Canine Corner

Do Dogs Laugh?

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:34:29 +0000

For many years psychologists and behavioral biologists agreed that laughter was a unique emotional expression found only in humans. However, as the study of animal emotions expanded this idea was called into question. The Nobel Prize winning ethnologist, Konrad Lorenz suggested that dogs are capable of laughing. He says that it is during play that dogs actually appear to laugh. In his book Man Meets Dog, Lorenz describes it this way:

"...an invitation to play always follows; here the slightly opened jaws which reveal the tongue, and the tilted angle of the mouth which stretches almost from ear to ear give a still stronger impression of laughing. This ‘laughing' is most often seen in dogs playing with an adored master and which become so excited that they soon start panting".

It is this panting which Lorenz identified with human laughter. Although he may have been one of the first to suggest that dogs laugh, the idea that other animals laugh had already been suggested by earlier scientists. Charles Darwin started the ball rolling in his book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals published in 1872. He noticed that chimpanzees and other great apes produce a laugh-like sounds when they are tickled or when they are playing. More recently Jane Goodall described this same ‘‘laughing'' and ‘‘chuckling'' reported by Darwin and others as a sort of breathy panting that can escalate to a more guttural ‘‘ah-grunting,'' if intense. The general consensus is that this ape laughter sounds somewhat like the heavy breathing that might simply result from vigorous play is meant to be a signal of their playful intentions. According to Robert Provine, a psychologist at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, the sound of chimpanzee laughter is much breathier that that of humans which tends to chop the laugh sounds into short "ha-ha" sounds. Instead there are longer pant sounds with each inward and outward breath.

Research done by Patricia Simonet at Sierra Nevada College in Lake Tahoe looked at laughter sounds in dogs. Simonet's team investigated the question by standing in parks with a parabolic microphone that allowed them to record the sounds that dogs made while playing from a distance. In describing the laughter sounds of dogs she says that, "To an untrained human ear, it sounds much like a pant, 'hhuh, hhuh." When the recordings were analyzed she found that that this exhalation bursts into a broader range of frequencies than does regular dog panting. She confirmed the positive effects of this laugh sound in an experiment on 15 puppies, which romped for joy simply upon hearing the recorded canine laugh. More recently she was able to show that these same sounds helped to calm dogs in an animal shelter.

Simonet noticed that when she tried to imitate the laugh panting sounds of dogs it seemed to have a positive effect on the animals hearing it.

I must admit that I was a bit skeptical about the usefulness of humans making these dog laugh sounds. So I began to experiment, originally with my own dogs. My first attempts were not very successful, causing virtually no response or at best puzzled looks from my dogs. However I was eventually able to shape a set of sounds which reliably evoked interest on the part of my dogs. It required conscious monitoring to get the sound pattern right. For me, what seems to work the best is something like "hhuh-hhah-hhuh-hhah..." with the "hhuh" sound made with slightly rounded lips, while the "hhah" sound is made with a sort of open mouthed smiling expression. The sound has to be breathy with no actual voicing. Thus if you touch your throat while making this sound you should not feel any vibration. This caused my own dogs to sit up and wag their tails or to approach me from across the room.

Since these initial informal experiments I have extended my observations and tried using my human imitation of dog laughter sounds to calm worried, anxious and shy dogs in a dog obedience class and in other settings. It seems to help if you glance at the dog directly only for brief intervals alternating with glancing away. Also short quick side to side movements appear to help. It seems to work best in calming dogs that are moderately anxious or insecure. If the negative emotions experienced by the dog are too intense it does not seem to help. This is reminiscent of trying to calm humans. If they are moderately anxious introducing some humor into the situation can be helpful and relaxing, while if they are in a state of panic your attempts might be viewed as actually laughing at their emotional state and may actually make things worse.

Stanley Coren is the author of many books including: The Modern Dog, Why Do Dogs Have Wet Noses? The Pawprints of History, How Dogs Think, How To Speak Dog, Why We Love the Dogs We Do, What Do Dogs Know? The Intelligence of Dogs, Why Does My Dog Act That Way? Understanding Dogs for Dummies, Sleep Thieves, The Left-hander Syndrome

“A Man’s Best Friend is his Dog”: The Senator, the Dog, and the Trial

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:02:18 +0000

Just about everyone has heard the old saying "A man's best friend is his dog," or some variation of that phrase. However I doubt that very many people know where that adage came from. It can be found in the transcript of a trial, and it was part of one of the most memorable closing arguments ever made by a lawyer. The trial was held in Missouri in September of 1870, and it concerned the killing of a dog.

The case revolved around a black and tan hound named Old Drum, who was the favorite dog of a farmer named Charles Burden. A nearby neighbor, Leonidas Hornsby, owned a considerable amount of livestock. Because Hornsby had lost some sheep, presumably due to attacks by local dogs, he swore to shoot any dog he found on his property. On October 28, 1869, Hornsby found Old Drum wandering near his yard and ordered one of his hired hands to shoot him. Burden immediately sued Hornsby for damages, and the trial quickly became one of the strangest in Missouri history. After several appeals following hearings in lower level courts, the case eventually ended in an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant were stubborn men and set their ways. In the end they hired the best lawyers available in the state. Old Drum's owner was represented by G. N. Elliott and John F. Phillips who both went on to distinguished careers as judges, and later by Wells H. Blodgett who became a State Senator, and George G. Vest who served in the United States Senate for 24 years. The dog's killer was represented by Francis M. Cockrell who was elected as the other United States Senator from Missouri and as served as such for 30 years. His partner, Thomas T. Crittenden, would go on to be elected to the U.S. Congress and later became Governor of Missouri.

