Phd Study

[Erny]

Mind you, it occurs to me that if such a scientific test of "amicability" could be proven then that could mean the end of BSL.

Perhaps, although I somehow doubt it - at least at this stage of my understanding of the intended research. But let's just say (hypothetically) that some time in the future, Tammi's research and results are taken by Government as the "measuring tape" for what dogs (breed and within breed) should or shouldn't be bred. I don't think it is beyond the realms of imagination or possibility that regulations can come in to prohibit the sale and breeding of dogs who don't fit the bill according to the measure of that research. That to me is quite similar to BSL, except that its affects would be much more widespread, its tentacles reaching far deeper and more invasive than BSL already does. It would still be the Government's way of dictating what dogs we can and can't have and it wouldn't just relate to breed, it would relate to personality/temperament type. One temperament might suit a certain person and their lifestyle, but not necessarily another.

This may not (and by all accounts, I see it is not) the "intended" purpose of the research study, but we all know the possibility of these studies being used to suit the purpose of those who want to restrict our rights to dog ownership and to training.

I mean no offence to Tammi - I'm all for research. But I just don't trust the hands upon which this research can fall into and what purpose they'll actually put it to regardless of its original intent.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Erny

[KismetKat]

Erny - it is not "intended" research - it is currently ongoing. And perhaps you should find out more about it rather than guessing and making assumptions and crying "1984".

And really, the simple answer is, if you don't like the project, then don't participate.

[Erny]

And KK .... I am sharing my thoughts. Anyone is open to refute me and tell me how my thoughts are askew. What you have added in response to my thoughts provides nothing. Are you saying that what I hypothesise cannot possibly happen? How so? And I'm sorry I wrote "intended" research. Scrap that, and delete reference to the word "intended" before the word "research". I'm not "crying 1984" .... I'm actually responding to the suggestion that this research might actually counter BSL.

You're right - I don't have to participate if I don't like it. Doesn't mean I am not permitted to share my thoughts on my concerns about it and why I'm not comfortable about it. What you're suggesting is "put up or shut up". Sorry - that's not what this thread is about and I see no harm in voicing my concerns about it. You never know, if those concerns can be put to rest, minds might change. But the "participate or say nothing" attitude only adds to my distrust of not the research, per se, but what might be done with it later. And isn't that the same concern that others are expressing here as well?

Edited December 31, 2009 by Erny

[Jed]

Mind you, it occurs to me that if such a scientific test of "amicability" could be proven then that could mean the end of BSL.

Probably not, the government is already aware, and has been for years, of other, more relevant studies which prove that banning breeds to reduce dog bites is flawed. There are numerous proved studies from America, Spain etc which prove the point better than this study will.

Pitbull bans have nothing to do with dog bites. If they did have, dog bite stats would have fallen, not risen.

mlc, I don't think anyone has any problems or objections to the method in which the dogs are tested.

It is what will happen to those results, and what they will be used for which concerns us.

And there is a vast difference between paranoia and informed opinion. Unfortunately, those who wont do the research to form an opinion are inclined to label those who have as "paranoid".

Kismet Kat, it is your right to encourage people to take park in the survey - and it is Erny's right to put her point of view. And mine.

And I believe when you came to this forum, you approved of BSL. Discovering facts changed your mind.

We will continue to disseminate the truth through this forum. You don\t have to believe it, or like it, but it will happen.

I have lost count of the times I was called paranoid and beaten up - over years - for discouraging people from vaccinating dogs annually with C5 or C7, to avoid lymphoma, or vaccinosis of some kind.

The protocol I advocated years ago is now accepted by the AVA and used by Australian vets. And prior to the changed protocol by the AVA, many members of this forum were recommending fewer vaccinations. I don't mind being beaten up or being called paranoid, if I can assist dogs to a better and healthier life.

We don't pull this information from dark places, we research and learn, and present it to others for their information, education and consideration. What they do with it is up to them.

Erny, please come and stand with me in the "paranoid" corner. We are in very very good company

[Erny]

Erny, please come and stand with me in the "paranoid" corner. We are in very very good company

I'm here. Standing in the corner with you, Jed.

Happy New Year

[dogbesotted]

i am right in that corner with you both........

a little paranoia goes a long way..

Happy new year fellow corner standers

Helen

[tdierikx]

Happy to hang out in the corner with you fine folk... *grin*

T.

