THE OTHER END OF THE LEASH

Much of my time in the past few weeks has been in a pretty dark place; learning things I wish I didn’t know about some hunting practices that occur in northern Wisconsin. (Not to mention reading death threats directed toward me and colleagues.) I’m not opposed to hunting, but I am very much opposed to some of the practices I’ve learned about recently while researching the use of dogs to hunt wolves. I’m not going to be more specific; I don’t want to take you there for your own sake, and I need to take a break from it. (If you want to know more, you can start by googling wolves, dogs and wisconsin, or hound hunting of coyotes, bear and bobcat).

Tonight I get to shift focus in a wonderful way: doing a fund raising speech for the Fox Valley Humane Association in Appleton,  Wisconsin. If you are coming and are a blog or FB reader, please come up and say hi, I just love meeting you. I had the pleasure of meeting several active readers in La Crosse last week, and it was truly fun.

For now, I’m going to focus on the stunningly beautiful fall weather we are having. Here’s new kitty Polly early this morning waiting for me to bring breakfast:

The barn in early morning light:

Camel sister Red, the one who is still so flighty that she panics even when I enter the pen. Notice that all the sheep behind her are eating their breakfast, but she always stops eating if I come out, even without Willie there.

I’m expecting some gorgeous fall colors on our way up to Appleton. I’ll take some more photos and post them when I can. I’ll end this post with the hope that, wherever you are, and no matter what else is going on, there is light and love and laughter in your life right now. Tell us about it, if you’d like, I’d love to hear.

Of course! It seems like a simple question, but as is often the case, our big, complicated brains allow us to add nuance to the answer. I’ve gone on record as arguing that yes indeed, mammals like dogs and horses can be happy, how could they not be? Feeling good is a way for the body to tell the brain (as if they were separate, forgive me for this simplistic duality) that it is in an environment that is safe and healthy. The neuro-hormones associated with happiness, like dopamine and oxytocin are shared by all mammals, and expressive mammals like dogs have the same facial expressions as we do when we are happy ourselves. I write about this in the book For the Love of a Dog and show examples in the DVD of the same name.

However, I was reminded that the question has more depth than “can a dog feel happy?” while reading  the book Mental Health and Well-being in Animals, edited by Frank McMillan. It is an excellent book for anyone interested in the mental life of animals, with chapters by Pam Reid, Marian Dawkins (on suffering, always an extremely thoughtful writer), Mark Bekoff, Suzanne Hetts, Temple Grandin, Jaak Panskepp, Bernie Rolland, and on and on. A truly impressive collection of knowledgeable, thoughtful people.

McMillan himself wrote the chapter titled “Do Animals Experience True Happiness?” In it, he reminds us that the concept of “happy” has two meanings: 1) a temporary mood or short term experience (joy, enthusiasm, pleasure) and 2) a long-term state associated with, in his words, “one’s evaluative overview of life.” In other words, there is a difference between being happy the moment you discovered you won a prize, and whether you’d describe your life as a happy one. “We just want you to be happy, dear,” coming from your parents isn’t asking that you have a few seconds of pleasure from a chocolate chip cookie, but rather enjoy a long-term state of satisfaction and contentment with life overall.

McMillan suggests that we use the term “happy” for the short-term state and “happiness” for the long-term one. It’s the “happy life” aspect of happiness that causes people to question whether animals can experience happiness. All biologists I know agree that mammals can experience short term pleasure, but some argue that animals like dogs are not able to evaluate and make judgements about their lives. McMillan writes an extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking article about this issue, arguing in part that animals exhibit many of the same needs that people have in order to achieve long-term happiness (such as control over their environment, a sense of achievement, and comparisons with others).

These are important and interesting arguments, and McMillan ends the article with an anecdote of a Beagle named Billy, whose relentless enthusiasm makes it impossible not to describe him as an animal who experiences happiness. Billy’s case brings us the concept of “set point,” or the well recognized tendency of individuals to have a base level of happiness (or lack thereof) that may be influenced by short term events, but not for long. I’d add that given what we now know about neurobiology and behavior, much of a person’s emotional approach to life is a question of how their brains function, based both on genetics and experience. Thus, it seems to me that “happiness” is not just a matter of cognitive judgements about one’s life, but also about one’s brain function and physiology. Our dogs may not make the same kind of judgements about their lives as we do (Oh, if only I’d…. when I was younger!), but it does seem reasonable that individual mammals have the same set of biological factors that influence whether we are generally cheerful or not as we go through out days. I’ve known so many dogs I’d call truly happy, others I’d categorize as experiencing “happy” times but not true happiness.  You?  Willie, by the way, seems to tilt between extreme joy and extreme anxiety on a daily basis.  What about your dogs? (And you… would you describe yourself as a “happy person?” Do you think that influences your dog(s)?)