It was well understood that that Old Drum was a special hunting dog. He was quite famous in his local area and was much in demand for his tracking and trailing ability. A unique feature was his voice, which could be easily picked out of any pack. It had a deep regular sound, like that from the booming of a drum, which is why Burden gave him his odd name. The dog was fearless, strong, and persistent, and seldom failed to get his quarry. Even Crittenden (one Hornsby's own counsels), would admit some years after the case had been decided that Old Drum was an exceptional hound and that "the dog was known far and near as one of the fastest, best nosed and least uncertain, and as having the most singular bark."

At the courthouse in Warrensburg, Missouri the trial began with Judge Wright presiding. By this time the case had attracted considerable interest because of the emotional impact of a fine dog unnecessarily killed in its prime of life, the passion and hostility of the feelings between the individuals involved, and "dream team" of esteemed legal counsels representing the parties involved. The courtroom was crowded with lawyers, witnesses, the supporters of both sides, the press, and the merely curious. The judge was clearly annoyed about the degree of public interest, and the expressions of heat and rage, which seemed to go far beyond what should have been attracted by what he thought should have been a simple civil case. He demonstrated his impatience when he said that he "wanted this dog case fully tried and ended; it has already taken too much time." This is perhaps why, after the witnesses were heard, despite the esteemed array of lawyers representing both parties, Judge Wright allowed only two closing speeches for each side.

The very last argument in the trial was to be made by George Vest on behalf of Old Drum's master. Vest had taken a deep personal interest in this case and had stated during the trial that he would "win the case or apologize to every dog in Missouri." Vest's closing argument to the jury made no reference to any of the testimony offered during the trial, and instead offered a eulogy of sorts. Only a partial transcript has survived, but it is one of the most enduring and passionate bits of prose to come out of a court proceeding.

When Vest stood those in the courtroom saw a slight forty year old man, only five feet six inches tall, weighing about 110 pounds. He had a large head on a short neck, broad shoulders, red hair, a freckled face, blue eyes with a tinge of grey. However his voice was clear and friendly, and his charm and ability to tell stories and paint pictures with words became clear when he began to speak.

"Gentlemen of the Jury: The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him perhaps when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us, may be the first to throw the stones of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is his dog.

"Gentlemen of the jury, a man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fierce, if only he may be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer; he will lick the wounds and sores that come from encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wing and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

"If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of his company to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in his embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even in death."

The defendant's lawyers Crittenden and Cockrell fully expected to emerge victorious, but after Vest started speaking they realized that they had failed. People present at the trial reported that when Vest finished, there were few present in the courtroom, the jury included, whose eyes were dry. Some said that the jury's foreman appeared to lead the rest in weeping. Recognizing that their cause was lost, Crittenden is said to have whispered facetiously to his partner, "We had better get out of the courtroom with our client, else all might be hanged."

In the end Burden won, and received a token award of fifty dollars. However much more than this was accomplished by the chord struck by Vest's words. If you ever go Warrensburg, Missouri, on the southeast corner of the current Johnson County Courthouse lawn, you will find a bronze statue of the much beloved black and tan hound, Old Drum. It was erected in 1958 with the help of contributions from dog lovers throughout the United States. The sculpture is of a hunting dog standing on all fours, with his tail relaxed and low and his head up. On the front of the concrete base is a bronze plaque on which you will find the words of George Vest's final argument which not only moved the jury to find in Burden's favor but also is the origin of the familiar and much believed summary of our relationship to canines, "A man's best friend is his dog."

The Former French President’s Depressed Dog: Jacques Chirac and Sumo

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:11:17 +0000

The French public was somewhat shocked to learn that their former president, Jacques Chirac, and his little white dog, Sumo, had ended their relationship on a violent note. Sumo, a Maltese terrier, was originally a gift to Chirac's wife Bernadette from their grandson Martin, but the first lady said her husband "adopted him immediately and he became his dog." The dog accompanied Chirac everywhere and appeared to be a happy and friendly companion. The story released to the press was that small dog underwent treatment for depression after leaving the Elysee palace, when Chirac lost the French presidency to Nicolas Sarkozy. This depression has resulted in unpredictable and aggressive behavior which has caused them to part company with their pet.

Bernadette Chirac told a Paris newspaper that Sumo was used to roaming the large gardens of the Elysee and could not adjust when the Chiracs moved into the spacious Paris apartment formerly owned by the family of the late Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri. The Maltese terrier apparently found that down-sizing to an apartment on the Quai Voltaire was unbearable and, according to Mrs. Chirac, severe depression has turned him from an innocent white fluff-ball into a ferocious and unpredictable biter of ex-presidents. Twice he bit Chirac hard enough so that medical attention was required. The relationship between Chirac and his his dog had clearly deteriorated and this resulted in the dog being sent away to live on a farm.

Can a dog really be depressed? Certainly Sumo had seemed to be having some sort of emotional problems. He had lost his appetite, was not eating or drinking the way that he normally did and thus had lost weight. He seemed to be lethargic, and spent a lot more time than usual sleeping. When he was awake he seemed nervous, edgy and common events seemed to worry and occasionally anger him. None of the usual activities that normally made him happy seemed to interest him. Any psychologist seeing a human being with Sumo's symptoms would conclude that he was probably suffering from some kind of depression or anxiety condition. The problem is that Sumo is not a person dog.

It was the early 1980's when Nicholas Dodman of the School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University was standing next to a colleague watching a dog that had been brought into the Animal Behavior Clinic and was showing symptoms similar those described in Sumo. He concluded that the dog was depressed and anxious. His colleague shook his head warned him about the dangers of treating dogs as if they had such human-like feelings. He argued "Dogs don't experience the same mental states and emotions that people do."

Dodman's colleague was really restating one of the beliefs that many scientists have held since the 1600's. It began with René Descartes, a French philosopher, mathematician and biologist who claimed that only humans have feelings and conscious mental processes. Animals were thought to be simply the equivalent of biological machines with no psychological processes worth mentioning. Two hundred years later Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution changed our view of the biological world, challenged Descartes. He suggested that the emotional experiences of animals are quite similar to those of humans.

