Phd Study

[dancinbcs]

I can see this type of study being valid if done on 6 week old puppies but not with adult dogs who have so many variables in their training that the results would not mean anything. The inherited temperament is obvious at a few weeks . After that the wrong owner can destroy a good dog and a the right owner can do much to improve a puppy that initially showed problems.

Temperament testing in adult dogs is far more about training than it is about heritability.

Unfortunately, some studies indicate that puppy temperament tests are notoriously unreliable in predicting a dogs’ future behaviour or personality.

I agree that owners can influence their dog's behaviour. We know that how a dog behaves is a result of a combination of factors relating to its inherent temperament and the environment it lives in, as well as its past experience. Dogs within the same breed share common temperament traits but also differ by possessing individual behavioural characteristics some of which are heritable. These combine with experience to produce distinct personality traits, which then influence the tendency of each dog to react in specific but generally consistent ways to future stimuli. This is significant because it means that personality can be inferred from how an individual behaves in certain situations, and that this, by extension, tells us something about the dog’s underlying temperament. Although dog temperament is thought to be present from an early age and remains stable over time, it is unknown when temperament is fully developed in a young animal and therefore it is not known when the optimal time would be to assess temperament as a future predictor of behaviour. Therefore, the age when individual dogs are tested can influence the predictability of how that dog will behave in the future.

We have chosen adult dogs for this study, to ensure their personality/temperament is fully developed.

I have never had any problem assessing my puppies at 6-8 weeks for temperament. This is vital to match them to the right home. If I have puppies and buyers waiting it does not always mean that these buyers will be able to buy these puppies. Puppies are only sold into homes that suit the temperament of the puppy. My breed vary enormously in temperament, intelligence, attention span, activity and destruction level, so you need to find the exact home for each puppy unless you want them back with behavioural problems. In the right home they are the best breed in the world, in the wrong home they are an unmitigated disaster.

Adult behaviour can also be changed by training. When I worked for the AWL one of the branches brought in a very pretty but neglected Border Collie bitch who would not have passed any temperament or behaviour test. She was completely oblivious the existence of humans and refused to intereact with them in any way. DOCS had removed several neglected children from a home and they had contacted the AWL to come and save the dog as well. As this was my breed the boss asked if I had any ideas and I offered to try training her every day in my lunch break. At the end of three weeks she was a completely normal, happy, responsive dog, still a little reserved with strangers, but some BCs are like that anyway. She went back to the branch who had no trouble placing her in a good home.

I also believe that the requirement for a DNA sample will hamper this study. My dogs all have their DNA in a Uni research facility for health testing research and development but I would not be prepared to supply it for a "future, unknown study" especailly in Victoria at present.

I do understand what you are trying to do with this study but it concerns me that the results could be used for the wrong reason.

[sandgrubber]

First , sandgrubber, 'the genetic basis for aggression' is not a 'taboo subject in human psychology'. It's just that complete & total 'genetic determinism' has not been found to hold up.

The shorthand analogy is that genes supply the gun & the environment fires the bullet.

Second, the environmental issues in a dog's developing tendencies to aggression have been studied. And human influence found significant.

For example, the University of Qld found that socialisation of puppies, with people and home environments, is critical for dogs later being able to form 'proper' social relationships with people. The U of Q pointed out the significance of this finding, given that 2/3 of the many dogs euthed in sheltes for aggression, are aggressive to people. Which underlines the critical importance of early socialisation for dogs.

Go read the 2009 study from the University of Cordoba which looked at dominance aggression in dogs. The research concluded, re its development, that 'Dog-dependent factors (gender, breed, age, size & coat color) are FEWER than owner-dependent factors.'

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:lLmN1...p;client=safari

Third, the OP study refers to the 'ideal' companion dog, in its title. What's a word like 'ideal' doing in a scientific study? Its meaning is, existing only as an idea. The opposite of 'real'. Yet, it's 'real' dogs that people acquire as companion pets. And 'real' dogs develop into companions to humans via a process where socialisation/training has been found significant.

And, interestingly, other work at the u of q showed the main reason people gave for dumping their dog, was that it hadn't lived up to their expectations.

Seems they'd idealised what a pet dog should be.....rather than knowing humans need to work at shaping its behaviour.

More reason why human behaviour should figure largely in any study that relates to companion dog behaviour. But doesn't in the OP study.

