The Secret Life of Dogs

[Z...]

Here is a great video which offers scientific proof for things every dog owner feels in their heart to be true :)

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/animals/the-secret-life-of-dogs--full-length-documentary.html

And yes it is official, we have mitochondrial DNA proof dogs are descended from wolves which are carnivores not omnivores. The Siberian experiment with foxes offers some clues why dogs look and behave so different then wolves.

 

[mcb]

I can't stop to view the video right now but it sounds as though it is related to the Nova Dogs Decoded program that described the long-running Siberian experiment with foxes. I think that experiment has some very interesting implications.

 

[Voyageur]

Herr Eisenheim ]


What an excellent documentary – thanks Herr Eisenheim.

A few take-home things noticed where about the silver fox breeding, the non vs. aggressive traits and with the aggressive traits the Dr. commented about, basicaly that “this is not a fox, it’s a dragon”. So this might be like psychopathology in humans, aggressiveness is rewarded and the genes keep propagating to our detriment – “the biology of tameness”, spoken of here, seems to be in humans much undermined.

Also, amongst many pearls here was the analysis of the # 17 chromosome that holds disease which might be the same in humans.

Have always had dogs and they do so seem to enrich ones life. :)

 

[rsnedaker]

Thanks Herr Eisenheim. What a interesting documentary, and an enjoyable watch.

A few take-home things noticed where about the silver fox breeding, the non vs. aggressive traits and with the aggressive traits the Dr. commented about, basicaly that “this is not a fox, it’s a dragon”. So this might be like psychopathology in humans, aggressiveness is rewarded and the genes keep propagating to our detriment – “the biology of tameness”, spoken of here, seems to be in humans much undermined.

Also, amongst many pearls here was the analysis of the # 17 chromosome that holds disease which might be the same in humans.

I was thinking along the same lines when I was watching this. Like something similar to the effect that dogs are like wolves but an element of conscience or empathy. And then I thought it was interesting how tame foxes with agressive moms still remained tame, because it was their nature.

 

[mcb]

This is the same program that NPR aired in the US under the title "Dogs Decoded." I made some comments earlier about implications for psychopathy that I will revise and post here. This research offers a lot to think about. Selection for "tame" behavior results in selection for immature appearance and (less aggressive) behavior. What about the other way around -- selecting for those that "look like leaders"?

 

[mcb]

I am also finding similar information and more in the book Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson. I am reading it now and there is so much information that it is like drinking by standing under a waterfall. Perhaps I can quote a few passages when I have time.

 

[Z...]

yes please that would be very nice

 

[mcb]

Here is a description of the fox breeding experiment. There is other material that seemed to relate but it may take me a while to find it because I am reading from the audiobook.

...Temperament and appearance are connected. We don’t know much about how they’re connected, unfortunately, but we know they are.

My favorite example of the connection between appearance and temperament is Dmitry Belyaev’s silver fox breeding experiment in Russia. Dr. Belyaev was a geneticist who believed natural selection determined the traits we see in domesticated animals. Dogs got to be the way they are because dog behaviors helped them survive and reproduce.28

To test his hypothesis, he set up a natural selection study using silver foxes. He wanted to see if over several generations he could turn wild foxes into a domestic animal like a dog. So in each generation, he allowed only the most “tamable” animals—the foxes most willing to tolerate contact with humans—to mate.

He started this project in 1959 and when he died in 1985 another group of scientists picked up where he left off. Altogether the foxes have gone through forty years and more than thirty generations of selective breeding for tameness. Today the foxes are very tame, though not as tame as dogs. The researchers say that when these foxes are puppies they compete with each other for human attention, whine, and wag their tails. They’re turning into domestic animals, just as Dr. Belyaev thought they would.

What’s interesting is that their appearances have changed right along with their personalities. One of the first things to change was fur color: they changed from silver to black and white, liked a Border collie. They look quite a lot like Border collies in photos. Their tails also started to curl up, and some of the foxes developed floppy ears. The floppy ears are neat, because Darwin said there wasn’t a single domesticated animal who didn’t have floppy ears in at least one country where it was found. I don’t think that’s true any longer, because I can’t think of any breed of horse in any country that has floppy ears, although every other kind of domesticated animal does have at least one or two breeds with floppy ears. The only wild animal I know of with floppy ears is the elephant.