Dodman was clearly siding with Darwin when he answered his colleague saying "Well, how about this? Let's give the dog an anti-depression drug and see what happens."

What happened made history since the dog's behavior improved dramatically. At the biological level of analysis this is what should have happened since the brain and neurochemistry of the dog is very similar to that of humans.

Today most veterinarians are trained to accept that animals have emotions and can suffer from some of the same emotional problems that people do. This includes not only depression, but also anxiety, irrational fears and phobias, obsessive and compulsive behaviors and a broad range of neurotic and stress related problems. Currently there is a growing field of research called Animal Behavioral Pharmacology, and most veterinarians have been trained how to use psychologically active drugs. Drugs for pets are now big business and the Pfizer Drug Company has established a companion animal division which brought in nearly a billion dollars last year.

How widespread such emotional conditions are in pets is difficult to determine. However Sainsbury's Pet Insurance in the UK has been collecting some information. They suggest that depression and anxiety are widespread in the British canine population; the report indicated that 623,000 dogs and cats in the UK had suffered mentally in the previous year, while more than 900,000 suffered loss of appetite because of stress or emotional problems.

Deficits in serotonin, a hormone that serves as a neurotransmitter in the brain, seem to play an important role in the control of depression . However environmental conditions, such as loss or separation from its owner, loss of a companion dog, trauma from injury, disease or abuse, or being tied out on a tether and socially isolated for long periods can trigger depression dogs. Moving to a new location, along with the change in a familiar routine (as in Sumo's case) can also induce these negative emotional changes.

When faced with psychological problems in dogs veterinarians have used Dodman's strategy and turned to anti-depression drugs designed for people. Just as Dodman predicted, Prozac in various forms did successfully control the depression and anxiety related problems in many dogs. This prompted Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company that introduced Prozac, to create a chewable beef flavored version of the medication specifically designed for use by dogs.

Certain behavioral treatments can also combat depression. Increased exercise, which is known to help depressed people, also helps depressed dogs. Increased social interaction and play, and perhaps the addition of another dog to the family to provide continued or renewed social support and companionship can often improve the dog's condition dramatically.

However psychologists recognize that depression is often situational, and depends upon an individual's relationships and the emotional situation in which they find themselves living. Dogs have been bred to be empathic and responsive to human moods, and they may become depressed if their master is showing signs of melancholy. This may well have been a factor in Sumo's case since Jacques Chirac left office under a cloud. There have been charges of election fund related fraud, secret slush funds kept in Japanese bank accounts, and charges of misuse of public funds stemming well back into the 1990's when Chirac was mayor of Paris. There has been a continuous stream of hearings and court actions and these must have had a depressing and distressing effect on Chirac since he was now no longer protected by political immunity. Thus Sumo's psychological depression may well have reflected his response to the negative emotional climate that he found himself living in when the family left the presidential palace and moved to their city apartment. This seems to be partly confirmed by the fact that after the small white dog was moved to a farm owned by Chirac family friends his symptoms seem to have subsided and Sumo hasn't attacked or snapped at anyone since leaving Paris.

Canine Friends to the End

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:34:01 +0000

Dogs are great stress relievers for their human companions. Although this has been recognized by individual dog owners for millennia, the scientific evidence about the psychological benefits of having a dog around first confirmed about 30 years ago when a psychologist, Alan Beck of Purdue University and a psychiatrist, Aaron Katcher of the University of Pennsylvania, measured what happens physically when a person pets a friendly and familiar dog. They found that the person's blood pressure lowered, his heart rate slowed, breathing became more regular and muscle tension relaxed-all signs of reduced stress.

A recent study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine not only confirmed these effects, but showed changes in blood chemistry demonstrating a lower amount of stress-related hormones such as cortisol. These effects seem to be automatic, they do not require any conscious efforts or training on the part of the stressed individual. Perhaps most amazingly, these positive psychological effects are achieved faster-after only five to 24 minutes of interacting with a dog-than the result from taking most stress-relieving drugs. Compare this to some of the Prozac-type drugs used to deal with stress and depression, which alter the levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the body but can take weeks to show any positive effects.

There are some places in history, however, where the importance of dogs as a psychological comfort shows up dramatically, such as when a person chooses to have a dog with them at the time that they know that their death is immediately impending. Take the case of Queen Victoria of England. The small dogs that she came to love most in her later years were Pomeranians. She is responsible for the popularity of the smaller versions of this breed.

Victoria's fondness for her Pomeranians was quite intense. She actually set up a breeding kennel to perpetuate the line and to provide her with additional companions. On the 22nd of January, 1901, after 63 years as queen, Victoria lay dying. She and the doctors knew that this was most likely her last day. Propped up on a pillow Victoria ordered that her current favorite Pomeranian, Turi, be brought to her. When they arrived with Turi, Victoria lightly slapped the covers and her attendants gently placed the little dog on the bed in the place that she indicated. She began to stroke the dog, who snuggled close to her. Victoria paused for a moment and looked around her. "There is room for more than one dog," she said, "it is a very big bed." Turi licked her fingers and she produced the half-smile that indicated that she was at ease. A few hours later, Queen Victoria, the longest reigning monarch in the history of England, was dead.

Some people have chosen that their dogs be with them, to comfort them, at a time when their death was imminent from a more violent means. For example, Anne Boleyn, Henry the VIII's second queen had a greyhound named Urian, that she was quite fond of. Henry also seemed to like the dog since a note in 1530 indicates that he was willing to pay 10 shillings for a cow that Urian supposedly killed. When Henry decided to end his marriage by having his queen beheaded, legend has it that her final request was that Urian be allowed to accompany her to her execution to provide comfort. The dog apparently was spared her fate however.

