2013년 4월 8일 월요일

Unproductive points : a primer

[http://networkedblogs.com] Northwoods Birddogs

Unproductive points : a primer

It was a championship field trial run on sharp-tailed grouse. Both brace mates stood on point, independently, but in the same area. The handlers flushed extensively, relocated their dogs and flushed more. Neither handler could produce a bird so they released their dogs and continued down the course. As the gallery of riders passed through the exact area the dogs had just pointed, a single sharptail flushed.
I wasn’t competing that day but I was one of the judges. And one of those dogs was a multiple champion on wild birds, CH Centerpiece, owned and handled by seasoned Frank LaNasa.

What is an unproductive point?
When a dog points and no bird is flushed or seen to flush from the area, it is referred to as an unproductive point. Other terms such as unproductive, nonproductive and false point refer to the same situation.

… the majority of times a high-quality and experienced dog pointed and no birds were seen was not because they were false pointing; but rather they were pointing where quail had been but had left undetected.
~ Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy, Tallahassee, Florida

Savvy wild birds want to survive. They learn avoidance techniques, especially when repeatedly pressured. They discern the approach of the dog and react accordingly.

These evasion tactics are confirmed by a five-year project undertaken by H. Lee Stribling and D. Clay Sisson, two professors at Auburn University. They conducted their research at the school’s Albany Area Quail Management Project in Albany, Georgia, beginning in 1992. The team used 254 radio-tagged coveys to determine how they behaved when encountered by dog and hunters.

Here are their findings on the causes of unproductive points.
• 58% caused by coveys running away from pointing dogs
• 31% attributed to wild flushes
• 11% actually pointed coveys that held tight and refused to flush

In this study, unproductives occurred in 12% of the encounters with marked coveys.

Experience is the best teacher
Better allow him to flush (the birds) than have him do too much pointing of a character that induces false pointing.
~C.B. Whitford, Training the Bird Dog

While there is no way to avoid unproductive points, there are development and training methods that encourage a dog to point only when it is sure of the bird’s location. Young dogs should have plentiful opportunity to find, follow, point—and flush—birds. In other words, let the young dog learn on its own. Experience is the best teacher and, in general, the more birds a dog contacts the better it will be.
During these encounters, a dog learns invaluable lessons:
• How close to get before the bird flushes.
• How to differentiate where the bird is as opposed to where it has been.
• How to follow running birds.
• What foot and body scent smell like.

Unproductive points will always occur, even if only occasionally. The acceptable number varies with the species. Woodcock, for example, allow the dog to get close before pointing and the dog has more opportunity to discern the exact location. Other species, such as ruffed grouse, require the dog to point from farther away, providing the dog with less scent and, therefore, more opportunities to error. Other factors including age of the birds, cover type and weather conditions can effect on the number of unproductive points.
In most field trials, regardless of the species, two unproductives usually takes the dog out of the stake.

Too many unproductives and tips to help
Not every unproductive point is caused because birds had left unseen. Some dogs are prone to point unproductively. If your dog is having excessive unproductive points and you suspect it is not because birds had left, here are common reasons and tips to resolve them.

→ Over cautiousness due to training problems
A dog can become over cautious around birds if it is being bothered. Constant talking to the dog while it is working game is distracting. Also overly severe corrections can be a problem. The dog doesn’t want to suffer the consequences of a mistake.
Tip: Be quiet when the dog is working game. Let the dog figure out how to handle birds without interference. Correct the dog only AFTER it flushes the bird and only enough to stop the chase. It may take some time for the dog to learn in this manner but you’ll have a better dog in the end.

→ Over cautiousness due to genetics
The dog lacks boldness toward birds because of its genes. Some dogs have too much point and/or faulty scenting ability. Others have soft dispositions which can make them afraid of birds.
Tip: Encourage the dog to move towards the scent to either point it or bump it. Don’t make it a big deal if the dog moves a few. Let the dog learn. This type of dog rarely develops a serious bumping problem. If the dog is young, let it mature a bit before more bird work.

→ Off game
Dogs can point off game such as song birds, rodents, rabbits, deer or turkey. If the off game is flushed in front of the dog’s point, it’s not, technically, an unproductive. If nothing is produced, it can be hard to discern what the dog was pointing. You might see a deer bed or rabbit droppings but those could be coincidences, too.
Tip: If you know for sure the dog is pointing off game, let it know that’s not what you want. A verbal correction may be all that is needed or you may need to escalate.

