Evolution Will Punish You If You're Selfish and Mean

Are Animals Really in Competition With One Another?

 

“[Darwin] pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by cooperation... He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to cooperate so as to mutually support each other.”

—Prince Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

Huxley vs. Wallace, Competition vs Cooperation 
It seems to me that evolutionary science took a huge wrong turn the day it was discovered that some chickens form pecking orders. Suddenly, the Darwinian idea that different species might compete with others over resources within a certain ecological niche was misinterpreted to mean that members of social animal groups were engaged in a constant power struggle for dominance over their fellow group members.

In his book Cooperation Among Mammals (1997), evolutionary biologist Lee Alan Dugatkin details the conflict that arose between early Darwinists Thomas Huxley—a hard-liner when it came to the idea of competition—and Henry Wallace—co-creator with Darwin—of the theory of natural selection. 

Dugatkin writes, “While Darwin (1859) acknowledged that the struggle for existence is often metaphorical, insofar as it is often a struggle against the environment, Huxley … took a more extreme view.”

He goes on to say that Huxley believed the animal world was on the same level of competition found in ancient gladiators. ‘Life is a continuous free fight,’ Huxley wrote, and went on to say that ‘the state war of each [animal] against the other was a normal state of existence.’ However, Wallace, in his book Darwinism (1891), argued the exact opposite, stating that ‘On the whole, the popular idea of the struggle for existence entailing misery and pain on the animal world is the very reverse of the truth.’” 

The truth—as Darwin stated it—is that social animals “provide many little services for one another.” And it’s not just about prey species like elk finding safety in numbers, or group predators like wolves finding it easier to hunt large prey as a group. Dugatkin points out that goldfish tend to live longer when their group size increases. They also tend to grow faster when surrounded by more rather than less goldfish. If they were in constant competition with one another, that wouldn’t happen. Dugatkin also points out that social amphibians are able to regenerate lost tails more quickly and that social animals learn new tasks faster than solitary species do. 

All of this points to the likelihood that sociability and cooperation have a positive effect on survivability, while engaging in internecine battles or threats of aggression would have the opposite effect. 

Game Theory and Evolutionary Strategies 
In 1973, John Maynard Smith proposed the idea that game theory would be very useful in defining a framework of animal contests and strategies into which Darwinian competition could be modeled. His position was that “players” of these evolutionary “games” don’t necessarily act in a rational manner, but have strategies that, when successful, produce higher levels of fitness in some organisms than their competitors. In this model, players do not choose their strategy or have the ability to change it, they are born with it and their offspring will inherit it.

However, no matter how well-developed and successful evolutionary game theory has become, it still explains natural selection through the lens of human thought processes (i.e., strategies) and through the concept of competition between species, as well as competition between members of the same social group.

In their 1998 paper, “Animal Contests as Evolutionary Games,” Mike Mesterson-Gibbons and Eldridge Adams write: “It is not unusual for an exercise in game theory to remain partially inconclusive. On the one hand, game-theoretic models are valuable because they suggest ways to test new ideas. On the other, suggesting a test is not the same thing as conducting it, and the difficulties of doing so should not be underestimated.”

Finding new ways to conduct tests is what science is all about. Yet how useful is the information provided by these tests if the underlying premise isn’t valid? And if these tests are designed with “winners and losers” in mind, aren’t evolutionary game theorists loading the dice in favor of a pre-determined thesis, and thus actually creating contests between animals that might not otherwise exist? 

Cheaters Never Prosper (Not for Long)
One of the ways that evolutionary game players are said to gain an advantage over others is through cheating or free-riding. Both “strategies” are a means of getting more while doing less. But now, a new review of dozens of key ecological studies has found very little evidence to support the belief that “cheating” is widespread.

Rice University evolutionary ecologist Emily Jones, the study’s co-lead author: “We find that although there are numerous observations of low-quality partners, there is currently very little support that any of these meet our criteria to be considered cheaters.” She goes on to say, “A behavior is only cheating if it provides one partner with an advantage and also imposes a disadvantage on the other.”

In a similar vein, University of Pennsylvania researchers Alexander J. Stewart and associate professor Joshua B. Plotkin recently offered mathematical proof that the only evolutionary strategies in social animals that can succeed in the long term are generous ones.

