Phd Study

[mlc]

run far far away ... the working dog survey backfired big time ... Why would this one be any different.

hmmm DNA test breed and look at personality. Do you want to give the government fuel for scientifically proven BSL?

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

Edited December 31, 2009 by mlc

[mlc]

hmmm DNA test breed and look at personality. Do you want to give the government fuel for scientifically proven BSL?

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?

[Erny]

mlc - I think the greater concerns - paranoia, if you like, comes from having things promised to not be used in ways that they weren't intended, only later to have the authorities do exactly that.

Can't say that these studies sit comfortably with me either. Not because of the intent that is expressed for the 'now' but because of the possibilities of intent for the 'later'.

[mlc]

Tammie is your research different to that done by Kate Mornement? As i thought the behavioural assessment had already been developed and was in its final testing stages? ;)

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.

[mlc]

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.

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?

[mlc]

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.

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!

[mlc]

mlc - I think the greater concerns - paranoia, if you like, comes from having things promised to not be used in ways that they weren't intended, only later to have the authorities do exactly that.

Can't say that these studies sit comfortably with me either. Not because of the intent that is expressed for the 'now' but because of the possibilities of intent for the 'later'.

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!

;)

[Elfin]

It looks like the DNA is to identify breeds.

I wasn't planning on attending; I am having trouble with the whole "suitable for living in Australian society" and "select breeding dogs" bit...

I (perhaps naively) thought that there were no "unsuitable" breeds, only unsuitable owners... ;)

And what if, at the end, participants are told their adorably cute Oodle is an ideal breeding dog?

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. I met a lady with her gorgeous Maremma the other day. She swore black-and-blue that the dog was a Golden Retriever, even after I showed her pictures; it said so on the papers she got with it from the pet shop....

And despite the Herald Sun being far from the ideal source of any type of information, it is (unfortunately) the most-read paper in Victoria. 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.

EFS

Edited December 31, 2009 by Elfin

[Nekhbet]

And despite the Herald Sun being far from the ideal source of any type of information, it is (unfortunately) the most-read paper in Victoria. 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?

exactly. As for a genetic link to behavior and personality this could be very open to coincidence.

As for variation within a breed, well that too is open to how the pups are raised, is there any incidents that could shape long term behaviors during critical period etc.

As far as I am concerned this will end with tears no matter what the intentions in the first place are. If you want a study as to how to get the best family pet why not follow puppies and how they are raised, then evaluate. No intervention or suggestions for the family and see how their behaviors are. A well raised and trained pit bull, rottie, GSD etc can make a better family pet then a spoiled, unsocialised and untrained supposedly 'family friendly' breed, any trainer will tell you that.

The working dog survey was originally meant to be about creating standards for how working dogs were kept and used while working. Turns out a rather scathing article was written that working people were 'cruel' etc because of how many people used E-collars and it was written (let's say assumed because no mention was made in the survey of how do you use equipment) that all of them simply shocked their dogs into submission. Also comments were by the scientist that was one of the major participants - he too obviously had no clue as to their use and he got an email from many people about the article and the further miseducation it spread about useful equipment.

[mlc]

It looks like the DNA is to identify breeds.

I wasn't planning on attending; I am having trouble with the whole "suitable for living in Australian society" and "select breeding dogs" bit...

I (perhaps naively) thought that there were no "unsuitable" breeds, only unsuitable owners... ;)

And what if, at the end, participants are told their adorably cute Oodle is an ideal breeding dog?

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!

[mlc]

The working dog survey was originally meant to be about creating standards for how working dogs were kept and used while working. Turns out a rather scathing article was written that working people were 'cruel' etc because of how many people used E-collars and it was written (let's say assumed because no mention was made in the survey of how do you use equipment) that all of them simply shocked their dogs into submission. Also comments were by the scientist that was one of the major participants - he too obviously had no clue as to their use and he got an email from many people about the article and the further miseducation it spread about useful equipment.

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!

[Steve]

The working dog survey was originally meant to be about creating standards for how working dogs were kept and used while working. Turns out a rather scathing article was written that working people were 'cruel' etc because of how many people used E-collars and it was written (let's say assumed because no mention was made in the survey of how do you use equipment) that all of them simply shocked their dogs into submission. Also comments were by the scientist that was one of the major participants - he too obviously had no clue as to their use and he got an email from many people about the article and the further miseducation it spread about useful equipment.

