Jean Dujardin and Uggie in The Artist"

“That’s because more than 80 years ago, the Academy drafted rules that specifically exclude animals being nominated for Oscars, all because of the success of another superstar dog of the silent era, Rin Tin Tin.
Susan Orlean, author of “Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend”, says that Rin Tin Tin was so popular with movie audiences in the silent era that he almost won the very first best actor Oscar in 1929.”

The canine actors will get their own awards. “Dog News Daily has announced the nominations for its first ever Golden Collar Awards, given for the best performances by pooches of the small and silver screen,” reports in the Celebritology blog (can’t quote this with a straight face, this new-fangled English from the venerable Washington Post.)

Uggie’s owner, Omar von Muller, adopted him from a shelter when Uggie was seven months old, given up because he bit a goat. His other film credits include “Mr. Fix It” with David Boreanaz, a comedy that went straight to DVD. Uggie landed his role in “The Artist” on the reccomandation of his trainer, Sarah Clifford, whose company Animal Savvy provides animals for movies. Now at 9 years old, Uggie may face retirement. He spends most of his days lounging by the pool or playing with Muller’s 6-year-old daughter.

Dash, Uggie’s younger brother and occasional stand-in, will keep acting.

—–
Notes:
I wrote this post on the same day as President’s Obama State of the Union speech. Could it be the search engines learned I was looking for the dogs? More stories about the terrier appear on my screen than about the State of the Union.

Oscar’s big snub: Uggie the dog, a true “Artist”, by Jill Serjeant, Reuters, Jan 24,2012
news.yahoo.com/oscars-big-snub-uggie-dog-true-artist-202736566.html

photo: from www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yao13CA62mc

Golden Collars Awards: Dog News Daily Dogs In TV & Film Awards Announced
huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/golden-collars-awards-dog-news-daily-tv-film_n_1206387.html

Hollywood’s Top Dog: ‘The Artist’ Star Uggie, by Ramin Setoodeh, Dec 5, 2011, The Daily Beast
thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/05/hollywood-s-top-dog-the-artist-star-uggie.html

Dog News Daily, dognewsdaily.com
“Since our launch in January 2009, DogNewsDaily.com has become the most popular online dog magazine…”

The Palm Dog Awards, www.palmdog.com
“Fulfilling a need for recognition of the cinema talents of man’s best friend the Palm Dog celebrates the the glamour, the sparkle, the razzmattazz and absolute fabulousness of the four legged.” Started in 2001.

“Artist” canine headed for retirement, by Kimberly Potts, Reuters Jan 26,2012
news.yahoo.com/artist-canine-headed-retirement-183900266.html

Uggie on a skateboard, with his owner Omar, on a Montel Williams infomercial:
youtube.com/watch?v=xhMF9JeAaIc

Now from Japan, news of the oldest dog prove those charts are not entirely accurate, or perhaps they need to give a bit more space to that Gaussian average to include the longer than average lifespans:

We are saddened to learn that Pusuke, the world’s oldest living dog, according to Guinness, died a couple of days ago in Sakura, Japan. The fluffy tan Shiba mix suddenly fell ill and refused to eat or go on his morning walk, said his owner, Yumiko Shinohara. Pusuke was 26 years and 8 months old.

London, Dec 7, 2011- The world’s oldest dog died aged 26 years and nine months in Japan earlier this week at his owner’s home.
Pusuke, a male crossbreed, passed away peacefully at his home in Japan. He had been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s oldest living dog, the Sun reported.
A devastated owner Yumiko Shinohara said that her beloved pet was healthy and active until Monday, when he began struggling to breath.
Pusuke died just minutes after Yumiko returned home in Tochigi prefecture.
‘I think he waited for me to come home,’ she said.
Pusuke, however, died two years and eight months shy of the record for the oldest dog to have ever lived, a title held by Bluey, an Australian cattle dog who died in 1939 aged 29 years and five months.
—
Notes:
World’s oldest dog dies ahead of 27 birthday, By Indo Asian News Service | IANS – Wed, Dec 7, 2011
in.news.yahoo.com/worlds-oldest-dog-dies-ahead-27-birthday-174131081.html

Rest in peace, old fella:, Day In Pictures Thursday December 8, 2011
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/g/a/2011/12/08/dip.DTL

As our physical separation from animals has grown, our cultural and philosophical distance diminished.

In universities, animals once belonged in the lab or in ag schools, now animal studies make inroads into humanity studies, reports The New York Times:

This spring, freshmen at Harvard can take “Human, Animals and Cyborgs.” Last year Dartmouth offered “Animals and Women in Western Literature: Nags, Bitches and Shrews.” New York University offers “Animals, People and Those in Between.”

Science reporter James Gorman writes:

The field builds partly on a long history of scientific research that has blurred the once-sharp distinction between humans and other animals.

