HOW DOES TEMPERAMENT AND BREED - Murdoch University...Ten of the main dog breeds within Australia classed as the top ten most popular Australian dog breeds and the top ten most intelligent

HOW DOES TEMPERAMENT AND BREED

INFLUENCE LEARNED AVERSION TRAINING

IN DOMESTIC DOGS?

Robyn Louise Taylor

Murdoch University

School of Veterinary and Life Sciences

Bachelor of Science Honours in Conservation and Wildlife Biology

Western Australia

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Honours of Conservation and Wildlife

Biology

December 2017

How does Temperament and Breed Influence Learned aversion Training in Domestic

Dogs? Robyn Louise Taylor October 2017 Murdoch University

2

Wo

rd T

emp

late

by

Fri

edm

an &

Mo

rgan

20

14

i

Wo

rd T

emp

late

by

Fri

edm

an &

Mo

rgan

20

14

Thank you to my supervisors, Tracey Kreplins and Trish Fleming from the school of

Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University.

Thank you to my family and friends for their constant support and encouragement while

I pursued this part of my life and career.

To Damon van der Linde, thank you for volunteering to be my assistant during the

course of my dog training, and for keeping me company on the long drives.

ii

Wo

rd T

emp

late

by

Fri

edm

an &

Mo

rgan

20

14

“It was the tea, the morning jogs, my family and my art that kept my mind focussed and

calm on the task at hand.” Robyn Taylor.

iii

Wo

rd T

emp

late

by

Fri

edm

an &

Mo

rgan

20

14

Declaration

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing, which is the outcome of

work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. It has not been

previously submitted, in part or whole, to any university of institution for any degree, diploma,

or other qualification.

In accordance with the School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, this thesis is does not exceed

25,000 words, and it contains less than 20 figures.

Signed:______________ ____________________________

Date:_________________________________________________________________

Robyn Louise Taylor Bachelor of Science Honours Student

Murdoch University

3rd

October 2017

Temperament and breed influences on learned aversion in domestic dogs

4 Robyn Taylor - December 2017

Summary / Abstract

Accidental poisoning of domestic dogs is an unfortunate occurrence when using poison baits to

control introduced pests such as feral cats, red foxes, and wild dogs. This study aimed to

investigate how dog breed (i.e., toy, terrier, sporting, domestic working and working dogs) and

temperament influence aversion methods. Using non-poisonous baits and a device which emits

a small electrical correction, domestic dogs were trained to avoid commercially-available non-

toxic FoxOff® baits. Fifty-six dogs were recruited through online media services (e.g.,

Facebook). Each dog underwent four sessions of ‘one-on-one’ learned aversion training, spread

across 6 weeks where individual dogs were subjected to a small electrical correction after

having touched a non-toxic bait that has been attached to the training device and earthing rod

(this created an electrical charged bait). Each dog’s behaviour, temperament and level of

trainability were monitored during each session, based on temperament and behavioural test

guidelines and procedures. Dog breeds were categorised based on their level of trainability; easy

(i.e., only one to two training sessions and one to two repetitions of electrified baits during those

sessions were required), moderate (i.e., only two to three training sessions and two to three

repetitions of electrified baits during those training sessions were required), and difficult (i.e.,

all four training sessions and three repetitions of electrified baits during those four training

sessions were required). The results indicated that 50 dogs were successfully trained to avoid

the bait and that temperament and breed significantly influenced their level of trainability.

Moreover, specific temperaments of obedience, excitability, playfulness and boldness were

significantly related to each of the dog breeds respectively. Terriers were classified as having a

difficult level of trainability; sporting and domestic working dogs displayed a moderate level of

trainability, and working and toy dogs presented with easy levels of trainability based on their

behavioural responses during the four training sessions. Furthermore, the temperament traits

boldness (negatively correlated with trainability), fearfulness and anxiousness (positively

correlated with trainability) significantly influenced dog trainability. This study demonstrated

that learned aversion training with domestic and working dogs of different breeds and


Robyn Taylor – October December 2017 5

temperaments has future potential in relation to the development and implementation of

practices involving learned aversion training methods for dogs.

Contents

Summary / Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 4

Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 5

List of tables ................................................................................................................................... 6

List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 7

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 8

General Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9

Aims ..............................................................................................................................................11

Review of existing literature ........................................................................................................ 12

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 27

Authors ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Affiliations ................................................................................................................................... 28

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 28

Keywords ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 29

Materials and methods ................................................................................................................. 33

Results .......................................................................................................................................... 48

Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 58

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 66

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 68

Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 69

Appendix 1: Training device information and set up .............................................. 69

Appendix 2: Temperament Categories derived from C-BARQ and Temperament

test ........................................................................................................................... 72

Appendix 3: Learned aversion Trainin Certificate ................................................. 80

Appendix 4: Table of breed group percentages ...................................................... 82

References .................................................................................................................................... 87



List of tables

Table 1. Ten of the main dog breeds within Australia classed as the top ten most popular

Australian dog breeds and the top ten most intelligent Australian dogs, (adapted from;

("Most popular dog breeds," 2003; "Popular breeds of 2011," 2012) . ............................. 14

Table 2. Australian dog breeds and in relation to their temperament types and trainability levels,

(adapted from; (Turcsán, Kubinyi, & Miklósi, 2011). ...................................................... 14

Table 1. Dogs participant classifications Gregory, 2011), (modified by Robyn Taylor, 2017). . 34

Table 2. Trainability levels based off bait inspectional behaviour and bait activity. .................. 37

Table 3. Dog behavioural cue measurements. ............................................................................. 38

Table 4. Methodology key for data collected and analysed for the C-BARQ and Temperament

tests .................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 5. Univariate Tests of Significance between trainability (bait activity) and temperament

traits). ................................................................................................................................. 57

Table 6. Dog Stranger Aggression levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a

Likert Scale, adapted from; (Vas et al., 2005). .................................................................. 74

Table 7. Dog Fear and Anxiety levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a Likert

Scale, adapted from; (Beerda et al., 1998). ....................................................................... 76

Table 8. Dog bold levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a Likert Scale,

adapted from;(Beerda et al., 1998). ................................................................................... 78

Table 9. Dog playfulness levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a Likert Scale,

adapted from; (Beerda et al., 1998). .................................................................................. 79

Table 10. Table comparing the first and last training session of breed group percentages ......... 82



List of figures

Figure 1. Body postures of the dog, adapted from Gregory (2011). ........................................... 18

Figure 1. Annual Impact of Pest Species in order of cost, (McLeod et al., 2004) ...................... 30

Figure 2. Flow chart illustrating the testing and training programs ............................................ 39

Figure 3. Non-metric MDS Temperament plots ......................................................................... 50

Figure 4. MDS Non-metric Multivariate graph showing domestic dog a). Trainability and b).

Behaviour scores. ............................................................................................................... 54

Figure 5. Scatter plots showing the percentages of a). time (in minutes) and b). distance (in

meters) that each dog breed group spent with the baits (bait inspectional behaviour)

within their first and last learned aversion training session. Column graphs showing

percentages of behaviour and learned aversion types. ....................................................... 54

Figure 6. Generalised linear repeated measures model showing a). Bait activity (bait touches

and contact with bait), and b). Bait inspectional behaviour (distance and time spent with

bait). ................................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 7. Generalised linear repeated measures model showing how the five domestic dog

breed group's changed in a). Body positioning and b). Behaviour across their four training

sessions. ............................................................................................................................. 56

Figure 8. Self- training device. (a) The unit itself, (b) the self-training device including the

energizer, cords, earthing rod and non-toxic version of the FoxOff Bait and, (Kreplins et

al., Draft). ........................................................................................................................... 70

Figure 9. The set-up of the training device, bait and wires, (images by Robyn Taylor, 2017). .. 71

Figure 10. Learned aversion training certificate for dog owners, (designed by Robyn Taylor,

2017). ................................................................................................................................. 81



Glossary

Aversion training: Aversion training is a form of conditioning where the subject is trained to

respond or behave in a certain manner due to an unpleasant stimulus (i.e., a small correction)

which leads to discomfort towards or avoidance of a particular object (Peckmezian & Taylor,

2015).

Inequity aversion: Inequity aversion is a form of conditioning where the subject is tested to

investigate whether they respond to fairness and equality in rewards or prefer incidental rewards

with the potential to receive an over or under reward (Horowitz, 2012).

Personality: Personality is defined as the inherited, early developing inclinations that expand

throughout the life of a subject and has often been considered as the foundation base for

temperament development within that subject (Jones & Gosling, 2005).

Animal Temperament: Temperament is defined as a constructed model that is used to describe

and measure the premise that animals have individual differences within a species. Individual

animals tend to differ in regard to their thoughts, feelings and behaviour (Ley & Benett, 2007).

Operant conditioning techniques: Operant conditioning techniques are a form of learning

where the behaviour of a subject is controlled by consequences (McKinley & Young, 2003).

The key concepts of this method involves positive and negative reinforcement as well as

positive and negative punishment (McKinley & Young, 2003).

Standardised tests: A test which allows researchers and investigators to compare the

differences and similarities within and between individual participants in relation to their

performance in the trials (Diederich & Giffroy, 2005).

1080: Sodium fluoroacetate is an odourless, tasteless and colourless compound that is found

within many native Australian flora (Government of Western Australia, 2017; Twigg et al.,

2000). 1080, a synthetic version of the poison found within those plant species, is used as a

poison to aid in the management and control of pest vertebrate species (such as Felis catus, Sus

scrofa, Canis familiars, Vulpes vulpes and Oryctologus cuniculus) in Australia (Government of

Western Australia, 2017; Twigg et al., 2000).



General Introduction

1080 poison baiting (sodium monofluoroacetate) occurs throughout Western Australia (WA) to

reduce the number of invasive predators for the conservation of native species and livestock

protection (Allen, 2015; Saunders, Coman, Kinnear, & Braysher, 1995). Beside Australia, a few

other countries have been known to use 1080 within their vertebrate pest poisoning programs,

including New Zealand, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Israel and a number non-restricted areas within

the United States (Government of Western Australia, 2016 ). Other countries have not approved

of the use of 1080 in their pest management programs due to concerns regarding the potential

poisoning of non-targeted species (Government of Western Australia, 2016 ).

Native species in Western Australia have a high level of tolerance to 1080, however introduced

vertebrate pest species, including feral cats, red foxes, wild and domestic dogs, are susceptible

to the poison (Twigg et al., 2000). The success and effectiveness of programs involved with the

deployment of 1080 baits to control and manage vertebrate pest species is influenced by the

ingestion of the baits by non-targeted species such as domestic dogs (Glen, Gentle, & Dickman,

2007). Domestic dogs located near baited areas tend to be at risk of first and secondary degree

poisoning, either from consuming the poisoned bait directly or ingesting the carcass of another

animal that had previously consumed the bait (Meenken & Booth, 2010). It is prohibited for

dogs to enter baited conservation areas , however, there are occasions when domestic dogs (i.e.,

conservation dogs) need to enter baited areas and are at risk of accidental poisoning (Kreplins et

al., Draft).

Accidental consumption of poison baits within the Western Australian region is the most

common cause of domestic dogs being poisoned (Goh, Hodgson, Fearnside, Heller, &

Malikides, 2005).The accidental consumptions of poisoned baits by domestic dogs is possibly

as a result of the appetising way the 1080 poison baits are designed (i.e., often sausage style

baits high in fat) to entice invasive pests to consume the baits (Glen et al., 2007). Household



pets such as domestic dogs are likely to be attracted to the bait as well (Glen et al., 2007). Even

when the poison baits might be inaccessible to dogs, other animals may move and drop the bait

in areas where domestic dogs are located, thus providing dogs access to the bait (Glen et al.,

2007). As a result, unfortunate occurrences of accidental domestic dog poisoning occurs in a

range of locations (Glen et al., 2007).

