Phd Study

[BJean]

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.

oh that's right my brain doesn't work

As stated the candidate is out to

Improve canine welfare by characterising the perfect pet dog for Australia

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.

Their words, not mine.

Because pet dogs live with pesky private citizens who vary in their capacity and willingness to do all and believe and be

what the welare socio scientists prescribe

they have nutted out another approach ...

If the unevolved and unenlightened want to own pets and use animals

lets sanction a modern companion breed of dog

something like a stepford wife but a stepford canine

which will minimise suffering to the dogs and be less offending to enlightened sensibilities.

Edited January 2, 2010 by lilli

[Elfin]

"Funding for this study has been generously provided by Petcare Information and Advisory Service and the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare."

And for the third time, will individual breed characterisitcs be taken into account when measuring "amicability"? To use the example for the third time, I would guess an Afghan will respond differently to, say, a Labrador. Will this make one less "suitable for living in Australian society" than the other?

[BJean]

"Funding for this study has been generously provided by Petcare Information and Advisory Service and the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare."

And for the third time, will individual breed characterisitcs be taken into account when measuring "amicability"? To use the example for the third time, I would guess an Afghan will respond differently to, say, a Labrador. Will this make one less "suitable for living in Australian society" than the other?

I wouldn't think so.

They are conducting a survey to look at what type of dogs are amicable, what produces them

some kind of test

so they can come up with a blueprint to build their modpet

[Steve]

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).

So why dna ?

[sandgrubber]

In my opinion this thread has become a good measure of the understanding of science and science education by the Australian Pedigree Dog owner community. I'd say the rating is about 4 out of 10. I say this as a retired Uni lecturer in the sciences who has overseen a few PhD students . . . and who also happens to breed dogs.

Holy Moly!!! Yes there are behavioral tests up the yin yang. My guess is the student can give you an impressive bibliography detailing them and reasoning showing why her test is different and serves a needed function. Her dissertation research proposal shouldn't have been approved without in depth literature review. Affability isn't a selection train that breeders often talk about, and it strikes a chord with me. I'm happy to see someone floating a new behavioural test exploring another dimension.

Yes, science comes with biases. Researchers aren't automatrons. They have histories, opinions, etc. that affect the way they shape their hypotheses. And University professors, schools and departments have funding sources, which may affect who they cooperate with and what PhD research they support. The MDBA studies are also conducted by people with biases. BIG DEAL!!!! If you don't like the study you are free not to participate.

[BJean]

In my opinion this thread has become a good measure of the understanding of science and science education by the Australian Pedigree Dog owner community. I'd say the rating is about 4 out of 10. I say this as a retired Uni lecturer in the sciences who has overseen a few PhD students . . . and who also happens to breed dogs.

It's also a good measure of the understanding of pedigree dog behaviour and its breeding by the welfare scientists; I'd say the rating is about 4 out of 10.

I say this as a professional graduate and new participant in veterinary science education . . . who also happens to breed dogs.

Holy Moly!!! Yes there are behavioral tests up the yin yang. My guess is the student can give you an impressive bibliography detailing them and reasoning showing why her test is different and serves a needed function. Her dissertation research proposal shouldn't have been approved without in depth literature review. Affability isn't a selection train that breeders often talk about, and it strikes a chord with me. I'm happy to see someone floating a new behavioural test exploring another dimension.

perhaps because it's about as useful as breeding for the broadstick of 'niceness'?

Edited January 2, 2010 by lilli

[sandgrubber]

Holy Moly!!! Yes there are behavioral tests up the yin yang. My guess is the student can give you an impressive bibliography detailing them and reasoning showing why her test is different and serves a needed function. Her dissertation research proposal shouldn't have been approved without in depth literature review.

Affability isn't a selection train that breeders often talk about, and it strikes a chord with me. I'm happy to see someone floating a new behavioural test exploring another dimension.

perhaps because it's about as useful as breeding for the broadstick of 'niceness'?

Left brain talking here. From running a boarding kennel, affability is a trait I associate with Staffies and Labs. . . . breeds that are far apart on many other scales but are overt in their love of people. Happens that they are the most successful breeds in terms of pedigree dog registrations in Australia over the last decade. So I'm happy to see someone playing with the term.

[Jed]

Kismet Kat

People don't seem to understand the nature of a PhD

Quite few should, as they are Doctors of Philosophy

Sandgrubber

If you don't like the study you are free not to participate.

Exactly.