It was an artificial distinction, based on culture and myth, not on facts. It’s about time humanities catch up with science when assesing similarities and differences between species.

Missing in action

“Thirty years ago, she said, animals were at the margins of philosophical discussions of ethics; now “the animal question is right in the center of ethical discussion,” Dr. Gruen told The New York Times.

With an ethics angle, Animal Studies in the midst of very urban Greenwich Village doesn’t seem so out-of-place, although I wonder, how many live animals are there on the New York University campus?!

Another big issue, with huge ethical and practical implications, is not mentioned. Sure, the NYT article focuses on the academics. I’m glad there is so much coverage of animals, but I still wonder why the current species extinction wave isn’t mentioned.

An estimated 35 species died today, according to the poodwaddle clock. The huge rate of species extinction is missing from the “why animal studies now” blurbs on the various sites. Imprecise as this estimate may be, with all awareness that species have gone extinct before humans even existed so we are not necessarily causing it, there’s still a strong suspicion that loss of habitat and environmental problems contribute mightily to species loss.

I also want to know the name of the chimp pictured with the article. It’s all about integrating animals and ethics, but who is the chimp? The photographer wasn’t credited either, only gettyimages got credit for the portrait.

—-
Notes:
—-

Animal Studies Cross Campus to Lecture Hall, By James Gorman, January 2, 2012
www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/animal-studies-move-from-the-lab-to-the-lecture-hall.html

Photo used in the article above:
Chimpanzee pondering his life like the Thinker, Pan troglodytes
Creative image # 100480527, gettyimages.com photo by Bridger Nielson, Gravity Giant Productions

Human, Animals, and Cyborgs, Harvard University 2011-2012 Course Catalog, Freshman Seminar, Faculty Jill Constantino
Description excerpt: How do we fit among the animals, plants, and materials around us?

New York University Animal Studies
animalstudies.as.nyu.edu/page/home

Animal Studies at NYU: A Look at the School’s Newest Program (Interview)
What Brad Goldberg, NYU grad, animal activist and donor to the program, has to say about the initiative.
By Rachel Cernansky, Oct 13, 2010
planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/animal-studies-nyu-look-at-newest-program.html

Animals and Society Institute
“Where knowledge and science meet ethics and compassion”
www.animalsandsociety.org/main/

new book due in April 2012
Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now?, by Kari Weil
cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14808-5/thinking-animals

Exposing humanism’s conception of the human as a biased illusion, and embracing posthumanism’s acceptance of human and animal entanglement, Weil unseats the comfortable assumptions of humanist thought and its species-specific distinctions.

As always, needs to be mentioned:
US and World Population right now:
U.S. 312,831,075, World 6,986,968,884, 19:39 UTC (EST+5) Jan 10, 2012

Turns out, my mother’s philosophy echoes not only her upbringing, but historical attitudes. Darrin McMahon, a professor of history at Florida State University and the author of “Happiness, A History,” writes:

Americans today consider happiness not only something that would be nice to have, but something that we really ought to have [...] it is also a relatively recent idea in the West which dates from the 17th and 18th centuries, a time that ushered in a dramatic shift in what human beings could legitimately hope to expect in and from their lives. People prior to the late 17th century thought happiness was a matter of luck or virtue or divine favor. Today we think of happiness as a right and a skill that can be developed.

It’s only recently that I’ve seen happiness addressed in science. The name that comes to mind is Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D., who “works on positive psychology, learned helplessness, depression, and on optimism and pessimism.”

Concerns about whether our animals are happy followed. In 2004, new dressage rules added the requirement that dressage judges were to judge if a horse in a dressage show was “happy” as well as judge the other aspects of performance. I believe this rule has been dropped since, due to the inability for a judge to know if a horse is happily performing or not, at least not based on observing the performance itself.

Can we know?
So how do we evaluate animal happiness? Are wild animals happier than wild animals held in captivity? What about domestic animals?

“We have no evidence whatsoever that wild animals are, in any way, happier than domesticated ones which are treated well,” writes Christie Wilcox in her guest blog post for Scientific American, Bambi or Bessie: Are wild animals happier?

As an animal owner (or do they own me?) I am happy to read that science supports the fact that our domestic animals can be content. No surprise, really, we knew that — given the dangers of living in the wild, animals might choose to live in the proximity of humans or life as a domestic.

Wilcox explains her conclusion, based on what can be measured and evaluated by the objective scientific method: since we cannot measure happiness, the closest guide we have is measuring levels of stress hormones:

Instead, we tend to qualify happiness in animals as a lack of chronic stress. Stress, unlike happiness, is very easy to measure. You can look for decreases in overall health in just about any kind of creature. You can keep an eye out for neurotic behaviors, and measurements of hormone levels of cortisol, norepinephrine, adrenaline and other “stress” hormones provide a quantified means of measuring stress. Though lack of stress doesn’t guarantee “happiness”, it’s the closest we can get.

