Nov 24 2025

Stress Helps Learning and Bonding

Abstract

Stress is often portrayed as harmful, yet moderate, acute stress can enhance learning, memory retention, and social bonding. Recent epigenetic research reveals that stress hormones modulate gene expression in key brain regions, strengthening memory consolidation and attentional processes. Unpleasant or intense experiences tend to form long-lasting memories, an adaptive mechanism for survival. Beyond cognition, stress can facilitate social bonding through oxytocin-mediated social buffering, as demonstrated in mammals, including domesticated dogs, although effects are highly context-dependent. Excessive or chronic stress, however, disrupts these processes, impairing memory, social interactions, and overall well-being. This paper emphasizes the nuanced, dual role of stress, highlighting its adaptive functions and underscoring the importance of understanding stress within an evolutionary and behavioral framework, not least because such understanding can inform more efficient animal behavior modification.

A tough nut to crack is an everlasting memory that binds the parties together, and there is a reason for that. Moderate stress heightens arousal and sharpens attention, facilitating learning and the formation of durable memories (Roozendaal, McEwen, & Chattarji, 2009; McGaugh, 2015). Studies show that stress-related hormones and neuromodulators can also strengthen certain social bonds, depending on context, species, and prior history (Carter, 2014; Hostinar, Sullivan, & Gunnar, 2014).

Fig. 1 — Illustration of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis during the stress response: the hypothalamus detects stress and releases corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), which stimulates the pituitary gland to release adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). ACTH triggers the adrenal glands to produce cortisol, the body’s key stress hormone. Cortisol’s effects on the body feed back to regulate this system, maintaining balance through a negative feedback loop.

The Term Stress Is Dangerously Ambiguous

We need to be careful, though. The term stress is dangerously ambiguous. Richard Shweder once described stress in a 1997 New York Times, Week in Review essay, as “a word that is as useful as a Visa card and as satisfying as a Coke. It’s non-committal and also non-committable.” Here, we adopt a biological definition:

Stress is the organism’s coordinated physiological response to a real or perceived challenge to homeostasis, involving the activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis to restore equilibrium (see fig. 1).

This distinction—between colloquial and biological uses—is crucial because the physiological and behavioral mechanisms engaged differ depending on whether the stressor is acute or chronic, controllable or uncontrollable. In this context, Koolhaas et al. (2011, p. 1291) propose that “the term ‘stress’ should be restricted to conditions where an environmental demand exceeds the natural regulatory capacity of an organism, in particular situations that include unpredictability and uncontrollability,” emphasizing the adaptive and context-dependent nature of the stress response (McEwen & Wingfield, 2010; Koolhaas et al., 2011).

What Is the Function of Stress?

Being an evolutionary biologist, when contemplating a mechanism, I always ask: “What is the function of that? What is that good for?” A mechanism can originate by chance (most do), but unless it provides the individual with some extra benefits in survival and reproduction, it will not spread in the population. From an evolutionary perspective, the stress response and the modulation of memory under stress increase the probability of survival (Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009; McEwen, Nasca, & Gray, 2016).

Why Do Unpleasant Memories Persist?

Emotionally intense, threatening, or highly arousing situations produce stronger, more persistent memory traces. Biologically, remembering potentially harmful events helps self-preservation. Negative or threatening events recruit the amygdala–hippocampal network more strongly, with the amygdala modulating hippocampal consolidation via noradrenergic and glucocorticoid-dependent mechanisms (Johansen, Cain, Ostroff, & LeDoux, 2011; McGaugh, 2015; LeDoux & Pine, 2016).

Stress006 — Fig. 2 — Sequence of events from exposure to a stressor through activation of the body’s physiological and behavioral stress response system (including the HPA axis), resulting in molecular and epigenetic changes such as DNA methylation and altered gene expression in stress-related genes. These epigenetic modifications influence future stress responsiveness and can affect health outcomes over the long term.

Epigenetic Effects

One of the most exciting scientific discoveries of late is the role of epigenetics (see fig. 2). Epigenetics—the study of modifications in gene activity that occur without altering the DNA sequence—has become central to contemporary models of learning and memory. Bird defines an epigenetic event as “the structural adaptation of chromosomal regions so as to register, signal or perpetuate altered activity states” (Bird, 2007, p. 398). Within this framework, attention focuses on activity-dependent chromatin modifications that occur during an individual’s lifetime rather than on transgenerational inheritance (Allis & Jenuwein, 2016). Mechanisms such as DNA methylation, histone acetylation, and related chromatin adjustments fine-tune gene expression in response to salient experiences, enabling the formation and stabilization of memory (Sweatt, 2013). Stress hormones act on mineralocorticoid and glucocorticoid receptors in hippocampal and amygdalar circuits, where they modulate plasticity and enhance the consolidation of significant events (Roozendaal, McEwen, & Chattarji, 2009; McEwen et al., 2012). Through interactions with noradrenergic projections from the locus coeruleus, glucocorticoids further shape these epigenetic regulators, influencing transcriptional programs essential for synaptic plasticity (Zovkic, Guzman-Karlsson, & Sweatt, 2013; Gray, Rubin, Hunter, & McEwen, 2014). These coordinated molecular processes, under moderate stress, enhance learning and contribute to the durability of highly arousing or threatening experiences.

Not All Stress Boosts Learning

Not all stress is productive for learning. Excessive stress produces the opposite effect. There is a difference between being stressed and stressed out. When stress becomes excessive or prolonged, the organism enters a state where immediate survival takes priority over other functions, and memory formation decreases. Chronic stress, in particular, undermines learning and cognitive function by disrupting hippocampal structure and impairing synaptic plasticity (de Kloet, Joëls, & Holsboer, 2005). These maladaptive effects highlight that stress is beneficial only within a moderate and context-dependent range; beyond that, it impairs both cognition and emotional regulation.

Stress and Bonding—A Delicate Balance

Stress does more than enhance memory; under certain conditions, it actively promotes social bonding. Oxytocin, a neuropeptide closely linked to affiliation, mediates this effect by dampening the HPA axis response during shared or moderate stress, thereby encouraging proximity and affiliative behaviors (Crockford, Deschner, & Wittig, 2017). In rodents, moderate stress enhances social-seeking behavior among cagemates via oxytocin signaling, though excessively threatening contexts abolish this effect (Burkett et al., 2015). Findings in rodents provide a foundation for understanding oxytocin-mediated bonding, which can also be observed in humans and domesticated dogs, albeit with species-specific nuances.

In domesticated dogs, exogenous oxytocin increases sociability toward humans and conspecifics, and social interactions raise endogenous oxytocin levels (Nagasawa et al., 2015). Just as humans bond emotionally through mutual gaze—a process mediated by oxytocin—Nagasawa et al. demonstrate that a similar gaze-mediated bonding exists between humans and dogs: “These findings support the existence of an interspecies oxytocin-mediated positive loop facilitated and modulated by gazing, which may have supported the coevolution of human-dog bonding by engaging common modes of communicating social attachment” (Nagasawa et al., 2015, p. 333). Longitudinal observations further show that chronic stress markers, such as hair cortisol, can synchronize between dogs and their owners, suggesting a deep physiological linkage (Sundman et al., 2020). Importantly, these bonding effects are highly context-dependent: moderate, predictable stress tends to facilitate affiliation, whereas excessive or prolonged stress may inhibit social bonding.

Caveats: Despite the fascinating discoveries mentioned above, we must be prudent in our conclusions. The effects of stress on bonding are highly context-dependent. Elevated cortisol in dogs can reflect excitement rather than distress (Nagasawa et al., 2015), and the benefits observed in rodents require non-threatening environments (Burkett et al., 2015). Oxytocin’s influence varies with social familiarity; stress may not enhance affiliation with strangers or weakly bonded partners (Crockford et al., 2017). Correlational studies, such as cortisol synchronization in dog–owner dyads, cannot prove causality, though they suggest physiological coupling that may support bonding under shared stress.

Conclusion

We need a balanced view of stress. Acute, manageable challenges—those that elicit adaptive stress responses—support attentional sharpening, facilitate memory consolidation, strengthen social bonds, and promote effective learning. These benefits are highly context-dependent: stress can enhance cognition and affiliation when moderate and predictable, but excessive or prolonged stress can overwhelm these systems, impairing memory, social interactions, and overall well-being. From an evolutionary perspective, stress serves a dual adaptive function—preparing individuals to respond to threats while reinforcing social bonds that increase survival odds. A nuanced understanding is therefore essential for interpreting behavior and guiding sound practice.

For animal trainers, these insights translate into a few practical guidelines. Animals benefit from gradual exposure to manageable, stress-eliciting challenges that promote resilience and adaptive coping. Training sessions should be calibrated so that the stress elicited remains within a range that facilitates attention and learning—enough to trigger mild HPA-axis activation, but not so intense as to be counter-productive. Moreover, designing training sessions that employ an appropriate level of stress can strengthen the trainer–animal bond by allowing the trainer to serve as a social buffer during mildly stressful tasks.

Featured picture: A tough nut to crack is an everlasting memory that binds the parties together (photo by unknown).

References

Allis, C. D., & Jenuwein, T. (2016). The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control. Nature Reviews Genetics, 17(8), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.59

Bird, A. (2007). Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature, 447(7143), 396–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05913

Burkett, J. P., Andari, E., Johnson, Z. V., Curry, D. C., de Waal, F. B. M., & Young, L. J. (2016). Oxytocin‑dependent consolation behavior in rodents. Science, 351(6271), 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4785

Carter, C. S. (2014). Oxytocin pathways and the evolution of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115110

Crockford, C., Deschner, T., & Wittig, R. M. (2017). The role of oxytocin in social buffering of stress: What do primate studies add? Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 30, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2017_12

de Kloet, E. R., Joëls, M., & Holsboer, F. (2005). Stress and the brain: From adaptation to disease. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(6), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1683

Gray, J. D., Rubin, T. G., Hunter, R. G., & McEwen, B. S. (2014). Hippocampal gene expression changes underlying stress sensitization and recovery. Molecular Psychiatry, 19(11), 1171–1178. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2013.175

Hostinar, C. E., Sullivan, R. M., & Gunnar, M. R. (2014). Psychobiological mechanisms underlying the social buffering of the stress response: A review of animal models and human studies across development. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032671

Hunter, R. G., & McEwen, B. S. (2013). Stress and anxiety across the lifespan: Structural and molecular correlates. Neuroscience, 255, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.09.039

Johansen, J. P., Cain, C. K., Ostroff, L. E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2011). Molecular mechanisms of fear learning and memory. Cell, 147(3), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.009

Koolhaas, J. M., Bartolomucci, A., Buwalda, B., de Boer, S. F., Flügge, G., Korte, S. M., … Fuchs, E. (2011). Stress revisited: A critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(5), 1291–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.003

LeDoux, J. E., & Pine, D. S. (2016). Using neuroscience to help understand fear and anxiety: A two-system framework. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(11), 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030353

McEwen, B. S., Eiland, L., Hunter, R. G., & Miller, M. M. (2012). Stress and anxiety: Structural plasticity and epigenetic regulation as a consequence of stress. Neuropharmacology, 62(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.07.014

McEwen, B. S., Nasca, C., & Gray, J. D. (2016). Stress effects on neuronal structure: Hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2015.171

McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2010). What is in a name? Integrating homeostasis, allostasis, and stress. Hormones and Behavior, 57(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.09.011

McGaugh, J. L. (2015). Consolidating memories. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-014954

Nagasawa, M., Mitsui, S., En, S., Ohtani, N., Ohta, M., Sakuma, Y., … Kikusui, T. (2015). Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human–dog bonds. Science, 348(6232), 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261022

Nesse, R. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). Evolution, emotions, and emotional disorders. American Psychologist, 64(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013503

Roozendaal, B., McEwen, B. S., & Chattarji, S. (2009). Stress, memory and the amygdala. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2651

Sundman, A.-S., Van Poucke, E., Svensson Holm, A.-C., Faresjö, Å., Theodorsson, E., Jensen, P., & Roth, L. S. V. (2020). Long-term stress levels are synchronized in dogs and their owners. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 17112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74204-8

Sweatt, J. D. (2013). The emerging field of neuroepigenetics. Neuron, 80(3), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.023

Zovkic, I. B., Guzman-Karlsson, M. C., & Sweatt, J. D. (2013). Epigenetic regulation of memory formation and maintenance. Learning & Memory, 20(2), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.026575.112

Nov 10 2025

Muzzle Grasp Behavior in Canids

Dog muzzle grab. — *Dogs also exhibit the muzzle grasp behavior (photo by Marco de Kloet).*

A “Muzzle grasp” (or muzzle grab) is a common behavior shown by social canines, e.g., wolves (Canis lupus lupus), dingoes (Canis lupus dingo), and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). The primary function of this behavior is to confirm a relationship rather than to settle a dispute. The more self-confident or higher-ranking individual will muzzle-grasp a more insecure or lower-ranking partner to assert its social position. The more insecure individual does not resist the grasp; on the contrary, it often displays submissive behavior, literally inviting its partner to muzzle-grasp it. Even though we sometimes see this behavior at the end of a dispute, wolves and dogs only use it toward individuals they know well—pack members—as a kind of saying, “You’re still a cub (pup).” The dispute itself tends not to be serious, merely a low-key challenge, often over access to a resource. Youngsters, cubs, and pups sometimes solicit adults to muzzle-grasp them. This behavior appears reassuring to them.

