The more I consider the continuing debate over the “time” and “place” for the transformation of wolf into dog, the more I become convinced that the puzzle remains unsolved because of human devotion to a simplistic, clever-sounding idea that never made sense in the first place. As first put forth by Raymond Coppinger, that idea was that wolves feeding on the garbage piles of quasi-permanent Mesolithic villages grew tamer over the course of generations until they no longer feared or threatened humans. In the process of taming themselves, those wolves also became less fearful of and aggressive toward humans. They were cute, too. For reasons that were never clear to me, people took these cute obsequious dump divers into their homes, where they blossomed into dogs.
Coppinger pinned his argument on Dmitry Belyaev’s experiment, begun in 1959, at a Siberian fur farm, in which a group of foxes was bred for tameness alone and within ten generations was producing foxes that resembled dogs with floppy ears, piebald coats, and a high need for attention. They were juvenilized in behavior as well as appearance.
There are a number of reasons why the foxes are not a good model for origins of the dog, and I have elsewhere addressed them in detail. For now, suffice it to say that dogs arose not in quasi-permanent Mesolithic villages but in Paleolithic hunting camps. They were not sought nor selected because they solicited attention and showed no aggression—these are hardly traits of a good guard, which was one of the tasks of early dogs. Guarding remains a major reason why people keep dogs.
But the greatest problem with the self-domesticating theory is that it shuts the most creative creature on the planet out of the process. To put it bluntly, that makes no sense. Humans have always collected, tamed, and trained animals. It is inconceivable that they would ignore one as intelligent and inquisitive as the wolf.
Genomics and its offspring have shown that living organisms are not biological machines but energetic systems supported by layers of complexification. Genomics has also contributed to a more dynamic view of “domestication” as a process involving the interplay of biological, environmental, and cultural forces. The hard line between “domestic” and “wild” –always imaginary but not less real for that—has for the dog become increasingly difficult to find despite the distortions that define the current period of breedism. I am using “breedism” to refer to all aspects of the cult of the purebred dog that began to take hold about 200 years ago. Of course, there are significant differences between dogs and wolves, when they are in their own environments, but what happens when the dog goes native or the wolf becomes a lay-about?
It sometimes appears that every new find simply raises new questions while leaving old ones unresolved. That trend is apparent in two new papers by Ya-ping Zhang, a leading Chinese geneticist, who collaborated with geneticists from China and two different labs in Sweden and California on two new papers promoting Chinese indigenous dogs—native or village dogs—as the closest dogs to the ancient type.
Working with Peter Savolainen, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology, Zhang has over the past decade or so insisted that dogs originated in southeast China no earlier than 16,000 years ago, and many researchers elsewhere adopted his argument despite the notable absence of dog or wolf remains from that region at that date and the presence of dog remains from other places considerably earlier.
The researchers redid the numbers using new chips that spot changes in the genome including so-called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, and indels—insertions or deletions of small amounts of genetic material. SNPs and indels can be used to measure degrees or years of separation of discrete groups of organisms. Crunching the numbers and running regression analyses, they found that southeast China village dogs separated from wolves 32,000 years ago. There were a lot of them by then, too, they reported in an article in Nature Communications [subscription required], with Guo-dong Wang and Weiwei Zhai as first authors and Zhang as senior author—8,500 dogs by their estimate.
The new date fits nicely with some “early dogs” identified from the Altai Mountains, Belgium and the Czech Republic, although Zhang and his colleagues are not quite willing to admit that those animals are dogs. In fact, they appear to want to deal with the early date by using it to mark the beginning of a long period of self-domestication for a group of scavenging protodogs.
Zhang’s group declares: “Early wolves might have been domesticated as scavengers that were attracted to live and hunt commensally with humans. With successive adaptive changes, these scavengers became progressively more prone to human custody. In light of this view, the domestication process might have been a continuous dynamic process, where dogs with extensive human contact were derived from these scavengers much latter [sic] when humans began to adopt an agricultural life style.”
