A Veterinarian's Take: Wolves and Sheep and Dogs
Dr Gustafson is an equine veterinarian, animal behaviorist, and novelist. He observes and refines horse training methods to accommodate the inherent nature and behavior of horses resulting in optimum performance, soundness, contentment, and longevity. Behavioral approaches to development, training, nutrition, and conditioning sustain equine health and enhance performance. Behavioral and nutritional enrichment strategies enhance the lives of stabled horses. Training and husbandry from the horse's perspective result in happy, winning horses.DrSid offers equine behavior consultations to manage unwanted and unwelcome behaviors.
Horse Health Veterinary Consults with Dr Gustafson
California, New York
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Wolves and Sheep and Dogs
Hi animal folks,
An intriguing article by sheep producers appeared recently regarding sheepfolk using livestock protection dogs to protect their sheep from reintroduced wolves and grizzlies. http://www.sheepusa .org/user_ files/file_ 713.pdf
Having been raised amidst free-ranging wolves and grizzlies and livestock and dogs in Northern Montana next to Glacier Park on the Blackfeet Indian Nation, I observed that certain cultural ethical husbandry principles had emerged through historical time.
Wolves and Grizzlies have been present since the Ice Age in my home country, where over time many a livestock folk has had aspirations to raise sheep because of the nutritious grass. I am here to report no sheepman succeeds amidst wolves.
Sheep, the longest domesticated herbivore, have become the most human-dependent and reliant. Livestock protection dogs cannot defend sheep against wolves or griz like livestock protection and sheepdogs can rather successfully defend sheep against coyotes. Livestock protection dogs should never be expected to defend sheep from wolves and griz, as the attempted practice is counterproductive for the dogs and sheep.
Cattle can generally take flight or defend themselves against griz and wolves when given the opportunity to range away from hungry predators, provided the cattle are otherwise appropriately bred and managed. Presently, cattle successfully share habitat with griz and wolf in Montana and Alberta. Indeed, the wild predators thin out some of the lungers and gimpers, but otherwise generally leave the healthy cattle alone. As well, the Rocky Mountain cattle become wolf and griz savvy, and avoid them, giving way and moving on when such predators so much as lift a nose their way.
Sheep, on the other hand, are helpless against wolf and griz, and cannot be successfully or humanely raised near those predators, nor should they attempted to be. In areas where wolves are re-introduced (unlike the Blackfeet country which has always harbored wolves) the livestock folk seem to be slow learners.
Those pastoral livestock and dog people who have had the pleasure to live with wolves and grizzlies for thousands of years have learned to live with large predators rather harmoniously. From native cultures symbiotic animal/human relationships can be gleaned and appreciated.
Sheep should not be attempted to be grazed where Griz and wolf take up residence as trouble can be counted upon when nutritional protein resources become seasonally limited.
Aggressive dogs should not be bred or used to attempt to defend sheep from wolves and griz, as they cannot handle wolves or giz, however selectively or aggressively bred. The spiked collars the sheep folk have devised for their dogs make that clear, it seems.
Selection for canine aggression does nothing more than create opportunities for emergency-room doctors, behaviorists and dogtrainers, as has become clear with current human attempts to select dogs for aggression for whatever purpose.
Sheep cannot be grazed with wolves or griz, and should not attempted to be raised amongst such predators. Furthermore, livestock dogs should not be selected for aggression, and should not be utilized to defend sheep against wolves or grizzlies.
Those are the empirical if not ethical conclusions from the pastoral/wilderness interface in OldMan's country.
Cheers, Sid
An intriguing article by sheep producers appeared recently regarding sheepfolk using livestock protection dogs to protect their sheep from reintroduced wolves and grizzlies. http://www.sheepusa .org/user_ files/file_ 713.pdf
Having been raised amidst free-ranging wolves and grizzlies and livestock and dogs in Northern Montana next to Glacier Park on the Blackfeet Indian Nation, I observed that certain cultural ethical husbandry principles had emerged through historical time.
