KismetKat

My comment still holds true. What's her rationale & aim in collecting data on whatever behaviours she's observing & calling what & recording how? She would need to provide that information if people are going to use it (for whatever purpose she intends it). Read steve's post (#465). When it comes to analysis of the data it will obviously be more complex that what I am about to say - but we were shown a few video's of some trial tests. One dog wouldn't go near the "stranger" even with the owner present. Once the owner left the dog growled at the "stranger". OK, I'm thinking "not amicable" here. One dog was shown jumping up on the stranger trying to lick him. OK we need a score of "over" amicable? :D

Yes she did - as the breeder would have a life-long commitment to pups born (tho there was the murky area re pet shops). She also had guidelines about how dogs were kept. Basically home backyard type situations where there was a limit on the number of dogs (was it 2 or 3 bitches?). If you wanted more than that then you needed multiple backyard type areas, so dogs could live in their own groups. No cages allowed. Pens to only be used for temporary containment. Daily contact and handling of pups by humans. She also had her own views on number of litters. She was OK about breeding back to back but the limit should be "7 litters or 7 years of age" and then desexing and retirement to a pet home. What do breeders think of this?

Perhaps the point everyone is missing in this discussion about Tammie's research, is that the 200 dogs she is "testing" aren't 'tests' at all! It is data collection. jdavis the test IS a strange situation test. The dog is taken onlead into an enclosure and the exact same thing happens for each dog being 'tested'. The dog is video recorded from four different angles. Different dogs will obviously behave differently, but there is a finite number of behaviours that will be shown. This is why she needs as many different dogs as possible. I'm taking my 2 in a couple of week. I will be making bets with her (if she'll take the bet) that I can predict how both dogs will behave. And steve - thanks for the great post. Your summary is spot on. As to LIDA - he was jogged at the end again about how they should note the source of the dogs (registered breeder or other). Do you think he took it on board any more than previously? Or did he look nagged at? :D

It's a 'baby step' Before you go off counting chicken pecks you first have to have a peck-counter that works. It's not measuring the "impact" of the behaviour, it's first seeing if you can measure the behaviour.

You're right, KK. That's a simple example. To liken it a bit more to the study on dogs though, let's hypothesise that the number of times a chicken pecks is influenced by how it is raised. With that in mind, how could you possibly think that you'd be able to determine, even later down the track, whether brown chickens peck more than white unless you remove and/or at the very least take into account how those chickens were raised? the point is erny - before you do anything fancy (like work out if brown chooks peck more than white ones) you FIRST need your pecking count test to work. In this example, Tammie's project is simply to try and come up with the peck-counter. If she can make a reliable peck-counter, then other researchers can do projects about white vs brown chickens. To clarify further, at this stage it doesn't matter WHY the chickens peck, we just want to be able to measure their pecks.

But I don't see how even Tammie's initial 'experiments' can go towards deciding if this aim is possible UNLESS prior learning and experiences are take into account. And even if they are, if science is about 'measuring' then surely these environmental experiences need to be able to be 'measured' as well. And the only way I can imagine that to be done would be to have a group of 'control' dogs who are born and raised in exactly the same way. Thanks for the explanation Tammie, and my apologies if I am just being a bit dull in not comprehending how your aims are going to be able to be achieved with any great reliability. Let's try a simple example. OK you want a test that counts chicken pecks. You are checking for a single thing, i.e. chicken pecks. Initially it doesn't matter what colour the chickens are, of if they had a happy egg-hood, you JUST want the test you invent to reliably count chicken pecks. Once you have managed that THEN you can use it to see, for example, if brown chickens peck more than white ones.

Firstly I've just received an abstract (with clickable further reading) which I will try and attached. (sorry, too big to attach) jdavis - I am not 'promoting' crossbreeding, I am reporting what was said. Kissandra - stats were shown that a good proportion of dogs are relinquished to pounds due to behavioural issues (not shedding). Erny - Tammie's project is about IF a test can be developed which is objective and gives measurable outcomes. That's it. It's about IF a test is possible, so really the dogs used, their backgrounds/breeds/etc. is totally irrelevant. To clarify on the behaviour thang to all concerned. It gets down to the nature/nuture argument and whether its people or dogs I think most people would agree that it really is a bit of both. IF the scientists can clearly define certain traits, then IF they can create tests that objectively measure those traits, and then later on they MAY discover a gene (or series of genes) that creates that behaviour/trait. Then those behaviours/traits which are proven heritable, you can use the tests to assess dogs for that behaviour/trait as a selection tool for breeding dogs. For instance, if Tammie CAN develop an objective test for 'amicability" (which she has defined) then GR breeders could use the test GRs should be "amicable". Afghan breeders could also use the test as Afghans should be aloof, and not TOO 'amicable.

