All Posts By

Marti

Uncategorized

Odd Ducks

Last month, I wrote about a cat in Ireland that adopted a nest of newly hatched ducklings and raised them with her newborn kittens. While normally she might have attacked the ducklings, the surge of oxytocin following her kittens’ births meant she adopted them into her family instead.

At least, we assume it was the oxytocin that temporarily blinded the cat to the fact she was mothering ducklings.

However, I revisited the question last night while reading Roger Fouts’ unmissable 1997 biography, Next of Kin, about Washoe, a chimp who was “cross-fostered” with a human family and developed the ability to communicate through American Sign Language. In addition to documenting Washoe’s extraordinary communicative abilities, Fouts incidentally describes a boyhood experiment with cross-fostering in which he placed eggs “under our old mother farm cat.”

When the eggs hatched, Fouts was astonished “to see the cat treated the little birds like they were kittens, cuddling them for warmth and licking their feathers.”

Fouts doesn’t describe the manner in which the ducklings nestled into the adoptive cat mother so I can’t say whether the story is exactly the same as the one in Ireland reported by Animal Planet. There is this one weird, possibly inexplicable fact about the ducklings adopted by the Irish mother cat: they were found latched onto the teats of the cat as though suckling.

The sucking reflex is common to all mammals, and not, as far as I know, part of a duckling’s developmental profile. Consider the facts: that mother ducks have no nipples, that ducklings have no lips. How could it ever be that ducklings would suckle like kittens?

Ducks are a precocious species. Unlike kittens, they are born with all sensory faculties intact and are expected to feed themselves immediately. Were they imitating the kittens?

I consulted Baldasarre’s book, Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America, and found this curious observation made by another naturalist back in the 1960’s: Their feeding was so vigorous that the noise of their bills sucking the water could be heard for a considerable distance (italics mine).

It turns out that dabbling ducks suck up muddy water at one end of the bill and squeeze it out at the other. Pink ducks do the same with plankton-rich water, the water squeezed fro their bills so yet retaining the plankton through laminae at one end. That may be more information than you’d like about ducks, but the point is that they can suck and that it is a trait they are born with.

Everything I read about pet behaviour as part of my course at COAPE explains why animals behave as they do, and how to understand more about them, if only to help those who can’t figure out how to get their dog to stop barking or their cat to stop peeing on their bed. Unusually, we are allowed–even encouraged–to talk about how animals feel, using the very same language with which we’d refer to a human.

I love science–but science both depends upon and recoils from conjecture. Remember Pavlov with his dogs? Pavlov hated psychological speculation of behaviour and wanted always to believe there was no subjective state of an animal that could be compared to humans. Perhaps that is why he was so keen on salivation, an unconditioned response that can only be elicited, but not learned.

What would he have said about the ducks sucking milk from a mother cat?

Perhaps it was an instinct, like sucking water. Would it be crazy to suggest they learned to attach to the teat through observation of the kittens?

Washoe, the chimp, learned how to sign through observation of humans around her. There were no discreet trials or structured learning–she wasn’t taught to imitate like a parrot but to learn like the emotionally sensitive being that she was. Her level of communication was amazing, human-like. What should we make of that? In my opinion, quite a bit.

It is worth mentioning that there was a similar, but much earlier experiment than the one conducted with Washoe. In the 1930’s two scientists, Winthrop and Luella Kellogg, reared a chimp named Gua like a child. They resisted any systematic teaching of Gua and treated it as they did their young son, Donald. The experiment was stopped abruptly, however. The chimp wasn’t learning verbal language and Donald, the Kellogg’s young son, began imitating the chimp with such precision–among other things, making food grunts at the dinner table–that his mother felt she had to abandon her efforts with Gua.

Blogs On Dogs

Dogs, Cats, and Descartes

 

I went to a lecture during which photographs of dogs and cats were presented on a screen and students were asked to state what emotion the animal was showing. It was easy enough with the snarling dog or the cat, ears back and fur standing on end, arching it’s back in the presence of a Rottweiler. Far more speculative were those in which subtle emotions–thoughtfulness, worry–were brought into possibility. Photographs of animals are deceptive as an animal’s face may coincidentally assume an expression we associate with human emotion and we, as masterful readers of human emotion, then impute our species-specific ideas onto the animal in question.

 

Anthropomorphic guesswork is fun. It’s what makes us spend hours laughing at photographs of cute puppies on the internet or watching (as I do) William Braden’s ingenious youtube channel, HenriLeChatNoir, during which we listen to the existential reflections attributed to Henri the cat, whose indifferent expressions are paired with such statements as, “None of the (Halloween) costumes are truly scary. No one dresses as crippling self-doubt.”

 

It turns out, however, that among the great array of people studying animals, a group that includes psychologists, neurologists, behaviourists, ethologists and zoologists for a start, the question of animals and emotions is greatly disputed. During the presentation we saw a clip from Animal Planet about a cat that adopts a clutch of newly hatched ducklings the very day she gives birth to her own kittens.