Agreed and while I havent looked at it for a while because I dont work in the field any longer there have been several studies with aggressive prisoners[ murderers] They found that when babies cry and they are comforted and soothed by their Mum that they secrete seretonin so their body learns how to produce this as they grow to counteract stress and testosterone.Without that experience regardless of genes they grow up as individuals which are anti social or more prone to violence or depression because their bodies never learned as babies how to manufacture the chemicals they need.

Regardless of breed its about how they are reared ,socialised and handled as babies and based on the fact that certain traits suit different people trying to tie this to breeds is missing a very large chunck of the info required to determine what dogs make the best pets. Another part is how capable the owner is at bonding with a dog too.

Actually, the guys with hard to remember names from Cordoba have done a lot of work showing that behavioural traits can be hereditary . . . and are responsible for a very interesting finding of colour-linked aggression in Cocker spaniels. I don't know anyone who would deny that how a dog is raised, treated, and trained has a major influence on behaviour. Assigning relative strength of genes vs environment is a can of worms . . . you can frame definitions and tests to 'prove' (or if you're a scientist, 'falsify') either point of view. If I wanted to add weight to the genetics side, I'd do a trial with a bunch of pups raised in different ways and try to teach them to herd sheep. I'll bet the pups from herding dog backgrounds would do well and Labs, Staffies, poodles, etc. would have a hard time catching on . . . perhaps with a few exceptions in each group.

As for human psych . . . I may be showing my age (and I seem to have been way off in understanding the reasons for the study in question). It's been 30 years since I've had much to do with psych. At that point, no ethics committee in the US would have permitted a study that looked for the genetic basis of criminality. I think this was due to fear of eugenics lingering after WWII. The study Steve discusses is entirely PC by that standard . . . I have never seen much fright about finding possible 'nurture' reasons for criminality. Such studies generally provide rationale for preschool, parenting classes, and other humane programmes.

But the larger point is tolerance of scientific research. I am bothered by everyone jumping on the bandwagon to condemn some PhD research with limited information on the study's intent, management, etc. If the results are published in the open scientific literature, they are available to us all. If they show something we don't like, we have the opportunity to examine study methods and contesting validity . . . or re-examining our understanding and perhaps learning something. Science is full of studies that point one way, only to be followed by studies that point in the opposite direction. Even if the study were framed by PITA maniacs to 'prove' something you know is not true -- and I see NO evidence that this study is -- it's only a drop in the ocean of research findings. The louder and clearer a study voices unjustified conclusions, the easier it is to overturn the study in subsequent research and bury the falsified hypothesis.

Edited December 29, 2009 by sandgrubber

[Greytmate]

Overall, the aim of my study is to develop a valid and reliable canine behavioural assessment. After conducting a literature review on existing behaviour assessments I found that after their reliability and validity were tested, the assessments were actually unreliable and/or inaccurate. Furthermore, many have not been developed using a systematic scientific approach. So what I am trying to do is develop a dog behaviour assessment from scratch taking into account both the reliability and the validity of the assessment.

How much of a literature review did you do? There are tests that are reliable and valid that people are already doing in Australia to assess dogs. Is it that you did not review those tests, or are you saying that all tests now being used in Australia to assess dogs are unreliable and inaccurate?

Starting 'from scratch' won't build on any of the existing knowledge we have. That is disapointing. The sample of 200 dogs is so tiny.

Doing a survey to find out that people want an amicable dog is like reading through dating classifieds and counting how many people value the 'good sense of humour'. Everybody says they want it, everybody's definition of it is totally unique to the extent that the term becomes totally meaningless.

[mita]

But the larger point is tolerance of scientific research. I am bothered by everyone jumping on the bandwagon to condemn some PhD research with limited information on the study's intent, management, etc. If the results are published in the open scientific literature, they are available to us all. If they show something we don't like, we have the opportunity to examine study methods and contesting validity . . . or re-examining our understanding and perhaps learning something. Science is full of studies that point one way, only to be followed by studies that point in the opposite direction. Even if the study were framed by PITA maniacs to 'prove' something you know is not true -- and I see NO evidence that this study is -- it's only a drop in the ocean of research findings. The louder and clearer a study voices unjustified conclusions, the easier it is to overturn the study in subsequent research and bury the falsified hypothesis.

It's well known, thanks to the human genome project (& there's a canine follow-on, too) that certain traits are heritable....in varying degrees of heritability. No one is denying that. But it's also known that the environment provides trigger & shaping. This OP study claims it will help people re the behavior of companion dogs. Yet the highly significant factor of human influence on dogs' developed & developing behaviours, is dealt with only in passing. When there's actually an extensive research literature on it & I've referred to a few.