The operative words here are “commensally” and “scavenger.” Together, they say that wolves were drawn to human garbage or some other waste and so started hanging around and hunting with them but without having a discernable effect or bringing them any benefit—thus, the term “commensally”—until the biped started farming. Then the scavengers showed their true worth as crossover omnivores and became dogs.
That is not complex, but it is convoluted. At a basic level, it is not clear why protodogs could not have arrived in southeastern China from the Altai Mountain region, for example, where the people who would come to enter the New World and spread through much of the Old World as the glaciers began to retreat, had gathered, presumably with dogs some 35,000 years ago. A population of dogs and people could easily have gotten to southeast China and radiated outward from there. The much trumpeted diversity of dogs in the region could be a result not of their origins there but an accident of geography and history, including intensive breeding of dogs for food and a settlement pattern that featured many small riverine villages along the Yangtze River, one of the world’s largest.
Zhang’s defense for the lack of wolves in southeast China is that wolf populations have changed everywhere, and so no one has an ancestral wolf for study and comparison. But the Chinese indigenous dogs and a couple of related breeds, are the dogs closest genetically to wolves, and that makes them all the more important as living artifacts, Zhang and his team reason. Specifically, they looked for genetic loci that might show positive selection pressure in dogs and humans and therefor might represent parallel evolution in the two species. The genes they identified as likely candidates are involved in diet, specifically the ability to digest grains; metabolism; cancer and neurological processes, especially some involving the neurotransmitter, serotonin.
Zhang is also corresponding author with Dong-Dong Wu, both of the Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China, on a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper involving the laboratory of Robert K. Wayne, dean of canid evolutionary biologists, and several of the next generation of dog geneticists who have already published important work—Bridgett vonHoldt and Adam Boyko. They were especially focused on the prefrontal cortex and on parts of the brain that appear involved in fear response and sociability.
I say “sociability”, but, following Zhang’s lead, the researchers on these pages say “tameness,” while continuing to cling to the Soviet fox experiment as evidence that the dog was self domesticating, becoming obsequious and ingratiating and nonaggressive while eating garbage and offal. Standard descriptions of this work are abundant, and I won’t repeat them here. But it is fair to say that grand pronouncements about the working of the brain must be treated cautiously.
Most of these searches for genes involved in the transformation of wolves to dogs are based on at least two significant, faulty assumptions about the behavior of dogs and wolves. The first faulty assumption Is that wolves are now, and were in the late Pleistocene, aggressive competitors with humans. There is evidence documenting not only friendly but also mutually beneficial relationships of humans and wolves going back thousands of years. There are suggestive associations of wolf and Homo erectus remains going back hundreds of thousands of years.
The second faulty assumption is that a group of wolves effectively said to humans, “Because we like your leavings so much, we will stop vying with you and aggressing against you. We will be abject before you if you will give us excretia to eat because we cannot live by ourselves.” The question I always ask is, would you want such a creature in your house, in your bed? That is unlikely. This assumption is faulty because there is no evidence that wolves generically dislike or even fear humans. The global wolf recovery with wolves living in ever closer proximity to humans proves that wrong. It is humans who hate wolves.
That wolves and humans, similar as they are in so many ways, should make common cause, should surprise no one. Hunters study hunters. Species cooperate. It would be more aberrant if they did not. Coral groupers, Napoleon wrasse, and moray eels were recently shown to hunt cooperatively, for example. Around the world, hunting cultures had dogs that often interbred with, sometimes were indistinguishable from wolves. In the New World and elsewhere that situation was contemporaneous with the rise of multiple refined breeds in the Anglo-English speaking world.
In a real sense, then, what we call domestication of the wolf was really a rolling and flexible bringing into human culture of wolves who had the psychological and emotional capacity for sociability, for forming strong bonds not just with another individual but also with another species.
Some years ago Adam Miklosi and his colleagues compared hand reared wolves to dogs. The lengthening of the first critical socialization period and a greatly increased capacity to form strong bonds to another species were clearly central to the appearance of the dog, they concluded.