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Holy moly, there is a lot going on. The wolf controversy continues to take lots of my time (about to do an interview on it now, testifying next week at the NRB in Eau Claire) and I have lots of evening talks to prepare for. In addition, fall in the country is wonderful and, well …, full. There are apples to pick & process for my annual apple/wild plum butter sauce, tons of gardening to do (just ordered a few tons of mulch, oh my), barns to clean out, windows to wash, garages to clean, trees to trim, thistles to kill, and on and on. And now, cats to get final vaccinations for . . .

Introducing the next, and hopefully VERY long, chapter in life on the farm. As many of you know, after a feral cat had kittens in my barn I had hopes of taming her and keeping one her kittens as barn cats. She had other plans, being a truly wild animal, and after I had her spayed, she attempted to lure her kitten away from the barn and into the woods. One can hardly blame her; after all, from her perspective, I stole her kittens (probably ate them for all she knew), trapped and tortured her and then expected her to stay? I wish I knew where she was, but am glad that she is spayed and won’t be having more litters.

That left me with no cats on the farm at all, and when the cats away…. Yup, the mice will play. Worse, the rats were not just increasing, they were beginning to hold conventions. I expected to walk into the barn and find them holding little cell phones and video cameras. I could write an entire article on rats, and how much I adore domestic ones as pets, and how much I dislike having to rid the barn of them. I’ll summarize by saying that the last time I pretended there were no rats in the barn they ended up in my house. It’s one thing to have a pet rat. It’s another altogether to see a wild one run across your kitchen floor and discover the gaping holes they’d chewed in your cabinets. (And to hear your friends suggest that they might never visit again.)

As often happens, the  universe provided: Right after Xena the feral cat disappeared and Calico had found a wonderful new home, I learned that neighbors had a momma cat who showed up in their shed half dead, starved and pregnant. She eventually had 7 healthy kittens, thanks to the care and concern my friends showered upon her. Momma was clearly raised around people, she was super friendly and sought out people to rub against. When I contacted them they had one kitten left and also needed to find a home for momma. And so, here they are, momma Nellie (bottom) and kitten Polly, who are now settled into Redstart Farm, I hope for many, many years to come. They came with horrific diarrhea but I think we have that turned around. Nellie continues to gain weight and Polly is growing like a weed. Polly (both cats are polydactyl) is all white but her eyes are green and she does not appear to be deaf. She might have some health challenges in the future (all white cats are more susceptible to skin cancer) but I’ll give her the absolute best life I can. And how many barn cats have a cat tree in the hay mow?

Here’s one of fall’s most reliable predictors: the wild sunflowers in bloom in front of the barn. It is always bittersweet to see them.

But it is cool (yeah!) and raining today (even better) and we get to be home this weekend. Willie and I will work sheep a little, but I’m afraid his shoulder is regressing. He was visibly limping last week, so we’re back to exercise restrictions and lots of PT exercises. I  honestly don’t know if he’s going to be able to do the physical work to be able to compete in trials–driving a big course takes lots of ‘short stopping’ and stress on his injured ligaments. (His tendon was surgically repaired, but no such possibility for the medial ligaments that were torn.) We’ll see, I’m taking a long term, philosophic approach, and remind myself every day that Willie still can work sheep at the farm, and that’s more important to him than anything else. He’s entered in one more trial and a sheepdog clinic in mid October, we’ll see how he’s doing. He doesn’t know about any of this and is happy it’s cool and that Jim and I are home and he gets to work sheep a little bit. Life is good.

Ignorance can be bliss. But it can also let bad things happen, and it grieves me to say that bad things might happen soon in my home state. In its wisdom, the legislature of the state of Wisconsin signed into law Act 169, which directs that dogs can be used to hunt wolves in our state. The wolf population in Wisconsin, having recovered naturally (no wolves were re-introduced) to over 800 individuals, were removed from the endangered species list in Wisconsin in January of 2012, and the legislature mandated that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) establish rules and regulations for the hunt itself. These rules were developed under “emergency” rule-making process, that began in May and will allow the wolf hunt to begin in October of this year.

