is commonly agreed that dogs were domesticated from wolves and this process was well under way over 14,000 years ago.  That is a VERY long time for differences in both physical and behavioral characteristics to develop between wolves and dogs.  Dog breeds have been created that look nothing like their wolf ancestors -  St. Bernards and Chihuahuas easily come to mind.

Significant behavioral changes have occurred as the result of domestication.  Some have to do with reproductive behavior.  Dogs can whelp multiple litters in one year, neither male nor female dogs are monogamous, and males typically don’t help rear the young – all of which are just the opposite in wolves. 

Dogs are also more vocal than wolves, or at least the quality and frequency of their vocalizations are different.  Wolves rarely bark; most dogs do a lot of it.  While some dogs do howl, species-wide, it’s not nearly as consistent a behavior as in wolves.

When compared to wolves, dogs are much less neophobic, meaning they aren’t nearly as afraid of “new” or unfamiliar things (and people) they encounter.  Dogs are predisposed to form social attachments to people, but wolves are not.  In addition, the sensitive period for socialization in wolf cubs is of shorter duration than the 4-12 weeks of age identified in dogs.  Wolf cubs apparently require more contact time with individuals before social attachment forms.  

Dogs are sometimes labeled as less intelligent than wolves and physical “wimps” compared to wolves.  There’s no doubt that the “lap dog” breeds – Pekinese, Pomeranians, toy poodles, and other small breeds, can’t hold a candle to the endurance and stamina of wolves. 

But other breeds and individuals are very active and industrious, such as the huskies we use as sled pulling dogs or dogs used to herd sheep and cattle.  In fact, some working dogs likely spend a greater part of their days, on average, more active than most wolves.  Wolves, like most wild predators, aren’t constantly hunting for food.  They spend much of their time just “hanging out” and being sociable with others in their group. Wolves are capable however of traveling long distances when needed.  But so are competitive sled racing dogs. 

What about the comparable “intelligence” or cognitive capacities of dogs and wolves? Dogs and wolves live very different lifestyles that require very different abilities and skills.  What a wild wolf needs to be able to do to find food, breed and survive is different than the skills and behaviors that contribute to a pet dog living successfully in a home. We ask very different things from our dogs than nature demands of wolves. 

Studies of feral dogs show that they aren’t as good as wolves at hunting and killing large prey like deer and elk.  This inability to bring in large amounts of food to feed themselves and their pups is probably one of the reasons why feral populations of dogs aren’t very successful at surviving and breeding in most situations. 

Wolves are better than dogs at solving some problems on their own, such as getting into a puzzle box to get food, but dogs are much better than wolves at using subtle cues from people to solve problems.  Through domestication we’ve selected dogs to be very attuned to our behavior and to work with us to do things.

For every thing that wolves do better than dogs, there are other things that dogs do better than wolves. These differences don’t make dogs and wolves more or less intelligent than the other, but just reflect the fact they are adapted to different lifestyles.  

Delve into more depth about what science has to say about the cognitive abilities of dogs, their social relationships with each other and with people, and discover how the techniques behavior scientists used to study behavior can improve your ability to understand and modify dog behavior.  Take a look at our on demand, online webinar course “Shining the Light of Science on Canine Behavior”. at PetProWebinars.com.

Songs on the CD are:

• Pan Christmas
• The First Noel
• Feliz Navidad
• Angels We Have Heard on High
• Santa in the House
• Silent Night
• The Rope
• Winter Wonderland
• Jolly Old St. Nicholas
• O Christmas Tree
• Greensleeves

Buy The Rocky Mountain Steel Bands personally autographed Christmas CD with Suzanne and Dan! 

   $11 includes domestic shipping and handling

The CDs come in a professionally designed sleeve that we will autograph for you.  Check out the video below of our Christmas band 2010 playing Winter Wonderland – one of the songs on the CD.   A Steel Pan CD is definitely unique and can be a stocking stuffer for the ‘hard to buy for’ folks on your Christmas list.  So pick up several – they are only $11 each which includes domestic shipping and handling.

Please visit website to view premium content

 
Get Rocky Mountain Steel Bands Christmas CD, personally autgraphed by Dan and Suzanne for only
$11 includes domestic shipping and handling

See our other early Christmas gift to you at PetProNews.com - a sample from an exclusive Behavior Education Network Pro Member session on Crates and Confinement.

• – Ashley, our 14 year old Dalmatian, only poops in the house in her old age rather than urinating as well
• – when Coral, our 7 year old Irish Setter, gets stickers in her coat when she runs through the brush, she will stand quietly and let us comb them out. 
• – when Coral broke the long line on a recent walk, she came right back to us  – after she finished chasing the ducks across the lake.  And we are particularly thankful the ice was strong enough to hold her!
• – that Ashley, in her old age, has given up counter surfing and digging holes in the yard
• – that Coral now only gets us up twice a night to go outside rather than four!
• – when the wind blew the front door open and Ashley tottered across the street to visit the neighbor’s dog that she wasn’t hit by a car.
• – the most recent loose dog that ran up to Coral and Ashley on our walk was friendly and not aggressive
• – when Coral unexpectedly startled a skunk on yesterday’s walk, the skunk only got slightly irritated and not really mad, and  just barely sprayed her.
• – that Coral didn’t mind getting a bath to get the skunk smell off, as long as Suzanne climbed in the tub with her! 

While these examples may make it seem as though our critters are more trouble than they’re worth, that’s definitely not the case.  When they greet us with those joyous faces when we come through the door and snuggle up on the futon with us at night when we watch TV, we wouldn’t trade them for anything. 

On a more serious note, we also say thank you to all of you – our loyal readers, customers and Behavior Education Members who have supported us over the years.  We appreciate all of you and truly enjoying having you with us on webinars and getting to meet you in person at conferences and workshops. 