 

The story is remarkable because one would have expected the cat to kill and eat the ducklings, which is exactly what might have happened if her kittens had been old enough to consume solid food. Instead, the oxytocin surge experienced by all mammals upon giving birth was timed within this particular mother cat so that she extended her maternal drive to the ducklings and reared them as her own. The lesson for us students was that the cat, under the influence of oxytocin, showed specific behavioural patterns far outside what we normally attribute to this predatory species. But there were no emotions, as we humans understand emotion, behind its behaviour.

 

Oxytocin is huge part of all mammals’ lives, including humans. It has been demonstrated to reduce fight/flight behaviour, reduce anti-social behaviour , counteract the stress hormone cortisol , and predict bonding behaviour with young. It is also the thing that makes sex so important among human couples, as both men and women experience oxytocin surges that facilitate bonding during and after making love.

 

When dog ethologists wish to strip away the possibility of dogs having any real emotions they may go the route of Ray Coppinger whose 2001 book argues that what we assume to be emotions in dogs are genetically programmed motor reflexes or biologically-drive hormone surges. He tells a story about his dog, Lina, who gave birth to a puppy in a field and returned to her nest in the barn to deliver the rest of the litter, leaving the puppy alone and calling in distress. Even though the puppy was calling for her and would shortly die, Lina had not yet experienced the hormonal surge that follows birth, so did not feel the need to retrieve her pup (though Ray did).

 

He also tells the story about another dog, Tilly, who made no effort to attend to her puppy when it made a similar distress call at a few weeks old. Were Ray’s dogs heartless mothers? He argues that the retrieval motor pattern switches on following birth (but not during it) and switches off in the mother dog at around day fourteen of her pups’ lives. Pups can cry all they want outside of these times, but a mother dog doesn’t feel anything. She takes orders from her hormones, not her heart.

 

“Scientists are sometimes accused of not being aware that animals have emotions or can think. On the other hand, scientists warn people that they should not be anthropomorphic, giving animals human characters,” writes Coppinger, who does not believe a dog has “a mind”, but a kind of neurological control system preserving its life and whatever system will push its genes into the next generation.

 

So, what are we pet owners to make of this? Do we believe that our pets don’t care about us, but are only showing biologically driven responses to our care-giving? Do they not care about their own young, have absolutely no feelings about them at all, but are subject to whatever hormones are at play?

 

Scientists seem determined to shame us for imputing human-grade emotions on animals. It should make us all uncomfortable, however, to realize that many of the same arguments used by scientists (and farmers) to prevent us from having too much empathy for animals are similar to those advanced years ago about human children. Until late last century the same scientists that would have laughed at those of us who won’t eat animals (because animals have feelings) would have laughed at us for assuming human babies had feelings–even physical sensations–which is why operations were performed without anaesthesia on human infants until the late 1970’s.

 

Can we compare our human rationale for such barbarism toward our own infants to whatever is behind the thinking of stressed mother hamsters who eat their perfectly healthy newborns in an act of filial cannibalism? Probably not, as the hamster mother may not truly think about what she is doing as she is unlikely to have as developed a mind as we do. However, the fact that we would operate on infants without anaesthetic creates a problem for us–how can we claim to be more disposed to a cohesive way of thinking, believing, feeling and acting if in our history we have regularly cut open babies without giving them anaesthetic? Indeed, we might conclude from everything we do to one another and to the species and environment around us that our minds are clouded, our influences primitive.

 

The divisions insisted upon by scientists seem arbitrary. We know that the presence of noradrenaline in our brains is part of what makes you and me (as well as foxes and rabbits) feel anxious. We also know that a glut of glucocortisoids is a marker for when we feel depressed. I may be depressed because I am lonely–the same reason the dog left on its own for fourteen hours daily feels depressed. The dog and I may even share the presence of corticosteroids in our brains. But according to the scientists, we cannot compare our feelings. I have a “mind” but the dog does not.

 

It is easy to dismiss the emotional lives of animals because their range of display is not an exact match for our own and because it means those who eat meat can feel less guilty about consuming them as food. However, before we decide that animals’ emotional lives are absent, or so profoundly reduced that only silly people would compare them to that of humans, it’s worth thinking about how much of our own behaviour is governed by hormones.

 

I admit to having had no interest in babies before I gave birth to my daughter. At nine months pregnant, I looked at others’ newborns and felt nothing whatsoever, just as I have no interest in babies now that my own children are grown. Nonetheless, I gave birth, fell in love with my daughter, and have adored both my children ever since. Did the release of maternal hormones following my own children’s births give a temporary rise to patterns of maternal care until more complex social bonds could be established between us? Or do I just love my children? Or does it matter? We are separating out emotions from the presence of certain neurochemicals as though these things can be separated–is that wise?

 

The neuroscientist and author, Antonio Demasio, explains in his 2006 book, Descartes Error, that “Nature appears to have built the apparatus of rationality not just on top of the apparatus of biological regulation, but also from it and with it.” Descartes flawed legacy to us was in his argument that the mind and body are somehow separate, and that our minds drive our bodily behaviour.

 

Is the insistence of a separation between true emotions and the neurological processes governing them an analogous error to that of Descartes? Is it correct to imagine that neurotransmitters and hormones that influence the behaviour of animals are separate in kind from the emotions that govern human behaviour? After all, the brains of all mammals are remarkably similar in structure.