It is not only 1080 poison baits causing poisoning in domestic dogs; many other forms of baits

for rodents and invertebrates are toxic to dogs as well. An analysis of enquiries and research

into the Australian Veterinary Poisons Information Services (AVPIS), indicated that between

the years of 1985 and 2010, there had been one case where 772 dogs had been treated after

being poisoned by metaldehyde slug bait. Additionally, Bromadiolone (an anticoagulant

rodenticide) was involved with 288 cases of dogs suffering accidental poisoning (Bates, Sutton,

& Campbell, 2012; Services, 2015). Of these dogs, it was recorded that 25 dogs died and 28 had

to be euthanised due to the accidental poisoning (Bates et al., 2012; Veterinary Poisons

Information Services, 2015).

This study could be beneficial to reduce the fatalities of domestic dogs within Western Australia

(WA) from bait toxicity and accidental poisoning which can occur due to a variety of poisons

and toxic substances; such as (Ewing, 2006):

1. Poisoning from human medications: Dogs are attracted to the sweet, candy- like taste of

the top coated layer covering most tablets taken by humans, e.g., birth control and anti-

depressant medications.

2. Rodent and snail baits: Metaldehyde is a main ingredient found in rodenticide as well as

slug and snail bait. The poison directly affects a dog’s nervous system, often leading to

the dog becoming extremely ill or dying. There is an additional risk of secondary

poisoning to domestic dogs due to the consumption of a rodent or slug that has already

ingested the poison.



3. Chocolate: The most frequently treated poison ingested by domestic dogs; chocolate

tends to cause severe thirst, diarrhoea, shaking and seizures in dogs following the

consumption of the substance. Dark chocolate has been classified as the most toxic form

of chocolate due to the percentage of Theobromine, often causing extreme fatalities

within the domestic dog population.

4. Insecticides: Dogs can often be exposed to toxic chemicals such as insecticides used on

agricultural lands, community lawns as well as household gardens, often leading to

vomiting, fevers, anxiety, and depression and muscle tremors.

Examination of veterinary records and previous research has shown that domestic dogs are

prone to accidental poisoning. Particularly, conservation working dogs who have a specific

purpose of working within baited areas (i.e., feral pig detection). In theory, the introduction of

learned aversion training to both domestic and working dog populations would be useful in

lowering the likelihood of dogs being accidentally poisoned.

Aims

The aim of this thesis is to investigate, how learned aversion methods are influenced by breed

and temperament of dogs. This project involved:

1. Quantification of individual domestic dog’s temperament.

2. Identifying individual dog responses to the 1080 aversion training.

This project investigated the hypothesis that the learned aversion method is more effective for

particular dog breeds and temperament types. It is likely that certain dog breeds possess certain

temperaments which will influence the dog’s trainability and behaviour towards the learned

aversion. If dogs are trained to avoid poison baits, land owners may be able to increase their

bait deployment, thereby reducing invasive predators and enabling successful long-term

conservation and livestock production outcomes.



Review of existing literature

Many different techniques are utilised to train domestic and working dogs. Learned aversion is

an important training method to ensure that aversion to baits in the absence of the dog’s owner

occurs. Previous studies relating to training method and animal temperament measures were

reviewed to determine how different domestic dog breeds and temperaments influence the

outcome of domestic dog training.

Domestic dog training

The domestic dog (Canis lupus) is considered to be the oldest form of a domesticated animal

(Maejima et al., 2006). This domestication occurred more than 14,000 years ago, since then

dogs have served mankind for the purposes of hunting, military and guard use, companionship

(i.e., pets) and even as source of food (Maejima et al., 2006). Today, domestic dogs play

significant roles within modern society, such as guide dogs, drug detection dogs and rescue

dogs (Maejima et al., 2006).

Dog training occurs in many forms; negative reinforcement and learned aversion training are

only two of the many training techniques employed. Domestic dogs are typically trained

through operant conditioning techniques where they are taught to respond with a desired

behaviour, reinforced via a reward or punishment system, (i.e., positive reinforcement and

negative reinforcement) (Deldalle & Gaunet, 2014; Maejima et al., 2006; Ziv, 2017). McKinley

and Young, (2003) considered the use of negative reinforcement (i.e. electrical aversive

measures) to be an effective form of dog training, as the technique enabled dog breeds to

perform better in obedience related training programs. Conversely, Ziv, (2017) argued that the

use of electrical aversive measures were associated with increased levels of aggressive

behaviours within dog breeds subjected to the technique. Ziv, (2017) continued to contend that

there was little evidence to suggest the use of electrical aversive methods were more effective



than positive reinforced training techniques, reporting that dogs subjected to negatively

reinforced techniques using electrical aversive methods associated the shocks with the owner’s

presence rather than the stimulus which they were being training to avoid (Ziv, 2017). There

were major concerns expressed regarding the welfare of the dogs being trained using this

method, especially in relation causing chronic stress onto those dogs involved (Ziv, 2017). It

was recommended that positively reinforced and reward based training methods should be used

in place of negative and/or electrical aversive training techniques to facilitate the dogs’ welfare

(Ziv, 2017). Nonetheless, there are cases where positively reinforced and reward based training

techniques would not provide the preferred response from dogs, for example, pig detection dogs

would not be able to learn to avoid poisoned baits if they were trained through a reward system

(Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015). It is be recommended that pig detection dogs should be trained

utilising negatively reinforced or learned aversion methods, given their work requires them to

work independent of their owners when they detect feral pigs in bushland (Deldalle & Gaunet,

2014; Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015; Range, Horn, Virany, & Huber, 2008). If pig detection dogs

were trained via a reward system method, they would become susceptible to poisoned baits once

they entered a baited area, as they would be reliant on the presence of their owner as well as a

command to leave the baits, which once obeyed they would expect a reward or a treat for

compliance (Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015). It is impractical for a pig detection dogs’ owner to

follow their dogs into a baited area, negatively reinforced and learned aversion methods are

considered to be more appropriate (Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015). The overall purpose of dog

training programs, whether it is conditioned training, reinforced training, or learned aversion

training, is to receive a desired response from the dog which is dependent on the owner’s

preferences.

It is likely that temperament and breed will affect the trainability of a domestic dog. A variety of

studies involving dog temperament traits and its influences on trainability, has suggested that a

dog’s level of submission and willingness to obey their owner’s commands impacts a dog’s

level of trainability (i.e., dogs who were found to be submissive and obedient to their owners



were considered to be highly trainable) (Serpell & Hsu, 2005). These temperament traits were

identified as crucial to the successful training of dog breeds, as well as maintaining their health

status and relationship with their owners (Serpell & Hsu, 2005). Studies have shown that canine

breeds have characteristic temperaments, making certain breeds more trainable than others

(Vandeloo, 2009).

Main domestic dog breed types

In Australia, in excess of 3.4 million dogs are kept as companion animals; these include a range

of breeds with varying temperament types and trainability levels. Refer to Table 1 ("Most

popular dog breeds," 2003; "Popular breeds of 2011," 2012) and Table 2 (Turcsán, Kubinyi, &

Miklósi, 2011

Table 1. Ten of the main dog breeds within Australia classed as the top ten most popular Australian dog breeds and the top ten most intelligent Australian dogs, (adapted from; ("Most popular dog breeds," 2003; "Popular breeds of 2011," 2012) .

Top 10 most popular Australian dog breeds (main breed types in descending order).

Top 10 most intelligent Australian dog breeds in descending order.

1). Staffordshire bull Terrier 1). Border collie 2). Labrador retriever 2). Poodle 3). German shepherd 3). German shepherd

4). Cavalier King Charles spaniel 4). Golden retriever 5). Golden retriever 5). Doberman pincher

6). Border collie 6). Shetland sheepdog 7). American Staffordshire Terrier 7). Labrador retriever

8). Poodle 8). Papillion 9). Pug 9). Rottweiler

10). Rottweiler 10). Australian cattle dog

Table 2. Australian dog breeds and in relation to their temperament types and trainability levels, (adapted from; (Turcsán, Kubinyi, & Miklósi, 2011).

Breed Type Temperament Type

Trainability Level

Cocker Spaniel, Terrier, Beagle, Collie, Bulldog, Golden Retriever, Mountain dog, Pointer, Pug, Labrador Retriever, Sheepdog, Shih

Tzu, Husky, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, Australian Shepherd, Mountain Hound, Cocker Spaniel, Poodle, Rottweiler, Border

Collie, Boxer, Great Dane, Mountain Dog, Doberman, Dalmatian, Dachshund and Jack Russell Terrier.

Calm, sociable and bold.

Highly Trainable.

Miniature Dachshund, Miniature Poodle, Ridgeback, Shepherd, and Hound.

Aggressive, not very social and

anxious.

Highly Trainable

Bull Terrier, Maltese, German Spitz, Chihuahua and Yorkshire Terrier.

Aggressive, antisocial and

timid.

Low level of trainability.



Malamute, Shepherd dog, English Setter and Irish Wolfhound. Calm, not very social and anxious.

Low level of trainability.

For decades, dogs have been bred for purposes such as hunting or herding and have been

influenced by human preferences for particular physical and mental characteristics (Ley &

Benett, 2007). This resulted in over 400 dog breeds that are recognised in the world today (Ley

& Benett, 2007). Through the breeding of domestic dogs, several species have undergone a

series of changes in relation to their behaviour as a result of human preferences (Hart, 1995).

For example, certain domestic dog breeds were initially selected and bred for the purpose of

hunting and trained to elicit desired behavioural responses conducive to proficiency in hunting,

e.g., obedience, trap target species but not injure it (Hart, 1995). Another group of domestic

working dog breeds, were selected and bred on the basis of their ability to perform complex

tasks such as herding sheep or cattle (e.g., Kelpie), whilst other domestic dog breeds have been

selectively bred based on their behaviour towards protecting livestock from predation (e.g., the

Mareema sheep dog); (Hart, 1995). These examples of breeds with a specific function have led

to the characterisation of the domestic dog breeds within current our society that originated from

the enhancement of their “native” behaviour rather than the development of a new behavioural

characteristic from within breed types (Hart, 1995). Conversely, there have been dog breeds

considered to function as working dogs which have previously had their hunting drives and

instincts suppressed due to the selection of preferred behavioural features through historical

human domestication (Trut, Plyusnina, & Oskina, 2004). Trut et al., (2004) have demonstrated

that when selective pressures are directed onto preferred behavioural traits in dogs,

domestication occurs. Therefore, selection pressures placed on dog breeds act as the key to the

transformation and domestication of preferred behavioural traits and temperaments within breed

groups.

The main areas of research regarding dog breeds involve the temperament traits of each breed as

well as their trainability levels (Hart, 1995). Environmental factors, genetics and owner



behaviour also influence trainability levels and temperament traits (Hart, 1995). For example,

Hart (1995) found that of six domestic dog breeds tested, Cocker Spaniels followed by Beagles

were the easiest breed to be trained, due their obedience and submission to their owners.

Additionally, this study showed noticeable differences between dog breeds and their

temperament traits towards a series of behaviour and trainability tests (Hart, 1995). Additional

research indicated that working dog breeds such as Border Collies have an easy trainability

factor which was attributed to their high obedience levels towards their owners, as well as

characteristics e.g.,bite and grip, prey drive, tracking and retrieving instincts as a result of

selective breeding programs that enhanced the breed’s suitable for pest management programs

within WA (i.e., pig detection dogs); (Vandeloo, 2009). In relation to trainability and

temperament, obedience and submission were considered to be favourable temperament traits

required of a dog in order to be considered highly trainable (Hart, 1995; Vandeloo, 2009) .