An example re genes/environment: There's a genetic variation associated with high level of aggression in human males. Longitudinal studies following a large cohort of boys since early childhood, have thrown up an interesting finding. Boys with that gene variation, but raised with 'good' parenting in a 'good' environment, go on to show no more aggression than males in the normal range. Boys raised in adverse circumstances, however, showed the high level of aggression associated with that gene.

Studies like this lend weight to the critical contribution of early environmental influences on the development of human behaviour. Which is why there's such a rich scientific literature on risk factors & prevention factors re a whole host of potential behavioural problems. Sound familiar for dogs?

This OP study does not have a clear hypothesis....rather a mix of premises. Somehow, one behavioral assessment tool (which is a contradiction in terms)....somehow associated with the collection of dogs' DNA....is going to lead people to an 'ideal' companion dog as expressed in what Australians have said in a survey. (Sounds like advertising copy.)

I agree with you that any study can be useful, good or bad.....in being opened up to the scrutiny of the wider scientific community. In fact, I'd wish this had been done already with the OP study. I noted that it was said the funding had come thro' private sources....a Pet Advisory organisation & an organisation associated with animal welfare in Victoria. Apparently not via the Australian Research Council (ARC) (???). To get ARC funding, a research proposal is sent to independent experts for ranking. Which provides quality control for the bulk of Australian research.

Yes, I agree with you.....there's also the other end, where studies are published in peer-referenced journals, on completion. Another source for critique. BUT not all studies are presented for publication & not all studies are deemed worthy of publication.

My concern about the OP study is that it's being funded by private organisations to provide a behavioral assessment instrument for their use....& presumably to other members of the public. That's the primary purpose.

If the OP study, were simply a report to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, then welcome to the critque which would follow (given if it were accepted for publication).

But this study is going to drop, immediately, a behavioral assessment instrument re dogs, into the Australian community & 'mixing' that with collecting DNA. When the premises behind it all, should first be the subject of expert scrutiny (as for any study, I hasten to add).

Edited December 29, 2009 by mita

[Elfin]

I wish you all the best with your study, Tammie, but unfortunately I cannot participate.

Thank you for coming to this forum to answer our questions.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Elfin

[sandgrubber]

But the larger point is tolerance of scientific research. . . .

... This OP study claims it will help people re the behavior of companion dogs. Yet the highly significant factor of human influence on dogs' developed & developing behaviours, is dealt with only in passing. When there's actually an extensive research literature on it & I've referred to a few.

This OP study does not have a clear hypothesis....rather a mix of premises. Somehow, one behavioral assessment tool (which is a contradiction in terms)....somehow associated with the collection of dogs' DNA....is going to lead people to an 'ideal' companion dog as expressed in what Australians have said in a survey. (Sounds like advertising copy.)

. . .

My concern about the OP study is that it's being funded by private organisations to provide a behavioral assessment instrument for their use....& presumably to other members of the public. That's the primary purpose.

If the OP study, were simply a report to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, then welcome to the critque which would follow (given if it were accepted for publication).

But this study is going to drop, immediately, a behavioral assessment instrument re dogs, into the Australian community & 'mixing' that with collecting DNA. When the premises behind it all, should first be the subject of expert scrutiny (as for any study, I hasten to add).

Without seeing the research proposal submitted the the PhD committee, I don't see how any of us can make such statements. Scientists are often awkward in communicating with the general public. . . that is, apart from the fraction that thrive on working the media. Seems likely that a PhD student communicating to potential participants in a study will not present the study background in it's full rigour, nor, for the post-modernist, give a full description of context. If she did, she'd probably turn off most possible participants, cause formal hypotheses are a real turn off to the non-science public and a lot of people won't give a hoot about her biases or funding sources or personal biases (any more than I worry about the politics of blood donation when I go in to a Red Cross collection point).

Lots of PhD projects want to drop something or other on the Australian public, many with funding from some group with an axe to grind (perhaps an ARC sanctioned axe). Most of what they drop are stones in a pond, going straight to the bottom. Only a minority have any effect on real events.

Personally, I want to know more about genetic influences on behaviour and the more these are linked to DNA or RNA, the better. There are some behaviour traits I see as worse than HD/OCD or epilepsy. If we find a way to test for them as a spinoff from a study that worked on behaviour assessment and happened to collect DNA samples on the side, fine and dandy.