Marie Antoinette was married to King Louis XVI of France. Because of her Austrian background she was not much liked by either the French court of the French people. In that hostile climate it is understandable that she clung to her dogs for comfort. Although her dogs were often referred to as spaniels, it is likely that they were Papillion's, which were also known as squirrel spaniels because their bushy tails were carried curled over their backs, much like squirrels. Following the revolution she and Louis were sentenced to death. It is said that she went to the guillotine carrying her favorite dog, Thisbe.

Mary Queen of Scots also sought solace and comfort from her dog before her execution. Mary had the strongest claim to the throne of England after the children of Henry VIII. This claim (and her Roman Catholicism) made Mary a threat to Elizabeth I of England. Mary was betrothed to the French dauphin (later Francis II) and sent the girl to France where she spent many years. On the death of her husband, Mary returned to assume the role of Queen of Scotland and began to plot against Elizabeth. Through a convoluted series of events Mary eventually became Elizabeth's prisoner. She was locked in the Tower of London, and her main companions were her little spaniels and a Maltese.

In 1586 a plot to murder Elizabeth by a coalition of Catholic groups was discovered and Mary was charged with being an accomplice. She was brought to trial and although she defended herself with eloquence, there was overwhelming evidence of her complicity. Her execution, by beheading, was therefore ordered. She was sent to Fotheringhay to await her death. Her only consolation was that, after a direct appeal to Elizabeth, she was allowed to have her dogs with her.

One of Mary's dogs would serve as her companion one last time, to give her one last bit of comfort at the moment of her death. When the time came, Mary walked to the scaffold with slow steps. None knew that this was done to keep pace with the small white dog that was concealed under her long skirts and petticoats. Even after the axe had fallen the little dog did not move. Mr. Bull, the executioner, who was working with an assistant, finally discovered it. They had been given orders that everything splashed with Mary's blood was to be washed or burned "for fear someone might dip a piece of linen in it, as several of this country have done, who keep it as a relic of this act, to incite to vengeance those concerned for the death of the dead person." It was while untying Mary's garters, which in those days were tied at the knees, that Bull noticed the dog. It refused to leave the body, and even when dragged out by force it rushed back and lay between the severed head and shoulders. The poor beast now had its white coat covered with Mary's blood. One of the executioners took pity on the dog. It was carried away and washed clean. Instead of destroying the dog it was given to a French princess who asked for it as a memorial of her friend, and was granted it-on condition that the dog must be taken out of the country immediately. It was thus saved and completed its life in France.

It is remarkable evidence of the emotional support that dogs can provide to human beings that a person facing, what they know to be the end of their life, chooses to spend their last moments with their dog.

Could dogs be the fastest land animals in the world?

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:47:27 +0000

To determine the fastest animal in the world one has to consider the nature of the race that you are going to ask them run. If you were running an air race with level flight, your champion would be the swift which can fly at 106 miles per hour (171 km per hour). Peregrine falcons are slower but can reach speeds up to 69 mph (112 km/h) in direct pursuit of prey, however when he is diving he can reach the incredible speed of 242 mph (389 km/h) speed which would easily allow him to catch a fleeing swift. For a water race, the sailfish blows the competition away. Its streamlined body can travel up to 68 miles per hour (109 km per hour) and the swordfish can do around 60 mph (97 km per hour).

Once we get speed on land, however, the most important consideration is going to be the distance over which the race is run. Much like in human track competitions, the shorter, sprint races, will produce the fastest times. The longer races can't sustain the speed you get in the shorter runs. If we just take the peak speed that an animal can reach then, as most people already know, the fastest land animal is the cheetah which can reach 70 mph (113 km per hour). Although the cheetah is an astonishingly fast runner, he can only maintain that incredible velocity for about 200 to 300 yards (274 meters) or less than two tenths of a mile. These high speeds only allow the cat to overtake its prey within short distances, so cheetahs must still rely on stealth, sneaking, and the element of surprise to get close enough to the gazelle before giving chase.

The fastest of horses is also a sprinter. It is the quarterhorse which gets its name from the fact that it was typically run in quarter mile long (0.4 km) races. It can reach 47.5 mph (76 kph) over that distance, but it has pretty much burned out by the half mile (0.8 km) marker. Horses are considerably slower than this peak value over a longer distance. When the thoroughbred race horse, Secretariat set the Kentucky Derby speed record in 1973 he ran it at 38 mph (61 kph) over a distance 1.5 miles (2.4 km).

However humans have changed dogs so that some dogs can run much faster than most other animals. The really fast dogs are greyhounds, whippets, salukis, and Afghan hounds which are called sighthounds since their job is to spot their quarry by sight, and run it down. The characteristic shape of these dogs involves a huge chest to accommodate large lungs to gulp oxygen and their over sized heart, plus a narrow waist that allows them to bend their body so that every stride carries them more than a body length.

The fastest of these dogs is the greyhound. He is specially designed for sustained high speed running. While he is going at full tilt the dog's heart rate can rise to 300-360 beats/minute-this means that the greyhound heart can contract and refill with blood five times per second during a race allowing oxygen to be transported at a phenomenal rate to supply the needs of the muscles. His ability to reach top speed quickly is amazing. At maximum acceleration a greyhound can reach a speed of 45 mph (72km/h) within its first 6 strides from a standing start. No other land animal (except the cheetah) has that degree of acceleration.

To give you an idea of how fast a sprinter the greyhound is, compare his perf ormance to that of an elite human runner. When Usain Bolt set his 100 meter world record he was running at a speed of 22.9 mph (36.9 kph) and covered that distance in 9.58 seconds. A greyhound would complete that same race in 5.33 second.

However, the greyhound is also a distance runner. He can settle into a speed in excess of 35 miles per hour and can run at that rate for distances as great as 7 miles (11 kilometres). This means that while the cheetah can win the short sprint race, in any long race the greyhound will leave that big cat way behind, panting in the dust.