Temperament in animals

Animal temperament is defined as the consistent individual differences in behaviour, a

definition that has been well established in the study of dogs (Fratkin, Sinn, Patall, & Gosling,

2013). Temperament not only differs between dog breeds, but it also differs between individual

dogs (Ley & Benett, 2007). King, Marston and Bennett (2012) verified that common

temperament traits are found in dogs within the same breed group, and that the expressions of

those temperament traits differ between individuals. Temperament is acknowledged as inherited

inclinations that develops throughout the life of an individual dog, and with the addition of

experiences and selective breeding programs, distinct characteristics within breed groups have

been produced (Jones & Gosling, 2005; King, Marston, & Bennett, 2012). This is significant as

it indicates that dog temperament can be derived and observed from their behavioural responses

towards certain stimuli and situations (King et al., 2012). In turn, this significant outcome can

aid in the identification of a dog’s primary temperament trait as well as their possible reaction to

certain situations and stimuli. This would enable the creation of temperament and behavioural



criteria from which dog breeds can be selected for particular purposes, such as working and

guide dogs (King et al., 2012).

Results from studies on canine temperament are reliant on the individual dogs studied. A

comprehensive review of Ley and Benett’s (2007) study of canine temperament identified a gap

in the literature due to the lack of diversity in the types of dog breeds that were initially utilised

and studied in this research. Serpell & Hsu (2005) identified a distinct ‘trainability’ factor,

which was characterised by the willingness of the dog to respond to its owner’s commands

(referred to as obedience). The authors demonstrated that subsequent selection of desirable

temperament traits such as obedience for more specialised working skills, could have possibly

emphasised the trainability factor in many breeds used today (as working and social dogs) when

compared to other breeds (Serpell & Hsu, 2005). Marshall-Pescini et al., (2016) examined the

effects of differences in trainability levels and breed groups on problem solving behaviours in

dogs, and suggested that an important factor affecting a domestic dog’s temperament and social

cognitive abilities was their individual life and training experiences. A major limitation of

studies involving canine temperament appeared to be the lack of use of standardised testing

measures, which resulted in inconsistencies within the dog breeds studied, (Marshall-Pescini,

Frazzi, & Valecchi, 2016). The use of standardised measures would allow for direct comparison

across similar studies in terms of the effect of training and breed group on problem solving

behaviours in dogs (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2016).

Measurement of temperament in dogs

Temperament in domestic dogs has been measured through tests designed to primarily assess

predictable and useful tendencies characteristic of companion and working dogs (Taylor &

Mills, 2006). These tests can be used to select dogs suitable for particular roles, such as rescue

dogs (Svartberg & Forkman, 2002; Taylor & Mills, 2006). Behavioural tests are used in order to

identify traits that influence canine temperament (Taylor & Mills, 2006). For example, a dog’s

reaction to strangers by either ‘fleeing’ from prey-like objects or from a variety of fear and



aggression inducing stimuli (Svartberg & Forkman, 2002). Svartberg & Forkman (2002) used a

standardised test on 164 dog breeds in which dogs were exposed to several scenarios, including

being introduced to strangers; play tests and a variety of aggression and fear inducing tests.

Factor analyses revealed five broad and narrow temperament traits found within dogs towards a

variety of fear and aggression inducing stimuli, these traits included playfulness, curiosity,

fearlessness, chase-proness, sociability and aggression (Svartberg & Forkman, 2002).

Figure 1. Body postures of the dog. (A, B) Neutral to alert attentive positions; (C) play bow; (D, E) active and passive submissive greeting-note tail wag and shift in ear position and in distribution of weight on fore and hind limbs; (F,G,H) gradual shift from aggressive display to ambivalent fear-defensive aggressive posture; (I) passive submission; and (J) rolling over and presentation of inguinal-genital region, adapted from Gregory (2011).

Generally, dogs tend to communicate their behaviour and temperament through a set of visual

and audio cues as well as olfactory signals (Gregory, 2011). The positioning of the tail, ears and

overall body stance of the dog tends to be an indicator of the dog’s behaviour, attention and

temperament (Gregory, 2011). Consequently, thorough observation of the behaviour and body



positioning of individual dogs it is possible to determine a temperament for that individual

(Gregory, 2011).

Standardised methods were relied on to examine temperament traits and level of trainability in

relation to specific breeds, especially those that have a working purpose (i.e. guide dogs; Hart,

1995). Hart (1995) suggested that specific temperament traits (i.e., high obedience and

submissive behaviour towards the dogs’ owners) were related to working dog breeds and their

high trainability levels. However, the data collected from this study was limited by the use of

only one standardised testing method (Hart, 1995). Conversely, a study involving guide dogs

completed a set of assessments on juvenile dogs that focussed on their behavioural suitability

for future roles as working and guide dogs (Craigon et al., 2017). The findings highlighted that

high trainability levels within dogs who have a working purpose was attributed to their

obedience, low aggression, fearfulness, low stress levels and low energy levels..

Given that standardised methods and temperament surveys have been used to measure domestic

dog temperaments, it was considered more appropriate to approach temperament measures with

additional quantitative methods in order to improve the accuracy of the data collected and

analysed by Hart (1995). As a result, Hart (1995) contested whether the scientific field would

lose some, if not all, of its productivity if researchers were restricted to using only one form of

standardised methodology when identifying temperament and trainability differences amongst

domestic dog breeds. In turn, this limitation could potentially reduce the knowledge gained

through studies regarding dog training and temperament behaviour (Diederich & Giffroy, 2005).

The advantages of using combined standardised and quantitative methodology tests in the

investigation of domestic dog behaviour, temperament and trainability within breeds include

time efficiency, results that are easy to interpret and discuss, and highlighted parameters that

could affect the data outcome (such as neuter and sex status) (Diederich & Giffroy, 2005).



In relation to the effects of dog breed on trainability levels, Marshall-Pescini et al., (2016)

demonstrated that there were significant differences in problem solving skills and behaviours

amongst 128 dogs belonging to four breeds. The outcome of the study showed that dogs that

possessed high levels of trainability were able to overcome the problem solving tasks at a faster

rate than dogs that had a low trainability level (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2016). These results

showed significant differences in trainability amongst breed groups and suggested that high

trainability levels were strongly influenced by the individuals previous training experiences and

temperament (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2016).

Studies on dog training and temperament traits established that domestic dog temperaments and

trainability can be measured and tested through a series of dog owner questionnaires, reports

and personal accounts (Ley & Benett, 2007; Serpell, 2017). Fratkin et al., (2013) demonstrated

that, through the use of those dog owner questionnaires, such as the Canine Behavioural

Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ), a predictability and consistency in the

behaviour and temperament of dog breeds could be identified. This implied that the owner’s

perspective of certain dog breeds played a crucial role in human-canine relationships (Fratkin et

al., 2013). This enabled breeders to select specific dog breeds that possess certain temperaments

and trainability levels suitable for a specific purpose (i.e., working dogs). However, those

studies were limited due the lack of diversity of dog breeds (i.e. not all existing dog breeds

were included within the studies; Serpell, 2017).

Temperament characteristics of different dog breeds

Tonoike et al., (2015) compared owner-reported behavioural characteristics amongst a variety

of Australian dog breeds using the C-BARQ, a standardised survey tool that was designed to

measure a variety of domestic dog behaviour and temperament (Serpell & Hsu, 2005). The

questionnaire consists of a 101 questions which addresses different response behaviours of

domestic dogs to certain situations and events (C-BARQ); (Serpell & Hsu, 2005). The survey

takes seven factors into consideration; gender, age, state, neuter status, body weight, owners



dog-ownership experience, and source where the dog was acquired, to identify characteristics

associated with genetically-clustered breed groups. For example, Tonoike et al (2015) found

that there are five identified characteristics of temperament in dogs. These included (Radcliff,

2016; Tonoike, Nagasawa, Mogi, Serpell, & Ohtsuki, 2015):

temperament is a function of the dog’s neurological design;

temperament is inherited and is determined at moment of conception;

a dog’s temperament cannot be transformed or eliminated from one type to another.

Therefore, a dog’s temperament cannot be changed in its lifetime, it is a permanent

mental characteristic of that dog;

it is possible for there to be an overlap of different temperament characteristics within

the same dog, i.e., they could be aggressive and submissive at the same time; and,

the addition of training, socialisation and changed environmental conditions can modify

the expression of a dog’s temperament.

Temperament in dogs has been classified into two broad categories; sound and unsound

temperament. Sound temperament is used to describe a dog that has shown confidence and self-

assertiveness towards a stimulus. The dog would be certain of itself and would investigate any

new situations or stimuli confidently. Working dogs are good examples of sound temperament,

given they recover and learn quickly when startled or frightened by stimuli, often negatively

reinforced stimuli. Unsound temperament is used to describe dogs that display frightened,

submissive and anxious behaviour. Those dogs do not have the ability to adapt easily to stimuli,

often negative reinforcement, within their environments without becoming overly aggressive

(for example terriers) or submissive and extremely frightened (for example toy dogs) (Radcliff,

2016).

Prior to Radcliff’s (2016) research, Svartberg and Forkman (2002) demonstrated that

temperament traits such as aggression, fearfulness, playfulness and curiosity varied amongst



dog breeds. Dogs lacking in confidence (i.e., dogs with unsound temperament) often showed

signs of fearfulness and anxiety once faced with fear invoking or negative stimuli. Whereas,

confident dogs (i.e., dogs with sound temperament) showed signs of curiosity and fearlessness

towards fear invoking or negative stimuli, suggesting these dogs have a high level of trainability

due to their rapid recovery and behavioural responses. Svartberg and Forkman (2002),

demonstrated that it is possible, as well as practical, to predict temperament and behavioural

traits within dog breeds, both to identify dogs that could be selected for a specific purpose (i.e.,

working dogs and pig detection dogs), as well as to minimise any behavioural concerns such as

excessive aggression within dog breeds. However, the data collection was perceived to be bias,

as dogs were selectively chosen to participate in the study, rather than randomly selected. This

limited the variety of breeds that were investigated.

Effect of temperament and/or breed on dog trainability

Dog breeds have been influenced through controlled breeding programs (Gregory, 2011;

Helton, 2010), often selecting traits such as trainability, working intelligence, and problem-

solving skills. Dog breeds have previously been ranked in order of working obedience from

high to low, where working and toy dogs have been shown to be the most obedient towards

their owners when compared to other dog breeds (Helton, 2010). Differences amongst dog

breeds is attributed to their underlying trainability as well as their physical capabilities such as

agility (Helton, 2010). Temperament has often been characterised by the dogs’ trainability

evidenced by their compliance to commands, low level of fearfulness towards their owners,

other dogs as well as non-social objects and events (Starling, Branson, Thomson, & McGreevy,

2013).

Temperament influences the rate at which a dog is able to demonstrate changes in their level of

trainability, e.g., it might take certain breeds a longer period of time to upgrade from a low

trainability level to a moderate level and then to a high level (Batt, Batt, Baguley, & McGreevy,



2008; Starling et al., 2013). For example, dogs (such as working dogs) who are patient and

obedient tend to be focussed, enabling them to learn at a faster rate and to improve their

trainability level when compared to dogs who are easily distracted and overly excitable (Batt et

al., 2008; Starling et al., 2013). Dog breeds (such as terriers) who demonstrate boldness and

easy distractibility are difficult to train due to their loss of focus and high levels of excitement

during training sessions (Batt et al., 2008; Starling et al., 2013; Ziv, 2017).