Btw, my own critique of what I've seen is that it's pretty obvious that the Australian public likes affability in dogs. Why else would Labbies and Staffies be rising breeds in breed registration statistics? . . . at the expense of GSD's, dobermans, and other 'guard' dogs. Also clear that Ozzies don't want to be bothered with long coats from the trends in Goldie registrations and the extreme difficulty finding a good home for an Afghan hound pup.

Edited December 29, 2009 by sandgrubber

[KismetKat]

Btw, my own critique of what I've seen is that it's pretty obvious that the Australian public likes affability in dogs.

Which is what Tammie's initial research found. From what I understand she's looking at a way of measuring 'affability' - and this is regardless of breed or mix. If you guys knew what breed she actually owned herself I think half your paranoic fears would be allayed.

Yes I know Tammie, have some idea of her research project, and also know that her research is NOT backed by some evil pet industry company wanting to find skewed results (and even if it were this would NOT wash with Monash researchers).

The "testing" she is doing is simply observing behaviour in a controlled situation. It is not any sort of temp testing.

She has already stated the saliva swab has nothing to do with her own project, just helps to provide a database for other future research projects.

[Jed]

Is not the supervisor of this study, Dr Pauline Bennett of Monash University, connected with animal welfare, who holds the belief that pedigree dogs should not be bred? Did she not hold a seminar earlier this year in Tasmania?

Is she not connected with Dr. McGeevey of Sydney University and his 39 point plan to wipe out for registered dogs? The same Dr McGeevey who stands a 10 year old coolie from the pound at stud?

Maybe I am wrong.

[KismetKat]

Is not the supervisor of this study, Dr Pauline Bennett of Monash University, connected with animal welfare, who holds the belief that pedigree dogs should not be bred? Did she not hold a seminar earlier this year in Tasmania?

Is she not connected with Dr. McGeevey of Sydney University and his 39 point plan to wipe out for registered dogs? The same Dr McGeevey who stands a 10 year old coolie from the pound at stud?

Maybe I am wrong.

And so the smear and innuendo campaign starts.

How about stating your case with some solid proof Jed?

[Jed]

Sandgrubber

Personally, I want to know more about genetic influences on behaviour and the more these are linked to DNA or RNA, the better. There are some behaviour traits I see as worse than HD/OCD or epilepsy. If we find a way to test for them as a spinoff from a study that worked on behaviour assessment and happened to collect DNA samples on the side, fine and dandy.

This has nothing to do with the original post, so my apologies. I don't know how long you have been breeding, but some temperament traits are obvious without any tests, and observation will tell you whether they are hereditary or not. Most experienced breeders do know what traits are hereditary in their own breed, so they are a good source of advice for those who do not know.

I have no objection to people doing a study to measure this, but I do find it concerning that a breeder needs a study on genetic influences on behaviour. Most breeders observe the stock they are thinking of using in their breeding programs, do they not? IMHO most behaviour traits are not due to recessive genes, and if they are, the behaviour is usually only exhibited in a mild form.

Surely anyone wanting to seriously breed dogs would have observed and assessed the behaviour of the parents and grandparents before using any line? Things such as fear, fear of storms and loud noises, nervyness, aggression etc - all the undesirable traits - are readily observable, and frankly, most of them are observable at dog shows, both in the ring and out of it. Most of the desirable traits are readily observable too. Training may improve some undesirable traits, but they are still there for the experienced breeder.

Temperament is a very important part of any standard. Judges are looking for the correct temperament in the ring - if the standard says "outgoing" and the dogs backs away, forget a ribbon : it is says "aloof" backing away is ok. And as breeders, we need to read and understand the standards of the breeds we have, so that we are attempting at all times to breed the correct temperament. Further, using our own senses should bring us to an understanding of what we want to breed into our lines - be that "softer" or "less aloof" or whatever, and we can do that by using stock bred from parents who all exhibit the temperament traits we want to introduce or continue.

People who do not understand this, and cannot observe it, imho, should not be breeding.

[WoofnHoof]

Is not the supervisor of this study, Dr Pauline Bennett of Monash University, connected with animal welfare, who holds the belief that pedigree dogs should not be bred? Did she not hold a seminar earlier this year in Tasmania?