However some dogs do even better in super-marathon races. For this we need a different type of dog. Consider the sled dogs like those that participate in the Iditarod sled race. These dogs are primarily Siberian Huskies or Alaskan Huskies (which are an unregestered breed that have been designed for speed and endurance). The Iditerod race goes from just outside of Anchorage Alaska to Nome, and it covers a distance of 1,161 miles (1,868 km). The dog teams in this race run up to 125 miles per day, often racing for up to 6 hours at a time, for 9-14 days, pulling a sled weighing over 100 kg. Furthermore, they run at full tilt in extremes of climate where the wind chill value can be -100 °F (-73.3 °C). The record for the Iditarod race is currently 8 days and 22 hours. A sled dog's typical racing pace averages between 10 to12 miles per hour (16 to19km/h), which means that every 6 hour running period he covers about 70 miles (112 km). These dogs keep this up for an average of 11 days! It is hard to imagine any other animal on land that could keep up that kind of pace.

Why do dogs roll in garbage, manure, or other smelly stuff?

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:48:40 +0000

I have often had people ask me why their otherwise, apparently sane, dog, will roll around in garbage or dung or something equally offensive in its smell to humans. One man even told me that he has stopped walking his dog along the shore line because whenever a dead fish, or a mass of seaweed containing rotting organic matter washes up on shore, his dog makes a direct beeline to that smelly mess and immediately begins to roll in it. The dog would usually walk away with a stench that required it to bathed or at least hosed down before it could be allowed in the house afterward.

There are several theories which have been used to explain why dogs like coat themselves with distasteful strong odors. One of the silliest of these theories is that this is a means of fighting parasites. The notion is that insects, such as lice and fleas, wouldn't hang around on something which smelled that bad. Unfortunately, most insects do not seem the least bit put off by bad odors on a dog, and, in fact, many insects are attracted to such smells because it usually means that there is decomposing organic matter there.

A second theory claims that this is sort of a means of writing a message to the other members of the pack. A dog or a wolf seems to like rolling around in things which smell bad, however if you take an inventory of what they are choosing to anoint themselves with you will find that it is always organic, such as dung, rotting carrion and so forth. Since the wild ancestors of dogs were not only hunters but also scavengers, much of the stuff that they are rolling in could still possibly be edible. The notion then is that the wild canine rolls in this material and then returns to the pack. The other members of his group immediately pick up this scent and know that there is something which can pass for food nearby. However if such were the case, one would expect that when a wild canine arrives back at the pack with his new odorant, the pack members should immediately start backtracking toward the site where their pack mate came from. This is certainly not the usual case.

A third theory suggests that the dog is not trying to pick up odors from the stinking mess it rolls in, but is actually trying to cover that smell with their own scent. It is certainly true that dogs and wolves will often roll around on something, like a stick, a new dog bed or such, as if they were trying to deposit their scent on it. Some psychologists have suggested that dogs often rub against people to leave a trace of their scent and to mark the individual as a member of the pack, much the way that cats rub up against people to mark them with their odors.

The explanation which makes the best evolutionary and adaptive sense is that this stinky behavior might be an attempt at disguising the dog. The suggestion is that we are looking at a leftover behavior from when our domestic dogs were still wild and had to hunt for a living. If an antelope smelled the scent of a wild dog, or jackal or wolf nearby, it would be likely to bolt and run for safety. For this reason wild canines learned to roll in antelope dung or carrion. Antelopes are quite used to the smell of their own droppings and carrion is common on open plains where many animals live. That means that the antelopes or other prey animals are less likely to be frightened or suspicious of a hairy thing that is coated with that smell rather than that same visitor who smells like a wolf. This allows the wild hunting canine to get much closer to its prey.

I have another theory, however, which is of no scientific merit whatsoever. For human beings our dominant sense is vision while for dogs it is their sense of smell. Dogs, like people, enjoy sensory stimulation and may well be prone to seeking such stimulation to an excessive degree. Therefore, I believe that the real reason that canines roll in obnoxious smelling organic manner is simply an expression of the same misbegotten sense of aesthetics that causes human beings to wear overly loud and colorful Hawaiian shirts.

Canine Intelligence—Breed Does Matter

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:40:12 +0000

Just as everyone wants to have smart kids, most people want to own clever dogs. However whether a dog is "smart" or "dumb" depends upon the specific aspects of its behavior we consider. For example, was Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein intelligent? Obviously, to derive the theory of relativity required a mathematical genius. Yet Einstein was so bad at simple arithmetic that his checkbook was always out of balance.

Intelligence has a variety of different dimensions. In human beings we might subdivide intelligence into verbal ability, numerical ability, logical reasoning, memory, and so forth. The intelligence of dogs also has several different aspects, among which we recognize three major dimensions. The first is called instinctive intelligence. This really refers to what a dog was bred for. For example, herding dogs were bred to herd animals. Their ability to round up animals, keep them close together, and drive them in a particular direction is inborn and only requires human intervention to keep it under control and to give it a bit of direction.

Different breeds obviously have different types of instinctive intelligence. Guard dogs watch over things, retrievers fetch, hounds track or pursue, pointers sniff out birds and indicate their location by pointing, while companion dogs are attuned to human social signals and respond to our moods to provide comfort. Every dog has an instinctive intelligence, but it is senseless to make comparisons across breeds as to which are "smarter" in this respect-their abilities are simply too different to compare.

The second dimension of dog intelligence is adaptive intelligence. This is basically a measure of what a dog can learn to do for himself. It includes learning and benefiting from experience with his environment, solving new problems, and so forth. Adaptive intelligence can differ among individuals of the same breed. Thus, all Golden Retrievers have the same instinctive intelligence, yet while most are quite clever you will occasionally encounter one that seems totally clueless and makes the same mistakes over and over again. The difference between the various Golden Retrievers is a matter of difference in adaptive intelligence, and this can be measured by using the appropriate tests.