It’s worth clicking on the link to see the details of the stress measurements.

In fact, a decreased stress response compared to wild counterparts has been found in every single domesticated species that has been studied.

Wilcox adds:

Domesticated animals don’t feel stress about the future, because they don’t have an understanding of their future in the same way we do. A cow doesn’t live a more stressed or unhappy life than a dog or a deer because it is destined to be killed for its meat. Cows aren’t upset that they will end up as steaks because, as Michael Pollan phrased it, “in a bovine brain the concept of nonexistence is blissfully absent.”

Wilcox’s excellent post, perhaps for the sake of brevity, omits issues I think are important when discussing the parameters of what might contribute to happiness: does not address the intellgence – happiness correlation, the freedom of choice, the “Watership Down” choices, the golden cage syndrome, or the larger issues of whether we have any right to manipulate genes and environments with little understanding of consequences.

I also disagree with Pollan’s assertion as quoted by Wilcox. We do not have the proper tools to even ask a bovine if they have a concept of non-existence, and by tools I mean training, communication and other non-invasive methods, with the note that high-tech electronics can help decipher animal communications. Or we simply don’t have the funds and the will to spend a lot of effort on such research.

I had to check up Wilcox’s reference to Pollan’s article and here’s another quote worth pondering:

From the animals’ point of view, the bargain with humanity has been a great success, at least until our own time. Cows, pigs, dogs, cats and chickens have thrived, while their wild ancestors have languished. (There are 10,000 wolves in North America, 50,000,000 dogs.) Nor does their loss of autonomy seem to trouble these creatures.

It is wrong, the rightists say, to treat animals as “means” rather than “ends,” yet the happiness of a working animal like the dog consists precisely in serving as a “means.” Liberation is the last thing such a creature wants. To say of one of Joel Salatin’s caged chickens that “the life of freedom is to be preferred” betrays an ignorance about chicken preferences–which on this farm are heavily focused on not getting their heads bitten off by weasels.

It’s pretty safe to agree with the fear of weasels part. It’s also a fact that “liberation” is not a solution. We have no wilderness left! There’s no place to liberate anyone, not too mention that liberated animals lack any survival skills. However I have reservations about assuming that the “creatures” are not troubled by loss of autonomy — as with the concept of non-existence, we have limited communication ability, no way to test if animals understand these concepts. Note that humans sometimes trade freedom and autonomy for safety and sustenance and that makes social life possible.

From an environmental point of view, my mother was likely correct. We witness how the pursuit of short-term rewards without much thought to what will happen 500 years from now has endangered Earth’s ecology as we know it. In this light, it is important to discuss and research what makes us happy. And what makes animals content as far as we can tell. Can pursue happiness within the restraints and the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity?

Stay tuned for further discussions about happiness, stress and how can we know.

—
Notes:

Bambi or Bessie: Are wild animals happier?, By Christie Wilcox | Apr 12, 2011
www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=bambi-or-bessie-are-wild-animals-ha-2011-04-12

Observations of a Nerd, Christie Willcox’ blog:
scienceblogs.com/observations/

Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D – bio at UPenn:
“His most recent book is the best-selling, Authentic Happiness (Free Press, 2002)”
www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/bio.htm

Dressage riders to aim for happy horses, Seamour Rathore, 28 October, 2004
www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.php?aid=59020
selected quotes:

Dr Eric van Breda, a specialist in comparative human and equine training and exercise physiology moved the debate on by saying that happiness cannot be measured in equine athletes as it is in human athletes.
“From a scientific point of view we need to find a way of measuring the dressage horse’s ‘happiness’. But this needs a lot more field research [rather than theoretical] and out of competition measurements of ‘happiness’ [to provide a control].”
[snip]
David Hunt, president of the International Dressage Trainers Club spoke for a lot of the delegates and echoed Kyra’s concerns about the interpretation of the new rule: “The “happy athlete” is a good perception but it has its disadvantages — it can be misinterpreted very easily.

www.fei.org/sites/default/files/file/DISCIPLINES/DRESSAGE/Rules/RULES_DRESSAGE_2011_BLACK-VERSION_web.pdf

What Makes You Happy? How Our Notions of “Happiness” Can Doom Us to Sadness
When we want to be happy all of the time, we can forget that the pursuit of happiness can entail struggle, sacrifice, even pain.
by Darrin McMahon, April 28, 2011
 /www.alternet.org/culture/150778/what_makes_you_happy_how_our_notions_of_%22happiness%22_can_doom_us_to_sadness

Watership Down, by Richard Adams (1972) was censored and forbidden reading under communism. I listened to Voice of America and Radio Free Europe readings of the book. This does not seem to be mentioned by the Wikipedia entry on 05/22/2011
Why we’re all animal lovers
From Watership Down to Tarka the Otter, what is the appeal of anthropomorphic literature?
www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jun/10/whywereallanimallovers

An Animal’s Place
by Michael Pollan, The New York Times Magazine, Nov 10, 2002
PDF here: quotesonslavery.org/media/pdf/michael-pollan-20021110.pdf

The latest rapture prophet whose prediction failed, believed animals have no souls and do not go to haven, reports Julia Felsenthal in Slate. She writes:

Since the high Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church began framing its understanding of nature and the supernatural in Aristotelian terms, the standard Christian interpretation has been that human beings have an immortal soul, and cannot die, but other forms of life do not, and can.

