Phd Study

[Jed]

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

Hmm, maybe you should read all the thread before replying?

[Nekhbet]

If you're anti BSL you realise how much environment impacts as well as Genetics. I agree with Lilli on this one. Taking supposedly perfect examples in will do little. I'm sure if the right person pushed Saki she might take a chomp and then what ... Pure Akita DNA with a 'Bites Humans' mark next to it.

No dog is perfect. It is an animal not a car. Doing a study on how genetics impact on behavior does little since we dont really know which genes are the 'happy' genes, 'aggressive' genes etc. We will assume that 'happy' dogs show these markers, 'aggressive' dogs show these markers etc and like I said coincidence can play in this. As for the actual test ... it can be flawed. Training can go a long way... I know of a fully protection trained dog that passed a PP temp test with flying colours and they never knew it's true training. Does that mean the dog had great genetics or was the trainer and handler just a great combo that did a great job?

[Sam&Saki]

I did read the entire thread, Jed.

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I can't read or comprehend.

[Jed]

S&S I answered your remark about studies changing the attitudes of government towards BSL earlier in the thread. So I thought you hadn't read it. But if you want to believe it will, your choice. I have no issue with that.

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?

Proof that this student is anti BSL?

And no one's going to beat you up if you want to use your dog in the study. I don't think there will be any problem getting the 200 dogs anyhow,

Edited January 1, 2010 by Jed

[BJean]

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.

Not quite the same -

temp testing as described above takes the dog at face value,

it doesn't attempt to then extrapolate from the dog presented today

with what might be produced tomorrow.

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.

So already they are going in with a premise of what they think is ideal.

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?

I think that should read:

if you're a PHD student, and you're a welfare scientist, and you're aware that all the existing methods of behavioural assessments dont fit in with your social mapping and prescription.

So lets produce the science to back up our ethos

so we can then lobby

and put it into legistalation

.....................................

Edited January 1, 2010 by lilli

[Sam&Saki]

I agree Nekhbet. I think the focus on doggy behaviour should be on the dogs training and treatment, and not the breed. And I agree this a big factor in being anti BSL. Deed, not the breed. Other end of the leash. Agree 100%.

Which is why I feel that:

A - the intended study is a good thing, as the INTENDED study has NO genetic factor to is whatsoever. The DNA swab was a requirement of approval; and is not being used in this study.

B - IF some idiot further down the track decides the use the DNA and create a genetic study matching breed DNA to breed characteristics, the least we can do is mess with their evidence. It's a tiny sample size. It could easily be swayed by anomalous examples of breeds

[BJean]

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.

How do you perceive that it is more 'accurate' and 'superior'

when what underlies 'prosocial' and 'antisocial' behaviours is the human component?

We recently applied to the Australian Research Council for funding to conduct a large scale study to identify canine genes underlying prosocial and antisocial behaviours.

One of our long term goals is to introduce a scheme whereby dog breeders can elect to have their dogs independently evaluated prior to using them for breeding purposes. Good results on the assessment could be used to promote the puppies as suitable companion dogs in much the same way that things like hip scores and show ring results are currently used, with the important caveat that a behavioural assessment scheme could be implemented for both purebred and crossbred dogs, and by those who elect to breed for the companion dog market rather than for the show ring. Developing alternative sources of animals for this market may significantly improve dog welfare over the longer term.

Edited January 1, 2010 by lilli

[Nekhbet]

since our genetic proof of breed is very unreliable, why is it required? Pedigree papers would be a better option then a very shoddy breed test

Tiny sample size cannot undo damage when the media unleash their BS. This tiny sample size makes me think this whole thing is rather invalid anyway PLUS the previous training/life of the dog is really not being taken into consideration

DNA ... plus ONE form of temperament test ... what does that spell to you ...

[Sam&Saki]

S&S I answered your remark about studies changing the attitudes of government towards BSL earlier in the thread. So I thought you hadn't read it. But if you want to believe it will, your choice. I have no issue with that.

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?

Proof that this student is anti BSL?

And no one's going to beat you up if you want to use your dog in the study. I don't think there will be any problem getting the 200 dogs anyhow,

Ahhhh yes I do know that our government has been rather pigheaded with ignoring evidence in favour of going with media hype in enacting the BSL laws in the first place. & in continuing to keep them there...

I just don't believe that's a reason to give up trying to produce more evidence. I don't believe one study could possibly fix the entire situation, but I do believe all evidence than can be produced against BSL is another small weapon, another small step in the right direction, another step closer to getting awareness out of how off-base BSL really is.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with the concerns everyone has here - I agree with them. Lilli, I think it would be a great thing if this study did produce a superior behavioural assessment method, but none of us can know beforehand whether it will or not. Nehkbet, I agree that pedigree papers would make more sense than DNA swabs and that if there was a secondary study that made use of said swabs it could potentially be twisted in negative ways, and potentially be mashed up by the media. I agree all of this is a concern.