→ Foot scent or old scent
Some dogs want to point foot scent or very old scent. Under good conditions, dogs can smell ground scent that might be hours or even days old. Occassionally, a tired dog will put its head down more.
Tip: Teach the dog to move on a command such as “toot toot” on a whistle. Encourage the dog to move towards the scent and either point it or bump it. Let the dog learn. Hunt when the dog is fresh and full of energy.

→ Bad scenting conditions
It might just be the scenting conditions that day, i.e., the old saying, “wind from the east.”
Tip: Exercise patience. Try another dog. Wish for better weather.

→ The dog doesn’t want to quit hunting
I have seen dogs go on point for no reason other than it knows the hunt is ending. Sometimes I think it sees the truck.

Tip: Your dog is very smart and/or loves to hunt but it’s just putting on an act. Call the dog in and hope it’s not the proverbial truck bird.

Finally…
Remember, a key to fewer unproductives is letting the dog learn on its own. And you’re not alone if your dog has the occasional unproductive. Owners, trainers and handlers have been dealing with this issue for almost 150 years.

What a dog gains by experience is not what you teach him, but what he teaches himself.
~ Dog Breaking, Major-General W. N. Hutchinson, 1865

Scent-Cone Primer

[strideaway.com]

Scent-Cone Primer

The Scent-Cone is the secret to understanding what dynamic makes hunting dogs classier and more accomplished in hunting and handling game.
Most of the great bird dog trainers/handlers I knew grew up with a pack of hounds. I’ll name four: Clyde Morton, Paul Walker, Er Shelley, Bob Armstrong. They learned most about scent from running foxhounds. One of these, Er Shelley even took a pack of hounds to track game when he traveled to Africa.
Imagine that the concentration of scent effluvium is weaker at the outside of the cone (which is in actuality three dimensional like a funnel). Of course, the cone or funnel is extremely unstable, subject to breezes, dust-infusions, temperatures and barometric pressure. Thus, while essentially narrow where it is laid down, and broadening out, it floats, billows and shrinks and wafts around without any pattern but its very own.
A hound with a less precisely sensitive nose, will need to get closer and closer to the middle of the scent aura. He cannot pick up the outlying faint impression. Thus, when the quarry moves, backtracks or makes any other sudden adjustment, a poor hound will go babbling off and lose the scent trail immediately; while the hound with sound scent acuity is able to track on the very edge or verge of the scent cone, and thus, will not miss any abrupt redirection by the quarry.
Similarly, bird dog Alpha, with an exponentially better nose than bird Dog Omega, will be able to learn how to strengthen the scent excitement appropriately without putting the birds in the air untowardly. This, of course, entails intelligence/teachability. Bird dog Omega, because of his inferior “nose” may NEVER be able to learn this lesson which transforms him into a class performer, rather than a foot-scent-tracker, teachable or not.
Following this corollary, bird dog Alpha, with superior scenting ability will be able to scent and properly locate game from a ridge or hillside in light breeze, while Omega must be IN the valley, or arroyo to have a chance to locate the game there by tracking.
Experience and correction time, and a lot of patience with the young pup and derby showing exceptional scenting ability will pay off. The best youngsters will learn to handle critical scent problems in direct proportion to the number of times they learn to stand and see birds fly, and learn how to get their mouths on a bird. They will also learn to slow their pace at the right place at the edge or “mouth” of the cone and find the best scenting area to do their job. Of course, this accounts for the specialty dogs that seem to better handle running upland game: (ruffed grouse, pheasant, Huns, Valley and scaled quail and chukar) in various environments. It also accounts for the brilliance some dogs show in rounding up a covey and/or relocating while some dogs just have an unproductive or fail to relocate.
Some judges who have never hunted and shot wild upland game in dense cover will fault swiftly-adjusting dogs by accusing them of blinking. This is viewed as sad and ignorant by anyone who has foot-hunted or check-corded dogs and knows about the scent cone and the way the sharp dog exploits it.
Scent cones are not always the same shape and a veteran hunter will know this and recognize his dog’s empirical mastery. My Great Uncle Roy Wilson was a market hunter. He could almost predict a dog’s every step in heavy cover.
My grouse hunting taught me — where it had only been a glimmer of an impression when I was a young quail-killer — that upland game birds learn from day one to always keep cover or protection between them and a predator or hunter if they are going to survive. I spent considerable time trying to shoot grouse through tree trunks.