But animal lovers who are Christian interpret the Bible so that it’s possible for pets to go to Heaven. The Slate article points towards Christians who do believe animals can go to Heaven as well: Peter the Apostle, John Wesley in the 18th century, Karl Barth and C.S. Lewis in the 20th century and as recently as 2003, a Franciscan Friar named Jack Wintz.

In my opinion, a formal survey would confirm that a majority of Christian animal lovers cannot imagine Heaven without their beloved pets. That may be at odds with the theology. That may have appeared shocking to previous generations of Christians who truly believed that humans are superior to soul-less animals. But in these times when we often pick our own interpretation of faith or lack of faith, the faithful choose to believe that pets will go to Heaven:

PROOF OF ANIMAL IMMORTALITY
There are those who believe and those who don’t. All we can hope to do is provide everyone with the proof through information from the writings of some of the world’s greatest scholars and other intelligent sources. If after you’ve read this information, you still don’t believe then it’s something you’ll have to deal with through God Himself.

While skeptical of such proof, I am pleased if such considerations for animals lead to all-around better care for pets and livestock. If animals do have souls, or if they do not, is that a factor when designing and operating factory farms? What about species extinction due to the expansion of humanity’s collective footprint?

On the first page of the animalsinheaven.org website, a Christian named Sara writes:

In fact, I know now that all animals go to heaven. I also need to express to everyone here that God wants us to do as much as possible to help the ones that are here. Spaying and Nuetering (sic) is important to prevent baby animals into going to abusive and neglectful homes

Let’s hope that the faithful will include wildlife in the larger circle of concern and that we humans can act to prevent any more species for going extinct while we still have time, if we still have time.

——–
Notes
No Dogs Go to Heaven, But they don’t go to hell, either.
By Julia Felsenthal, Friday, May 20, 2011
www.slate.com/id/2295093/

Entrepreneurs offer post-’rapture’ services
By Abby Sewell, Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2011
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rapture-20110519,0,6209624.story

Christian animal lovers: Animals in Heaven
www.animalsinheaven.org/

Will I See My Little Doggy in Heaven?
By Jack Wintz, O.F.M., July 2003
An admirer of Francis of Assisi offers 10 reasons why he believes the whole family of creation is included in God’s plan of salvation.
www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jul2003/feature2.asp

St. Francis in San Francisco (Paulist Press, 2001) (discontinued, out of print)
by Jack Wintz, O.F.M

Animals gather around God’s throne in Revelation 5:13
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Revelation&chapter=5&verse=13

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
13And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Rapture passes – believers downcast, pastor silent
Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer,Sunday, May 22, 2011
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/22/MNP41JJA8B.DTL

Does whipping increase speed? .. Really?

Paul McGreevy, a veterinary ethologist at the University of Sydney, co-authored a study about the efficacy of whipping race horses. Quoted by LiveScience.com, and Yahoo News, McGreevy says:

“It’s the first study to confirm that whipping does not increase the chances of the horse finishing first, second or third,” “Ninety-eight percent of the horses were whipped in this study without, on the whole, influencing race outcome.”

So are horselovers everywhere breathing a sigh of relief –whew, I should have known better than causing my horse pain for my own gain. Now we have accurate proof that we need to train without pain.

Guess.

Australian newspapers reported that many of the nation’s jockeys, trainers and horse owners “scoffed” at the research. I have not been able to find a source quote for who exactly reported who exactly “scoffed.” I could not determine if whoever “scoffed,” scoffed at the research itself or if they were defending the practice of physically hurting horses to make them run faster. I posted on a racing forum asking opinions about the whipping study, but the thread did not generate any interest.

A closer look at the study
I am thrilled when serious researchers have the resources to set up serious, credible studies regarding such issues in the horseworld. Our training techniques work amazingly well, given that they are based on art and traditions and much less on science or real facts. However, we are all aware that beating animals into submission and using all kinds of physical pain to control animals was and still is distressingly common. On the other hand, we can use whips, wands, wild willow sticks, and target poles and even orange plastic sticks (at $57 each or are they $75 by now!) and we use them as communications tools, not to inflict pain or fear. In fact, we specifically train young horses to understand the use of a whip or crop as a communication tool and the horses accept it as such.