When most people think of dog intelligence they often think of the dog working his way through complex obedience exercises in an obedience ring or on a stage. They might also think of highly trained animals such as police dogs, guide dogs for the blind, hearing assistance dogs, or search and rescue dogs. A dog responding appropriately to his master's commands and signals tends to give us the impression that we are viewing the peak of dog intelligence. Thus when a dog demonstrates through his response that he understands what particular commands from a human mean, he is demonstrating one of the most important aspects of his intelligence. It is important because if dogs did not respond to human instruction, they would not be capable of performing the utilitarian tasks that we originally valued them for, which means that they would never have been domesticated and wouldn't be with us now. This third type of intelligence in dogs is appropriately called working and obedience intelligence. It is the closest to what we might call school-learning ability, and is based upon what the dog can learn to do when instructed by humans.

It should be possible to actually rank dog breeds in terms of their working and obedience intelligence. Using statistics from kennel club records based upon obedience competition trial results doesn't work, because it gets mixed up with popularity. For example, in one recent year, according to American Kennel Club (AKC) trial records, Otterhounds earned no obedience degrees while Golden Retrievers earned 1,284. This doesn't tell us that Otterhounds are stupid, however since there were approximately 670,000 Golden Retrievers registered with the AKC, while in that same year there were only 300 Otterhounds. Even if Otterhounds were the most brilliant of all dogs, and if every single one of them earned an obedience degree in the test year, that would amount to only 300 obedience degrees as compared to the 1,284 degrees for Golden Retrievers.

While their records can't help us assess dog intelligence, the kennel clubs do provide us with another resource, namely the dog obedience judges themselves. These individuals are trained to observe and evaluate how dogs perform under controlled conditions. It is not unusual for a judge to spend 12 to 20 hours on any given weekend judging and scoring dogs of various breeds. In addition, most judges are also dog trainers, spending many more hours observing and working with dogs. Because of this extensive experience watching and evaluating dogs, if any one group of people should have the accumulated knowledge of the relative performances of various breeds, it is them. They see each dog perform under the same conditions, and should be able to separate out the quality of the performance from the number of competitors.

For my book The Intelligence of Dogs (Free Press), I contacted all of the dog obedience judges registered with the AKC and the Canadian Kennel Club, and provided them with a long questionnaire that allowed them to rank the various breeds in their working and obedience abilities. Despite its length, 199 judges provided the information we needed, which is approximately half of all the obedience judges listed in North America. If we limit ourselves to breeds for which at least 100 judges provided assessments we ended up with a ranking of 133 breeds.

The degree of agreement among the judges was amazingly high, suggesting that there were real observable differences that were being reliably detected. For example, when we consider the dogs ranked highest in obedience or working intelligence, we find that 190 of the 199 judges ranked the Border Collie in the top 10! There was somewhat less agreement as to which breeds showed the poorest working or obedience intelligence, yet even here the degree of agreement was still high among my sample of experts. Of the 199 judges, 121 ranked the Afghan Hound in the bottom 10.

According to the judges rankings the top 10 dogs in terms of working and obedience intelligence are, in order:

Border Collie

Poodle

German Shepherd Dog

Golden Retriever

Doberman Pinscher

Shetland Sheepdog

Labrador Retriever

Papillon

Rottweiler

Australian Cattle Dog

While according to the rankings of the dog obedience judges the bottom 10 dog breeds (moving downwards) are:

Basset Hound

Mastiff

Beagle

Pekingese

Bloodhound

Borzoi

Chow Chow

Bulldog

Basenji

Afghan Hound

Does this mean that everyone should rush out and get one of the top 10 breeds of dogs? Definitely not! While a smart dog will learn everything that you want it to know, it will also learn everything that it can get away with. This means you may have to spend much more time "civilizing" your clever dog so that it learns the limits of behavior in your household.

Does this mean that we should stop breeding the dogs low in the rankings to "improve the species"? Definitely not! Every dog has an instinctive intelligence for which it was bred. Thus the Afghan Hound, at the bottom of the list, was bred to spot, pursue and pull down antelope and gazelle. If you ever saw one of them running you would appreciate how refined his skill as a running hunter is. Also most dogs in our urban society are chosen as companions-did you take the time to give an intelligence test to the last person that you were considering as a possible spouse, lover or companion? Well, the Beagle, which is seventh from the bottom is one of the most loving and sociable of all dogs.

In addition, some of the dogs lower in the intelligence list have other qualities. The Afghan Hound is arguably among the most beautiful of dogs. I notice that every year People magazine has a special issue presenting "The 50 Most Beautiful People in the World." I don't ever remember People ever having an issue featuring "The 50 Most Intelligent People in the World." Just think about what we consider to be the most important aspects of humans-well, the same often applies to dogs!

Stanley Coren is the author of many books including: The Modern Dog, Why Do Dogs Have Wet Noses? The Pawprints of History, How Dogs Think, How To Speak Dog, Why We Love the Dogs We Do, What Do Dogs Know? The Intelligence of Dogs, Why Does My Dog Act That Way? Understanding Dogs for Dummies, Sleep Thieves, The Left-hander Syndrome.

Why are puppies born with their eyes and ears closed?

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:35:08 +0000

When you look at newborn puppies they appear to be so helpless and incomplete. The idea that they are born functionally deaf (with their ear canals closed) and blind (with their eyelids tightly closed) seems to make no sense. Why would evolution allow any animal to be born in a state where two of its major senses are not functioning, and will not begin work well enough to provide useful information to the animal for a couple of weeks?

