'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[KismetKat]

Since I can't figure out what behaviours she'll be measuring and how then I can only guess. You seem to have a grasp on it, will she be measuring each behaviour on a scale and whether it occurs in a specific context? Pecks are an either or score, but other behaviour is on a gradient. Will her test of amicability include something like the strange situation test? What is she going to be able to do with this instrument? Is she purely gathering dogs and testing out different recording media for observer reliability?

Working out a method for measuring something is different for examining a "trait'. From what I read she is interested in the "trait" amicability, but finding a way to measure and record dog behaviours is different from investigating a specific question.

I can't work out the actual hypothesis being tested.

Perhaps the point everyone is missing in this discussion about Tammie's research, is that the 200 dogs she is "testing" aren't 'tests' at all! It is data collection.

jdavis the test IS a strange situation test. The dog is taken onlead into an enclosure and the exact same thing happens for each dog being 'tested'. The dog is video recorded from four different angles. Different dogs will obviously behave differently, but there is a finite number of behaviours that will be shown.

This is why she needs as many different dogs as possible. I'm taking my 2 in a couple of week. I will be making bets with her (if she'll take the bet) that I can predict how both dogs will behave.

And steve - thanks for the great post. Your summary is spot on. As to LIDA - he was jogged at the end again about how they should note the source of the dogs (registered breeder or other). Do you think he took it on board any more than previously? Or did he look nagged at? :D

Edited February 12, 2010 by KismetKat

[Aidan]

Working out a method for measuring something is different for examining a "trait'. From what I read she is interested in the "trait" amicability, but finding a way to measure and record dog behaviours is different from investigating a specific question.

I can't work out the actual hypothesis being tested.

Neither can I, I would like to hear Tammie weigh in on this if she is about. But from what KK has suggested, she is not counting the pecks, but finding a way to count them. No doubt there are still some strong arguments as to the validity of this, as you say, a peck is different to what has been described as a "trait".

I suppose the problem with finding a way to measure something is that you have to begin with a hypothesis that suggests the "something" that is worth measuring...

[gundoglover]

While I think the concept is good there were some things which I felt needed perhaps a bit more thinking through.

The fact is I think the codes she presented on the whole are much lighter than most state's codes of practice and it will be interesting to see how many large scale commercial puppy farmers are prepared to step up to the plate and take back dogs etc.

Thankyou for this detailed summary. One question that I'd have liked to be able to put if I'd been there, was whether the proposed code for commercial breeder's would require health testing of the sire & dam & whether the speaker health-tested her own stock. Do you remember if this was touched during the seminar?

[Aidan]

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.

My suggestion was not a possible test for "amicability", it was an example of something that we CAN quantify. We can count the number of times a dog barks in a vet clinic in the first 24 hours. If that information is useful (and I know of several experiments where it has been useful), then we have an objective measure.

You still don't know why they are barking, is it fear, stress, seperation anxiety, over excited, etc, all of which should be handled differently or you worsen the problem.

I know a lot of people struggle with the notion of dealing with large populations when each dog is an individual, but if you could set up a vet clinic so that barking - on average - was reduced then all those individuals who did reduce their barking were helped and there is more time to help those individuals who were not helped.

I'll ignore the use of a antibarking collar because I find that thought unbearable but you would have to play music for a long, long time to even come close to seeing if it would work.

How do you know if you don't have any data? Maybe it is a waste of time, maybe it isn't? (Just a heads up, there have been actual studies on this...)

[Steve]

I thought Tammie's research was a good start point to measure amicability. If its posible to get to a point where certain behaviour characteristics can be tested for then thats a good thing and whether we use that or not in our breeding rpograms will be based on what we are selecting for at the time of planning our litters.

I think you need to be a bit fair about this and look at a larger picture.

For example Ive been breeding beagles for a very long time and the way I sort out the young pups which are most likley to be a pain in the neck for their owners are to watch them at around 6 to 8 weeks of age. The ones which according to my records and my limited research which will be more of a handful are the ones who literally head butt a concrete pole while they are exploring scents because they are so intent of going after the trail that they dont see the post coming. Ive seen beagle pups almost knock themselves out in their pursuit of the scent.These days I deliberately test them for that and it impacts on what sort of home I send them to.

Ive found this drive which I witness at such a young age is a good indication of how driven the dog will be as it gets older.

When I first noticed some of them do this and others dont it was not given much attention but as I got older and wiser and started to correlate the ones which had good noses as adults with this young behaviour its part of what I do now as a matter of necessity and its always right.

Because I've chosen mainly dogs which dont head butt posts to keep and breed with less puppies head but poles now than they used to.