 

Damasio is not writing about dogs when he says, “Brains can have many intervening steps in the circuits mediating between stimulus and response, and still have no mind, if they do not meet an essential condition: the ability to display images internally and to order those images in a process called thought.” However, some might think this is a good summation of why a mother dog appears to love her young, but is only following innate motor patterns. I’m not going to take up the argument, but I will say that even if we conclude that the mother dog’s behaviour toward her pups was entirely instinctive and without any cognitive thinking, we cannot necessarily conclude that dogs have no “mind.” The logical extension of the observed behaviour in the mother dog (not picking up her puppy) does not explain everything about a dog’s “mind” any more than the influence of oxytocin on my behaviour as a young mother explains everything about my mind. It’s a little bit of observational data, not a conclusion in itself. And nobody ever tested me out with a duckling.

 

mieze-788577_640

Uncategorized

Ducks & Hopelessness

Across the street is a neighbour whose daughter has grown from mindless swearing and hanging out in cars with her boyfriends to having her own children, who she treats carelessly, or worse.  Even so, unless this young woman is verbally abusing or slamming car doors in the face of one of her young children, I try to be friendly.

 

The neighbour keeps ducks, or used to. She’s had other pets, too. Dogs that never were walked, fish that swam briefly in cloudy water. Recently, the ducks were waddling down the road and she came out and gave them that I am exasperated with you ducks look that she has honed and perfected. The same look she used to give the barking dogs that never left their tiny garden.

 

I watched the ducks lumbering down the road and the neighbour saw me watching and said, “Why do they keep getting out?”

 

I wished she asked me why her grandchildren are withdrawn or distracted or whiney or ill-behaved because I could have told her it was probably down to the humiliation and shame experienced regularly at the hands of her dingbat daughter, but instead it was about ducks. Why do they keep getting out?

 

I told her wings was the first clue. A place to swim was another.

 

She said, “What do I do?”

 

She is worried about being an incompetent duck owner. No, that isn’t it. She believes her efforts with the unmanageable ducks are heroic. Meanwhile, her grandchildren are shouted at publicly and, I imagine, experiencing worse behind closed doors. But I can’t discuss this with her. If I so much as give the violent daughter a glance she tells me to mind my own f*ing business.

 

So, I thought about how many difficulties I have faced, or watched in silence unable to change a thing, and gave the only answer that made any sense.

 

“Follow them,” I said.

Blogs About Dogs

Get Between The Barking Dog and The Moose

If you don’t like barking it is probably best not to have four dogs. My dogs are from a couple of vocal breeds: two shelties and two German Spitz. A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog about their explosive bursts of barking, their frantic response to the doorbell and the possibility that they are barking a perfectly normal amount of time and that the real problem is me. I may have unrealistic expectations of this troop of benevolent noise-makers.

I study pet behaviour but I make a living as a writer. I write mornings in a quiet kitchen, the only noises being the hum of the fridge or the slow, hypnotic rhythm of the washing machine. The dogs lie in great clumps of fur at my feet, resting.

Everything is still and peaceful as I tap the keyboard until—oh heavens!— a car outside crunches over the pebbled driveway. Suddenly, an explosive bark from Winston and a shuddering stream of yaps from Tessa (who looks genuinely distressed). George thinks he might bark once and then go to sleep again. Pookey, aged thirteen and a half, throws in a couple barks to make sure we know she is still alive.

I say, “Shh” and they go silent. This looks so impressive—instant silence at a command. Except it isn’t clever at all. The same repeated blast of barking can occur four times an hour or more. The dog that always parks herself by the front door is probably anticipating the postman. Should I make sure they are never home when the postman arrives? Is that even possible? Turid Rugaas, an internationally renowned dog trainer and behaviourist, has a short book on barking in which she advises me to keep a record of my dogs barking. I’ve made a few casual notes since keeping this record and think it is correct to say the following:

  • Two of my dogs almost never bark outside the home.
  • One of my dogs will bark in excitement outside the home if we are playing.
  • One of my dogs barks in the car, though she can trigger the others to bark for a second before giving up.
  • My dogs bark far more often in the mornings than in the afternoons. They do not bark at night.
  • I can control their barking very easily if I am paying attention. For example, on Halloween night, groups of trick-or-treaters rang the doorbell, received sweets and left without hearing a dog bark even once. Why? Because my son gave them the sweets while I gave my dogs their own sweets.

 

Turid categorises barking into six types:

• excitement barking
• warning barking
• fear barking
• guarding barking
• frustration barking
• learned barking

 

I’ll return to this list in a future blog, but for now I want to look at excitement and guarding as an explanation for my dogs’ noise levels.

It is possible my dogs feel stress and therefore are barking in excitement. Admittedly, there isn’t much to stress about in my home. The dogs get walked at least an hour a day off the property and a can follow me down to the barn and fields anytime they wish. They have free access to the house, a great deal of attention from me, plenty of chews and play time—it appears to be a great life.

