'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Erny]

For those who don't know me, I was the person with the microphone sprinting around the theatre trying not to fall down the stairs

I'm sorry, TSD. I didn't recognise you. I'm useless with remembering faces . Sorry that I didn't specifically say "hi". Thanks for your sprinting. You would have definitely been kept busy roving all around the theatre.

[The Spotted Devil]

Just wanted to add that I certainly didn't agree with everything that was said yesterday. I am simply trying to appreciate every point of view as that is part of what I need to do.

[KismetKat]

Let's try a simple example.

OK you want a test that counts chicken pecks. You are checking for a single thing, i.e. chicken pecks. Initially it doesn't matter what colour the chickens are, of if they had a happy egg-hood, you JUST want the test you invent to reliably count chicken pecks. Once you have managed that THEN you can use it to see, for example, if brown chickens peck more than white ones.

You're right, KK. That's a simple example. To liken it a bit more to the study on dogs though, let's hypothesise that the number of times a chicken pecks is influenced by how it is raised.

With that in mind, how could you possibly think that you'd be able to determine, even later down the track, whether brown chickens peck more than white unless you remove and/or at the very least take into account how those chickens were raised?

the point is erny - before you do anything fancy (like work out if brown chooks peck more than white ones) you FIRST need your pecking count test to work.

In this example, Tammie's project is simply to try and come up with the peck-counter.

If she can make a reliable peck-counter, then other researchers can do projects about white vs brown chickens.

To clarify further, at this stage it doesn't matter WHY the chickens peck, we just want to be able to measure their pecks.

Edited February 12, 2010 by KismetKat

[Quickasyoucan]

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because simply there shouldn't be a difference between show and working lines, let alone then creating a pet line!!!!

a "pet line" ?

It doesn't happen very often but I am speechless. Actually I am dumbfounded to think that this is even being suggested, as the future of breeding dogs, let alone "better dogs".

The pets that I have, are the very dogs that step into the ring, who return home again to the house and the couch and it's being suggested that we dumb them down, calm them down, take the edge of them and make them more suitable for everyone. Oh dear lord, it's time for me to walk away.

same here-my working trail dogs ARE my pet dogs,i dont have a problem with them.Dyson can be a smart arse,Millie is a raving food lunatic,Leila is simply just a sweetheart,the 2 pups both have different personalities and i love them all for it.I dont want bloodhounds in a cavalier or other lap dog suit (no offence cav owners :D ).I could take Bono out on a trail,come home and have him take over the lounge.

Centitout sooner or later someone is going to suggest Bloodhounds have this particular trait bred out though:

"due to generous flews they can fling saliva 20 feet with one shake of their head"

Just to add, this is my favourite of all breed descriptions on DOL

[BJean]

I also found Tammie's studies difficult to see the point of. In response to my question to her, Tammie confirmed that "teasing out the prior environmental experiences of the dogs who were used for the purpose of her studies" (which of course could and probably would have had an influence on their reactions/behaviour in the practical component of her 'test') was "not the point [of her study]".

If that aspect of the dog is not being considered (note : it was acknowledged, but not taken into account) then I can't see what she is striving to achieve from the rest of her study. What bothers me is the amount of Government funding that is going into studies such as these. I mean, good on Tammie and the rest of the other students for studying and researching, but I don't see what value there is to either their 'learning' or to our community of dogs and people if the results of the studies are meaningless. I'm sorry, Tammie, if I have lost the point of what you were trying to achieve..

Hi Erny,

Thanks for attending the seminar yesterday I hope you enjoyed the day. It was really good to see so many people there.

In regards to my study and the question you asked, I think I may not have answered your question clearly enough when asked yesterday. So I shall try to do so here a bit better.

In regards to the point of my research which you say you are having trouble understanding, I am trying to establish whether or not we can accurately measure a particular component of dog behaviour in a scientific (objective, valid, repeatable, realistic, etc. ) manner. We all know that both genetics and environment play a role in how a dog behaves but in my study I am not interested in separating the two components. I just want to see if we can measure the behaviour in an accurate way which will then help develop further assessments which look at other behavioural attributes.