I emailed Dr. Mc Greevy with my main question regarding the methodology of this study:

should a jockey insist that whipping is effective in increasing speed, or should a percentage of horses in future studies indeed increase speed when whipped, it would be worth considering that the speed increase occurs inspite of, not because of the pain — possibly due to the cue of raising/lowering that whip.

Such a cue could be “good” .. ie to clearly (visually) communicate rhythm ..consequence of
non-compliance would be the removal of trainer’s attention as in a time out ..
..or “bad” .. as in a threat followed by a hit/pain.

About those questioning the validity of the study, Dr. McGreevy wrote (private communication): “One day they will have to admit that they supported the whipping of tired horses – what a strange position to defend!” and “The correct use of whips as signalling devices is explored in the attached papers.”

Dressage people also immediately brought up appropriate uses of a crop as communication device in this thread on the Ultimate Dressage bulleting board. A trainer I respect captures what many consider appropriate uses of the crop, she writes:

A usual use of the whip is one hit and fan the horse with the arm. The first hit (or two) does get a reaction, after than most fan with the whip. Almost all know that more doesn’t help with anything.

A barrel racer writes in the same thread:

I only carried a whip with a horse that I thought may be deciding not to listen to my cues to move it. [...] Now when used I would pop them once. If that didn’t tell them to move it, then we needed more training or maybe he was hurting. As far as running home don’t use it for that. My horses would run at the urging of my legs. No huge kicking, no reason for that. The more still I could be an convey my message the better. I see too many barrel racers whipping on the home stretch and the horse is never picking up more speed. Useless and cruel. So my opinion is it can be used successfully and with tact. But unfortunately, too many use it excessively and I’d be interested in seeing races without the whip to see how that worked out. I also think the whip is probably more abused in barrel races than in horse races, but I could be wrong about that.

We might need another controlled scientific study to prove that whipping doesn’t make barrel racers go faster, either. In a future post, I will look at Dr. McGreevy and Dr. Evans’ research about using whips to communicate.

But isn’t it fantastic that, thanks to this study, we now have data to validate the humane trainers’ and riders’ opinions that whipping to cause pain “doesn’t help with anything?”

———-
Notes

An Investigation of Racing Performance and Whip Use by Jockeys in Thoroughbred Races
David Evans, Paul McGreevy
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015622
Citation: Evans D, McGreevy P (2011) An Investigation of Racing Performance and Whip Use by Jockeys in Thoroughbred Races.
PLoS ONE 6(1): e15622. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015622

Horsewhipping Study Whips Up Controversy
Rebecca Kessler, LiveScience Contributor, 09 February 2011

How a horse ran in the first part of a race, when it wasn’t being whipped, was the most critical factor in racing success, researchers found.

www.livescience.com/12782-horse-whipping-racehorses-study.html

Turns out, the woman, whose identity was not revealed, had purchased the tiny baby marmoset from ebay.

“We call our cats and dogs babies all the time,” said the woman, who is disabled and cares not only for her new baby, but also for three Chihuahuas, a Pomeranian, a crocodile gecko and a garter snake. “When you first get them, they’re just like a preemie,” she said.

Would you buy a preemie? Take him or her away from the parents?

Legitimate reasons to remove a preemie might include:
* you’re a veterinarian and have to remove a baby from the parents because of medical reasons
* or a zookeeper concerned that an infant won’t survive and the baby has to be hand-raised and trained to be tame and that is totally ok for an animal who will live in a modern zoo
* or you’re saving the condor and have to raise a hatchling with a puppet and make sure they don’t imprint on humans; you and your research team learn how to raise a wild species to be wild and able to be released and fend for itself in the wild
* or you’re a peasant in a remote country in the old times, before spay and neuter programs, whose most humane option to keep their female dogs and cats healthy was to cull newborns before their eyes open, and drowning seemed like a better alternative than farm animal overpopulation.

Does it count, if you’re:
* a livestock breeder who removes calves from the mama cows before they ever suckle or bond and raises the calves on formula (made who-knows-where) because somehow raising calves in isolation in hutches is good for the bottom line
* or a chicken breeder who uses incubators and assumes that the chicks will never ever see sunlight or feel grass below their feet or socialize with anyone but declawed and debeaked cagemates

Would you consider it ok to remove infants for profit? How large a profit? Who’s benefiting the most — the farmers, or the distant corporations, or the people getting low-cost meat and forgetting about the high cost of cheap and always forgetting about the ultimate resource, our natural environment, which we abuse?

So under what circumstances exactly would you remove an infant from the parents?

To have a pet?!

Breeding marmosets as pets
Apparently marmoset breeders remove babies from their monkey mothers at three days old “to make better pets,” according to the caption of a teensy marmoset photo by Scott Kinmartin: a baby marmoset on flickr. The photo shows an infant ’bout the size of the thumb of the hand which holds it. The photo appears on an info site about pigmy marmoset, a site which seems geared towards pet owners. “Pygmy Marmoset pets can be difficult to keep, but if done so properly can be extremely rewarding,” quoted from their front page.