[Elfin]

May I join you all in the Corner?

Happy New Year, Corner Dwellers!

[Erny]

May I join you all in the Corner?

Happy New Year, Corner Dwellers!

[WoofnHoof]

Hooray no more dog research.

[Erny]

No one is against dog research, WnH. It is what that research is about and the ambiguity of the results, and what authorities could do with that ambiguity that is the concern. And if ambiguity is not an issue, it still remains what the authorities could do with them. It is not about being against dog research. It is about being careful of what studies and research are entertained and where those results could lead to and why.

And if anyone has a problem with not understanding the concerns shared here, they should look back historically and see what they have done, the prohibitions they have applied, how many other studies they have ignored when objections were offered in opposition to proposed laws ...... which were pushed through regardless anyway. Distrust has been created. Not at the hands of the doubting Thomas' either. So if there is reluctance, those who hold power need to look closer to home to see why.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Erny

[WoofnHoof]

I'm having trouble envisioning a study that would be deemed acceptable by some here TBH. I don't really see what is the big deal with finding a genetic basis for temperament, isn't that what breed standards are implying when they specify certain temperaments for certain breeds? Most of the selling points here for purebred dogs include the fact that temperament is much more predictable in pure breds, less of a mixed bag and less chance of a temperament which deviates from the standard so it makes sense that research into the genetic basis of temperament would support the anecdotal evidence that it is able to be accurately selected for.

[Jed]

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL THOSE IN THE CORNER

Oi, Troy, where's the Happy New Year!! icon ?? Get with it baby, Xmas has been and gone, Santa's back at the North Pole having a few nips and bedding down the reindeer!!(mods are Gods Troy, mods are Gods)

*_{unfolds paper hat, puts it on, runs around lounge puffing on fold out paper whistle and wildly waving streamer. Dogs bark frenziedly and run around in circles, proving that no temperament test has yet been invented that could qualify them*}

[Jed]

I'm having trouble envisioning a study that would be deemed acceptable by some here TBH. I don't really see what is the big deal with finding a genetic basis for temperament, isn't that what breed standards are implying when they specify certain temperaments for certain breeds? Most of the selling points here for purebred dogs include the fact that temperament is much more predictable in pure breds, less of a mixed bag and less chance of a temperament which deviates from the standard so it makes sense that research into the genetic basis of temperament would support the anecdotal evidence that it is able to be accurately selected for.

There is no study conducted by people with an agenda which would be acceptable. Particularly those associated with others who believe F1 hybrids are superior, and labradoodles are superior to purebred dogs. Particularly academics who sprouted that "purebred dogs are inbred", was given proof that purebred dogs are not inbred, but has yet to retract that statement, because retracting it does not align with the agenda.

Proof is in the working dog study.

And there already is a proven study on temperament. It is called PUREBRED DOGS. It's been proven for years and years. Better than 90% of registered purebred dogs behave exactly as their standard for temperament dictates. And the temperament of most breeds is written into that standard, so people only have to read it to know what they are getting. Or they can ask others with the breed. Unlike F1 hybrids, or crossbreds, or doodleoodles, every owner of every purebred dog will experience the same temperament with 90% accuracy. The difference will be in the nurturing.

And it is tested in the conformation ring every time a dog is shown, by a properly credentialled and tested judge. If the dog does not show the temperament as per the breed standard, he is out.

And really, who cares? People purchase from pet shops, or via the internet with no idea of the temperament they are getting. And this study wont make any difference to that.

[BJean]

The complexity of dog behaviour makes the development of accurate ways to measure behaviour difficult.

is at total odds with:

That is why I am in the process of recruiting 200 dogs and their owners to assist me in trying to develop this assessment.

???

a gene for happiness?

Basically, I am trying to find out if we can accurately measure a specific canine personality trait; amicability. That is, dogs which exhibit friendly, relaxed, sociable, easy-going and non-aggressive behaviours. The reason we chose these behaviours is that after conducting a questionnaire we found that majority of participants considered these types of behaviours "ideal". Currently, we do not know what measures are important in determining which dogs are more or less amicable than others that is why we need so many dogs.

Yes you do, the owners have told you in previous surveys -

the dogs which are deemed more amicable by their owners are those which have had more training, ie more owner - effort / interaction..