O.K. Its not your usual puppy test but I found the puppy test which were around dint work for my breeds anyway so sort of by accident Ive developed my own for my breeds. Granted its not very scientific but it's my way of measuring potential behaviours.

So if we can work through different types of behaviours which we want to breed into or out of our dogs and have tests available which we can use to place breeding values on our dogs - thats got to be progress. Thats not to say if you have a breed thats supposed to be aloof and not very amicable that you need to breed dogs which are amicable but if we have a test for that which works to give us a scale we can work to and assign this grade to our selection process and eithe rbreed dogs which are or which are not amicable.

There's fair argument to say even though our currents methods of living with a dog and deciding it has qualities we want to breed into our dogs or not is less effective but many orgs which are selecting dogs to work with such as assistance dogs, security dogs etc could eliminate some of their false starts by having a valid and reliable method of rating their candidates.

I thought Tammie was a well presented speaker who did a great job in keeping us interested in what she had to say and it was good to see the clips of the differences in some of the behaviours. I would have liked to know how the deerhound scored. :D

I would have liked the opportunity to chat with her about the start point in defining amicability in dogs for the study and a couple of other things but I think if we see it as simply a start point in a philosophy that temperament attributes can be tested the next step is in working out how much of that is genetics and how much is variable. We need to be able to see it and measure it if its ever going to be more than just a theory.

[KismetKat]

One question that I'd have liked to be able to put if I'd been there, was whether the proposed code for commercial breeder's would require health testing of the sire & dam & whether the speaker health-tested her own stock. Do you remember if this was touched during the seminar?

Yes she did - as the breeder would have a life-long commitment to pups born (tho there was the murky area re pet shops).

She also had guidelines about how dogs were kept. Basically home backyard type situations where there was a limit on the number of dogs (was it 2 or 3 bitches?). If you wanted more than that then you needed multiple backyard type areas, so dogs could live in their own groups. No cages allowed. Pens to only be used for temporary containment. Daily contact and handling of pups by humans.

She also had her own views on number of litters. She was OK about breeding back to back but the limit should be "7 litters or 7 years of age" and then desexing and retirement to a pet home.

What do breeders think of this?

[mita]

Perhaps the point everyone is missing in this discussion about Tammie's research, is that the 200 dogs she is "testing" aren't 'tests' at all! It is data collection.

My comment still holds true. What's her rationale & aim in collecting data on whatever behaviours she's observing & calling what & recording how?

She would need to provide that information if people are going to use it (for whatever purpose she intends it).

[Nekhbet]

I dont get it. I'll wait for the recorded seminar.

We are trying to quantify fluid and ever changing traits in a living creature. We're not baking a cake on mass for a supermarket shelf (although from the sounds of it we are, how sad)

not every family is the same. Not every family wants the same traits in their pet dog. What is perfect for one family is a disaster for another, is that not why the dog is the ultimate companion? That there are so many different options out there, that we celebrate the breed differences? Obviously not.

A hyperactive nut of a dog can be taught to be a calm, happy family pet with the right training. So in essence see the same dog at two separate times and you will see two different dogs that produce two different results. Whats the point? Unless you test for deep seeded primal traits that cannot be covered or trained out with any amount of work (which would involve complicated and highly specialised testing) I dont see the point.

If you want the perfect dog, go to Kmart, he's in the toy isle.

Sounds like puppy farmers trying to excuse what their doing with some scientific backup. You should always select for a stable, 'amicable' dog no matter the breed or job the dog will have (pet, hunter, police dog etc)

She was OK about breeding back to back but the limit should be "7 litters or 7 years of age"

7 litters or 7 years of age? So 7 litters, it's OK to bleed a poor dog dry for commercial purposes :D Wow, just ... wow

Edited February 12, 2010 by Nekhbet

[kirst_goldens]

Are these pups which are being handled daily outside all the time or living in with a family learning all about family life? or are they outside in the backyard in a group??

If its ouside then i really dislike the idea alot... i am a strong believer that pups should grow up in the household, if you go out then ofcourse runs or something similar would be suitable - temporary... but outside all the time? i dont like that at all!

ETA: Nekhbet - you've got it in one, i am at a loss as to what these people seem to think they can create?? and who would want it? it would be boring with no personality... and lets be honest the best bonding time is training time :D If your dog is perfect and needs no work... whats the point?

Edited February 12, 2010 by kirst_goldens

[mita]

She also had guidelines about how dogs were kept. Basically home backyard type situations where there was a limit on the number of dogs (was it 2 or 3 bitches?). If you wanted more than that then you needed multiple backyard type areas, so dogs could live in their own groups. No cages allowed. Pens to only be used for temporary containment. Daily contact and handling of pups by humans.