Flight-conditioned, incubator-pen-raised birds do not have this stratagem, and do not live long enough to develop it. The liberated pen birds of my experience, usually fly straight up and much farther (ironically) than wild birds, before they light. Native quail, as familiar with surroundings as Br’er Rabbit and his briar patch, “know” a nearby copse.
Their ground pattern is also quite different from wild birds. They are less likely to know the uses of cover, the importance of cover or its relative safety and non-safety. This accounts for the comparable facility with which a young dog will handle liberated birds. They have no tricks that require relocation in a chancy covert.
Then, of course, some dogs are born with more native intelligence than others.
Dogs? Intelligence?
Well, being stuck in the school of thought that everything that happens to a sentient being is a lesson of one kind or another, I am forced by empirical archives to believe in one definition of intelligence:
Intelligence is the INHERENT ability to use new information to its best advantage. This means, for a wild natural creature, to utilize every threat for survival, personal and species survival. This kind of intelligence is atavistic and instinctual but still is intelligence, because it is archived and used again and again.
The next level of intelligence is to build on this natural information to evolve a habit of choices: “X” behavior results in pleasure, freedom, satiation and “Z” activity results in discomfort, hunger, loneliness or separation and less “joy” or “reward”.
Extension of these choices and the extent to which the dog exploits them thereby pleasing the “pack” leader (read owner, trainer, handler, scout) enabling the dog to get more opportunities to find, retrieve, mouth, and sometimes even DEVOUR the quarry (under selective supervision). But, praise and demonstrated approval are the Baked Alaska dessert, the goal culmination. Acknowledgment and response to praise is the hook on which intelligence growth hangs.
Following this intelligence development to the use of what I have called the scent cone is not a plumb-line trek. Sometimes we believe the dog’s scenting ability improves like a light bulb being clicked on. This usually means the trainer as well as the dog has exploited a new lesson. All lessons are not planned. The richest ones are revelations…awakenings…epiphanies. Dogs trained on pigeons and pen raised birds will seem rather lost for a while when they are required to work wild, running upland game. Most of the wild game away from a very few southern quail plantation milieus are runners to begin with. Many run in the extreme, so to speak.
That means a dog that can add two and two together and get four in a comparatively brief exposure to them is mastering the vagaries of the scent cone….OR one that grinds away until he/she learns how to relocate and “nail” them to the ground expertly without flushing them. Somehow, the game just stops and huddles as a result of an educated movement that no human can predict or develop in a dog. It is just a craft, learned.
The first of the above is, I think, more intelligent.
All the other wild upland game birds run to some extent. The pinnated grouse, or Sharptail that we call prairie chicken nowadays, probably run the least around Summer midday, but that is because cover is scarce in its habitat, and it uses as much of the cover as it can to put between itself and the dog/man/predator.
Then, Huns are notorious track stars. Chukar, pheasant and ruffed grouse ambulate considerably…especially after your dog has established point. Before this, and certainly after this, is where the dogs use of the scope of the scent cone is important.

If the dog’s nose is not up to snuff (no pun intended) he will probably have outrun his nose, needing the strong pull of the foot/body scent to make the original location. There are also too many times when a dog’s nose and brain are not engaged at the same time and they just pass by the scent. Close observation and “knowing the dog” can tip off a handler.
If, after getting a startling whiff of game, the dog with super acuity has sensibly and sensitively depended on the faint outer edges of the scent cone he will begin to exhibit indicative signs, change of gait, static alertness, “making game” and then pointing. If some time elapses before help arrives, the dog must relocate running quarry. In doing so, again, if the dog must have foot-body scent to make the relocation, there is only about a one out of three chance he will be successful without collision and disaster.

A dog with superior olfactory acuity will identify his “mastery” by relocating precisely and swiftly most of the time. Experience will vastly improve the celerity of this performance. IF, that is, he has developed special intelligence through experience, failure, success and reward.