Breeders in USA need to have licenses. About breeding pigmy marmosets, they write:

Breeders remove infants from their parents for hand-rearing when they are between 3 and 10 days of age, so the infants can receive colostrum and milk for the antibodies. Infants are delicate and usually weigh between 28 and 35 grams at birth. [...] Babies cannot thermoregulate for the first two months. The father carries the infant the majority of the time, and the female usually only carries the infant to nurse it. The baby normally rides across the parent’s neck and shoulders.

and this:

Newborns must be fed every two hours around the clock and must be stimulated in the perineal area to urinate and defecate. Babies will start to sleep through the night when they are about two weeks old, weaning occurs about 8 to 10 weeks of age.

What are marmosets?
They sure are cute, whatever they are! Numerous species of small long-tailed South American monkeys are called marmosets. From Encyclopædia Britannica:

Marmosets have been kept as pets since the early 17th century, but they require knowledgeable care to remain healthy. “True” marmosets breed in monogamous pairs and live in a social organization in which the older young assist in feeding, carrying, and educating the infants.

Lion tamarins (genus Leontopithecus) are named for their thick manes, and all four species are endangered, three of them critically; one (L. caissara) was first discovered in 1990.

Is it legal to own one in USA?
Twenty US states ban private ownership of exotic animals, including MA, according to a graphic US map found on bornfreeusa.org

— at least large cats (some of them ban all wild cats), wolves, bears, reptiles, most non-human primates: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming

It’s not clear if “most non-human primate” ban in MA excludes marmosets. It does not appear, from the information in the original article, that this monkey is intended as service animal, raised, then trained, by approved households and professionals.

Should it be legal to own exotics as pets?
As critical as I sound in these posts, I am in favor of private persons owning exotic animals.

Given the destruction of natural habitat all over the planet, some forms of ownership of exotic animals or native wildlife might help with education, preservation of species, or simply increase our interactions with animals.

And what about national parks, aren’t they becoming like large zoos? Is (mis)management by humans inevitable, if we plan for wildlife to survive?

But ripping infants from their parents to raise a pet is not ok. Training techniques on how to interact with animals exist, if only humans would want to learn how to work with mother and babies of the species they want as pets.

However, all great training techniques go along with appropriate management .. personally, as much as I would love to own this or that animal, as much as I would love to rescue one more animal, I simply cannot afford to do so, by a huge margin. It’s not just money, it’s the time and commitment but yes, the money to have appropriate large natural cages and employees to help caretake and so on. I also know that many of us who love animals barely manage squeezing time to spend with our dogs and horses. Keeping our domestic pets or horses in any semblance of a natural environment, like pasture with a herd for the equines, is often a challenge. Even cat owners get new responsibilities. Given the overpopulation of cats (and humans) crowding out natural habitat, new data points towards restraining of cats in large cages becoming the responsible thing to do (to save the birds.)

A primate, small or large, needs intellectual and physical stimulation just like a human would. With the exception of service animals, I would not want to own any exotic species (or domestic for that matter) if I could not offer a stimulating non-boring environment even when I am not around 24/7.

What conditions would it take to make it legal and humane and safe to own exotics?
I am in the process of gathering information and opinions on this matter and will report at a later time. For now, I’ll just start with my personal list of conditions in which I think private ownership of non-domestic animals could be ok and ought to be legal.

Private ownership of exotics and wildlife should be legal, with conditions.
Owners have to prove that they have:
1) acquired training and management skills from reputable sources. Short sentence, long process, educating oneself to be an animal trainer can be a life-long process, or least a few years of study, akin to college and grad school, or long-term apprentiships.

2) have money and space to maintain appropriate, species-specific, large, enriched, etc enclosures with super-safe precautions against escapes or random humans reaching in for any reason, play or vandalism.

Example: if a rich eccentric is crazy enough to want to eat, sleep, live with adult chimpanzees, that person should be required to have a bomb-proof cage with double-entrances around their whole compound.

Of course if any sane individual goes through nr.1) ie education in how to train and manage a species, they might make different choices in how to help, or be close to, say, chimps; or mountain lions, tigers, or any other species cute as infants but growing into not-so-cute intelligent, active adults.

3) keep the pets in some kind of approximation of their natural social orders. I realize that many domestic animals we love as pets and companions are kept in the “golden cage” and to me, the golden cages represent imprisonment, not friendship, nor a good arrangement for working animals. Exceptions for working animals traveling to shows or exhibits only reinforce such a requirement, do not negate it. In case of our domestics, as much as I’d like all horses to live on hundreds of acres, I also think it’s totally ok for showhorses to travel and live in tiny boxstalls while going to the olympics or such.

