'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Steve]

Vanessa spoke about ways we might be able to increase the ratio of people who are responsible pet owners by sorting out what responsible pet owners might have in common.

This was really interesting because one of the things which had been identified was the impact of the perception that they were being approved of by their friends and family.Thats pretty exciting because I think we can use that in marketing and campaigns.

It probably also means that what we thought was almost insurmountable - thats is - how on earth are we ever going to educate people- to we only have to educate some of the people because people will repsonde well to peer pressure when it comes to doing the right thing by their dogs.

I would have liked to explore these results a bit more too and the whole subject gave us heaps of food for thought.

You will see us playing around with a bit of this in the not too distant future. It was great!

In my case my family and friends think Im a nut and I certainly dont do anything with my dogs with the expectation that my friends and family approve of me. Very interesting.

Edited for spelling Im getting worse. - Tired.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Steve

[deerhound owner]

Instead of looking at the development of an amicability test in a breeding setting, maybe think about how it could be used in pounds or rescue environments. If we take the two video examples given:

If person X came into the shelter and was looking for a pet that was going to be a good "guard dog" (I use that term very losely), he may be after a dog that doesn't think every person is it's best friend and is wary of strangers and will vocalise when they come near, then the pound can say with some confidence, dog Y (the GSD in the video) would likely be the most sitable dog for you.

on the other hand if person Z comes in and is after a 50kg lap dog that thinks every person it meets is it's new best friend for ever and in need of a face wash, then the pound can say Dog A (the deerhound) would probably suit you well.

In this senario it doesn't matter what factors have contributed to the test score, just that the test now accurately reflects that particular dogs behaviour in that particular setting. The degree to which past socialisation as apposed to gentics has influenced it's score means nothing. It's also not to say that either dogs behaviour could not be altered by training etc but it gives a baseline for the person looking for the dog. It also does not say that one or the other is worse or better.

Hope that makes sense.

Not for me

because before I extrapolate how to quantify something

I need to know exactly what it is constituted of, or at least bound by;

so what is the definition of amicability, what are its boundaries/parameters?

Where does it always exist and under what circumstance?

The definition of amicability is the behaviours displayed in the test being used, based on my understanding that was how willing was a dog to be appraoched by/ approach a stranger with and without the owner present. They could have called it the green slime test, with dogs that are more willing to approach people slimier than dogs that weren't willing to approach people. This can be then used as a baseline for future studies, prehaps looking at the correlation between a dogs level of sliminess and it's likelyhood of ending up being back in the pound etc etc.

[Erny]

Hope that makes sense.

I understand what you are saying, Deerhound, but in the scenario that you suggest, the shelter staff would have a pretty good guage of knowing what dog would do what, simply by the fact they interact. The dogs' behaviours would not be limited by breed/genetics only, so the only way a shelter would be able to say what you have suggested would be due to the fact that they have met the dogs in question. IMO.

[whippets]

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.

In a shelter at least the animals are there longer than a day, in most cases, so "you" might get some idea on whether music etc does make a difference. Don't see how you can get a true reading from new animals every day.

A lot of people, racehorse trainers come to mind, do play music for their animals but they are doing so to a fairly static population, not one that changes every day.

I have had music in the indoor kennels ever since my days of training greys. I believe it settles the dogs. Even my indoor pets score some classical music ( to iTunes) when I leave the house. I know a few grey trainers who still use music in their kennels.

[The Spotted Devil]

Instead of looking at the development of an amicability test in a breeding setting, maybe think about how it could be used in pounds or rescue environments. If we take the two video examples given:

If person X came into the shelter and was looking for a pet that was going to be a good "guard dog" (I use that term very losely), he may be after a dog that doesn't think every person is it's best friend and is wary of strangers and will vocalise when they come near, then the pound can say with some confidence, dog Y (the GSD in the video) would likely be the most sitable dog for you.

on the other hand if person Z comes in and is after a 50kg lap dog that thinks every person it meets is it's new best friend for ever and in need of a face wash, then the pound can say Dog A (the deerhound) would probably suit you well.

In this senario it doesn't matter what factors have contributed to the test score, just that the test now accurately reflects that particular dogs behaviour in that particular setting. The degree to which past socialisation as apposed to gentics has influenced it's score means nothing. It's also not to say that either dogs behaviour could not be altered by training etc but it gives a baseline for the person looking for the dog. It also does not say that one or the other is worse or better.

Hope that makes sense.

Not for me ;)

because before I extrapolate how to quantify something

I need to know exactly what it is constituted of, or at least bound by;

so what is the definition of amicability, what are its boundaries/parameters?

