Challenging Societal Assumptions

Animal scientist and autism rights advocate Dr. Temple Grandin has written a number of acclaimed books, and in her recent Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals, avers that pet guardians, chicken farmers, livestock ranchers, and zookeepers hold responsibility to provide as much stimulation— and subject to as little stress—as possible for the animals under their care. For each type of animal, she informs how to accomplish this. Grandin encourages the reader to challenge our assumptions about animal contentment, and carefully draws a connection between the (decent and) humane treatment of farm animals and the physically and emotionally healthful life that household pets, as sentient beings, deserve.

Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive or experience subjectively, in context of an individual’s perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]

In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The term is used in the study of consciousness to describe the ability to have sensations or experiences, called qualia by Western academic philosophers. Animal welfare advocates posture that animals are sentient in that they can feel pleasure and pain (dog guardians such as ourselves take this position), and as such, should be accorded some moral or legal rights. In that philosophy of animal rights therefore, any sentient being is entitled, at a minimum, to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering.

In the section “What Do Animals Need?” Grandin encourages challenging our assumptions about animal contentment and to honor our bond with other creatures. She writes that animals (for our discussion: dogs) have the same core emotion systems in the brain as humans—pointing out that, upon dissection of a pig’s brain, it is difficult to identify it as dissimilar to a human brain— and that when they are suffering mentally, they have the same goal as a person: to feel better, simply “to start having good emotions.” In particular, dogs processes fear, memories and spatial awareness in the same way as man, and the dog’s cognitive skills—the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses—are bundled similarly (however, the olfactory lobe that processes smells is considerably larger, and it is presumed that dogs associate scent with memories).[2]

Grandin describes the work of WA State University neuroscientist Dr. Jaak Panksepp, author of Affective Neuroscience,[2] who identified these core intra-personal and interpersonal systems as the “Blue-Ribbon Emotions” (each one: always capitalized by him) because they “generate well-organized behavior sequences that can be evoked by localized electrical stimulation of the brain.”

Panksepp describes that basic emotion emerges not from the cerebral cortex, associated with complex thought in humans, but from deep, ancient brain structures, including the amygdala and the hypothalamus.

The “Blue-Ribbon Emotions”

“the basic impulse to search, investigate, and make sense of the environment”

SEEKING is a combination of emotions:

1. desire for good;

2. anticipation for acquiring or gaining good; and

3. curiosity.

The desire component brings energy to pursue a goal (for example: food, shelter, sex… ); anticipation is expectation dependent on prior experience (as children look forward to Christmas); and curiosity is related to newness or novelty (in the way your dog might enjoy a change in venue from the same “boring”
walk taken every day).

Pankseep defines SEEKING as a pleasurable emotion, and which could be the platform for most of the basic emotional processes, since it is “the system that helps animals anticipate all sorts of rewards.” It can stimulate both positive and negative motivations: to advance or to retreat.

Grandin notes that Pankseep describes neurotransmission related to SEEKING in Affective Consciousness: Core Emotional Feelings in Animals and Humans (2005). In the brain, dopamine functions as a neurotransmitter: a chemical released by neurons (nerve cells) to send signals to other nerve cells. The brain includes several distinct dopamine pathways. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that operates the SEEKING system, and the brain circuits that contain it are most responsive to anticipation of reward: the motivational component of reward-motivated behavior. Dopamine levels rise when a positive stimuli or unexpected reward is obtained.

Thus, the dog experiences a certain amount of pleasure from the activity itself, the release of dopamine activates the system when engaged in behaviors they have been bred for, like herding, stalking, chasing or running. Thus, the SEEKING system can lead to addictive pleasure-seeking behaviors, and when dogs cannot perform the behaviors that have a strong genetic basis, they may energy to other behaviors that may be considered as undesirable by their human guardian.

Energy to struggle and escape capture

RAGE: Dr. Pankseep believes RAGE is derived from the experience of being captured and held immobile by a predator (this can be duplicated by stimulating the sub-cortical brain area), and RAGE gives the animal fierce and volatile energy to struggle and escape (perhaps to startle the predator long enough to loosen its grip temporarily). Grandin observes that this is instinctual, and offers the comparison that if one holds a human baby’s arms, s/he will become furiously angry; commenting that frustration (mental restraint) is a mild form of RAGE. This might be seen in the dog who tries to escape when locked inside an enclosure, apartment, or house (even if that environment would be regarded as “roomy” or otherwise pleasant).

Thus, when the SEEKING system is aroused but cannot be satisfied, for example, excessive irritation, frustration, hunger or thirst, the RAGE system is activated. Lack of love and acceptance, restriction from pleasure, neglect or abuse, all have the potential to engender long lasting RAGE with damaging effects on the dog’s “personality.”