Why .. some horses love to work. I know this from experience. I also know one exotic animal trainer personally who can test and prove what an animal likes. She asks them, she does not need to merely assume based on ambiguous behavioral clues.

With exotics, it might be prohibitive to keep them in any sort of remotely natural social environment. Visit your modern zoo! Volunteer for your local wildlife rescue. Learn how to love another species.

4) welcome service animals, species other than dogs might be suitable as well. Animals and people benefit if conditions are met, a subject for a different post because of the special education and training that goes into our relation with service animals.

5) animal rights members and donors: ask yourself if your actions truly benefit animal species or individual animals. There is no wilderness left on Earth .. that is a fact. Animal lovers ought to jump for joy when private wealthy individuals want to acquire and care for a particular species. Employing animals for work or show? Great .. with strict conditions, not unlike labor laws for humans. Anyone wants to have a private zoo .. why not .. with strict conditions. And yes, raising seven chicken in a foot-wide cage is not humane, and is something all meat-eaters need to consider before the next purchase.

6) in terms of personal freedom versus restrictive laws and all kinds of new laws piling on us .. I don’t know where the balance is, but all societies make those choices all the time. We need our scientists to provide and update our factual data on what is the best choice for humans who love animals, use animals, the animals themselves and for the environment.

I dislike the idea of new laws. I am totally against outrageous intrusions in the privacy of animal owners, like the absurd requirements of the (thankfully, for now defunct) NAIS, that incredibly intrusive law which attempted to track every pet /animal. I distrust government intrusion and those laws which really don’t understand what they are legislating and make it more difficult to do the right thing by the animals in our care. But we really have no choice, abuse abounds. We need discussions and education and research so we can make informed decision– and yes, *sigh,* new laws (scrape bad ones before adding new ones.)

——
Notes:
Monkey in woman’s bra makes waves at Amherst courthouse, (video at link)
by Scott Marshall, March 10, 2011, Amherst New Era-Progress
www2.neweraprogress.com/news/2011/mar/10/12/monkey-womans-bra-makes-waves-amherst-courthouse-ar-896809/
via:
www2.newsadvance.com/news/2011/mar/10/12/monkey-womans-bra-makes-waves-amherst-courthouse-ar-896809/

USA: Map, states laws regarding possession of exotic animals by private owners:
bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exotic_animals_map.php”

About marmosets, from Encyclopædia Britannica
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/365949/marmoset”

A marmoset site oriented towards pet ownership:
pygmymarmoset.net

A flickr photo of thumb-sized infant pigmy marmoset:
flickr.com/photos/scottkinmartin/455043770/

Source SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration

Being able to count may be innate to many species, writes Dr. Dolittle in his lifelines blog.

His post brings up a New Scientist photo gallery of animals who have been shown to count and a Scientific American article on the same topic.

—————
Notes:
Counting Animals, January 18, 2011
scienceblogs.com/lifelines/2011/01/counting_animals.php
Life Lines is a general interest science podcast of The American Physiological Society dedicated to conveying the “phizz” in physiology.

Eight animals that can count, 23 June 2009
Counting is not unique to humans: a huge range of animals understand numbers, from salamanders to honeybees
www.newscientist.com/gallery/mg20227131600-animals-that-count

Behind a pay wall, this:
Animals that count: How numeracy evolved, 23 June 2009, by Ewen Callaway
newscientist.com/article/mg20227131.600-animals-that-count-how-numeracy-evolved.html

Counting may be innate in many species
By Michael Tennesen, September 15, 2009
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-animals-have-the-ability-to-count

I had to wait ’till I was 30 and living in California to own a Dalmatian. Djin-Djin came to us at age 2, unneutered male, AKC-registered, a beautiful example of his breed. He had also been in four households by age 2. He was nuts. My love of the breed, based on the mythical dogs made famous by Disney, was strong. I pooh-pooed any “real” information about Dalmatians needing expert handling, training, and so on. I was in love.

Myths can help us grow and learn
Maybe we really need some myths. Like many other people getting animals, I took on a difficult dog because of the myth. Myths may get us started on a journey, and it’s up to us to change how we travel along that path. Ignoring the warnings about a possibly difficult breed turned out ok for me. Djin-Djin was with me until tumors cut his life short at age 10. We overcame challenges, but I had a working knowledge of animal training and my rural life meant lots of space.

This is not the only time I flaunted reality-as-others-saw-it. I was 100% sure I was ready for my mare, my first horse in California, little did I know what a learning experience that was going to become. Yes, “learning experience” is a code for … that’s a story for another time!

The myths we love
But aside from our initial choice of pets and horses –how often do we rely on myths when we interact with our beloved critters? All the time! Real research into animal psychology is a relatively new field. Proper science protocols separating anecdote from proven results are not easy to implement (read: studies cost money and time.)

And most of us, think we know more than we do. The myths grow on us because they appear to be “true.”