Yet for all of their problems, these two new studies are useful for their focus on indigenous dogs, the landrace dogs who although they might have several uses are generally not bred by humans to any purpose, but who still live, reproduce, and die in human society. How ancient or basic these dogs are is not really known. But they are found around the world, and I think that comparative studies of them and resident wolves and truly self-sustaining feral dogs, where they still exist, will prove most interesting. The same applies to comparison of DNA from ancient dogs and wolves. We do not yet see them clearly.
This article first appeared on Dog’s Best Friend at Psychology Today, it is used with persmission.
Mark Derr is the author of six books, ranging from Some Kind of Paradise, an environmental history of Florida, How the Dog Became the Dog, Dog's Best Friend, and A Dog's History of America. As an expert on the subject of dogs, he has been a guest on such programs as The Charlie Rose Show and Fresh Air. His articles and opinion pieces have appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, Wall Street Journal, Huffinton Post, Natural History, The Bark, Smithsonian and The New York Times. He lives in Miami Beach, Florida.
DEA action might hinder in-home vet practices
Legislative Alert: We need your help! Please Support S. 950, the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act, to Allow Veterinarians to Continue to Transport Vital Medications for the Treatment of Animals!
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is seeking urgent modification to the current Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that was put forth by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1970. The CSA was designed to protect public health by preventing diversion and improper use of controlled substances, and was actually implemented with the human medical field in mind. Well, the DEA is now suddenly interpreting the wording in this 43-year old legislation and has recently deemed it illegal for veterinarians to transport controlled substances outside of the veterinarian's single registered location, typically their hospital or clinic.
What does this mean? It means that it is now illegal for veterinarians to carry and use vital medications for pain management, anesthesia and euthanasia in house calls, in veterinary mobile clinics, on farms, or in ambulatory response situations such as injured wildlife. It now prohibits mobile veterinarians, rural or farm veterinarians, and in-home euthanasia veterinarians from doing their job because of this sudden and literal interpretation of the law. As a provider of hospice care for pets, this hits especially close to home for me: I am no longer legally able to provide adequate pain relief for my terminal patients, nor am I legally allowed to provide the the gift of a peaceful passing in the comfort of a pet's home. The DEA has already notified veterinarians in some states (California being highly targeted) that they are in violation of this law and are being threatened with fines as well as provoking licensing.
The DEA has officially informed organized veterinary medicine that transporting these controlled substances is illegal per the CSA and thus would require a statutory change in the law to allow “us” to legally provide complete veterinary care to our patients.
We have met this need by introducing the Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act (S. 950), which was introduced by U.S. Senators Jerry Morgan and Angus King just this week (thank you!). This legislation would amend the current CSA and will allow us to continue to treat and meet the needs of our patients—your pets.
Can you help? It is imperative that veterinarians be able to legally transport controlled substances to the location of our patients, and we need your support. By clicking this link you can tell your U.S Senators that veterinarians must be able to properly care for their patients. It takes just seconds- look for the green-colored “TAKE ACTION NOW” at the bottom and with just 1 click, you can make a world of difference for our pet family members.
Official web site created to reunite pets with their families
Coming out of yesterday's tornadoes in Oklahoma, there are both tragic animal stories, like the estimated 75 to 100 horses killed at Orr Family Farm, and there are also tales of hope, like the dog rescued from rubble and reunited with her "mom" during a television interview.
It seems like natural disasters are becoming all too common lately. The good thing is that people are becoming more organized and better prepared to face these emergency situations.
During past emergencies, it was common to see several web sites and Facebook pages pop up to reunite lost pets with their families. While they all had good intentions, information became scattered. This time, the Oklahoma Media Group teamed up with the Oklahoma City Animal Welfare Division, The Bella Foundation SPCA, and the Central Oklahoma Humane Society to create an official centralized database of lost and found pets for the cities of Oklahoma City and Moore.
People looking for their pets can post a notice in the Lost Pets section, while those who have found an animal (whether you're an individual or work for a veterinary hospital or shelter) can post in the Found Pets section. Anyone can look through both listings on the web site to make matches. Volunteers will also be assisting to connect people with their pets.
The organizations behind the web site are also offering foster care for people who are unable to care for the pets at the moment.
Help us spread the word about this site so more people can be reunited with their pets.