Any further explanations about socialisation apart from daily handling by humans?

Socialisation also includes the environmental sights & sounds where humans actually live. Any movement out of that backyard into, at least, sections of the house? With even wider range for the adult dogs?

Best account of socialisation I've heard was given by the DogsVic rottweiler breeder on Radio National.

And now what kirst-golden said above!!!

Socialisation which is the learning process for dogs remains the poor relation. Yet, this is how dogs' behaviours are developed & shaped.

Interestingly, researchers have put dogs up there as the animals whose learning style...& needs....are similar to pedagogy in young children.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[mlc]

I'll wait for the recorded seminar.

You should always select for a stable, 'amicable' dog no matter the breed or job the dog will have (pet, hunter, police dog etc)

I think waiting for the talks is a great idea.

Not one of the speakers said anything about only or always selecting for a stable, 'amicable' dog no matter the breed or job. Not one.

I think everyone would be far better saving their energy until they have heard the presentations.

:D

[kirst_goldens]

She also had guidelines about how dogs were kept. Basically home backyard type situations where there was a limit on the number of dogs (was it 2 or 3 bitches?). If you wanted more than that then you needed multiple backyard type areas, so dogs could live in their own groups. No cages allowed. Pens to only be used for temporary containment. Daily contact and handling of pups by humans.

Any further explanations about socialisation apart from daily handling by humans?

Socialisation also includes the environmental sights & sounds where humans actually live. Any movement out of that backyard into, at least, sections of the house? With even wider range for the adult dogs?

Best account of socialisation I've heard was given by the DogsVic rottweiler breeder on Radio National.

Exactly my point... handling by humans in the means of a quick cuddle every day is no where near sufficient!

[Steve]

Since I can't figure out what behaviours she'll be measuring and how then I can only guess. You seem to have a grasp on it, will she be measuring each behaviour on a scale and whether it occurs in a specific context? Pecks are an either or score, but other behaviour is on a gradient. Will her test of amicability include something like the strange situation test? What is she going to be able to do with this instrument? Is she purely gathering dogs and testing out different recording media for observer reliability?

Working out a method for measuring something is different for examining a "trait'. From what I read she is interested in the "trait" amicability, but finding a way to measure and record dog behaviours is different from investigating a specific question.

I can't work out the actual hypothesis being tested.

Perhaps the point everyone is missing in this discussion about Tammie's research, is that the 200 dogs she is "testing" aren't 'tests' at all! It is data collection.

jdavis the test IS a strange situation test. The dog is taken onlead into an enclosure and the exact same thing happens for each dog being 'tested'. The dog is video recorded from four different angles. Different dogs will obviously behave differently, but there is a finite number of behaviours that will be shown.

This is why she needs as many different dogs as possible. I'm taking my 2 in a couple of week. I will be making bets with her (if she'll take the bet) that I can predict how both dogs will behave.

And steve - thanks for the great post. Your summary is spot on. As to LIDA - he was jogged at the end again about how they should note the source of the dogs (registered breeder or other). Do you think he took it on board any more than previously? Or did he look nagged at? :D

He had already been given a heads up because I had discussed this with Jade Norris [ RSPCA Science Officer abount 3 weeks ago]

She came back and told me they didnt think it would be an issue because the sampling would be so wide it would all sort itself out.

Thats why I went after the stats - 630,000 puppies bred each year in Australia and only 69,000 are ours. I told Jade I didnt hold any hope thatbased on these figures the data would represent in anyway anything which would help us in knowing what our dogs had as issues and not all other dogs which happened to look like it might be purebred. About now Id like to say that when those photos of Kates cross bred beagles came up I couldn't see any difference in them and a purebred beagle .I may have if Id had more time to study them but no vet would pick those dogs as a cross and they would be listed as purebred beagles.

Anyway - back to the question. Im pretty confident he was ready for me. It was a good answer but when Lesley and I spoke with him later - and to be fair he may have been distracted he didnt make me feel that it was something that he was intending to rectify too quickly. Im saying until he does - dont give him any money and beat our chests and bang and clang until he does. When he does give him all the money we can find and do all we can to help him.

I have some ideas which would help him out with this so we can get this data and not have to worry about anyone other than the breeder identifying the breed, we wont need a phd student to be involved and it would solve a bunch of other stuff too which is one reason why we could all just talk and talk and talk - but. We will publish what we think is a great solution to many of the issues raised on the day when we respond to the RSPCA puppy farm paper.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Steve

[mita]

I think everyone would be far better saving their energy until they have heard the presentations.

:D

Or reading the report for the research study about whatever with the 200 dogs.