Where does it always exist and under what circumstance?

lilli - my knowledge of psych theory is not my strong point so apologies if I don't make sense or get it wrong

From what I understand, personality traits attributed to humans are said to be stable across TIME and SITUATION - most psychologists agree on "The Big Five" and individuals are given a scale on Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Researchers at Monash used this idea and the methodology to develop a series of personality traits for dogs (as interpreted by their owners) - damn it, but my mind has gone blank on the details. I *think* that what Tammie found in her initial survey was that the general public rated a number personality traits which were extremely important and these boiled down and were interpreted as 'amicability'. From what I understand, Tammie is trying to match the owner's opinion of whether their dog is 'amicable' to behaviours observed and determine whether a panel of dog behaviour experts can agree on the behaviours.

In terms of the definition of 'amicability' - I think it's very easy to get hung up on the word (and probably fair enough too) - however, there is often a divide between what scientists call something and understanding or general use of the word outside the scientific community. It's a problem and a difficult one to rectify and balance out. What breeders call "line breeding" a geneticist will call "in breeding", what Monty Roberts calls "positive horsemanship" (paraphrasing) a trainer with scientific knowledge will call "negative reinforcement" - it's not a criticism but often cause for great and unnecessary misunderstanding. Here's a funny one for you - when I talk about behavioural responses of cats to a particular treatment, I talk about "lying with their eyes close" NOT "sleeping" - although the latter is a reasonable inference it puts way too much interpretation on the behaviour for my liking. It makes for a long winded presentation but a more accurate one.

[Steve]

Lisa Tomkins had the most awesome stuff to show us about right and left handed dogs and spoke to us about the correlation of one or the other being more suited to guide dog work.

It was a good presentation and it will definitely help out those responsible for selecting candidates for the guide dog program.

Too bad we didnt have heaps more time to see the other tests she is using to make assessments. Great stuff!

[deerhound owner]

Hope that makes sense.

I understand what you are saying, Deerhound, but in the scenario that you suggest, the shelter staff would have a pretty good guage of knowing what dog would do what, simply by the fact they interact. The dogs' behaviours would not be limited by breed/genetics only, so the only way a shelter would be able to say what you have suggested would be due to the fact that they have met the dogs in question. IMO.

I suppose the test allows you to standardise that "gut feeling" of the shelter staff, what if the shelter was very busy and the staff member had been off sick for the past few days and hadn't had a lot of experience dealing with that dog? or what if the staff member was a sighthound person for example and didn't like dogs with short faces so didn't spend a lot of time on them. Would it not be better if they could look at the chart and say "well we tested this dog in exactly the same way as all the other dogs here and found ...XYZ" I suppose a standardised test takes out any errors cause by personal bias in the shelter staff.

[The Spotted Devil]

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.

In a shelter at least the animals are there longer than a day, in most cases, so "you" might get some idea on whether music etc does make a difference. Don't see how you can get a true reading from new animals every day.

A lot of people, racehorse trainers come to mind, do play music for their animals but they are doing so to a fairly static population, not one that changes every day.

I have had music in the indoor kennels ever since my days of training greys. I believe it settles the dogs. Even my indoor pets score some classical music ( to iTunes) when I leave the house. I know a few grey trainers who still use music in their kennels.

For sure ;) And I do the same with foster kits and my lot!

However, being a scientist I really want to know if and how and why it works. Often our assumptions are wrong because they are unintentionally based on how WE feel - especially with our beloved companion animals. Research in production animal welfare has shown just how wrong some of our assumptions were - sometimes we simplified something that was very complex and sometimes we were just way off. Hopefully it's time for companion animal research to play some catch up.

[Lablover]

Lisa Tomkins had the most awesome stuff to show us about right and left handed dogs and spoke to us about the correlation of one or the other being more suited to guide dog work.

It was a good presentation and it will definitely help out those responsible for selecting candidates for the guide dog program.

Too bad we didnt have heaps more time to see the other tests she is using to make assessments. Great stuff!

Own up attendees, who else test "jumped" their dogs?

Some more interesting articles. Free. Some journals require payment.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=P...6bbd5d7d4aca020

[The Spotted Devil]

Lisa Tomkins had the most awesome stuff to show us about right and left handed dogs and spoke to us about the correlation of one or the other being more suited to guide dog work.

It was a good presentation and it will definitely help out those responsible for selecting candidates for the guide dog program.

Too bad we didnt have heaps more time to see the other tests she is using to make assessments. Great stuff!

Own up attendees, who else test "jumped" their dogs?

Some more interesting articles. Free. Some journals require payment.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=P...6bbd5d7d4aca020

Don't tell me you blind sided poor Yank!

[Steve]

Last but by no means least was Mia Cobb.

This was the one that grabbed my interest the most and it was about testing how stresssed dogs are when they go from a home to a kennel situation.

Obviously the focus for this research was on what happens to guide dog candidates which have been in homes with puppy raisers and then have to come back to a kennel situation for their training etc but I could see it used for a much wider use.