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!

In some states you already cant use E collars so it wont need to be used to change regulations - but its a clear heads up to RSPCA or similar that working dog people are using them regardless of the law. In states where its not already law they may not use it to change regulations but sure as hell it would be cited if there was opposition to it.

Do you really think that if one breed is identified as being more likely to be more friendly the ones more likely more aggressive wont be?

Do you really think if they do identify some dogs and breeds as being more aggresive they wont be using the DNA to prove there is a genetic component which can be identified as being in some breeds and not others? If They are going to proceed to the second study they are going to need to correlate the DNA with the behaviours because if they dont the DNA means nothing.

What then - pitbulls have a gene identified as more aggressive ? Take th eDNA so if they want to do further studies they have th e material they need? What good is DNA without qualification?

[Elfin]

It looks like the DNA is to identify breeds.

I wasn't planning on attending; I am having trouble with the whole "suitable for living in Australian society" and "select breeding dogs" bit...

I (perhaps naively) thought that there were no "unsuitable" breeds, only unsuitable owners... ;)

And what if, at the end, participants are told their adorably cute Oodle is an ideal breeding dog?

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 should have said I have no concerns with the way the dogs will be treated during the assessment part of the study.

One question that has not been answered is

Are you testing the behaviours of specific breeds? Is it individual DOGS that will be noted as "ideal", or breeds (or crosses thereof)? Will differences in breed characteristics be taken into account? eg. I am guessing you will get a different response from an Afghan with a stranger than you will with, say, a Labrador.

I could not give any ideas for the re-naming of the study. I still have concerns with the subjectivity of the words "suitable for living in Australian society" and "ideal".

What are the expected outcomes of the study?

[KismetKat]

Are you testing the behaviours of specific breeds? Is it individual DOGS that will be noted as "ideal", or breeds (or crosses thereof)? Will differences in breed characteristics be taken into account? eg. I am guessing you will get a different response from an Afghan with a stranger than you will with, say, a Labrador.

As someone else with some familiarity with the project, I feel confident to say that it is looking at individual dogs not breeds.

And as mlc has pointed out - if something comes of it then this could be another tool breeders can use (if they chose to) in assessing possible parent dogs.

[mlc]

One question that has not been answered is

Are you testing the behaviours of specific breeds? Is it individual DOGS that will be noted as "ideal", or breeds (or crosses thereof)? Will differences in breed characteristics be taken into account? eg. I am guessing you will get a different response from an Afghan with a stranger than you will with, say, a Labrador.

I could not give any ideas for the re-naming of the study. I still have concerns with the subjectivity of the words "suitable for living in Australian society" and "ideal".

What are the expected outcomes of the study?

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.

[KismetKat]

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.

[Elenbah]

Are you testing the behaviours of specific breeds? Is it individual DOGS that will be noted as "ideal", or breeds (or crosses thereof)? Will differences in breed characteristics be taken into account? eg. I am guessing you will get a different response from an Afghan with a stranger than you will with, say, a Labrador.

And as mlc has pointed out - if something comes of it then this could be another tool breeders can use (if they chose to) in assessing possible parent dogs.

I would have thought responsible breeders were doing that anyway.... why would they need test results to see what they can observe in their own back yards..?

[mlc]

I would have thought responsible breeders were doing that anyway.... why would they need test results to see what they can observe in their own back yards..?

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.

[Elenbah]

I would have thought responsible breeders were doing that anyway.... why would they need test results to see what they can observe in their own back yards..?

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.

I'm shy and reserved when I meet new people and thrown into new situations...does that mean I am unstable and a poor choice for a friend?.......I personally think common sense should prevail. Not everything is in black and white...

Not sure what the car salesman's spin to sell his car has to do with responsible breeders planing a breeding.. All the breeders I associate with are aiming to produce quality pups, they would be doing themselves a disservice mating anything but sound dogs. If you are with your dog day in and day out, you have got to know what he is about. How he copes with things and his likes and dislikes....a piece of paper and a stranger certainly can't.... My dogs have good days and bad days just like the rest of my family (human)......

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....

[mlc]

I would have thought responsible breeders were doing that anyway.... why would they need test results to see what they can observe in their own back yards..?

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!