The muzzle-grasp behavior emerges early in development. Canine mothers muzzle-grasp their puppies (sometimes accompanied by a growl) to deter them from suckling during weaning. Field observations confirm this mechanism. As Packard, Mech, and Ream (1992, p. 1274) report, “In the context of playing, begging, and sharing, pups did not leave when another wolf muzzled, snapped, or lunged. In contrast, the muzzling by the nurser in the context of suckling terminated the pups’ attempts to gain access to nipples.” This observation illustrates the early communicative value of the muzzle contact as both a mild inhibitory and relational signal. Cubs and pups also muzzle-grasp one another during play, typically between six and nine weeks of age. They probably learn through play that the muzzle-grasp is an effective way of stopping an opponent from doing something, while also learning bite inhibition. If they bite too hard, they elicit a fight and risk injury. A muzzle-grasp, therefore, does not involve biting, only grasping. This behavior helps develop a relationship of trust between both parties—“we don’t hurt one another.”

Similar tactile interactions, including muzzle-to-muzzle contact, also occur in post-conflict and affiliative contexts among wolves. Cordoni and Palagi (2019) describe reciprocal muzzle-licking between adults and immature pack members following mild conflicts—acts that function as “consolation” and reinforce social bonds. Although a muzzle-grasp differs mechanically from muzzle-licking, both share an underlying functional value: the restoration or affirmation of trust within a dyad. These tactile gestures exemplify the nuanced physical vocabulary through which canids maintain cohesion and mitigate tension within the pack.

Classic naturalist observations (Zimen, 1981) describe frequent muzzle-to-muzzle contacts and note adults seizing pups’ muzzles during play and weaning; together with quantitative field data (Packard, Mech, & Ream, 1992), this supports the view that muzzle contact is an early-emerging, ritualised tactile signal rather than an aggressive act.

When used to settle a dispute, a muzzle-grasp may appear more violent and usually ends with the individual being muzzle-grasped exhibiting passive, submissive behavior. Yet participants very seldom, if ever, get hurt, an occurrence that would undermine the behavior’s function.

Left: Cubs and pups muzzle grasp one another during play. Right: Muzzle grasp in adult wolves (photos by Monty Sloan).

A muzzle-grasp requires self-control. Higher-ranking wolves and dogs muzzle-grasp their pack members (teammates) and, by doing so, confirm their rank while displaying restraint. Lower-ranking wolves and dogs often engage in muzzle-grasping behavior to affirm their social position and reassure themselves that they remain included in the group.

The muzzle-grasp behavior probably originated as both a form of maternal (and later paternal) control and as a play behavior among cubs. As it appears to have been beneficial to all parties involved, it may have become a factor favored by natural selection, spreading from generation to generation and evolving as any other trait that enhances the fitness of individuals within cohesive social groups.

In domestic dogs, when puppies are about five to seven weeks old, their mother regularly muzzle-grasps them to deter suckling. At first, her behavior frightens them, and they may whimper excessively, even though she does not harm them. Later, when grasped by the muzzle, the puppy immediately shows passive submissive behavior—lying on its back and exposing its ventral side. Previously, it was assumed that the mother needed to pin the puppy to the ground; however, Packard et al. (1992) observed that, in wolves, in practice, “[…] on the occasions when the nurser winced or muzzled the pups, the pups did not persist” and that “[…] counter-tactics for overcoming nurser rejection did not occur (pp. 1271–1272).” Most puppies submit voluntarily. Over time, this behavior pattern assumes variations. Wolf cubs and puppies often invite the alpha male (the leader of the pack and, in wolves, usually their father) as well as other adults to grasp them by the muzzle, thereby soliciting a demonstration of their elders’ superiority and self-control while simultaneously showing their own acceptance and submissiveness. This is among the most reassuring behaviors an adult can show a youngster.

Domestic dogs sometimes approach their owners puffing gently with their noses. By gently placing a hand around their muzzle, we may reassure them of acceptance, demonstrate self-control, and convey that they can trust us. That is speaking dog-language to the best of our abilities. After being muzzle-grasped for a while, the dog will usually show a nose-lick, perhaps yawn, and then walk calmly away. It is as if the dog were saying, “I’m still your puppy,” and the owner replied, “I know—and I’ll take good care of you.”

The muzzle-grasp behavior can be challenging to classify. Some researchers see it as social or affiliative, others as agonistic, and still others as pacifying. Because its primary function is to confirm and maintain relationships, it may best be considered a social behavior—a ritualized, low-intensity interaction that reinforces trust and cohesion within the group.

Next time your dog gently nudges or invites a muzzle‑grasp, pause for a moment—what you see as a simple dog behavior is, in canine language, a subtle conversation of trust and understanding.

References

Abrantes, R. (1987). Hundesprog. Borgen Forlag, Copenhagen.

Abrantes, R. (1997). The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior. Naperville, IL: Wakan Tanka Publishers.

Abrantes, R. (2011, December 11). Dominance—Making sense of the nonsense. Roger Abrantes Blog. https://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/dominance-making-sense-of-the-nonsense/

Cordoni, G., & Palagi, E. (2019). Back to the future: A glance over wolf social behavior to understand dog–human relationship. Animals, 9(11), 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110991

Packard, J. M., Mech, L. D., & Ream, R. R. (1992). Weaning in an Arctic wolf pack: Behavioral mechanisms. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70(7), 1269–1275. https://doi.org/10.1139/z92-177. USGS+1 PDF (scanned article, pages shown above): https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/172weaningarcticwolf.pdf

Zimen, E. (1981). The wolf: His place in the natural world. Souvenir Press Ltd. ISBN 9780285624115

Note: I first wrote about the muzzle grasp behavior in canids in my Danish book Hundesprog (1987), where I called it “mund om snuden,” which translates directly as “mouth around the snout.” This term became “muzzle grasp” in the first English edition of the book, titled Dog Language. I later wrote Muzzle Grab Behavior in Canids on April 25, 2012. Two years afterward, on March 13, 2014, I revised it as Canine Muzzle Grasp Behavior—Advanced Dog Language. True to my philosophy of updating articles and papers as new evidence emerges, I have once again revised this work. The latest version, published in November 2025, appears here under the title Muzzle Grasp Behavior in Canids.

Nov 6 2025

Canine Scent Detection: Reviving the Oldest Mammalian Sense

—A Sniffer Dog is a Happy Dog

Scent detection has fascinated me since my early days as a student of biology, and I was already training detection animals at the beginning of the 1980s. Over the years, I have trained dogs, rats, and guinea pigs to detect narcotics, explosives, blood, vinyl, fungus, landmines, tuberculosis, and tobacco—and they excelled in all these tasks.

What has always intrigued me most is how deeply scent detection seems to be woven into their very being, regardless of species. Indeed, much before dogs became our partners in scent detection, olfaction had already shaped the mammalian brain—including ours. Although humans are often described as “microsmatic,” this view stems mainly from a 19th-century anthropocentric bias. In fact, human olfactory performance—when properly measured—can rival that of many other mammals (McGann, 2017). Fossil endocasts reveal that early mammalia forms possessed disproportionately large olfactory bulbs, suggesting that life for our distant ancestors was guided above all by smell (Rowe, Macrini, & Luo, 2011). The olfactory pathways remain among the most conserved in the mammalian nervous system, closely intertwined with limbic and reproductive circuits (Shipley & Ennis, 1996; Boehm, Zou, & Buck, 2005). As Lledo, Gheusi, and Vincent (2005) observed, “It is clear today that olfaction is a synthetic sense par excellence. It enables pattern learning, storage, recognition, tracking, or localization and attaches emotional and hedonic valence to these patterns” (p. 309). To smell, then, is not merely to detect—it is to think, feel, and remember.

Most of my detection work was carried out for the police, armed forces, SAR teams, or other professional agencies. Yet, I had written about scent detection already in the early 1980s, in my first book, Psychology rather than Force, published in Danish. Back in 1984, I called it “nose work” (a direct translation from the Danish næsearbejde). I recommended that all dog owners stimulate their dogs by giving them detection tasks, beginning with their daily rations. We even conducted some research on this, and the results were highly positive: dogs trained in detection work improved in many aspects of their otherwise problematic behavior. My recommendation remains the same today. Physical exercise is, of course, essential—but do not forget to stimulate your dog’s nose as well, perhaps its primary channel of information about the world.

Above: In “Hundesprog” (Dog Language) from 1987, I mention “nose work” with an illustration from Alce Rasmussen. To the right: Yours truly in 1984 with a Siberian Husky, an “untrainable” dog, as everybody used to say. This was when my book “Psychology rather than Force” created a stir. We were then right at the beginning of the animal training revolution. In that book, I mention “nose work” (a direct translation from the Danish “næsearbejde”) and recommend it as an excellent way to stimulate our dogs.

Recent field data illustrate how central olfaction is to the daily lives of canids. Wolves in the Białowieża Forest, for instance, were active on average 45.2 % of every 24 hours—about 10.8 h per day—primarily in movement, travelling, and search behaviours (Theuerkauf et al., 2003, Table 1, p. 247). Monthly patterns (Figure 6, p. 249) suggest that activity levels vary with season, although exact numerical ranges are not provided in the text. Comparable patterns appear in other canids: red foxes spend about 43 % of their observable foraging time sniffing the ground (Wooster et al., 2019), and free-ranging domestic dogs devote substantial portions of their active time to exploratory and searching behaviours—activities guided predominantly by olfaction (Banerjee & Bhadra, 2022). These figures reveal that for a wolf or fox, using the nose is not an occasional act but a continuous occupation, consuming many hours each day.

Measurement	%	Hours (h)
Time active	45.2 %	10.8
Time moving	35.9 %	8.6

Table 1. Average daily activity of wolves in the Białowieża Forest, Poland (1994–1999), showing the proportion of time spent active and moving, both as a percentage of the 24-hour day and in hours. Data from Theuerkauf et al. (2003, Table 1, p. 247).

Note. “Time active” includes periods when wolves were travelling, hunting, or otherwise moving. Observations indicate that these behaviours are predominantly guided by olfaction. Activity was generally higher at night, and seasonal variation appears linked to day length and prey availability. On average, wolves were active roughly half the day (~10.8 h), highlighting that extensive daily searching and tracking is a defining feature of their ecology (Theuerkauf et  al., 2003, Table 1, p. 247).

When I began promoting “nose work” in the early 1980s, I did so from personal experience rather than data. I spent many hours on scent detection with my English Cocker Spaniels. They loved it and were calmer, more focused, and more fulfilled than their peers who were not as nose-stimulated. I quickly discovered that scent detection was so self-reinforcing—in behaviorist terms—that no other reinforcers were needed beyond my approval, which they actively sought. In those moments, I realised that to be a dog is to be a cooperative nose-worker.

Science has since validated that intuition. Scent work is not a modern invention—it is a structured expression of what canids have done for thousands of years: exploring their world through odor cues. When we engage a dog’s nose, we are not merely training a skill; we are restoring a function at the very core of its evolution. Understanding that is perhaps the greatest lesson of scent detection: to educate and enrich a dog’s life, we must first respect the sensory world in which it truly lives.

References

Banerjee, A., & Bhadra, A. (2022). Time–activity budget of urban-adapted free-ranging dogs. Acta Ethologica, 25(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-021-00379-6

Boehm, U., Zou, Z., & Buck, L. B. (2005). Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction. Cell, 123(4), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.09.027

McGann, J. P. (2017). Poor human olfaction is a 19th-century myth. Science, 356(6338), eaam7263. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7263

Lledo, P.-M., Gheusi, G., & Vincent, J.-D. (2005). Information processing in the mammalian olfactory system. Physiological Reviews, 85(1), 281–317. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00008.2004

Rowe, T. B., Macrini, T. E., & Luo, Z.-X. (2011). Fossil evidence on origin of the mammalian brain. Science, 332(6032), 955–957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1203117

Shipley, M. T., & Ennis, M. (1996). Functional organization of olfactory system. Journal of Neurobiology, 30(1), 123–176. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4695(199605)30:1%3C123::AID-NEU11%3E3.0.CO;2-N

Theuerkauf, J., Kamler, J. F., & Jedrzejewski, W. (2003). Daily patterns and duration of wolf activity in the Białowieża Forest, Poland. Journal of Mammalogy, 84(1), 243–253. https://ibs.bialowieza.pl/publications/1396.pdf

Wooster, E., Wallach, A. D., & Ramp, D. (2019). The Wily and Courageous Red Fox: Behavioural analysis of a mesopredator at resource points shared by an apex predator. Animals, 9(11), 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110907

Featured image: Springer Spaniel, nose down, focused on a search.