A separation of almost a year ends
Marine Sergeant Ross Gundlach and bomb-sniffing dog Casey served in Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012, completing over 150 missions together, but then they were separated. They both came back to the United States eventually, but Gundlach returned to his hometown of Madison, Wisc. to go to college and Casey began working in Iowa as an explosives detection dog.
While they were in Afghanistan, Gundlach promised himself and Casey that if they made it out alive, he would do whatever it took to find her. Once he learned that she was working in the Iowa state fire marshal’s office, he wrote to the director, Ray Reynolds. Gundlach explained that he had a strong connection with Casey and that he loved her. Over a couple of months, he worked on convincing Reynolds to let him have Casey. Gundlach was told that if it worked out, he would have to drive to Iowa to get her, to which he replied, “I would swim to Japan for my dog.”
Reynolds invited Gundlach to Des Moines, Iowa, supposedly to plead his case to a committee at the state capitol, but Reynolds had actually already arranged for Gundlach to take Casey home with him. When Gundlach arrived, he was told that the meeting had been postponed, but invited him to participate in an Armed Services Day celebration. At that event, Reynolds surprised Gundlach by bringing Casey to him and letting him know that the dog was now his.
This happy reunion was made possible because Reynolds and his colleagues understand the importance of the relationship between a Marine and his partner, a detection dog who saved many lives with her flawless work. It was also enabled by a donation of $8500 by the Iowa Elk’s Association to purchase another working dog for the agency. Casey was officially retired from active duty by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad at the ceremony in which Gundlach and Casey were reunited.
Gundlach has a tattoo of Casey with angel wings and a halo sitting by a Marine, and he gives her credit for his survival in Afghanistan. It seems only fitting that the two of them are together again.
This affects guardians to varying degrees
Dogs are welcome, at least under certain circumstances, in more places with each passing year. A number of parks, schools, hotels and hospitals now allow dogs, and a wide variety of businesses let both employees and customers bring their dogs with them. There are still a lot of places that are off limits to our four-legged family members, and this continues to affect most people with dogs.
I was recently at a local bookstore that allows dogs, but the café inside the store is for people only. There is a very nice sign saying that health codes prohibit them from welcoming dogs to the café, though they are welcome in the rest of the store. The staff works very hard to accommodate people who have brought their dog to the bookstore and would like a cup of coffee by bringing their orders out of the café and into the main part of the bookstore. I’m sure many dog guardians skip the café because they can’t sit down and enjoy a drink if accompanied by a dog. However, many people do request “delivery” to the main part of the store, and seem appreciative of the option.
Years ago I worked with a woman who would hardly go anywhere without her dog. She brought him to work, which was allowed as we worked at a facility that provided dog training, dog grooming and dog day care. This woman never went to the movies because her dog was not allowed to go with her, and never ate in restaurants for the same reason. She made some concessions to practicality such as going to the grocery store or on other errands alone, but she generally only went where her dog was allowed to come, too.
She made decisions that many could consider extreme, but they certainly worked for her and for her dog. Her social life was affected by her unwillingness to go places without her dog, but she has always been very happy with her choices and has a good life.
Are there any places you don’t go because of restrictions that prevent your dog from coming, too?
Erica Feuerbacher smiles when she talks, and why shouldn’t she? As a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida with the Canine Cognition and Behavior Lab, she spends a lot of time with dogs (or at least dogs in the form of data). Through her research, she meets many, many, many dogs, some of whom live in animal shelters. This is the story of her latest research and a special subject named Raleigh.
What do you want from me?
Feuerbacher’s research investigates dog preference for different types of human social interactions, or simply put: What do dogs want from us, and under what conditions do they want it? For example, your dog might happily hang out with someone doling out hotdogs, but is your dog also likely to spend time with someone offering petting only and no hotdogs?
In Feuerbacher’s latest study, shelter dogs and owned dogs were put to the test to see whether they chose petting or food. Because dogs, being dogs, often prefer food when readily available, the researchers ran an experiment with multiple sessions where food became more and more scarce.