The hunt brings up many issues, from the hunt itself to how it is conducted, but the issue on the table right now is the rules and regulations that the DNR has established related to the use of dogs. Or lack of them. Let me start out by saying that, in my opinion, dogs should never be allowed to be used to hunt wolves. Period. In addition, any regulations about how the wolf population is controlled should be based on good, solid science and the recommendations of the people who have studied the species for decades. There are several extremely knowledgeable wildlife ecologists who have been studying wolves for years here, and it appears as though their knowledge and expertise was not a part of the decision-making process.

Changing laws take time, and right now the legislature isn’t even in session. What is highly relevant now is that the DNR was charged with creating rules and regulations about, among other things, how dogs would be used. Here’s what they had to say: Dogs can’t be used at night, and no more than six dogs could be used at any one time. That’s it. Nothing else. You can just take your dogs out there, set ‘em after wolves and see what happens. This, in spite of the fact that the law says dogs can be used to “track and trail” wolves, but not necessarily to do anything else (as in engage them in fights.)

The stunning lack of reasonable restrictions on the use of dogs is why I’ve been involved with a lawsuit filed by a group of Humane Societies and citizens, which has asked the courts for an injunction to stop the use of dogs in the hunt until, at a minimum, regulations can be formulated that at least decrease the inevitable suffering that will occur if dogs are set out after wolves. As structured now, it’s nothing less than state-sponsored dog fighting.

Supporters of using dogs to hunt wolves (mostly bear hunters) argue that dogs are essential to a successful hunt, that dogs will be trained to stop on command as soon as they locate a wolf, and that only single wolves will be pursued. Beyond this optimistic set of expectations, the behavior of the wolves themselves appears to be downplayed or ignored. Wolves are territorial animals that don’t take kindly to incursions by other canids. As a matter of fact, one of the arguments for the wolf hunt itself was from bear hunters whose dogs were killed by wolves. (Anyone hunting bear in Wisconsin with dogs can receive $2,500 in compensation if their dog is killed by a wolf, even if the hunt took place in an area targeted by the DNR as not safe for dogs due to previous attacks.) Up to 22 hunting dogs have been killed by wolves in just one year (2008). You can see the details, year by year, on the DNR’s own website. Wildlife ecologists are clear: Setting free-ranging dogs off after wolves, purposefully into known wolf territories (and during the mating season no less) is a recipe for severe injury, if not death, for man’s best friend.

That is why I have agreed to act as an expert witness in the lawsuit, arguing that first, at minimum, dogs MUST be kept on a line. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: dogs ranging far from humans (bear & coyote hunting dogs run far afield of their handlers, usually with GPS collars on so that the hunters can locate them) are at risk of attack from wolves, while dogs close to humans are less so. I’ve also argued, as have others, that the regulations must include restrictions that only allow scent hounds–the dogs bred to track and trail–to be allowed to be used in the hunt. Rumors are flying about hunters bringing in a range of dogs, large dogs who were bred not just to locate prey but to fight with it. Some people are concerned that a breed restriction sounds like a breed ban, but rather it’s a mechanism to try to keep dogs from suffering. Even if all dogs truly were kept on leash (and the DNR argues that that would be difficult to enforce, which is a bit of an understatement), even in the best of circumstances, we all know that “stuff” happens, and that some dogs are going to end up off leash. So which kind should they be? A black and tan coonhound bred to track and trail, or a greyhound that someone picked up cheap from a track that is going to run after a moving wolf until it catches up? Or how about one of the dogs actually used to hunt and kill wolves in Kurkistan? Argh, the thought of it all is truly horrific.

The good news is that the court has granted us a temporary injunction, but it is only temporary. There is a hearing tomorrow, Friday the 14th, in which the state is asking the lawsuit to be dismissed. If it is not, then the issue will come up again at the Natural Resources Board Meeting in Eau Claire, Wisconsin on Sept. 26th. I expect to be there to testify that it is a violation of the state’s animal cruelty laws to rush into allowing dogs to hunt wolves without serious information gathering and input from a variety of sources. Several other dedicated folks have also been integrally involved, including wildlife ecologists and wolf experts Randall Jurewicz and  Richard Thiel and Adrian Treves, an expert on “co-existence & conflicts between people and wildlife. I don’t know if they will be at the NRB hearing, but they have been integral to the fight, led by our Alpha Female, Jodi Habush Sinykin from Midwest Environmental Advocates.