Is she not connected with Dr. McGeevey of Sydney University and his 39 point plan to wipe out for registered dogs? The same Dr McGeevey who stands a 10 year old coolie from the pound at stud?

Maybe I am wrong.

Last thing I knew Pauline Bennett was a breeder of Australian Shepherds.

It appears that she is even has a profile here on dogz! Imagine that!

http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/member.asp?name=HEVNSENT

Edited December 29, 2009 by WoofnHoof

[sandgrubber]

Sandgrubber

Personally, I want to know more about genetic influences on behaviour and the more these are linked to DNA or RNA, the better. There are some behaviour traits I see as worse than HD/OCD or epilepsy. If we find a way to test for them as a spinoff from a study that worked on behaviour assessment and happened to collect DNA samples on the side, fine and dandy.

This has nothing to do with the original post, so my apologies. I don't know how long you have been breeding, but some temperament traits are obvious without any tests, and observation will tell you whether they are hereditary or not. Most experienced breeders do know what traits are hereditary in their own breed, so they are a good source of advice for those who do not know.

People who do not understand this, and cannot observe it, imho, should not be breeding.

Judge not and yee shall be not judged (Somewhere in the Bible). Evil to them who think evil (some long dead queen of England).

I have been breeding for around 10 years. Have had no temperament problems with my own dogs, though some of them are so lovely I'd like to be able to clone their personalities and implant them in some people I wish I didn't know.

My concern is the occasional whacko aggressive, nervous, bossy, or otherwise cussed dog who ends up being a pain in the posterior in the boarding kennel -- and who obviously causes distress to an owner who shows every sign of being good dog owner. Example . . . have a sweet German lady who keeps miniature poodles and has for decades. Her present pooch, in contrast to the last three, bites everyone, including her owner, shows affection to no one, and spends all her time in the boarding kennel hiding under the bed. This poor woman has kept the dog for 10 years. Colloquially, I'd say the dog has a screw loose . . . would love to know if it was a genetic defect. . . and how breeders could prevent cursing puppy-buyers with responsibility for such dogs. Could go on with half a dozen other examples. Yes, they might have turned out differently in the hands of the right owner. But some dogs seem to require a lot of effort to keep them from going over the edge, while others seem to be pretty healthy in the mind with owners who do everything 'wrong'.

Edited December 29, 2009 by sandgrubber

[Jed]

Sandgrubber

My concern is the occasional whacko aggressive, nervous, bossy, or otherwise cussed dog who ends up being a pain in the posterior in the boarding kennel -- and who obviously causes distress to an owner who shows every sign of being good dog owner. Example . . . have a sweet German lady who keeps miniature poodles and has for decades. Her present pooch, in contrast to the last three, bites everyone, including her owner, shows affection to no one, and spends all her time in the boarding kennel hiding under the bed. This poor woman has kept the dog for 10 years. Colloquially, I'd say the dog has a screw loose . . . would love to know if it was a genetic defect. . . and how breeders could prevent cursing puppy-buyers with responsibility for such dogs. Could go on with half a dozen other examples.

You may think my post was judgmental, and maybe it was, but breeders need to observe and use some common sense about these things.

You will never find out anything by looking at the poodle himself. You need to investigate the parents. And my guess one of them is a nasty little b#####d too! Other explanation is a screw loose. Quite possible. That's a fairly major temperament trait, some of the less problematic ones fascinate me, and I have a bit of fun seeing if I can breed them in or out. Not that that proves anything, but it is an indicator, and if you breed it in or out enough times, it's probably genetic.

I know a very good breeder with a very good line who produced ONE terrified dog. You couldn't catch him or do anything with him. He wasn't nasty, just frightened. Maybe he was oxygen starved at birth or maybe he fell on his head at 2 hours. The odd one is. True cocker rage has always been believed to be a brain defect, and once the cocker club in the UK did a search to find which dogs had it, they were able to steer breeders away from those lines, which is why we rarely see true cocker rage these days.

I'm actually very interested in the transmission of temperament. I like to pooch around and see the rellies, you find out a lot by doing that. A rescuer here had a boxer in rescue, nasty thing, was pts. Not typical boxer temp, so I went searching, and found out some interesting things.

Difficult in a boarding kennel to find the parents of a 10 year old dog. I sometimes do a study of the pedigrees, and that is often illuminating, but you need to know the breeding first.

[Jed]

KismetKat

How about stating your case with some solid proof Jed?

Here's one. I have bolded the interesting text. Link is at the bottom of the page.