But maybe they’d tell a doggy shrink a different story. Maybe they are secretly stressed little dogs who need a way of calming down.

I seriously doubted they were stressed, but I increased their “hedonic budget”, a term used at COAPE to mean all the stuff dogs love to do: run, dig, chase, explore, play, eat. I also bought a thing called Adaptil, a device that plugs into the wall and emits comforting dog pheromones into the air. It’s a synthetic version of the smell of their puppyhood when they cozied up to their mother and felt safe. Would these measures make a difference?

Not. One. Bit.

Time to examine whether I am actually rewarding my dogs for barking—not that barking isn’t fun on its own. Barking can be a self-rewarding behaviour, a little like sniffing for rabbits. Even when no rabbit is caught, dogs feel good looking for one.

Turid makes the very good point that talking to, looking at, or touching the dog when it is barking can cause an increase in barking behaviour. I think I may be guilty on that score. When I say “shh”, they go quiet. But the point is, first I said shh.

Would ignoring the barking altogether be better?

Perhaps. But sometimes my dogs give a “warning bark” in which ignoring is the last thing I should do, according to Turid. The warning bark is a short sharp bark. My ten-year old sheltie is usually the one who give this singular, very loud bark. The book recommends that in these cases I stand up casually, get myself between the barking dog and the scary object (usually at the front door or windows), and give a casual hand signal to indicate that I’m dealing with the situation so there is no need to continue barking.

I got this, I say in body language. No need for you to defend us.

Turid lives in Norway and she tells a wonderful story about her own dogs troublesome barking.

Some time ago, her forest home was being visited nightly by a neighbouring moose. Several times a night she was woken by her dogs issuing warning barks as the moose got closer. Finally, she decided to get up and show them she was dealing with the problem. She stood in front of the dogs, facing the place they were indicating was a moose, and gave a casual hand signal to show she was aware of the situation.

2016-11-20-1479678803-9382063-moosebullelkyawns39645.jpeg

She did this for three nights and they stopped barking at the moose. Peace was restored, though her apple tree suffered accordingly. The moose had denuded it of its fruit. The dogs must have come to the conclusion that their eccentric owner did not mind such thievery.

A moose sounds so much more fun than the mundane outdoor sounds that trigger my dogs. It doesn’t make such a great story to say I got up three times a morning to put myself between my dogs and an out-of-sight car door slamming, but let’s hope the technique works anyway.

Meanwhile, back to my barking chart…

 

Blogs On Dogs

Less Barking, Please…!

 (first published by Huffington Post, October 25, 2016)

All dogs bark. Even the Basenji, a Central African breed known for its unusual silence, will yodel or howl.

Two of my dogs are the adorable, if loud, German Spitz. The other two are a recently adopted pair of Shetland Sheepdogs, a famously vocal breed. In days gone by, I might have attributed their collective noise levels to their breeds’ tendencies alone.

In fact, there isn’t a single, clear reason they bark so much. Dogs don’t necessarily bark because they are ill behaved or under-exercised or “highly strung.” They don’t always bark for attention or out of boredom or because they are distressed. They certainly don’t bark because they feel they are being dominant or “in charge of the pack”, though if you believe I am wrong about this, and that my dogs are trying to gain status, you might want to read this short article by Victoria Stilwell, or this book by Barry Eaton to give you a different perspective.

2016-10-22-1477137647-4165483-labrador1287298_640.jpg

Dogs bark for a variety of reasons—all of which I am desperate to understand. Most importantly, however, they bark because they are dogs.

Puppies can begin barking as early as two weeks old and advance their repertoire of vocalizations into adulthood until different barks mean anything from greeting to distress to hunting, tracking, alarm, warning, excitement or a solicitation for play. Just to make matters more confusing, a barking dog may be trying to communicate more than one message at a time.

A study reported by E.L. Flint and her colleagues at Massey University in New Zealand reported that the average dog at home with an owner barks three times a day, with the duration of barking for each episode lasting just under a minute. We all know that if one dog barks, another is likely to bark. So if I have four dogs that each display perfectly average periods of barking, I should expect almost twelve minutes of barking a day. Twelve long, awful minutes. You might say that it would be unreasonable for me to expect anything less, in fact.

Punishing a dog by yelling at him or threatening him for doing a perfectly normal dog activity isn’t fair (anyway, force-free methods are more effective and kinder), but does this mean I have to live with a lot of barking?

Maybe not. I can modify the barking in two ways: reducing frequency and reducing duration. I may even be able to reduce both—and wouldn’t that be bliss?