Feuerbacher wondered, “If food’s not available, will dogs shift their preference to the person who’s offering petting, hang out with nobody at all or continue to hang out with the person who had been giving out food but has stopped?”
During a 1-minute pre-exposure period, dogs learned that one experimenter gave out food while another gave out petting. Then, dogs had 5 minutes to spend time with whomever they chose, and they could move back and forth freely.
Petting or Food?
Many shelter dogs and all owned dogs had an initial preference for the person giving out food. But in sessions where food was not available, many shelter dogs spent time with the person offering petting. When food again became available, dogs almost always went back to the person with food.
Some of the shelter dogs initially showed a preference for the person doing the petting, not the person giving out food (although, eventually, they all opted for food). As you might imagine, dogs in animal shelters are frequently deprived of human interaction, so it isn’t all that surprising that shelter dogs would opt to spend time with people when given the chance. Alternatively, owned dogs initially went for the food person and stayed with the food person, even when food became more scarce. Owned dogs have ready access to petting from their loving owners (raise your hand if you are petting a dog right now), but food is not always available.
Raleigh, a mutt who had been picked up as a stray, was game for any interaction with humans. As the graph shows, when food was available (triangle), Raleigh was all over it, but when food stopped, Raleigh was all about the petting (circle) — he was quick to say, “bye bye food person,” and “hello petting person!” And when food came back into circulation, he was more than happy to accept.
“He’s a food type of guy, but he’s also a petting type of guy” Feuerbacher explains. In the session where dogs were exposed to continuous petting but food was doled out at 15-second intervals, Raleigh approached the food person. He waited about 8 seconds, and when he didn’t receive any food, he then went to the petting person, where he remained for the rest of the session. His social behavior was much more extensive than a lot of dogs.”
When the study ended, Feuerbacher kept an eye on Raleigh at the animal shelter. When he still hadn’t been adopted after 2 months, Raleigh joined the ranks as a foster dog in Feuerbacher’s home, where he now spends his time with three other dogs doing doggie things like waiting for food, snuggling on the couch and frolicking with his foster siblings. But he is also waiting for a home.
Raleigh is available for adoption through Phoenix Animal Rescue in Gainesville, Florida.
Raleigh, of course, has a Facebook page.
You can meet Raleigh this Saturday, May 18, 2013 at PetsMart in Gainesville, Florida.
Feuerbacher has good reason to smile when she talks about Raleigh: “I liked that he liked food because that helps with training. But I also liked that when food wasn’t available, he was really social. Everything he did was gentle. I just thought he was a really neat dog.”
Feuerbacher, E. N. & Wynne, C. D. L. Dogs’ preference for different types of human social interaction in a concurrent choice test. (In prep)
Images copyright E. Feuerbacher
This story was originally published by Scientific American. Reprinted with permission.
About the Author: Julie Hecht is a canine behavioral researcher and science writer in New York City. She wriites a behavior column for The Bark. She would really like to meet your dog. Follow on Twitter @DogSpies.
Jake's visits to the dog park ended when he bit off part of a Bulldog's ear. Jake, a black Lab-Pit Bull mix, belonged to a first-time dog-owner who reacted to his frequent aggressive behavior by saying, “Oh, Jakey, we don't do those things” in a high, sing-song voice. Jake's owner paid the $1000-plus bill for the Bulldog's surgery but the incident reflected the biggest problem with dog parks-and it isn't the dogs.
In 2010, the city of Cambridge, Mass. built a state-of-the-art fenced dog park close to our house. It has running water and bowls for the dogs, free biodegradable waste bag dispensers, and awning-covered benches for the owners. There are two smaller fenced areas, one for puppies and one marked “Time Out.”
At first, it was nirvana for dog-owning city-dwellers.
But as the number of visitors increased, the “Dog Park Rules” posted at the entrance were supplanted by the unwritten code “My Way Rules.” Some examples:
1. You must accommodate my dog's peccadilloes.
2. My dog is sick. Deal with it.
3. My dog is a studly guy. It's an honor for him to hump your dog. Or how about the owner who chuckled as she commented on the libido of her young 110-pound Bernese Mountain Dog while he relentlessly mounted much smaller dogs. Observers mentioned that his behavior was a sign of dominance, not sexual prowess. She looked annoyed and half-heartedly reprimanded him, without physically removing him from his victims. One of the objects of his supposed “affection” was a smaller dog whose rear legs collapsed under the weight of the young goliath.