“Ever since Darwin,” Plotkin writes, “biologists have been puzzled about why there is so much apparent cooperation, and even flat-out generosity and altruism in nature. Our paper provides such an explanation.”

After simulating how some generous strategies would fare in an evolving population, Stewart and Plotkin crafted a mathematical proof showing that, not only can generous strategies succeed they’re the only approaches that work over the long term. 

“Our paper shows that no selfish strategies will succeed in evolution,” said Plotkin. “The only strategies that are evolutionarily robust are generous ones.” [1]

In another recent paper Christoph Adami of Michigan State writes, “For a short time and against a specific set of opponents, some selfish organisms may come out ahead. But selfishness isn’t evolutionarily sustainable.” [2]

Adami and his colleagues read a 2012 paper unveiling a newly discovered zero-determinant (or ZD) strategy, which supposedly gave selfish players a guaranteed advantage over others. But they had serious doubts whether this strategy would essentially eliminate cooperation and create a world full of selfish beings. So they used high-powered computing to run hundreds of thousands of games and found that ZD strategies can never be the product of evolution.

Says Adami, “We found that evolution will punish you if you’re selfish and mean.” 

Lack of Cooperation in Wolf Packs? 
Wolves are often cited as a prime example of cooperation in animals. Yet research shows that hunting success peaks at about ± 4 wolves. The larger a pack gets, the less successful they are. Why is this so?

In a 2011 article, McNulty, Smith, Mech, et al say that there are 2 prevailing hypotheses. The interference hypothesis proposes that hunting success is limited because individual predators impede each other’s actions. The other is the free-rider hypothesis, where some pack members consume more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the labor costs.

These researchers measured levels of participation by pack members during various stages of the hunt, using an ethogram (an objective scientific inventory of a set of behaviors) developed a few years earlier by McNulty, Mech & Smith (2007).

The idea that hunting success was negatively impacted when some members withheld effort was generally borne out by the fact that the rate of decline was most apparent for the most dangerous task: capture, or biting and restraining prey. In other words, as pack size increased fewer wolves felt like going in for the kill.

“Our study suggests that [some] wolves in large groups (>4 hunters) withheld effort … and likely participated merely to be at hand when a kill was made.”

I think this is very unlikely. It would require a mental process called time travel, where an animal is able to hypothesize about possible future events, then form a devious mental plan on how to act in such a way so as to “fool” its pack members and thus derive a purely imaginary future benefit that may or may not materialize.

Since a wolf pack is a cohesive unit where members don’t tend to wander off much to engage in their own activities, whenever the pack goes hunting, all members (except for the very young), go along. And since pack hunting success levels off at anything greater than ± 4 wolves, those members of the pack who are the most experienced, the most fearless, and the most driven would likely shoulder most of the work. And since according to the latest research, a behavior can only be considered cheating (or “free-riding,” a form of cheating) if it provides one member of the pack with an advantage while causing a disadvantage to others—which doesn’t happen here—these non- participating wolves should not be considered free-riders, but should be thought of as something like the pack’s bullpen. They’re happy to let the starting pitcher play the whole game if he can, but they’re also ready to come in during the late innings if needed.

They’re a team, after all.

Lee Charles Kelley 
“Life Is an Adventure—Where Will Your Dog Take You?” 


Footnotes:

1. (“From extortion to generosity, evolution in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma,” A. Stewart, J. Plotkin, University of Pennsylvania, July 25, 2013.)

 2. (“Evolutionary instability of zero-determinant strategies demonstrates that winning is not everything,” Nature Communications, August 2013.) Adami et al.

Dogs On Motorcycles, Dolphins Riding Whales, and the Myth of Deliberate Intent in Jellyfish

Is Animal Behavior a Product of Deliberation + Intent or Attraction + Momentum?

Actor Harry Dean Morgan and His Motorcyle-Riding Dog

Do Jellyfish Think About What They’re Doing?  
The Nature World News website recently touted the fact that a new laboratory study suggests that a species of jellyfish has been seen “deliberately” catching fish, this despite the fact that jellyfish don’t have brains or a central nervous system.