In my opinion this thread has become a good measure of the understanding of science and science education by the Australian Pedigree Dog owner community

It may also be that the "Australian Pedigree Dog owner community" has a different understanding of "science education" in this specific instance from yours?

Could be too, that "sold down the river" is a useful phrase in the context.

Could be that no one wants to take the chance.

I can see a whole lot of issues following the results of this study, and from where I am sitting, few of them are advantageous to purebred dogs.

The BEST scenario I envisage is all registered breeders having to take their breeding stock to an approved place for (a) temperament testing or (b) checking for the "insert batteries here" gene.

That will involve breeders (read ME) probably having to travel 2 hours there and back, paying $$?? for the testing, filling out forms for hours and returning them with the prescribed fee of $$?? to have my dogs placed on some approved list. And I would expect my dogs to pass, as they do have "insert batteries here" temperament.

All this work and effort to prove something I knew already. And I did know it already. Nothing stays in my breeding program unless it has the correct temperament.

What will happen to breeds who do not have "insert batteries here" temperament? And there are lots of them around. They will fail the test. And then what?

Eurodog.

I'm over academics who haven't read the breed standards, don't understand breeds, haven't been to a show, or understand what goes on, can only read pedigrees in terms of COI, know nothing about the practicalities of breeding, yet believe they can mprove "welfare" without a holistic understanding of the process.

I'm over being expected to justify myself because of a totally skewed documentary in another country, I'm over having to pay out huge bucks to prove things I knew already, and I'm totally and absolutely over academics wanting to elevate themselves on the backs of dog breeders without giving anything back, I'm over reading "scientific" papers which contain some truths, and a whole lot of bullspit which is accepted as gospel by those who know no better. I'm over the abnormal minority being presented as the norm. I am over expectation that there will never be any faults, and the expectation that faults can be rectified in a nanosecond, and I am over the projected impression that breeders have no idea what they are doing and don't care. I'm over stats, stats and more lies.

lilli

It's also a good measure of the understanding of pedigree dog behaviour and its breeding by the welfare scientists; I'd say the rating is about 4 out of 10.

Whew, that's a bit high!! FOUR!! Phwatt

Edited January 2, 2010 by Jed

[kingsfolly]

Hi again everyone,

Wow, this discussion is still going! I am impressed. It is obvious how passionate everyone is about dogs. I think it is fantastic.

First of all, please let me tell you all a bit about myself. I think some of you have gotten the wrong idea of what I am doing based on who you think I am.

In addition to undertaking my PhD within the Anthrozoology Research Group I have also been involved with breeding, raising, training and exhibiting Rhodesian Ridgebacks for over 20 years. I have also owned Dobermanns for the past 15 or so years. I show my current Dobe and have also trained him in Schutzhund. A sport I am very sorry to see disappear here in Victoria. (that is another thread I am sure!). So Jed, please don’t dismiss all academics because you think none of them are familiar with dog breed standards or dog shows. Most of us in the Anthrozoology Research Group are motivated to conduct research into these areas because we are involved in the various aspects of dog ownership including showing, training and breeding.

Anyway, as some have already stated and which I would like to reiterate, is that that I am undertaking research toward a PhD. For those who are unaware, during a PhD one must develop a research question after a thorough review of existing literature on the topic of interest. I was primarily interested in canine behaviour assessments; their development, uses, validity etc. As I have already mentioned, a number of behavioural characteristics were identified after surveying the Australian public regarding what characteristics they consider “ideal” in a companion dog. This is what led me to develop an assessment aimed at measuring behavioural traits relating to the personality trait, amicability. So, my question is, “Can we accurately measure amicability of adult dogs?” A very small study in the broad scheme of things I know! By the end of my 3 + years of research I will have an answer. That really is what I am out to primarily achieve. I would like this assessment to be worthwhile and meaningful, but am fully aware that it may not be.

The DNA sample is OPTIONAL. Again, as already mentioned in a previous post, it is not part of my study. Some of you are concerned about this component and I respect your points of view. All participants are required to sign a consent form to take part in my study and you are NOT required to “agree that a DNA sample is taken from your dog.” There is not an issue if you tick the “no” box. I would be glad to have to take part in my study!

Yes, I agree that we here on Dogzonline are not your “average” dog owner. We might like that high drive animal but judging from the questionnaire results, MOST people do not.

