Call For Participants: Canine Temperament Testing

[Kirislin]

So you didn't get to see what they did? I wouldn't be handing one of mine over if I couldn't watch and demand they stop if I was not happy with what they are doing and my dogs have rock solid temperaments. I also don't see that a lap dog wanting to jump on people's laps is being timid, just what it is used to. I also wonder how they can test temperament if they are not interacting with the dog? All seems very odd to me.

That's OK, you dont have to offer yours for testing then. It's entirely voluntary.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Kirislin

[corvus]

Well I will now be seeking some anwsers from LaTrobe before I allow my dogs to be tested. I was all for helping pounds etc understand dogs/greyhounds better but I won't be party to any attempt to force people to desex their dogs just because they don't pass a temperament test.

Just to be clear, I don't think the folks in SA intend to force anyone to desex dogs based on a temperament test. The wording they used at the conference was "strongly encourage" desexing. I honestly think it was more to do with mixed breeds than purebred dogs, and I got the impression the temperament test would be completely voluntary and a way to essentially be exempt from whatever measures were being applied to encourage desexing. I'm guessing those measures would revolve around registration fees, which is already being used as incentive to desex dogs. Painting this as a black and white picture just isn't accurate. I think it is pertinent to point out that one doesn't really get to decide how research gets used and how it doesn't. Once the research is done it can be applied to all sorts of things. It might add fuel to one fire and quench another all together. If it sounds like it could help pounds, it probably could. But we don't get to refuse people interested in using it as leverage to encourage desexing access to it. It's the nature of the beast. Personally, I think we can't shy away from research because we are scared how it might be used. It's the only way forward.

[Erny]

They say participants are anonymous.

Do they take names of the owners and their dogs?

[casowner]

I was going to quetion if this was the study that SA is getting them to do, not one I am overly keen about especially having LGD breeds who I don't believe can be lumped in with many other breeds as their guarding behaviour is a big part of their temperament

[casowner]

Don't think I like what it sounds like this temperament test is being developed for....

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/desexing-order-for-bad-natured-pets-given-teeth/story-e6frea83-1226567433144

EVERY dog will be desexed unless they can pass a test proving they are good natured under a proposal aimed at reducing attacks.[/b]The State Government is examining a Dog and Cat Management Board proposal to compulsorily desex dogs unless they pass a good-character test.

The board has made the recommendation to the Government because it believes it would reduce the number of dog attacks in South Australia.

Board executive officer Ben Luxton said yesterday the board's long-term goal was to "work towards breeding a more amicable and socially acceptable dog population".

]"We are not saying it's mandatory desexing. What we are saying is that dogs should be assessed for temperament and that those dogs that have a temperament that is suitable to be passed on to the next generation should be allowed to breed," he said.

About 65 per cent of dogs registered in South Australia are desexed.

Mr Luxton said the desexing proposal would not be breed-specific but would apply to all dogs.

However, he said he favoured a model in which dog owners who wanted to prevent their dogs from being desexed would submit their pets for an assessment that would determine if they were suitable for breeding.

He said the board was funding research at Melbourne's La Trobe University to develop a reliable test on temperament for dogs.[/color

Well sounds like mandatory desexing, I am sure plenty of dogs that are good natured would perform badly during a test, I for one would be concerned

Edited February 3, 2013 by behluka

[Rebanne]

Well I will now be seeking some anwsers from LaTrobe before I allow my dogs to be tested. I was all for helping pounds etc understand dogs/greyhounds better but I won't be party to any attempt to force people to desex their dogs just because they don't pass a temperament test.

Just to be clear, I don't think the folks in SA intend to force anyone to desex dogs based on a temperament test. The wording they used at the conference was "strongly encourage" desexing. I honestly think it was more to do with mixed breeds than purebred dogs, and I got the impression the temperament test would be completely voluntary and a way to essentially be exempt from whatever measures were being applied to encourage desexing. I'm guessing those measures would revolve around registration fees, which is already being used as incentive to desex dogs. Painting this as a black and white picture just isn't accurate. I think it is pertinent to point out that one doesn't really get to decide how research gets used and how it doesn't. Once the research is done it can be applied to all sorts of things. It might add fuel to one fire and quench another all together. If it sounds like it could help pounds, it probably could. But we don't get to refuse people interested in using it as leverage to encourage desexing access to it. It's the nature of the beast. Personally, I think we can't shy away from research because we are scared how it might be used. It's the only way forward.

Personally I can be concerned with how research involving my dogs is used. I am not going ahead with it if I believe it will be used to make people desex their dogs based on some sort of temperament test that I thought was being used to help dogs in pounds. How a dog behaves in a pound can be miles away from how they behave in a home, being walked around the street. People should not be penalised by higher rego fees or whatever just cause their dog doesn't pass some temperament test.