Looking at photographs of these animals, I think their bones also thickened, which is what I would expect given that fine-boned animals are more high-strung. Belyaev was breeding his foxes to be calm, so he probably started getting slightly bigger animals, with thicker bones.

The tame foxes developed brain differences right along with their physical and behavioral differences. Their heads are smaller, they have lower levels of stress hormones in the blood, and they have higher levels of serotonin, which inhibits aggression, in the brain. Another interesting change: the skulls of the male foxes have been feminized. Their heads are shaped more like a female fox’s head than like a wild male fox’s head.

Eventually some of his foxes developed neurological problems, just like you’d expect. They had epilepsy, and some of them started holding their heads back in a strange position. Some of the moms even ate their own puppies. Pure over-selection programs always bring trouble...

Grandin, Temple; Johnson, Catherine (2009-07-23). Animals in Translation (p. 238). Scribner. Kindle Edition.

 

[mcb]

Here is more about unintended side effects of selective breeding.

It’s when you consciously and purposely breed animals to change one defined physical trait dramatically from what nature intended that you can definitely end up with some major emotional and behavioral problems. Moreover, when you’re trying to change a physical trait you very, very often end up changing an emotional and behavioral trait, too. The body and the brain aren’t two different things, controlled by two completely different sets of genes. Many of the same chemicals that work in your heart and organs also work in your brain, and many genes do one thing in your body and another thing in your brain. So if you change a gene in order to change a chicken’s breast size, you’re also going to change whatever that gene might have been doing in the chicken’s brain, assuming you’re modifying a gene that is active in both places.

This is a very serious problem in the selective breeding of animals. Over the years I have learned that when you over-select for any trait at all, eventually you get neurological damage, and neurological damage almost always means emotional damage, or at least important emotional changes. The distressing thing is that with single-trait breeding for a physical trait, nobody notices the emotional changes that are emerging right along with the altered physical trait, because nobody is expecting to see any emotional changes. The breeders are monitoring physical changes, not looking for emotional or behavioral changes. So breeders don’t perceive how much the animals are changing emotionally until the behaviors have gotten so extreme that the alarm bells finally go off. Then they’ve got another big problem to fix.

Grandin, Temple; Johnson, Catherine (2009-07-23). Animals in Translation (p. 76). Scribner. Kindle Edition.

"Leaders" are selected in part for their appearance. What I was thinking of originally was "royal lines" with their selection and inbreeding, after seeing something about it mentioned in The Odyssey. I wonder if this process couldn't lead directly to the development of pathological traits.

 

[mcb]

IS IT FUN TO KILL A GROUNDHOG?

The answer is yes. First of all, behaviorists call predatory killing the quiet bite because predatory killing is not done in a state of rage. We know from brain research that during a kill the rage circuits in the brain are not activated, and we know from observation that the killer is always quiet. Killing bites are nothing like the kind of loud, screaming fights you’ll see two animals from the same species get into. During territorial fights the rage circuits can be turned on, and a rage-filled attacking animal makes a lot of noise. But when a predator is on the kill, he just bites down hard and then shakes his prey to death.

Dave’s impression that Max enjoyed killing the groundhog was right. We know this from the ESB studies I mentioned in the last chapter. Animals like having their predatory killing circuits turned on, and will turn them on themselves if you show them how. When you think about what predatory killing is all about, of course it ought to feel good, because predatory killing means dinner. Killing a mouse feels good to a cat the same way finding a luscious ripe banana feels good to a primate.

According to Jaak Panksepp, ESB studies show that predatory killing comes from “essentially the same brain areas” as the SEEKING circuit, which produces the pleasurable feelings of engaged curiosity, intense interest, and eager anticipation I mentioned in the last chapter.9 When the SEEKING circuit is turned on, animals and people seek the things they need and want, like food and shelter, or a perfect pants suit at a department store or an advanced degree in physics. People and animals love the hunt.

But angry aggression feels bad. Animals and people do not like having their rage circuits turned on, and will avoid it if they can. Rage is a painful emotion. Inside the brain, predatory killing and angry aggression are not the same thing. Not even close.

Grandin, Temple; Johnson, Catherine (2009-07-23). Animals in Translation (pp. 138-139). Scribner. Kindle Edition.

I think a lot of this speaks for itself.

 

[Voyageur]

[quote author=Megan ]
Here is a description of the fox breeding experiment. There is other material that seemed to relate but it may take me a while to find it because I am reading from the audiobook. [/quote]

Thanks for your efforts here Megan, interesting observations - as are a few bolded below.