So, in my view, a really brilliant class bird-handling dog needs good breeding for excellent nose, native intelligence that archives lessons, and a lot of heart.
Oh…and luck in the judges is final twist in the Rubik’s cube, here.
And, Luck is the residue of preparation (by the judge) as Branch Rickey famously said.
© 2010, Bill Allen

2013년 4월 4일 목요일

The Spay or Neuter decision

[원문출처 : http://wenaha.blogspot.com/2008/07/spay-or-neuter-decision.html ]

The Spay or Neuter decision

There has been much disinformation spread by proponents of spay and neuter as a method of population control, with claimed health benefits. Many vets also recommend the procedure, claiming health benefits without explaining (or necessarily understanding) the negative risk factors. Many adoption agreements require that a pup be altered by the age of six months.

This is a decision that should be left to the owner, and a good vet will understand and explain both the positive and negative aspects of spaying or neutering your dog, rather than proactively recommending it as standard procedure.

The following was forwarded to me by Dr. Charles Hjerpe DVM, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine. It does not address the demonstrated behavioral issues that have been seen in neutered or spayed dogs, which should also be considered.
-------------

At some point, most of us with an interest in dogs will have to consider whether or not to spay/neuter our pet. Tradition holds that the benefits of doing so at an early age outweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds sway in the decision-making process even after countervailing evidence has accumulated.

Ms. Sanborn has reviewed the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive and scholarly treatise, attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject. More than 50 peer-reviewed papers were examined to assess the health impacts of spay / neuter in female and male dogs, respectively. One cannot ignore the findings of increased risk from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less frequently occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs. It would be irresponsible of the veterinary profession and the pet owning community to fail to weigh the relative costs and benefits of neutering on the animal’s health and well-being. The decision for females may be more complex, further emphasizing the need for individualized veterinary medical decisions, not standard operating procedures for all patients.

No sweeping generalizations are implied in this review. Rather, the author asks us to consider all the health and disease information available as individual animals are evaluated. Then, the best decisions should be made accounting for gender, age, breed, and even the specific conditions under which the long-term care, housing and training of the animal will occur.

This important review will help veterinary medical care providers as well as pet owners make informed decisions. Who could ask for more?

Larry S. Katz, PhD

Associate Professor and Chair

Animal Sciences

Rutgers University

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

INTRODUCTION

Dog owners in America are frequently advised to spay/neuter their dogs for health reasons. A number of health benefits are cited, yet evidence is usually not cited to support the alleged health benefits.

When discussing the health impacts of spay/neuter, health risks are often not mentioned. At times, some risks are mentioned, but the most severe risks usually are not.

This article is an attempt to summarize the long-term health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter in dogs that can be found in the veterinary medical literature. This article will not discuss the impact of spay/neuter on population control, or the impact of spay/neuter on behavior.

Nearly all of the health risks and benefits summarized in this article are findings from retrospective epidemiological research studies of dogs, which examine potential associations by looking backwards in time. A few are from prospective research studies, which examine potential associations by looking forward in time.

SUMMARY

An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the long- term health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter correlates with both positive AND adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do not yet understand about this subject.

On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.

On the positive side, neutering male dogs

• Eliminates the small risk (probably <1%)
• Reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
• Reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• May possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)

On the negative side, neutering male dogs

• If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
• Increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6
• Triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• Increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
• Triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems
• Quadruples the small risk (<0.6%)
• Doubles the small risk (<1%)
• Increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• Increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.

On the positive side, spaying female dogs

• If done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common malignant tumors in female dogs
• Nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs
• Reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• Removes the very small risk (≤0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors

On the negative side, spaying female dogs

• If done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis
• Increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of>5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
• Triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• Increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems
• Causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs
• Increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4
• Increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty
• Doubles the small risk (<1%)>
• Increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate pet owners, much of it has contributed to common misunderstandings about the health risks and benefits associated of spay/neuter in dogs.

The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically mature, or perhaps in the case of many male dogs, foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary.

The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next. Breed, age, and gender are variables that must be taken into consideration in conjunction with non-medical factors for each individual dog. Across-the-board recommendations for all pet dogs do not appear to be supportable from findings in the veterinary medical literature.

Posted by Mike Spies at 9:44 AM

Labels: Bird dog care, Breeding

Andrew Campbell said...