I'm not passing judgement on the speakers. But I sure am on what you are posting. Making statements as fact that are pure assertion, or just purely wrong. Maybe you are reiterating what was presented at the seminar. Perhaps you aren't. Either way its been very, um, let's just leave it at disappointingly illogical and demonstrably ill-informed. Then don't read my posts of my impressions of what was said, then be patient and wait for the DVD release to get your own impressions. as for Cosmolo who wrote "Why should we change dogs to compensate for some human issues?" - I suspect the answer there is "because they always have". The argument was made we have created dogs to suit our needs, but our needs have changed. and on that note I will go to bed. If you weren't there, then watch the video as it is available. Make up your own minds. These people are, imho, not anti-dog breeds at all, they are pro dog.

At the seminar she clearly stated her dogs DO shed. I took her statement about poodle type coats to mean that they "looked" poodle like (and certainly the photos showed dogs with curly poodle coats). Her original purpose was to breed shaggy dogs like a lovely mutt she owned.

Funny, you say like that it's a fact rather than your opinion. You can back it up with...? Huski - I am reporting on what I understood from what was said at the seminar today. Please dont confuse these statements with my own opinion. Kate was talking about her "pet breeder" code of ethics and in the context of what she said the 6 points of the code were, plus what was being said about behaviours, these are my own interpretations (but only as they would apply to signatories of Kate's code of ethics).

Currently there is no scientifically proven test for an amicable temperment, however if you have an adult dog who is amicable and mate it with another adult dog who is amicable, I would guess you would mainly get amicable puppies. In regards to coat, I think it was Kate who said the F1 poodle crosses will have a poodle coat (tho with some shedding). I have NO idea why an F1 cross of a lav and poodle should always end up with a poodle coat - I will take that claim with a grain of salt. and back to breed standards - u mention that if they don't have the characteristics cited then they are not a good example. Can I quote the Boxer breed standard I train with a Boxer group and I don't see any of them exhibiiting some aspects of this standard unless you add to the line " distrustful of strangers" "distrustful of dogs with noses longer than my own" and to this line "brave and determined when roused" "and any long-nosed dog will 'rouse' me".

Could be as she was quite honest that she is breeding for profit. However she is also well aware that F2s are problematic. Cat breeders routinely desex kittens before sale. Do you have a problem with that? You really need to see the full transcript of what the various speakers said before you pass judgement. I will say here I was quite confronted by what some of the speakers said, particularly Kate, but each made some good and valid points (imho).

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

Yes she did say that. And she breeds crossbreeds so don't u think she should? The more scientific people did say there was some advantages in F1 crosses (they stated the HD was less prevelant in F1 crosses even when both breeds could suffer from it) but genetic advantages were lost in F2s. But I also think she said she no longer routinely desexes (can note-takers elaborate?).

No doubt those are the ones Kate Schofeld would say we should breed from Prey drive is sooooo inconvenient in a dog. :D Hmm, well her dog that was the champ was a desexed pet. Her confirmation champ dogs were alsorans in the racing stakes. One even took to snoozing in the start box and only ever had a hope of placing in long distance runs - enter her in a sprint and she was till snoozing in the start box while the others wre finishing! :D But getting back to her champ racer - it reminds me of the speakers' "we desex too early" argument. If an Afghans prime thing is to run, there was one bloody good dog that was no longer in the gene pool.

Gee, don't they understand that won't change while people continue to leave dogs unattended and unexercised in back yard all day. Oh, but let's breed the bark out the dog so WE can be happy, who cares about the dog! So don't sell your pups to people who work all day. There was mention of how "flexible' dogs are which has made them such a successful species. It was stated that many dogs DO cope with working owners as they have that 'flexibility'. That being said, it was also stated that owners DO need to get their dogs out for daily walks etc or there will be problems. Education (and responsibility) of owners was in no ways overlooked by the speakers. The speakers were actually quite disparaging of some modern owner predilictions that basically amounted to dog owners not liking normal dog behaviour. However it was argued that dogs that naturally cope with modern living (no village to roam and people to be with 24/7) without exhibiting unwanted behaviours (incessent barking, etc.) can be a selection tool. Thus getting back to not desexing dogs routinely before 6 months as, an an adult dog, they might, without impinging on the conformation standard, prove to be 'good' dogs to keep in the gene pool.