According to lead researcher, Robert Courtney, “They’re using their tentacles and nematocyst clusters like experienced fishers use their lines and lures.” He goes on to say that “the nematocyst clusters look like a series of bright pearls, which the jellyfish twitches to attract the attention of its prey, like a series of fishing lures. It’s a very deliberate and selective form of prey capture.”

Interesting, huh? According to Dr. Courtney, the jellyfish deliberately twitches these pearl-like nematocysts not just to attract its prey, but to attract the attention of its prey. 

Okay … but how does the jellyfish know that its prey has mental states? It seems to me that in order for a jelly to produce these behaviors for the reasons given it would have to have a fully-developed theory of mind, meaning it would have to have a mind of its own and would also have to be capable of knowing that other organisms have minds similar to its mind in some ways, yet dissimilar in others. Yet Dr. Courtney seems convinced that they’re fishing deliberately.

But here’s a significant fact: we’re also told that the study was done in a laboratory instead of the jellyfish’s natural habitat. That’s because this is a very tiny organism that’s almost invisible in the open sea. So, in order to capture this species for laboratory study, the researchers trapped the jellyfish by submerging high-powered lights in its natural aquatic habitat. 

Why? Because they’re attracted to light.

So here we have two variations on the word “attraction.”

1) The jellyfish is attracted to light, and 

2) it’s reportedly behaving to attract the attention of its prey.

So why does Dr. Courtney think he’s seeing deliberate behavior in an organism that can’t possibly think about what it’s doing? Why aren’t its behaviors described through—I don’t know—a basic function of physics found in all things, living or non-living, all things on earth, organic and inorganic, a simple process found both in organisms that can think (meaning us and maybe dolphins) and those that can’t (meaning other organisms like jellyfish, plants, bacteria, and inorganic things like tectonic plates and maybe even the ocean itself)? 

The truth is simple: the jellyfish is attracted to its prey. If it weren’t it wouldn’t be able to feed itself except by sheer random chance. Fortunately for the jellyfish, it has a built-in fishing lure: its bright nematocyst clusters. 

And why do lures work? Because fish are attracted to them.

Could it be that the jellyfish is not acting in a deliberate manner — which, again, would be impossible without a highly-developed brain — but is simply moving toward its prey in what seems to be a deliberate manner because of physical attraction? (“Physical” meaning its behavior is controlled by physics, not sexual desire.)  

Dogs on Motorcycles, Dolphins Riding Whales 
Meanwhile, in another part of the world, we have a species called the dog. And dogs are known for their infatuation with car rides (or at least most dogs are). Of course, there’s nothing out of the ordinary about that. I mean it’s interesting that dogs love going for car rides, and that most cats hate it. But until recently I’d never heard of a dog who loved motorcycle rides. But in a recent television interview on Jimmy Kimmel Live, actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan described how one of his dogs absolutely loves to do just that. 

As soon as his dog hears him kick-starting the engine, she comes bursting out of the house, runs straight to the motorcycle, and jumps up between the handlebars onto the gas tank. Then, cradled safely (or perhaps precariously) between her owner’s arms, the duo takes off down the road.

This is all pretty amazing (and some would say dumb on Morgan’s part), but here’s what I think is really amazing: once this dynamic duo reach the freeway, and begin traveling 70 miles an hour, the dog falls asleep and doesn’t wake up until they reach their destination!

Can you imagine? The dog isn’t safe inside a car, with the window rolled down so she can stick her head out. She’s sleeping on top of the gas tank. At 70 mph! Fast asleep!!

And she’s not the only dog who likes to ride a motorcycle! 

I think dogs like to ride motorcycles for the same reason they like to go for car rides, chase tennis balls and fly through the air after Frisbees. They like the feelings of momentum and the pleasure of velocity. And on a motorcycle those feelings are intensified. Dogs also like the feeling of togetherness which are also intensified on a motorcycle. 

Dogs and Dolphins and Dolphins and Dogs 
Another species that seems to thoroughly enjoy feelings of physical momentum, as well as synchronous movement with others, is the bottle-nose dolphin. We’ve all seen videos or still images of dolphins arcing together in unison, either in the open water or while doing tricks at a water park.

In fact, there have been several incidents where dolphins have been seen, off the coast of Hawaii, riding on the backs of humpback whales which is quite similar to the way Jeffrey Dean Morgan describes his dog riding his motorcycle’s gas tank!