I think an accurate and reliable assessment tool which provides information on a dog’s temperament would be beneficial. Also, please remember this is not a TEST, it is an assessment. There is no pass or fail. Of course breeds have different behavioural dispositions to one another and some may rate more highly on the amicability assessment. (if it can actually can be developed) Furthermore, within these breeds there are likely to be individuals which will rate differently. Could we accurately identify dogs which possess temperaments that the majority of Australian people consider ‘ideal?’ From my point of view it is all about increasing awareness of dog behaviour not only to breeders but also to the general public. If it makes people think more about dog behaviour before obtaining a dog and what is involved regarding training etc, then I will be more than happy. I want this project to be a step in the right direction.

I notice, some of you have been quoting from papers which I DID NOT author, yet you have been labelling it as my research. Please refrain from doing this. However, the paper that you have been copying and pasting from has a paragraph I really think is important and one of the reasons I would like to see some form of behaviour assessment/s adopted here in this country to be used on dogs prior to breeding. Now this may not be the assessment related to my current research, but my research may be a step in the right direction in developing accurate and reliable behaviour assessments.

“The potential benefits of behavioural testing of breeding dogs have recently been demonstrated in relation to the Dutch Rottweiler population. In response to threats to ban Rottweilers in this community, the Dutch Kennel Club implemented a policy in 2001 that requires all Rottweilers to be tested prior to breeding. Only puppies produced by ‘approved’ dogs can be registered with the governing body, with the remainder being categorised as Rottweiler look-alikes. Several years after the introduction of the scheme registered Rottweilers are reported to have significantly lower rates of dog-directed fear/aggression, stranger-directed fear and non-social fear than do look-alikes.”

I would like to add that all of your comments have been interesting, helpful and caused me to think in more detail about the issues you have raised. Researchers rely on people like those on this forum, who are familiar and experienced with the area of research they are involved in. It is crucial that we all work together to share ideas pertaining to the current studies involving our canine companions. So I thank you all for commenting and others for volunteering to participate. All of your input will help with the writing of my thesis.

Regards,

Tammie King.

[BJean]

“The potential benefits of behavioural testing of breeding dogs have recently been demonstrated in relation to the Dutch Rottweiler population. In response to threats to ban Rottweilers in this community, the Dutch Kennel Club implemented a policy in 2001 that requires all Rottweilers to be tested prior to breeding. Only puppies produced by ‘approved’ dogs can be registered with the governing body, with the remainder being categorised as Rottweiler look-alikes. Several years after the introduction of the scheme registered Rottweilers are reported to have significantly lower rates of dog-directed fear/aggression, stranger-directed fear and non-social fear than do look-alikes.”

Rottweilers aren't my breed so I don't know how those involved with the Rottweiler feel about the 'success' of the Duicth Kennel Club.

Is it indeed a success? How are Dutch Rottweilers rated by Rottweiler breeders/owners?

http://mpa.monash.edu.au/compass-archives/...tsacademic.html

The focus of my PhD is to develop an objective behaviour assessment which can measure ‘amicability’ of adult companion dogs. While a number of dog behaviour assessments already exist, most are aimed at identifying suitable working dogs with few involving pet dogs. Furthermore, many assessments have not been developed correctly using a systematic scientific approach and often rely on subjective ratings of behaviour. By developing an accurate and reliable behavioural assessment I hope that, in the future, it could be utilised by dog breeders and other dog related organisations to not only help breed pet dogs better suited to the modern world, but also help identify the suitability of individual dogs as pets.

For me, when you start talking about identifying suitability

you are talking about prescribing a set of views on what should be the ideal pet dog for the modern world.

Identifying amicability isn't rocket science??? For me its kind of a no brainer, but then I am not trying to engender a new world order on companion pet dog ownership.

there was a consistent preference for behavioural characteristics associated with what might be called 'amicable' dogs; i.e. those which are easy going, friendly, non-aggressive, relaxed and sociable. Evidence suggests that canine behaviours are controlled, at least in part, by genetic components. Therefore, it can be presumed that individual dogs behave differently because they differ in their underlying personality or temperament.

What canine-specific traits have you come up which determine 'friendliness'?

what behavioural components produce 'easy going'?

You can't measure friendliness itself as it is an end product of genetic components + human rearing.