The answer lies in the dim past when the various species were developing and starting to discover the most adaptive way to prosper in the world. As mammals evolved each species, in effect, had to make a choice. This choice involved deciding upon the strategies for reproduction and development that would give that species and its offspring the best chance to survive in their particular environment. The alternative selected also had to fit with the usual patterns of behavior that the animals engage in to stay alive. Since mammals give birth to live babies the choice is whether to have a long pregnancy and produce fully formed and functional offspring, or to have a short pregnancy and produce immature, partly formed offspring that are helpless and take a lot of care.

At one extreme we have animals like deer and cattle. For example the gestation period (pregnancy) for a cow is nine months. A newborn calf weighs 25 to 45 kilograms (55 to 99 lb) and its brain is fully formed. In terms of sense organs it can see and hear efficiently. Most importantly it can run well enough to keep up with the herd. Biologists refer to species that produce relatively mature and mobile offspring as precocial from the word "precocious" which refers to the characteristic of exceptionally early development or maturity as in a precocious child who shows mental maturity beyond what we would expect for is age in years. Obviously, for a species where your ability to run away from predators can determine you whether you survive, being born mature is a necessity.

The various canine species, including dogs, represent the other extreme. In the wild, canines survive by hunting. Carrying a litter of puppies will slow the female and make it difficult to catch faster moving prey and to do her part in the coordinated hunting of the pack. That means that getting the pups out of the womb and onto the ground quickly is an advantage. In addition, between hunts (which can be spaced days apart) there is not much to do, so the female has time to care for helpless infants. When she is out pursuing food the pups can be safely stored in a den.

The gestation period in dogs is short, only about two months-58 to 63 days on average-however the trade off is that the puppies are quite helpless. Biologists refer to species that produce immature dependent offspring as altricial and the word is derived from the Latin root meaning "to nurse, to rear, or to nourish." It refers to the need for young these species to be fed and taken care of for a long period of time.

Many of the puppy's critical organs, including its brain, are not fully formed and they will spend several weeks developing rapidly. The same is true of the eyes. So the reason that puppies are born with their eyelids tightly shut is because the eye itself is still developing and is extremely fragile. It needs the protection that the closed eyelids provide to serve as a barrier to protect immature optical system from potential damage from foreign objects, such as dirt or grit, or even pathogens. Also exposure to too bright a light at this time might possibly damage the still delicate photoreceptors and optic mechanisms.

Most puppies begin to open their eyes at about two weeks of age, however even then the eyes are not fully developed and functioning perfectly. It will take several more weeks before their eyes mature and their eyesight begins to approach normal.

In the same way that the puppies are born with their eyes closed they are born effectively deaf because their ear canals are closed. Relative silence is important for the developing ears since sounds involve changes in pressure that mechanically move structures in the mature ear. If you force the pup's ears to respond to sound inputs before the puppy's fragile auditory machinery is fully developed it could cause great damage to the basic apparatus needed to hear.
The ear canals begin to open at about the same time that the eyes open, however when they do open, the ears are much more fully formed than the eyes are at this point in time. Usually, within a week or so the puppy's hearing will be fully useable and quite acute.

Safely ensconced in their den, with a caring mother present, except for a few hours every day or two, even though they are blind and deaf the pups are still safe, and will develop quickly enough so that within a few weeks they will be exploring their world.

The Health and Psychological Benefits of Bonding with a Pet Dog

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:06:27 +0000

On January 29, 1908 an article appeared in The New York Times reporting the decision of a military tribunal concerning one Colonel Deems and his dog Riley. According to the article "The Retiring Board in solemn conclave has decided that the Colonel's fondness for the little fox terrier that had the run of Fort Howard, Baltimore, was not an evidence of mental derangement."

The testimony against the officer was supposed to be quite damning, such as "it must not be forgotten that Riley jumped right up in the Colonel's ample lap and kissed him squarely in the mouth. Did it scores of times. Once he so far forgot himself as to carry off one of the Colonel's boots surreptitiously and the post commander had to hobble around his quarters for an hour with one foot bootless while his orderly searched for the No. 10." Furthermore the Colonel did nothing when his dog acted "in utter disregard of the seriousness of army life," by treating officers and enlisted men in exactly the same way. Nonetheless, the army officers and surgeons involved sent Col. Deems back to active duty concluding that "the dog was merely the target for the affection of a lonely army bachelor."

Our view of the human-animal bond has clearly changed quite a bit since that hearing in the beginning of the twentieth century. No one can imagine someone's mental state being called into question in our modern world simply because they showed affection to a dog, or accepted affection from the dog in return. Today, in fact, our view of the human-animal bond has changed to such a degree that we are actually looking at dogs as a means of promoting both the mental and physical health of their owners.

The strength of the human animal bond has been known for a long time, but scientific evidence about how it works was first published only about 30 years ago when a psychologist, Alan Beck of Purdue University, and a psychiatrist, Aaron Katcher of the University of Pennsylvania, actually measured what happens physically when a person pets a friendly and familiar dog. They found that the person's blood pressure lowered, heart rate slowed, breathing became more regular and muscle tension relaxed-all of which are signs of reduced stress. Furthermore a study published recently in the Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine not only confirmed these effects, but showed changes in blood chemistry demonstrating reduced amounts of stress related hormones. It is interesting to note that these positive psychological effects work a lot faster than many drugs taken for stress, since all of these effects occurred after only 5 to 24 minutes of pleasantly interacting with the dog.

There is now a large amount of data confirming that pets are good for your psychological health and may increase, not only the quality of your life, but also your longevity. The benefits are not just short term but last well beyond the time that the pet is in the room, and the positive effects build up over time. One important study of 5,741 people was conducted in Melbourne, Australia. Researchers found the pet owners had lower levels of blood pressure and cholesterol than non-pet-owners, even when both groups had the same poor life styles involving smoking and high-fat diets.

