Are You Serious Jo

I agree with the methodology concerns. I have also found that studies that purport to be looking at control and choice (my thesis topic) are really just finding contrafreeloading. It's a complicated area alright, I am sure it has contributed significantly to the number of grey hairs I have.

Get some smart cats and we'll replicate, if we can show they have some brains in those crazy heads we'll get published for sure

Found it, it is in Inglis et. al., 1997, Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of contrafreeloading, Animal Behaviour. 53, 1171–1191.

Some cats are good problem solvers, and I suspect that over time they'll evolve to be better at it as a species the longer they are domesticated. But the species averages on tasks are nothing to write home about compared to dogs. I have a feeling I read about cats in a review but can't remember if it is the Osbourne paper, I'll go see if I can find it in my PDFs.

I should have it somewhere. But don't get too excited, cats as a species are not all that bright. They can't pass tasks at the same level of dogs, it's not that they choose not to, they just can't do it That's what happens when you don't evolve in a social group!

I wasn't talking about operant conditioning, I was talking about contrafreeloading, it is different and cats are the only species tested (since my last lit search on it) that haven't demonstrated it.

Oooh I love that book. Read it ages ago, must pick it up again! Would you say that apart from instinct and cognition that the reason some of these dogs exhibit mimicry and/or intelligent disobedience is because they have 'learned to learn' as young pups? With the brain growing at 80% capacity in the first 16 weeks, if a pup was allowed to experiment with various behaviours and was then reinforced (whether purposely or inadvertently) that this would lend itself to the ability to problem solving in a much higher capacity, taking into consideration the breed and the dog's instinct? Therefore it might be a case of : brain growth + learning to learn (cognition) + reinforcers/motivation + instinct + experimentation = behaviour? I hope this question makes sense as I am thinking aloud. An early enriched rearing environment leads to adults that bounce back from stress faster and are more exploratory. So animals give the opportunity to manipulate their environment and make choices are better equipped to deal with a dynamic environment. An impoverished rearing environment may mask some of the instinct and ability to problem solve. Animals (except cats) do take the opportunity to work for food when given a choice and the basis of this is probably gaining experience, it's called contrafreeloading. The stockman have the right idea, they expose the pups to lots of things and in turn probably is the reason we have so many cool working dog stories.

I am fascinated by examples of intelligent disobedience and how the thought processes can work with domestic dogs to do this. As a cognitive researcher it is a challenge to try to fit these anecdotes into what we know about the way dogs think. Herding is a huge draw to me and one of the things that developed my love of research into how animals think. So keep up the stories as they help guide experimental design for the future and are great to read. But in terms of learning in drive, some of the techniques individual herding dogs learn they have learned while in a high drive state, but I suspect that the range might be limited to behaviours that are linked to the activity they were selected for, e.g. working with stock, which is obvious really. I can see how operant conditioning would hinder a dog of lower intelligence when working, but a dog that somehow does recognise when it is essential to disobey would still do so, as seen by all the examples over time. I guess my take on it when training would be to teach the basics and allow the dog to explore the boundaries a bit more if you feel your dog does have the ability to think for itself.

Why isn't the burden off proof with the prosecution, as with every other case in Australia. Thank goodness they have great legal representation that can show the real story behind these PR seizures.

The two posters above should reread the thread, the pup was there for 10 days and PTS because of a parvo issue. Reality is that if all pounds adopted no kill and kept dogs in overcrowded conditions and spent large sums of money keeping dogs in kennels for a long time they would be in trouble with the public. It is all well and good to advocate no kill, but until you are the one raising the money for new facilities and staff to do so then you can't demand things are done to your ideology. Until the public want to buy more pound dogs then the sad fact is that pounds have to PTS. It is cruel to keep dogs in crowded conditions exposing them to disease for Dog knows how long just so some people don't have to feel bad that dogs get PTS. Put the dogs first, until you have indoctrinated the world into your no kill philosophy the dogs have to be attended too, even if you don't like the outcome.

What is so hard to understand, no one is interested in taking onboard anything that allows puppy farms to continue, if they were concerned about welfare they'd be pushing for banning them, not supporting them to grow even bigger. No puppy farms ever, NO PUPPY FARMS EVER. You want to act in the best interest of dog welfare then fight their existence, not invite their flippin spokesperson to your seminar.