I would love to be able to follow this up a bit with Mia because the testing process and what comes out of that would be good to look at with several other start points so we could look at stress levels in kennelled breeding dogs over breeding dogs kept in a backyard type setting- maybe the difference in samples taken from one dog in both situations or a lot of dogs in both situations.

I also have a bunch of questions regarding the kennel set up of the guidedogs and time frames for when they are in certain areas and interacting with staff and other dogs etc.

One of these days Id like to catch up with Mia and sort of dig around in the topic a bit more.

Well done Mia.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Steve

[bryan_mannix]

Quote Steve

I'm sure she would expect nothing less of me and would understand but I do think there are probably some things to be gained by treating each other with respect and sharing principals and science resources in canine husbandry. Id like to think that even though we have differences in our goals we could still benefit more by seeing what we might have in common rather than bring what we disagree on to the table.

Careful Steve. You are going against the DOL grain if you start making intelligent, reflective, conciliatory comments which may benefit the future of purebred dogs

And to top it off you were actually there to listen to the presenters. Imagine making informed comments!!! rather than throwing opinions about based on hearsay.

Thanks for making the time and effort to go, for participating in a productive manner and taking the time to report back to us all.

[Lablover]

Lisa Tomkins had the most awesome stuff to show us about right and left handed dogs and spoke to us about the correlation of one or the other being more suited to guide dog work.

It was a good presentation and it will definitely help out those responsible for selecting candidates for the guide dog program.

Too bad we didnt have heaps more time to see the other tests she is using to make assessments. Great stuff!

Own up attendees, who else test "jumped" their dogs?

Some more interesting articles. Free. Some journals require payment.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=P...6bbd5d7d4aca020

Don't tell me you blind sided poor Yank!

One of my "excitable" labradors. Actually all my boys show excessive behavior traits. Oh, the shame.

[The Spotted Devil]

Hope that makes sense.

I understand what you are saying, Deerhound, but in the scenario that you suggest, the shelter staff would have a pretty good guage of knowing what dog would do what, simply by the fact they interact. The dogs' behaviours would not be limited by breed/genetics only, so the only way a shelter would be able to say what you have suggested would be due to the fact that they have met the dogs in question. IMO.

I suppose the test allows you to standardise that "gut feeling" of the shelter staff, what if the shelter was very busy and the staff member had been off sick for the past few days and hadn't had a lot of experience dealing with that dog? or what if the staff member was a sighthound person for example and didn't like dogs with short faces so didn't spend a lot of time on them. Would it not be better if they could look at the chart and say "well we tested this dog in exactly the same way as all the other dogs here and found ...XYZ" I suppose a standardised test takes out any errors cause by personal bias in the shelter staff.

The same thing goes for formal puppy testing which has not been demonstrated to be a good measure over time. Pauleen Bennett made the point that she is quite sure she knows her puppies very well to the point of being able to successfully match them to their new owners. However, as she pointed out - maybe they would have worked out no matter (or despite) what she did! I'm a bit the same - spent 3-4 days watching a Dalmatian litter (aged 5 weeks). By the end of my time with them I had pretty much settled on my pup - which was confirmed once BAER tests and assessments by other breeders were done. 3 weeks later I brought home my Spotted Devil. 3 years later, in my mind, so many traits that I observed back then are extremely consistent with the dog that I have now. He is just what I wanted. However, who knows - it could be dumb luck, it could be the way I raised him and trained him or it really could be his genes.

Edited February 12, 2010 by The Spotted Devil

[Steve]

I definitely agree with them on one huge point.

Its time we got funding going and did some serious research on dogs as companions.

Its time we stopped making assumptions about how dogs think and feel based on how we think and feel.

Just take one simple issue - Where should dogs which are used for breeding be housed.

The guidelines in our companion animal's state codes are specific about concrete floors, minimum sizes

and a whole load of other stuff.

The RSPCA want the same - I saw another article in Dogs life this month interviewing an RSPCA inspector about how terrible it is to keep breeding dogs in a yard type setting.The puppy farmers paper speaks about how yards are no good and they want them on concrete.

I know when the state laws came in down Victoria way originally the breeders were very upset about how they were expected to house their breeding dogs.They tell them how many can live together and they have to be separated and sleep on their own etc - that would be helll for my beagles

I reckon having to have my breeding dogs living on concrete all their lives would be awful but if I am to comply with current laws and guidelines in NSW thats exactly what I have to do. Kate stated she wants her breeding dogs in yard type pens but thats isnt condusive to fitting in with the NSW guidelines. Peter Cornford from Freedom kennels wanted his dogs to be living on dirt and being able to dig holes and live like dogs too.He was a puppy farmer so how could he know what he was talking about.?