Thanks :)

[quote author=Megan]
Here is more about unintended side effects of selective breeding.[/quote]

It’s when you consciously and purposely breed animals to change one defined physical trait dramatically from what nature intended that you can definitely end up with some major emotional and behavioral problems. Moreover, when you’re trying to change a physical trait you very, very often end up changing an emotional and behavioral trait, too. The body and the brain aren’t two different things, controlled by two completely different sets of genes. Many of the same chemicals that work in your heart and organs also work in your brain, and many genes do one thing in your body and another thing in your brain. So if you change a gene in order to change a chicken’s breast size, you’re also going to change whatever that gene might have been doing in the chicken’s brain, assuming you’re modifying a gene that is active in both places.

This is a very serious problem in the selective breeding of animals. Over the years I have learned that when you over-select for any trait at all, eventually you get neurological damage, and neurological damage almost always means emotional damage, or at least important emotional changes. The distressing thing is that with single-trait breeding for a physical trait, nobody notices the emotional changes that are emerging right along with the altered physical trait, because nobody is expecting to see any emotional changes. The breeders are monitoring physical changes, not looking for emotional or behavioral changes. So breeders don’t perceive how much the animals are changing emotionally until the behaviors have gotten so extreme that the alarm bells finally go off. Then they’ve got another big problem to fix.

Grandin, Temple; Johnson, Catherine (2009-07-23). Animals in Translation (p. 76). Scribner. Kindle Edition.

"Leaders" are selected in part for their appearance. What I was thinking of originally was "royal lines" with their selection and inbreeding, after seeing something about it mentioned in The Odyssey. I wonder if this process couldn't lead directly to the development of pathological traits.

That's quite possible given some of the above.

 

[Jones]

Moreover, when you’re trying to change a physical trait you very, very often end up changing an emotional and behavioral trait, too.
[...]
The breeders are monitoring physical changes, not looking for emotional or behavioral changes. So breeders don’t perceive how much the animals are changing emotionally until the behaviors have gotten so extreme that the alarm bells finally go off. Then they’ve got another big problem to fix.

I think some of the answer may lay in polygenetics which basically states that for some traits:

Polygenic traits are controlled by two or more than two genes (usually by many different genes) at different loci on different chromosomes. These genes are described as polygenes. Examples of human polygenic inheritance are height, skin colour and weight. Polygenes allow a wide range of physical traits. For instance, height is regulated by several genes so that there will be a wide range of heights in a population.

I have a feeling that as genetics progresses it will be found that all traits are polygenetic, though I could be wrong.

As an example from the dog world, certain breeds were selectively bred to have a more human like face (King Charles Cavalier eg) with a shorter snout, larger more human looking eyes and with a more human like placement on the skull. Breeding for appearance alone had some impact on the dogs sense of sight that weren't planned on. There were also changes in ratio between the rod and cone cells in the retina.

Rod cells are more light sensitive, but they are much less sensitive to colour. Cone cells are very colour sensitive. Wild dogs and those breeds that have been less manipulated by human selective breeding have a higher ratio of rod cells compared to humans, who have a higher ratio of cone cells hence our ability to percieve a greater range of colours.

The King Charles Cavalier generally doesn't have the same ability to see or detect movement in poor light conditions and therefore its ability to hunt successfully is reduced. Curious that in breeding for more human appearance, it seems that the dogs sight perception became more similar to human sight perception.

I wonder if the fact that King Charles Cavaliers as a generality don't have a high degree of hunting instincts is related to the fact that their vision does not deliver the same environmental cues as those dogs who are bred for hunting, rather than the implication that their temperament has been changed, if that makes sense?

Scott and Fuller who wrote 'Genetics: and the Social Behaviour of the Dog' propose that behaviour is under the influence of three forces and that these three forces are always at play, however, the ratios at which they apply influence can vary. The three forces are Genetics, Environment and Current Circumstances where genetics includes instinct, temperament and physiology, environment includes learning, and current circumstances which is about what is happening right now.

From what I remember about the Silver Fox experiments, neither the adaptation to being held in captivity where survival is dependent on humans and the foxes were prevented from engaging in otherwise natural hunting behaviours, nor the implications of Stockholm Syndrome type effects that this may have had on temperament or behaviour were addressed across the generations in this experiment.