A study by Maejima et al., (2006) on canine temperament examined whether traits and

genotypes could predict the successful training of drug detection dogs. Six temperament traits

namely; defence drive, ability to cooperate, obedience, hardiness and low to medium level of

aggression towards other dogs were the desired traits in domestic dogs during this study

(Maejima et al., 2006). Evaluation of genotypes and behavioural characteristics within 197

participating dogs were recorded in conjunct comparing the first and last training session of

breed group percentages in relation to distance from bait, time spent with bait, type of learned

aversions demonstrated, body positions and behaviour responses to bait with experiments to test

dog obedience, concentration, affection demand, aggression, anxiety and target interest

(Maejima et al., 2006). Results demonstrated that a desire for work was indicated a higher

likelihood that an individual dog would complete the training course successfully (Maejima et

al., 2006). Mean scores from the study could be used to predict the success rate of canine

training within different dog breeds as well as the training of individual dogs for a variety of

different jobs (Maejima et al., 2006).

Learned aversion training

Aversion training is a form of conditioning where the subject should respond negatively to an

unpleasant stimulus (i.e., a small electrical correction) creating a ‘learned aversion’ towards the

stimulus (Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015). The training utilises a negative stimuli that uses

electrical cues (Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015), taste cues, pre-feeding, odour cues (Baker et al.,

2007) or inequity aversion (Range et al., 2008).



Electrical learned aversion training has a number of advantages which are demonstrated in

studies done by Peckmezian and Taylor, (2015) and Kreplins et al., (Draft), where aversions

were generated in jumping spiders; and in feral pig detection dogs respectively. Both studies

demonstrated that aversions can be generated when using an electrical correction with

equipment that is easily accessible, simple to use and simple to construct. Timing during

learned aversion training is crucial in order to ensure that the aversion is related to the ‘negative’

stimuli rather than the trainer (Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015). Generally, only one exposure to the

device is required ensuring minimal stress to the dog being trained (Kreplins et al., Draft).

Conditional taste aversion (CTA) is defined as a form of classical conditioning. Conditional

taste aversion followed a form of classical conditioning utilising a sickness-inducing substance,

ingested by the subject which elicited a form of nausea); (Welzl, D'Adamo, & Lipp, 2001).

Within the study, the taste stimuli were associated with nausea resulting in avoidance of the

substance. (Welzl et al., 2001). Animals that participate within CTA studies were expected to

learn to associate a novel sensation with a negative response being the consequence (Welzl et

al., 2001). Previous studies have used this form of conditioning on rodents, such as mice and

rats (Welzl et al., 2001). For example Welzl’s (2001) study associated a novel taste with the

feeling of nausea, which caused the test subjects to avoid drinking any fluid that had that

specific flavour (Welzl et al., 2001). The aim of the experiment was to have the test subjects

learn avoidance behaviour towards the novel taste, which indicated that the established

conditioned reaction was successful and that the animal subject developed a CTA towards the

specific flavour (Welzl et al., 2001). CTA’s have quite recently been involved with Levamisole

Hydrochloride such as Cagnacci’s et al., (2004) study where meat baits were injected with

Levamisole Hydrochloride to induce learned aversion in community groups of free-living

badgers (Cagnacci, Mossei, Cowan, & Delahay, 2004). The results from their study illustrated

that the badgers developed learned aversion towards Levamisole and not to the meat bait itself

(Cagnacci et al., 2004). This, in turn, established that Levamisole could be used to induce bait-



aversion within animal communities through CTA and that learned aversion through CTA has

shown to be successful in past studies (Cagnacci et al., 2004).

Another form of aversion training in animals involves the method of pre-feeding, where species

were encouraged to move to the baiting sites through the use on non-toxic baits as a lure and to

feed on the non-toxic baits till conditioned to return to the baited area, after which those non-

toxic baits were replaced with toxic ones in order to poison the pest animals (Moss, O'Connor,

& Hickling, 1998). Such as in the study investigated by Moss et al., (1998) in which brushtail

possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) were used to identify whether there would be any effects that

may be caused from pre-feeding. The pre-feeding technique has been used as a well-known

management procedure involved in the development of aversion in animals, such as brushtail

possums (Moss et al., 1998). The results from the study revealed that the possums had learned

aversion to 1080 baits (96% of the non-pre-fed possums showed aversion towards 1080 baits

and 90% of the non-pre-fed possums showed aversion towards Brodifacoum baits), which also

indicated that the method of prefeeding was a successful technique within learned aversion

(Moss et al., 1998).

Odour cues have been used to protect agricultural land from wild animal foraging (Baker,

Johnson, Slater, Watkins, & Macdonald, 2007). The results from the study by Baker et al.,

(2007) found that the use of Ziram-clove combination induced learned aversion in wild

mammals, therefore protecting agricultural crops from damage caused by foraging (Baker et al.,

2007).

Another form of aversion training is inequity aversion training, a study done by Range et al.,

(2008) investigated whether domestic dogs showed sensitivity toward the inequity of a reward

received after following a command, e.g., to give their paw to a researcher when in pairs (Range

et al., 2008). Results of the study supported their theory that the presence of a rewarded partner



had a significant effect on the performance of the unrewarded dog, wherein the dogs would

eventually stop responding appropriately to the command issued by the researchers following

15 to 20 repeated attempts of not being rewarded (Range et al., 2008). Horowitz (2012)

investigated a similar study involving the fairness of inequity aversion training on domestic

dogs. The study focussed on the advantageous and disadvantageous inequity that was observed

amongst the dogs (Horowitz, 2012). Horowitz identified that, during the experiment, the dogs

preferred to attend to the over-awarding researcher when they were given the choice to choose

which researcher to go to (under-awarding, fair-awarding and over-awarding researchers;

(Horowitz, 2012). Both studies showed the influence of reward as well as quantity of reward

within inequity aversion training .(Horowitz, 2012; Range et al., 2008)

The studies reviewed in relation to aversion training (learned aversion, inequity, pre-feeding and

odour cue aversion) evidenced the concept of inducing learned aversion within animals, wild

mammals, rodents and domestic dogs (Baker et al., 2007; Cagnacci et al., 2004; Horowitz,

2012; Kreplins et al., Draft; Moss et al., 1998; Range et al., 2008). For learned aversion training

to be successful in any animal, 100% aversion towards the relevant object (bait, odour and taste)

was a requirement within the training program (Baker et al., 2007; Cagnacci et al., 2004;

Horowitz, 2012; Kreplins et al., Draft; Moss et al., 1998; Range et al., 2008). However, learned

aversion training in animals hold some limitations such as the identification of individual

differences within species being tested in relation to personality traits and trainability (Baker et

al., 2007; Cagnacci et al., 2004; Horowitz, 2012; Kreplins et al., Draft; Moss et al., 1998; Range

et al., 2008). Potential for additional research has been identified in relation to learned aversion

training within a variety of animal species through the testing of differences in animal

temperament, age and species, as well as how those factors could relate to their trainability

levels (Baker et al., 2007; Cagnacci et al., 2004; Horowitz, 2012; Kreplins et al., Draft; Moss et

al., 1998; Range et al., 2008).



Conclusion

Previous studies have evidenced that temperament and behaviour have a role in the trainability

of domestic dogs. Some dog breeds possess human-like temperament traits which may have

originated from the dog domestication processes where a variety of selective pressures from

different environments and time eras have caused the variation in the morphology, personality

traits, behaviour and genome sequences within the domestic dog species to date (Svartberg &

Forkman, 2002). Domestic dogs are also viewed as social animals and, as such, may be inclined

to be taught through social stimuli rather than through operant conditioning (McKinley &

Young, 2003). Generally, to examine temperament and trainability of domestic dogs

standardised testing is used (McKinley & Young, 2003). However, it is also argued that

standardised methodology could be restrictive, which could potentially reduce the knowledge

gained through the study of dog testing behaviour (Diederich & Giffroy, 2005). Despite this,

research to date has shown that domestic dog training is influenced by the temperament and

breed of canines. Based on further research opportunities identified in previous research, this

thesis aims to investigate how learned aversion training is influenced by domestic dog

temperament and breed.



Draft Manuscript:

How does temperament and breed influence learned aversion training

in domestic dogs?

Authors

, ,

Affiliations

1Murdoch University, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA,

6150, Australia.

*Email: [email protected],

*Phone: (+61) 409 108 241

†These authors supervised, reviewed and edited the work.

Abstract

Accidental poisoning of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) is an unfortunate occurrence when

using poison baits to control introduced pests such as feral cats (Felis catus), red foxes (Vulpes

vulpes), feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and wild dogs/dingoes (Canis familiaris). Risks to domestic

dogs can limit the use of baiting by land managers and hinder invasive species control programs

(Kreplins et al., Draft). A ‘learned aversion device’ and training methods were developed to

train domestic dogs to avoid non-toxic FoxOff® baits to reduce the likelihood of accidental

poisoning. Domestic dog temperament and breed were assessed through a canine behavioural

assessment and research questionnaire (C-BARQ) filled in by each dog’s owner. Following the

questionnaire, three tests were conducted to identify the dog’s aggression towards strangers

mailto:[email protected]



(stranger aggression test), obedience (plain biscuit obedience test) and whether they were

fearful, anxious, or aggressive towards strange and unusual objects and sounds (novel object

test). Using the ‘learned aversion device’, 56 domestic dogs representing five breed categories

(toy, terrier, sporting, domestic working and working dogs) were trained to avoid non-toxic

commercially-available FoxOff® baits for four ‘one-on-one’ learned aversion training, sessions

spread across 6 weeks. Of the total 56 dogs that underwent the training methodology, 50 were

successfully trained to avoid the bait. The results demonstrated that temperament and breed of

domestic dogs played a role in their ‘trainability’. Breeds that were highly trainable were

working dogs and toy dogs (which is likely related to their submissive nature and fearful

temperament), and the breed that had the lowest trainability level was terriers (this was likely

due to their bold temperament). This study has demonstrated that learned aversion can be

created in a range of breeds and temperaments of domestic dogs over a period of 6 weeks;

however, the ability to learn differs amongst those breeds studied.

Keywords

Breed, domestic dogs, FoxOff® bait, learned aversion training, poisoning, temperament, toxic,

1080

Introduction

1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) poison baiting occurs throughout Australia, including but not

limited to Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania to reduce

the number of invasive predators for the conservation of native species and livestock protection

(Allen, 2015; Saunders et al., 1995). Beside Australia, a few other countries have been known to

use 1080 within their vertebrate pest poisoning programs, including New Zealand, Mexico,

Japan, Korea, Israel and a few non-restricted areas within the United States (Australia, 2016 ).

Introduced pest species such as the Red Fox, feral pigs, feral cats and wild dogs within the



natural Australian environment have caused changes within the ecosystem. Some of these

changes have been dramatic and have on occasion resulted in the extinction of native species or

there have been drastic changes within the functioning of the ecosystem, Jeschke, 2014 #90}

The table below illustrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of the major

introduced species within the Australian environment and agricultural industries, (McLeod,

Norris, & Cooperative Research Centre for the Biological Control of Pest, 2004). The vertebrate

pest species were selected based on their relevance to the current and potential Pest Animal

Control CRC research activities, (McLeod et al., 2004). The annual costs values are included for

each species which consists of pest control and loss of agricultural production, (McLeod et al.,

2004)

Figure 1. Annual Impact of Pest Species in order of cost, (McLeod et al., 2004)

Native species in Western Australia have a high level of tolerance to 1080, but introduced

species including feral cats and the red foxes, as well as, domestic dogs are susceptible to the

poison (Twigg et al., 2000). An unfortunate outcome of invasive species control programs

(baiting) in Western Australia as well as other states and territories of Australia is the accidental

poisoning of domestic dogs (Meenken & Booth, 2010). Baits that are used in controlling



vertebrate pest species in Western Australia are made to appear and smell appetising, and as a

result, these baits often attract non-target species (such as domestic dogs); (Glen et al., 2007;

Jackson, Moro, Mawson, Lund, & Mellican, 2007; Kinnear, Pentland, Moore, & Krebs, 2016;

Kreplins et al., Draft). Many land owners and managers have been limited in their ability to

employ the baiting method due to this accidental poisoning (Kreplins et al., Draft).