Wolves and Grizzlies have been present since the Ice Age in my home country, where over time many a livestock folk has had aspirations to raise sheep because of the nutritious grass. I am here to report no sheepman succeeds amidst wolves.
Sheep, the longest domesticated herbivore, have become the most human-dependent and reliant. Livestock protection dogs cannot defend sheep against wolves or griz like livestock protection and sheepdogs can rather successfully defend sheep against coyotes. Livestock protection dogs should never be expected to defend sheep from wolves and griz, as the attempted practice is counterproductive for the dogs and sheep.
Cattle can generally take flight or defend themselves against griz and wolves when given the opportunity to range away from hungry predators, provided the cattle are otherwise appropriately bred and managed. Presently, cattle successfully share habitat with griz and wolf in Montana and Alberta. Indeed, the wild predators thin out some of the lungers and gimpers, but otherwise generally leave the healthy cattle alone. As well, the Rocky Mountain cattle become wolf and griz savvy, and avoid them, giving way and moving on when such predators so much as lift a nose their way.
Sheep, on the other hand, are helpless against wolf and griz, and cannot be successfully or humanely raised near those predators, nor should they attempted to be. In areas where wolves are re-introduced (unlike the Blackfeet country which has always harbored wolves) the livestock folk seem to be slow learners.
Those pastoral livestock and dog people who have had the pleasure to live with wolves and grizzlies for thousands of years have learned to live with large predators rather harmoniously. From native cultures symbiotic animal/human relationships can be gleaned and appreciated.
Sheep should not be attempted to be grazed where Griz and wolf take up residence as trouble can be counted upon when nutritional protein resources become seasonally limited.
Aggressive dogs should not be bred or used to attempt to defend sheep from wolves and griz, as they cannot handle wolves or giz, however selectively or aggressively bred. The spiked collars the sheep folk have devised for their dogs make that clear, it seems.
Selection for canine aggression does nothing more than create opportunities for emergency-room doctors, behaviorists and dogtrainers, as has become clear with current human attempts to select dogs for aggression for whatever purpose.
Sheep cannot be grazed with wolves or griz, and should not attempted to be raised amongst such predators. Furthermore, livestock dogs should not be selected for aggression, and should not be utilized to defend sheep against wolves or grizzlies.
Those are the empirical if not ethical conclusions from the pastoral/wilderness interface in OldMan's country.
Cheers, Sid
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Puppy Socialization
Puppy Socialization
In response to a behavioral question about how to pick the pick of the litter and the appropriate socialization of Border Collies with people and livestock, I would like to share my experience. The dog and horse people (the Blackfeet Indians) allowed my current Border Collie, Spek, to stay with his litter until he was 15 or 16 weeks old. I must say the socialization he experienced with the litter on a ranch with cattle proved invaluable. He knows himself, and has turned out to be the best learning, most well-adjusted dog I have yet had the pleasure to partner up with.
At 6 weeks I can't perceive an adequate amount of individual puppy personality to determine future suitability (you'll have to use the black mouth rule then; pick the pup with the most black pigmentation in the oral cavity to insure you get the smartest one). On the other hand, when observing the puppy and bitch socialization through 16 weeks, the personalities of the littermates become quite clear and distinct. That is the time to pick a dog to match your demeanor, when possible, it seems, despite the pressure to choose early.
When advocating adequate socialization of puppies, I think of littermates living and learning together until 16 weeks of age, during which time the litter freely socializes with one another in an adequate environment along with select, knowledgeable dog people and children. The pups watch and eventually help the bitch work cattle and sheep at the gentle hand of their human leaders.
For happy, knowing sheepdogs, I encourage late weaning and a proper and spacious growth environment. I attribute the personality and intelligence benefits to littermate socialization and bitch teaching, along with human/bitch observation, which becomes focused by 10-12 weeks. The pups learn about people by watching their well-trained mother interact with experienced dog people. The bitch does a lot of the pup training.