[Diana R]

Hi all,

I'm not a regular DOL'er (but do a read the forums semi regularly in the wee hours of the morning when I'm finished for the day and can't sleep), but one of the lovely ladies that brought their dogs in (I think it was Maggie's mum :) ) let me know that the study info had been posted here and after reading the thread I just wanted to clear a few things up.

I'll just take it from the top because there's a few Q's to answer.

This project has nothing to do with the article posted above. I'm honestly not sure which study they are referring to because as far as I am aware, this project is the only one looking at dog behaviour (or dogs!) running out of the Melbourne campus of LTU - we don't have any external funding and the small amount of internal funding that we have is coming from the department (though I would love some external support as I'm currently funding about half of the work from my own pocket so that we can afford the equipment and there is so much more I would love to do, if we had the money to back us ). I must put in a plug for Sherel from Black Hawk here, as she (very fabulously) provided all the food for the project (both the dry and the cans, which she organised through Nature's Gift) :D

To clear up the questions about the purpose of the work, the project is and always has been about the way dogs are currently assessed in shelter environments (both myself and one of my supervisors have first-hand experience in the companion animal welfare sector and this is something we have been working towards for a number of years) - as mentioned above, once the results (if they show anything useful) have been published we have no control over how they are used, but MY aim is to develop a reliable, valid tool that shelters and shelter staff can use to help them work out what types of homes a particular dog will do best in. Not only would the university HEC hang me for lying in a participant information statement (and rightly so), we have to declare all support we have for the project when we publish, so it wouldn't be too hard to catch me out in the lie... this project is going to take a number of years and several rounds of testing (which means the support and participation of lots of owners and their dogs!) to get full results - so it serves me no purpose to lie about what we are doing and upset everyone that I need support from :)

Once we get through the screening, reliability and validation steps, all going well the plan is to trial the final, refined protocol on shelter dogs (through Animal Aid out in Coldstream, who we are already working with on several welfare-based research projects) and then follow up several months later with adoptive owners, to see if what we are seeing during the test holds true once the dogs have settled in to their new homes. Before all of that though, we need to look at a range of common stimuli (that are either currently being used in shelters at the moment or have shown some promise in previous research work) and see if we can make the picture that they show a little clearer by incorporating real time heart rate monitors with an assessment of behaviour. The rest of the measures we are taking are there to help us work out if what we are seeing is a true representation of the dog and to determine exactly what the heart rate monitors are showing during the test.

In relation to breed specfic behaviours, we're looking not only at how the whole sample of dogs reacts to the tests, but also at how particular breed groups (i.e. sighthounds, livestock guardians, mastiffs etc.) respond in comparison to other dogs so that we can say what works well, or doesn't work, for those particular types of dog. I fully expect that there will be certain stimuli that elicit a response from some breeds/types of dog and not others - if they didn't we wouldn't be doing a very good job of identifying behavioural traits - the aim is purely to be able to identify those tests that work well, and which dogs they work well for, so that we can make sure that adoptive owners get what they are expecting when they come to a shelter for their next dog (meaning the dogs stay in their new homes and don't bounce back, which IMO should be the aim of any person or group involved in rescue).

Lastly, the current protocol has three 'sections' - two of which involve handling and interactive subtests and one in which we play a number of pre-recorded sounds while the dog moves freely around the room (during which we can't interact with the dog, because we want to known how they respond to the sounds, not us :) ). We are there with the dogs the entire time monitoring the dogs (for the last 10 minutes we are standing with the owner just outside the door, while the monitors and cameras run, to see if the dogs will settle and how long it takes), but we can't have owners sitting in with us as it would affect the dogs' responses. I would love to have a two way window for the owners to sit behind (or even a screen attached to the main camera so that they could watch in real time), but unfortunately our funds just don't go that far.

I've got to go and get some things done, but if anyone has questions feel free to post them or contact me via [email protected] and I'll do my best to answer them all

[Kirislin]

Hi Diana, it was me who mentioned to you that it was on DOL. I'm Feather and Kibahs (the scaredy blue whippets) mum. :)

Edited February 3, 2013 by Kirislin

[Sheridan]

Sorry, Diana R, but you cannot classify by group. A bedlington is as different to a cesky to a staffy. Yes, they're terriers, but a dog that only goes to earth is going to have a different temperament to a dog that does multiple tasks. How, for example, do you measure gameness?

[corvus]

I found that even with over 1000 respondents with my survey data, I still didn't have the numbers to split most groups based on purpose. For example, my terrier group numbers were low and heavily biased towards a couple of breeds. I split by purpose in the herding and gundog group because they were the only groups where I had the numbers to do it. So Sheridan, I can't speak for Diana, but in general scientists need numbers. They can't make enough people participate that their data can be as detailed as DOLers and the likes want. It can be frustrating when you get damned for not having enough detail by the very people that didn't participate when they were invited to. Please participate! That's how you get really compelling data sets and the most accurate representations of dog populations. The better the data set, the more thorough the investigation, the more interesting findings you get, and the more weight they will carry. So please, DOLers, participate in scientific studies when you can, and pass the details on and encourage others in your breed to participate as well. There's a reason we know a lot more scientifically about Labradors than Bedlingtons.