Note: This article is a substantially revised and edited version of an earlier article from May 6, 2014, entitled Do You Like Canine Scent Detection? The revisions are extensive enough that the article deserves a new title and is therefore republished as new.

Nov 11 2014

Canine Maternal Behavior

Canine maternal behavior is more than just feeding the pups. It is also to teach them dog language (Illustration by Alice Rasmussen from “Dog Language” by Roger Abrantes).

Watching dog mothers take care of their pups continues to fascinate me, and the large populations of village dogs in Africa and Thailand, where I spent and spend a great deal of my time, provides me with plenty of opportunities to do it. Village dogs are domestic dogs, not wild dogs. Often classified as stray dogs by the inept, ignorant eye of the western tourist, these dogs perform an important task in their communities of humans and their domestic animals.

Maternal behavior is behavior shown by a mother toward her offspring. In most species, it is the mother that primarily takes care of the youngsters, and the dog is no exception. Natural selection has favored the evolution of this particular behavior of the females.

In wild canids, although it is mostly the female that takes care of the puppies, the father (also called the alpha male) and other adults do become interested in the feeding and raising of the puppies when they begin emerging from the den. In the studies my team did in the 80s, our dogs showed the same pattern in a domestic set-up.

Maternal behavior is, thus, almost identical in wild a canids and domestic dogs. Immediately after birth, the mother dries the puppies, keeps them warm, feeds them and licks them clean. The maternal behavior right after birth is controlled by hormonal processes and problems may occur if the female gives birth too early. On the other hand, pseudo-pregnancy causes females to undergo hormonal changes which may elicit maternal behavior in various degrees. Maternal behavior seems to be self-reinforcing. Studies show that the levels of dopamine increase in the nucleus accumbens (a region of the brain) when a female displays maternal behavior.

When the puppies become older, the mother begins to educate them. She gives them the first lessons in dog language about the time weaning begins. Growling, snarling and the various pacifying behaviors are inborn, but the puppies need to learn their function.

The canine mother has three main tasks: (1) to feed the puppies, first with her own milk, then by regurgitation, (2) to keep them clean and warm, especially when they are very young, and (3) to educate the puppies.

A good canine mother is patient and diligent. When the puppies grow, dog owners often misunderstand the mother’s apparently more violent educational methods. She may growl at them and even attack them, but she never harms them. Muzzle grabbing (see illustrations) is fairly common. Without the mother’s intervention, the puppies would never become capable social animals and would not be able to function properly in a pack (a group of wild dogs living together is in English called a pack). When the puppies are about 8-10 weeks old, the mother seems to lose some of her earlier interest in them. In normal circumstances, the rest of the pack, then, takes over the continuing education of the puppies, their social integration in the group (which probably mostly consists of relatives) and their protection.

Dog owners sometimes report problems, e.g. that the mother has no interest in her puppies, or is too violent towards them. These problems are mainly due to our selective breeding (we select for beauty and utility while nature selects for overall fitness, hereby included adequate maternal behavior) and to our lack of understanding of the mother’s needs during and after birth, which often result in the female showing stress, insecurity or aggressive behavior.

Maternal effect is the mother’s influence on her puppies. It can have such an impact on certain behavior patterns that it can be difficult to distinguish between maternal effect and the effect of genetics. For example, observations have shown that a female reacting too nervously or fearfully toward certain sounds may affect her puppies into developing sound phobias beyond what we would expect given the puppies’ specific genotype. The strong influence of the maternal effect on the behavior of her puppies is the main reason why it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assess the hereditary coefficient for particular traits.

Bottom-line: Do not breed females that you suspect will not show reliable maternal behavior. Do not disturb a female with her pups more than absolutely necessary. A good canine mother knows better than you what’s best for her pups.

As always, enjoy a peaceful day,

Vertebrates Share Ancient Neural Circuitry for Complex Social Behaviors, Biologists Find (thesciencebulletin.wordpress.com)
Muzzle Grab Behavior in Canids (dogs, wolf, behavior) 2012.04.25
Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense (aggression, behavior, biology, dogs, dominance, fear, genetics, hierarchy, submission, social, wolf) 2011.12.11
The Spectrum of Behavior (aggression, behavior, dominance, fear, submission) 2011.09.09

References

Abrantes, R. 1997. The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior. Wakan Tanka Publishers.
Abrantes, R. 1997. Dog Language. Wakan Tanka Publishers.
Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. 2001. Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. Scribner.
Darwin, C. 1872. The Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. John Murray (the original edition).
Fox, M. 1972. Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs, and Related Canids. Harper and Row.
Lopez, Barry H. (1978). Of Wolves and Men. J. M. Dent and Sons Limited.
Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Doubleday Publishing Co., New York.
Mech, L. David (1981). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press.
Mech, L. D. 1988. The arctic wolf: living with the pack. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minn.
Mech. L. D. and Boitani, L. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press.
Scott, J. P. and Fuller, J. L. 1998. Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. University of Chicago Press.
Zimen, E. 1975. Social dynamics of the wolf pack. In The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Edited by M. W. Fox. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. pp. 336-368.
Zimen, E. 1982. A wolf pack sociogram. In Wolves of the world. Edited by F. H. Harrington, and P. C. Paquet. Noyes Publishers, Park Ridge, NJ.

May 10 2014

Does Your Dog Show Allelomimetic Behavior?

Does your dog show allelomimetic behavior? I’m sure it does, but don’t worry, it’s not dangerous, except when it is, and yes, it is contagious. Confused? Keep reading.

Allelomimetic behavior is doing what others do. Some behaviors have a strong probability of influencing others to do the same. Animals in constant contact with one another will inevitably develop allelomimetic behavior.

Dogs exhibit various allelomimetic behaviors—walking, running, sitting, lying down, getting up, sleeping, barking, and howling—each of which has a strong tendency to stimulate others to do the same.

Social predators increase their hunting success when they hunt in unison. One individual setting after the prey is likely to trigger the same response in the whole group.

More often than we think, it is our own behavior that triggers our dog’s allelomimetic behavior (photo by SunVilla).

The wolf’s howl is allelomimetic, one more behavior our domestic dogs share with their wild cousins. Howling together functions as social bonding. When one wolf howls, the whole pack may join in, especially if a high-ranking wolf started it. I bet that if you go down on your knees, turn your head up, and howl (provided you are a half-decent howler), your dog will join you; then, it will attempt to show its team spirit by licking your face.

Sleeping and eating are examples of allelomimetic behavior. Dogs and cats tend to sleep and eat at the same time. Barking is also contagious. One barking dog can set the whole neighborhood’s dogs barking.

Synchronizing behavior may be a lifesaver. In prey animals like the deer, zebra, or wildebeest, one individual can trigger the whole herd to flee. This trait is so crucial for self-preservation that farm animals like sheep, cows, and horses still keep it. Grazing also occurs at the same time.

Running after a running child is more often an example of canine allelomimetic behavior than hunting or herding as many dog owners erroneously presume.

Allelomimetic behavior is not restricted to animals of the same species. Animals of different species that live together often exhibit allelomimetic behavior. Dogs can read body language and respond to certain behaviors of their owners without further instruction. An alerted owner triggers his dog’s alertness more often than not.

Puppies show allelomimetic behavior at about five weeks of age. It is an intrinsic part of your dog’s behavior to adjust to the behavior of its companions. Your behavior influences your dog’s behavior in many more instances than you realize.

At the neurological level, when we watch someone perform an action, our own motor system often “echoes” it—a process known as motor resonance. This effect is made possible by mirror neurons, brain cells that activate both when we do something and when we see another individual doing the same. Research suggests that dogs may share this ability: their tendency to move, look, or react in sync with humans may stem from similar neural mirroring processes (Lamontagne & Gaunet, 2024).

From an evolutionary and behavioral standpoint, because we have selected and bred our dogs to be highly sociable and socially promiscuous, they exhibit extended allelomimetic behavior, i.e., not only copying the behavior of their closest companions but also that of others. Next time you walk in the park and your dog runs after running children, you can casually comment, “Typical instance of allelomimetic behavior.” Not that it will solve any problem, if there is one, but you’ll be right, and I bet you will impress more than a few of your fellow park walkers.

__________________

References

Abrantes, R. (1997). Dog language: An encyclopedia of canine behavior. Wakan Tanka Publishers.

Lamontagne, A., & Gaunet, F. (2024). Behavioural synchronisation between dogs and humans: Unveiling interspecific motor resonance? Animals, 14(4), 548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040548

Scott, J. P., & Marston, M. V. (1950). Social facilitation and allelomimetic behavior in dogs. II. The effects of unfamiliarity. Behaviour, 2(3), 135–143. Retrieved from https://mouseion.jax.org/stfb1950_1959/19/

Vogel, H. H., Scott, J. P., & Marston, M. V. (1950). Social facilitation and allelomimetic behavior in dogs. I. Social facilitation in a non-competitive situation. Behaviour, 2(3), 121–134. Retrieved from https://mouseion.jax.org/stfb1950_1959/24/

__________________

Note: Careful ethological observation sometimes anticipates neurobehavioral discoveries by decades. I described canine allelomimetic behavior in my 1987 book Hundesprog (later published in English as Dog Language, 1997)—a phenomenon that would only gain neurobiological support 34 years later with the findings of Lamontagne and Gaunet (2024), which strongly suggest the potential existence of interspecific motor resonance.

May 1 2014

Can Two Training Methods Be Equally Good?

I receive many emails with questions about animal behavior. Most of them involve practical issues, but, now and then, someone poses a more complex question. Here is my answer to one of the latter, one I’d like to share with you because it addresses crucial issues in our understanding of animal behavior and training.

Dear ….,

Thanks for your comment, which allows me to clarify a few issues. By no means do I see animals as biological robots, nor do I regard the Skinnerian approach as the truth, the only truth, and nothing but the truth; quite the contrary. Please consider the following passages from “Mission SMAF—Bringing Scientific Precision Into Animal Training”.

“In fact, I suspect that [communication] even involves more than what science can describe with the intrinsic limitations of its key concepts and methods, no matter how stringent they are.

It seems to me, therefore, that our goal must not be to oppress or suppress emotions, but rather control them and use them advantageously. Emotional arousal proves to be necessary to learn and the right amount of emotional arousal even shows to increase the efficiency of learning processes.”

A very non-Skinnerian statement, I would say.

As to my own method to analyze learning processes in artificial set-ups (like in animal training), I write: “In a crude sense, SMAF is an oversimplification of complex processes […] certainly not an attempt to reduce complex mechanisms to a few formulas. In the end, [its] value depends solely on its successful application to solving practical problems; beyond that, it has no value.”

Operant conditioning (when we use it correctly) is an efficient model of behavior for animal training because we control the conditionals to some extent (as Pavlov explains in his original writings, not the subsequent translations). Whilst operant conditioning is adequate for analyzing behavior at a particular level, beyond that, it becomes too crude an instrument. To understand behavior in a broader sense, we must turn to evolutionary models and concepts—variation, selection, adaptation, fitness, function, evolutionary strategies, ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy), costs and benefits, and so forth. My approach to behavior is therefore a classical ethological one, in the tradition of von Frisch, Lorenz, and Tinbergen—firmly grounded in evolutionary biology and in philosophically coherent reasoning.

Greetings,

RAA

The core of the argument is reductionism, the view that we can reduce complex processes to the sum of their simpler parts. In a sense, all science is reductionistic. We attempt to explain complex processes with a few notions well organized in little boxes. That is a process that seems to suit our human brain particularly well.

However, we must bear in mind that our interpretations, independently of how good they are, are just our pictures of an elusive reality. They suit our particular umwelten,* but definitely not all of them. They explain parts of it from specific angles so we can make sense of it. Newton and Einstein—the classical example—are (probably) both right, each explaining reality at a different level.

There’s nothing wrong about being a reductionist if only we do not get greedy and attempt to explain far too much with far too little, as in, “That’s it, this is the way things are. Period.” Simplifying often gets us to the point that complicating and oversimplifying have both missed.

In animal training, one theory or method can be as good as another depending on its foundations, approaches, what it attempts to explain, and the practical goals it aims to serve. If both are based on reliable evidence, use well-defined terms, and are logically sound, there’s little to choose between one or the other.

If only animal trainers understood that, I believe we would forgo many senseless disputes. Then again, we can brag about being the most emotional creatures on this big blue marble of ours, can’t we?

___________

* Umwelt (plural umwelten) in ethology means the world as it is experienced by a particular organism.

___________

References

Abrantes, R. (2018). Mission SMAF—Bringing Scientific Precision In to Animal Training. Wanka Tanka Pub.