If the benefits of dog ownership are to be maintained and the welfare of dogs protected, it is critically important that dogs and humans live together harmoniously. With various factors, such as urban consolidation, busier lifestyles and government legislation restricting pet ownership, it is necessary to determine whether the dogs available today are best suited, or ‘ideal’ to perform their modern roles as companions and family members. This is a difficult question to answer because, although many dog breeders and trainers strive to produce perfect companion dogs, there are no standards against which dogs can be judged for their suitability as pets. In the absence of scientific evidence regarding owner requirements, breeders and trainers are left dependent on intuition, personal experience, and breed standards that relate to historic functionality or to other criteria that are not necessarily relevant to today's urban dog owner.

So what constitutes an ideal dog in the modern world?

In order to find out whether there are common canine characteristics that a majority of Australians agreed upon, a survey was developed and data was collected from 877 participants. A number of important canine physical and behavioural characteristics were identified. A dog that is medium sized, short haired, de-sexed, safe with children, housetrained, friendly, obedient, healthy, affectionate and easy to manage rated as 'extremely important' by a large number of participants.

Yes everyone appreciates a well behaved, well reared dog.

but the biggest constituent of all ideal dogs in modern society, is its human upbringing.

without the human component spent training, conditioing, rearing

no dog, not even a modpet, can grow to be a ideal pet in the modern world.

Edited January 2, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

Tammie:

IDENTIFYING IDEAL COMPANION DOGS FOR AUSTRALIA

However, in the modern world, most dogs rarely, if ever, undertake the role that their ancestors were selectively bred to perform. More often than not, dogs are obtained purely as companion animals and some canine behaviours that were once valued and selected for, such as barking and digging, are now considered objectionable and unwanted by dogs owners. Changing lifestyles mean that the traditional dog/owner relationship has altered. Whereas many working dogs traditionally stayed with their owner during the whole day, today these same dogs are often left alone, confined in a backyard or house, where they are expected to be calm, quiet and well behaved.

<a href="http://mpa.monash.edu.au/compass-archives/...tsacademic.html" target="_blank">http://mpa.monash.edu.au/compass-archives/...tsacademic.html</a>

As a dog breeder etc

I'm sure you would be aware, that some of the functional traits selected for back in ye olde

required behavioural charactertics in order for the dog to complete its task properly?

You do realise of course that to be a fearless guard, or dependable hunter

that a steadfast nervous system is paramount -

which produces dogs which are easy going, relaxed, sociable and good with children???

Edited January 2, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

I notice, some of you have been quoting from papers which I DID NOT author, yet you have been labelling it as my research. Please refrain from doing this.

No I have not been labelling it as your research,

I have been labelling it as what your research is for.

For DOL's benefit

here is a sample of Pauline Bennett (head of the Monash study) -

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.

...

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.

Edited January 2, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

I think an accurate and reliable assessment tool which provides information on a dog’s temperament would be beneficial. Also, please remember this is not a TEST, it is an assessment. There is no pass or fail. Of course breeds have different behavioural dispositions to one another and some may rate more highly on the amicability assessment. (if it can actually can be developed) Furthermore, within these breeds there are likely to be individuals which will rate differently. Could we accurately identify dogs which possess temperaments that the majority of Australian people consider ‘ideal?’ From my point of view it is all about increasing awareness of dog behaviour not only to breeders but also to the general public. If it makes people think more about dog behaviour before obtaining a dog and what is involved regarding training etc, then I will be more than happy. I want this project to be a step in the right direction.

no?

Your team leader doesn't seem to think so:

"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.

Edited January 2, 2010 by lilli

[Jed]

kingsfolly

In addition to undertaking my PhD within the Anthrozoology Research Group I have also been involved with breeding, raising, training and exhibiting Rhodesian Ridgebacks for over 20 years. I have also owned Dobermanns for the past 15 or so years. I show my current Dobe and have also trained him in Schutzhund. A sport I am very sorry to see disappear here in Victoria. (that is another thread I am sure!). So Jed, please don’t dismiss all academics because you think none of them are familiar with dog breed standards or dog shows. Most of us in the Anthrozoology Research Group are motivated to conduct research into these areas because we are involved in the various aspects of dog ownership including showing, training and breeding

I dismiss the ones I noted earlier in this post because their "research" speaks for them. They are the only ones I have dismissed. I have a lot of respect for genuine studies which produce quantifiable results. The published papers I referred to earlier are written by people demonstrably unfamiliar, (by their own published work) with breed standards, dogs shows etc, and the reasons for them. Conversely, they may be well aware of those things, but choose to ignore them. Either scenario is unsatisfactory.

