'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Rebanne]

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.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

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.

[Rebanne]

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

I must be very strange as I don't see a problem with a dog not going near a stranger nor do I see a problem with a dog growling at a stranger, depending on the context. Which is not explained here.

[KismetKat]

Anyway - back to the question. He 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.

All it would need is a simple checkbox in the practice management system. Is that too hard?

[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.

Yes, it's a difficult scenario - I think there there has been some work done on the effect of music but I remember one of my supervisors saying it wasn't particularly strong.

So, if faced with this, I would probably do a pilot study and look at a stable (ish) population using a control group and a treatment group. I might look at barking (perhaps using a decibel meter???) but I would also look at activity, position in cage, posture etc - perhaps even salivary cortisol. Within that stable population you might also conduct a pilot study to determine how many days it takes for the treatment to have a significant effect on the population. And that's before you start on a study in the "real world". And people wonder why it takes so long to do a PhD :D Sorry - can't remember whether your example was from a specific research project or was a hypothetical???

[mita]

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.

Not confused but impressed me. You're on top of the research implications & the extent of current literature.

A refreshing read in this thread.

I'm not suggesting you incorporate this into your study.....but similar challenges are faced re research with very young children, like babies. And that's been battled away at for yonks now, so there's piles of stuff.

And there's an emerging literature in looking at if & how dogs learn in a similar way to babies & toddlers. With sensible caution, of course.

[KismetKat]

I must be very strange as I don't see a problem with a dog not going near a stranger nor do I see a problem with a dog growling at a stranger, depending on the context. Which is not explained here.

Goodo - then you could use the test to find which "UNamicable" dogs you could use as breeding stock.

The test is not to say dogs should be "amicable", it's simply meant to be a measure.

[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).

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? ;)

Peace, KK. I wasn't getting into the amicable debate. I'm only interested in her presented reasons for collecting the data & what purpose she intends to use it for. That is, rationale & aim.

Which is why I've said I'll have to wait until her research report is published in a journal.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[Steve]

Kate Mornement gave usa presentation on the results of her questionaire regarding community attitudes toward shelter dogs.

She did a good job too .

I would have liked to see this one with a much wider collection net because Im not convinced that the results were indicative of the wider population I would have liked to have a chat with her over a cuppa to see what she felt about a couple of things. I think the results would change pretty radically depending on the group you were surveying so in order to get a clear view you would need to catch all groups and I dont think this one did that. Not that I think Kate could have anticipated that but it did seem that most of the respondents were already pretty primed toward shelter dogs.If there's any follow up studies to do we would be happy to help spread the word and perhaps bring in a more diverse group of respondents and allow a bigger sample.

I have to say that it makes no sense to me that people sook about their dogs escaping like as if its the dog's fault.

[Aidan]

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.

I don't know why you bring this up, and it's a long way off topic at this point, but what if I'd extended the period to 5 days? In one study (in shelters) it was discovered that Classical Music played for 1 hour per day for 5 days resulted in reduced stress in the animals. Handy to know, and at least one study has actually measured it.

As for "new animals every day", if you run the experiment for long enough (to get a large enough sample size) you're going to end up with a population that forms a bell curve even if you get new animals every day, or every minute. Does that ring a bell? (Pardon the pun!) I was coming up with an example, not a research project submission.

The point was that if we want to find stuff out we have to have some way of measuring the relevant data (and qualifying that it is, indeed, relevant data).

[Aidan]

Sorry - can't remember whether your example was from a specific research project or was a hypothetical???

Hypothetical. I was trying to suggest an example of something in domestic canine behaviour that could be measured as opposed to something that was subjective. Barking in a vet clinic can be measured. Let's just leave it at that.

[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.

[Rebanne]

I must be very strange as I don't see a problem with a dog not going near a stranger nor do I see a problem with a dog growling at a stranger, depending on the context. Which is not explained here.

Goodo - then you could use the test to find which "UNamicable" dogs you could use as breeding stock.

The test is not to say dogs should be "amicable", it's simply meant to be a measure.

how can I use it as a test when the context has not been given? What was the test, where was it conducted, what did the stranger do if anything, etc.

[The Spotted Devil]

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 :p ). 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 I hope I haven't confused the issue further.

Not confused but impressed me. You're on top of the research implications & the extent of current literature.

A refreshing read in this thread.

I'm not suggesting you incorporate this into your study.....but similar challenges are faced re research with very young children, like babies. And that's been battled away at for yonks now, so there's piles of stuff.

And there's an emerging literature in looking at if & how dogs learn in a similar way to babies & toddlers. With sensible caution, of course.

Thanks Mita ;) I'm glad I made sense!

In terms of measuring - you are correct with regard to the advances made with babies/children - I did a couple of elective Psych subjects in my undergraduate degree to balance out the heavy science slant of the rest of my studies. I am fortunate that the basis of the work I am doing has been demonstrated in other (production) species so I do have some sort of framework to hang my research on. But of course the research environments are worlds apart so there are one or two hurdles to iron out. As you say, with sensible caution!

[Rebanne]

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.

I don't know why you bring this up, and it's a long way off topic at this point, but what if I'd extended the period to 5 days? In one study (in shelters) it was discovered that Classical Music played for 1 hour per day for 5 days resulted in reduced stress in the animals. Handy to know, and at least one study has actually measured it.

because you bought it up first re dogs at vets.

[BJean]

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 Spotted Devil]

I must be very strange as I don't see a problem with a dog not going near a stranger nor do I see a problem with a dog growling at a stranger, depending on the context. Which is not explained here.

Goodo - then you could use the test to find which "UNamicable" dogs you could use as breeding stock.

The test is not to say dogs should be "amicable", it's simply meant to be a measure.

how can I use it as a test when the context has not been given? What was the test, where was it conducted, what did the stranger do if anything, etc.

From memory - the handler and the "stranger" were under recorded instructions to ensure it was the same for everyone. The dog was first on lead with the handler, then off lead with the handler, then off lead with the owner absent. The stranger either ignored the dog OR called the dog over OR tried to pat the dog - not sure if it was all 3 in all 3 situations. I will be heading down with Zig at some point - reckon I can predict his behaviour too - hope Tammie has some Urine-Off

[deerhound owner]

Several video examples of the test were given at the seminar so I suggest you watch the fotage when it becomes available. In essence I believe it was a standardised room in which a stranger was sitting in a chair at one end and the owners walked in with their dog in lead and stood infront of another chair at the other end of the room making sure not to interact with their dogs. The dogs reaction to the stranger approaching, calling it's name and if not hostile, attempting to interact with the dog were all recorded from several angles. the second part involved the stranger back on his chair and the owner leaving the dog in the room. Again reaction to the stranger when the dog was called was recorded and the reaction of the dog to interaction with the stranger if it entered a set distance around the strangers chair. Interaction involved running the hand under the chin, along the back and down one hind leg.

[KismetKat]

I would have liked to see this one with a much wider collection net because Im not convinced that the results were indicative of the wider population .

Yes, this was a shame. But a survey sample that turns out to be 98% women, average age around 50, and 30% with experience working with shelters...

I wonder how the regression analysis thingy will go.

[BJean]

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.

what makes a dog 'guard'?

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.

No

it doesn't because although it reads like a simple common sense answer

it fails to take into the why

of what motivates a dog to behave in the way it does.

imo both of the above scenarios would fail miserably

and this is what happens under the presumtion that component factors are irrelevant to the aggregate.

Edited February 12, 2010 by lilli