A few things are working well for me right now and have definitely reduced the frequency or duration of my dogs’ barking over the past week:

  • I have abandoned dog bowls for Kong toys and they now have Kongs filled with a portion of their dinner several times a day. This keeps them occupied and their attention is less focused on noises outside the home. Result: happy, quiet, engaged dogs for 15-30 minute stretches of time.
  • I take them out of the house on walks when the postman is likely to arrive. Result: mornings are more peaceful and they get less opportunity to “practice” barking.
  • I reward them with high value food treats for going quiet when I say, “shh.” This was going great until one of them figured out that if he barked, then went quiet, he got a reward. I am modifying my training of this clever, back-chaining dog but the result on my other three: shorter duration of barking (down to a few seconds).
  • If I hear a noise outside, I throw treats onto the floor before my dogs have started barking. This diverts them from barking. Result: less frequent barking.
  • I practice ringing the doorbell and throwing treats onto the floor before the dogs start to bark. Result: less reactivity to the doorbell, itself, as a trigger for barking.
  • I drop treats onto the floor when the dogs are lying quietly and not looking at me. Result: they “settle” faster and stopped staring at me constantly, waiting to be rewarded for being quiet. The way you do this is nicely demonstrated by Emily Larlham in one of her early teaching videos here.

2016-10-22-1477137001-865331-winstonkong.jpg

My next step is to enlist the help of one of the behaviourists at the Centre of Applied Pet Ethology where I am studying, because there is nothing better than an experienced dog behaviourist to help you think outside the box about your own dogs.

I am sure they will come up with even more effective ways of reducing the barking in my house. I may make a few mistakes and have to rethink, too. But that’s okay—it’s how we learn.

With Halloween just around the corner, you might wonder what I’m going to do about all the barking as children arrive to my door dressed in costumes. The answer? I’ll leave the sweets on the doorstep and take my dogs to the pub…

(Labrador photo by Alexas_Fotos/Pixabay)

Uncategorized

Why Not Go To Trial?

Earlier this year, I wrote an article for Redbook in the US. I don’t know if I am allowed to post the whole thing on my blog now, but this is the beginning, with a link to the site on which the article is published…. 

A few months after we were married, my husband told me he had a terrible secret. If I’d known this secret, he claimed, I might not have agreed to marry him.

We were in South Wales, settled into a bed and breakfast among the great peaks of the Brecon Beacons, the bed so narrow it barely contained us. I’d never loved anyone as fiercely as I loved my husband — whatever the secret, it could not alter this fact. 

He could barely bring himself to tell me; the shame was so deep he struggled with each syllable. I waited for the awful confession, until at last he explained that when he was a child, he was sexually abused by one of the teachers at his prep school. He’d been eleven years old when it began.

Did he really think such a fact could change anything between us? Why on earth was he ashamed when he’d only been a boy? We talked about it, not all night. And among the many things that were said that night was that it was a very odd coincidence, if it were a coincidence at all, that I had been sexually abused as child, too, though not so young as he. 

“And that doesn’t bother you?” he said.

“It bothered me at the time,” I said. “Not now.”

He asked me how I wore it so lightly. I didn’t know. We’d just had the first of many discussions about what would turn out to be the biggest ordeal of my husband’s life, but I didn’t know that then. I told him it was all a long time ago. 

“Does that matter?” he said. “Don’t you ever want to kill the guy?”

“No.”

“Don’t you want to see him in prison?”

“No.”

“Did you want this thing that happened?”

“No,” I said. “Go to sleep.”

A dozen years later, my husband, Alastair, was a complainant in a Crown Court case against his former prep school teacher and won his case against the man who abused him. He served a short sentence, that was all. A year later he was free….Continued here

Blogs On Dogs

How I Got Interested in Dog Behaviour

 (first published by Huffington Post, September 20, 2016)

We bought a puppy, the most adorable puppy. We named her Gemma and took her home, discovering she was carsick along the way.

 

Lots of puppies get carsick. But she also cried and howled. The only way to keep her from trying to escape through the closed windows was to hold her on my lap.

 

While she loved us (and we loved her!), she was terrified of many things: garden gnomes, statues, and umbrellas. She cowered and tried to flee when strangers approached her. She ran away from the vacuum cleaner. She barked at the hair dryer.

 

gemma-and-me

 

This wasn’t a puppy-farmed dog. Or a rescue or an abuse case. And her breeder told us there was nothing wrong with her at all. It was me. I was making the puppy nervous and “sending signals down the leash.”

 

But I rarely had time to “send signals.” I was too busy holding onto Gemma as she fled from London joggers, from anyone wearing a hat, and (ironically) from the plastic Golden Retriever that serves as a collection box for the Guide Dogs. Especially that.

 

When people came to the house, she backed away, barking furiously. She didn’t look like a cute puppy then, but a dangerous, terrified animal.

 

Training class was impossible. She was too scared to walk into the village hall. I carried her over the threshold. The trainer made the same “you are making her nervous” remark the breeder had, then slipped a choke chain over her head. He tried to peel her from my lap. My adorable puppy started growling.

 

I felt a total failure. Gemma was getting worse; it was only a matter of time before she was biting.

 

This was 1992, pre-internet, but I came across an ad in the back of a dog magazine for a woman whose profession I’d never heard of. She was an animal behaviourist. Was that a kind of doggy shrink? I rang her in desperation and explained the problem.

 

“How old is she?” the behaviourist asked.

 

“Only eighteen weeks,” I said. “Still very young!”

 

“That’s not so young. When you can get here?”

 

I bundled the puppy into the car and drove three hours north, during which Gemma cried and shook and destroyed the car’s interior.

 

I spent many days at the centre and many months learning about desensitisation, habituation, “operant conditioning”, and “backward chaining.”