Forget about puppy love, it's character that counts

Kelly Ryan

From: Herald Sun

November 25, 2009 12:00AM

Increase Text Size

Decrease Text Size

Print

Email

Share

Add to Digg

Add to del.icio.us

Add to Facebook

Add to Kwoff

Add to Myspace

Add to Newsvine

What are these?

Tammie King with her dog Kade, a two-year-old Doberman. Picture: Nicole Garmston Source: Herald Sun

SCIENCE is seeking to make man's best friend an even better mate.

Monash University psychologists believe it is personality - not breeding - that makes a dog a perfect match with its master.

Psychologist and dog breeder Pauline Bennett heads a team working to find a way that people can identify the best pooch to match their lifestyles.

"Impulse buying and misconceptions about what makes a perfect pet often end in disaster for animal lovers who wrongly pair up with a pooch that falls short of their expectations," Dr Bennett said.

"The fact is that all dogs are different.

"And if you get the wrong dog, life can be miserable, affecting the lives of your friends and neighbours, and everybody else in your immediate vicinity."

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.

"People differ in what they want their dog to look like and what character traits they hope it has but, universally, they almost all agreed they wanted a dog that is safe with children, is easy to manage, and is friendly," she said.

"We think that's what we should be breeding, those character traits, as opposed to specific dog breeds."

Dr Bennett said there was little point doing temperament tests on pups because they had yet to form a personality.

"We think the best bet is to try and get or devise a test to use to test adult dogs before we breed from them.

"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.

"We are all about trying to get people and dogs matched up better so everyone lives happily ever after."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/forget-ab...o-1225803470155

If Dr Bennet does breed Australian Shepherds, she seems to have very badly missed the point of pure breeding, which is predictability. If she fails to understand that dog breeds = "character traits", she has missed the bus altogether.

And this (above)

"We think the best bet is to try and get or devise a test to use to test adult dogs before we breed from them.

"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.

is part of Dr McGeevey's 39 point plan, I believe, to "temperament" test all pedigree (not puppy farm, they can't find them, pedigree) dogs before breeding.

Now, ask yourself why they would want to put a small number of registered breeders to the trouble (and expense probably, nothing is free) of having the parents of just 69,000 pups produced annually tested, when the parents of approximately 400,000+ will not be tested?

Edited December 29, 2009 by Jed

[dancinbcs]

"We think that's what we should be breeding, those character traits, as opposed to specific dog breeds."

Dr Bennett said there was little point doing temperament tests on pups because they had yet to form a personality.

If Dr Bennet does breed Australian Shepherds, she seems to have very badly missed the point of pure breeding, which is predictability. If she fails to understand that dog breeds = "character traits", she has missed the bus altogether.

Yes it is a worry that someone who does not believe in breeding pure bred dogs and cannot temperament test her puppies is actually a registered breeder.

"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.

Most dogs need to be raised with kids to make them safe with them. Many dogs just don't underatand what kids are if they are not raised with them and then there are the dogs that started out perfectly friendly until the rotten kids next door teased them. In this situation the dog is actually taught by the kids to hate them.

How are they going to safely access this trait. Put the dog in a room with a child and wait to see if it bites? Does this mean that if you don't have kids all your dogs will fail the test?

[KismetKat]

KismetKat

How about stating your case with some solid proof Jed?

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.

And it's interesting that the last few posts from you and others in this thread have been about NOT breeding from 'whacko' dogs.

Which, I think is what the quotes are actually on about, i.e. even if a dog is perfect physically, if it has a poor temperament it should not be bred from. Also it is quite right that pet owners should be less concerned about what a dog looks like and more about how it fits in with their family. People getting the 'wrong' dog for them is why so many end up in shelters.

You have to keep in mind that this is all about your average Joe Blow who wants a dog, not keen enthusiasts like DOLers.

[Jed]

KismetKat

How about stating your case with some solid proof Jed?

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.

And it's interesting that the last few posts from you and others in this thread have been about NOT breeding from 'whacko' dogs.

Which, I think is what the quotes are actually on about, i.e. even if a dog is perfect physically, if it has a poor temperament it should not be bred from. Also it is quite right that pet owners should be less concerned about what a dog looks like and more about how it fits in with their family. People getting the 'wrong' dog for them is why so many end up in shelters.

You have to keep in mind that this is all about your average Joe Blow who wants a dog, not keen enthusiasts like DOLers.