Lorenz, K. (1937). Über die Bildung des Instinktbegriffes. Naturwissenschaften, 25, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01492648

Павлов, И. П. (1926). Двадцатилетний опыт объективного изучения высшей нервной деятельности (поведения) животных. Ленинград: Научное химико-техническое издательство. (Pavlov, I. P. (1926). Twenty Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity (Behavior) of Animals. Leningrad: Scientific Chemical-Technical Publishing House.)

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Uexküll, J. von. (1934). Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Berlin: Julius Springer. (English translation: A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: With A Theory of Meaning, translated by Joseph D. O’Neil, University of Minnesota Press, 2010.)

Apr 23 2014

Laughter is the Shortest Distance Between Two People

“Laughter is the shortest distance between two people,” Victor Borge presumably once said.* As you have likely figured out by now, I enjoy discovering evidence that humans are not that different from other forms of life. We share many characteristics with the other living creatures with whom we share our planet. Today, I have one more example for you—laughter.

Laughing is an involuntary reaction in humans consisting of rhythmical contractions of the diaphragm and other parts of the respiratory system. External stimuli, like being tickled, mostly elicit it. We associate it primarily with joy, happiness, and relief, but fear, nervousness, and embarrassment may also cause it. Laughter depends on early learning and cultural factors (Davila-Ross & Palagi, 2022).

The study of humor and laughter is called gelotology (from the Greek gelos, γέλιο, meaning laughter).

Chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans display laughter-like behavior when wrestling, playing, or tickling. Their laughter consists of alternating inhalations and exhalations that sound to us like breathing and panting (Crepaldi et al., 2024; Ross et al., 2010; Winkler et al., 2025)

Rats display extended, high-frequency, ultrasonic vocalizations during play and when tickled. We can only hear these chirping sounds with proper equipment. They are also ticklish, as are we. Particular areas of their body are more sensitive than others. There is an association between laughter and pleasant feelings. Social bonding occurs with the human tickler, and the rats can even become conditioned to seek the tickling (Panksepp & Burgdorf, 2000).

A dog’s laughter sounds similar to a regular pant. A sonograph analysis of this panting behavior shows that the variation of the bursts of frequencies is comparable with the laughing sound. Playing recorded dog laughter to dogs in a shelter can contribute to promoting play, social behavior, and decreasing stress levels (Simonet et al., 2005).

“Laughter is the shortest distance between two people.” Maybe it is simply the shortest distance between any two living creatures.

Keep laughing, my friends!

__________

* Victor Borge is widely credited with this quote, although there is no direct evidence linking it to a specific book, performance, or interview.

Related Articles

The Biggest Difference Between Humans and Dogs

The Single Most Damaging Belief of Ours

We Talk Too Much and Say Too Little

Do Dogs Understand What We Say?

References

Crepaldi, F., Rocque, F., Dezecache, G. et al. Orangutans and chimpanzees produce morphologically varied laugh faces in response to the age and sex of their social partners. Sci Rep 14, 26921 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74089-x.

Davila-Ross, M. and Palagi, E. 2022. Laughter, play faces and mimicry in animals: evolution and social functions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B37720210177. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0177.

Panksepp, J., & Burgdorf, J. (2000). Laughing rats? Playful tickling arouses high-frequency ultrasonic chirping in young rodents. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(3), 551-572. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1069218.pdf.

Ross, MD, Owren, MJ, Zimmermann, E. The evolution of laughter in great apes and humans. Commun Integr Biol. 2010 Mar;3(2):191-4. doi: 10.4161/cib.3.2.10944. PMID: 20585520; PMCID: PMC2889984.

Simonet, P., Murphy, J., & Scaggs, M. (2005). Dog-laughter: Recorded playback reduces stress-related behaviors in shelter dogs. Animal Welfare, Purdue University Center for Animal Welfare Science. https://caninewelfare.centers.purdue.edu/resource/dog-laughter-recorded-playback-reduces-stress-related-aggression-in-shelter-dogs/.

Winkler, S.L., Laumer, I.B., Lyn, H. et al. Bonobos tend to behave optimistically after hearing laughter. Sci Rep 15, 20067 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-02594-8.

Apr 12 2014

Your Most Powerful Animal Training Tool

Roger Abrantes and wolf cub Silas in 1985.

Your most powerful animal training tool is yourself. The featured picture shows yours truly in 1985 with Silas, the wolf cub. Notice the whistle hanging around my neck. I used it to produce a sound as a conditioned positive reinforcer (yes, the precursor of the click sound from Karen Pryor’s clicker). Silas preferred, though, my personal verbal reinforcer (dygtig)* because I always associated it with friendly body language and facial expressions. Thus, ‘dygtig’ meant acceptance. For wolves, more sensitive to social situations than dogs, being accepted is the ultimate social reinforcer; for the cubs, it is vital.

These were the first observations leading me to suspect that verbal and mechanical conditioned positive reinforcers had different applications. Parts of the verbal reinforcer (the body language and facial expression) do not require conditioning. Therefore, I later coined the term semi-conditioned reinforcer.

I’ll say without hesitation that our most powerful animal training tool is ourselves. If we control ourselves, our body language, our facial expressions, and the little that we say, we’ll achieve what we pretend and more.

Interacting with someone is, after all, not merely conditioning a series of behaviors—it is creating a relationship.

* “Dygtig” [ˈdøgdi] is a Danish word that means “capable,” “skilled,” or “competent,” and can also mean “clever” depending on context. It is, apparently, a good sound as a reinforcer, as I discovered many years ago.

Featured image: Roger Abrantes in 1985 interacting with Silas, the wolf cub—creating a relationship.

Apr 9 2014

The Biggest Difference Between Humans and Dogs

The biggest difference between humans and dogs is not that we reason, and they don’t. To observe rational behavior, look to the dog. To see an emotional response, watch the owner.

Some animals, other than humans, do reason. They have well-developed brains and are goal-seeking. They acquire, store, retrieve, and process information. Additionally, research shows that other animals, besides humans, understand rules. In other words, they know that a series of events must happen in a particular sequence to produce a specific effect.

Animals of many species are capable of solving a wide range of problems that involve abstract reasoning. The problem is that most of our research projects into animal cognition either adopt a behaviorist approach—its conditioning methods nearly turning other species, except our own, into automatons—or focus on particular human characteristics, such as speaking and counting.

The standard depiction of the ladder of nature, on which the various species occupy successively higher levels, places humans at the top. However, species exhibit distinct cognitive processes, depending on how they have adapted to their different ecological niches.

That brings us back to Darwin—the difference between humans and other animals is “[…] one of degree and not of kind.” (1871 in “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.”)

Featured image: The biggest difference between them and us is not that we reason, and they don’t (by D. Myers).

References

de Waal, F. B. M. (2016). Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? W.W. Norton & Company.

Frederick R. News feature: The search for what sets humans apart. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jan 13;112(2):299-301. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423320112. PMID: 25587106; PMCID: PMC4299222.

Suddendorf, T. (2013). The gap: The science of what separates us from other animals. Basic Books/Hachette Book Group.

Zentall, T. R. (2023). Comparative Cognition Research Demonstrates the Similarity between Humans and Other Animals. Animals, 13(7), 1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071165.

Nov 2 2013

El último paseo

Traducido por Lua Gatchan (from the original in English The Final Walk).

El camino a casa desde el muelle es uno de los pequeños placeres de la vida. Normalmente es un paseo de 20 minutos, pero a menudo puedo tardar hasta una hora o incluso dos, ya que me paro a charlar con todo el mundo en el camino, con los comerciantes, con las personas que conozco de vista o incluso con desconocidos. Esta es la costumbre en mi pueblo en el sur de Tailandia, donde encuentras sonrisas y todo el mundo te habla.

Bombom was old and tired, ready for his final walk to the temple.

El clima es casi siempre caluroso y soleado, entre 29° y 38°, hoy hace exactamente 32° según mi equipo de buceo. Por supuesto hay lluvias durante la temporada de lluvias, pero sólo duran una hora o dos y todo se seca pronto, dejando una sensación de frescura y olor a tierra mojada en el aire. A veces llueve tanto que las calles se convierten en ríos pequeños, pero todo el mundo se lo toma con calma, con los pantalones arremangados; la vida continúa (literalmente) con una sonrisa.

Después de haber completado tres inmersiones, una de ellas con fuerte oleaje, como de costumbre me muero de hambre. En estos días, mi trabajo en Tailandia consiste en la gestión biológica del medio marino que, básicamente significa bucear, a veces con estudiantes, otras sin, hago fotos a los peces y a los corales que veo, y luego escribo un informe. Sí, ¡esto es lo que yo llamo un trabajo! Me paro en uno de esos extraordinarios vendedores ambulantes en la calle principal para comer algo. La comida en la calle es tan barata y tan buena que no vale la pena ir a casa y cocinar.

Buddhist Monk and Dog (image by John Lander).

Mi restaurante favorito (que se parece más a un garaje abierto) es una empresa familiar, al igual que la mayoría de los negocios en Tailandia. Los dueños viven allí. Tienen un televisor y una cama para los niños en la parte trasera, es decir, detrás de las cuatro mesas para los clientes. Todo está a la vista de todos. Claro, no quieren dejar a los niños solos en una habitación. Los niños (y los perros) son una parte inherente en la vida Tailandesa, los ves en todas partes. Se les permite hacer lo que quieran, pocas veces se les regaña o se les grita, y sorprendentemente son muy educados. Me desconcierta cómo manejan esto, sobre todo cuando pienso en algunos de nuestros mocosos en Occidente, tanto humanos como caninos. Todavía tengo que descubrir su secreto, pero supongo que tiene algo que ver con el hecho de que son parte de la vida cotidiana desde el día en que nacen; están perfectamente integrados sin ningunas construcciones ni zonas artificiales “para niños”. Lo mismo ocurre con los perros; son miembros como todos los demás, sin preocupaciones y sin ninguna atención especial, sin tratar a unos o a otros de una forma especial.

“Sawasdee kha khoon, Logel”, Phee Malí me saluda con una gran sonrisa cuando me ve.

Phee significa hermana mayor y Malí significa Jasmine, que es su nombre. Soy Logel porque los tailandeses siempre te llaman por tu nombre de pila. Los apellidos son un invento relativamente nuevo que se les impone por el Gobierno en respuesta al crecimiento de la población y una sociedad más moderna. La guía telefónica está ordenada por el nombre de pila. El Rey Rama VI introdujo los apellidos en 1920 y él, personalmente, inventó apellidos para unas 500 familias. Todos los tailandeses tienen apodos. ¡Te diriges a tus amigos por sus apodos y ni siquiera conoces su nombre real! Soy Logel porque la mayoría de los tailandeses no pueden pronunciar el sonido de la letra “r”, ni siquiera en su propio idioma y sorprendentemente tienen la “r” en el idioma Tailandés.

Thais often take the dogs to the local temple so they can die in peace, in the company of the monks, near Buddha.

“¿Estás bien? ¿Has visto algún pez hermoso hoy?” me pregunta Phee Malí en ‘Tenglish’ (inglés-tailandés, que es un lenguaje en sí mismo, encantador y adictivo). En poco tiempo y sin ni siquiera darte cuenta, empiezas a hablar Tenglish. Yo hablo una mezcla de Tailandés y Tenglish con los lugareños. A medida que mejora mi tailandés hablo menos Tenglish, pero el tailandés es difícil porque es una lengua tonal. El tono con el que se pronuncia una palabra cambia su significado, y a veces de una forma dramática. Hay palabras que siempre pronuncio mal y a los tailandeses les da un ataque de risa, ya sea porque estoy diciendo un disparate o digo algo mal. Les encanta cuando se trata de la segunda opción. Incluso me animan a decir una palabra que sé y que ellos saben que no puedo pronunciar bien sólo para divertirse. Pero esa diversión es sana y sin ningún ánimo de faltar el respeto. Por el contrario, me dan un trato preferencial porque hablo tailandés.

Transcribiré a continuación algunas de nuestras conversaciones en inglés, traducido directamente de palabras tailandesas, con el fin de dar a mis lectores una idea.

“Sí”, contesto. “He visto peces hermosos y corales. El Thale (mar) Andamar estaba muy bien.”

“Oh!, estás tan negro!” Exclama con el ceño fruncido y una sonrisa. “Negro” en realidad significa bronceado o quemado por el sol. A las mujeres tailandesas no les gusta estar morenas. A ellos les gusta el blanco, como suelen decir, y se preocupan cuando ven a alguien con lo que en Occidente llamamos un bronceado saludable y atractivo.

“You hung’y ‘ight, gwai teeaw moo pet mak ‘ight? Phee Malí me pregunta riendo. Ella sabe exactamente lo que tengo en mente; me encanta un plato de Gwai teeaw moo, caliente y picante, especialmente después de un día duro de trabajo. Es una sopa de fideos y carne de cerdo o pollo o camarones, con todo lo que puedas imaginar. Incluso lo sirven con un plato de vegetales frescos que cortas con los dedos y los metes en la sopa como prefieras. Lo mezclas todo tú mismo con chili seco, chili fresco, salsa de chili, salsa de pescado, soja, pimienta, sal y un poco de azúcar (sí, azúcar, pruébalo y verás por qué me encanta). Es delicioso y puedo asegurar que también es muy saludable.