Learned aversion training is one of a range of methods employed to train domestic dogs (Baker

et al., 2007; Cagnacci et al., 2004; Kreplins et al., Draft). Learned aversion is a form of

conditioning where the subject should respond negatively to an unpleasant stimulus (i.e., a

small electrical correction delivered by a training device) creating a ‘learned aversion’ towards

the stimulus (Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015). The training within the study conducted by Kreplins

(Draft) utilises a negative stimuli that emits electrical cues, giving a dog a correction after

having touched an electrified bait.

Dog trainability has been influenced by breed and temperament as a result of controlled

selective breeding programs, where characteristics such as working intelligence, problem

solving skills, owner obedience and working drive have been bred over several generations in

order to develop breeds that would be suitable for a particular purpose (Gregory, 2011; Helton,

2010). Working dogs with a purpose and toy dogs have shown to be more obedient and easier to

train when compared to other breed groups, due to their need to please their owners, their

submissive nature and certain characteristics (such as working drive) derived from years of

selective breeding (Helton, 2010; Holland, 2007; Vandeloo, 2009). Dog breeds (such as

terriers) who demonstrate boldness and easy distractibility have been found difficult to train

due to their loss of focus during training sessions after becoming too ‘excited’ within the

training process (Batt et al., 2008; Starling et al., 2013; Ziv, 2017). To further explain the

influence of temperament on trainability, the temperament traits associated with high levels of



trainability are compliance and willingness to obey commands and low to moderate levels of

fearfulness (Starling et al., 2013).

The aim of this thesis is to investigate, how learned aversion methods are influenced by breed

and temperament of dogs. This project involved:

1. Quantification of individual domestic dog’s temperament.

2. Identifying individual dog responses to the 1080 aversion training.

This project investigated the hypothesis that the learned aversion method is more effective for

particular dog breeds and temperament types. It is likely that certain dog breeds possess certain

temperaments which will influence the dog’s trainability and behaviour towards the learned

aversion. If dogs are trained to avoid poison baits, land owners may be able to increase their

bait deployment, thereby reducing invasive predators and enabling successful long-term

conservation and livestock production outcomes.



Materials and methods

Study methodology summary

Fifty-six dogs were recruited and classified into five breed groups (i.e., terriers, working,

sporting, domestic working and toy dogs). First, all dog owners were required to fill in a dog

temperament questionnaire; Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire (i.e.,

C-BARQ). Thereafter dog temperament tests were conducted (i.e., a test of stranger aggression,

owner obedience and response to a novel object) followed by learned aversion training (i.e.,

training dogs to show aversion towards non-toxic FoxOff® bait). The scores from the

temperament tests were combined with those that derived from the C-BARQ dog owner survey,

which identified temperament traits associated with each individual dog within the study. The

learned aversion training results were then compared with dog breed and temperament in order

to identify whether there were any significant findings in relation to dog breed trainability,

temperaments associated with those breeds and whether those temperament traits influenced

dog breed trainability.

Study animal collection and classification

Fifty-six domestic dogs were recruited through word of mouth, flyer advertisement and through

Facebook ‘dog lovers’ and ‘dog trainers’ groups on the internet (see Table 1.). The dogs

recruited varied in age; dogs under 6 months were not included in this study. These 56 dogs

were assigned into five breed groups: working dogs (n = 12), domestic working dogs (n = 11),

sporting dogs (n = 14), toy dogs (n = 11) and terriers (n = 8).



Table 1. Dogs within the study are classed into one of the following groups, based on both their historical breed classification and their observed breed classification types (Gregory, 2011), (modified and illustrated by Robyn Taylor, 2017).

Breed type Description Dog breeds from

study

Sporting (n= 14)

Bred for the purposes of hunting, retrieving and sporting. They tend to concentrate on the chase and do not

figure in placings in advanced obedience tests. They have loud voices, which they

are not averse to using

Golden Retriever, Labrador x Retriever,

Labrador x Cocker Spaniel, Labrador x Red cloud, Labrador

x Ridgeback, Flat coated Retriever x

Labrador, Greyhound x Ridgeback,

Ridgeback x Kelpie, Staghound x Huntaway,

Wolfhound x Staghound, German Short-haired pointer and German Short-

haired pointer.

Terriers (n= 8)

Variable in size, the Terriers make are generally smart dogs, sharp in character

and vocal to a degree. They are alert, playful and affectionate making them

excellent pets.

America Staffordshire Terrier,

American Staffordshire Terrier

x English Staffordshire Terrier, English Staffordshire

Terrier, English Staffordshire Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier x Dingo, Jack Russell

Terrier x Kelpie, and Jack Russell Terrier x

Maltese Poodle.

Working (n= 12)

The working group has the largest number of breeds and number of dogs

within breeds. Mostly extremely predictable dogs that have been bred for many generations for a single purpose.

Selected for trainability and active minds. They can soon become mischievous if left

to their own devices.

Kelpie x Staffordshire Terrier, Red Healer,

Kelpie x Border Collie, Kelpie x Roo dog, Kelpie x Roo dog, Kelpie x Roo

dog, Kelpie, Kelpie x Whipper, kelpie cross, Red cloud Kelpie, and Bull

Arab.

Working (Domestic) (n= 11)

The domestic working dog group consists of dogs that would be classified as a working dog based on their breed,

however these dogs are bred and used as domestic pets rather than actual working

dogs.

Doberman, Husky, Husky x Dingo,

Rottweiler, Bullmastiff,

Bullmastiff cross, Kelpie x Border Collie, Kelpie x



Border Collie, Border Collie, Border Collie,

Border Collie x Terrier and New

Zealand herding dog.

Toys (n= 11)

A group of small dogs. They share the ability to be picked up but are

widespread in temperament and behaviour. Aka, companion dogs.

Poodle, Pomeranian, Pomeranian, Pomeranian,

Miniature Dachshund, Chihuahua, Chihuahua x

Maltese, Maltese poodle x Cocker

Spaniel, Sheppadoodle,

Bichon Frise and Bichon Frise.

Dog Temperament tests and C-BARQ assessment methods

Figure 1 illustrates a flow chart describing the testing and training program conducted for all 56

dogs. On day 0 dog owners were required to fill out a questionnaire (C-BARQ). The

questionnaire measured aspects of dog behaviour associated with eight different temperament

traits (obedience, aggression, fear and anxiety, excitability, separation related behaviour,

attachment related behaviour, bold behaviour and playful behaviour), based on the dog owner’s

past experiences of their dogs in regards to certain situations (such as going for walks, or when

caught in a thunderstorm). For all the categories associated with the C-BARQ survey see Table

4 and Appendix 2: Temperament categories.

Following the questionnaire, three temperament tests were conducted (stranger aggression test,

owner obedience test and response to novel object test), these tests were used to identify

whether a dog showed signs of aggression towards strangers, whether they were obedient to

their owners and what their responses were towards a strange and unfamiliar novel object.

The main components involved with the temperament tests were:



a). Stranger aggression test: the dog was approached by an unfamiliar person,and their initial

behavioural reactions were recorded by the researcher, (Table 4).

b). Novel object response test: the dog was shown a ‘novel object’, a smart phone playing a

looped car alarm sound track inside a small metal container. The levels of fearfulness,

playfulness and boldness were recorded by the researcher based on the dog’s reactions and

responses towards the novel objects, (Table 4).

c). Owner obedience test: the owner of the dog was instructed to show their dog a plain

flavoured dog biscuit. The biscuit was placed on the ground in front of the dog who was

commanded by their owner to leave it alone and not to eat it. The levels of obedience was

recorded by the researcher based on the dog’s response towards their owner’s command, (Table

4).

All three temperament tests were linked to the scores derived from the C-BARQ (i.e., Stranger

aggression was linked to C-BARQ aggression, the novel object responses were linked to C-

BARQ fear and anxiety, boldness and playfulness, and the owner obedience test was linked to

C-BARQ obedience and trainability).

Learned aversion training followed the temperament tests, where all dogs were introduced to

one to three presentations of electrified non-toxic FoxOff® bait in order to examine and assess

dog breed trainability and behavioural responses towards the training. The temperament tests

and C-BARQ was only assessed once on Day 0, whereas the learned aversion training was

repeated at three more sessions spread over a 6 week period.

Trainability level measurements (Bait inspectional behaviour and bait activity)

Domestic dog levels of trainability (i.e., bait inspectional behaviour and bait activity) were

measured using a Likert Scale (where 0-1: low trainability; 2-3: moderate trainability; and 4:

high trainability) in order to identify whether the dogs were able to respond quickly, moderately

or slowly to the learned aversion training sessions. A number of criteria quantifying bait

inspectional behaviour and bait activity were utilised to categorise the dog responses and



behavioural observations made during the learned aversion training sessions allowing dog

breeds to be classified within three levels of trainability;

a). Low level of trainability: Dogs who demonstrate low levels of trainability are described to be

difficult to train as repetition of training is required, e.g., four training sessions.

b). Moderate level of trainability: Dogs who demonstrate moderate levels of trainability are

described to be fairly easy to train as a reasonable amount of repeated training is required, e.g.,

two to three training sessions.

c). High level of trainability: Dogs who demonstrate high levels of trainability are described to

be easy to train as little to no repetition of training is required, e.g., one to two training sessions.

Table 2. Trainability levels based off bait inspectional behaviour and bait activity. Training categories 0-1: Low trainability 2-3: Moderate

trainability 4: High trainability

Number of electrified baits presented

3 2 0-1

Number of non-electrified baits presented

3+ 2-3 1-2

Number of corrections 3 2 0-1 Number of consumed

baits 3+ 2-3 0-1

Number of bait touches 3+ 2-3 0-1 Number of bait touches

with nose 3+ 2-3 0-1

Number of baits licked 3+ 2-3 0-1 Number of pawed at baits 3+ 2-3 0-1 Number of times bait was

sniffed 3+ 2-3 0-1

Number of urinated baits 3+ 2-3 0-1 Number of times bait was

investigated 3+ 2-3 0-1

Number of times bait was barked at

3+ 2-3 0-1

Number of training sessions required to show

aversion

3+ 2-3 1-2

Time spent with bait prior touch within 0-1m

5-10min 5min Under 5min

Time spent with bait after touch within 0-1m












Behavioural cue measurements (Body position and behaviour)

Domestic dog behavioural cues (i.e., body position and behaviour) were measured and scored

using a Likert Scale (where 0-1: neutral behaviour; 2-3: alert behaviour; and 4: fearful and

anxious behaviour). Behavioural cue measurements were based on dog body positioning and

behaviour during all four training sessions (Beerda, Schilder, van Hooff, de Vries, & Mol, 1998;

Vas, Topál, Gácsi, Miklósi, & Csányi, 2005). The scoring aided in the identification of whether

dogs altered their body responses and positions during the learned aversion training.

Table 3. Dog behavioural cue measurements. Behavioural cue

categories 0-1: Neutral behaviour

2-3: Alert behaviour 4: Fearful and Anxious behaviour

Hackles Relaxed. Raised. Lowered. Body response Relaxed. Alert. Submissive Body position Relaxed. Alert stance. Lying still with back

on ground. Head position Neutral/Relaxed. Head positioned

forward or raised. Lowered or leaning against the ground.

Ear position Neutral/Relaxed. Alert. Flat against head. Tail position Neutral/Relaxed. Raised to level of

spine. Tucked between

hind legs. Vocal cues None. Growling and

barking. Whining and

moaning. Mouth position Neutral/Relaxed. Clenched jaw,

occasional bearing of teeth and opening of

mouth.