I realize that this issue is not relevant to many readers, but it’s too close to my heart and too much a part of my life right now, not to bring it up. I know that dogs are not allowed to hunt wolves in any other state in the US, but that there are a few places in the world where they are used. Given that wolves have been harassed and decimated for centuries all over the world, most places don’t have the luxury of talking about “wolf overpopulation.” It’s been a joy for many of us to watch our wolf population increase, even though, yes, as a livestock producer I do sympathize with the problems that can ensue from living with a large, pack hunting predator. It is absolutely appropriate that livestock producers be compensated for losses to wolves, and receive assistance in how to manage their animals to avoid depredation. And it is more than reasonable to use knowledge and science to manage the population. But what a sad, sad day for Wisconsin if a small contingent of hunters are allowed to exploit dogs by asking them to risk their lives as “man’s best friend.” All the hunters I’ve talked to (deer, small game and water fowl) are universally appalled at the idea, but it only takes a few. And there have been over 20,000 applications for wolf hunting licenses already turned in. Less than 2,000 will be issued, but how many will want to use dogs? I’d argue that one is too many. I’ll keep you posted, but if you live in Wisconsin, know that we’re living in a state that could be the first in the nation to allow dogs to be used to hunt wolves.

Here is my favorite photo of wolves, that I was able to take at Wolf Park in Indiana. Monty Sloan, the resident (and brilliant) photographer, let me borrow his kick ass telephoto lens, and I took this picture of these gorgeous animals just as the sun was going down. It was February, breeding season, so although we got to be up close and personal with individual wolves, no one but staff was allowed in with the pack. (This is the same time of year that the state of Wisconsin wants to  allow dogs to hunt wolves.) The wolves here are engaged in ritualized displays about who’s who in the pecking order. There would be nothing ritualized about the next steps if the canid on the bottom was a dog who just ran into the pack’s territory.

As if any of us REALLY knows “what it all means,” right? But thank you for your interesting and thoughtful comments about the previous post’s video of Willie and the “Get Back” signal. They were great.

I’ll cut to the chase about my own interpretation. Here’s the data: Willie tongue flicks when I ask him to back away from somewhere or something he wants to go toward: the outside of the house, into the car, or toward the toy. All of these have been taught using lots and lots of reinforcement with food and play and “life rewards,” like going outside after I say “Get Back” or getting the toy as soon as he backs up (But  I don’t reinforce every single response every single time once he has a cue down pat. That would be unnecessary in my opinion, not to mention completely impractical.) But back to the tongue flicks:

The only time in the video when Willie doesn’t tongue flick after “Get Back” is he is directly facing the sheep, who are backed into a corner. Two highly relevant facts that can help us interpret his behavior are:

One, I’ve never used food to teach it in that context (sheep), I have in all the others. Is it possible that he has a classically conditioned response to the cue because it so often resulted in food? I thought that was an interesting comment from a reader. I think this bears considering, but, see # Two….

Two, (and I think in this case MUCH more relevant) Willie dislikes what is called “contact” with the sheep (not physical, think metaphysical) and is stressed by face-to-face confrontations with them. Did you see how quickly he backed away (see second 120) when I said “Get Back” in that context?  That’s because he is relieved. In this case he’d be likely to tongue flick when I said “Walk Up,” not “Get Back.”

Thus, I am inclined to agree with those who argued that Willie’s tongue flicking is displacement behavior. In all the cases in which he tongue flicked, he wanted to go forward, but couldn’t, so he did something else. What he did could be interpreted as a sign of low-level anxiety, stress or frustration, or as appeasement behavior. I experimented (have you with your own dogs yet?) and looked for tongue flicks in a variety of contexts and after a variety of cues. Lie Down and Sit all got tongue flicks. Come forward and touch my hand, pick up the toy, come to me, find the toy, and high five did not.

Willie appears to tongue flick when he wants to move forward but is asked to do the opposite. Is he stressed? I could well be wrong, but I don’t think so, at least not in the way the term is usually used. “Stressed” on Willie’s face is easy to read, and involves pinched facial muscles, ears flat and a look in his eyes somewhere between Tippi Hedren in Hitchcock’s The Birds and Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. Is he thrilled about being asked to back up? Nope.