Im not interested in whats easiest to clean or how much it costs or who thinks one way or another is better .I want real studies done which show conclusively which way is best and if what I think is best - getting to run and play and dig and sunbake on the grass no matter how many dogs someone owns then our laws and regs should be amended to allow us to know whats best not assume whats best and do something about it to ensure the dogs dont suffer and live their best lives.

Theres dozens of things I want tested and research and clarified and until they do it nothing any of us say no matter how much experience we have will mean anything and in the mean time everyone is an expert and no one is proven right or wrong and dogs suffer.

So if a commercial breeder and a hobby breeder have to communicate and share thoughts to get it done and push for some things together - then lets do it. This isnt supposed to be about egos - its about whats best for our dogs and we dont know that until its tested.

[mita]

lilli - my knowledge of psych theory is not my strong point so apologies if I don't make sense or get it wrong

From what I understand, personality traits attributed to humans are said to be stable across TIME and SITUATION - most psychologists agree on "The Big Five" and individuals are given a scale on Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Researchers at Monash used this idea and the methodology to develop a series of personality traits for dogs (as interpreted by their owners) - damn it, but my mind has gone blank on the details. I *think* that what Tammie found in her initial survey was that the general public rated a number personality traits which were extremely important and these boiled down and were interpreted as 'amicability'. From what I understand, Tammie is trying to match the owner's opinion of whether their dog is 'amicable' to behaviours observed and determine whether a panel of dog behaviour experts can agree on the behaviours.

In terms of the definition of 'amicability' - I think it's very easy to get hung up on the word (and probably fair enough too) - however, there is often a divide between what scientists call something and understanding or general use of the word outside the scientific community.

Thanks, TSD, for getting down to the basics of what this research is about. Your account provides something meaty (at last!) to think about.

Only thing is that personality traits in humans are behavioral tendencies that result from inborn temperament plus learning. And are influenced by context. Also they're on a scale of extent.

So I'd caution that this study doesn't leave an impression that amicability is 'something' as fixed and constant as the shape of a dog's ears!

I can understand wanting to break amicability down into specific behaviours that can be observed & measured.

In children, rating scales across different environments/contexts are used.

A canine example. The breeder I've just got a little adult dog from, told me she was very aloof when staying with another breeder (due to health problem).

But from the start, at our place, she was the opposite. Now, if a scale of behaviour for approach when called & tail wagging, had been applied in both contexts, she would have scored differently on each.

Not an unusual scenario in children, either.

So, to be honest (& I could be wrong), it seems that what this study is measuring is degree of sociability. Something that can be observed in a particular interaction with a human. And can be observed via certain socially responsive behaviours of the dog.

Rather than amicability which presumes it's a context- free, free-floating tendency. Like anxiety in humans, which is identified by self-rating. We can't get a dog to fill in an anxiety self-raing scale....or an amicability self-rating scale. Unfortunately. ;)

There's also a clear research literature which a term like sociability links up with. The studies on socialisation. Surely there'd be some 'meat' for the study in them.

But, as I said, I'm just proposing this. Not correcting the work.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[Lablover]

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?

The presenter does not breed beyond a first cross. Where does she locate her pedigreed dogs?

[The Spotted Devil]

One other thing that Tammie wants to do in her current research is recruit owners and young dogs (6 or 9 months???), test them NOW and then retest at 18 months. To see if these personality traits ARE stable across time. Perhaps stability across situation would also be interesting and something Tammie has most likely considered. There was something, somewhere looking at current temperament tests and how they predict adult temperament. At 6 weeks, the correlation was pretty weak. A little better at 8 weeks but much better at 6-9 months and beyond. So perhaps the tests aren't testing the genetic basis for temperament (which apparently is around 0.5 i.e. 50% of temperament is due to genetics and 50% to environment) but are testing the combination...which isn't much use if you want to SELECT for temperament. As Nekhbet said earlier, a full on, hyper dog can be beautifully behaved in the right hands.

[Steve]

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?

The presenter does not breed beyond a first cross. Where does she locate her pedigreed dogs?

She spoke of her desire for purebred breeders to be more receptive to selling her their dogs.She felt she would be able to offer us feedback on how our dogs went in the breeding department and what they were producing. ;) :p She did say that she had never bred past a first cross but on her website she speaks about how she is breeding on in the hope she can reduce shedding and has photos and descropitions of them. So either she told fibs yesterday or I misunderstood what she said or she tells fibs on her website.

[KismetKat]

She did say that she had never bred past a first cross but on her website she speaks about how she is breeding on in the hope she can reduce shedding and has photos and descropitions of them. So either she told fibs yesterday or I misunderstood what she said or she tells fibs on her website.

My guess she was honest yesterday. Bear in mind her website is designed to cater to her 'market' - of course you tell fibs when marketing something ;)