Constantly opening and closing to let

out whines.

Back leg position Normal. Straight and extended, boarding

on flexed.

Held in the air as the dog is lying on

their back, or tucked against

body. Front leg position Normal. Straight and

extended, bordering on flexed.


their back or tucked against body.



Figure 2. Flow chart illustrating the testing and training programs conducted throughout four sessions for all 56 dogs.



Table 4. Methodology key for data collected and analysed for the C-BARQ and Temperament tests Methodology Key

Terms Definition Descriptor Scale Categories Measurement scale Analysis

Temperament traits derived owner survey (C-BARQ) and Temperament tests (stranger aggression test, owner obedience tests and response to novel object)

C-BARQ Obedience

and Trainability

A dog's compliance with an order, request or command when under

the authority of their owner.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their obedience

and trainability based on past events.

See obedience categories in appendix 2, section 1:

Obedience and Trainability.

0=Never 1=Seldom

2=Sometimes 3=Usually 4=Always

The scored data for the temperament categories were analysed using the

PAST v. 3.15 program. Non-metric analyses were done in order to show whether there was any significant difference between dog

breed and temperament. One-way and Two-way

PERMANOVA analyses were done on the resulting axis

scores (axis 1 and 2) of each temperament trait scores,

and then based on dog group and their owners who scored them. If a significant

difference was found, a SIMPER analysis was

conducted to explain why that was the case.

Temperament test: Owner Obedience

A dog’s compliance with their owners’ command not to consume the plain dog biscuit once the dog has been told to ‘not eat it’ or to

‘leave it alone’ and the biscuit has been placed on the ground.

The dog’s behaviour in relation to their obedience

towards their owners’ command was scored based on how the dog responded.

This test was linked to that of the C-BARQ Obedience and Trainability temperament

category.

Did the dog consume the dog biscuit?

Did the dog obey their owners’ command?

Was the owner required to repeat the command more than once before the dog

ceased all attempts to consume the biscuit?

An obedient dog would have shown the following

responses: Dog waited for the ‘okay’ from their owner before

they ate the dog biscuit (i.e., the dog would have not

consumed the biscuit and would have obeyed their

owner).

A disobedient dog would have disobeyed their owner

and attempted or succeeded in consuming the

dog biscuit.

C-BARQ Aggression

Dog behaviours that start off as warnings and can accumulate in an

attack, i.e., Growls, bares teeth, warning barks and bites.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their aggression

based on past events.

See aggression categories in appendix 2, section 2:

Aggression.

0=Never 1=Seldom




Methodology Key


Temperament test: Stranger

Aggression

A dog’s level of aggressive behavioural responses towards the

presence of a stranger on their owners’ property.

The dog’s level of aggressive behaviour towards the

presence of strangers was scored based off their

behavioural responses.

This test was linked to that of the C-BARQ Aggression temperament category.

The scenarios in which stranger aggression was measured against were:

Unfamiliar person (researcher) approaches

the dog’s owner or family member.

Unfamiliar person (researcher) is visiting the

dog owner’s home.

Levels of dog aggression (towards strangers) was measured using a Likert Scale with the following

descriptors:

0-1: represented no aggression (no visible signs

of aggression).

2-3: represented moderate aggression (growling,

barking and baring teeth).

4: represented serious aggression (snaps, bites or

attempts to bite).

See appendix 2, section 2: Stranger aggression

observed behavioural cues (these cues were used to

identify dog stranger aggression levels between 0 and 4, e.g., no aggression to

serious aggression.

C-BARQ Fear and Anxiety

Unpleasant emotions caused by the threat of danger, pain or harm.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their fear and

anxiety based on past events.

See fear and anxiety categories in appendix 2,

section 3: Fear and Anxiety.

0=Never 1=Seldom




Methodology Key


Temperament test: Novel

Object fearful responses

Fearful and anxious behavioural responses caused from the dog

feeling threatened or uneasy due to the presence of a unusual novel

object.

The dog’s fearful and anxious behavioural responses were

scored in relation to their level of fear and anxiety

when introduced to the novel object (i.e., metal container containing a smart phone

emitting a car alarm soundtrack).

This test was linked to that of the C-BARQ Fear and Anxiety

temperament category.

The scenarios in which fear and anxiety was measured

against were:

The presence of an unusual and strange novel

object (i.e., metal container).

The presence of an

unusual and strange novel object emitting a car alarm

sound (i.e., a metal container containing a smart phone playing a

looped soundtrack of car alarms).

Levels of dog fear and anxiety towards the novel

object was measured using a Likert Scale using the following descriptors:

0-1: represents no fear and anxiety (no visible signs of cowering and submission).

2-3: represents moderate

fear and anxiety (some cowering and whining is

present).

4: represents extreme fear and anxiety (cowering,

whining, and submission).

See appendix 2, section 3: Novel object: Fear and

Anxiety observed behavioural cues (these

cues were used to identify dog fear and anxiety levels between 0 and 4, e.g., no

fear and anxiety to extreme fear and anxiety.



Methodology Key


C-BARQ Separation

related behaviour

Behavioural signs in the form of anxiety that dogs show when left

alone over short or long periods of time. This can be in the form of

whining, or chewing objects.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their separation related behaviour based on

past events.

See separation related behaviour categories in appendix 2, section 4:

Separation related behaviour.

0=Never 1=Seldom


C-BARQ Excitability

Dogs are capable of being readily roused into a state of excitement.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their excitability

based on past events.

See excitability categories in appendix 2, section 5:

Excitability.

0=Never 1=Seldom


C-BARQ Attachment

related behaviour

The level of attachment a dog has for their owner. The dog could

show strong attachment towards their owner, whereupon they demand constant attention.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their attachment

and attention seeking behaviour based on past

events.

See attachment related behaviour in appendix 2,

section 6: Attachment and attention seeking

behaviour.

0=Never 1=Seldom


C-BARQ Bold behaviour

Bold dogs tend to demonstrate behaviour that is described as being

‘brave’, ‘courageous’ or ‘fearless’.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their bold

behaviour based on past events.

See bold behaviour in appendix 2, section 7: Bold

behaviour.

0=Never 1=Seldom


Temperament test: Novel Object bold responses

Bold behavioural responses from the dog demonstrating confident and fearless behaviour due to the

presence of a unusual novel object.

The dog’s bold behavioural responses were scored in relation to their level of

boldness when introduced to the novel object (i.e., metal

container containing a smart phone emitting a car alarm

soundtrack).

This test was linked to that of the C-BARQ Bold

temperament category.

The scenarios in which boldness was measured

against were:



The presence of an

unusual and strange novel object emitting a car alarm

Levels of dog boldness towards the novel object

was measured using a Likert Scale using the following

descriptors:

0-1: represents no boldness (no visible signs of

fearlessness).

2-3: represents moderate boldness (dog was



Methodology Key


sound (i.e., a metal container containing a smart phone playing a


demonstrating courage).

4: represents extreme boldness (dog was

demonstrating fearlessness).

See appendix 2, section 7:

Novel object: Bold observed behavioural cues (these

cues were used to identify dog boldness levels

between 0 and 4, e.g., no boldness to extreme

boldness.

C-BSRQ Playful

behaviour

Dogs that are playful are described as being fond of games and

amusement and are often light- hearted.

Scoring dog behaviour in relation to their playful

behaviour based on past events.

See appendix 2, section 8: Playful behaviour.

0=Never 1=Seldom


Temperament test: Novel

Object playful responses

Playful behavioural responses from the dog demonstrating boisterous

and energetic behaviour due to the presence of a unusual novel object.

The dog’s playful behavioural responses were scored in relation to their level of

playfulness when introduced to the novel object (i.e.,

metal container containing a smart phone emitting a car

alarm soundtrack).

This test was linked to that of the C-BARQ Playful behaviour

The scenarios in which playfulness was measured

against were:



The presence of an

unusual and strange novel

Levels of dog playfulness towards the novel object

was measured using a Likert Scale using the following

descriptors:

0-1: represents no playfulness (no visible signs of boisterous behaviour).

2-3: represents moderate



Methodology Key


temperament category. object emitting a car alarm sound (i.e., a metal

container containing a smart phone playing a


playfulness (dog was demonstrating boisterous

behaviour).

4: represents extreme boldness (dog was

demonstrating energetic behaviour).

See appendix 2, section 8:

Novel object: Playful observed behavioural cues (these cues were used to identify dog playful levels between 0 and 4, e.g., no

playfulness to extreme playfulness.



Learned aversion training

All 56 dogs were subjected to four learned aversion training sessions which was repeated from

their first training session (Day 0), to their second, third and fourth (aka, Day 1, Day 7 and

Month 1), where each dog was presented with a non-toxic FoxOff® bait that was attached to the

‘learned aversion’ training device (creating an electrified bait). This device provided the dogs

with a small electrical ‘correction’ if they attempted to touch or consume the bait. The

components of the device (including the box, wires and earthing rod) were all hidden by

surrounding foilage so that only the bait residing on a clear plastic lid was visible to the dog.

The dogs were allowed to interact with the bait for up to 10 minutes while their behavioural

responses and body positions were monitored on a video camera placed 10m away from the

baited area. After the intial training with the electrified bait, there was a 20 minute break, where

after the dog was presented with another electrified bait (if the dog had touched the previous

bait) or a non-electrified version of the bait (if the dog had avoided the previous bait). Each dog

was presented with a maximum of three electrified baits per training session to limit stress any

dog may experience whilst undergoing the training. If dogs did not show any response (i.e., dog

did not demonstrate aversion) to the electrical corrections emitted from the training device, a

more powerful training device was utilised, in addition to wetting the dog’s front and back

paws with salt water.

Dogs within the study were classified based on the type of aversion they demonstrated towards

non-toxic FoxOff® baits during their learned aversion training. The four categories of aversion,

(Kreplins et al., Draft);

1). Inspectional behaviour: The dog is observed to investigate the bait closely (0-1m) rather than

avoiding it.

2). Attentional aversion: The dog is observed to be distracted and/or interested in everything

around them within their environment rather than the presence of the bait.

3). Boundary aversion: The dog is observed to form an invisible barrier around the bait, and

only approaches the area within 3-5m.



4). Complete aversion: The dog is observed to avoid the bait absolutely, often not entering the

area where the bait is present (dog leaves 5-10m between themselves and the bait).

For further information regarding the training device used in the learned aversion training refer

to Appendix 1: Training device information and set up, Figures 7 and 8.

Methods for analysis of data

Utilising multivariate non-metric MDS analyses (Ø. Hammer, 2017, PAST, paleontological

statistical data software, version 3.15, Oslo, Norway) the results of the learned aversion training

of the 56 domestic and working dogs were compared to their breed group (toy, terrier, working,

domestic working and sporting) as well as their temperament traits and behavioural responses

towards the learned aversion training. Correlations (Microsoft Excel version 2016) and one-way

PERMANOVAs using the resulting non-metric MDS scores, temperament traits, and learned

aversion training results were performed for each breed group. When a significant difference

was found, a SIMPER analysis was conducted. The resulting MDS plots, with any identified

significant differences in the data, provided clear visual representations of the learned aversion

training results and how the training results could be affected by temperament traits and breed

group within the study. Multiple Regression analyses (TIBCO Software Inc. 2017, Statistica,

data analysis software system, version 13, Palo Alto, USA) were conducted to identify whether

any temperament traits influenced dog breed trainability, these results were then subjected to a

Levene’s test to identify whether the variables were of assumed equal variances.