4. I've got mail. I've got to check the Red Sox scores. Dog? What dog?
After avoiding the dog park for the past year, I recently walked my leashed dog on the paved path near its perimeter fence. I watched as a Weimaraner assumed “the position” near a knot of seven preoccupied owners and left a pile that could not be missed if anyone had been paying attention. Not a single person moved to clean it up.
New legislation honors shelter pets and requires cops to learn canine behavior
Earlier this week Governor John Hickenlooper signed two bills that show how much Colorado cares about their animals. One piece of legislation made shelter dogs and cats Colorado's official state pet and the other requires police officers to undergo dog behavior training. The governor's adopted pup, Sky, was in attendance for the occasion (I'd love it if Sky weren't wearing what appears to be a prong collar, but that's a whole other topic of discussion).
Colorado is the twelfth state to designate a state pet (their state animal is the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep), but the only one that did not give the honor to a purebred dog. The idea was proposed by students as a part of a project to teach them about the legislative process (very cool!). If you can believe it, the bill did not pass without controversy. Lobbyists for purebred dogs and pet stores opposed the state pet, and one person even testified that the bill discriminated against birds and reptiles.
The canine behavior training for police was created in response to high-profile cases of cops shooting dogs and is thought to be the first of it's kind across the country. Despite being introduced in what has been a combative legislative term, all 100 lawmakers in the Colorado Legislature supported the bill. One of the sponsors, Republican Sen. David Balmer, said, "This is a bipartisan day for dogs."
I think Colorado just went up in the rankings for most dog friendly state!
And this is a very good thing
In “The Secret Life of Germs,” a fascinating article (with a great cover) in the upcoming New York Times Magazine, Michael Pollan explores the subject of microbiome—the microbial species as he notes, “with whom I share this body.” The “gut” it seems is all the rage these days. Many writers like Pollan and Mary Roach (author of Gulp) are taking on the subject of bacterial life, many of which resides in our “guts,” and how influential they are to our good health and well-being.
Pollan observes that “as a civilization, we’ve just spent the better part of a century doing our unwitting best to wreck the human-associated microbiota with a multifronted war on bacteria and a diet notably detrimental to its well-being.”
From antibiotics (both medicinally and from our foods) and anti-bacterial soaps to our obsession with ridding ourselves of germs and dirt—modern life is destroying our microbial ecosystems—with very harmful results.
It is pointed out that, "This may “predispose us to obesity and a whole range of chronic diseases, as well as some infections.” Also.
When Pollan pressed the researchers about the best ways to ensure a rich and thriving diversity of microbiome, dogs rank high in their suggestions:
This underscores the findings from a couple other studies that we reported on last year. In these studies researchers looked specifically at how dogs contribute to making children healthier, especially related to respiratory aliments. In one study, conducted in Finland, they found that
Children with dogs at home were healthier overall, had fewer infectious respiratory problems, fewer ear infections and were less likely to require antibiotics. Researchers considered these results supportive of the theory that children who live with dogs during their early years have better resistance throughout childhood. They also found that the effect was greater if the dog spent fewer than six hours inside, possibly because the longer dogs are outdoors, the more dirt they bring inside with them.
And the other conducted by a study team at the University of California, San Francisco found that, “Exposing the gastrointestinal tract to pet dust and other microbes early in life prepares it to respond appropriately to a variety of invaders. But since our modern lifestyles involve living in immaculate houses, our immune systems often overreact instead.” Early childhood is a critical period for developing protection against allergies and asthma, and exposure to pets can help.
There certainly are many reasons why we consider our relationship with dogs to be mutually beneficial—we provide them with love, mental and physical stimulation, shelter and food. And what research is discovering is that we are only beginning to uncover the extent of the benefits dogs bestow on us.
