Call For Participants: Canine Temperament Testing

[Erny]

I don't work in a pound, Raineth, but I don't think Victoria's shelter attitude is all that flexible as it might be for where you are.

[Sheridan]

I don't work in a pound, Raineth, but I don't think Victoria's shelter attitude is all that flexible as it might be for where you are.

Precisely what I was going to say. Victoria does not have the equivalent of a Clause 16D.

[raineth]

I hadn't actually thought of that I do admit. I still thought rescue orgs could pull dogs from pounds in Vic.

Is it possible though that dogs who might not normally be given much of a chance due to their appearance, be given a chance because they will have positive temp test results to back them up?

There has been a couple of times I've been to the pound and a ranger will disparage particular dogs based on their looks (ie what breed they appear to be derived from) rather than their temp. So maybe a temp test like this would put the focus back on temperament and degrade some of the bias that people have towards certain types of dogs.

[Sheridan]

I hadn't actually thought of that I do admit. I still thought rescue orgs could pull dogs from pounds in Vic.

Is it possible though that dogs who might not normally be given much of a chance due to their appearance, be given a chance because they will have positive temp test results to back them up?

There has been a couple of times I've been to the pound and a ranger will disparage particular dogs based on their looks (ie what breed they appear to be derived from) rather than their temp. So maybe a temp test like this would put the focus back on temperament and degrade some of the bias that people have towards certain types of dogs.

"It is very hard to give Pit Bulls the benefit of the doubt," Dr Smith says. "If it looks like a Pit Bull, it is a Pit Bull."

http://dogshome.com/...ublic-and-pets/

I am told LDH killed 14,000 dogs in the last financial year.

What do you think the chances are of Victoria's biggest pound giving dogs a chance?

ETA: Victoria's biggest pound has a total of 11 dogs up for adoption today. 11 dogs. That's actually a pretty good figure for them.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Sheridan

[Ruin Maniac]

That would be "danger", Terope, and I think Diana has made it quite clear that this research project has been designed with the benefit of dogs in mind.

Of course people shouldn't aim to breed only one "type" (MacDog) of dog. The researcher has stated that she believes that dogs of many types should be bred, as long as they end up with owners that are informed and capable of caring for them. Sadly, 90% of dog owners in this country are not capable of handling any dog other than a "boring" one, if you like (and that statement is quoted often here). One might argue that we should reduce the number of dog owners due to suitability/responsibility/general stupidity being such a pressing issue, however (fairly or unfairly) there are many more ethical issues to consider when you are running human beings through tests and depriving them of "rights", even if those "rights" should be privileges (possessing an animal). Furthermore, limiting the pool of adoptees will consequently mean that good dogs will continue to be euthanized until the supply dwindles to meet lower demand (though I imagine a determined fool who fails a suitability test would probably find other sources for their pets). After all, those that can handle the responsibility of non-MacDog would probably also be aware of their own limits and probably couldn't care for all of those that need homes.

I don't agree with much of the legislation around dogs in this country, but I can appreciate that it's easier from a legal standpoint to regulate the dogs than the people, though I do not think it is good or fair. Until general attitudes towards companion animals change and are reflected by the law, I don't think things will be done differently any time soon. Therefore, it is important to make an effort to determine if a dog will meet the expectations of those that apply for them, lest they end up recycled again and again into shelters.

A temperament test, I agree, is not like crystal gazing and will not determine a dog's nature in its entirety, but it might give those caring for them a general idea (especially when a transition into a new home with strangers can also be a daunting experience and these behaviours may linger even if only temporarily) and any improvement on the current model, I believe, would be a blessing to shelter staff and to animals that face an uncertain future.

As for euthanasia rates and more crazy, nanny state laws... any published research that in any way promotes a person's agenda will be cited if that person stumbles across it, whether you're a student writing an essay, a politician making a proposal, a scientist applying for a grant or a neo-nazi trying to argue that you know what's best for the world. I don't doubt this research will be used by some for very questionable purposes, but that doesn't mean that the intent of the research was to support these people, or that it won't also be used to do good. I might also add here that La Trobe has issued incredibly harsh penalties for academic misconduct and is not unwilling to involve the law or the media. To deceive research participants would be committing academic suicide.