Notice how immediately before and after the tongue flicks, Willie’s body stays loose, his mouth open and he generally has on what I call his happy face. Would he rather go forward at the door, into the car, toward his toy? Yes. Would I rather eat ALL the chocolate in the cupboard right now? Yes. Am I stressed because I am not allowing myself to do so, with some inner voice firmly saying “Trisha, Get Back?” No. That’s my interpretation. Now that we all know more, what do you think?

A few more points in relation to your comments, and a reminder of what a great exercise these videos can be for us all. Several people commented about Willie, at second 24, sliding under my legs toward Tootsie as I am about to lift her into the car. There were some interesting guesses about what is going on here, but I can tell you with confidence that Willie is taking the opportunity to sniff her butt “under the radar.” He still primarily pretends that she doesn’t exist (and vice versa). They can eat off of the same plate if offered to lick our dinner plates, and she can dance on his head when greeting us and he has no visible reaction. He is remarkably tolerant of her (and her him). But they still do not acknowledge each other, and sneak in sniffs in rare moments, only when the other’s head is busy.

Some of you also commented about Willie’s dash away from the car door after I put Tootsie inside (second 40) and interpreted it as fear. Not a chance in this case, he was running in joy to the barn. Willie has learned that unless other cues have occurred (Tootsie’s car harness on, his travel collar on), Tootsie going into the car crate means we are going to the barn to work sheep.  Even though I think he often finds it stressful, he appears to love working the woolies as much as life itself.

And one last quick comment, just by way of explanation: Willie’s Stay signal means “Stay in place (not posture) until I give you a release.” Willie’s Wait signal means “Pause momentarily and then do what you want.” If he is still not moving once I’m ready for him to move on, I’ll say “Okay” just to get the ball rolling again. But it’s his choice, Wait just means pause. If I want him to not move until I give him a release I say Stay. I find that useful, myself. You?

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: We began last weekend with a rough day on Friday. Willie was entered into our second “big” sheepdog trial on Friday, and did the worst he’s ever done. It was, granted another really tough trial, with a tough course, tough sheep and with wind and rain blowing into my face. Willie improved tremendously on our second run, but I did the worst I’ve ever done and made two ridiculous mistakes. Ah well. But then we gloried in a perfect fall weekend: blue sky, dry air, ideal temperature &light breeze. I’m talking calendar cover weather, here, and boy did we deserve it after such a brutal summer. I planted asters and dug weeds and cooked, Jim cut down tree-sized Ragweed to help my allergies, finished a new wagon to transport the sheep and we generally puttered and watched sports on TV and relaxed. Heaven for us all.

Here’s an interesting video for you to analyze. Katie and I were taping one of my favorite signals, “Get Back.” I use it in a variety of contexts, and can’t imagine life without it. You can see some of the ways I use the cue on the video below, and I’ll talk more later, if you’d like, about why I love the cue so very much.

After we taped, Katie and I were watching the video and I said “Oh wow, did you see how he [---] right after [---] happens? (Fill in the blanks!)

And so, that’s your assignment (should you decide to accept it Agent 99): Watch this video and tell us what we might have found interesting in it. I’m giving no more instructions than that… Who knows then what you might find that we didn’t! I’ll jump in early next week (and will answer comments sooner) about what we found so interesting, and as importantly, what we think it might mean. I’m guessing that this could lead to a very interesting discussion!

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Willie clearly lost some confidence after working the almost immovable sheep at the trial last weekend, so I’ve been working on building it up. I’ve been encouraging him to come up, come on, keep them doggies moving… (This is where you burst into song, singing “Raw-hiiiiiiide” at the top of your lungs.) I’ll let you know how it’s going. Poor Mr. Willie boy, you know how much I love him; and that includes knowing who he really is: A slightly crazy, people-loving, hyper-reactive, sound-sensitive, fun-loving creature who lacks confidence in a variety of settings. I’ve always known he’ll never be a national level sheepdog trial competitor, but I love him more than I can say, and love him even more than that for trying so hard.

Here’s a photo of me and Willie a friend took (thanks Rich!) several years ago when we were at a sheepdog clinic (the first time I was able to let Willie greet unfamiliar dogs.. what a huge step that was for him!) It’s hard to imagine that he was out of the game for over a year and a half since then!