Ken Ramirez, a dolphin trainer at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium says, “It is believed that the ‘surfing’ or bow riding [behaviors] that dolphins exhibit in front of boats may have had its genesis in riding in front, or in the wake, of big whales.”

Like many +R trainers, Ramirez believe that the animals they train learn to do all sorts of amazing acrobatic feats through a process called positive reinforcement, and more specifically through sonic “markers,” usually clicks from a clicker that signal a food reward may be coming later. In fact, these trainers believe that all animals—not just dolphins—learn the same way, through a process called operant conditioning.  

Do Dogs and Dolphins (and Jellyfish) Learn the Same Way?
 All animals—at least those who can learn new behaviors (and jellyfish probably don’t fit that category)—learn the same way. But it’s not through operant conditioning, which only creates a fairly convincing facsimile of how animals really learn, and usually only under very tightly-controlled conditions. In fact it’s well known that behaviors learned via operant conditioning tend to break down whenever strong drives and instincts are involved. [1]

So how do animals really learn?

According to a model called Natural Dog Training—created by dog trainer and natural philosopher Kevin Behan—all behavior and learning are the products of certain properties of physics, among them the same properties that explain how a jellyfish seems to hunt deliberately: through physical attraction to its prey. 

Some obvious examples include the kind of almost magnetic attraction most dogs have for other dogs, for their owners, their toys, treats, food dish, etc. When a dog has strong feelings of attraction for something he tends to move toward it in a straight line. But, according Behan’s model, dogs also have feelings of resistance toward other types of things, like going to the vet’s office, or getting a bath. Resistance is literally the polar opposite of attraction. When a dog has strong feelings of resistance he tries to move away from the things that generate those feelings. Meanwhile, when a dog feels a mixture of both attraction and resistance he’ll move in a curvilinear fashion. 

Add to this process the idea that when a dog moves toward an object of attraction, doing so creates pleasurable feelings of physical momentum and emotional flow, the same types of feelings we have when we’re humming along on the open highway, or playing golf or tennis, or even just watching a game of football on TV, where we may unconsciously project our emotional centers of gravity onto the wide receiver reaching up to catch a football. We often stretch and strain ourselves while watching the ball’s arc and the receiver’s arms stretching and straining to reach it.

Now think of a Frisbee dog flying through the air to catch a flying disc or a ball-happy dog running full bore after a tennis ball or Kong. That’s pure attraction, which, again, also creates pleasurable feelings of physical momentum and a pure flow of emotion.

So when a puppy learns to sit for a treat, operant conditioning—or a reasonable facsimile thereof—is enough to explain that process for most purposes. The missing piece is that the puppy has to first have a feeling of attraction for the treat and for the person holding it. You can’t get a puppy to sit for a treat unless he’s focused on you and has feelings of physical and emotional attraction for you and the treat.

Attraction + Momentum = Flow  
However, things get a bit more complicated when you’re training a dog to herd sheep or run an agility course or run full speed off a diving platform or—as is the case with dolphins—when Naval personnel train them to locate enemy mines underwater.(2)

For the agility course the dog has to have feelings of attraction for moving toward and through the various challenges in the course. The diving dog is motivated by the way his owner builds his attraction to a prey object, like a tug toy: the more attraction the dog has for the object the stronger his desire to intercept it in mid-air, and the better his score in the diving competition. When dolphins are trained to swim into a harbor, then dive deep and search for possible locations of enemy mines, they need to have more motivation than an eventual “reward” from a chum bucket back at the “base.” That reward is the feeling of seeking and finding “prey,” just like it is for dogs.

Resistance enters the picture through the fact that in all three cases the animals are also pushing past feelings of physical resistance, which, again, is the polar opposite of attraction.

Of course dogs and dolphins are predators. Would prey animals have the same feelings?

Yes. It’s just that their “prey” would usually be whatever it is they like to eat. Horses, for instance, don’t chase their “prey,” but they are attracted to things like grass and hay, etc. Yet even prey animals like horses will play games of chase with each other that often involve biting or mock biting the other animal, as if they were predators at heart.