Ultimately it's up to the individual to decide whether the risks outweigh the benefits and vice versa. As has been stated, though, a greater sample size is more likely to offer more detailed and accurate results regardless of whether or not those results support the hypothesis upon which the test was based.

[Sheridan]

Ruin Maniac, hence Woof's suggestion, which I agree with, that studies should look at owners.

[Cosmolo]

Changing the attitudes of upper level management in major organisations is another issue though? I do understand what posters are saying- we don't want any tools that can be used/ manipulated/ interpreted in a way that makes it easier for those pounds/ shelters etc to euthanase animals that don't fit into 'the box'. I agree.

BUT- these places are already using terrible assessments as exactly that- justifications for euthanasia- look at the RSPCA NSW test that was released a few months ago- dreadful. It's harder to do that with a quality test that has better criteria than "the dog showed prey drive with a guinea pig".

And i have worked with pounds and shelters that match dogs to adopters. They aren't common unfortunately- but they do exist. Pressure needs to be applied to compel sheters and pounds to use QUALITY behavioural assessments as a matching tool in conjunction with a bunch of other procedures to ensure good matches are made. A well researched test would aid in doing this.

I have fought very hard to try and save dogs lives because someone somewhere in a pound or shelter didn't like the way they 'looked at that thing' or how 'poorly they behaved in a vet clinic'. In most cases i lost these battles BECAUSE the people with the opinions were not using any kind of standard test or procedure- it was because of someone's opinion. In the most recent case i lost the battle despite offering to take the dog.. Things need to change in shelters and pounds as much as dog owners need to take responsibliity- it's not one or the other and research like this should not be taken as just 'dealing with the wrong end of the problem'. BOTH ends of the problem need to be addressed.

[Dame Aussie]

Ruin Maniac, hence Woof's suggestion, which I agree with, that studies should look at owners.

Yes. I really don't think we will get anywhere unless this is given as much importance as assessments.

ETA: to agree with Cosmolo that both ends need to be studied.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Aussie3

[Ruin Maniac]

The point I was making was that there are more legal and ethical issues involved in testing people than dogs. I am one of those people that would like to see a license introduced for the keeping of any animal, especially dogs which are considered a risk to the general public when they are not properly trained.

Conducting the research, creating the proposals and then making new laws while it would be fantastic, would be extremely difficult until there's a change in the whacked attitude that the general public has that dogs are disposable toys that a person is entitled to. This is a change I do desperately want to see, but until then (if there ever is a then, one can only hope) a bandaid measure such as this may spare some lives and provide a little more insight into the variance of dog temperaments within a population, which may also lead to further research into the development of those temperaments and the needs of the dogs that share them.

[Erny]

I hadn't actually thought of that I do admit. I still thought rescue orgs could pull dogs from pounds in Vic.

Is it possible though that dogs who might not normally be given much of a chance due to their appearance, be given a chance because they will have positive temp test results to back them up?

Not intending to take this off topic but if you're making a brief reference to the current Victorian laws that affect our dogs on the basis of aesthetics, the point is that the Government and the Councils they have empowered with their disgusting laws are seizing dogs forcibly from their homes - dogs who have never done anything wrong and who are great with other dogs and people and who are not a nuisance to the community.

Consequently, temperament testing in that respect is a non-consideration by the authorities as that doesn't even come into the equation with those laws.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Erny

[raineth]

I hadn't actually thought of that I do admit. I still thought rescue orgs could pull dogs from pounds in Vic.

Is it possible though that dogs who might not normally be given much of a chance due to their appearance, be given a chance because they will have positive temp test results to back them up?

Not intending to take this off topic but if you're making a brief reference to the current Victorian laws that affect our dogs on the basis of aesthetics, the point is that the Government and the Councils they have empowered with their disgusting laws are seizing dogs forcibly from their homes - dogs who have never done anything wrong and who are great with other dogs and people and who are not a nuisance to the community.

Consequently, temperament testing in that respect is a non-consideration by the authorities as that doesn't even come into the equation with those laws.