In my experience, cowdog pups allowed to hang in the litter for 3 to 4 months seem to easily develop willing human partnerships. They get along not only with people, but nearly all other dogs. The most impressive aspect to me is they do not seem to need food as a motivator, and can be trained on a "willing to please" basis, which for me, is not only preferable, but delightful.
Pups weaned and separated at 6-9 weeks appear to me to be the ones that develop the more pressing behavioral issues, I assume in large part because of deprivation from their species at critical psychological developmental and learning stages. With horses we are always always attempting to look at "natural" behavior in feral settings, hoping to apply our knowledge to husbandry and training. With pups, weaning at 16 weeks seems "natural" if one wishes to extrapolate wolf behavior.
Nice thing about living in Montana is that we have both wild wolves and wild horses to observe. We do this atop our horses with our dogs at our side, the domestics watching the wildlife as we watch, and the wildlife in turn observing all of us.
Indeed, there is no dominance.
Regards, Sid
Dr Gustafson provides insight regarding the inherent nature and behavior of horses and dogs in response to people. He offers consultations and management assistance to create and sustain natural approaches to animal training, health and welfare. DrSid teaches equine behaviour for the University of Guelph. In addition to practicing veterinary and behavioral medicine, DoctorG is a novelist, social commentator, and journalist.
In response to a behavioral question about how to pick the pick of the litter and the appropriate socialization of Border Collies with people and livestock, I would like to share my experience. The dog and horse people (the Blackfeet Indians) allowed my current Border Collie, Spek, to stay with his litter until he was 15 or 16 weeks old. I must say the socialization he experienced with the litter on a ranch with cattle proved invaluable. He knows himself, and has turned out to be the best learning, most well-adjusted dog I have yet had the pleasure to partner up with.
At 6 weeks I can't perceive an adequate amount of individual puppy personality to determine future suitability (you'll have to use the black mouth rule then; pick the pup with the most black pigmentation in the oral cavity to insure you get the smartest one). On the other hand, when observing the puppy and bitch socialization through 16 weeks, the personalities of the littermates become quite clear and distinct. That is the time to pick a dog to match your demeanor, when possible, it seems, despite the pressure to choose early.
When advocating adequate socialization of puppies, I think of littermates living and learning together until 16 weeks of age, during which time the litter freely socializes with one another in an adequate environment along with select, knowledgeable dog people and children. The pups watch and eventually help the bitch work cattle and sheep at the gentle hand of their human leaders.
For happy, knowing sheepdogs, I encourage late weaning and a proper and spacious growth environment. I attribute the personality and intelligence benefits to littermate socialization and bitch teaching, along with human/bitch observation, which becomes focused by 10-12 weeks. The pups learn about people by watching their well-trained mother interact with experienced dog people. The bitch does a lot of the pup training.
In my experience, cowdog pups allowed to hang in the litter for 3 to 4 months seem to easily develop willing human partnerships. They get along not only with people, but nearly all other dogs. The most impressive aspect to me is they do not seem to need food as a motivator, and can be trained on a "willing to please" basis, which for me, is not only preferable, but delightful.
Pups weaned and separated at 6-9 weeks appear to me to be the ones that develop the more pressing behavioral issues, I assume in large part because of deprivation from their species at critical psychological developmental and learning stages. With horses we are always always attempting to look at "natural" behavior in feral settings, hoping to apply our knowledge to husbandry and training. With pups, weaning at 16 weeks seems "natural" if one wishes to extrapolate wolf behavior.
Nice thing about living in Montana is that we have both wild wolves and wild horses to observe. We do this atop our horses with our dogs at our side, the domestics watching the wildlife as we watch, and the wildlife in turn observing all of us.
Indeed, there is no dominance.
Regards, Sid
Dr Gustafson provides insight regarding the inherent nature and behavior of horses and dogs in response to people. He offers consultations and management assistance to create and sustain natural approaches to animal training, health and welfare. DrSid teaches equine behaviour for the University of Guelph. In addition to practicing veterinary and behavioral medicine, DoctorG is a novelist, social commentator, and journalist.
