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.    
 

While we’re all for programs that reduce pets being surrendered to shelters, this particular effort doesn’t appear to be well thought out.  First we have to ask, how do we know pit bulls are being “over bred”?  Does that mean ownership of pit bulls has increased in recent years?  We can’t imagine that registration statistics documenting this conclusion exist.  “Pit bull” is a breed type, not a breed.  American Pit Bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, and even Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Bulldogs are considered to be “pit bulls” in some communities.  So while more pit bulls are ending up in some shelters, that doesn’t necessarily mean that ownership of pit bulls has increased.

Unfortunately, “pit bulls” are a popular type of dog among irresponsible people who want such a dog for all the wrong reasons. And they are very unlikely to register their dogs with their local animal control agency.  So obtaining ownership statistics is virtually impossible.  And even as the director of this Colorado shelter admits, these folks are not likely to be interested in neutering their dogs, even if it costs them nothing.

That leads to the second problem with this effort.  The unstated assumption is that pit bull owners are not neutering their dogs because they can’t afford it.  How do we know this?  It’s more likely irresponsible pit bull owners aren’t neutering their dogs simply because they don’t want to.  It goes against the reasons they likely acquired the dog in the first place.

The third poorly conceived aspect of this effort is that over-breeding of pit bulls and owners not being able to neuter them is what’s causing more of them to show up in shelters.  Really?  Breed bans are a significant reason why pit bulls are surrendered to shelters.  One only needs to look at the surrender numbers in Denver from a few years ago when that city’s breed ban was reinstated. 

Many shelters collect data on reason for surrender when dogs come in.  What are the reasons people are giving for surrendering their pit bulls?  That would seem to be a crucial piece of information to know in order to target the cause of the problem with relevant programs.  Our suspicion is that breed bans aside, pit bulls are surrendered for the same reason most dogs are – unrealistic expectations about dog/breed ownership, “moving”, and behavior problems.  

Pit bulls are not a breed for the novice dog owner or someone who thinks they want a "macho" dog.  If the pit bull has become the "flavor of the month" breed to have in certain circles, like Dalmatians and other breeds have been in the past, then efforts to educate people about the personality and behavioral tendencies of pit bulls would be relevant.

We know there are responsible pit bull owners.  Those folks aren’t contributing to the pit bulls that end up in shelters.  Responsible owners are spaying and neutering their dogs, licensing them, and training them to be friendly, not dangerous.  We suspect it’s a relatively small number of responsible owners who might need financial help with spaying and neutering.  And spay/neuter assistance is already available through other programs.

And while shelters need all the help they can get,  the $20,000 grant to this one shelter to spay and neuter pit bulls in our opinion could be better spent on other programs.  What about training classes just for pit bull breeds?  Structure them as teaching fun tricks to pit bulls rather than "basic obedience" which many owners view as boring.  That would also allow competent trainers to get a look at these dogs and identify those with worrisome behavior patterns that could be "red flags" for later dangerous behavior or other behavior problems that could ultimately result in surrender.  Intuitively at least, seems more likely to get at actual surrender prevention than spay/neuter. 

Other ideas include mandatory bite prevention education programs for any owner whose dog is cited for aggression or biting, free behavior evaluations of pit bulls and other dogs perceived as potentially dangerous in the community, free training classes and behavior consultations for owners of pit bulls with problems, tracking of any dangerous dog, regardless of breed, and research to get at the real reasons why pit bulls are over-represented in certain shelters.  
 

Too many dog owners seem to be operating under the false assumption that there is nothing wrong with allowing their dogs to run off leash in on-leash areas, because their dogs are “friendly” and won’t harm anyone. Many of these folks will even yell at a distance, as their dogs come galloping toward people “Don’t worry, he’s friendly”, as though that makes their illegal and dangerous choice acceptable.

First, for a leashed dog, having an unleashed dog rush unwanted and uninvited into its personal space when it is restricted by the leash is a stressful event.   Many owners who walk their dogs where off leash dogs are prohibited do so for a reason – their dogs aren’t good playing off leash with other dogs.  It is blatantly selfish and irresponsible to put these people and their dogs in the very situation they want to responsibly avoid.  The lawbreaker’s attitude seems to be that they and their dogs’ welfare are more important than that of others. 

The “Oh he’s friendly” claim is not only irrelevant but also a myth. No dog owner can accurately predict 100% of the time how her dog will react when greeting another dog.  All we have to do is look at the skirmishes and fights that happen at dog parks, even when the dogs are on “equal footing”.  And having an illegally off-leash dog cause a problem for a leashed dog just once is too much.  People who take their dogs to dog parks willingly assume that risk – those who walk only in leashed areas should not be forced to by irresponsible owners. 

Unfortunately, animal control officers (ACO) in most cities are overworked and underpaid and can’t provide as consistent enforcement of leash laws as is needed.  And irresponsible dog owners aren’t making it easier.  According to the Denver Post article, dog owners apparently have created a “watch system” using text or phone messages to alert their fellow lawbreakers with off leash dogs when they spot an ACO.

On the ACO side, we’d like to see immediate fines for the first violation, without a pass or warning.  The latter only encourages people to continue to keep repeating bad behavior, knowing there’s a good chance they may get away with it.

Off-leash dogs in on-leash areas are not only dangers to other dogs but people as well.  Most on-leash areas are multi-use, frequented by cyclists, skateboarders, joggers and small children, all of whom are in danger when dogs run uncontrolled. 

Off-leash dogs are also dangers to themselves.  Few owners have drop-dead verbal control over their dogs, putting them at risk for running into nearby streets and being hit by cars, or getting lost.