Me como mi Gwai teeaw moo y disfruto de un té verde helado sin azúcar. El sol se pondrá dentro de una media hora; aquí siempre se pone a la misma hora, siete grados al norte del ecuador. No hay lluvia hoy. ¡Disfruto de la vida en el Paraíso!

“Thao THALE SA Baay dee Mai”. Los niños van corriendo a preguntarme sobre los peces y en especial sobre la tortuga marina, su favorita, y es una buena oportunidad para practicar mi tailandés. Me llaman Lung Logel (tío Roger), en deferencia por mi edad. Entonces llega el turno de decir hola a los perros, un idioma que sé, que no tiene ningún acento y se habla igual en todos los continentes.

The wai is the Thai greeting when you raise both hands together to your chin. It still strikes me as the most beautiful greeting I’ve ever seen.

Veo a Ae al otro lado de la calle (AE es un nombre divertido de un juego del escondite de Tailandia). La conozco a ella y a sus padres. Su padre trabaja en uno de los barcos que utilizo con regularidad en mis excursiones de buceo. A menudo le ayudo a atracar el barco cuando llegamos al muelle cuando no hace un clima perfecto y a veces tomamos una cerveza juntos después de haber asegurado el barco, descargarlo, etc. Ae está en cuclillas al lado de su perro, uno de esos perros de Tailandia que se parecen a todos los demás. Los perros de aldea en Tailandia son todos iguales, como si fueran de una raza particular, producto de una reproducción aleatoria a lo largo de los años. Yo los llamo “el perro por defecto”.

“¿Ae está triste, verdad?” Le pregunto a los niños.

“Oh, el perro de Ae está muy viejo. Mañana el padre de Ae llevará al perro al templo”, responde Chang Lek (su nombre es Pequeño Elefante).

Termino mi comida y voy a hablar con Ae, que todavía está en cuclillas junto a su perro, acariciándolo. Puedo ver que Bombom está viejo y cansado. Es un perro bueno y agradable. A menudo se le puede ver paseando por el pueblo tranquilamente por el vecindario. Él increíblemente siempre está muy polvoriento a pesar de que Ae y su madre lo bañan cuidadosamente y con frecuencia. Cuando me acerco a ellos, él a penas levanta la cabeza. Se muestra afable y resignado de sí mismo.

“Sawasdee khrap, Ae”.

“Sawasdee kha,” me responde la niña, y se apresura a mostrarme un wai para mi. El wai es el saludo tailandés, levantando ambas manos a la barbilla. Todavía me parece el saludo más hermoso que he visto nunca.

“Bombom es viejo, verdad?” le pregunto.

“Sí señor”.

“Bombom ha tenido una vida feliz. Tú eres una buena amiga de Bombom”.

“Sí señor”, dice suavemente.

“A Bombom le gustas mucho”, le digo quedándome sin palabras.

“Mamá y papá mañana llevarán a Bombom al templo”, responde ella, y veo que le cae una gran lágrima por su mejilla izquierda.

“Sí, lo sé”, le digo. Otra vez sin palabras, añado “Ae, voy a comprar un helado para que nos sentemos aquí comiendo helado y hablando con Bombom, ¿te gusta la idea?”

“Sí señor, muchísimas gracias señor”, dice ella, y se las arregla para regalarme una sonrisa encantadora. “A Bombom le gustan mucho los helados”, me dice la niña, y ahora sus ojos están llenos de lágrimas jóvenes, tristes.

En la cultura y creencia tailandesa, todos los seres que viven bajo el mismo sol merecen el mismo respeto. Las especies no importan. Ellos aman a sus mascotas y cuando llegan a la edad de morir, algunos tailandeses los llevan al templo local para que puedan morir en paz, en compañía de los monjes y cerca de Buda. Por eso siempre hay muchos perros alrededor de los templos, y a veces es un problema real. Los templos son pobres. Un monje posee sólo siete artículos. Los vecinos cocinan para ellos y para los perros por la mañana antes de ir a trabajar.

Sawasdee khrap,

ชีวิต ที่ด

La vida es maravillosa.

R—

Related articles

The Thai Rikki-Tikki-Tavi (children, dogs, cultures) 2012.07.09
Odie The Pekinese: Awaiting On Death Row (dogs, dog training) 2012.05.17
A Dog’s Self-Respect (dogs, reinforcement, training) 2012.03.31
Dogs And Children (animals, children, dogs) 2012.04.16
16 Things You Should Stop Doing In Order To Be Happy With Your Dog (animals, behavior, dogs) 2012.08.01
Buddhism in Thailand
Thai Cuisine
HM the King—Love, Care and Respect
The Meaning of the Lotus Flower in Buddhism

Mar 11 2013

I’m a citizen of the World

“I’m a citizen of the World,” I say, when asked where I come from—and I am, in mind and heart.

Woman saving dog from the flood (photo by Dave).

Diogenes, in about 412 BC, was probably the first to use the expression and express the very same sentiment. When asked where he came from, he replied: “I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)”. Socrates (469-399 BC) concurred: “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.” This was indeed a revolutionary thought, because at that time, social identity in Greece was either bound to the city-states, Athens and Sparta, or to the Greeks (the Hellenes). Perhaps it is just as revolutionary today.

Kaniyan Poongundran, the Tamil poet, wrote (at least 2000 years ago), “To us all towns are one, all men our kin.” Thomas Paine (English-American philosopher, 1737 – 1809), said, “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion.” Albert Einstein (1879-1955) thought of himself as a world citizen, “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”

I’ve travelled over most of our beautiful planet, seen mountains above the clouds with perennial snow tops, and oceans reaching far beyond the eye can see. I’ve lived in temperatures from 40º C below zero to 40º C above. I’ve eaten all kinds of weird and wonderful dishes prepared by humans and spent many a day and night enjoying the company of people with the most peculiar cultures and habits.

Child with cat and dog.

What’s my favorite place? I don’t have one. Everywhere I’ve been, I’ve discovered new pieces in the amazing puzzle of life. Everywhere I’ve been, from the most glamorous cities to the poorest, war-torn areas, I’ve met kind and gentle people. I’ve shared water with the Masai in the African desert and rice with the Chhetris in the Nepalese mountains. I felt a strong kinship with all of them: no country, no culture, no language, no divide—we were family, we were humans, we were sentient living beings.

My blogs are read all over the World. I have readers in places that you may never have heard of: Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Kyrgyzstan, Brunei, Réunion, Oman, to name just a few. I speak nine languages and understand at least sixteen, but write in English, as it’s the language I feel most comfortable with. I write about matters concerning my profession (biology and ethology) and also about life. My goal is to share the knowledge and experience I’ve been so fortunate to acquire during my life with all those who wish to receive it. My blog site, on which I share blogs, articles and books, is free to everyone.

I write in English, which is fast becoming a lingua franca, understood and spoken by most, allowing my blogs to reach far and wide. However, there are many people who do not speak or understand English and, therefore, from time to time, I publish a translation of one of my blogs in a language other than English. This is the least I can do for my loyal, non-native, English speaking readers from around the world.

Boy and dog sleeping on the street (photo by Gemunu Amarasinghe).

As my blog site is free of charge, I have to keep costs as low as possible. I therefore use the WordPress platform, which is efficient, but has its limitations, one of which is that subscribers cannot be categorized by their native language; which means that all subscribers receive notifications of all my blogs whatever the language. This shouldn’t really be a problem, as, if you receive a blog in a language you don’t understand, you can either click the blue link that takes you directly to the English original, or you can simply discard the notification email. However, this seems to upset some native English speakers to the point where they send me messages asking me to remove them from the subscribers list unless they only receive blogs in English.

Unfortunately, that’s impossible if my blog is to remain free of charge because WordPress doesn’t provide that option. Such readers need to decide whether the inconvenience of receiving a message about a blog entry in a language you can’t read outweighs the benefits of having free access to all the other stuff you can. As of today, I’ve published 49 blogs (including several articles and six small books) of which only eight are in languages other than English. You can do your calculations and decide whether you get enough for your money (the money you don’t pay, that is).

As long as I receive messages like the one below, which overwhelms me, makes my heart beat a little faster and my eyes well up, I’ll continue to offer the sporadic translation.

“Teacher sir Roger I’m not good English I no computer Read from computer shop read your article from dictionary info I like so much I have many dog other animal too I very much appreciate your help very much You long life healthy”

The only regret I have is not being able to write in more languages than I do. Until then, I’ll continue writing in as many languages as I can—and yes, I’m a citizen of the World!

Life is great!

R—

Note: According to the CIA World Fact Book, only 5.6 % of the world’s total population speaks English as a primary language. That number doubles when people who speak English as a second or third language are counted. By conservative estimates, that means that well over four-fifths of the world’s population does not speak English.

Related articles

Five Reasons Parents Should Travel With Their Kids (bootsnall.com)
Universal Brothers and Sisters, Sovereign Citizens of the World, and Members of Team Earth (aquariusparadigm.com)
Why learn languages? (vistawide.com/languages)
The Neural Advantage of Speaking 2 Languages (scientificamerican.com)
Benefits of Speaking a Foreign Language (e1-network.com)

Mar 8 2013

Les 20 principes que tous les entraîneurs d’animaux doivent connaître

Traduit par Marie-France Langlois (from the original in English “The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know“).

En supplément : « Seize principes à l’intention des entraîneurs expérimentés » et « Les pratiques exemplaires »

“The 20 Principles All Animals Trainers Must Know”

C’est la première fois qu’un de mes livres est publié en français et c’est avec grand plaisir que j’offre à mes lecteurs francophones un livre dans leur propre langue.

Ce petit livre de seulement 51 pages comprend des définitions, des explications et des exemples des processus impliqués dans l’entraînement des animaux. Aux « 20 principes fondamentaux » j’ai ajouté un supplément de 16 principes à l’intention des entraîneurs expérimentés. Bien sûr l’apprentissage chez les animaux ne se réduit pas à ces 36 principes, mais en pratique l’entraîneur qui les comprend et peut les appliquer correctement, réussira sans doute.

Comme toujours, je vais corriger et améliorer ce livre dès que je découvre des erreurs ou de meilleures façons d’expression. Donc, je vous recommande de consulter cette page régulièrement.

Première édition.

J’espère que vous passerez un bon moment avec votre lecture.

R—

PS—Ce livre est gratuit pour votre lecture online sur votre ordinateur. S’il vous plaît, ne me demandez pas d’ajouter la possibilité d’impression; j’aime des livres, mais j’aime aussi bien les arbres de notre planète. Nous prévoyons des versions pour iPad et Kindle bientôt.

Cliquez sur le « icône mode plein écran » pour une meilleure lisibilité . Zoom avant et arrière comme vous le souhaitez.

Sorry, this book is no longer available here. Please, visit Ethology Institute’s Online Bookstore.

Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)

Mar 5 2013

Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer

Traduzido pelo autor e Nor Abrantes (from the original in English “The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know“).

com os suplementos “Mais 16 princípios para o treinador avançado” e “Melhor prática”

“Os 20 princípios que todos os treinadores de animais devem conhecer”

É a primeira vez que um livro meu, se bem que pequeno, aparece traduzido em português. É para mim razão de contentamento poder oferecer ao meus leitores um livro na língua dos meus ancestrais.

Este livro é um livro de ciência; não é um livro de moral ou ética. Tudo o que encontrará aqui não reflete uma atitude moral, uma escola de pensamento, nem a minha opinião pessoal. Eu dou-lhe o que a ciência descobriu e sabe sobre a aprendizagem animal tão objetivamente como possível. Cabe a si decidir se intende usar um processo ou outro, formar a sua própria “melhor prática,” resolver os seus conflitos éticos e desenvolver o seu estilo pessoal.

Como sempre, irei corrigir e melhorar este livro assim que descobrir erros ou melhores modos de expressão. Aconselho-o, portanto, a voltar regularmente a esta página.

Esta é a primeira edição.

Espero que passe umas boas horas com a sua leitura.

R—

PS—Este livro é grátis para ler no seu computador online. Por favor, não me peça para adicionar a possibilidade de o imprimir; por muito que goste de livros, também gosto muito das árvores do nosso planeta. Estamos a planear versões para iPad e Kindle para breve.

Clique o “full-screen view icon” para uma melhor leitura. Zoom in and out como deseja.

Sorry, this book is no longer available here. Please, visit Ethology Institute’s Online Bookstore.

The 20 Principles All Animal Trainers Must Know (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)

Mar 2 2013

Dominancia – dar sentido a lo que no lo tiene!