Of course, a dog’s experience will affect how it performs in the assessment and this is expected. I may not have clearly described that there are sections of the questionnaires which ask about the dog’s training history, attendance at puppy pre-school, age of acquisition, place of acquisition etc. to try and give us as much information as possible about the dog and it’s ‘environmental’ background. During the data analysis I will be examining these variables to see how they relate to the behaviour observed during the assessment. I suspect this is probably more about what you are talking about and this will be something that I will be discussing in my thesis also.

I hope that helps clarify the research for you and please don’t hesitate to let me know if you have further questions about it.

Tammie

Hi Tammie

What is your defintion of 'amicability'?

And how will you measure it?

[WreckitWhippet]

I was waiting for someone to ask that lilli.

[Kissindra]

Firstly I've just received an abstract (with clickable further reading) which I will try and attached. (sorry, too big to attach)

jdavis - I am not 'promoting' crossbreeding, I am reporting what was said. Kissandra - stats were shown that a good proportion of dogs are relinquished to pounds due to behavioural issues (not shedding).

I also found Tammie's studies difficult to see the point of. In response to my question to her, Tammie confirmed that "teasing out the prior environmental experiences of the dogs who were used for the purpose of her studies" (which of course could and probably would have had an influence on their reactions/behaviour in the practical component of her 'test') was "not the point [of her study]".

Erny - Tammie's project is about IF a test can be developed which is objective and gives measurable outcomes. That's it. It's about IF a test is possible, so really the dogs used, their backgrounds/breeds/etc. is totally irrelevant.

To clarify on the behaviour thang to all concerned. It gets down to the nature/nuture argument and whether its people or dogs I think most people would agree that it really is a bit of both.

IF the scientists can clearly define certain traits, then IF they can create tests that objectively measure those traits, and then later on they MAY discover a gene (or series of genes) that creates that behaviour/trait. Then those behaviours/traits which are proven heritable, you can use the tests to assess dogs for that behaviour/trait as a selection tool for breeding dogs.

For instance, if Tammie CAN develop an objective test for 'amicability" (which she has defined) then GR breeders could use the test GRs should be "amicable". Afghan breeders could also use the test as Afghans should be aloof, and not TOO 'amicable.

What comes under the heading of behaviour problem in the stats? Is it broken down into specifics, or was it one ticky box which everyone who dumped their dog for digging/barking/not housetraining itself can tick?

There is substantial difference between a behaviour that can be resolved with or avoided by minimum basic training/exercise/stimulation, and those that are unresolvable or very difficult to resolve.

I am not saying "there are thousands of dogs in pounds who require no effort", I said there are healthy, happy and highly trainable dogs, dogs that will pick up house training, dogs that will learn not to jump up, dogs that - with humans who understand the BASICS of being a dog owner - will be wonderful pets - any many of these are dogs already without the traits suggested to be a cause for dogs such s sibes being dumped.

Therefore - I feel the suggestion that a change of personality for some breeds will lessen them being dumped is false. We need to change the people, not the dogs.

[Erny]

the point is erny - before you do anything fancy (like work out if brown chooks peck more than white ones) you FIRST need your pecking count test to work.

In this example, Tammie's project is simply to try and come up with the peck-counter.

If she can make a reliable peck-counter, then other researchers can do projects about white vs brown chickens.

To clarify further, at this stage it doesn't matter WHY the chickens peck, we just want to be able to measure their pecks.

:D Huh? I do see what you are saying, but I am saying that I do not see the point. To spend the money, time and effort to note how often the chickens peck; then spend more time, money and effort to see how often the white chickens peck compared to the brown ones; so we can say "the white chickens pecked more than the brown ones but the results could be flawed because we don't know how they were raised and it might have been to do with their upbringing" ???

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just not recognising how Tammie's study is going to culminate in anything that will be able to be used to benefit anyone if we haven't first been able to measure the impact on the behaviour we are measuring, of prior environmental experience.

Help, someone ..... does anyone understand what I am (trying) to say? Have I got it wrong? Am I really not seeing the trees for the forest, or is it the other way around?