Monday, June 8, 2009
To the True Horsemen of the Racing Game
Here’s to the Jockeys
If only jockeys could speak their mind like trainers. Last year Big Brown’s trainer criticized his jockey for pulling the big horse up with a widely publicized hoof infirmity. This year Woolley, a Chip off the old trainer’s block if there ever was one, felt the need to blame Calvin Borel for misriding Mine That Bird, for moving too early in the third Leg of the Triple Crown.
It seems everyone accepts jockey criticism. The first words out of both of the trainers of the last two losing Belmont favorites, were words of criticism for their riders, yet both trainers failed to properly prepare their horses to partner with their jockeys. As human nature goes in horse racing, both trainers found it in their hearts to shift the blame from themselves to the riders. Sportswriters find little trouble going after jockeys as an easy target, as well. Desormeaux last year, Borel this. Nice.
These athletes who ride thoroughbreds are little, and they are humble. Jockeys know better than to find blame in their horses or their trainers, as they know there will be another day if only they make it alive through the race at hand. Jockeys are the true makers of this game — the jockeys and their mounts. In a jockey’s world, once the gate opens, everyone else is superfluous but their horse and the other horses and riders in the race. In a horse race decisions are made, yes, judgments upon which races can be won or lost.
Yet, with jockeys once the race is over, everything is superfluous. They are alive. They pinch themselves, yes, I made it. Jockeys leave the should-have-done-this, should-have-done-that for the next race. They adjust and learn from their mistakes to a highly efficient degree. Jockeys leave the riding commentary to the trainers and sportswriters. When jockeys comment negatively on the trainer’s ability, they often lose future mounts. When jockeys gripe about sportswriters, they get bad press. Jockeys are wise. Horses make one very wise, especially if one rides them in rough company for big money. Like horses, jockeys know when to keep their mouths shut.
You did not hear Kent Desormeaux criticize Big Brown’s trainer for failing to adequately prepare the horse to be in a partnering mood last year. But indeed, the trainer failed to prepare the horse to collaborate with Kent. Brown was rank and washy and unmanageable. See last year’s summary of the Belmont, Horsemanship and Horseracing.
This year Woolley failed to prepare Mine That Bird to rate well over the Belmont route of ground, and whom does he blame? Calvin Borel, the Derby-riding savant.
The angst Preakness runner-up Mine That Bird was weaving in his Belmont shedrow all day. Weaving is a stereotypy improperly managed racehorses take up with. Seems Woolley was busy elsewhere other than in the shedrow where he should have been enriching his horse’s life before the Belmont. As a result, the Kentucky Derby winner took to cantering in place on the way to the paddock. Generally, this is not a sign that the horse has been prepared to rate. Racy horses do not rate well nor easily. The trainer is responsible for the condition of his horse. The mental condition of Mine That Bird was not conducive to rating the mile and a half Belmont. The trainer failed both the horse and the jockey.
Let us take a moment and bow our heads to the jockeys. They take all the risks and talk about none of them. They take criticism close-lipped and quiet-like, the true horsefolk they are. All the risk is theirs, yes, but the blame for losing a race is not theirs, not in the last two Belmonts at any rate.
Like horses, jockeys are survivors. They have class. Jockeys emanate class. The organization that oversees thoroughbred horse racing is called The Jockey Club for a reason. Jockeys rule this game quietly. Each and every race they are riding to survive, and riding well.
From my rabbit hole in the infield, I say let us all take our hats off to the game’s true friend. Here’s to the jockeys! Spills and wrecks will break their bones, but words will never hurt them.
Sid Gustafson, D.V.M., is a novelist and equine veterinarian specializing in thoroughbred sportsmedicine and equine behavior. He currently practices regulatory veterinary medicine, representing the safety and welfare of thoroughbred racehorses.
Dr Gustafson provides consultations regarding the design and management of equine facilities and horse training methodologies to best accommodate the inherent nature and behavior of horses. He provides information and management assistance creating natural approaches to maintain equine health, prevent diseases, and resolve lameness.