Mike: thanks for posting this. The AVMA has done some impressive compilation of records and has reached similar conclusions. A very recent report compiled by Dr. Margaret Root Kustritz, DVM, and published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association in December 2007, suggested, for example, that spayed female dogs run higher risks of hip dysplasia and urinary tract infections amongst other conditions -- and that the age of spaying may play an important role in mitigating a dog's subsequent likelihood of developing one of these conditions. As she concludes: "Pets should be considered individually, with the understanding that for these pets, population control is a less important concern than is health of each animal." (JAVMA, Vol 231, No. 11, December 1, 2007, p. 1671).

best

July 25, 2008 12:19 PM

KathyB. said...

What a surprisingly interesting article. It caused me to say "Amen" and "Hip hip hooray", someone is actually putting into writing some questions and concerns I have had over the years about my dogs and the popular, but rarely accurate myths about dogs and canine reproductive organs.

We had a registered and healthy male Yellow Lab. After he was 2 years old we received a notice from our vet stating they had noticed we had not taken our dog in to have him neutered. The notice also went on to state all the health concerns for non-neutered dogs and then said that male dogs ran the same risks as human males regarding testicular problems, etc. Later on in the year the vet's office called me and inquired about my male dog. ( This really bugs me too, that the vet would hound me about my choices regarding my dog!)I replied that since my dog was susceptible to all the same things as human males then I assumed all the male vets had been properly castrated ! They did not call back.

December 1, 2008 10:33 PM

Mike Spies said...

Kathy,

Thanks for posting this. I am similarly annoyed at the 'standard operating procedure' attitudes of vets in this regard. Of all my dogs, only one has been neutered - at the age of 11 from medical necessity.

Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS have worked hard to see that or animals are mutilated so that they cannot be bred. We need more critical thinking and less 'dogma'.

December 1, 2008 11:00 PM

PBurns said...

I am pro-choice, and vocally anti mandatory spay-neuter, but I am not convinced that what has been presented here is very meaningful, as there is no base line.

The base line I am looking for is the health consequences of pregnancy and an intact set of testicles. That number is not zero, but I do not see it mentioned or even given a nod to.

An unspayed dog or intact male has certain things that can predictably happen to it a certain percentage of the time. Male dogs are routinely put down for aggression, for marking inside, and they also routinely escape yards looking for action, and are hit by cars. That's the base line for doing nothing in male dogs and it is a very real health consequence of having testicles (along with early mortality due to prostate problems).

The base line for female dogs is death from complications related to pregnancy.

Add to the base line for both non-altered male and female dogs is the cost of "accidental" matings which are quite predictable. Some of the resulting puppies will end up being killed in shelters, very few will be placed with real care, and the financial costs (caesarians are not free) should probably be factored in as well, as some unplanned breedings almost guarantee veterinary expenses.

Was any of this obvious stuff factored in? Not as far as I can see.

As for issues such as osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and hypothyroidism, nothing will reduce these problems faster than dumping the Kennel Club's closed registry system, banning incestuous matings, allowing outcrossings, and breeding for smaller dogs (size appears to be a big deal in some cancers, pardon the pun).

Alter your dog or not as you see fit. It's still a free country. But if you are really concerned about cancer, etc. the big decision is BREED selection, not spay-neuter.

Patrick

December 31, 2008 1:35 PM

Mike Spies said...

PBurns brings up some legitimate points... a lack of 'baseline'. However, this is not a study in the formal sense but a review of literature - about 50 papers in Veterinary Medicine that bear on the subject of spay/neuter - by a professional.

The article has adequate attribution that a reader who has sufficient interest may contact the people listed in the post, or contact me to ask for more information.

PBurns further posits the idea that "such as osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and hypothyroidism, nothing will reduce these problems faster than dumping the Kennel Club's closed registry system, banning incestuous matings, allowing outcrossings, and breeding for smaller dogs" -- This without citing any baseline or sources of his own to support the idea that these diseases are linked to genetic problems associated with 'closed registries' or 'incestuous matings'

SO take PBurns comments as opinion unsupported by fact.

Comments on this board are unmoderated and will continue to be that way. But I will reply to call BS whenever I feel it appropriate.

January 1, 2009 8:02 AM