Survival is threatened

FEAR: the system triggered when the dog’s survival is threatened, whether physically, socially, or mentally. Grandin had previously written a paper (1997) which discussed that destruction of the amygdale section of the subcortex (the brain’s “fear center”) ceased the fear response.

In the wild, the FEAR system causes animals to build homes that shelter them (in various ways) from predators: otherwise, they would be eaten.

In the chapter “A Dog’s Life” (p. 53) Grandin discusses the difference between “classic” fear aggression and dominance aggression. In fear aggression, the dog is afraid and wants to get away; only if trapped, will he then bite. However, dominance aggression has its roots in anxiety: the dominant aggressive dog is anxious about his control over resources (examples are: food, toys, or his guardian) or behavior (desired freedoms), and does not run away because doing so will not solve his problem. In essence, dominance aggression should be regarded as anxiety aggression (citing: Dr. Karen Overall, Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals; see also, Carol Lee Benjamin, Dog Problems).

likely derived from physical pain

PANIC: Pankseep uses this to describe the social attachment system, and which may have derived from physical pain, likely that of baby animals (like humans) who cry when their mothers leave: the isolated baby whose mother does not return is probable to become depressed, (starve), and die. Stimulating (running a weak electrical current through) the brain section that regulates physical pain causes the dog to make “separation cries.”

Most dog behavior, therefore—whether pleasing or intolerable—is driven by these Blue Ribbon Emotions, and although Grandin's work has always focused on animal welfare, in this book she goes beyond physical well-being to inquire what makes an animal happy, examining theories beyond the expected biological, physical and emotional reactions.

A Basis for Action

For those focused on canine behavior modification and training, and understanding that the dog’s brain is anatomically similar to humans, Pankseep’s analysis is especially important. Among the brain’s most important functions is to maintain homeostasis, the relatively stable conditions needed to for protecting core body organs and functions to sustain life (example: sweating to prevent overheating/shivering to generate heat). This regulation is mostly unconscious, however, when changes occur, they are consciously felt. That is: as humans, we would not ordinarily focus on the physical state of our feet; however, a person who falls and is injured would then be acutely aware of his feet because of pain.

In a pure “behaviorist approach,” only external events can influence behavior, regardless of feelings. In Pankseep’s analysis, however, emotions are truly informative: and act as reinforcement or punishment as a reflection of internal experience. It may follow then, that the person—or the dog—connects to and “learns” to avoid what made him fall and hurt his feet.

In this way, the same action can have dramatically different effect on the dog depending on the circumstances. His emotion is different when petted by a stranger from that triggered by petting from a person he has a relationship with. Similarly, a “correction” will be felt very differently when administered by a trainer (a relative stranger to the dog), than when given by the guardian who has a history with the animal. Likewise, a frightened or lonely dog thrust into a shelter environment may adapt and develop relationship with shelter workers surprisingly rapidly, as a means of survival in a threatening environment.

Emotion thus becomes the basis for most action, as it is the root of cognition: what gets the dog’s attention when something changes in the environment, and motivates decision-making and response (see also: Carl Safina, Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel (2015); and Dale Peterson, The Moral Lives of Animals (2011).

Dogs are not “Pack Animals”

DNA sequencing and genetic drift studies of wolves (canis lupis) confirm that the gray wolf shares a common ancestry with the domestic dog, and are in fact not genetically distinct enough to be considered a separate species. They have been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the Gray Wolf.

The Gray Wolf is the common ancestor of all domesticated dogs: genetically, dogs are wolves that cease development, that particular stage determining the breed: the breeds that develop the farthest are, as expected, the most “wolfish” (see below).

Wolves are apex predators (alpha predators: with no predators of their own), being the largest members of the Canidae family of carnivorous mammals (includes wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and the domestic dog). The Canidae family is divided into the "wolf-like" and “dog-like” animals of the tribe Canini and the “foxes” of the tribe Vulpini. Excepting the Bush Dog and the Racoon Dog, canids have relatively long legs and lithe bodies, adapted for chasing prey. All canids are digitigrade (walk on their toes), have non-retractile claws, and a dewclaw on their front feet.

Recent studies indicate that wolves don't actually live in large, alpha-led packs (with a prominent male who fights the others to maintain his dominance), but in nuclear families (the way people do): with a mother, father, and their children. The wolf cubs do not mate with each other; and the parents (the breeding pair) are dominant (controlling) in the way human parents are. Their roles remain constant as they age, and the cubs do not challenge the parents for dominance over the family.