I just think that ignoring the study won't help; whereas providing dogs whose behaviour will NOT fit in with expected BSL definitions and will NOT bear out the expected prejudice stereotypical characteristics will actually change the results in a very minor way - at least more of a chance of influencing the study than doing nothing at all x

Edited January 1, 2010 by Sam&Saki

[Jed]

lilli

I

think that should read:

if you're a PHD student, and you're a welfare scientist, and you're aware that all the existing methods of behavioural assessments dont fit in with your social mapping and prescription.

So lets produce the science to back up our ethos

so we can then lobby

and put it into legistalation

And that's exactly the problem with some research. You read the papers, and they make some sense - until you apply some common sense, and your dog knowledge, and then you shake your head in disbelief. I have come to the conclusion - with you apparently - that they begin with a result and make the study fit the results. And then they can hit the headlines.

Bit like newspaper reporting - I heard someone from the AMA recently say that 4 out of 10 lung cancers were caused by smoking. He was pushing for additional tax on cigarettes by the way.

So, maybe we should begin smoking. 40% of smokers contract lung cancer. 60% of non smokers contract lung cancer.

When I hear something like this, I want to know why the 60% of people who don't smoke have lung cancer

But, shouldn't the headlines say "Take up smoking, reduce your chances of lung cancer"?

And I also agree that this study wont prove much, but it will probaly look good on the front page of the HS, which is the paper which brought us all the good news about the vicious pitbulls with the 2000 lb jaw pressure and enthused the government to enact bans.

[BJean]

S&S I answered your remark about studies changing the attitudes of government towards BSL earlier in the thread. So I thought you hadn't read it. But if you want to believe it will, your choice. I have no issue with that.

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?

Proof that this student is anti BSL?

And no one's going to beat you up if you want to use your dog in the study. I don't think there will be any problem getting the 200 dogs anyhow,

Ahhhh yes I do know that our government has been rather pigheaded with ignoring evidence in favour of going with media hype in enacting the BSL laws in the first place. & in continuing to keep them there...

I just don't believe that's a reason to give up trying to produce more evidence. I don't believe one study could possibly fix the entire situation, but I do believe all evidence than can be produced against BSL is another small weapon, another small step in the right direction, another step closer to getting awareness out of how off-base BSL really is.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with the concerns everyone has here - I agree with them. I just think that ignoring the study won't help; whereas providing dogs whose behaviour will NOT back up BSL claims has a teeny tiny chance of helping - at least more of a chance of influencing the study than doing nothing at all x

This study is about producing companion dogs for society.

A PB still looks like a PB

and that is what BSL is about.

[Erny]

Ahhhh yes I do know that our government has been rather pigheaded with ignoring evidence in favour of going with media hype in enacting the BSL laws in the first place. & in continuing to keep them there...

Look, I'm not disagreeing with the concerns everyone has here - I agree with them. I just think that ignoring the study won't help; whereas providing dogs whose behaviour will NOT back up BSL claims has a teeny tiny chance of helping - at least more of a chance of influencing the study than doing nothing at all x

S&S .... the problem is that, given Government's historical behaviour and attitude, there is (the way I see it) a much bigger chance of the results of a study/s such as this to be used by 'them' to outlaw not only any dog breeds but any dog types which do not fit its criteria of what ultimately becomes interpreted as the "ideal" dog (whatever that interpretation shall be ). The Government (along with the orgs who pushed for BSL) were provided with unequivical evidence of BSL's failure to achieve the intended goal, yet this was overtly ignored. You speak of a "teeny tiny chance of helping". I applaude your optimism, but if this study is going to have an influence at all, I see it as a potentially and more probably negative influence, "intended" or not.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Erny

[BJean]

think that should read:

if you're a PHD student, and you're a welfare scientist, and you're aware that all the existing methods of behavioural assessments dont fit in with your social mapping and prescription.

So lets produce the science to back up our ethos

so we can then lobby

and put it into legistalation

And that's exactly the problem with some research. You read the papers, and they make some sense - until you apply some common sense, and your dog knowledge, and then you shake your head in disbelief. I have come to the conclusion - with you apparently - that they begin with a result and make the study fit the results. And then they can hit the headlines.

They make no secret of it, it's all part of their 'multidisciplinary approach':

In other domestic animal sectors, two broad strategies have been used to address animal welfare issues. The first involves changing human caregiver attitudes and behaviours through education, incentives and legislation.The second involves using science to selectively produce animals better suited to the available environment. In most Australian states pet owner education programs are well established. Legislation to enforce responsible ownership practices has also been forthcoming. In the remainder of this presentation the focus will be on the second strategy.

Edited January 1, 2010 by lilli

[Erny]

... The second involves using science to selectively produce animals better suited to the available environment.

What is meant by "the available environment" ?

Edited January 1, 2010 by Erny

[Sam&Saki]

Hmmm. You all make valid points... & the idea of encouraging better breeding of dogs through science OVER better education of owners is somewhat horrendous Sometimes I am a bit overly optimistic

Just - tiny sample size! Urge to mess with it! Overwhelming!