There’s a lot more to the Natural Dog Training model of learning than attraction and resistance or the pleasures of physical momentum and emotional flow. But on the most fundamental level, there is really no difference between the way a jellyfish is attracted to its prey, the way bacteria are attracted to specific substances that sustain life [3], the way fundamental particles are attracted to one another, and the way dogs are able to learn complex new behaviors like riding on the gas tanks of their owners’ motorcycles or the way dolphins enjoy body- surfing on the backs of humpback whales.  

Lee Charles Kelley  
“Life Is an Adventure—Where Will Your Dog Take You?”
 
Footnotes:
 
1.) "The Misbehavior of Organisms," Keller and Marian Breland, American Psychologist, 16, 681-684.  

2.) http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/71500/Pages/default.aspx   

3.) Note that in his book Adaptive Behavior and Learning Dr. John Staddon discusses research done on e-coli and salmonella bacteria, organisms that show only two modes of movement—essentially either moving toward something or moving away from it—which are defined as straight-line swimming (moving toward) or tumbling (moving away). The first is found when the bacteria move toward a spot where there’s a high concentration of an “attractant,” and tumbling is found when there’s a decrease in its concentration.

Unified Dog Theory 12: The 4 Quadrants of Drive Training

Manage Your Dog’s Energy by Providing a Safe, Healthy Outlet for Aggression

Originally published in slightly different form on February 22, 2011 at PsychologyToday.com. 

We’ve all heard the expression, a tired dog is a good dog. But what does it mean, exactly?

I think the most common way this adage is interpreted is that if you give a dog enough exercise he’ll have fewer behavioral problems. In extreme cases the dog is put on a treadmill for hours at a time, or is forced to carry heavy weights around on long walks. What these things do is use up some of the dog’s energy that would otherwise be used to chase the cat, chew the carpet, or hump the mailman’s leg.  

But where does that energy come from? 

I would propose that it comes directly from the wolf’s prey drive. For one thing, modern research has shown that the hierarchical behaviors, and dominant and submissive polarities, seen in captive wolves aren’t as apparent or pronounced in wild wolves. 

Why the difference?  

Wild wolves have a natural outlet for stress: chasing, biting, taking down, and tearing at the hide of an animal that is larger and more dangerous than themselves. They only get stressed, and release it in the form of aggression towards other pack members, is when they haven’t hunted for a while, or when the pack has grown too large to sustain itself.

In previous posts I’ve stated that there aren’t just two forms of training for pet dogs, the pack leader model and operant conditioning, that there’s a third method, called drive training, which has traditionally been used only for training working dogs, attack dogs, detection dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, etc.

That all changed in 1992 when veteran police dog trainer Kevin Behan published Natural Dog Training, a comprehensive guide for training pet dogs using the prey drive as the focal point for learning new behaviors and for solving behavioral problems of all kinds.

Drive training is essentially about giving the dog an outlet for his energy, primarily the urge to bite. In Freudian terms, the trainer teaches the dog to “transfer” his urges and impulses onto objects of attraction.

Just as with operant conditioning, the 4 Quadrants of Drive Training come in pairs of opposites: attraction & resistance and tension & release. However, unlike + or - R and + or - P, which can only be measured in terms of statistical changes in behavior after the fact, attraction & resistance and tension & release can be measured empirically, in real time, via physiological changes in an animal’s body.

There are also four basic ways to use drive training to solve behavioral problems. In this article we’ll look at some old and some new ways of giving a dog a release for his or her pent-up energy. These include playing tug-of-war, which taps into the wolf’s primary tension-release mechanism (the kill bite), and which use up more energy in less time than taking a dog on long walks, running her on a treadmill, or other “energy-draining” exercises. Other healthy outlets include playing fetch with a ball or Frisbee, rough-and-tumble chase sessions with other dogs (or with you!), and even taking your dog on long walks in a park or other natural setting.

Much of what I’ve learned about how dogs relieve their internal tension and stress is intuitive or second nature. For instance, I think one of the biggest sources of behavioral problems in adult dogs comes from puppies who were punished or scolded for using their teeth during early development. Absent a definite history of the dog’s upbringing how does one know if this has happened to the pup? For me it’s a matter of observing various kinds of troubled dogs over long periods of time and getting a feeling for how, when, and in what manner a dog’s oral impulses are or aren’t being expressed normally.