A fascinating study, presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Conference, demonstrated how addition of a pet to your lifestyle can help. Researchers used a group of male and female stockbrokers, who were already beginning to show the effects of their stressful life style, and who were candidates for medication to lower their blood pressure. The researchers first evaluated the brokers' blood pressure under conditions of stress. They did this by producing a stressful situation that might produce the same kinds of stress that these stockbrokers typically face. They were next given speeded numerical tasks and asked to role-play a situation in which they had to talk their way out of an awkward position. In response to these stressful tasks, their average blood pressure shot up to 184/129 mm of mercury (any blood pressure of 140/90 mm of mercury is considered high).

Each of the stockbrokers then was prescribed the same medication, however half of them also agreed to get a dog or a cat for a pet. Six months later the researchers called them back and gave them additional stress tests. Those stockbrokers who had now acquired a pet were allowed to keep the pet with them when they took their stress tests and the results were remarkable. The brokers who had the combined therapy (both a pet and medication) now showed a rise in stress related blood pressure that was only half as large as the brokers who were only treated with the medication.

Pets can actually help even if you have started to show evidence of heart problems. In an intriguing study published in the American Journal of Cardiology, researchers followed more than 400 patients after they were released from the hospital after having a heart attack. One year later the pet owners had a significantly higher survival rate than non-pet owners. Their guess is that the affectionate bond and social support provided by their dogs was reducing their stress and stress is a major contributor to cardiovascular problems.

Stress is not the only problem which our bond to our pets can help. Up to 25% of people who go to general practitioners do so for depressive and anxiety disorders. Depression is actually considered to be much more disabling, both socially and even terms of physical functioning, than many chronic physical illnesses such as diabetes, arthritis and back pain. Although depression can be caused by many factors, one of the most common is simply loneliness.

People with inadequate human social support can really benefit from pet ownership and the emotional bonds that pets provide. With the weakening of extended family ties, older people are particularly at risk of becoming lonely, isolated and depressed. Research looked at 60 years of age and older, who were not living with human companions, but were living with a pet. The likelihood that the non-pet owners would end up being diagnosed as clinically depressed was four times higher that that found in the pet owning people of the same age. There was also evidence that the pet owners required fewer medical services and were much more satisfied with their lives.

The easy and relaxed relationship that most people with have with pets also brings another benefit to people living alone. People report that when they are out walking with their dogs strangers are much more likely to stop and talk with them-mostly because there is a dog to say hello to, and people seem to want that moment of relaxed interaction with a pet. This can sometimes have important implications for the person's future lifestyle. Take case of Emma Cooper, age 71 who, had been living alone for nearly eight years since her husband died.

"I was out walking Surrey, my cocker spaniel and this man stopped to give him a pat. He seemed like a nice man and told me that he used to have a blonde cocker spaniel just like Surrey. We started to talk about living with dogs and then stopped for a cup of coffee. Well one thing led to another and Bill and I are getting married next month--as soon as we can find a clergyman who is willing to let a dog stand in as the best man!"

In Tough Economic Times People Will Make Sacrifices For Their Dog’s Happiness

Stanley Coren, Ph.D. — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:10:48 +0000

The stock market has taken a nose dive, many people find that their income is not keeping pace with their cost of living and the amount of disposable cash available to most of us is greatly reduced. Given these facts it seems sensible to ask the question as to whether people are still willing to spend money on their dogs. Because of the state of the economy, some academic economists and sociologists (probably not pet owners themselves) began to make some dire predictions. These included the expectation that so many people would now choose to give up their dogs in order to save money that animal shelters would find themselves in crisis. Certainly they predicted that the purchasing of many products and services for pet dogs would take a nose dive. As yet there is little evidence that any of these negative outcomes is taking place, and dog owners continue to buy frivolous toys and fancy treats for their pets while the intake rate in animal shelters shows little change from normal.

In light of the bad economy the American Kennel Club decided to conduct a survey to see if people were willing to give up any of their own comforts keep their dogs happy and to allow their pets to continuing living in the style that they had become accustomed to. The study consisted of a survey that was posted on the kennel club's website which attracted 1088 volunteer participants. The results showed a startling level of commitment to our pet dogs. Let me list some of the results in no particular order.

96% of the respondents are willing to give up their coffee habit in order to save some money for their dog's expenses.

97% are willing to eat more meals at home to save money for their dog's wants and needs.

94% are willing to spend less money on their clothes.

89% said they are willing to delay home remodeling so that they can have extra funds for their dogs.

88% said that they are willing to delay buying a new car, or would buy a less expensive model.

72% said that they are willing to give up their exercise club memberships.

67% said that they would cancel their travel plans this year if they couldn't afford to board their dogs.

When it comes to their dog's health and welfare people are quite willing to make major sacrifices.

97% said that they would cancel their own massages and spa treatments to have the money to pay for their dog's veterinary fees.

78% said that they would cancel a teeth-whitening appointment of their own in order to pay for their dog's annual teeth cleanings.

65% said that they would eat instant noodles in order to be able to continue to afford high quality food for their dogs.

50% said that they would cancel their cable or satellite TV subscriptions in order to provide necessities for their pets.

However one unexpected finding had to do with something that some people might consider to be a pure luxury.

59% of the participants said that they would perm or color their own hair in order to be able to afford to keep their dog's appointments at the groomers.

Looking over this list of sacrifices that people are willing to make for their pet dogs in tough economic times indicates just how committed people are to their pets. When I mentioned these results to a colleague who is also a psychologist he laughed and said, "It sounds just like the kinds of sacrifices that people are making to have the money to allow their kids to continue to play their favorite sports nowadays--even though cash is scarce because of the economy. Maybe this simply demonstrates the fact that dogs have become part of our families today, and we don't make all that much of a distinction between what we are willing to do for our four-footed or our two-footed family members."