Well thanks for an intelligent discussion without getting narky guys, still undecided whether ignoring this one or taking part it with a non-breed-typical dog will likely have a better outcome, hmmm... Anyhoo I'm off to bed

Edited January 1, 2010 by Sam&Saki

[BJean]

... The second involves using science to selectively produce animals better suited to the available environment.

What is meant by "the available environment" ?

Modern society.

Companion animals suffer as possessions of the human community, so to reduce that suffering it has been determined

that a dog more suited to living as a modern companion

would be more ethical:

Companion dogs face unique welfare challenges, mostly because they live embedded within the human community, in a private sector not readily amenable to the enforcement of welfare standards.

For this reason the best way to improve dog welfare is an indirect one, focusing on understanding and improving the relationships between individual humans and their canine companions. This requires a long term, multidisciplinary research program and it also requires community involvement, flexibility and an eye to the future, when small dogs and cats are expected to become more popular and where people are expected to live more transitory lifestyles in even higher density developments. Changes in human living conditions have enormous impacts on those animal species that live most closely with us, so the welfare of these animals can only be understood and promoted within a specific cultural and social context.

...

centuries of selective breeding has resulted in the development of hundreds of dog breeds across the world, characterised by incredible diversity in both morphology and behaviour. Because canine behavioural traits are highly heritable we can, at least in theory, genetically ‘fix’ desirable characteristics in dog breeds, reproducing these reliably in subsequent generations. Just as we’ve previously produced dogs able to herd sheep or pull sleds, so we should be able to breed dogs perfectly suited to their role as companions.

it is all part of

Improving canine welfare by characterising the perfect pet dog for Australia

Edited January 1, 2010 by lilli

[Erny]

Hmmm. You all make valid points... & the idea of encouraging better breeding of dogs through science OVER better education of owners is somewhat horrendous Sometimes I am a bit overly optimistic :D

Just - tiny sample size! Urge to mess with it! Overwhelming!

Well thanks for an intelligent discussion without getting narky guys, still undecided whether ignoring this one or taking part it with a non-breed-typical breed will likely have a better outcome, hmmm... Anyhoo I'm off to bed

S&S ..... there is nothing to be gained in the name of 'education' if something can not be discussed from at least two different view points. If that couldn't happen, then we'd all simply be speaking to the converted without any opposite view point. And there's no real learning in that. I think you debated your view well and I could almost see your point. To be honest, I very nearly put up your very 'argument' myself, last night. But then I had a harder think on it. And saw the anomalies of this study went beyond and away from any potential to help against BSL.

Night . Sleep tight .

Edited January 1, 2010 by Erny

[Greytmate]

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.

More accurate and superior to what? What is your understanding of all of the behaviour and temp tests currently being used? How many have you observed and in what way are they inaccurate?

This study has not even started and you are making claims about its superiority?

What has BSL got to do with this? If people were intersted in using behaviour testing to combat unfair laws, they have always had the opportunity to do that, and some of us have actually done it. We didn't need to wait for this study to happen.

This study may be well-intended. Or it may not be. Why is it being funded? Who stands to profit from this investment?

[Jed]

lilli (I know you didn't say it)

so we should be able to breed dogs perfectly suited to their role as companions.

I thought we were already doing that? To suit diverse roles in modern society? You can supply me with someone to guard my property and livestock, and I can supply you with a kissy, easy to manage, easy to groom little friend? No matter what our needs are, in modern society, there's a dog to fit.

These studies seem to turn up a different answer.

Perhaps it is because we are not producing Eurodog? Which is the final step in dog extinction.

Trying to prove the world is round, seems pointless to me. Except --- ah remember Ingrid (just going to take my paranoia pills)

I do understand the need to prove a given, But I don't think this one can be proved with any accuracy. Except to foster Eurodog.

S&S

Just - tiny sample size! Urge to mess with it! Overwhelming!

I thought about your comment re the study and BSL. I did say before that there had been lots of studies, and good studies using proven figures from around the world, from various universities, proving how pointless BSL was. Large sample size, blah blah. Been presented to the governments. Nuh, they are not listening. And before someone says something unkind about the presentation by illiterates with tats - presentation was by academics, and sensible people without any links to pitbulls.Answer was still "nuh". I don't think studies will overcome BSL, and I don't think this is the purpose of this study anyhow.

What we have done to try to overcome BSL has had some results. Just continue on, I guess.

[KismetKat]

People don't seem to understand the nature of a PhD - many here seem to think that the candidate is out to "prove" something and that the study is being funded by some nefarious commercial enterprise for evil purposes.

In this country Phd's are funded by the Australian taxpayer via the Australian Postgraduate Award scheme. Also PhD's are about asking a question, and researching for an answer.

From all I have read and know the study is about seeing if it is possible to objectively and scientifically measure a particular trait in dogs. Therefore it doesn't matter what various breeds and crosses and mutts the 200 dogs being used are as the project is about developing the test. I would guess that the wider variety of dogs used all the better (but I'm no scientists so maybe that is wrong).