 

I stopped forcing Gemma to confront “scary” objects but approached and retreated before she became frightened. I taught my friends to hold out treats, not to make direct eye contact with her, to let Gemma come in her own time.

 

I did not use a choke chain or give “corrections.” I rewarded behaviour I wanted and ignored that which I did not. It sounds so easy, but it wasn’t.

 

I’d imagined I knew something about dogs–after all, I’d grown up with dogs–but it turned out I knew almost nothing. The first step in rehabilitating Gemma had been to admit as much.

 

Slowly, Gemma grew in confidence. In years to come, she came to be as friendly and well-adjusted as any other dog. Well, almost. Every so often, she’d cower in front of a stone garden ornament, crawling on her belly as though trying to avoid enemy fire, and we would remember she had once been a nervous puppy.

May0071358. Marti Leimbach for DT Features. Picture shows US author Marti Leimbach, picture taken at her home in Berkshire, UK. Picture to illustrate a Margarette Driscoll interview. Picture date 07/07/2016

I’ve been thinking about Gemma today as I sit among dog behaviourists at the Centre Of Applied Pet Ethology (COAPE), an organisation headed by internationally recognised dog experts. This time, however, I am not a desperate client seeking help, but a student of the science that saved my puppy. I am studying to be a certified pet behaviourist.

 

Things have advanced even since my days with Gemma. I’ve learned that there is no “dominance” hierarchy in dogs. When you hear popular dog trainers talk about dog dominancy, they are referring to a system of beliefs about dogs without much science to support it.

 

According to the experts at COAPE, dogs derived from wolves that broke away from the wild and began living in villages, scavenging human food and waste. Their loose social order has no fixed dominance hierarchy; they are not competing with me (or anyone else) to be alpha. There is no alpha.

 

But what about Darwin and evolution and survival of the fittest? It’s true that the proliferation of genes was key to the survival of Canis familiaris, or the modern dog, but it turns out the best way to spread genes isn’t by forming a pack and then competing for the position of “top dog.”

 

Possibly the weirdest thing I’ve learned today is how quickly significant changes in behaviour and appearance can occur in animal. Careful breeding of wild foxes created an animal that resembled a dog in temperament and physical type in just ten years. Foxes to dogs in ten years?

 

If they hadn’t shown me the slides, I’d never have believed it.

 

Once again, I thought I knew about dogs but Day One at the Centre Of Applied Pet Ethology has blown away most of what I believed to be true about them.

 

Frankly, I can’t wait for Day Two.

 

Blogs On Dogs

I Bake For Dogs

 

Three days ago, the Cat Protection League posted their amazing video on how to make cat treats out of tinned cat food. I’ve posted it at the bottom of this blog because you’ll want to see it. They did a great job and the treats look fantastic.

 

I am grateful to CPL for the video, but also that they did not cook their cat food in my house, because cat food stinks even when it is in the tin, let alone when you heat it up.

 

But not so with Forthglade dog food, as I discovered while stealing the CPL’s great idea on treat-making, and applying it to my dogs, who need training treats.

 

Forthglade is a high quality, cooked dog food. Human grade meat cooked slowly to retain maximum nutritional benefits, it’s a good food. It looks like this if you buy it from Tesco’s:

 

forthglade

Today, I made treats out of the Forthglade. I got a cookie tray, like this:

img_2345

I did not cut the food up on a chopping block as described in the Cat Protection League video but cut it up in its original packaging, then moved the pieces onto the tray with a fork.  Much easier, plus you don’t have to have a butcher’s block that smells like cat food (or dog food in this case).

inthepackage

I lined the tray, then placed the treats on the top, and put them in the oven for about 25 minutes.

onthetray

Forthglade makes food that would satisfy the palettes of meat-eating humans, so the place smells like lamb stew, not dog food. Having said that, I’m a vegan so I opened the windows.

I’m not a great baker, so I kept my expectations low. But guess what? The little treats cooked into nutritious dog treats! No grains, no fillers…just meat and vegetables in a little quadrangle of goodness.

finishedproduct

I can even hold them in my hand:

dogtreatsinhand

The real test is whether or not my dogs like the treats. Let’s see…

To see how the Cat Protection League does it, follow these directions, but don’t worry about the butcher’s block. And don’t be surprised if half the neighbourhood cats arrive through your open windows….

Blogs About Dogs

Dog Food Fights

 

Dog food is a highly-charged topic among dog owners. Dog food is downright political. You get factions; you get tribes. There are those who only feed their dog a single, carefully selected brand of dry dog food (or “kibble” as it is known here in England) because their vets have told them that dogs have to eat the same food every day.

 

If you tell these owners they do not have to feed their dogs the very same thing everyday, they insist that the delicate canine intestine becomes inflamed by even small changes in diet. And guess what? These dog owners really do experience this problem. After years of only eating Iams or Simply or Wagg, any alternative to the same kibble, day and night, night and day, makes their dogs sick.

 

You get those who buy the cheapest dog food at the grocery store.  If you tell these owners that the food was made from condemned meat or that the fat is rancid or that the “poultry meal” was made by putting cage-born baby chicks through a giant shredder, they shrug their shoulders. “He likes it,” they say. “Look how fat he is.”

