mlc

You could call JetPets and ask for a quote http://www.jetpets.com.au

And for the third time, will individual breed characterisitcs be taken into account when measuring "amicability"? To use the example for the third time, I would guess an Afghan will respond differently to, say, a Labrador. Will this make one less "suitable for living in Australian society" than the other? Hi Elfin, from my understanding, breed of the dogs used to develop the assessment will be noted (along with age, gender, etc.), but between-breed comparisons will not be considered more highly or more importantly than within-breed (or between individual) differences. The statistical analysis would likely define whether this is reported in at the end of the research. If the stat's say it's not significant, then it will be reported as such. That's the thing with science (despite the loud scepticism abounding here!), researchers report on what they find, interpret it in the context of the other available (and sound) scientific studies and then consider the implications of the findings and future directions for further research. Also - as stated before, the assessment is not about dictating what is or is not 'suitable for living in Australian Society'. The survey that was conducted asking Australian what their 'ideal dog' was (publication cited below) was a precursor to Tammie's current research of developing the assessment protocol for amicability (she's just trying to find out if you can do it). Yes, it's expected different dogs (breed irrespective) will score differently on such an assessment, but that's a helpful way to describe that dog's personality. Someone might prefer an aloof, more independent type dog and someone else might prefer a really clingy on the couch with you all the time type dog. It's expected different dogs will assess differently and it's also expected that this suits different people perfectly. As Tammie said, this is not about pass/fail, it's about helping to describe a trait to better improve understanding of general public and hopefully reduce the number of owner/dog mis-matches. For those who wish to read Tammie's publications, please refer to this as the most recent and relevant to the PhD study under discussion: Describing the ideal Australian companion dog Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 120, Issues 1-2, August 2009, Pages 84-93 Tammie King, Linda C. Marston, Pauleen C. Bennett Abstract: Dogs have had a long association with humans and are believed to be the first domesticated animal species. Many breeds of dog exist today which vary considerably in physical appearance and temperament. These differences have arisen primarily from selective pressures imposed by humans to create dogs suitable for various working roles. Nowadays, however, few breeds undertake the work they were once bred for; rather dogs are kept primarily as companions. With differing lifestyles and an increase in urban living it is necessary to identify what constitutes an ideal dog in the present day. This study identifies the characteristics important to the Australian public in their “ideal dog”. To determine this, 877 participants (79.8% female) aged 18–82 years (mean = 34.3, SD = 14.5) were surveyed. A number of behavioural and physical characteristics were identified as important to Australians. These included dogs being medium sized, short haired, de-sexed, safe with children, fully housetrained, friendly, obedient and healthy. Participants also wanted their ideal dog to come when called, not to escape from their property, to enjoy being petted and to display affection to their owners. Desirable behavioural characteristics were grouped using Principal Component Analysis into five factors, labelled calm/compliant, sociable/healthy, energetic/faithful/protective, socially acceptable, and non-aggressive. Together these accounted for 45.7% of the total variance. Independent-samples t-tests revealed significant differences in importance of the components for men versus women, dog owners versus non-owners and whether participants lived with children or not. Women preferred a dog who is calm/compliant [t(870) = −2.33, P = 0.02], sociable/healthy [t(870) = −2.57, P = 0.01] and non-aggressive [t(870) = −2.67, P = 0.008] while men preferred a dog which is energetic/faithful/protective [t(870) = 3.09, P = 0.002]. Overall, however there were also many commonalities. Breeding animals able to tolerate the stresses and demands of today's requirements, training them to behave appropriately, and educating pet dog owners about the characteristics of different dogs and the need for realistic expectations about dog behaviour is likely to help reduce the incidence of problem behaviours, such as separation anxiety, destructiveness and aggression. It is also likely to increase owner satisfaction and reduce the number of dogs relinquished to shelters. Keep in mind this publication isn't Tammie's opinion, or Pauleen Bennett's - it's what the participants who took the survey reported. Don't shoot the messengers just because you may not like the message. At the end of the day, I suspect we may simply need to do that adult thing and agree to disagree.