I believe that the Silver Fox experiments were initially about discovering how dogs came to be domesticated. The big difference in the experiments and how the domestication process may have occured naturally could lay in the fact that the Silver Foxes didn't have the choice of not running away nor hunting or otherwise fending for themselves as the undomesticated wild dog may have and the results may be skewed because of that.

As an example, many dog trainers refer to the fact that dolphins that are held in captivity can be trained simply with food rewards and this is true. But if you were to take a bucket of fish out into the open ocean and attempt to train wild dolphins then your rate of success would plummet because the dolphins are already happy and confident in the fact that they can survive without you and they are free to engage in any natural behaviours that take their fancy. Change the environment and say the natural food sources of the dolphins have gone extinct, then a human with a bucket of fish becomes a more powerful influence on the dolphins and the dolphins are more likely to 'jump through hoops' to get fish from the human.

And FWIW, and I recognise this could be influenced by my own biases, from what I remember about Temple Grandins work, much of which I do have an appreciation for, I found her approach to be somewhat emotive and lacking in objectivity. That could be because she was often quoted by those who promoted purely positive training and I had to work hard to realise and accept that sometimes punishers are both kinder in the long run and less stressful on the animal.

 

[Voyageur]

Without starting a new thread, this might fit with the title.

When Dogs Read You

This may sound all silly because we know that dogs read us pretty well. Today however, was standing in the kitchen thinking about having to drive to town. Was a little indecisive in my mind about how to get there and even if i should go at all. Normally, unless there is some definite verbal cue, the dogs don’t necessarily react; unless i say the big “C” word for “car”, then they get very exited normally. It is not uncommon of course to be in the room with them at any time and be thinking about something, anything, and they don’t react. They might at this point open an eye or connect with you in some way, yet not to a great extent unless giving them a cue. So standing there thinking on these matters, the dogs suddenly became super expressive. The youngest started spinning around me in circles and the oldest was dancing and his mouth was quivering. They could not take their eyes off me until i gave them some type of verbal acquiescence of yes, were going, yet even then was not sure about this.

In this respect, after finally coming to decision, grabbing my coat and giving them the cue with the expected outcome, was thinking about what was different today, how were they perceiving the situation. Was thinking that we know dogs, animals in general, can sense things like future earthquakes and such, they can even sense when you are coming home. So was thinking in particular about this and thought that perhaps they were reading their future reality in some way without needing the verbal cues. They could feel me thinking and see themselves doing what they ultimately did and became, as said, elated, before it had been decided in my thinking - yet somehow they reached the conclusion and knew.

Well not sure about this, but dogs are great fun and companions.

 

[Jones]

Today however, was standing in the kitchen thinking about having to drive to town. Was a little indecisive in my mind about how to get there and even if i should go at all.

How do you generally feel about going to town? There is evidence to suggest that the dog can detect subtle changes in emotional states through their sense of smell. It’s possible that through back chaining that the dogs have perceived your emotional state as a reliable indicator that you’re about to go to town.

Note from Craig A Murray Seminar:

How do Dogs read us?
We cannot lie to our dogs. Dogs know instinctively how to read every creature that they hunt and eat in the wild right from the smallest grasshopper to the bison as well as any creature that may pose a threat to the well being of the dog. It has been a matter of the survival of the species to instinctually know how to read other animals, including man and historically this instinct was developed hundreds of thousands of years before man became a hunter. Dogs also have the ability to read their prey better than any other creature on earth. (Comparative kill rates: certain breeds of dogs 97%, certain breeds of cat 78%, and certain breeds of shark 30%. Nb while dogs have the highest kill rate, they also expend less energy on the hunt and sustain fewer injuries during the hunt than other animals in the study. Source National Geographic).

Dogs read us by body language, voice print (meaning subtle patterns of pitch, tone and word spacing – not necessarily always the words we use – that are easily discernible with the dogs superior sense of hearing) and olfactory perception and they are masters at it. Even the smallest emotional change is accompanied by chemical changes in the body which the dog can perceive. Also the chemical changes begin microseconds before our vocal and gestural behaviour changes. So a soft owner may put on a harsh voice and this may be enough to control a soft dog with lower stress thresholds and higher compliance levels, but a hard dog with higher stress thresholds and lower compliance levels will use the fact that it knows that you are not really a threat because it can smell it on you and hear it in your voice print.

Craig A Murray trains Personal Assistance Dogs, including those dogs that alert the aural phase of an Epileptic Siezure, and Scent Detection dogs.