And I will continue to dismiss academics with an agenda. Pauline Bennrtt, despite, as far as I am aware, being a breeder, has proved, both in her published work and her lectures, that she comes within that category.

I have not quoted your research at any time - because I have not seen or read any of it. As far as I am aware, you have not published, so there is nothing for me to comment on.

Elfin has asked a question a few times. Is there an answer?

[KismetKat]

The BEST scenario I envisage is all registered breeders having to take their breeding stock to an approved place for (a) temperament testing or (b) checking for the "insert batteries here" gene.

So you believe this research (which is only about finding out if one can scientifically test for a single trait of 'amicability') would lead to mandatory testing?

What "mandatory" testing are breeders currently required to do by statute?

[mlc]

"Funding for this study has been generously provided by Petcare Information and Advisory Service and the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare."

And for the third time, will individual breed characterisitcs be taken into account when measuring "amicability"? To use the example for the third time, I would guess an Afghan will respond differently to, say, a Labrador. Will this make one less "suitable for living in Australian society" than the other?

Hi Elfin,

from my understanding, breed of the dogs used to develop the assessment will be noted (along with age, gender, etc.), but between-breed comparisons will not be considered more highly or more importantly than within-breed (or between individual) differences. The statistical analysis would likely define whether this is reported in at the end of the research. If the stat's say it's not significant, then it will be reported as such. That's the thing with science (despite the loud scepticism abounding here!), researchers report on what they find, interpret it in the context of the other available (and sound) scientific studies and then consider the implications of the findings and future directions for further research.

Also - as stated before, the assessment is not about dictating what is or is not 'suitable for living in Australian Society'. The survey that was conducted asking Australian what their 'ideal dog' was (publication cited below) was a precursor to Tammie's current research of developing the assessment protocol for amicability (she's just trying to find out if you can do it). Yes, it's expected different dogs (breed irrespective) will score differently on such an assessment, but that's a helpful way to describe that dog's personality. Someone might prefer an aloof, more independent type dog and someone else might prefer a really clingy on the couch with you all the time type dog. It's expected different dogs will assess differently and it's also expected that this suits different people perfectly. As Tammie said, this is not about pass/fail, it's about helping to describe a trait to better improve understanding of general public and hopefully reduce the number of owner/dog mis-matches.

For those who wish to read Tammie's publications, please refer to this as the most recent and relevant to the PhD study under discussion:

Describing the ideal Australian companion dog

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 120, Issues 1-2, August 2009, Pages 84-93

Tammie King, Linda C. Marston, Pauleen C. Bennett

Abstract:

Dogs have had a long association with humans and are believed to be the first domesticated animal species. Many breeds of dog exist today which vary considerably in physical appearance and temperament. These differences have arisen primarily from selective pressures imposed by humans to create dogs suitable for various working roles. Nowadays, however, few breeds undertake the work they were once bred for; rather dogs are kept primarily as companions. With differing lifestyles and an increase in urban living it is necessary to identify what constitutes an ideal dog in the present day. This study identifies the characteristics important to the Australian public in their “ideal dog”. To determine this, 877 participants (79.8% female) aged 18–82 years (mean = 34.3, SD = 14.5) were surveyed. A number of behavioural and physical characteristics were identified as important to Australians. These included dogs being medium sized, short haired, de-sexed, safe with children, fully housetrained, friendly, obedient and healthy. Participants also wanted their ideal dog to come when called, not to escape from their property, to enjoy being petted and to display affection to their owners. Desirable behavioural characteristics were grouped using Principal Component Analysis into five factors, labelled calm/compliant, sociable/healthy, energetic/faithful/protective, socially acceptable, and non-aggressive. Together these accounted for 45.7% of the total variance. Independent-samples t-tests revealed significant differences in importance of the components for men versus women, dog owners versus non-owners and whether participants lived with children or not. Women preferred a dog who is calm/compliant [t(870) = −2.33, P = 0.02], sociable/healthy [t(870) = −2.57, P = 0.01] and non-aggressive [t(870) = −2.67, P = 0.008] while men preferred a dog which is energetic/faithful/protective [t(870) = 3.09, P = 0.002]. Overall, however there were also many commonalities. Breeding animals able to tolerate the stresses and demands of today's requirements, training them to behave appropriately, and educating pet dog owners about the characteristics of different dogs and the need for realistic expectations about dog behaviour is likely to help reduce the incidence of problem behaviours, such as separation anxiety, destructiveness and aggression. It is also likely to increase owner satisfaction and reduce the number of dogs relinquished to shelters.