If only jockeys could speak their mind like trainers. Last year Big Brown’s trainer criticized his jockey for pulling the big horse up with a widely publicized hoof infirmity. This year Woolley, a Chip off the old trainer’s block if there ever was one, felt the need to blame Calvin Borel for misriding Mine That Bird, for moving too early in the third Leg of the Triple Crown.
It seems everyone accepts jockey criticism. The first words out of both of the trainers of the last two losing Belmont favorites, were words of criticism for their riders, yet both trainers failed to properly prepare their horses to partner with their jockeys. As human nature goes in horse racing, both trainers found it in their hearts to shift the blame from themselves to the riders. Sportswriters find little trouble going after jockeys as an easy target, as well. Desormeaux last year, Borel this. Nice.
These athletes who ride thoroughbreds are little, and they are humble. Jockeys know better than to find blame in their horses or their trainers, as they know there will be another day if only they make it alive through the race at hand. Jockeys are the true makers of this game — the jockeys and their mounts. In a jockey’s world, once the gate opens, everyone else is superfluous but their horse and the other horses and riders in the race. In a horse race decisions are made, yes, judgments upon which races can be won or lost.
Yet, with jockeys once the race is over, everything is superfluous. They are alive. They pinch themselves, yes, I made it. Jockeys leave the should-have-done-this, should-have-done-that for the next race. They adjust and learn from their mistakes to a highly efficient degree. Jockeys leave the riding commentary to the trainers and sportswriters. When jockeys comment negatively on the trainer’s ability, they often lose future mounts. When jockeys gripe about sportswriters, they get bad press. Jockeys are wise. Horses make one very wise, especially if one rides them in rough company for big money. Like horses, jockeys know when to keep their mouths shut.
You did not hear Kent Desormeaux criticize Big Brown’s trainer for failing to adequately prepare the horse to be in a partnering mood last year. But indeed, the trainer failed to prepare the horse to collaborate with Kent. Brown was rank and washy and unmanageable. See last year’s summary of the Belmont, Horsemanship and Horseracing.
This year Woolley failed to prepare Mine That Bird to rate well over the Belmont route of ground, and whom does he blame? Calvin Borel, the Derby-riding savant.
The angst Preakness runner-up Mine That Bird was weaving in his Belmont shedrow all day. Weaving is a stereotypy improperly managed racehorses take up with. Seems Woolley was busy elsewhere other than in the shedrow where he should have been enriching his horse’s life before the Belmont. As a result, the Kentucky Derby winner took to cantering in place on the way to the paddock. Generally, this is not a sign that the horse has been prepared to rate. Racy horses do not rate well nor easily. The trainer is responsible for the condition of his horse. The mental condition of Mine That Bird was not conducive to rating the mile and a half Belmont. The trainer failed both the horse and the jockey.
Let us take a moment and bow our heads to the jockeys. They take all the risks and talk about none of them. They take criticism close-lipped and quiet-like, the true horsefolk they are. All the risk is theirs, yes, but the blame for losing a race is not theirs, not in the last two Belmonts at any rate.
Like horses, jockeys are survivors. They have class. Jockeys emanate class. The organization that oversees thoroughbred horse racing is called The Jockey Club for a reason. Jockeys rule this game quietly. Each and every race they are riding to survive, and riding well.
From my rabbit hole in the infield, I say let us all take our hats off to the game’s true friend. Here’s to the jockeys! Spills and wrecks will break their bones, but words will never hurt them.
Sid Gustafson, D.V.M., is a novelist and equine veterinarian specializing in thoroughbred sportsmedicine and equine behavior. He currently practices regulatory veterinary medicine, representing the safety and welfare of thoroughbred racehorses.
Dr Gustafson provides consultations regarding the design and management of equine facilities and horse training methodologies to best accommodate the inherent nature and behavior of horses. He provides information and management assistance creating natural approaches to maintain equine health, prevent diseases, and resolve lameness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)