So they could have an objective unbiased way of measuring it that is scientifically sound. Do you believe the car salesman spin or an external evaluation body like ANCAP (Australian New Car Assessment Program) when talking about car safety features? Who do you trust in more and why? Personally, I like a bit of independence and science to back up the on-the-ground knowledge. What kind of dog should we be looking to breed?... If your asking us to breed the perfect pet that copes in all situations, perfect genetically and pre programed to fit into the family unit then I am sorry it is just not possible.... Hi again Elenbah, I think there is some misunderstanding here about Tammie's research. She is trying to develop an assessment protocol. Not trying to define what behaviours make the perfect pet or the genetics behind that. A sound and reliable assessment protocol to measure one factor - friendliness, or amicability, which her previous research showed is what Australians consider to be most important (so if you have to start somewhere - why no start there). Like a developing a test to check tyre pressure. Now (going along with the car analogy) - whether you like your tyres pumped tight or down low is still completely up to you and how they're provided in the first place is still up to the car/bike manufacturer. But what you have is an accurate way to measure what the tyre pressure is at. So in dog terms - you might prefer to buy yourself a pup to be a great guard dog or a great couch companion - that's up to you. A breeder might prefer to breed good fly ball dogs or good duck retrievers - that's up to them. Tammie's test protocol has the potential to help breeders and future pup owners better match up their preferences and requirements. In a way that is objective and scientifically sound. She's working on the tyre pressure check. In the same way you get a dog's hips assessed and scored before breeding with them. So you know what you have and what you can consider in selecting mating choices, etc. You might have a great eye for conformation, but the public still like to see those hip scores on paper to 'trust' that your breeding stock are sound and to increase the chances their pup will be as well. Similarly, this kind of methodology could be applied to behavioural traits. But this overall 'scoring' is NOT what Tammie is researching - her research project s is one of the first steps in the research that might end up getting to that point. She's working on the tyre pressure check, not a whole roadworthy certificate. I hope that helps to improve the understanding a little bit - I just feel Tammie's research is getting unfairly judged and commented on very negatively - which is a shame as it really has great potential to assist breeders and the general public. On that note - everyone - have a great new year's eve!

So they could have an objective unbiased way of measuring it that is scientifically sound. Do you believe the car salesman spin or an external evaluation body like ANCAP (Australian New Car Assessment Program) when talking about car safety features? Who do you trust in more and why? Personally, I like a bit of independence and science to back up the on-the-ground knowledge.

This is probably left for Tammie to respond to herself. From my talks with her, I think she's a bit dependent on who volunteers to participate as to what kinds of dogs she gets. I think I read in an earlier post that if she got enough numbers within breeds that she would look at breed differences, but the emphasis is on developing a sound and rigorous TEST PROTOCOL rather than associating breeds themselves with any behavioural traits. In other words, her research is developing a test, rather than saying certain breeds are more or less friendly than other breeds. I've met lovely/friendly dogs of one breed and very nervous/aggressive ones from within the same breed as well - in everything from labradors to pit bulls, so I think it will be really interesting to see what Tammie finds in her test protocol development.

Oh that's interesting. I thought that survey was about capturing information about what the 'current state of play' was for how working dogs were kept, trained and bred, etc. rather than to develop any standards. I just ran a google search - there's an information sheet that says: What does the study involve? This research uses a survey to gather data about how you train, handle, house and care for your working dogs. It aims to develop the first database of information about working dogs in Australia. The reason underlying the collection of these data is to provide insights into the welfare status of dogs used in work by humans. There are currently few opportunities for collaboration between the different working dog sectors at both an Australian and international level. We anticipate that this study will facilitate collaboration between the industries involved to enhance knowledge sharing and hence improve efficiency, output and functionality of working dog programs. Also this article says its NOT to be used to change regulations: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/15/2626437.htm Have any regulations been changed since the article you mentioned was published? Do you have a link for the article? Thanks!

The PhD candidate has said that the DNA is not to identify breed (or mix thereof), but for a future unknown study. Perhaps it would have been better off to use the DNA to identify specific breeds, if specific breeds are going to be named in the study results. How will the media twist the results around of "scientific proof" that breed XYZ is "suitable" or indeed "unsuitable" for Australian society? What will be the public's attitude to the breeds listed lower down on the "suitable" list? The study itself does not worry me. It is the title of the study and what the media will do with the results that concern me. Hi Elfin, I'm glad your concerns about the study itself have been addressed, because it seems like research that could have lots of positives to it and after having participated myself with my dogs and seeing no cause for concern, I'd hate to think Tammie might struggle to find participants because of opinions posted in this forum. What do you think might make for a better title? I reckon Tammie would be open to suggestions. I think (from my understanding of other canine genetic/behaviour research going on in other universities - like the University of Tokyo in Japan where they have been doing work looking at genetics of detector dogs) any DNA research in the future will be looking at the genetics with the emphasis placed on the behaviour traits themselves rather than the genetics of the breed, although this would also be a consideration. Wouldn't it be interesting if this research could in fact do the opposite of what you propose above and demonstrate that some breeds with a 'poor' reputation have the same behavioural genetics as more 'popular' breeds? That would them help to demonstrate the case for owner/handler effects but in a sound scientific manner. I am confident from my own experiences that the Anthrozoology Research Group wants to work WITH people like everyone in this forum, not AGAINST them or to turn general public's opinion to be detrimental towards pure breeds - I know from chatting with Tammie the she feels very passionately about this coming from a strong background of breeding and exhibiting pure breed dogs. Cheers - and happy new year!