Keep in mind this publication isn't Tammie's opinion, or Pauleen Bennett's - it's what the participants who took the survey reported. Don't shoot the messengers just because you may not like the message.

At the end of the day, I suspect we may simply need to do that adult thing and agree to disagree.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Tammy, are you trying to identify another personality trait, that of "amicability"? The dog personality gurus already have sociability as one of the recognised consistent traits, how does your new trait of amicability fit with that? Are you trying to further refine one of the existing traits, or develop a new assessment instrument to identify personality traits? How does this study fit into the existing literature on personality traits in dogs?

While I am a huge supporter of research, being a PhD candidate myself, I am also very wary of the way the data will be used, because the supervisors and colleagues are open about their own personal beliefs about the purebred dog world.

[WoofnHoof]

I think one of the things that gets me confused about this particular field of research is that all of these follow on studies are based on the results of a survey of what Australian's 'say' they want in a dog, whereas a far more accurate assessment of what people really want in a dog would be to measure the traits present in those dogs which have gone the distance, as in lived the full term of their natural lives with their owners as opposed to dogs which were purchased and then gotten rid of.

As greytmate (I think it was greytmate the thread is too long for me to find the post) said just because people say they want a good sense of humor in a partner what constitutes a good sense of humor is actually extremely variable, so too would someone's perception of amicability differ.

Not only that people say they want a low drive dog but a lot of people come on here wanting a dog that will fetch etc and there needs to be a certain amount of drive in the dog for that as well as other doggy activities, training a low drive dog I think is quite difficult because the tools with which you can motivate them are few. (not speaking as a dog trainer here though just my perception maybe some trainers here can correct me)

I really think that there needs to be further exploration into this concept of 'what Australian's want in a dog' because it's not just about what they say they want it's also about what they need and what they can realistically expect from a living breathing sentient creature.

[Greytmate]

I think one of the things that gets me confused about this particular field of research is that all of these follow on studies are based on the results of a survey of what Australian's 'say' they want in a dog, whereas a far more accurate assessment of what people really want in a dog would be to measure the traits present in those dogs which have gone the distance, as in lived the full term of their natural lives with their owners as opposed to dogs which were purchased and then gotten rid of.

As greytmate (I think it was greytmate the thread is too long for me to find the post) said just because people say they want a good sense of humor in a partner what constitutes a good sense of humor is actually extremely variable, so too would someone's perception of amicability differ.

Not only that people say they want a low drive dog but a lot of people come on here wanting a dog that will fetch etc and there needs to be a certain amount of drive in the dog for that as well as other doggy activities, training a low drive dog I think is quite difficult because the tools with which you can motivate them are few. (not speaking as a dog trainer here though just my perception maybe some trainers here can correct me)

I really think that there needs to be further exploration into this concept of 'what Australian's want in a dog' because it's not just about what they say they want it's also about what they need and what they can realistically expect from a living breathing sentient creature.

Exactly.

Research is good, but basing a lot of work on the results of a survey like that is risky.

I rehome dogs professionally and see how varied people's expectations and managements skills are. All good dogs owners, all able to be matched with a suitable dog but ending up with very different dogs.

But if you ask them, they will all describe the dogs they want using the same words. They all want Good Sense of Humour.

[mlc]

I think one of the things that gets me confused about this particular field of research is that all of these follow on studies are based on the results of a survey of what Australian's 'say' they want in a dog, whereas a far more accurate assessment of what people really want in a dog would be to measure the traits present in those dogs which have gone the distance, as in lived the full term of their natural lives with their owners as opposed to dogs which were purchased and then gotten rid of.

Hi again,

hoping to offer some clarification...

'all of these follow on studies' = Tammie's one current research project to develop an assessment protocol. The survey cited in my earlier post was conducted to set the direction for her PhD research.

Keep in mind the general Australian public might know what they want in a dog - I wouldn't want to write them off without consideration for their point of view, would you?

And again - I feel I need to emphasise that just because it may be different to someone's individual point of view, doesn't make it wrong or not valid.

If Tammie doesn't use the results of what almost 1,000 people reported they wanted in a companion pet, then what do you propose she use to guide her? The survey did ask people about their current dog, their level of satisfaction with that dog and took into consideration if the reported 'ideal' dog matched with the 'profile' of their current dog, so it did capture information about successful matches, but also revealed a lot about unsuccessful ones. As do the shelter figures.