register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Wysiwyg
Dogsey Veteran
Wysiwyg is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
Female 
 
03-03-2008, 09:19 AM
Originally Posted by pod View Post
I do agree that the instinctual behaviour of the parents is to allow the pups to eat first but not to the extent that it puts their lives at risk. To look at this logically, ....I am assuming Wys, that this is the argument you're putting fwd, as this is what I remember from a previous discussion. What I really don't see as logical is.... how on earth can the pups survive on their own? Ok, they may have their parents' bodies to sustain them for a while but we are talking times of hardship. With little experience and severely compromised physical capabilities of hunting, they are doomed without question.
Good points Pod and I wish I could find out where I read the Mech info! I guess a lot "depends" - ages of pups, all sorts have to be taken into consideration. I'm thinking Mech observed this in more than one litter/circumstance, but again I can't remember
Reply With Quote
Wysiwyg
Dogsey Veteran
Wysiwyg is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
Female 
 
03-03-2008, 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by MaryS View Post
Worse still, the production team and/or presenters may deliberately re-create aggression scenarios (often the case in Jan Fennel and Britain's Worse Pet), sometimes involving innocent passers by in order to 'sex up' airtime.
I've noticed this too...

In one case I know of personally, the production team of Dog Borstall were walking on the Surrey Downs in a spot frequented by dog-walkers and owners. A friend's dog was deliberately targeted and attacked by one of the DB participant's dogs. The attack was full-on and the innocent dog's owner luckily kept full control throughout. Realising that a programme was being made the owner approached the production team. None of the programme 'experts' was present. A complaint was made, followed up in writing, but the programme was aired and repeated twice. The owner received only a one-line letter of explanation from the BBC, along the lines of 'the need to demonstrate bad behaviours to illustrate to the audience the type of training required' (paraphrased).
I hope you don't mind me emphasising that in bold, as that is absolutely appalling!!! How can they do this show and speak about all they do, and yet do this to an innocent passer by and dog?

and where are the trainers, after having viewed this, why are they not complaining about it to the production team?

Any decent trainer would refuse to participate any longer unless matters changed, I would think, or am I being harsh here?

What I'd suggest is that the owner try to contact Rob Alleyne or one of the others via their websites and do it that way.
Frequently what is missing for me in these programmes is sufficient emphasis on really understanding 'dog': its origins, purpose and the canine language it is displaying.
Agree esp. about the language and communication...
Again and again, the dogs involved in these programmes are flagging their emotional state very clearly indeed. Some are clearly distressed and the behaviours appear to be exacerbated by the presence of tv crew often filming in a small room, etc. A dog does not have to be physically handled to be mis-treated.
You speak so much sense - thankyou!

I would much prefer to see basic (preventative) dog-handling skills promoted on TV and in-depth programmes on the science available on canine language and emotions. Perhaps then, some of the 'problem' programmes may require less airtime.

Mary
Yes, I'd love to see something educational and involving basic training, also more training to an advanced level for interest.
More about how to get the right behaviours in the first place, than how to stop the wrong ones.
Reply With Quote
MaryS
Dogsey Senior
MaryS is offline  
Location: Sussex UK
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 862
Female 
 
03-03-2008, 10:54 AM
[QUOTE=Wysiwyg;1299009]What I'd suggest is that the owner try to contact Rob Alleyne or one of the others via their websites and do it that way.

Thank you, a great suggestion: have passed Rob's contact details to the owner. It did happen quite a while ago but I see no harm in her flagging it with him. It may prevent other incidents.

You speak so much sense - thankyou!

That I entirely put down to my teacher of some 10 years. Her name is Taki and she is a pariah dog from Cambodia. Her text-book displays of canine communication are quite unlike any I have seen in a domesticated dog.

Mary
Reply With Quote
pod
Dogsey Veteran
pod is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,558
Female 
 
03-03-2008, 12:15 PM
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg View Post
Good points Pod and I wish I could find out where I read the Mech info! I guess a lot "depends" - ages of pups, all sorts have to be taken into consideration. I'm thinking Mech observed this in more than one litter/circumstance, but again I can't remember

There's this by Mech -


As for high-ranking animals asserting any practical control over subordinates, the nature of the interaction is highly conditional. For example, with large prey such as adult moose (Alces alces), pack members of all ranks (ages) gather around a carcass and feed simultaneously, with no rank privilege apparent (Mech 1966; Haber 1977); however, if the prey is smaller, like a musk ox calf, dominant animals (breeders) may feed first and control when subordinates feed (Mech 1988; National Geographic 1988 ).

Similarly, pups are subordinate to both parents and to older siblings, yet they are fed preferentially by the parents, and even by their older (dominant) siblings (Mech et al. 1999). On the other hand, parents both dominate older offspring and restrict their food intake when food is scarce, feeding pups instead. Thus, the most practical effect of social dominance is to allow the dominant individual the choice of to whom to allot food.

The only other rank privilege I am aware of in natural situations is that high-ranking pups are more assertive in competing for food deliveries by adults and sometimes accompany adults on foraging trips at an earlier age than do subordinates (Haber 1977).


http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/m...tat/domsub.htm
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 5 of 5 « First < 2 3 4 5


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top