 

Then there are the people who cook for their dogs. I had a friend who made rice with peas, carrots and strips of chicken breast for her three dogs, keeping the food in Tuperware in the freezer, then microwaving it to a nice warm temperature at mealtimes.  This wasn’t such a bad idea—homemade meals are as good for dogs as they are for the rest of us—but the meals were nutritionally unbalanced and I am not sure she even added a vitamin pill to make up for it. But guess what? Her dogs lived.

 

There are people who feed table scraps, believing rightly that dogs evolved as scavengers. There are people who feed their dog Royal Canin because their vets stock it. There are people who insanely feed their dogs rancid meat, because they have some stupid notion that dogs were meant to eat rancid meat, that they evolved eating rotten food from dumps (not necessarily untrue) and should be fed rotten food now. These people are deluded, but they exist among the rest of us in the dog food debate, so I may as well mention them.

 

And then there are the whack-Os like me who feed their dogs raw food. We have this idea that dogs should eat raw meat along with a small portion of raw or steamed (and pureed) vegetables and fruit for roughage, and bones. There is a lot of science to why raw meat is good for dogs, how it prolongs their lives and how the bones, if fed carefully, prevent the canine dental decay seen in most dogs by the time they are only five years old. But with some cooked food, like Forthglade, being cooked at low temperatures that retain the goodness, the best cooked foods are giving raw a run for their money.

 

We take this raw food thing very seriously. Some order “complete” raw food from commercial estalishments like Nature’s Menu. Others buy straight minced chicken or beef or lamb or the smelliest and most disgusting meat in the world called “tripe” which is intestines. Some even insist on throwing their dogs whole prey. That is, they chuck a raw chicken or rabbit, even with fur attached, to their dog and let it rip the carcass to pieces.

 

I don’t do that.

 

But I don’t participate in the long, heated fights among the raw-fooders about “whole prey” vs. “Raw and Meaty bones” vs. commercial raw complete diets. That isn’t to say I don’t have opinions about these matters, just that I don’t like to fight with dog owners. After all, in Thailand there is a dog eating festival—that is, dogs themselves are on the menu—so if I am worried about the health of dogs, it would be more useful to focus my efforts there.

 

I think people can’t stand the idea they haven’t done the right thing for their dog 100% of the time. They’d rather you said they neglected their children’s diets than failed on that of their dogs. If you tell someone that Asda Dog Food isn’t good for their dogs, they tell you the dog is perfectly fine on the Asda food. And maybe it is.

 

It’s tough here among the raw dog food nutcases. We fight among ourselves in our strange little enclave that no one cares about, not even the dogs, who will apparently eat anything. Even shoes. We worry about the sizes of bones, the fat and marrow content, the threat of pancreatitis. We talk about whether there is a salmonella risk in our dog’s food (there is, which is why I don’t feed raw poultry) that may not hurt our dogs but will definitely hurt us. We talk about pH of dog saliva and the emptying of anal glands and the acid of dogs’ stomachs…yes we do all that.

 

I will write more about this, though few people want to know about the raw meat I feed my pets. The weird thing isn’t that I feed them raw meat; it’s that I am a vegan and feed them raw meat. I am a person who asks for the vegan menu at a Thai restaurant, then comes home and feeds her dogs raw beef. I don’t take milk in my coffee but I admire the dehydrated pigs’ lungs my friend made for her dogs with her new food dehydrator. I won’t eat an egg, but I will happily give some pressure-cooked chicken bones to my dogs. They crumble so nicely into the minced lamb.

 

Yes, I see the cognitive dissonance. I’m a case study in that. Yes, I know that handling raw meat is vile. But my dogs need it…I think they need it.  It’s disgusting. I’m not proud. But the dogs…I got to say…the dogs look fantastic. You should to see the 13 year old’s clean, white, perfect teeth. You should see my friend’s 15-year old, strutting her stuff in the woods.

 

And the dogs don’t fight—not about food anyway. It’s just us, the owners.

 

The Writer's Economy

Stop Writing Your Crappy Bestseller

 

I remember my mother listing a whole bunch of first lines from bestselling books.

 

“The primroses were over,” she announced theatrically.

 

I pretended to understand what she meant. There was a first edition of Watership Down on the table by her typewriter but I’d never read it.

 

She dipped her chin and looked at me directly. “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” she said.

 

It would be some years before I tackled Anna Karenina and I thought she’d come up with this idea herself, so I said, “Are we unhappy in our own way?”

 

She dragged deeply from her cigarette, exhaled, then swatted at the smoke. “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”

 

I held out an ashtray for the length of ash bowing down from her cigarette and she dutifully tapped. “Mother, I don’t know what you are saying,” I admitted.

 

“Bestsellers,” she said. “First lines of some of the greatest books.”

 

My mother knew nothing about fiction. But I knew nothing about anything, so I believed her. For years, I walked around with the idea that bestsellers were great literature and that they sparked from a single mesmerizing first line that signalled an unaccountable genius that would bring readers to their knees.