Traducido por Natalia Cuadrado y Isabel Ferrer (from the original in English Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense).

El tema de la dominancia se nos ha ido de las manos. Solo hay una cosa más absurda e inútil que molestarse en demostrar que la dominancia existe, y es el intento de demostrar que la dominancia no existe. Yo voy a cometer el primero de estos actos inútiles.

Las posibles combinaciones de comportamentos agresivos, temerosos, dominates y sumisos en los caninos sociales (de “Dog Langauge” de Roger Abrantes, ilustración protegida por copyright de Alice Rasmussen).

Dominancia, en el lenguaje corriente, significa «poder e influencia sobre otros». Quiere decir supremacía, superioridad, predominancia, dominio, poder, autoridad, mando, control. Tiene tantos significados y connotaciones que es difícil saber cómo utilizar la palabra en tanto término científico preciso aplicado a las ciencias del comportamiento. Además, los científicos que la utilizan (así como los que la repudian) no se han esforzado demasiado por definirla de una manera exacta, lo que ha contribuido a la actual confusión, discusiones sin sentido, desacuerdos y afirmaciones absurdas.

Es mi intención poner remedio a esto, primero demostrando que la dominancia sí existe, y después estableciendo que hace referencia a un mismo tipo de comportamiento, independientemente de la especie en cuestión. A continuación, daré una definición precisa, pragmática y verificable del término, que será compatible con la teoría de la evolución y nuestros conocimientos sobre la biología. Finalmente, expondré que, si bien es cierto que una buena relación (beneficiosa y estable) no se fundamenta en continuas demostraciones de dominancia/sumisión por parte de los mismos individuos ante los mismos individuos, eso tampoco implica que la dominancia no exista en perros (y en cualquier otra especie). Negar la existencia de la dominancia en perros se ha convertido en una argumentación muy difundida para afirmar que no debemos construir una relación con nuestros perros basada en la dominancia.

Es absurdo sostener que la dominancia no existe cuando tenemos tantas palabras que describen todo lo relacionado con ella. Si no existiera, no tendríamos siquiera una palabra que hiciera referencia a ella. El hecho de que el término exista quiere decir que la hemos visto a nuestro alrededor. Podemos afirmar que la hemos observado y que el término (1) hace referencia únicamente a determinadas relaciones humanas, o que (2) se refiere a determinadas relaciones tanto entre humanos como entre otras especies animales. La segunda opción parece más atractiva, considerando el hecho de que es muy improbable que una condición en particular solo se dé en una única especie. Eso entraría en conflicto con todo lo que sabemos acerca del parentesco entre las especies y su evolución.

Sin embargo, no es descabellado sostener que el término no es aplicable para describir el comportamiento de determinadas especies. Al contrario, dos especies que han evolucionado desde un antepasado común hace billones de años han desarrollado características propias y difieren del antepasado común y entre ellas. De igual modo, especies muy cercanas, que se separaron hace sólo unos miles de años de un antepasado común, pueden presentar características similares o iguales entre ellas y respecto al antepasado común. Algunas especies comparten muchos atributos en común relativos al fenotipo, el genotipo y/o la conducta; otras comparten menos, y otras ninguno. Todo depende de su antepasado común y de su adaptación al entorno.

Los seres humanos y los chimpancés (Homo sapiens y Pan troglodytes) se han separado de su antepasado común hace seis millones de años, de manera que podemos esperar que existan más diferencias entre ellos que entre los perros y los lobos (Canis lupus y Canis lupus familiaris), que se separaron de su antepasado común hace sólo unos 15-20 mil años (y de ninguna manera hace más de 100.000 años). Hay más diferencias en el ADN del hombre y el chimpancé que en el del perro y el lobo (que son prácticamente idénticos salvo por unas pocas mutaciones). Los hombres no pueden reproducirse con chimpancés, mientras que los lobos y los perros pueden tener descendencia fértil. Los hombres y los chimpancés son dos especies completamente diferentes. Los lobos y los perros son dos subespecies de la misma especie.

Teniendo en cuenta estos hechos, podemos esperar que los lobos y los perros compartan un gran número de similitudes, cosa que así es, no solo físicas sino también conductuales. Cualquier lego en la materia lo afirmaría. Sus similitudes a uno u otro nivel son lo que les permite cruzarse entre sí, producir descendencia fértil y comunicarse. Nadie ha cuestionado que los lobos y los perros presentan un amplio repertorio de comportamientos de comunicación en común, y con toda la razón, ya que múltiples estudios confirman que son capaces de comunicarse perfectamente. Sus expresiones faciales y posturas corporales son muy parecidas (exceptuando ciertas razas de perros), con pequeñas diferencias que son menores entre sí que las diferencias culturales que podemos encontrar entre poblaciones de seres humanos geográficamente alejadas.

En una manada estable, los lobos suelen presentar una conducta dominante y sumisa y rara vez una conducta temerosa y agresiva.

Si los lobos y los perros pueden comunicarse, podemos concluir que los elementos básicos y determinantes de su lenguaje deben ser los mismos. Esto quiere decir que aunque han evolucionado en ambientes aparentemente diferentes, mantienen los elementos más anclados de sus características genotípicas. Esto puede ser por tres motivos: (1) los genotipos compartidos son vitales para el organismo, (2) los entornos en que viven al fin y al cabo no son tan diferentes, (3) la evolución necesita más tiempo y condiciones más selectivas (debido a que actúa sobre los fenotipos) antes de que los genotipos cambien de manera radical. La primera razón significa que hay más maneras de no sobrevivir que de sobrevivir, o en otras palabras, que la evolución necesita tiempo para desarrollar formas de vida diferentes y viables; la segunda razón significa que aunque los lobos y los perros (mascotas) viven actualmente en entornos muy diferentes, el fenómeno es todavía reciente. Solo hace unos cien años que los perros están plenamente humanizados. Hasta entonces, eran nuestros compañeros, nuestros animales domésticos, pero todavía tenían un elevado grado de libertad y los factores selectivos exitosos eran básicamente los mismos de siempre. No eran todavía mascotas y la cría no estaba totalmente (o casi totalmente) controlada por la selección humana. La tercera razón significa que quizás un día (de aquí a un millón de años o más), tendremos dos especies totalmente diferentes, perros y lobos. Para entonces, no podrán cruzarse, no producirán descendencia fértil y presentarán características completamente diferentes. Habrán cambiado el nombre, a quizá llamarse Canis civicus o Canis homunculus. ¡Sin embargo, todavía no hemos llegado a eso!

Según las últimas tendencias, el «comportamiento dominante» no existe en el perro, lo que plantea algunos problemas serios. Hay dos maneras de defender esta idea. Una es desechar el concepto «comportamiento dominante» por completo, lo que es absurdo, por las razones que hemos visto antes: el término existe, sabemos más o menos lo que significa y podemos utilizarlo en una conversación con cierto sentido. Por lo tanto, debe referirse a un tipo de comportamiento que hemos observado. Otra argumentación es afirmar que los lobos y los perros son completamente diferentes y, por lo tanto, incluso aunque podamos aplicar el término para explicar el comportamiento del lobo, no podemos utilizarlo para describir el comportamiento del perro. Si fueran completamente diferentes, la argumentación sería válida, pero no lo son, como ya hemos visto. Por el contrario, son muy parecidos.

Una tercera alternativa es construir una teoría totalmente nueva para explicar cómo dos especies tan cercanas como el lobo y el perro (de hecho, subespecies) pueden haber desarrollado en un periodo de tiempo tan breve (miles de años) tantas características radicalmente distintas en un aspecto, pero no en otros. Esto nos llevaría a llevar a cabo una extensa revisión de todos nuestros conocimientos biológicos, lo que tendría implicaciones que van más allá de los lobos y los perros, y ésa es una alternativa que considero poco realista.

Híbrido de perro-lobo (Imagen via Wikipedia).

Una aproximación mucho más atractiva, en mi opinión, es analizar los conceptos que utilizamos y definirlos bien. Así podremos emplearlos con más sentido cuando abordemos las diferentes especies, sin incurrir en incompatibilidades con el mundo científico.

Tener una definición apropiada de «comportamiento dominante» es importante, porque el comportamiento que implica es vital para la supervivencia del individuo, como veremos.

Me parece que es un enfoque pobre desechar la existencia de hechos que están detrás de un término sólo porque el término está mal definido, por no decir que es políticamente incorrecto (lo que significa que no se ajusta a nuestros objetivos inmediatos). El comportamiento dominante existe, simplemente está mal definido (cuando se define). Muchas discusiones relacionadas con este tema no tienen sentido porque ninguna de las partes sabe exactamente de qué habla la otra. Sin embargo, no es necesario tirarlo todo por la borda. Por lo tanto, propongo definiciones precisas tanto del comportamiento dominante como del resto de términos que necesitamos para entenderlo: qué es, qué no es, cómo ha evolucionado y cómo funciona.

El comportamiento dominante es un comportamiento cuantitativo y cuantificable manifestado por un individuo con el objetivo de conseguir o conservar el acceso temporal a un recurso en particular, en una situación en concreto, ante un oponente concreto, sin que ninguna de las partes resulte herida. Si cualquiera de las partes resulta herida, se trata de un comportamiento agresivo, no dominante. Sus características cuantitativas varían desde un ligero aplomo hasta una clara afirmación de la autoridad.

El comportamiento dominante es contextual, individual y está relacionado con los recursos. Un individuo que manifiesta un comportamiento dominante en una situación específica no necesariamente lo va a mostrar en otra ocasión ante otro individuo, o ante el mismo individuo en una situación distinta.

Los recursos son lo que los organismos perciben como necesidades vitales; por ejemplo, la comida, una pareja reproductiva, o parte del territorio. La percepción de lo que un animal puede considerar un recurso depende de la especie y el individuo.

La agresividad (el comportamiento agresivo) es el comportamiento encaminado a eliminar la competencia, mientras que la dominancia, o la agresividad social, es un comportamiento dirigido a eliminar la competencia de un compañero.

Los compañeros son dos o más animales que conviven estrechamente y dependen el uno del otro para su supervivencia. Los extraños son dos o más animales que no conviven estrechamente y no dependen el uno del otro para sobrevivir.

El comportamiento dominante es especialmente importante para animales sociales que necesitan cohabitar y cooperar para sobrevivir. Por lo tanto, se desarrolló una estrategia social con la función de tratar la competencia entre compañeros con unas desventajas mínimas.

Los animales manifiestan comportamientos dominantes con varias señales: visuales, auditivas, olfativas y/o táctiles.

Mientras que el miedo (una conducta temerosa) es un comportamiento dirigido a eliminar una amenaza inminente, el comportamiento de sumisión, o el miedo social, es un comportamiento orientado a eliminar una amenaza social de un compañero; es decir, la pérdida temporal de un recurso sin que nadie se haga daño.

Una amenaza es todo aquello que puede herir, provocar dolor o lesiones, o disminuir las posibilidades de un individuo de sobrevivir. Una amenaza social es cualquier cosa que pueda producir la pérdida temporal de un recurso y que provoque un comportamiento de sumisión o una huida sin que el individuo sumiso termine lesionado.

Los animales manifiestan el comportamiento de sumisión mediante diferentes señales: visuales, auditivas, olfativas y/o táctiles.

Un comportamiento dominante o sumiso persistente de los mismos individuos puede dar lugar o no a una jerarquía temporal con determinadas configuraciones según la especie, la organización social y las circunstancias del entorno. En los grupos estables que ocupan un territorio definido, las jerarquías temporales se desarrollan más fácilmente. En los grupos inestables, en condiciones del entorno cambiantes, o en territorios no definidos o no establecidos, las jerarquías no se desarrollan. Las jerarquías, o más bien las estrategias implicadas, son Estrategias Estables Evolutivas (EEE), que son siempre ligeramente inestables, que oscilan constantemente alrededor de un valor óptimo según el número de individuos de cada grupo y las estrategias individuales que cada uno adopta en un momento determinado, Las jerarquías no son necesariamente lineales, aunque en grupos pequeños y con el tiempo, las jerarquías no lineales parecen tender a ser más lineales.

Algunos individuos tienden a mostrar comportamientos dominantes y otros a mostrar comportamientos sumisos. Eso puede depender de su configuración genética, su aprendizaje a una edad temprana, su historial, etc. Eso no significa que lo determine un solo factor, sino que se trata de una compleja mezcla. Llamémoslo tendencia natural, lo que no quiere decir que no sea modificable. Es un hecho que algunos individuos son más autoritarios que otros, mientras que otros son más condescendientes, por muchas razones. No estamos diciendo que esto sea bueno o malo, simplemente exponemos un hecho; que sea bueno o malo —no en un sentido moral— más bien significa que es más o menos ventajoso según el contexto. En los encuentros cara a cara, en condiciones de igualdad, hay más probabilidades de que los individuos adopten la estrategia con la que se encuentran más cómodos, manteniendo por lo tanto su historial de básicamente dominantes o básicamente sumisos.