[Sheridan]

Consider the possibility that there are actually a lot more labradors than there are bedlingtons.

[megan_]

The test isn't whether a dog meets the standard for it's breed. The test is sbout whether a dog has a suitable temperament to rehome safely. Fearful dogs don't fit that criteria ( unless they're acted because they're in a shelter, in which case a good temp test will help determine whether this is the cause of the fear).

My girl would fail this test no doubt. She is a lovely, well mannered little sweetie. She is fearful and reverts to aggression if not managed properly. She is not a suitable dog for 99.9% of families and SHOULD fail a good temp test. This doesn't make her a bad dog, just a dog that isn't safe in the hands of Joe average.

[corvus]

Consider the possibility that there are actually a lot more labradors than there are bedlingtons.

...Yes. Which means...? Consider the possibility that if you want bedlingtons to be treated differently to ceskies you might have to do a teeny bit of leg work and encourage those in rarer breeds to participate in scientific studies. We can only do so much ourselves. The more support we get the better our data and the less angsting about under-represented portions of the dog population. They are under-represented because it's hard to find them. You people in the breeds and breed groups themselves have better contacts than we do.

[WreckitWhippet]

I'm not participating in any "scientific" studies in this state, given the agenda of one McGreevy and followers

[WoofnHoof]

It's all well and good to say that a standardised method is useful in pounds in getting dogs that suit Joe Blow who can't be stuffed doing their own breed research. What if the research ends up being used by councils etc to apply to the general population? I think the whole concept of standardisation is problematic when you are dealing with a variety of breeds. How about creating a standardised test for Joe Blow to assess their suitability to cope with the dog they want to buy? Ultimately you can have the most adoptable dog in the world but it doesn't matter if Joe is a numpty who knows nothing about dogs and doesn't need to know in order to adopt one.

Personally I feel all this research into temperament testing is a waste of time and resources and does nothing to address the disposable mentality of the general public towards pets. I've come across people who have owned huskies in the past, it ran away, it escaped etc etc, the slightest bit of breed knowledge would have told these people not to buy a husky in the first place and if they still wanted one to have a bit of understanding of the breed and cater for it's needs. The breed is the most critical factor in the behaviour and temperament of the dog and yet it is largely overlooked in favour of standardizing all dogs. Makes no sense to me.

[Sheridan]

Consider the possibility that there are actually a lot more labradors than there are bedlingtons.

...Yes. Which means...? Consider the possibility that if you want bedlingtons to be treated differently to ceskies you might have to do a teeny bit of leg work and encourage those in rarer breeds to participate in scientific studies. We can only do so much ourselves. The more support we get the better our data and the less angsting about under-represented portions of the dog population. They are under-represented because it's hard to find them. You people in the breeds and breed groups themselves have better contacts than we do.

Well, I was responding to your post that said we know more about labradors than we do about bedlingtons. It stands to reason we know more about labradors because there are more labradors.

As to doing so much yourselves, represented in what?

[BJean]

:)

Edited February 3, 2013 by lilli

[Weasels]

The test isn't whether a dog meets the standard for it's breed. The test is sbout whether a dog has a suitable temperament to rehome safely. Fearful dogs don't fit that criteria ( unless they're acted because they're in a shelter, in which case a good temp test will help determine whether this is the cause of the fear).

My girl would fail this test no doubt. She is a lovely, well mannered little sweetie. She is fearful and reverts to aggression if not managed properly. She is not a suitable dog for 99.9% of families and SHOULD fail a good temp test. This doesn't make her a bad dog, just a dog that isn't safe in the hands of Joe average.

Agree - and a test for each breed is wildly impractical anyway, especially since most of the animals that come through will be cross breeds. So you'd be pouring resources into developing a test for a dog that pops up, say, once a year? Once every 5 years?

[BJean]

Consider the possibility that there are actually a lot more labradors than there are bedlingtons.

...Yes. Which means...? Consider the possibility that if you want bedlingtons to be treated differently to ceskies you might have to do a teeny bit of leg work and encourage those in rarer breeds to participate in scientific studies. We can only do so much ourselves. The more support we get the better our data and the less angsting about under-represented portions of the dog population. They are under-represented because it's hard to find them. You people in the breeds and breed groups themselves have better contacts than we do.

Scientific studies.

:)

being rare is good. It keeps you underneath the radar and away from standardised generalisations and out of the scope of theorists.

Bedlingtons: run fast.

Edited February 3, 2013 by lilli

[*kirty*]

Didn't she just explain that this test is more about matching the right dog to the right family, not passing or failing dogs.