No I'm not making a reference to that :)

It is disgraceful hey

[grumpette]

Bearing in mind that we've done no analysis as yet and I'm just commenting on what I've seen during the tests we've done so far (so when we've done the analysis this could all mean nothing), the only thing listed above that we don't seem to getting a fairly clear picture of during the tests is chase prone-ness/predatory tendancies, as there seems to be issues with arousal/stress levels inhibiting the dogs responses to prey stimuli.

The above highlighted section is a concern that I have about temperament testing in a pound environment. Just the same as with training and behaviour modification, once a dog is past it's threshold and is so stressed out that it shuts down, it's true nature or behaviour will not come to the for. I have a Rotty here that has a huge prey drive. She will chase kids, bikes, small animals, large animals, in fact anything that moves, but she will also shut down when stressed, so this behaviour will not come to the for. It is a concern that the stress of the pound environment will mask many behaviours that the dogs' possess, and thus not give a true indication of the dogs' character.

I also have a concern about the effect that the absence of the owner in the testing room may have on the behaviour exhibited by the dogs. I have a Rotty here who is a registered therapy dog, but I think that he would fail the temperament test because he can be a cocky shit, who is full of confidence, and he may come across as aggressive under some stimuli. Consequently, it is a concern that the effect of human interaction is not taken into account. The dogs' behaviour and reactions to the various stimuli could be very different with and without the owners, which means their reactions could be very different to the same stimuli in the home environment compared to the pound environment.

Just a few thoughts that I am having.

[The Spotted Devil]

grumpette - you are right. We don't really understand how the human-animal interactions affect dog behaviour in the shelter. That's why I'm in the US currently, having just about completed 4 weeks straight of 14 hour days running my studies. Having not had an Income for the last 1.5 months and running the studies on a tight budget with no assistance I can assure everyone that I'm certainly not in it for the money! The shelter I'm working with gets a lot of "Pit Mixes" and LOTS of strays and I am getting some really good insights. Fear is ok but fight as the first resort is not. The rescues here actually take the SWF!

Examining human attitudes is necessary but complex. To understand them is doable but to change them requires a lot of education to reach the people who need it most. And money. Think of the TAC targeted campaigns and I wonder if we could ever reach a population to that extent with such limited funding. Yes, it frustrates the hell out of me. Sorry to take it OT and good luck with your research Diana.

Edited February 6, 2013 by The Spotted Devil

[Leema]

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

Could you please elaborate?

[huck house]

We took one of our dogs for the temp test about a month ago .. It was such an interesting exercise having to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about our perception of him and then getting to hear how he reacted to all the stimuli and what his heart rate was. it was also quite illuminating about some aspects of our dog We were at the campus well over two and half hours and left feeling positive about the possibilities of studies like these and have no doubts about the credibility and intentions of the research . They are testing until May so we are definitely taking our other dog..

[ish]

Bumping this up in case anyone has missed it and is interested in helping out

I took 4 of my GSDs last week and, like the others here who've been, found it extremely interesting. My older girl was just as I expected and cruised through the tests - but then surprised me by getting a bit upset when left during the last 10 minutes. My young pup got spooked by the shock tests (ie opening an umbrella) as I thought she would, but her heart rate hardly jumped and she was over it within a few seconds. We have been playing with an umbrella at home since and she's not at all concerned now! Monza, my boy dog thought the sounds in the 2nd part of the test were a lullaby, and was practically comatose snoozing on the floor :laugh: Fascinating to find out just how well you can predict your dogs behaviour

Really interesting stuff and helping out someone very dedicated to helping dogs - definitely worth donating a bit of time to

[RubyBlue]

I went last week too.....Milly sooked the whole time but apparently just sat with them and didn't really react to anything but her heartrate went up during the thunder and firework tracks. Dyson fell asleep - and it turns out he's afraid of needles (I held him and big macho boy let me take his full weight, turned his head away and whimpered when the needle went in lol). Both dogs played with them but Dyson didn't like the doll much apparently. Hopefully I'll get to see the video soon - Its a wonderful opportunity to know and actually see how your dogs will behave in that sort of situation.