One example: hitting an animal as a punishment
We witnessed an incident in which a trusted mentor, teacher or parent or instructor or someone on TV advocates “being the boss” and showing that by hitting an animal. It may have actually “worked” in that one circumstance and possibly the offending behavior was not repeated. Culturally, the myth that hitting animals creates discipline is powerful; same with spanking children .. or wives .. or slaves .. “for their own good,” of course.

When should we drop the Myth and adopt new procedures?
Like all “good” myths, physical punishment has a kernel of truth — *in some limited cases,* with disclaimers and exact conditions needing to be considered.

So why is there so much resistance to learning how to discipline our critters or children without physical violence? We are fortunate that “gentle” education has made huge strides– still, throughout the world and in pockets here in USA, hitting is advocated as a tool for education.

An illusory correlation

Once we believe something, whether it’s truth or myth, we begin to see confirmation in the world around us. In psychology, Alcock explains, this is known as an illusory correlation: making connections between particular events that line up with our beliefs about the world. “We can become attached to beliefs that seem to serve a function for us,” Alcock explains, “and we don’t like to give them up even if they’re false because they seem too true to be false.” This is especially true when we get information from a trusted source.

That’s York University psychologist James Alcock, quoted in Newsweek.

He “admits that it’s difficult to trace where beliefs start. “Even as individuals we usually can’t explain where beliefs come from,” says Alcock, who is currently at work on a book about the psychology of belief.”

Guess I’ll have to check that book out. Meanwhile, I’ll leave the behavioral myths for a field that — one would assume .. hope! — we have LOTS of good research and good data to support our myths or replace them with facts.

Human Health: When Myth Trumps Science
Sarah Kliff writes in Newsweek, May 27, 2009:

Whether it’s thinking that vitamin C can cure a cold, or that you must drink eight glasses of water a day, people cling to outdated medical lore long after it’s been shown to be wrong. Here’s why.
Rachel Vreeman and Aaron Carroll weren’t looking to start a controversy. They’re both pediatricians at Indiana University who, as a side project to their day jobs, put together a study on a few medical myths that many doctors believe.

The results weren’t exactly earth-shattering: they revealed that you don’t actually need to drink eight glasses of water and nails do not continue to grow after death. And the research definitely wasn’t new. “We looked through old research and basically put it all together,” explains Vreeman.

But from the reactions that Vreeman and Carroll got, you’d think they were questioning the very flatness of the earth. They received hundreds of e-mails from strangers and dozens of media requests.

We are talking about children. And about daily decision making for us humans who want to be healthy.

What about horses and dogs and other animals, wild and domestic? I can think of a bazzilion examples when myth and imagination trumped even the most basic fact-finding mission when it comes to animal care. One tragic example from the past: when infant chimps and gorillas were seized by butchering their relatives in the jungles then stuck in a bare cage and fed only bananas. They died, one can debate whether their broken hearts or poor diet offerings killed them first.

When scientists protest research
More from Newsweek:

Now, the authors are back with Don’t Swallow Your Gum! (Griffin Original), a book of medical myths and half-truths that will be published next week. Among the 66 myths, there’s something to surprise everyone: that, despite what Mom told us, vitamin C does not cure a cold and even the highest SPF sunscreen will not prevent all sunburns.

But what’s more surprising than the myths they debunk, is how strongly their friends, colleagues and readers protested their research.

Ok, I don’t have time to seek a bunch of links of who, what, how exactly scientists or MDs (the “colleagues”) protested that particular research. For now, I’ll trust that Indiana pediatricians’ Rachel Vreeman and Aaron Carroll research was “protested” — mind you, not refuted by another serious study, but “protested.”

My goal is simple: the next time new, credible, serious data aims to change how we train, feed, manage our animals .. and we resist any such change .. I can point to these human studies and say, it’s just human nature.

Last words on this topic, for today
I’m not one to jump on new fads. I also mistrust a lot of headlines, indeed, the research itself. Wasn’t life easier when all you needed to know on how to raise your children was taught to you by your own family, mother, aunts, the community?! Wasn’t life easier when all you needed to know about your animals was taught to you by your grandfather on the family ranch?

Maybe, maybe not. Fact is our health and the health of our animals has improved a lot because we have ditched some traditions in favor of new products, new findings and so on. How to discern between fads (leave it) and facts (study before adapting to your life) that’s a whole ‘nother story.

—————
Notes:
When Myth Trumps Science, by Sarah Kliff, May 27, 2009
www.newsweek.com/2009/05/26/when-myth-trumps-science.html

Don’t Swallow Your Gum!, by Dr. Aaron E. Carroll and Dr. Rachel C. Vreeman
Myths, half-truths and outright lies about your body and health
dontswallowyourgum.com

James E. Alcock, Professor of Psychology at York University (Canada)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Alcock
cicap.org/congress/alcock.html