According to the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association, who was present at the press conference that led to the newspaper article, one-third of all homeowners’ insurance claims stem from dog bites.  To be compensated for injuries and damages in the attack on our dogs, we instigated a civil suit against the owners whose homeowners’ insurance company settled the claim.

So, the take home message is, if you are tempted to take your dog off leash in an on-leash area  – don’t.  Stop and consider the effect of your behavior on others who are using the area. 

UPDATE

As requested use the following link to download a PDF version of this article you can use as a handout.  The material still is copyrighted, which means you can use it for educational purposes in its entirety but cannot include it in any publication for sale without express permission from us.

Please visit website to view premium content

 The first one – shown here

shows her four cats spread out on her bed enjoying the sunshine pouring through the windows.  They’re all quietly co-existing, each in a different part of the bed. 

The next photo  – below  – shows two of the cats swatting at each other. What happened? 

One of the cats, who had been lying on his left side facing away from the others, rolled over to lie on his right side.  This put him closer to one of the other cats and this led to the spat.  Why should such an innocent movement cause a disagreement?  

Cats, like most animals and people, are surrounded by an invisible envelope we call that individual’s personal space.  Most animals don’t like that space invaded by others, except under certain circumstances. 

When it is invaded, the animal either moves away to put the intruder outside the personal space envelope, or threatens or attacks to move the intruder away.  This is what happened to Mel’s cats. When the one rolled over, it put her in the personal space of her neighbor and the neighbor attacked to drive the intruder away.  
 

The size of the personal space as well as how the individual responds to the invasion depends on many factors, including the species of animal.  Cats, a more solitary species, have a bigger personal space than dogs of the same size which are a more social species. 

The response also depends on the situation and the relationship between the individuals.  Our most recent cat, the late great Buffett, has a much smaller personal space with us (he lets us get closer) than he does with our two dogs.  He doesn’t usually let them get so close.  Also, Buffett’s personal space with us is much larger when we have the nail clippers in our hands than when we have a bit of baked chicken. 

Some of the fighting that occurs between cats living together seems to be caused by invasions of personal space rather than dominance issues, possessiveness or even territoriality.  Many, but not all, cats are tolerant of other cats if the others don’t come too close. 

But some home environments, shelters and research facilities don’t give cats enough room to spread out and this can lead to distress, threats and fighting.  Providing plenty of space where cats can get away from each other can reduce distress and reduce fighting.  One way to do this in limited indoor environments is to provide vertical space.  Adding perches, kitty climbers, and even cat walks along the walls can help cats stay out of the personal space of others and help prevent conflicts.

Personal space is important to people as well as cats.  Watch how people tend to spread themselves out the next time you are on a crowded bus or subway train. You can often tell which people are friends and which are strangers by how close or how far apart they are to others. 
 

• The dog down the street begins to bark at who knows what, and within seconds, every other dog within hearing is barking his head off as well;
• Two dogs begin to play chase at the local dog park and soon half a dozen dogs are drawn into the game;
• One of your dogs turns his nose up at the food dish and walks away, but comes back and eats like he is starved when your other dog starts to eat. 

What’s going on here? Isn’t it just dogs being dogs?  Well, yes, all of this is normal behavior for dogs but the behavior is common in a variety of other social animals as well.  

This phenomenon of one animal doing something that draws others into doing the same thing is called social facilitation.  Some have referred to it as social contagion in animals.  It is seen mainly in highly social animals. 

It’s been seen in the feeding of chickens, grooming behavior of rhesus monkeys and athletic performances in people, among others.  The functions are not well understood, but it probably has several.

One is that it may allow animals to take advantages of resources that are scattered in patches, such as seeds on the ground.  One chicken discovers them and starts to feed, and it draws the other members of the flock to feed as well. 

It probably also leads to coordination of cooperative activities such as hunting or protecting the group against intruders.  The “bark fests” that dogs get into could have evolved in this way to intimidate and chase off two-legged as well as four-legged intruders. 

The social howling of wolf packs may alert other packs to their presence in the area and advertize their possession of a territory. 

A particularly dangerous situation where social facilitation can occur is in aggressive or predatory attacks on people or other animals.  Some of the most savage attacks by dogs on people and other animals have involved groups of dogs.  In some cases it appears to be motivated by predation, because there was feeding on the victim, in other cases it appears not to be motivate by predation. 

In a few cases it has been shown that the dogs involved in the attacks were not particularly aggressive until aroused by the presence of other dogs.  The aggression seems to be contagious – such as the hysteria experienced by groups of fearful people.  The dogs do things in groups that they wouldn’t do by themselves.

The possibility of such socially facilitated aggression provides a good reason not to let dogs roam freely in groups.  One aggressive dog could incite others to join in, creating a much more dangerous situation than just a single aggressive dog.  

Not all dog behavior is socially facilitated.  Fears of thunderstorms and other loud noises and separation anxiety do not seem to be spread from one dog to another.  Furthermore, not all dogs engage in socially facilitated barking, feeding, play or aggression.  Some dogs just don’t join in the “bark fests;” others don’t join in to group aggression. 

We don’t know why these differences exist and what factors predispose some dogs to engage in socially facilitated behavior and others not so much.  It is likely that the prior experiences of a dog influence the occurrence of social facilitation. 

Dogs that have joined in group behavior in the past and have been rewarded in some way are likely to do it again.  It is possible that just the act of joining in to group activities, even if the participants don’t get other primary reinforcers such as food, sex or play, may be rewarding for some dogs.   

The next time you hear a group of dogs begin to bark or howl in response to one another, keep in mind that it isn’t much different than groups of fans being "egged on" by others screaming for their favorite teams at a sporting event.  
 

You can read the original article here.