Look forward to hearing what peer-reviewed journal it gets published in.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[Steve]

One question that I'd have liked to be able to put if I'd been there, was whether the proposed code for commercial breeder's would require health testing of the sire & dam & whether the speaker health-tested her own stock. Do you remember if this was touched during the seminar?

Yes she did - as the breeder would have a life-long commitment to pups born (tho there was the murky area re pet shops).

She also had guidelines about how dogs were kept. Basically home backyard type situations where there was a limit on the number of dogs (was it 2 or 3 bitches?). If you wanted more than that then you needed multiple backyard type areas, so dogs could live in their own groups. No cages allowed. Pens to only be used for temporary containment. Daily contact and handling of pups by humans.

She also had her own views on number of litters. She was OK about breeding back to back but the limit should be "7 litters or 7 years of age" and then desexing and retirement to a pet home.

What do breeders think of this?

It was 4 kept together and I dont remember her saying she tested but given she is a vet Im assuming her level of testing and access to it all that she would. I have the code of conduct here somewhere Ill see if I can dig it out.

[Paganman]

She also had her own views on number of litters. She was OK about breeding back to back but the limit should be "7 litters or 7 years of age" and then desexing and retirement to a pet home.

Geez Id be wondering what sort of pet one of these retired bitchs would make when its been kept outside as a puppy making machine for 7 years :D

I reckon the whole set up sounds pretty naff. Reminds me a bit of free range chooks and we all know what a take that is

[The Spotted Devil]

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.

My suggestion was not a possible test for "amicability", it was an example of something that we CAN quantify. We can count the number of times a dog barks in a vet clinic in the first 24 hours. If that information is useful (and I know of several experiments where it has been useful), then we have an objective measure.

You still don't know why they are barking, is it fear, stress, seperation anxiety, over excited, etc, all of which should be handled differently or you worsen the problem.

It doesn't tell us how each dog got there and it does require an assumption that in-patient presentations to a vet clinic will follow some sort of statistical norm across a large enough population of dogs (e.g an average number of labs, an average number of terriers, an average number of dogs with broken legs, an average number of dogs who are blind etc etc) but we could test a hypothesis that "water spray collars and citronella collars are equally as effective in reducing barking in the veterinary clinic environment over the first 24 hours of admission" or "Classical music decreases barking in a vet clinic over the first 24 hours compared to no music at all" - and because we can objectively measure the behaviour, we can repeat experiments to see if they continue to provide similar results.

How do you objectively measure how effective a "treatment" is when each and every day there would be new dogs in the vet clinic barking? You might strike a day when they are all very mellow or a day when they all set each other off. A day when all the dogs admitted have very stable temperaments or days when they are all stress heads, or a day when they are a mixture. I'll ignore the use of a antibarking collar because I find that thought unbearable but you would have to play music for a long, long time to even come close to seeing if it would work.

I can't comment on Tammie's research specifically because I'm not as familiar with it, but your point is a good one, Rebanne, and it is something I come up against in my research because I often work in shelters and other difficult environments where there is so much I can't control. You can get around some of the difficulties by using statistics - for example, in some cat research I did, I teased out some changes in behaviours over time. The observations were done in two different rooms which were subject to different conditions but there was very little influence of location so I felt comfortable in combining the data. Where there was a difference, I suggested possible reasons why this was occurring but obviously this was only a reasonable inference. However, there were some specific effects of whether or not cats were desexed that significantly affected their behaviour - and I don't mean in terms of sexual behaviour but behaviours that would indicate that the animal is adapting (or not) to the shelter environment. I used that information in my next research project and only used desexed cats to try and reduce variation and I set up the experiment so I could control as much as possible. I'm actually sitting here re-analysing the physiology data from the 2nd study as I didn't really get much from it - looking for different ways that the cats respond to the shelter. However, my PhD is a whole different ball game as I can't control a damn thing!!!! In this case, like a lot of research, it becomes a real numbers game (which is why I'll be working my @r$e off for the next few years ). I have to recruit lots of dogs/handlers to get past the "noise" in the stats that results from the variation between the dogs and the environments I'm working in. Doing behaviour/welfare research with companion animals is extremely difficult and there is not a plethora of really strong papers out there IMHO. We can't control conditions like you can with production animals for obvious reasons. I am heavily restricted (and rightly so) in a lot of situations because the animals are technically if not actually owned pets. If it's any consolation I spend hours sweating over these details trying to get it right :D I hope I haven't confused the issue further.

[Rebanne]

She also had guidelines about how dogs were kept. Basically home backyard type situations where there was a limit on the number of dogs (was it 2 or 3 bitches?). If you wanted more than that then you needed multiple backyard type areas, so dogs could live in their own groups. No cages allowed. Pens to only be used for temporary containment. Daily contact and handling of pups by humans.

