To: the5thquadrant@yahoogroups.com


Hi all,

     Since I last reported on our CAT sessions, we've done Sessions 9, 10, 11 and 12. All brought up some very interesting things.

Session 9.
31 minutes, 69 trials, 3m x 3m tape pen, Decoy Kate (16 year old).

  After initially grazing, on trial 8  Jedda moved to the nearest point to Kate with her eyes very soft. Then she pushed her chest into the fence so her nose was only 2 feet from Kate's chest, whereupon she would again sometimes (but not always) display stressed behaviour on decoy approach, ie ears back and waving her head around, but no overt aggression like lunging or threatening to bite the decoy. She would then stand with her head averted before producing one of her established approximation to friendly behaviours.  Reading this I realise  we should have had the decoy pull back further on her next approach to compensate and keep the distance the same, to make sure we stayed subthreshold (?) It's quite hard to judge this distance in these rather movable circumstances, and when it is the subject who has chosen to reduce the distance. On trial 19 Jedda took a step back herself, which we took, because I want her to learn that she can give distance herself if she's not comfortable, rather than behaving in a threatening way. On trial 20 she licked and chewed on the decoy approach. Trial 26 she took half a step forward again, and in subsequent trials was visibly "soft and relaxed" on approaches, and producing some nice small affiliative behaviours. We finished the session on a particularly big free soft eyed head turn towards Kate.

Session 10.
 30 minutes, 55 trials


   Jedda was very relaxed in the pen, and producing small affiliative behaviours at around 3 feet, so we introduced the decoy putting her hand out at an increased distance as suggested on 5Q a while ago.  After a couple of approaches where Jed looked "interested" in this change, and the decoy took this,  Jedda stepped right forward  to sniff the extended hand (poor decoy was very nervous about this unfortunately) and I asked the decoy to turn and walk away. When Kate approached to the same point and extended her hand,  Jedda once again put her head out to sniff, but this time didn't touch the hand.  On the next identical approach she displayed signs of stress, so we increased the approach distance by 1 metre and had the decoy keep her hands by her side again.    Is this correct when the animal has made a very good approximation to friendly then appears to be emotionally unable to cope with the proximity they themselves have created.  (?)  Jedda walked right away from the decoy to the back of the pen, then returned and watched the approaches from about 2 1/2  metres away now. Gradually her head lowered, rump muscles relaxed, and we were taking soft head turns, soft ears and chewing, a nice relaxed mane shake with a big blow out of breath, and some playful behaviour with the tape. We then introduced a small lifting of the hand after the decoy stopped, and this caused no change. The session finished on a nice soft glance towards the decoy with lowered head from about a metre away. Jedda's reactions can still appear inconsistent and unpredictable, and the distances constantly changing back and forth. So,  we just keep increasing that distance again?
 

  Sessions 11/12, Decoy walked up the hill paddock with me when I went to get Jedda.  After putting the halter on, as I walked back towards Kate with Jedda on a loose lead rope,  Jedda took herself right up to Kate with her ears pricked and eyes soft and curious, and stopped with her nose within about 6" of her chest, appearing very relaxed and friendly. This was a champagne moment BTW folks! two face splitting grins on the humans :-) 

Session 11.
30 minutes, 43 trials.
 Jedda was again visibly relaxed in the pen, a lot of moving about in the pen, grazing, coming and going to interact with the decoy, including several sniffs toward her hand, then moving away. We finished on her taking a big soft head swing towards Kate while she was grazing.  We had a break then and did some CT things, then I changed the criteria as an experiment, by taking down the front of the pen, and standing there myself holding Jedda on a very loose lead rope.

Session 12.
25 minutes, 60 trials.

   Changed criteria meant that while Jedda could back away or step forward she was unable to walk about the pen and graze, though she didn't attempt to do either during the trials. Apart from that, the location, decoy, threshold marker  etc were all identical. The decoy observed that from her (subjective) point of view, Jedda "appeared more confident" and was focusing on her approaches much more intently. Jedda's behaviours were similar re her responses to the approach and retreat of the decoy, if the distance was decreased she would again pin her ears and wrinkle her nostrils,  but gradually,  trying to stay subthreshold, we once again reduced the distance to about 18"  below the original threshold. This put the decoy again around 2-3 feet from Jedda. (Horses are harder than dogs to manage distance with, as by simply standing still but lifting their noses forward, the distance can be reduced by several feet!)

   At one point Jedda took one step backwards, then several trials later took half a step forward again, and after that we were getting more licking and chewing behaviours added in.  (This had also happened in Session 9.)  Licking and chewing is usually in horses a sign of processing an experience.  What does the list think about changing the criteria like this in mid Rx?

  It's school holidays here in Tasmania so my work permitting I have increased access to this decoy, but Decoy Fatigue is what I'm afraid of! though so far she's being very obliging to her old Aunty......

  

Cheers,
Laurel and Jedda.