Russian pups adapt to the changing times
Dogs are amazing at adapting alongside humans. It's thought that canines were domesticated after they learned to scavenge for food and became useful companions to people. Today dogs adjust to almost anything we throw their way. I see big pups happily living in tiny Manhattan apartments and herding breeds channeling their energy into activities with no sheep in sight, like agility and obedience.
Dogs in Moscow have impressively adapted to the city's changing culture. During commuting time it's not uncommon to see both two and four legged commuters on the trains--the humans headed to work and the canines in search of food. There are about 30,000 stray dogs wandering the streets of Moscow, many who started taking the train after the Soviet collapse in the 1990s. Scientists believe that this behavior started as people moved industry complexes, which homeless dogs used as shelters, out of the city and into the suburbs. The dogs moved but learned to ride the subway since the city has the best food scavenging opportunities.
Dogs used to be banned on Moscow's trains, but they quickly captured the hearts of riders. Now many commuters give up their seat for tired dogs and even build simple shelters to help the pups manage the cold winters.
The dogs have gotten pretty good at reading people and don't always have to scavenge or even beg for food. Dr. Andrei Poiarkov of the Moscow Ecology and Evolution Institute says that the pups know exactly what they're doing. Sometimes they'll creep up behind someone and bark, scaring a person into dropping their food. Othertimes they'll play to someone's soft side and rest their head on a child's knee.
Andrei says that the dogs often work together to get off at the correct stop, memorizing how long the train ride is. Sometimes, just like humans, they fall asleep and get off at the wrong stop! The dogs also seem to ride the subway for fun, darting on the train at the last second and dodging the closing doors. These pups are really making the most of the trains in Moscow!
In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it planned to restrict sales of certain rodenticides containing second-generation anticoagulants (such as brodifacoum and bromadiolone) to pest control professionals and agricultural supply stores only. Rodenticide manufacturers came up to speed with compliance in 2011, and in doing so, began using bromethalin more and more instead of anticoagulants in their products.
While the change was designed to make rodenticides safer for our children, pets and wildlife, there has also been some devastating consequences. Unlike anticoagulant rodenticides, bromethalin does not have an antidote, and there are still many people and veterinarians that are not aware of its toxicity. There has been an uptick in the number of cases treated since these regulations have been put in to place, and this toxicity is once again being highlighted in veterinary publications in hopes of raising awareness.
If a dog had ingested a rodenticide in the recent past, it was very likely a D-Con-like product. Anticoagulant toxicities are relatively easy and cheap to treat if caught early as there is a 2-5 day lag time before bleeding actually happens. This type of exposure can also be diagnosed with a simple blood test, known as a PT test, which checks the clotting time of the blood and confirms exposure if it was not witnessed.
This is not, however, the case with bromethalin. Bromethalin is a neurotoxin which affects the cells in the brain by causing a rapid influx of sodium particles into its cells. When this happens, body water follows the sodium particles and leads to swelling in the central nervous system. The symptoms come on much faster and neurological signs can be seen within as little as 2 hours of ingestion. These signs can include depression, a “drunken” gait, rigid limbs, seizures and coma. Because there is no antidote, treatment is aimed at decontamination, intensive, and expensive hospitalization for support of the body and treatment of clinical signs if they develop.
I am sure many people are thinking, “Who would keep this stuff around when you have pets?!” I often have the same thought, but you would be surprised by the number of dogs we treat for this toxicity.
Here is the take home message:
* If you need to induce vomiting at home, you can administer 1 ml of hydrogen peroxide per 1 pound of body weight with a maximum of 45 ml being given. For example, a 10 pound dog would need 10 ml of hydrogen peroxide and 80 pound dog should get no more than 45 ml. Trying this at home is not without risk and there are words of caution to consider: ONLY attempt to induce vomiting if your pet is very alert and if you are further than 1 hour away from your veterinarian. Also, do not "force" the peroxide in—your pet needs to swallow the peroxide, and because it tastes bad, there is a risk of your pet aspirating the peroxide into the lungs if they are resisting and it is being forced. Another concern is the potential for aspiration during the vomiting process. Aspiration of peroxide during administration or through the process of vomiting leads to additional problems such as pneumonia. Another note: don't waste time waiting to see if your dog will vomit... gently give the peroxide, grab a blanket to cover your car seat, and begin driving immediately to your vet.