What is written in the "bloody" Herald Sun agrees exactly with the verbalisations of Dr Bennett at various seminars. For obvious reasons, I can't quote that. It's not an indepth report, but the message is there.

And the fact that Dr Bennett is aligned with Dr. McGreevey who has published papers lauding the "predictability" and superiority of F1 hybrids and labradoodles over purebred dogs should be sufficient information as to her intentions.

It's too simple, KismetKat. You use a student to do a study on something which is a known anyhow, and you publish the results so that Dr McGreevey, Dr. Bennett et al have a further springboard to launch their flawed plans.

Everyone here believes newspaper reports over anything else, so it seems pretty valid to me to use the quote.

You wanted proof, you got it, don't bitch. I'm not going looking for published papers.

It's ok to defend your friends, but it's not ok to stop people learning the intent of this "study".

And I wouldn't give my dogs DNA for some unnamed and unknown future study in a lifetime unless I knew exactly what it was to be used for.

[dancinbcs]

KismetKat

How about stating your case with some solid proof Jed?

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.

And it's interesting that the last few posts from you and others in this thread have been about NOT breeding from 'whacko' dogs.

Which, I think is what the quotes are actually on about, i.e. even if a dog is perfect physically, if it has a poor temperament it should not be bred from. Also it is quite right that pet owners should be less concerned about what a dog looks like and more about how it fits in with their family. People getting the 'wrong' dog for them is why so many end up in shelters.

You have to keep in mind that this is all about your average Joe Blow who wants a dog, not keen enthusiasts like DOLers.

Reputable, dedicated breeders do not care what the average Joe Blow wants in a pet because they do not aim to breed pets. They breed to improve their breed and this includes appropriate temperament for that breed as well as health, soundness and type. They breed for themselves and if suitable buyers want that breed they are sold the puppies not required to continue the line. Breeding for the "pet market" is actually against the code of ethics so why would a study telling breeders how to breed "pets" be of any real interest to dedicated breeders.

I can see the value in this being done with puppy farm dogs but it would be better if these where never bred anyway. Correct assessment of shelter dogs is very important but as these don't originate from good breeders it again is not relevant to them. If the aim of this study is to assess what correct temperament should be in different breeds and then compare it to rescue dogs, I could see it being highly relevant.

If the average Joe Blow wants a dog with certain temperament/ behaviour, is not prepared to put in the hard work of correctly raising a puppy and doesn't care what breed it is, there are thousands of mature dogs in rescue to choose from. The raising of precious, well bred puppies should be left to those who carefully choose a breed and are prepared for the fact that a puppy is often what you make it by the way you raise it.

Temperament testing of breeding stock is not something that I would oppose provided the study is backed by the ANKC with input from experienced breeders about what a correct temperament for a specific breed should be. Testing could be done at shows and dogs approved before breeding. What worries me with this study is that is backed by a private company and the government who do not understand purebred dogs. Also 200 dogs is far too small a sample to get any real idea of canine behaviour.

[Elenbah]

I to would be very uncomfortable with this kind of study..!! I for one don't like the goal they are aiming for...

To find a breed/type of dog that is best suited to living in Australian society and used to select breeding dogs????

Reminds me of the discussion/debate I attended at Sydney Uni after the screening of Pedigree Dogs exposed.... Where one Sydney PRACTICING Vet got up and asked the Panel "Why can't breeders just breed a generic dog, small, medium and large for normal everyday families, that would suit everyone.... it would solve a lot of generic disorders and would be a very lucrative business financially for the breeders" (her words not mine.!)..... Could you imagine this, every man's dog would be almost identical bar the size,... that would be man's only choice.....

My breed, the Sheltie, is a small active herding dog,... temperaments are supposed to be..."reserved towards strangers", but never nervous,..meaning they don't normally go racing up to strangers with tail wagging but rather step back and observe the situation before making up their minds. Past impressions of this little dog was that it was nervous which is not the case, just causious.!!!...They are not an aggressive dog, they are excellent family dogs as they are very devoted to their family and they are excellent with children, they are active but gentle.....

Temperament tests, as proposed by these studies could see a very suitable family companion like these little dogs disappear for ever...

[mlc]

I became quite uncomfortable about the following statement from the information attatched to the email:

The development of an accurate behavioural assessment that measures these characteristics in dogs would assist in identifying dogs best suited for living in Australian society and could be used to select breeding dogs.

Am I reading too much into this statement?

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!