For instance, I had a session a few years ago, here in New York City, with the owners of a pit bull named Latte; she’d been found on the street a year earlier in sad shape, emaciated and scared. She’d reportedly been a lovely girl during her first year with her new owners, very affectionate indoors, but she had recently started exhibiting leash aggression outdoors.

When I came in and sat on the sofa and began talking to her owners, Latte was unable to settle down. She kept pacing, coming over to sniff me, and then pacing again, etc.
 
We tried giving her a bone or a ball to help her settle down, but nothing seemed to work, so while I was discussing options with her owners, I gently put two of my fingers into Latte’s mouth, hoping it might give her a chance to ground some of her excess energy by mouthing my hand. I did this reflexively because of a sense I had that the dog had been severely punished for mouthing when she was a puppy.

This only made her more uncomfortable. She pulled away from my hand as if it were a hot iron. She zipped around the room for a while in circles that got smaller and smaller, with me as their center. I was the problem as well as the potential solution. Finally, she  settled next to me and “sneaked” in close. I offered my hand again and she started to nibble on my fingers. 

I let her do that, praising her softly, and petting her with my other hand.

She mouthed my hand gently for about thirty seconds, then jumped up next to me on the sofa, and almost immediately went to sleep.

I didn’t pay this much attention; this happens a lot at my training sessions. I’ll let the dog nibble my fingers, the dog will become very relaxed and then fall asleep. But Latte’s owners were amazed. “She has never done that with someone new in the apartment, ever!”

That’s when I actually remembered what I’d been doing, and realized that by letting Latte nibble my fingers, I’d taken her back to puppyhood so she could complete her oral development phase, or at least start to. 

Another way to look at it is that I let her use me as a “ground wire,” and that enabled her to offload some of her pent-up aggression (or urge to bite) in the form of nibbling (one of the ways puppies bond) rather than the neurotic, social-anxiety behaviors she’d been exhibiting outdoors. And, I think, that’s why she became relaxed enough to fall asleep next to me on the couch.

A few weeks later, however, I met another dog—another pit bull—whose energy was far too ungrounded for me to feel safe about putting my fingers anywhere near her mouth. So this is not something I’m recommending for everyone to do with just any dog. You have to have a very clear sense of how far off the charts the dog’s oral impulses are.

Another, much safer way of grounding a dog’s energy is through “The Eyes Exercise,” used by many trainers as “Watch Me.”

This exercise was invented by Kevin Behan in the early 1990s, but most trainers have learned it incorrectly. It’s all in how you hold the treat when you begin the exercise, with your thumb and forefinger in a circle as you’re holding the prey object (treat). Only by holding your hand in the specific way Kevin developed (which is quite easy), and by finding that magic spot—roughly 3 - 5 inches from the dog’s nose—will the dog sit perfectly still, then automatically lock her eyes onto yours. (Then, of course, you say “Eyes,” and give her the treat at the same time.)

I’ve done this exercise both ways, and it always works much quicker and is more effective when done the way Kevin designed it.

For instance, a big love of a mutt named Bailey had a leash-aggression problem, one that manifested itself initially as an “eye-stalk” behavior. Then when he got in close enough to the other dog, he would lunge and try to bite.

After teaching him the “Eyes” exercise, I was able to replace his need to stalk other dogs simply by saying, “Eyes!” and getting him to look me in the eye, to essentially offload his predatory energy into me. After I’d done that, I was then able to get him to calmly sniff-and-greet other dogs.

With dogs who have a generalized anxiety, the “eyes” can help settle their nerves. With others it’s a bridge between feeling aggressive and releasing the energy behind that aggression via a quick game of tug.

This is a mistake I think some trainers make, of doing the “Watch Me!” game and thinking of it only as an alternative or replacement behavior. That’s because without also giving a dog the opportunity to offload even more energy by biting and tugging on a toy, they’re only accomplishing the first part of the process: re-focusing the dog. He’s still going to have some pent-up aggression that will need to be downloaded in some way, at some future point. That’s why I think it’s much better to help such a dog release as much energy as possible the instant he’s focused on you.

But what if you have a dog who won’t play tug-of-war?

We’ll cover that in the next installment. 

LCK  
“Life Is an Adventure—Where Will Your Dog Take You?”
Join Me on Facebook!
Follow Me on Twitter!
Join the Rescue Dog Owners Support Group!