Results

Temperament results from different breed groups

Obedience differed significantly between breed groups (Figure 3a), where working and toy dogs

demonstrated a high level of obedience towards their owners; domestic working and sporting

dogs displayed a moderate level of obedience towards their owners, and terriers had a low level

of obedience to their owners.

Excitability varied significantly amongst breed groups (Figure 3e), where working dogs were

shown to have a low level of excitability; toy, sporting and domestic working dogs exhibited e a

moderate level of excitability, and terriers demonstrated an extremely high level of excitability.

Boldness differed significantly between breed groups (Figure 3g), where working and toy dogs

displayed a low level of boldness; sporting and domestic working dogs demonstrated a

moderate level of boldness, and terriers exhibited an extremely high level of boldness.

Playfulness differed significantly between breed groups (Figure 3h), where working, domestic

working, sporting and toy dogs measured in the low to medium level of playfulness, and terriers

displayed a high level of playfulness.

a. F(4,54) = 2.42 p = 0.000

b. F (25,54) = 0.70, p = 0.382



c. F (17,54) = 0.91, p = 0.130

d. F (6,54) = 0.97, p = 0.153

e. F (4,54) = 2.72, p = 0.000

f. F (6,54) = 0.97, p = 0.153

g. F (4,54) = 3.53), p = 0.002

h. F (4,54) = 2.88, p = 0.001



Figure 3. Non-metric MDS Temperament plots: a). Obedience, b). Aggression, c). Fear and Anxiety, d). Separation related behaviour and breed, e). Excitability, f). Attachment related behaviour, g). Boldness, and h). Playfulness.

F values represent the results of two-way PERMANOVA where owner and dog breed are included as independent factors. Colour scale: Domestic working dogs (n= 11), Working dogs (n= 12), Sporting dogs (n= 14), Terriers (n= 8), and Toy dogs (n= 11).

Trainability and behaviour in relation to breed

Based on the results of the study, terriers were identified as the breed group with the lower level

of trainability (Figure 4a). Analysis of the observational data indicate terriers spent a longer

period of time with the baits, between five to 10 minutes reaching the maximum time allocated

for interaction with the baits per session. Terriers displayed high levels of activity in the

presence of those baits (i.e., more touches/corrections due to having licked, consumed and

pawed at the baits). The breed group barked excessively (for two to three minutes) at the baits

after having received a correction, which was interpreted as an indication of bold and aggressive

behavioural responses towards the negatively reinforced corrections. Thirty-seven percent of

male terriers were observed to urinate (one to two times; Table 10.) on two to three bait samples

presented during the training session. Terriers were the main dog breed found to urinate and

bark at the baits presented during the learned aversion training sessions, however, as the terriers’

training progressed, their level of trainability reasonably changed from a low level to a moderate

level, although, it is important to note that it took longer (three to four training sessions) for

terriers to exhibit this change.

Sporting, working, domestic working and toy dogs measured in the moderate to high levels of

trainability (Figure 4a). By the fourth training session, 100% of the sporting dog and 90%

domestic dog breeds, distanced themselves from the baited area to (three to ten meters), they

spent less time with those baits presented (under five minutes), showed limited activity with and

around the baits, and were not vocal to any of the bait presentations (Figure 5 and Table 10.).

One male sporting dog was recorded to urinate once on three presentations of electrified baits

upon his first and second training session. In comparison to sporting dogs, domestic working



dogs and terriers, there were a much higher percentage of working dogs (91%; Figure 5) and toy

dogs (100%; Figure 5) that spent less than five minutes with all bait samples presented during

their final training sessions. These breed groups were often observed to retreat immediately

once the researcher arrived at the property. As sporting, working, domestic working and toy

dogs’ learned aversion training increased, their activity and inspectional behaviour towards the

baits decreased (e.g., they spent less time with the baits and they often removed themselves

from the baited areas, putting as much distance between themselves and the baits), thus the level

of trainability for toy and working dogs increased from a moderate to a high level, and remained

at a moderate level for sporting and domestic working dogs.

Terriers were persistent in consuming the bait at all training sessions (Figure 4b). Ninety-five

percent of terriers initially presented an ‘alert’ body stance (i.e., raised hackles, alert body

position and response, head slightly raised, ears alert, tail raised, growling, and clenched jaw,

straight and extended back and front legs) and barked towards the bait and the researcher.

Seventy percent of terriers directed this form of bold behaviour (i.e., hackles raised, fearless

body response, dominant body position, head raised, ears alert, tail slightly lowered, barking,

panting, flexed front legs and crouched back legs) and aggressive responses (i.e., hackles raised,

threatening body response and position, head raised, ears alert and forward, tail raised above

spine, excessive barking and baring of teeth, flexed front and back legs) towards the baits, rather

than showing aversion. In addition to the aforementioned behaviour, the terriers often attacked

the electrified baits and receive up to three electrical corrections per bait per session. Despite

this breed group’s initial behavioural responses, it was noted that after the last training session

there was a change in body stance, where 62% (Figure 5) of the terriers demonstrated behaviour

associated with a ‘neutral’ body stance (i.e., relaxed hackles, relaxed body response, normal

body position, relaxed ears, tail lowered or relaxed, relaxed mouth and jaw, normal front and

back leg position and no vocal cues) and began to show aversion towards the baits presented. In

terms of learned aversion, the change in behavioural cues, confirmed that 62% (Figure 5) of the

terrier breed group was able to respond to the non-toxic FoxOff® bait in an aversive behaviour



manner employing of inspectional or attentional type aversion. The remaining 37% (Figure 5)

of terriers continued to demonstrate aggressive and bold behaviour towards the baits presented

and were found to continually consume the maximum assigned number of bait presentations at

each training session, including their final training session (i.e., they demonstrated inspectional

behaviour which meant that they did not successfully learn aversion towards the non-toxic

baits).

Domestic working and sporting dogs initially demonstrated a neutral deterrence towards the bait

presentations at their first training sessions (Figure 34b), thereafter, 82% of domestic working

and 71% of sporting dogs demonstrated a change in their behaviour after their first electrical

correction (Figure 5 and Table 10.). By the last training session 36% of sporting and 45% of

domestic working dogs demonstrated fearful and anxious behavioural responses (i.e., hackles

lowered, submissive body response and position, head lowered, ears held flat against head, tail

tucked between hind legs, whining and moaning, mouth opening and closing or clenched, back

and front legs tucked against body) to the bait presentations. Within both breed groups, 100% of

domestic working and 93% of sporting dogs were able to respond to the non-toxic FoxOff® bait

in an aversive behaviour in the form of boundary or attentional aversion (Figure 5 and Table

10).

Approximately half of the toy dog breed sample (54%; Figure 5) demonstrated a fearful and

anxious body stance towards the baits presented during the first learned aversion training

session, (Figure 4b.). Following the second training session, 82% of toy dogs refused to touch a

bait and removed themselves from the baited area and as a result, their initial behavioural

response of fear and anxiety only escalated (Figure 5 and Table 10). The 82% of toy dogs were

able to respond to the non-toxic FoxOff® bait in an aversive behaviour in the form complete

aversion (Figure 5). The remaining 18% of toy dogs never touched a bait (i.e., they never

received a correction during the training sessions), therefore they did not show any form of



aversion, nor did they show any fear or anxiety towards the presence of the bait (i.e., they

continually demonstrated a neutral behavioural response; Figure 5 and Table 10.).

a). F(21,54) = 7.45, p = 0.000

b). F(18,54) = 5.82, p =0 0.000



Figure 4. MDS Non-metric Multivariate graph showing domestic dog a). Trainability and b). Behaviour scores across four breed classifications (Domestic working, Working, Sporting, Terrier and Toy) within their four training sessions (Day0, Day2, Day7 and 1Month).

a). % of time (minutes) spent with bait b). % of distance (meters) spent with bait

c). % of body behaviour types during training d). % of learned aversion types

Figure 5. Scatter plots showing the percentages of a). time (in minutes) and b). distance (in meters) that each dog breed group spent with the baits (bait inspectional behaviour) within their first and last learned aversion training session. Column graphs showing percentages of behaviour and learned aversion types displayed by each dog breed group during their first and last learned aversion training sessions.



Effects of time on dog breed trainability and behaviour

The results indicate the time taken for a dog to demonstrate changes in their trainability levels in

relation to bait activity, (Figure 6a) and bait inspectional behaviour, (Figure 6b) was dependent

on the breed. Given that terriers were identified as the breed group with the lower level of

trainability, it stands to reason that this breed group required a longer period of time to

demonstrate attentional aversion towards the non-toxic FoxOff®

bait evidenced by the reduction

of their bait activity. The results indicated 30% of terriers did not demonstrate an aversive

response and showed no reduction in their bait activity, but rather displayed a 20% increase in

their bait inspectional behaviour (Figure 5 and Table 10.). The bait aversive group of terriers

displayed changes in their behavioural cues, from alert body stance to neutral body stance,

however required 65% more time and training repetition than toy and working dogs (Figure 5,

Figure 7 and Table 10.).The remaining breed groups; sporting, working, domestic working and

toy dogs, demonstrated a decrease from 24% to 16% in their bait activity and bait inspectional

behaviour at their last learned aversion training session (Figure 5 and Table 10.) Sporting,

working, domestic working and toy dogs were able to demonstrate an aversive response (in the

forms of boundary, attentional or complete aversion) to the non-toxic FoxOff®

bait presentations

more quickly (i.e., two to three training sessions) than the terrier breed group. Toy dogs required

the least amount of time before they demonstrated complete aversion to the baits, displaying

frequent anxious responses, followed by working, domestic working and sporting dogs with

behavioural cues including fearful and anxious responses (Figure 7).



a). F(12,54) = 23.8, p = 0.000

b). F(12,54) = 2.63, p = 0.003

Figure 6. Generalised linear repeated measures model showing how the five domestic dog breed group's trainability changed across their four training sessions in relation to their a). Bait activity (bait touches and contact with bait), and b). Bait inspectional behaviour (time and distance spent with bait).

a). F(12,54) = 1.43, p=0.157

b). F(12,54) = 1.39, p=0.176

Figure 7. Generalised linear repeated measures model showing how the five domestic dog breed group's changed in a). Body positioning and b). Behaviour across their four training sessions in relation to their visual body reactions and stance when in the presence of bait.



Effects of temperament on dog breed trainability

Dog temperament influenced the level of dog related bait activity, which consequently impacted

dog breed trainability, (Table 6). The results indicated that ‘boldness’ and ‘fear and anxiety’,

negatively correlated with levels of dog breed trainability. Fear and anxiety were associated

with high levels of trainability within dog breeds (as demonstrated by the aversion results of

both working and toy dogs); conversely, boldness was associated with low levels of trainability

within dog breeds (as demonstrated by the aversion results of the terrier breed group).

Table 5. Univariate Tests of Significance between trainability (bait activity) and temperament traits; Fear and Anxiety, (F1, 54 = 7.21, p = 0.009) and Boldness (F1, 54 = 7.9, p = 0.007).

Effect

Univariate Tests of Significance for trainability and temperament. Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition; Std. Error of

Estimate: 0.0417

SS

Degr. of Freedom

MS

F

p

Intercept

0.24 1 0.24 138.29 <0.001

Obedience

0.00 1 0.00 2.48 0.121

Aggression

0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.991

Fear & Anxiety

0.01 1 0.012 7.21 0.009

Attachment

0.00 1 0.00 0.53 0.469

Excitability

0.00 1 0.00 1.23 0.272

Separation

0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.951

Boldness

0.01 1 0.01 7.90 0.007

Playfulness

0.00 1 0.00 0.10 0.748

Error

0.08 47 0.00



Discussion

Learned aversion towards non-toxic FoxOff® baits differed between dog breeds as well as dog

temperaments. The study indicated that working and toy dogs had the highest and easiest level

of trainability, domestic working and sporting dogs were observed to have a moderate level of

trainability and terriers were identified to be the most difficult to train.