Cuando están en un grupo de mayor tamaño, tendrán la misma tendencia de desempeñar los roles con los que se sienten más cómodos. Esto puede cambiar, sin embargo, debido a la estructura formada accidentalmente del grupo. Imagina un grupo con varios individuos con una mayor tendencia a tener comportamientos sumisos que dominantes, y con sólo unos pocos individuos con la tendencia opuesta. En una situación así, un individuo por naturaleza sumiso tendrá más posibilidades de acceder a un recurso y tener éxito mostrando un comportamiento más dominante. El éxito genera éxito, y poco a poco, este individuo, que en otras condiciones sería predominantemente sumiso, se encuentra con que es principalmente dominante. Si la situación permite al individuo cambiar su estrategia preferente, los demás también tendrán las mismas oportunidades. El número de individuos dominantes aumentará, pero el número de individuos dominantes que puede sostener un grupo no es ilimitado, porque en un momento dado será más ventajoso asumir el papel de sumiso, según los costes y los beneficios.

Por lo tanto, el número de individuos dominantes y sumisos no sólo depende de la tendencia natural del individuo, sino también de la configuración de los grupos y sus características. Si compensa tener un papel dominante o sumiso en el fondo es algo que depende de los costes y beneficios y del número de individuos que adoptan una estrategia en particular.

Entender las relaciones entre comportamientos dominantes y sumisos como una EEE (Estrategia Estable Evolutiva) abre perspectivas de lo más emocionantes, que pueden ayudar a explicar los comportamientos adoptados por un individuo determinado en un momento dado. Un individuo sumiso aprenderá a desempeñar el papel de sumiso ante otros individuos más dominantes y el de dominante ante otros más sumisos. Eso significa que ningún individuo es en principio siempre dominante o siempre sumiso; todo depende del contrario y, por supuesto, del valor de los beneficios potenciales y los costes estimados.

Por consiguiente, las jerarquías (cuando existen) siempre serán ligeramente inestables según las estrategias adoptadas por los individuos que forman el grupo. Las jerarquías no son necesariamente lineales y sólo se dan en pequeños grupos o subgrupos.

En opinión de este autor, el error que hemos cometido hasta ahora es considerar la dominancia y la sumisión como algo más o menos estático. No hemos tenido en cuenta que estas características, como los fenotipos y todos los demás rasgos, están constantemente bajo el escrutinio y la presión de la selección natural. Son adaptativas, muy variables y altamente cuantitativas y cuantificables.

Como tal, la dominancia y la sumisión son rasgos dinámicos que dependen de diversas variables, visión que es compatible con el desarrollo del comportamiento a un nivel individual, las funciones genéticas, la influencia del aprendizaje y, cómo no, la teoría de la evolución.

La dominancia y la sumisión son mecanismos maravillosos desde un punto de vista evolutivo. Es lo que permite a los animales (sociales) vivir juntos, sobrevivir hasta que se hayan reproducido y transmitir sus genes (dominantes y sumisos) a la siguiente generación. Sin estos mecanismos, no tendríamos animales sociales como los seres humanos, los chimpancés, los lobos y los perros, entre muchos otros.

Si un animal resolviera todos los conflictos intergrupales con comportamientos agresivos y temerosos, estaría agotado cuando se viera obligado a buscar la comida, una pareja reproductiva, un lugar seguro para descansar o cuidar de su progenie (y todo ello disminuiría las oportunidades de sobrevivir tanto de él como de sus genes). Por consiguiente, se originó y desarrolló la estrategia del compañero y el extraño. Es imposible luchar contra todos todo el tiempo, de manera que con los compañeros se utilizan mecanismos que consumen poca energía en las confrontaciones.

Los comportamientos dominantes y sumisos controlan asimismo la densidad de población, ya que dependen del reconocimiento individual. El número de reconocimientos individuales que es capaz de realizar un animal debe tener un límite. Si este limite es muy alto, el reconocimiento se vuelve ineficiente, inactivando la estrategia compañero/extraño; en ese caso, las expresiones de miedo/agresividad sustituirán a los comportamientos de sumisión/dominancia.

La estrategia de sumisión es sabia. En lugar de enzarzarse en vano en una lucha desesperada, puede resultar mucho más provechoso esperar. Recurriendo a un comportamiento pacifico y sumiso, los subordinados a menudo pueden seguir los pasos de los dominantes y aprovechar oportunidades que les dan acceso a recursos vitales. Mostrando sumisión, gozan además de las ventajas de pertenecer a un grupo, en especial la defensa ante los rivales.

Las jerarquías funcionan porque el subordinado normalmente se aparta, mostrando un típico comportamiento apaciguador, sin signos aparentes de miedo. Por lo tanto, el dominante puede sencillamente desplazar al sumiso cuando está comiendo o cuando desea un espacio. Las jerarquías en la naturaleza a menudo son muy sutiles, difíciles de descubrir por el observador. El motivo de esta sutileza es la razón de ser de la propia dominancia-sumisión: el animal subordinado suele evitar los encontronazos y al dominante tampoco le entusiasman las escaramuzas.

Pelear implica cierto riesgo y puede dar lugar a graves lesiones, o incluso a la muerte. La evolución, por consiguiente, tiende a favorecer y desarrollar mecanismos que limitan la intensidad de los comportamientos agresivos. Muchas especies tienen claras señales que expresan la aceptación de la derrota, lo que pone fin a las peleas antes de que se produzcan lesiones.

Aprender a reconocer las señales-estímulos es la tarea más importante para las crías nada más nacer. Les salva la vida. La lección más importante que aprende un joven social después de aprender las señales–estímulos fundamentales para mantenerse con vida es la capacidad de transigir. Mantiene la salud de la vida social del grupo. La selección natural lo ha demostrado, favoreciendo a los individuos que han desarrollado comportamientos que les permiten permanecer juntos. Otros animales, los depredadores solitarios, no necesitan estos rasgos sociales. Estos organismos encuentran otras maneras de mantener su metabolismo y reproducción.

Aprender a ser social significa aprender a transigir. Los animales sociales pasan mucho tiempo juntos y los conflictos son inevitables. Tiene su lógica que desarrollen mecanismos con los que responder a las hostilidades. Limitar el comportamiento de agresividad y miedo mediante la inhibición y la ritualización sólo es parcialmente seguro. Cuanto más social es el animal, más obligatorios son los mecanismos eficaces. La agresión inhibida sigue siendo una agresión; es como jugar con fuego un día de viento. Resulta eficaz para animales menos sociales o menos agresivos, pero los animales muy sociales y más agresivos necesitan otros mecanismos.

A largo plazo, seria muy peligroso y agotador estar constantemente recurriendo a la agresión y el miedo para resolver problemas triviales. Los animales presentan síntomas de estrés patológico después de un tiempo en que se sienten constantemente amenazados o necesitan atacar constantemente a otros. Esto significa que los depredadores sociales necesitan otros mecanismos aparte de la agresividad y el miedo para resolver animosidades sociales. Tengo la teoría de que los animales sociales, a través de la ontogenia de la agresión y el miedo, desarrollan otros dos comportamientos sociales igual de importantes. Mientras que una agresión significa: «lárgate, muérete, no vuelvas a molestarme», una agresión social significa: «lárgate, pero no demasiado lejos, ni demasiado tiempo». Igualmente, el miedo social dice: «No te molestaré si no me haces daño», mientras que el miedo existencial no permite transigir en nada: «o tú o yo».

La diferencia significativa entre los dos tipos de comportamientos agresivos parece ser la función. La agresión se emplea para tratar con los extraños, y la agresión social se emplea para tratar con los compañeros. En cambio, el miedo y el miedo social son tanto para el trato con los extraños como para el trato con los compañeros. Éstas son diferencias cualitativas que justifican la creación de nuevos términos; de allí que se hable de dominancia y sumisión.

¿Qué significado tiene esto en nuestra manera de entender a nuestros perros y nuestra relación con ellos?

Significa que todos nosotros mostramos comportamientos dominantes (seguridad en uno mismo, afirmación de la autoridad, firmeza, contundencia) y sumisos (inseguridad, aceptación, concesión, capitulación), según diversos factores, por ejemplo: estado de ánimo, posición social, recursos, salud, el oponente en cuestión, y eso se da tanto entre los seres humanos como entre los perros (y los lobos, por supuesto). Esto no tiene nada de malo, excepto cuando presentamos un comportamiento dominante en situaciones en que sería más ventajoso presentar un comportamiento sumiso, y viceversa. A veces podemos ser más dominantes o sumisos, y otras veces menos. Se trata de comportamientos muy cuantitativos y cuantificables, con muchas variantes. No hay una única estrategia correcta. Todo dependerá de la flexibilidad y la estrategia adoptada por los demás.

Por supuesto, nosotros no construimos las relaciones estables y beneficiosas a largo plazo basándolas en los comportamientos dominantes o sumisos. Éstos son comportamientos necesarios para resolver los inevitables conflictos sociales. Construimos las relaciones basándolas en la necesidad de compañía –tanto nosotros como los perros (y los lobos, por supuesto)– para resolver problemas comunes relacionados con la supervivencia y preferentemente con un nivel aceptable de confort. No construimos las relaciones basándolas en las jerarquías, pero éstas existen y desempeñan un papel importante en determinadas circunstancias –tanto para los seres humanos como para los perros (y para los lobos, por supuesto)-, a veces más, a veces menos, a veces nada.

Construimos nuestra (buena) relación particular con nuestros perros basándola en el compañerismo. Los necesitamos porque nos dan una sensación de logro que no parece que consigamos en otra parte. Ellos nos necesitan porque el mundo esta superpoblado, los recursos son limitados y como dueños les proporcionamos comida, protección, cuidados, un lugar seguro y compañía (son animales sociales). ¡Es muy duro ser un perrito y estar solo en este mundo tan grande! A veces, en esta relación, una de las partes recurre a un comportamiento dominante o sumiso y eso no tiene nada de malo siempre y cuando las dos partes no exhiban el mismo comportamiento a la vez. Si ambos muestran comportamiento dominante o sumiso, tienen un problema: habrá un conflicto que se resolverá la mayor parte de las veces sin lesiones (eso es lo maravilloso de la dominancia y la sumisión), o uno de los dos tendrá que dejarse de tonterías e imponer su buen juicio.

Una buena relación con nuestros perros no requiere ningún mecanismo en particular ni misterioso. Ocurre básicamente lo mismo con todas las buenas relaciones, teniendo en cuenta las características especificas de la especie y los individuos implicados. No necesitamos nuevos términos. No necesitamos nuevas teorías para explicarlo. No somos, al fin y al cabo, tan especiales, y tampoco lo son nuestros perros. Estamos todos construidos a partir del mismo concepto y con los mismos ingredientes básicos. Sólo necesitamos buenas definiciones y un enfoque menos emocional y más racional. Utiliza tu corazón para disfrutar de tu perro (y de tu vida) y tu razón para explicarlo (si lo necesitas), y no al revés. Si no te gustan mis definiciones, crea otras que sean mejores (con más ventajas y menos desventajas), pero no malgastes tu tiempo (ni el de nadie) con discusiones sin sentido y reacciones viscerales. La vida es preciosa y cada momento malgastado es un bocado menos del pastel que has devorado sin siquiera darte cuenta.

Así es como yo lo veo y me parece hermoso: ¡que disfrutes de tu pastel!

R—

Related articles

References

Abrantes, R. 1997. The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior. Wakan Tanka Publishers.
Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. 2001. Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. Scribner.
Creel, S., and Creel, N. M. 1996. Rank and reproduction in cooperatively breeding African wild dogs: behavioral and endocrine correlates. Behav. Ecol. 8:298-306.
Darwin, C. 1872. The Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. John Murray (the original edition).
Estes, R. D., and Goddard, J. 1967. Prey selection and hunting behavior of the African wild dog. J. Wildl. Manage. 31:52-70.
Eaton, B. 2011. Dominance in Dogs—Fact or Fiction? Dogwise Publishing.
Fentress, J. C., Ryon, J., McLeod, P. J., and Havkin, G. Z. 1987. A multi- dimensional approach to agonistic behavior in wolves. In Man and wolf: advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research. Edited by H. Frank. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Boston.
Fox, M. W. 1971. Socio-ecological implications of individual differences in wolf litters: a developmental and evolutionary perspective. Behaviour, 41:298-313.
Fox, M. 1972. Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs, and Related Canids. Harper and Row.
Lockwood, R. 1979. Dominance in wolves–useful construct or bad habit. In Symposium on the Behavior and Ecology of Wolves. Edited by E. Klinghammer.
Lopez, Barry H. (1978). Of Wolves and Men. J. M. Dent and Sons Limited.
Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Doubleday Publishing Co., New York.
Mech, L. David (1981). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press.
Mech, L. D. 1988. The arctic wolf: living with the pack. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minn.
Mech, L. D., Adams, L. G., Meier, T. J., Burch, J. W., and Dale, B. W. 1998. The wolves of Denali. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Mech, L. David. 2000. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,
Mech. L. D. and Boitani, L. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press.
Packard, J. M., Mech, L. D., and Ream, R. R. 1992. Weaning in an arctic wolf pack: behavioral mechanisms. Can. J. Zool. 70:1269-1275.
O’Heare, J. 2003. Dominance Theory and Dogs. DogPsych Publishing.
Rothman, R. J., and Mech, L. D. 1979. Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Anim. Behav. 27:750-760.
Schenkel, R. 1947. Expression studies of wolves. Behaviour, 1:81-129.
Scott, J. P. and Fuller, J. L. 1998. Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. University of Chicago Press.
Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., and Wensing, J.A.B. 1987. Dominance and its behavioral measures in a captive wolf pack. In Man and wolf: advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research. Edited by H. Frank. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Boston.
Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Zimen, E. 1975. Social dynamics of the wolf pack. In The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Edited by M. W. Fox. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. pp. 336-368.
Zimen, E. 1976. On the regulation of pack size in wolves. Z. Tierpsychol. 40:300-341.
Zimen, Erik (1981). The Wolf: His Place in the Natural World. Souvenir Press.
Zimen, E. 1982. A wolf pack sociogram. In Wolves of the world. Edited by F. H. Harrington, and P. C. Paquet. Noyes Publishers, Park Ridge, NJ.