 Happy Thanksgiving to all of you and your critters.
 

Our friend could not figure out any possible reason why Mason would be doing this, and therefore concluded that it had to be because Mason was mad at her for leaving him. 

We’ve been discussing what’s behind this common tendency to jump on anthropomorphic explanations as the very first or most likely reason for a pet’s behavior.  Perhaps it’s because most pet owners believe they are the simplest explanation for their pets’ behaviors.  As behaviorists, we view them as just the opposite – as the most complex.  Let’s take a look at why.

If Mason was defecating in the house because he was mad about being left behind, his thought processes must have gone something like this:  “Left behind again huh?  I am so mad at my mom for doing this to me!  What can I do to let her know how upset I am?  I know how much she thinks of Sarah, and I bet she would just DIE if I messed in her house.  After all, my poop is pretty nasty smelling so I’m sure Sarah will NOT enjoy cleaning it up.  Wait until Sarah tells my mom what I’ve done.  That’ll teach my mom that leaving me behind has consequences and she better not do it ever again!” 

Now, we hope that sounds as ridiculous to you as it did to us when we wrote it!  It should illustrate why attributing spite and revengeful motivations to animals are in actuality complicated explanations rather than simple ones. 

What might be some simpler explanations for Mason’s behavior?  Mason’s schedule might be different in Sarah’s home, causing his patterns of elimination to shift.  Sarah might not be in the habit of giving Mason a last potty break right before bed or perhaps Sarah is giving him more treats than he usually gets at home.  Mason might be afraid to go outside at Sarah’s place because of even one experience with a startling noise (anything from construction equipment to thunder).  Mason might be a bit anxious
away from mom, even though Sarah is familiar to him.  Perhaps Mason doesn’t like the texture of what is available for elimination in the yard.  He may have only had access to a graveled dog run rather than the grass he may be accustomed to.

These are all more straightforward explanations than invoking the higher thought processes required for spite to be the motivation for Mason’s defecation.  A well established principle in the study of animal behavior is that of parsimony.  Also known as Occum’s Razor, it mandates choosing the simplest explanation for a behavior that accounts for the facts, even if more complicated options are available. 

Want to learn more about the science of animal behavior as it applies to dogs so you can be a better pet owner or pet professional?  You have a special opportunity to do so – learn more at www.PetProWebinars and watch the video that tells you all about it.
 

Americans just love competitions, and we’re always asking “which is better?” But comparing vastly different things is silly and meaningless. It’s like asking “which is better, cars or airplanes?” It depends on the way criteria for comparison.  Is it cost/mile of travel?  Safety or comfort? How long it takes to get to your destination?

Even when criteria are specified, there is enormous variability in planes and in cars. Most planes are faster than most cars, but race cars are faster than crop dusting planes.  Many cars are more luxurious than most planes, but some private planes are far more luxurious than off-road race cars. To come up with an overall “winner” doesn’t make much sense.

In the same way, it doesn’t make much sense to compare dogs and cats and declare one better than the other. The overall conclusions depend on the categories for comparison.  Ms. Thompson chose the following: stamina, agility, fastest, longest lived, best hunter, hardest working, most independent, best sense of smell and most intelligent.  We have to ask, what was the rationale for choosing those particular ones? She could have examined dozens more – best eyesight, best sense of hearing, easiest to train (but to do what should also be specified), most patient and so on.  Depending upon which categories are compared, it is possible to show that cats (or dogs) are overwhelmingly better than dogs (or cats).

Even within each category, comparisons are not simple. For example, in the category “Which are better hunters?” the author dismisses the hunting abilities of trained hunting dogs, such as fox hounds, rat terriers, or Afghan hounds, and focuses on the independent hunting of cats and dogs.  She relies on data from studies that show stray and feral cats kill millions of birds each year, and assumes, because there are no data for dogs, that dogs don’t kill nearly as many birds, so cats are the better hunters.  If the author hadn’t focused on solitary hunting of birds, but instead looked at hunting of larger mammals, dogs might have proven more efficient.  But significant individual variation exists – some cats never kill anything, while some dogs are very efficient at killing squirrels, birds, and snakes for example.

Comparing the intelligence of dogs and cats is also fraught with difficulty. Comparative psychologists have tried to find ways of comparing the intelligence of different species for over 100 years and still haven’t found a fair way to make the comparisons.  Because each species is adapted to very different lifestyles it’s difficult to make direct comparisons that are meaningful. For example the fact that dogs can learn more human words than cats, says more about dog social structure than intelligence. Because dogs are adapted to live in complex social groups, we would expect social communication and remembering communication signals would be far more important than for cats, who don’t live in such structured groups.

While living a solitary life may not favor “social intelligence” there is more to intelligence than social intelligence, including learning to avoid predators and learning where food and other resources are located.  As was mentioned in the article, there has been far more work done on the cognitive abilities of dogs than cats so we can’t conclude that dogs are better than cats at specific cognitive tasks. We just don’t have all the data.

Sometimes there may be good reasons to make direct comparisons between species with regard to specific abilities.  For example we may want to know which species has the best visual acuity at detecting small differences in objects because we want an animal to tell us if a $20 bill is a forgery. Or which species can detect tiny quantities of volatile materials in the air, to know if accelerants are present at the scene of a fire. 

So what are the take home messages?  First, beware of general claims that one species is “better” than another.  Such comparisons can’t be made in a meaningful way. Second, when specific comparisons are reported, ask “Why is this important?”  And third, pay attention to how the specific comparisons are done.  The best ones are done within a study (not drawing conclusions from studies with different methodologies) and the data gathered on both species at the same time.