But you want to know if you can somehow produce a dog or a soft toy with batteries

so that it is fool proof to the idiot.

then you have prescribed animal welfare realised, as the idiot dog matches the idiot owner

and then there is no more suffering.

Edited January 1, 2010 by lilli

[Sam&Saki]

I understand the concerns others hold with this research, but personally I would see involvement as a good thing.

The research is going ahead regardless, people!

The intended outcome of the research is positive - the development of reliable a behavioural assessment method for dogs. This would be a good weapon in the fight against BSL, and a positive tool for rescue groups, etc.

If the research is used for negative purposes in the future - if somebody looks at the DNA and starts matching to breeds to prove that certain breeds carry certain characteristics - well, isn't this the perfect opportunities to bring in our friendly non-aggressive pit bulls or other dogs that face BSL or prejudice?

200 dogs for this study. What if 20 of them were pit bulls with great non aggressive temperaments. How could that research ever be used in a bad way? Even with the worst of intentions, it would still help fight BSL!

This is an opportunity. You can put your head in the sand and hope the study doesn't go ahead because of your worries - but it will still go ahead.

Personally I'd love to take in my friendly, non-aggressive Akita for the study. I'm perfectly happy for her pure bred akita DNA to be matched to a behavioural assessment about what a friendly sweet goofball she is. I just wish a big bunch of friendly pitty owners and other akita owners would do the same

[BJean]

Mind you, it occurs to me that if such a scientific test of "amicability" could be proven then that could mean the end of BSL.

how?

explain how a test that is going to measure raw material

will work

ie be reliable and predicatble

when the dog is a combination of raw material + human experience / upbringing.

what relevance will your subject datat/analysis have

if a dog is presented for temperament assessment that is an angel with its handler

but to anyone else it is not little miss amicable?

so right there the dna collection point is going to be tarnished.

I'm surprised that people can read the preamble for the survey

and surmise 'yep, that makes sense'.

???

[BJean]

Personally I'd love to take in my friendly, non-aggressive Akita for the study. I'm perfectly happy for her pure bred akita DNA to be matched to a behavioural assessment about what a friendly sweet goofball she is. I just wish a big bunch of friendly pitty owners and other akita owners would do the same

Every dog can express aggression. Just as every human can express sadness or rage.

Raise differently and your Akita could present as a fear biting neurotic mess.

You are your genes

but your development as a person and how you communicate with the world around you is ulitmately determined by your experience and your perception of success and failure.

[Sam&Saki]

Lilli, they already have temperament tests and 20 point lists and all sorts of ridiculous tests for pounding / PTS dogs / assessing dangerous dogs, etc. These already exist, and are used, by council, by law, to decide whether a dog lives or dies.

And exactly your concerns are what is already happening - the tests are completely unreliable, make no sense and fail to take in all sorts of factors, such as dogs behaving completely differently with their owner to with a stranger. It's a terrible situation.

So if you're a PhD student... And you're anti-BSL... And you're aware of the faults of all the existing methods of behavioural assessments... What do you do?

You put together a research study with the intention of developing a behavioural assessment that is more accurate, takes into account the difference in behaviour of a dog with its owner to its behaviour with somebody else, and is a superior and more accurate method of assessment.

This could save dogs from 'dangerous dog' assessments, PTS orders, even help a little to fight BSL.

This is clearly a well intended study.

I understand how people can worry that findings and statistics can be twisted for other uses, but having more good information out there battling the presumptions and prejudice can only be a good thing.

[Sam&Saki]

Personally I'd love to take in my friendly, non-aggressive Akita for the study. I'm perfectly happy for her pure bred akita DNA to be matched to a behavioural assessment about what a friendly sweet goofball she is. I just wish a big bunch of friendly pitty owners and other akita owners would do the same

Every dog can express aggression. Just as every human can express sadness or rage.

Raise differently and your Akita could present as a fear biting neurotic mess.

You are your genes

but your development as a person and how you communicate with the world around you is ulitmately determined by your experience and your perception of success and failure.

Exactly. I agree 100%.

Akitas are subject to BSL in other countries because of their reputation for being one of the most aggressive and dangerous breeds of dogs.

So if Australia is going to have any research with evidence of behaviour matched with akita DNA... I would like it to be of a non-aggressive non-dangerous akita... Make it as difficult as possible to give the breed that label! x