The “alpha” males and females (the parents: those with the highest rank in a dominance hierarchy) share the leadership of their pack and then delegate that leadership to their maturing teenage pups, who are permitted to make decisions about where to hunt, and to move the pack. Ordinarily viewed as subordinate individuals, these young wolves soon undertake long solitary exploratory journeys during which they enjoy unlimited freedom “off-leash,” learning without the influence of their parents.

As peak physical abilities of wolves begin to decline at about three years of age, it is, in fact, these young wolves who do most of the pack’s hunting, and their parents, (the alpha wolves) wait for them. Just as human children go off to lead their own lives and start their own families, eventually, some of these young wolves disperse and become leaders of their own packs. These young wolves have lower stress hormone levels than do the alpha wolves of their pack, since they lead a relatively roaming, carefree life, not enduring the stress of guarding infant pups and defending the pack’s territory against intruders:

Grandin disputes the convention that a well-behaved dog requires a human established as leader of the pack, observing that, in essence, advice to dominate your dog in this way is backwards. She describes that research on the social lives of wolves had always been conducted by observing groups of wolves in captivity (unrelated: put together by humans). The solution for the wolves had been a precise form of dominance hierarchy, wherin only one alpha pair is allowed to breed; until it can be dislodged by younger, stronger members. Dogs (genetic wolves) forced to live together in an unnatural environment such as a human domestic household would likewise develop these coping mechanisms. This isn’t necessary in the wild, since unrelated wolves would not be forced to live together.

And so, much as a parent would train a child to deal with frustration (in a dog, a mild form of RAGE), so does the conscientious dog guardian teach his dog to learn tolerance for a level of emotional (mental) frustration so that it does not turn to anger, and then RAGE. The simplest example is “wait,” which the dog learns to endure (reinforced impulse control/emotional restraint), but which turns to SEEKING/anticipation; and
subsequently, perhaps PLAY or CARE).

The Most “Wolfish” Dogs

Grandin also discusses the interesting connection between facial features and dog behavior researched by Dr. Deborah Goodwin, who postures that the more “wolfy” a breed looks, the more grown wolf behaviors it has.

Focusing on the 15 most important commonly identified aggressive and submissive behaviors wolves use to communicate with each other during a conflict, Goodwin observed 10 dog breeds and charted these expressed behaviors. Aggressive behaviors included growling, teeth baring, (dominance)/“standing over” (one dog puts its head over the other dog's body, often behind the neck), and “standing erect” (stiff-legged, standing as tall as it can, with its back arched and its “hackles” up, known as piloerection); identified submissive behaviors included muzzle licking, eye aversion (the submissive dog slowly turns its head away), crouching, and the “passive submit,” where the dog lies on its back and exposes it s ano-genital area.

Piloerection is involuntary: the release of adrenaline causes muscles across the top of the back to his shoulder blades contract, puffing out the fur on top of them.

Goodwin found that the Siberian husky, which of the 10 breeds look the most like wolves, had all 15 behaviors; whereas Cavalier King Charles spaniels, which look nothing like wolves, had only 2. The correlation between looking like a wolf and acting like a wolf was strong across all 10 breeds she studied, with the German Shepherd and Shetland sheepdog likely exceptions that prove the rule because their facial features were deliberately bred into them starting with the sheep-herding stock (the German Shepherd was intentionally bred to look as much like a wolf as possible).

Goodwin theorizes that once a breed has lost a behavior one can't bring a behavior back simply by changing its appearance (so although looks and behavior go together genetically, they can also be separated genetically). Even with her exceptions, the overall order supported her hypothesis.

Grandin distinguishes that for animals to be happy, their social needs need to be met, which involves stimulating the positive emotion SEEKING (which includes the subset emotions of PLAY, LUST, and CARE); and avoiding the negative emotions: RAGE, FEAR and PANIC. She argues that although dogs can be happy separated from their own species if their guardian is home all day, they are too socially oriented to spend long hours alone. She posits that in a day spent alone—for the “intensely social” dog whose basic psychological makeup derives happiness from pleasing his guardian—the empty house or yard is comparable to a zoo or prison: ultimately, all three negative emotions—RAGE, FEAR, and PANIC—are triggered.

In The Emotional Lives of Animals (2007) author Marc Bekoff (Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the Univ. of CO; co-founder, with Jane Goodall, of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), delineates the boredom that grows from this solitariness as a primary (akin to “core”) negative emotion, and which leads to pain, fear, and anger (strikingly similar concepts to Pankseep's). Ensuring emotional enrichment, Bekoff contends, enfolds “tending to the heart.”

Even to live a better life (as an adopted pet), “[Dogs] give up a lot of freedom and instinctual pleasure, as well as their innate strategies for coping with stress and anxiety, in exchange for the comfort and care they get from humans.”