My book club adored it
This month, my book club read Patricia McConnell’s For the Love of a Dog: Understanding Emotion in You and Your Best Friend, and it received thumbs up from the whole group. Only about half the members of our group have dogs themselves, but we all have emotions and that’s what the book is about. I first read the book years ago, and I was thrilled to find that I enjoyed it again and that it has stood the test of time.
The book is full of entertaining stories, science, practical advice and a lot of humor. It was a pleasure to read about so many different emotions and their manifestations on both the faces and in the brains of dogs and of people. I also had fun reading about specific dogs I met while working for Trisha, especially her own dogs, who I knew very well and still miss.
Over the eight years since the book was published, it has become increasingly accepted that animals other than humans, including dogs, have a rich emotional life. Fewer people than before reject the idea that dogs have a broad range of emotions. Because of that happy change, the logical arguments in the book about similar expressions of emotion in dogs and humans as well as similar brain structure and activity serve to affirm what readers already know rather than to convince them of what was once considered controversial.
If you’ve read, For the Love of a Dog: Understanding Emotion in You and Your Best Friend, what do you think of it?
The other day I, and my three leashed dogs, had a tense encounter with two women and their two unleashed dogs. We had just finished our morning outing and were leaving our wonderful off leash area in the Berkeley marina—this 100+ acre park has breathtaking vistas of the bay’s bridges, plus half its space is set aside for humans and off leash dogs to exercise and enjoy nature together—but the rule in the other half of the park is that dogs must be on leash. The walk to and from the OLA might take all of 3 to 5 minutes. That should be a simple rule to follow, and one that we, who helped establish this dog park, agreed that we would help others to comply with.
But few people oblige, especially in the mornings, figuring that there really is no one there to see them side-stepping the rule. I know how that feels since walking three, anxious-to-romp, dogs on leash can be challenging. But I understand the importance of leashing them, so I do. I am also aware that the “I-can-get-away-with-it” attitude has threatened the legitimacy of the off leash area. So lately, I have been reminding people, politely, about this rule. Most people understand and gladly leash their dogs.
But the recent encounter went beyond not following that rule—I recognized the women because they run with their dogs in the OLA, but pay scant attention to what their two dogs are doing. I have seen these dogs charge up to, bark and "air" snap at each dog they encounter. Their behavior is not playful or social but instead demonstrates borderline aggressive behavior. But luckily, they always run off following their owners.
So there we were walking on a “leashed” path, exiting the park, when I saw them walking towards us about 50 feet away. Their dogs spotted us and quickly came charging up to us. Barking, snarling, threatening. The women didn’t even move, I had already stopped walking, had all my dogs in a sit, and asked the women to call their dogs. They did nothing, not call them, not run to them, they just froze. By that time their dogs were in full attack mode, hackles up, fully baring their teeth (the photo shows how they were reacting, and yes both dogs were wearing prong collars), which, in turn, inspired my dogs to react. Even mellow Lola got into the act. Yet, the women didn’t do anything. I had to call out to them again to get their dogs, which finally they did (but still not leashing them).
As one of them was trying to round up the two dogs, I calmly explained to the other woman the basics of the on/off leash rules, also pointing out that they should do more when their dogs show this heightened level of agitation/aggression.
I really don’t know what it takes for some to understand that this is simply not acceptable dog behavior. Some don’t understand dog behavior and foolishly think that dogs will simply “work it out.” This is one of those golden rules of responsible “dog-person” behavior, when another person asked you to control your dog, the best thing to do is to just do it, and take your dog away from the interaction. There should be no argument, no “but my dog is friendly” comment, which, in this instance, certainly wasn’t the case.
Why do you think that some people react this way? How best should this “teachable moment” be handled?
Copyright © 1997-2013 The Bark, Inc. Dog Is My Co-Pilot® is a registered trademark of The Bark, Inc