 

Perhaps for a time that I am either imagining or that existed for only the shortest of durations, there really was a link between bestsellers and quality literature. After all, not every book on the lists is bad. Not at all.  Plenty of great fiction has hit the New York Times bestseller list and will doso  again in years to come. But her notion of the bestseller, this glamorous other-wordly thing of preposterous beauty was her own invention. Watership Down is a great book but most of the bestselling books of that day weren’t even a patch on Richard Adams.

 

It took years for me to see that first lines didn’t mean much and that being a bestseller meant even less.  Even an amazing first line like John Grisham’s opening in The Racketeer (I am a lawyer and I am in prison) does not make literature. I am not sure what exactly does makes literature, but I know this: if a writer wants to write a great book, they should not try to write a bestseller. That doesn’t mean they should work hard to write in opposition to their notion of what a “bestseller” is, but that the effort to write commercially detracts from only hope of being an admirable writer.

 

James Patterson is a huge bestseller.  The man is a machine. He doesn’t write books, he writes lists of books. I hear he’s got a course he’s running, too, so that he can share his magic with all those who wish to be like him and sell a lot of copies.

 

I ran across what I hope is his worst novel. I say I hope it was his worst novel because it was a miserable excuse for a novel. I hope there are none among his hundreds of publications that are even more dreadful and tacky. I wouldn’t normally pick up a novel by Patterson but I was kind of stuck. I was staying in a hotel in Granada, Spain, and had finished all the books I’d brought with me. I went down to the lobby and had a look at the books left behind by tourists to see what I might find. I searched among the few books in English and it came down to either Patterson or a textbook of Spanish verbs. I tried hard to read about the murder of the beautiful mysterious woman but by the third of Patterson’s very brief chapters, I’d swapped for the Spanish verb book.

 

Recently, I saw an article that not only described what should happen in a bestseller but how many pages you should write, what gender the protagonist should be and the like. Really stupid facts about recent bestsellers, none of which would help a serious writer complete so much as a decent Post-It note. It wasn’t even an article but more of a chart. A kind of mind-map of the bestseller, laid out for the would-be celebrity writer.

 

The chart was  appalling for many reasons, not least of which is the idea that if you want to be successful you need to be commercial. And that this goal should be in mind from the very inception of the work itself, rather than at publication when sales and marketing teams include you in their plans to promote your book. I have no objection to authors pushing their own work once they’ve written it–that’s part of the game. But to fashion your writing to what you believe to be the fashion is vulgar, debasing, and not the work of serious novelists.

 

I hate this way of thinking. I hate it even more than I hated hearing a student at Oxford University where I teach writing, announce on the first day that one of her goals was that by the end of the course she would make a living as a writer. I made everyone uncomfortable by responding that this wasn’t a goal she was likely to achieve or that is even worth trying to achieve. It isn’t that one can’t make a living as a writer, but that if that is your goal, you are already admitting that the quality of your work is not the most important thing. The work is second to a living, or third to fame, or fourth to inciting envy among peers. Whatever it is, the notion of “success” has nothing to do with the quality of your work. That is what you are saying.

 

I find it worrying that people who purport to be serious writers think that success is measured by advance figures or bestseller lists, rather than looking at the work, itself. I recognise that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a means of measuring quality. Little (nothing?) apart the words on the page genuinely indicates value. However, the scary thing is how quickly writers are willing to capitulate to what they perceive as “the market.”  In the face of demands from publishers that their books make money, writers are willing to do whatever they have to in order to create a bestseller, even studying inane absurdities like what gender the protagonist is, how long the books is, and what happens by page 25 or page 35 or whatever inanity you care to focus on.

 

Am I just being stodgy and old-fashioned to insist writers put up some resilience and stop trying to appease the notional “market”, a market that has behaved unpredictably for as long as books have been published? Admittedly, it can be discouraging to good writers to see mediocre books being lauded, but I’ve long grown used to that. You will, too.

 

I feel we writers should have more spine when it comes to our work. We should have more dignity than to chase bestseller lists. It’s fine to do so once you’ve written a novel you are proud of, but the idea of fashioning the entire thing in an effort to create the next “big” novel, or “breakthrough” novel, defeats the purpose of being a writer in the first place. Surely, writers are meant to create something more akin to art than advertisement.

 

When I think about the great Russian artists who continued to paint in a manner true to their vision even as Soviet authorities condemned any art that lacked “revolutionary spirit,” I marvel at today’s writers easy capitulation to the toothless threat of “the market.”  I think of how the Slovakian journalist, Pavel Licko, risked his life to smuggle Solzhenitsyn’s Cancer Ward to the United States while, these days, writers surrender to an idea of what the “market demands” as though the market has guns and bayonets and firing squads.

 

So, what should you do instead of trying to be a bestseller? Read quality. Become ruined by good works so that you can’t possibly put up with much of what sits on the bestseller lists. Stop wanting to be a celebrity.

 

The first thing is to attend to is the work. The second thing is to attend to is the work. The third thing is…that’s right. The work.

 

And don’t worry too much about the first line either, because the first line, even if it is a good one, is just a party trick.