Show one prey and you'll rapidly understand what that means I've watched my sister's dogs chase lures - she actually owned the Oz champion back in the 70s. I also saw the dogs that ran too slow and lost sight of the lure. They would stop and scratch, stop and have a snooze, stop and decide the middle of the track looked interesting... Even with the ones still chasing the lure I don't think "fierce" is the right word.

Firstly to Tas - I can access the direct link. However earlier I was trying to access breed standards via the VicDogs website and even now come up with file not found errors (and also if I go via the ANKC homepage). Buggered if I know why. And I did click on a breed standard and found this "The Afghan Hound should be dignified and aloof with a certain keen fierceness. " What on EARTH is a "keen fierceness"? Afghans are lovely dogs and from the ones I've met the word "fierce" just does not enter into it. Which is the code of ethics suggested by Kate. While she was probably the most controversial speaker of the day, one of her main points is that breeders should have a lifetime responsibility of the dogs they breed and ensure the owner is educated about the breed (or cross). In the question time at the end, when queried about pet shops selling pups, she went on to say that as pet shops where the ones making the profit, then the pet shops should take on the 'responsibility' of this lifetime guarantee. That point was also made (tho I think they said goldfish rather than stuffed toys). But the point was made that in modern urban life people don't want a dog that barks when anyone comes within 200 metres of the property when properties are 50m or less apart. Times and living conditions of humans have changed - as humans adjust must dogs. That being said, it was made plain that many expectations of dogs these days are really beyond the pale. Dogs are dogs. But unfortunately for dogs to continue to thrive in modern environments there are increasing pressures for them to conform (often by legislation) to behave a certain way.

Tassie - I've been trying to access the aussie breed standards but obviously their servers aren't coping with current demand, I just get a white error page. However you also have to keep in mind that when behaviour traits are expressed, how definite is the definition and how open to interpretation. I mean, if a dog is described as "lively" what does that mean? Are we talking the energiser bunny here?

There was a reference to staffies that did draw a big laugh from just about everyone on the room (and keep in mind it was full of vested-interest dog breeders for the main part). The speaker was talking about behaviour/traits for the showring. How you don't want a dog that will bite a judge as this will be a disqualification. Showrings are busy places so the dog must cope with this. How, by breeding for show, you may end up selecting behaviour traits that are an advantage in the showring. Now here I forget the exact term used, but I think it was 'show presence' - the speaker then went on to quip that "staffies have so much show presence they now show them further apart". This was the line that drew a big laugh. But, any jokes aside, how much 'you and who's army' attitude should staffies have? When is too much too much?

Ok. Airedale and yes woofnhoof - the point was made that many jobs that dogs were originally bred for no longer exist and that modern living conditions of dogs (who predominately are pets) is vastly different from what it was in yesteryear. They even made the point that many aspects of dogs just being dogs are now considered 'problems' (eg. barking).

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored, To a point, but a bad owner can ruin ANY dog, no matter how good the temperament of the parents is. Sorry - my bad - the point was made that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog MAY still be 'good'. For instance, why don't abused dogs savage their owners? and just on breed standards - any I look up and I get internet file not found error messages. So I went to the US, can't see anywhere on the US breed standard a description of desirable temperament and behavioural traits of a couple of breeds I checked at random.

No-one suggested that breeds be 'watered down' or be a 'one size fits all generic dog'. I think the point is that many breed standards do not specify behaviour/traits of dog breed. They are saying that diversity of dogs is good, but when it comes to behaviour/temp thenbreeders should agree what the dog should be like in regards to behaviour/temp and select for those things as well as looks.

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored, Which is why they said the breed associations should get together and agree on the traits they want and select for them. education socialisation and training were also mentioned as being very important, but the point was made that even 'good' owners find themselves with 'bad' dogs.

Varies from breed to breed but basically you don't want a dog that is fearful or bites people (or other dogs) or is generally a pain in the arse (this is my VERY loose interpretation, PLS wait for the full video). The point was made that dogs need to be flexible to cope with modern living - and many dogs DO do this very well. However how well a dog copes and adjusts is really not apparent until the dog is an adult. Basically they were saying it is as important to select for temperment than it is for looks. They suggested that breed associations should get together and list what traits they think desirable for that breed and select for those as well as looks. They said that, genetically, selecting for a single conformation aspect can lead to unthoughtof consequences on other things (which can be problems) appearing in the breed. They said if you are breeding PURELY for show, you should not be in the business of selling pets. They said breeding for extremes in a breed causes problems. Basically they were saying that breeders should look to how the dogs behave as well as how they look when selecting parent dogs.