[mita]

I feel you are putting too much faith in that 60 seconds a dog spends trotting around the show ring

Have you noticed that show dogs have a wider life than trotting around the show ring?

A life, where how they interact with humans on a wider scale is the key to their surviving.

So, the fact that a dog is a show dog, doesn't negate the high requirement that a dog be bred & raised so that it's well socialised with people. Whatever breed it is.

Where else would behavioral traits need to be more stable, than for dogs certified to do pet therapy work with the frail, elderly, sick children & psychiatric patients?

The woman who heads the Dogs Victoria Pet Therapy team of dogs, spoke recently on Radio National. The canine members of that team....all Show dogs....defy the stereotypes which the Got To Alter Breeds to Make Pets brigade are peddling.

These therapy dogs are un-lobotomized & un-breed altered purebred dogs, including rottweilers, great danes, kelpies....as well as a mastiff named Clinton. And other breeds, too.

The RN announcer almost choked when he heard that rotties are in the therapy team. His impression, up to then, was that rotties hardly could make it as a pet, much less a therapy dog.

But the Dogs Vic woman was brilliant. Explaining how these dogs were produced from good stock over generations & had been socialised with meticulous care. Resulting in dogs that were of the highest standard in the role of therapy pets. And much loved by the clients (Clinton the mastiff doing especially good work with psychiatric patients).

She emaphasized that these dogs were still show dogs.....& the clients were delighted when the dogs 'brought' in ribbons they'd won at the last show.

All of this contradicts one line being peddled at that seminar.....that 'pet' material is wanting within purebred ranks & across breeds.

And, therefore, a lot of crossbreeding jiggling needs to be done. It's also in line with the 'study' direction at that unit which leaps straight from a survey of perceptions about dogs as pets, to an enterprise of building better pets. Leaving out any research into how those perceptions stack up with the current reality. Thereby serving to set stereotypes about dogs in stone.

This nonsense is riding on an ideological bandwagon that started with the wretchedly biased BBC program.....& has proceeded from there, with the wobbliest of 'science'. It has far more to do with raising consumer 'wants' about finding an ideal pet.....& feeding consumers a line that there'll now be this unique way of building ideal pets. DDs revisited.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[KismetKat]

:D Huh? I do see what you are saying, but I am saying that I do not see the point. To spend the money, time and effort to note how often the chickens peck; then spend more time, money and effort to see how often the white chickens peck compared to the brown ones; so we can say "the white chickens pecked more than the brown ones but the results could be flawed because we don't know how they were raised and it might have been to do with their upbringing" ???

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just not recognising how Tammie's study is going to culminate in anything that will be able to be used to benefit anyone if we haven't first been able to measure the impact on the behaviour we are measuring, of prior environmental experience.

Help, someone ..... does anyone understand what I am (trying) to say? Have I got it wrong? Am I really not seeing the trees for the forest, or is it the other way around?

It's a 'baby step' Before you go off counting chicken pecks you first have to have a peck-counter that works. It's not measuring the "impact" of the behaviour, it's first seeing if you can measure the behaviour.

[Crisovar]

For instance, if Tammie CAN develop an objective test for 'amicability" (which she has defined) then GR breeders could use the test GRs should be "amicable". Afghan breeders could also use the test as Afghans should be aloof, and not TOO 'amicable.

Any experienced breeder of Afghan Hounds, or other breeds for that matter, don't need a test for 'amicability." They have the experience/knowledge to see their dogs/puppies temperaments. In fact, in Afghan Hounds there has been a move in recent years to make them less aloof and more amicable. (If this is desirable in the breed or not is a whole other debate.)

I can see the need for this test with dogs of unknown origin but not for purebred dogs.

Oh dear dog, I agree Keshwar, but I'm thinking that they just don't get it.

Good breeders already do this folks, it is all about the BREED and its essence, its very being is inclusive of all this, good breeders understand the breed its history its purpose, they understand how they grow, how they go through changes with maturity.

Seriously folks if you want a stuffed dog, pop off to Kmart and buy one, if you want a real dog be responsible for your own choices and buy the Breed that suits you.