Author Jeffrey Mousseaieff Masson has written with unmatched sensitivity and eloquence about many animal species across a range of animal welfare topics, and put it with appropriate simplicity in Dog’s Never Lie About Love (1997): observing that there is no greater fear for the dog than to be left home alone (“The Great Dog Fear: Loneliness and Abandonment”). Masson describes the incessant barking of the solitary dog as the clearest demonstration of canine anguish and despair. Desmond Morris, exploring isolation in his 1987 book Dogwatching, seemed to be describing both SEEKING and PANIC emotions: “Dogs are social beings and they are also intensely exploratory. If they are deprived of companions—both canine and human— or if they are kept in a constrained or monotonous environment, they suffer. The worst mental punishment a dog can be given is to be kept alone in a confined space where nothing varies.”

[1] In 2015, in State of Oregon v. Amanda Newcombe (CC 110443303, March 10, 2015) the Oregon Supreme Court granted legal significance to the dog’s sentience—his capacity to experience feelings, and pain—reinstating a trial court’s ruling, that the warrant-less blood draw on an abused dog by an examining veterinarian (to confirm intentional starvation: by eliminating other possible causes of emaciation after the dog was seized), wasn’t prohibited under either Oregon law or the 4th Amendment. The defendant had tried to suppress the blood-draw evidence, arguing that because the dog was a pet, she was owned “property,” and as such, the blood draw was an illegal warrant-less search.

In an unanimous opinion, the court opined: “Reflected in those and other laws that govern ownership and treatment of animals is the recognition that animals ‘are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear,’” and so humans’ “dominion” over the animals also has nuanced contours, as do the humans’ privacy interests in the animals. Continuing: “…when Dr. Hedge [the veterinarian] tested Juno’s [the dog] blood, defendant had lost her rights of dominion and control over Juno, at least on a temporary basis.” Rather than merely property, the court found instead that, in a significant way, Juno was akin to a human child.

In 2017, 700,000 French citizens signed a petition France repudiating an archaic 1804 law that declared dogs were merely “movable goods”: a form of “personal property.” Dogs would henceforth be afforded certain rights as
“living beings.”

Philosopher and former education minister Luc Ferry signed the petition and said that the Napoleonic legislation, which placed animals on the same level as furniture, was ‘absurd’. He wrote: “No one has ever tortured a clock. Animals suffer, they have emotions and feelings. It is not a question of making animals subjects of the law… but simply of protecting them against certain forms of cruelty.”

The upgraded status of dogs will also mean that couples can fight for shared custody in divorce cases and owners whose pets are run over by a negligent driver will be able to claim compensation for the suffering caused. France’s former trade minister, Frédéric Lefebvre, suggested that the country’s inheritance law would also change to allow owners to leave their estates to their pets.

[2] Affective neuroscience is the study of the neural mechanisms of emotion: this interdisciplinary field combines neuroscience (scientific study of the nervous system, enfolding function, structure genetics, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, pathology and evolutionary history) with the psychologically-oriented study of personality, emotion, and mood.

See also: Panksepp and Lucy Biven, The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology) (2012); and Gregory Berns, What It's Like to Be a Dog: And Other Adventures in Animal Neuroscience (2017).

In addition to being structurally similar to the human brain, MRI studies on dogs have shown that the same sections of our brains respond when exposed to various stimuli; see: Gregory Berns, How Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain (2013).

[3] Among examples, see also: Stanley Coren, (Animal Noise or Animal Speech?) in: How to Speak Dog, (2000); pgs. 45-81;

[4] Historically, domestication of the dog occured in southwest Asia as early as 10,000BC; (Hellmut Epstein, The Origins of the Domestic Animals of Africa; 1971). It is estimated that dogs were domesticated, roughly 15,000 years ago, and that this would have coincided with the development of agriculture and the attending expansion in human territory (a shift in human lifestyle in the form of established human settlements). Permanent settlements would have coincided with a greater amount of disposable food (the food source of early domesticated dogs) and would have created a barrier between wild and anthropogenic (created by humans) canine populations (Adam Miklósi, Dog behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition, 2007). See also: Katherine M. Rogers, First Friend: a History of Dogs and Humans; 2005.

N.B.: This essay is written for informational purposes. Our goal is to build awareness of concepts and define common terminology to stimulate discussion. We draw your attention to issues and concepts that are or may be important to the subject at hand, but do not consider that our interpretation is necessarily complete. Links are in blue & will illuminate when you pass your mouse over them. Nothing in this page is intended to be interpreted as advice. Any person who intends to rely upon or use the information contained herein in any way is solely responsible for independently verifying the information and obtaining independent expert advice if needed.