I took part in Tammie's pilot study with my two dogs (i took one dog in, my partner the other) - the assessment was done in under 10 mins, it simply involved me walking into a controlled test space with my dog on lead meeting a stranger, then sitting on a chair. I then unclipped my lead, the stranger called to the dog (in my case my dog did not approach), I then left the controlled test space, closing a door behind me, the stranger called my dog again, then approached her, then I re-entered the controlled test space, put the dog back on lead, and exited. All done. The test space has 4 cameras set up to record the dog's behaviours from every angle and this is what Tammie is using to analyse later on. I also filled out around 3 questionnaires about my dog's behaviour and personality that Tammie will also analyse to see how my reporting on her behaviour matches with what was observed. This comes back to checking any assessment developed is actually reliable and accurate over time and in the 'real world'. It was really interesting and fun to see how my dog reacted without me there. My dog is a fairly anxious, high energy, excitable type of dog. I'm perhaps naive as to how this research could be used for 'the dark side', but I can understand your concerns (let's not use paranoia!) if you have been affected by something negatively in the past. That said, from what I saw when my dog was tested, I don't see anything to be concerned about in this case and would encourage anyone in the Melbourne area to get involved in the research project and go see for themselves. Maybe you could even just go along to watch without your dog so you can see what happens and have the chance to meet and chat with Tammie? I'll bring the coffee! ;)

Here's one. I have bolded the interesting text. Dr Bennett said people should worry less about a dog's breed and more about their overall behaviour background to decide if one is right for them. "We think that's what we should be breeding, those character traits, as opposed to specific dog breeds." "If we can test the parents, it could lead to a certificate of temperament that will show this dog has been friendly, safe with kids and easy to manage. Firstly you quote from the bloody Herald Sun ;) Hardly a font of accurate and in-depth reportage. Who knows what context they pulled the quotes from. You have to keep in mind that this is all about your average Joe Blow who wants a dog, not keen enthusiasts like DOLers. Also 200 dogs is far too small a sample to get any real idea of canine behaviour. 200 dogs may not be a large enough sample to 'get any real idea of canine behaviour', but fortunately it's a great number to start measuring if the assessment is accurate and reliable as a measurement tool. Plus, there's growing body of previous and current scientific studies about dog behaviour to draw on. ps. I'm glad someone has pointed out that the Herald Sun aren't always the most reliable source of information!

Really? I think it's a combination of breeding, environment and training. If it's 'far more' about training, then why bother breeding to a temperament 'type' like they do with task-specific working dogs (like Guide Dogs, Police dogs, military dogs, etc.) - couldn't they just recruit from pounds and train them rather than breed for a temperament 'type' that predisposes them to the desired work?

Kate's research was based in a shelter environment for adoption/re-homing suitability - Tammie's work is looking to develop a test for friendliness (amicability) which was surveyed as the most desirable trait in a survey of over 800 Australians. Hope this helps.

This was one of my major concerns. As Jed said "best suited" for one person is completely different to what is "best suited" for another. Will we end up with a generic, bland, bog-standard, zero-drive, robotic, fluffy quadruped back-yard-dweller, that is deemed by all and sundry (including the government) to be the most "suitable" dog for us, and any other breeds are considered "unsuitable"? Scary. I don't think this research study is about refining future dogs to one 'type' - it's more about givign breeders a tool to use so they can say, on a behaviour assessment, my dogs score this for anxiety, fearfulness, boldness, etc. then people have an objective score/tool to use in selecting which dog is for them. Seems to be about putting the science behind what a lot of good breeders do intuitively anyway. Which might make the mainstream public pay a bit more attention. Surely that can't hurt?

Curious as to how the working dog survey backfired? Do explain!

This statement says 'dogs best suited' not 'breeds most suited'. I think the gist of it is that they're trying to pin down behavioural differences WITHIN breeds, hopefully finding a genetic basis, with the hope of helping breeders achieve desired temperament. Could be something like trying to reduce yappyness and over-excitability . . . which are a problem in suburbs now that back yards are getting smaller and neighbours more in one another's face . . . or understanding the heritability of aggression. Even if I don't want to design a breeding program to produce the perfect pet, there are some behavioural tendencies that I would just as soon be able to keep out of my stock. If someone works out a better way to select for temperament, my ears are open. I agree - in the same way you get hips scored or elbows scored or an eye assessment done - similarly, I think this research is aiming to develop an assessment tool that could be used by breeders. So if a person were to want an active, trainable, low anxiety (for example's sake), they could find litters bred from adult dogs that had been scored to that effect. Looks like an interesting study to add another tool to help breeders and the people who take on pups make a good match/choice. I also know Pauleen and Linda (and Tammie who is conducting the research) - I am sure they would be happy to speak to anyone about their concerns. I think that maybe far more is being read into this research than it's intentions. I'm a bit sad to see such suspicion and conspiracy theories abounding here!