I feel you are putting too much faith in that 60 seconds a dog spends trotting around the show ring

Yep too right for the rest of the dogs life we keep it in the freezer, don't interact with them just thaw them and show them then pop em back in again. FFS this is getting sadder by the hour.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Crisovar

[Pawfect]

Will the seminar be recorded and available to those who cannot attend, either to purchase or free?

Yes, we're planning to use Monash's Echo system which will record both audio and visual of the presentations and they will then be made available online for free.

Check the Animal Welfare Science Centre's website after the seminar for links. http://www.animalwelfare.net.au

I can't find the link :D

[Aidan]

Help, someone ..... does anyone understand what I am (trying) to say? Have I got it wrong? Am I really not seeing the trees for the forest, or is it the other way around?

I'm pretty sure I see both sides of the argument. Until you have a way to measure "chicken pecks" you can't really prove or disprove any hypothesis regarding why chickens might peck more or less (things like environment, genetics, height of the bird etc) - after all, you can't even identify how many times a bird has pecked. Once you have determined a method for counting the pecks you can use that method in testing any hypothesis you might have as to why the chickens peck as many times as they do.

If Tammie is just seeking to first define and then quantify a particular quality (or set of qualities) in dogs, which is what I gather that she is doing (I could be wrong), then that could be a very useful thing provided it is completely objective and not too much is read into it other than what it is.

Currently in domestic canine behaviour we tend to look at things like "reported bite statistics" or "reasons to present to a veterinary behaviourist". These are highly subjective. If it's something easy to quantify and the environment is relatively stable, such as "barks per hour in a veterinary clinic in the first 24 hours of admission" then you can test hypotheses reasonably well against that data. If it's something like "owner-reported 'leadership style' in dogs presenting to veterinary behaviourists with dominance aggression" then you can't really use that for anything other wasting time and paper.

Obviously, we all have our opinions and concerns about how something like this might be used based on some of the points and suggestions reported from the conference, but in my opinion this seems like a worthwhile pursuit if handled objectively and used responsibly in future (which is not really Tammie's responsibility).

[The Spotted Devil]

Pawfect - give it a few more days. It's quite a bit of info to collate and put online :D

[Are You Serious Jo]

For instance, if Tammie CAN develop an objective test for 'amicability" (which she has defined) then GR breeders could use the test GRs should be "amicable". Afghan breeders could also use the test as Afghans should be aloof, and not TOO 'amicable.

But I don't see how even Tammie's initial 'experiments' can go towards deciding if this aim is possible UNLESS prior learning and experiences are take into account. And even if they are, if science is about 'measuring' then surely these environmental experiences need to be able to be 'measured' as well. And the only way I can imagine that to be done would be to have a group of 'control' dogs who are born and raised in exactly the same way.

Thanks for the explanation Tammie, and my apologies if I am just being a bit dull in not comprehending how your aims are going to be able to be achieved with any great reliability.

Let's try a simple example.

OK you want a test that counts chicken pecks. You are checking for a single thing, i.e. chicken pecks. Initially it doesn't matter what colour the chickens are, of if they had a happy egg-hood, you JUST want the test you invent to reliably count chicken pecks. Once you have managed that THEN you can use it to see, for example, if brown chickens peck more than white ones.

There are so many things that could influence the chicken pecks that it would be a useless fishing trip to do as you say above. Science is about controlled experiments and repeatability, unless you are controlling for variables that affect the thing you are testing then you don't know what produced that effect. You can't reliably make any claims about the current behaviour of an organism unless you know prior experience that shaped it, particularly with what this research seems to be about. If you were studying mating systems in wild baboons you can do so without a full history. But if you are trying to identify behaviours with an ultimate aim of producing dogs that are biddable then it is essential that the genetic and environmental contributions are known.

[Erny]

Thanks Aidan. I think I am beginning to see the point.

So Tammie's thesis is about designing a standard test and recording the different behaviours of different dogs, but not really drawing any conclusions from it?