Gracias a Simon Gadbois (merci), Tilde Detz (tak), Victor Ros (gracias), Sue McCabe (go raibh math agate) y Parichart Abrantes (ขอบคุณครับ) por sus sugerencias para mejorar este artículo. Los fallos que puedan quedar son cosa mía, no suya.

Impreso en castellano la primera vez en Border Collie Magazine.

Feb 28 2013

E così vorresti diventare un buon educatore cinofilo!

Tradotto da Paolo Terrile (from the original in English “So you want to be a good dog trainer!“)

Il lancio dei Guinea Pig Camps ha attirato l’attenzione di molti amanti degli animali, in particolare degli educatori cinofili. Due specifiche domande mi sono state fatte ripetutamente: (1) in che modo addestrare un porcellino d’India mi può far diventare un miglior educatore cinofilo? (2) Cosa c’entrano i porcellini d’India con i cani?

Un porcellino d’India su una palizzata. I porcellini non sono particolarmente agili, ma amano le sfide. Un buon addestratore può insegnare loro parecchi trucchi.

La abilità di base per addestrare un cane solo le stesse che servono per addestrare qualsiasi animale. L’unica differenza è che – evidentemente – un cane è un cane e non un cavallo, o un porcellino d’India. Il che è un aspetto positivo poiché (a motivo della storia che abbiamo in comune con i cani) non c’è animale più facile da addestrare di un cane. Al tempo stesso, proprio perché i cani ci rendono la vita più semplice, c’è un limite a ciò che possiamo imparare se addestriamo solo cani e mai altri animali.

I cani perdonano i nostri errori e sono praticamente sempre disponibili a cooperare con noi. Altre specie animali invece ci considerano con maggior attenzione e esigono che guadagniamo la loro fiducia. Se non si fidano di noi, non seguiranno i nostri insegnamenti e quindi non potremo addestrarli.

Un cavallo non vi seguirà se non si fida di voi e serve molto per ottenere la fiducia di un cavallo (e solo un attimo per perderla completamente). Potete dargli quante carote volete, ma se decide che non si può fidare di voi, le migliori carote del mondo saranno inutili.

Un gatto ammiccherà a voi ed al cibo che gli state offrendo almeno un paio di volte, prima di considerare persino la possibilità di avvicinarsi. Dopodiché, se considererà la vostra richiesta adeguata in cambio del cibo che gli state offrendo, potrà accettare le vostre attenzioni. Altrimenti, ammiccherà ancora una volta (se siete fortunati), prima di rimettersi a sonnecchiare.

Un cane e un porcellino d’India insieme. Addestrare un porcellino d’India può farsi diventare un miglior educatore cinofilo (foto letsbefriends.blogspot.com).

Il porcellino d’India – un piccolo animale sociale, di aspetto accattivante – è per natura pauroso e diffidente, essendo la preda favorita di molti predatori, tra cui anche l’uomo. A differenza del cane, l’uomo non condivide col porcellino d’India una comune storia evolutiva e, pertanto, questo animale non vi concederà alcunché senza qualcosa in cambio. Dovrete lavorare per ottenere la fiducia del porcellino d’India e dimostrargli che cooperare con voi è vantaggioso nel breve e nel lungo termine.

Addestrare i porcellini d’India vi insegnerà molte tra le questioni teoriche dell’apprendimento animale, che trovereste noioso leggere in un libro; per contro, le apprenderete in modo divertente poiché ne avrete esperienza immediata e diretta. Dovrete essere precisi ed applicare i metodi corretti per ottenere il giusto comportamento. Avrete inoltre la possibilità di applicare l’intera gamma del condizionamento operante, migliorando quindi le vostre capacità pratiche.

I cani sono animali eccezionali e siamo fortunati perché sono (quasi) sempre attenti a ciò che facciamo e sono ottimi osservatori. Come diceva a lezione il Professor Lorenz, “i cani sono etologi migliori di quanto lo siamo noi”. Non è invece questo il caso dei porcellini d’India, che non hanno una storia di co-evoluzione comune con noi. Hanno certamente ottime capacità di osservazione, ma non sono particolarmente attenti al nostro comportamento. Dovrete essere quindi voi stessi degli osservatori molto attenti per individuare il momento giusto per mettere in atto il metodo corretto per ottenere il comportamento desiderato; in questo modo, potrete sviluppare la vostra capacità di osservazione, il che indubbiamente farà di voi un miglior educatore cinofilo.

Siamo così abituati alla presenza dei cani che tendiamo ad interpretarne il comportamento come se fossero umani, commettendo così un grave errore per il quale, spesso, non subiamo conseguenze. Con i porcellini d’India, impariamo invece ad osservare, analizzare ed interpretare il comportamento in maniera oggettiva.

Animali di specie diverse possono sviluppare ottime relazioni e vivere tra loro in armonia (foto Dashawk).

Potete insegnare molte cose ai cani anche senza aver prima pianificato l’addestramento. Sono infatti così attivi e desiderosi di compiacere che, prima o poi, faranno qualcosa che vi piace e che potrete rinforzare. Questo però non accade invece con i porcellini d’India. Dovrete pianificare in anticipo l’addestramento, definire in modo chiaro i vostri obiettivi and preparare un piano di intervento. Con i cani, possiamo andare a braccio, ma ciò non è possibile con altri animali. Addestrare porcellini d’India vi insegnerà inoltre ad essere pronti per gli imprevisti, a preparare piani alternativi, predisponendo un piano B quando il piano A non funziona nel modo atteso. Una volta che avrete appreso questa capacità, il vostro cane sarà il primo a ringraziarvi se condurrete per le vostre sessioni di addestramento definendo in anticipo il piano di intervento.

Siete certamente consapevoli che il senso del tempo è essenziale quando educate il vostro cane, ma – in modo abbastanza sorprendente – avrete comunque risultati accettabili anche quando il rinforzo non arriva al momento giusto. Con i cani è come canticchiare alla buona un motivetto, che i vostri amici riconosceranno comunque. Con i porcellini d’India bisogna essere intonati e cantare senza errori, o altrimenti vi suggeriranno di prepararvi meglio, prima di ripresentarvi. Dopo aver addestrato i porcellini d’India, il vostro senso del tempo sarà molto più preciso.

Molte persone non riescono a percepire completamente quello che accade intorno a loro, perché sono eccessivamente preoccupate dei loro sentimenti ed emozioni. Possiamo permetterci questo tipo di distrazioni con i cani, ma non invece con altri animali e, quindi, addestrare i porcellini d’India vi aiuterà a focalizzare la vostra attenzione sull’animale che state addestrando ed a sviluppare una maggiore attenzione per i particolari. Ciò aumenterà anche la consapevolezza di voi stessi, il che vi renderà non solo un ottimo addestratore di porcellini d’India, ma anche un educatore cinofilo migliore – influendo positivamente sulla vostra vita in senso più generale.

Nei nostri seminari, lavorerete in squadre di tre. Ciascuna squadra pianificherà un piano di intervento, che sarà stilato in anticipo, verrà ripreso in video durante la sua esecuzione, analizzato successivamente, modificato e quindi eseguito. I membri della squadra si avvicenderanno nell’addestramento, nella registrazione delle sessioni e nelle riprese. Migliorerete le vostre capacità di lavorare in gruppo, una capacità che vi sarà utile non soltanto quando tornerete ad educare i cani, ma in tutti i settori della vostra vita.

Adesso potete comprendere come addestrare un piccolo e piacevole porcellino d’India potrà farvi diventare un miglior educatore cinofilo, di cani, di gatti o addirittura un miglior collega di lavoro migliorando la vostra capacità di osservazione, il senso del tempo e l’abilità di lavorare in gruppo. Mentre i vostri colleghi potranno metterci un po’ per apprezzare i miglioramenti, il vostro cane se ne accorgerà subito, ve lo prometto. Potreste anche un fumetto sopra la sua testa, mentre dice “Che bello! Cosa ho fatto per meritarmi ciò? È come avere un proprietario nuovo di zecca!”

Police guinea pig? Not exactly yet, but who knows. You could be the trainer of the first Guinea Pig tobacco and gunpowder detector.

Se vi piace il lavoro di discriminazione olfattiva, addestrare un porcellino d’India è la cosa migliore che possiate fare e vi insegnerà molto. Hanno un buon senso dell’olfatto, ma dovrete essere bravi a motivarli e ad avere un ottimo senso del tempo.

In un certo senso, un guinea pig camp è un mini corso di etologia (la scienza del comportamento animale). La maggior parte dei proprietari e anche molti addestratori non sono in grado di distinguere tra le quattro categorie di comportamenti che gli animali sociali hanno sviluppato nel corso dell’evoluzione: i c.d. comportamenti aggressivi, di paura, dominanti e di sottomissione. Confondere il comportamento aggressivo con quello dominante, come pure quello di paura con quello di sottomissione è uno spiacevole errore, peraltro ancora troppo comune, nonostante il fatto che ciascuno di questi comportamenti possiede funzioni ed espressioni specifiche.

Quando addestrate un porcellino d’India, non è importante che riusciate o meno a distinguere i comportamenti dominanti e di sottomissione dai comportamenti aggressivi o di paura, anche se si tratta di comportamenti normali per i porcellini d’India. Tuttavia, non esiste alcuna possibilità che voi entriate a far parte del branco dei porcellini d’India. Sarete sempre lo straniero, ma potrete decidere se essere uno straniero amichevole e meritevole di fiducia, oppure uno straniero angosciante e inaffidabile. Sarà una vostra scelta, che non è difficile da mettere in pratica, ma che richiede di pensare attentamente a quello che state facendo.

Così come i cavali, anche i porcellini d’India nel dubbio reagiscono con paura (un comportamento chiave per la loro sopravvivenza nella storia della loro evoluzione). Mostrare un atteggiamento composto e sicuro di sé funziona bene, ma ogni comportamento maggiormente assertivo può essere controproducente. I cani, animali sempre più sorprendenti, vi daranno sempre una seconda possibilità (e vi perdoneranno l’accento strano con cui parlate il loro linguaggio); un cavallo o un porcellino d’India difficilmente lo faranno. Se pensate di poter in qualche modo costringere un porcellino d’India a fare quello che voi volete, reagirà con paura e si immobilizzerà persino per mezz’ora, un disastro per qualsiasi aspirante addestratore.

Imparerete presto che la coercizione non è assolutamente il modo giusto di procedere. Così, imparerete i segreti della motivazione e la bellezza di saperla utilizzare (anche nel vostro ambiente), piuttosto che cercare di controllarla; e ciò, da solo, potrà condurvi a risultati inattesi e molto ben accetti.

Se potessero, sono sicuro che il vostro cane e il vostro cavallo ringrazierebbero i porcellini d’India per quello che vi insegneranno mentre li addestrate, perché senza dubbio diventerete un addestratore molto più attento e preciso. Avrete un maggior controllo di voi stessi piuttosto che dell’animale, imparerete a motivare piuttosto che a costringere, a mostrare ciò che volete piuttosto che arrivarci per caso, a raggiungere risultati intervenendo in misura minima (e talvolta persino impercettibile) sul normale comportamento del vostro animale preferito.

La vita è meravigliosa, non è vero?

R—

SMAF Manual (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dog Training: Signals, Cues, Commands, Obedience and Punishment (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Signal and Cue—What is the Difference? (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Commands or Signals, Corrections or Punishers, Praise or Reinforcers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The Spectrum of Behavior (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
Guinea Pig Camp (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
The 20 Principles That All Animal Trainers Must Know (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)