By Gary Wilkes
August 14, 2015
Most people think that Darwin created the phrase “Survival of the Fittest.” He didn’t. Darwin himself attributed the phrase to Herbert Spencer. Darwin’s encapsulation of evolution is slightly different:
“In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they be successful in adapting themselves best to their environment.”
The problem in understanding this concept is that the word “fit” has several meanings – and many people use the wrong one. many references to the Spencer quote imply that the “fittest” implies individuals that are stronger, faster and tougher than their fellows. I don’t think that’s a appropriate understanding of his words. In my dictionary, the first definition of fit is …adapted or suited: appropriate. I think that is what is implied by both Spencer and Darwin — survival of the ones who fit their environment as hand to glove. In my dictionary, it’s not until definition number five that you get to the implying many people use — “in good physical condition; in good health” Additionally, all three of the definitions attributed to biology refer to an animal’s ability to reproduce and pass along genetic traits to offspring.
What’s that got to finish with dogs?
If you’re wondering how this affects our knowledge of dogs, consider this: There are lots of dogs out there who are typically fearful. practically everyone who comes in contact with them assumes their behavior is the result of abuse. These animals are invariably treated with kind gloves and often their behavior is extremely “unfit” – implying they are the square pegs in the round holes of their owners’ lives.
Often this very gentle treatment continues, even though the dog’s behavior is potentially harmful to themselves or others. The quickest way for these dogs to escape an unpleasant event or consequence is to merely appear fearful. If they were pampered children, we could call them crybabies. They respond both from an innate, instinctive tendency and a long history of successful manipulation of humans. If this sounds funny, consider this example:
A few years ago I was asked to “fix” the coyotes at the Phoenix Zoo. They were wild coyotes who had lived in a single compound for ten years. once a year they were caught by their keepers so they could get a veterinary examination. The first year, they were lured into their “night house”, an air-cooled, concrete area with two chain-link runs and a common, unfenced floor about 15 feet square. After the first year, they never went into the night house again – as far as the keepers knew. This forced the keepers to catch them in a large net once a year.
On the last experience, Bob, the male, had tried to dart away from the net and ran smack into a cactus. I was told that because of the emotional trauma associated with these two incidents, they were scared of humans and stayed in their den until everyone was gone. The result was that even with a beautiful elevated seeing area, guests of the zoo practically never saw the coyotes.
My first observation started by entering their compound. It was natural desert landscape, about 200 x 200 feet. I stood in the middle of the compound by a large saguaro cactus and had one of the keepers start walking the perimeter of the fence. The coyotes obediently moved about 20 yards in front of the keeper and passed my location. As they went by, I discovered that neither of the animals had their ears laid back or tails tucked. In fairness, Bob couldn’t tuck his tail – it was amputated after he got in a fight with a wild coyote.
Regardless, neither of the animals gave any indication they were scared of the keeper. Each time they made a circuit around the compound, I moved a little closer to their pathway. Each time they passed their ears were still up and they moved at a constant pace. about the third time around they both saw me but didn’t change their gate or posture. This continued until I was about five feet from them as they went by. They were fully aware of my presence. It was apparent that they weren’t scared of humans. They simply didn’t like humans that tried to capture them.
The correlation here is pretty obvious. If captive wild animals behave similarly to captive domestic animals, it may imply a genetic similarity that is not dependent on abuse. The wolves at the zoo displayed the same caution as the coyotes, though they had not experienced the “trauma” of running into cactus. Dogs that are much more fearful than normal may simply be much more like their wild ancestors. In nature, an ultra-cautious animal is likely to stay alive where a less cautious animal might die.
For group living animals, having a broad spectrum of behavioral types can act to insure survival of the species. The individual on its own may not “fit” every situation but the group may possess collective variety that insures that someone will step up and resolve the problem. That implies that if all wolves were fearless they might not have survived. It is not challenging to imagine how having much more cautious animals around might actually be of benefit to the group. Wolves that are not fearless may nip at the flanks of a prey animal to harass it while the heavy hitters catch up. another thought concerns mind that may surprise you – what if “generally fearful” dogs aren’t always typically fearful? What if their ability to adapt to the environment is intact and they can lose their fear? You already know that’s true. Here’s why.
The Magic Salon and Magic Hands
I worked in shelters for eight years and I’ve worked as a behaviorist for about 25. I have good hands with fearful dogs. I know when to apply firm dealing with and when to back off. Groomers display their excellence through the same medium – great handling. Over time, a groomer develops a “no nonsense” relationship and the canine adapts to it, typically loving their groomer as much or much more than their owners. That implies my best example of fearful dogs not being typically fearful is at your own front door. I have worked with numerous dogs with major behavior problems. I always ask how they do at the groomer. “Oh, Max just loves our groomer. She can do anything with him.” This was said about a canine that wouldn’t come out of the closet when guests were in the home. The canine was only comfortable in the company of the owner, her husband and their teenage daughter…and their groomer.
Fearful behavior is something great groomers deal with in style. numerous trainers don’t. The use of firm, controlled restraint allows the terrified canine to learn to be passive during grooming. The same process can be used to appropriate their behavior in the home.
Even if you don’t want to offer behavior and training services, your knowledge is precious. If you did go into the home, you could offer your clients guidance that would make their lives better. If you don’t wish to do that, start working with a good trainer who is open to admitting that you are a better handler. The combination of your skills and their skills can make a huge difference in your clients’ lives – and they will thank you for it. Ending the coddling is the first step toward freedom. The secret to improving the lives of fearful dogs isn’t treating them with kind gloves, the service is to instruct them to fit their owner’s lives, hand in glove.
Total
13
Shares
13
0
0
0
0
Advertisements
Leave a Reply