She also had her own views on number of litters. She was OK about breeding back to back but the limit should be "7 litters or 7 years of age" and then desexing and retirement to a pet home.

What do breeders think of this?

7 litters per bitch :D my dogs would need multiple houses complete with couches and queen size beds, not multiple backyard areas.

No cages allowed, pens only to be used temporarily; so how do you keep the groups of dogs in their own designated backyard type area?

Daily contact of pups by humans, how much is that? 5 minutes when you chuck them some food, or nearly 24/7 as many breeders do.

[KismetKat]

Perhaps the point everyone is missing in this discussion about Tammie's research, is that the 200 dogs she is "testing" aren't 'tests' at all! It is data collection.

My comment still holds true. What's her rationale & aim in collecting data on whatever behaviours she's observing & calling what & recording how?

She would need to provide that information if people are going to use it (for whatever purpose she intends it).

Read steve's post (#465).

When it comes to analysis of the data it will obviously be more complex that what I am about to say - but we were shown a few video's of some trial tests.

One dog wouldn't go near the "stranger" even with the owner present. Once the owner left the dog growled at the "stranger".

OK, I'm thinking "not amicable" here.

One dog was shown jumping up on the stranger trying to lick him.

OK we need a score of "over" amicable? :D

[Steve]

I notice theres a new one since last time I looked. [number 20]

Code of Ethics

Membership Requirements

1. Members shall read and understand the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders Standards and shall agree to abide by these standards.

2. Members shall read and understand the relevant local state codes or legislation (see links on AAPDB web site). Where these practices might conflict with Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders standards State codes will apply – unless the codes reduce the level of care and responsibility required by breeders – in which case AAPDB standards will apply.

3. Associate Members shall allow their property to be inspected by a person nominated by the AAPDB Board prior to being admitted as full members. Members shall allow their property to be inspected every 2-3 years.

Husbandry requirements

4. Members shall ensure that their dogs are under effective and complete control at all times.

5. Members shall feed their animals a balanced diet appropriate to their life stage.

6. Members shall keep their animals appropriately vaccinated, groomed and free from internal and external parasites and shall seek veterinary attention promptly for animals showing signs of illness.

7. Members shall not house their animals in cages for any reason other than transport, breeding or treatment of illnesses.

8. Members shall not house dogs permanently in individual pens. Animals should spend most of their life in communal runs as described in the AAPDB standards.

9. Members shall not euthanase retired breeding dogs simply because they have been retired. Retired dogs must be desexed, and rehomed or kept as pets. Euthanasia may only be performed by a qualified veterinarian in the case of:

a. intractable behavioural problems that preclude dogs from being used for breeding or rehomed as pets

b. Painful or life threatening health problems that detract from the animal’s expectation of experiencing reasonable quality of life

10. Members should ensure that puppies are vaccinated, free from internal and external parasites and that they are appropriately socialised as outlined in the AAPDB Standards

Sale of puppies

11. Members should rehome their puppies at 8 weeks of age after vaccination at 6 weeks. Members shall never rehome a puppy younger than 7 weeks of age

12. Members should rehome their puppies either

a. Desexed 2 weeks prior to rehoming

b. With a $50.00 desexing voucher refundable on proof of desexing

c. To a pet store that offers a desexing voucher with all pups sold.

13. Sale of puppies to pet stores who have agreed to accept the post sale obligations outlined below, and offer desexing vouchers with all puppies, are endorsed by the AAPDB.

14. Members shall not sell puppies to children under the age of 18 and shall not sell puppies at shows or markets.

15. Members shall accurately describe the breeding of the puppies they sell as outlined in the AAPDB Breeding terminology and discussion

Post sale obligations

16. Members shall offer a 3 day “cooling off” period after private sale of a puppy during which time the pup can be returned and the purchase price refunded, excluding any non-refundable deposit paid.

17. Members shall be responsible for reasonable veterinary expenses up to the purchase price of the puppy for illnesses present at the time of sale of a puppy.

18. Members shall provide new owners with information regarding feeding, veterinary care and training of their puppies.

19. Members must provide clear details of if and when refunds will be offered. If members do offer refunds they shall not require the return of the dog for these refunds to be paid.

20. Members shall undertake to take back and rehome any dog they have bred at any stage in the animal’s life should it become homeless for any reason. The only exception to this is when selling to AAPDB approved pet stores where this duty of care is transferred with the sale of the puppy.

http://www.aapdb.com/AboutUs/AAPDBEthics.aspx