No offence to you, Tammie. I'm not trying to run-down what you are doing. I'm still grappling at the point, particularly considering the money that goes into these things. Behaviour assessments aren't exactly new, although I do recognise that Tammie's tests would be more sterile/pure given the exactness of provided surroundings.

[Rebanne]

It's a 'baby step' Before you go off counting chicken pecks you first have to have a peck-counter that works. It's not measuring the "impact" of the behaviour, it's first seeing if you can measure the behaviour.

chicken pecks are something a chook does, it is part of being a chook, all chooks peck. A test would be easy to work out. Same as all dogs pee so you could measure that behaviour.

Amicability, though is in the eye of the beholder, there is no way a test could be developed to check for this, as everyone would have a different view on what amicability is, so no way to test for it.

Even testing how many times a dog barks in a vet clinic in 24 hrs as Aidan suggests is totally flawed unless those dogs have lived in a vacuum. I have 4 dogs and all react different while at the vets but all are very amiable, IMO.

Like it or not, how a dog has been raised, what it's life experience has been, has a huge impact on it's behaviour. You can not get around that simple fact.

[Aidan]

You can't reliably make any claims about the current behaviour of an organism unless you know prior experience that shaped it

But that goes well beyond what KismetKat was suggesting. You CAN make a reliable claim about the number of times a chicken pecks once you have determined a method for counting those pecks.

Whether or not that is analogous to what Tammie is proposing is something I can't comment on.

[WreckitWhippet]

How do you define and measure "amicable ", it's subjective.

I have an SBT bitch here who everyone that meets her adores, she's "friendly" , which according to Oxford also makes her "amicable". She's outgoing, happy to introduce herself to people and make it known she's around, she will greet other dogs with her wagging tail, is always happy to meet puppies.

However, she is a an absolute , highly driven nut case and for the average owner who didn't do their research, would be impossible to live with. Making her any more friendly is not going to make her any easier to live with, it won't take away the fact that if you don't meet her physical and mental requirements, she makes it known.

Some her would argue that we could take away a bit of her drive and making her less driven would make her more suitable as a "pet". I would argue that the drive she has is direclty linked to her confidence and her being true to the standard. She is all Stafford and if we read further into the breed standard extension, she's exaclty what one should be.

Traditionally of indomitable courage and tenacity. Highly intelligent and affectionate

especially with children.

Amplification: This area of the standard deals mainly with temperament. This is not easy to

assess when looking at a dog in the show ring. The Stafford has proven his ability in the

Obedience ring, demonstrating that he is trainable. This coupled with his quiet independence

and own train of thought, is one of his greatest charms. He can be a great fighting machine if

set upon, exhibiting in this a single-minded purposefulness and craftsmanship not to be found

in any other breed. On the other hand he is one of the most trustworthy, affectionate and

gentle creatures with humans; so much so many doubt his ability as a guard.

LOOK FOR: a keen and intelligent expression with obvious awareness. He should

stand his ground without being troublesome. Cringing Staffordshire Bull Terriers

should be penalised as without his temperament he loses his magic and Stafford

BREED ESSENCE

Amplification: Temperament is well covered in the Characteristics clause except to add that

he should be totally reliable, a gentleman unless set upon

She is reliable, she's confident in herself, she doesn't need to start anything with other dogs. Her stability makes her one of the most valuable dogs in my kennel. I for one don't want to start messing around with temperament and looking for that " just a bit more laid back", who's going to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.

There's nothing wrong with my chosen breeds or any breed for that matter, it all comes down to the quality of the owner.

Eta As I had to rush and pick kid up from school. She's a treasure because she is predictable, I wish they were all like that.

Edited February 12, 2010 by SBT123

[Sheridan]

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

Funny, you say like that it's a fact rather than your opinion. You can back it up with...?

Huski - I am reporting on what I understood from what was said at the seminar today. Please dont confuse these statements with my own opinion. Kate was talking about her "pet breeder" code of ethics and in the context of what she said the 6 points of the code were, plus what was being said about behaviours, these are my own interpretations (but only as they would apply to signatories of Kate's code of ethics).

Hilarious that a puppyfarmer has a code of ethics.