More interesting points from my study notes from the National Dog Trainers Federation:
- Olfaction is the most dominant canine sense. 10% of the dogs brain is dedicated to scent. In comparison humans have only 1% of their brain dedicated to processing scent.

- The average person has around 5 million scent receptors in their nose while the dog has around 220 million.

- Depending on environmental conditions a dog can track the scent trail of a person from a single fingerprint up to six weeks after that finger print was left.

- Short muzzled breeds have less scenting ability than long muzzle breeds.

- The dog can tell the difference in sex, age, social status, sexual status, emotional status, territory/ownership, genetic relatedness, pack members, friend or foe, and confidence levels through their sense of smell alone.

An experience I had in the early stages of training my dog for competition tracking was very enlightening about the sense of smell. This was before I’d started formal study and had the opportunity to learn more in depth from some professional scent detection trainers and so really didn’t understand the scenting powers of a dog.

A friend had a very old dog that had gone missing, and it was suspected that the dog had gone away to die. She knew that I was training Siekah in tracking and asked if I’d give her a hand to find her dog because she wanted to bring her home and bury her. At the time that she asked, her dog had already been missing for over 24hrs.

I wasn’t really confident that my dog could find her dog because at that stage of training I’d only been putting her on tracks that were about 150 meters long and I was starting her on them 15 – 30 minutes after the track had been laid.

In any case, I went around put my dogs tracking harness and 10m long lead on. I scented her with some of the old dogs hair out of a dog brush and gave her the signal to track. Off she went with her nose to the ground.

Since in training her tracks were planned and I knew in advance whether she was on the track or not, this was a new experience for me. For the first time I couldn’t guide her back on to the track and just had to follow her. She already knew how to follow a track – that wasn’t the point of our training. The training was just about teaching her to follow a scent that I indicated I wanted her to follow. So I really had no idea whether she was following the scent that I’d indicated or not.
She wandered around my friends property with her nose to the ground and eventually went out the front gate, crossed to the other side of the road. At this point a neighbour who really loved my dog come out all excited and called her. Siekah broke off to greet our friend.

We were quickly running out of light and so I said to my friend I’d come back the next morning and have another shot. So that was another 12 hours added onto the age of the track.

The next morning I started her at the point where she’d left off the day before. She walked down the road around the corner, up the next road and by this stage we’d covered around 1.2k. Finally she indicated that she wanted to enter some low, dense scrub.

I made a judgement call at that point and called her off. Looking at the scrub I figured that there was no way that a 17 year old dog on wobbly pins would try to struggle through that. In so doing I broke one of the first things I was told about handling a tracking dog – trust your dog and just go with them. I really didn’t think at the time that I was being unreasonable because my dog was still very early in her training and for all I knew she was following the scent of a hare or wallaby. I was also a very green tracking handler with much to learn.

A week later the old dog was found, alive and well and being taken care of by the owners of the property that my dog tried to enter. We didn’t even know there was a house in there as because as far as we could see there was just scrub and entry to the property was on another road. According to the owners of the property, she had indeed entered the property through that low dense scrub and from the rough direction that my dog indicated we should take! I never second guessed my dog again when I put her on a track and she never took me off track. She only ever once lost a scent trail under some very extreme circumstances.

 

[Voyageur]

Today however, was standing in the kitchen thinking about having to drive to town. Was a little indecisive in my mind about how to get there and even if i should go at all.

How do you generally feel about going to town? There is evidence to suggest that the dog can detect subtle changes in emotional states through their sense of smell. It’s possible that through back chaining that the dogs have perceived your emotional state as a reliable indicator that you’re about to go to town.

About how I feel in going to town, not one way or the other, it is generally of necessity for supplies. Should have added clarity though in the above when discussing "how to get there". One way involves driving an old vw van and the other; well there is just no room for them. They know this and sometimes are disappointed. In this respect, perhaps it is as you've pointed out above and with the quote:

Even the smallest emotional change is accompanied by chemical changes in the body which the dog can perceive.

So this may be the reason and also the knowledge that my intentions were likely to go and they did their best to influence how I would go. :)

Thanks for your story on tracking. I’ve learned long ago also to trust my dogs and had a border collie that once backed me up into the base of a tree and waited for what seemed like ten minutes. My impulse was to go forward, yet knew that she had a sense of smell for bears and trusted her to make the decision as she was acting out of character.