Dogs can still get kennel cough even though they are vaccinated. Sounds like what your dog has.

She wasn't there to "illustrate purpose for breeding", she was there to present a model for better practices in commercial dog breeding. The main thrust of the entire day was, afterall, about dog welfare. Then perhaps they shouldn't have chosen a puppyfarmer if they wanted to promote dog welfare. It hardly makes for credibility. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this thread.

I'd choose to lose dog ownership over assisting puppy farmers. I hope the day never comes that there will be puppy farmers included in the us.

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. She is putting dogs into a situation she has created and then recording the data, therefore it is a manipulated situation. Any time you gather data it is data collecting, whether it is purely observational data collected from the wild or that collected in a highly controlled experiment. We have specific terms for things we do during scientific investigations, it is probably different to what you think it is as a layman. The dogs will be placed into an artificial environment and their behaviour recorded, that is a test. If she just turned up to their houses and placed cameras surreptitiously and recorded them without any intervention that wouldn't be a test. My worry is the end goal for the data in terms of incorporation into the lab and how the media jump on things and take it as gospel.

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. That information is meaningless in isolation. You might end up with a mean rate of pecking per hour for that chicken. All you then know is the range and average times that chicken pecks, and if you have enough of a sample size, how many times chickens may peck. But it doesn't say anything about learning, motivation, global influences, interspecifc factors etc. KismetKat's analogy was to come up with a way to measure how many times a chicken pecks. A "peck counting method". If, in future, someone wants to come up with a hypothesis for learning, motivation, global influence - on PECKING - then they will need a "peck counting method" to gather data for their experiment. How that data is used or how an hypothesis is formed is a separate issue. 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.

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. That information is meaningless in isolation. You might end up with a mean rate of pecking per hour for that chicken. All you then know is the range and average times that chicken pecks, and if you have enough of a sample size, how many times chickens may peck. But it doesn't say anything about learning, motivation, global influences, interspecifc factors etc. I've asked Tammy previously if she was trying add another trait to the personality indicies and measuring instrument we currently have for dogs but got no answer. I am a bit in the dark about aims as well as her previous thread wasn't clear. Is she attempting a new temperament test, a new ethogram, I can't work it out.

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.

Kismet kat actually, not you. I don't agree with your stance, but haven't seen you promote crossbreeding.

Kate must have one bloody good spiel for someone attending one seminar only to now believe that puppy farms are the bees knees.

Sounds like you are promoting crossbreeding. Do you remember you are on a site that exists for the promotion of purebred dogs?

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first. No, as you have been told purebred breeders select for temperament as well as looks. The vast majority of pure breeders have their dogs live with them, they want to have dogs they can live with that are good representations of their breeds. For profit breeders aka puppy farmers are not breeding for temperament, they are breeding for profit. Do you really think they actually make decisions based on anything other than how much a puppy will sell for. They don't give a toss what happens after they sell the pup, otherwise why don't they do it properly and vet owner and offer lifetime support, not to mention health testing. I am a bit :D from this thread to be honest. Stay away from the kool aide people.

I didn't research my breed, should I not have a dog? Surely you don't recommend people just get any dog they like the look of, regardless of whether their choice means the dog may be discarded in the pound because it is unsuitable for their circumstances.

...like a crossbreed? :D I think it's entirely unrealistic to expect every dog owner to have done research before getting a dog. It doesn't even cross the minds of many dog owners. They just want a dog, so they go out and get one from somewhere convenient. It's not their fault and it doesn't make them unworthy of having a dog. It's just the way a lot of people have been brought up to deal with dogs. It is their fault! If people can work out what sort of car suits their lifestyle they can spend a bit of time looking into the differences between dogs. Are you saying that it is unreasonable to expect that people should spend even a few hours researching into a breed they may own for the next 15 years? As for crossbreds being good for the average dog owner, yes, buying a dog that you cannot make any prediction on its temperament is far more reliable than buying a purebred that has a defined temperament.

Also, anyone who doesn't research a breed and find out exactly what that means shouldn't have a dog.