Why learned aversion over positive reinforcement methods

Learned aversion training is likely to be more successful than positive reinforcement methods

when training domestic dogs to avoid 1080 baits. Positive reinforcement methods work by

presenting a motivating/conditioning stimulus to the dog after they have shown a desirable

behaviour to their owner (i.e., the owner is required to give praise to their dog in the form of

food and approval); (Peckmezian & Taylor, 2015). The advantage of using learned aversion

training with domestic dogs to avoid 1080 baits, is that the training can occur in the owner’s

absence (i.e., dogs are not reliant on owner’s positive reinforcement methods in order to avoid

baits). For example, dogs tend to find baits when they are alone and if they are reliant on their

owner for positive reinforcement to avoid it, the dog would more than likely take a bait,

whereas if they were trained through learned aversion, they would be able to recognise the smell

of the bait and avoid it regardless of their owner’s presence in the area.

Why some dog breeds are easier or more difficult to train than others

Based on the outcome of the study, working dogs had a high trainability level; this indicated

that they were easier to train compared to the other breed groups (i.e., domestic working dogs,

sporting dogs, toy dogs and terriers). As a result of their level of obligation towards their

human demonstrator, highly trainable dogs, like working dogs, have been known to possess

more skill in associating a command (such as ‘sit’), with the desired action (such as ‘sitting’),

more quickly and efficiently compared to other dog breeds, (Helton, 2009; King et al., 2012;

Young, Olson, Reading, Amgalanbaatar, & Berger, 2011). The high trainability factor



associated with working dogs is contributed to the constant breeding selection pressures

focussing on six desirable traits and characteristics, namely obedience, bite and grip, prey drive,

neutral temperament, tracking and retrieving instincts over several generations in order to obtain

a suitable working dog breed (such as pig detection dogs); (Turcsán et al., 2011). A working

dog that has been bred with those desirable traits and characteristics is considered to be easily

and highly trainable, compared to dogs that do not possess those six characteristics (Turcsán et

al., 2011). The aforementioned traits selected for the breeding of working dogs have

significantly impacted on how they react to certain experiences, what their training capabilities

are as well as how they learn and train (Turcsán et al., 2011). Equally, Vandeloo (2009) had

found that working dog breeds such as Border Collies demonstrated an easy and high

trainability factor as a result of selective breeding programs. Additionally, Craigon et al.,

(2017), highlighted that high trainability levels in working dogs was related to their high levels

of obedience, low aggression, fearfulness, low stress levels and low energy levels..

Domestic working dogs and sporting dogs are considered to have moderate levels of trainability

compared to working dogs. Both domestic working and sporting dogs, were historically bred to

be obedient towards their owners and to have a sufficient drive for a working (i.e., vertebrate

pest detector dogs and guide dogs) and hunting (i.e., hunting and retrieval dogs) purpose (King

et al., 2012; Turcsán et al., 2011). However, over a period of several generations a few working

dog breeds have been domesticated for the purpose of human companionship rather than for

their bred purpose, in the case of this study, 100% of both domestic working and sporting dogs

were used as companion animals and did not participate in any working or hunting dog

activities (Dundas, Adams, & Fleming, 2014; King et al., 2012; Trut et al., 2004). As a result,

those domestic working and sporting dog breeds within the study have lost some, if not all,

their working drive and obedience towards their owners, therefore they have become difficult to

train. Thus it is likely their level of trainability has been impacted by companionship

domestication (Jackson et al., 2007; King et al., 2012). Additionally, Trut et al., (2004) explored

the concept that dog breeds that were originally bred for a working purpose had lost their



hunting drives and instincts, due to suppression as a result of domestication where selective

pressures were placed on preferred behavioural and temperament traits within those dog breeds.

The concept of loss of working/hunting drives and instincts by working dog breeds due to

selective pressures and domestication could explain the difficulties experienced when training

both domestic working and sporting dogs to avoid non-toxic FoxOff® baits (Dundas et al., 2014;

King et al., 2012; Trut et al., 2004).

The study identified that terriers exhibited a low level of trainability in comparison to the other

breed groups with 37% of terriers observed to demonstrate aggressive and bold behaviour

towards the training device once presented with an electrified bait whilst not displaying any

form of aversion. Previous research conducted by Radcliff, (2016) regarding dogs with

unsound temperament could explain this outcome, where it was demonstrated that dogs that

overreact to a situation or a stimuli tend to become excited, bold and aggressive. These

temperaments often led to the dog’s attention becoming unfocussed and distracted, which

impacts on their ability to learn a new task or skill during their training. Overall, Radcliff,

(2016) argued that dogs who expressed those temperaments during training were considered to

be difficult to train. Additionally, Ziv, (2017), Deldalle and Gaunet, (2014) implied that

negative reinforcement training methods, tend to elicit aggressive, bold, stubborn, and defensive

reactions in dogs, which influences their levels of trainability, whereas positive reinforcement

has shown to encourage obedience within breed groups. When considering the above theory,

the sample terrier group in this study were considered difficult to train, possibly due to a

preference of training, e.g., studies by Ziv, (2017) had demonstrated that dogs responded better

towards positively reinforced methods over negatively reinforced ones. As negative reinforced

methods of learned aversion were used within this study, research by Ziv, (2017) and Radcliff,

(2016) could explain the behavioural and trainability difficulties that were faced when training

terriers.



Aside from working dogs, the toy dogs breed group were often observed to be highly trainable

in terms of learned aversion training. Considering that toy dogs were not bred as working dogs,

but rather to be companions for their owners, their high trainability factor was unexpected

(Turcsán et al., 2011). The underlying factor that could explain the ease of toy dog trainability is

their submissive nature towards negative or aggressive behaviour and/or punishment (Holland,

2007; Vandeloo, 2009). Submissive dogs tend to lack confidence (i.e., they often hesitated when

approaching a bait placed within the area), and they tend to display behaviour associated

primarily with fear and subordinance in an attempt to stop any negative punishments they were

receiving (Holland, 2007; Vandeloo, 2009). Sixty-five percent of toy dogs within the study were

observed to show submissive behaviour (extreme fear, hesitation and subordinance) soon after

they received their first correction from the training device. This led to the dogs avoiding the

area where the bait was present (i.e., they would show forms of complete aversion after having

received one correction). Consequently, it is considered that toy dogs were highly trainable

during their learned aversion training primarily due to their submissive nature which is

substantiated by Hart (1995) and Vandeloo (2009) where both researchers observed that in

regards to trainability and temperament, toy dogs were highly trainable as a result of their

submissive behaviour and their need to please their owners.

Unique responses to the training

Four male dogs (each with a female partner) from both the sporting and terrier breed groups

were observed to urinate on and/or around the electrified non-toxic FoxOff®

bait. The behaviour

could be explained by examining two techniques of urination used by dogs; ‘cache marking’

(marking food sources that no longer had nutrients left on them or food sources that were

considered to be ‘bad’, thus labelling the food source as ‘there is no food left here’ or ‘this food

is bad’) and ‘token marking’(the marking of objects or areas for the sole purpose of scent

marking where little urine was expelled from the dog’s system to conserve enough urine to

complete acts of scent marking). Sporting dogs within the study such as the Golden Retriever

cross Labrador displayed possible signs of ‘cache marking’ by urinating on every bait sample



presented. It is likely that the dog did not consider the baits to be food compared to the human-

like-food diet provided by his owner, alternately he perceived the bait as ‘bad’ and wanted to

communicate this to his female partner (Harrington, 1982). The other three dogs (terriers breed

group) showed possible signs of ‘token marking’, all three males seemed to acknowledge the

presence of the researcher and assistant, and as a result urinated within the areas where the

researcher had been, which occasionally included urinating on the bait and equipment to rid the

objects of the strange and unfamiliar scents (Harrington, 1982). These dogs may be considered

to be territorial, the backyard was known to be their domain and any unfamiliar scent was

removed through the form of ‘token marking’. Research has revealed that studies reported foxes

and coyotes urinating on baits, dead rabbits and hamburgers following an encounter of feeling

nauseous or sick after consuming a poisoned and/or sickness-inducing substances (Gustavson,

Garcia, Hankins, & Rusiniak, 1974; Gustavson, Kelly, Sweeney, & Garcia, 1976; Kinnear et al.,

2016). However, the main differences between this study in comparison with studies involving

foxes and coyotes, was that both coyotes and foxes initially consumed the poisoned and/or

sickness- inducing bait/food source and were observed to urinate on the bait/food source only

after they were reported to vomit up the bait/food source they initially consumed (Gustavson et

al., 1974; Gustavson et al., 1976; Kinnear et al., 2016). Sickness induced aversion may have

influenced the coyotes and foxes’ behaviour in terms of avoiding poisoned baits/food sources,

thus triggering the urination onto the bait/food source. Whereas, dogs within this study were

observed to urinate on the non-toxic bait samples prior to any consumption of bait, therefore no

sickness or pain induced aversion was observed that may have led to this particular behavioural

response to the non-toxic FoxOff® bait. It is proposed that the male dog (sporting breed) within

this study was using his urination as a signal to their female partners to avoid the bait as it was

considered to be “bad” or “not food”.

Could the diet of dogs limit their interest towards non-toxic FoxOff® bait

Several dogs were fed unique diets that may have affected the outcome of the learned aversion

training. Dogs must be attracted to the poison baits in order to interact with them appropriately,



facilitating learned aversion training. Dogs that never touch the non-toxic forms of the poison

bait cannot be trained but are also unlikely to consume the baits in a scenario where they are

free to locate the baits on a ‘baited’ property. Two sporting dogs, a Golden Retriever (female)

and a Golden Retriever crossbreed Labrador (male), showed limited interest towards the non-

toxic FoxOff® baits. The female retriever was observed to sniff then either sit on or walk away

from the bait. The male was observed to sniff then urinate on the bait, thus he acknowledged the

presence of non-toxic FoxOff®

bait; however, made no attempt to lick, bite or consume it. These

responses towards the presence of the baits were consistently observed from both retrievers

during their four learned aversion training sessions. The owner reported that the dogs, living in

the same household, received two meals per day, biscuits/snacks in the morning and a meal for

dinner with a dental snack. The meals were freshly prepared, e.g., roast chicken, rice and doggie

biscuits and not from a stereotypical dog food can. This would suggest that the two retrievers

have been subjected to ‘human-like’ food rather than the stereotypical dog food which is akin to

the manufactured non-toxic FoxOff® bait. Dogs with this type of diet could not create a learn

aversion towards the non-toxic FoxOff® bait as they did not recognise the bait as a food

substance due to their ‘human- like’ food diet. These dogs are unlikely to be susceptible to

poisoning from baits as they do not recognise or associate any poison bait they come across as

food.

Additionally, an English Staffordshire terrier, from the terrier group, was accustomed to a

frozen, raw food diet (raw meat rolled in rice and then frozen). The frozen meals were left

outside to defrost, which may have conditioned the terrier to be less food orientated than other

terriers, he was required to wait for the meal to defrost and thus was only able to consume parts

of the meal over a period of time. In contrast to the sample dogs in the terrier group, the

Staffordshire terrier showed little to no interest in the electrified and non-electrified baits. Given

that he was less food orientated towards the baits compared to the other terriers, the frozen food

he was conditioned to eat may explain both his disinterest and limited response to the baits, as

well as his higher level of trainability during the learned aversion training. Based on the



observations, this dog is unlikely to consume poison bait he may encounter as he is not food

orientated.

Could pain tolerance influence learned aversion in domestic dogs

Thirty percent of terriers showed no form of aversion after having been subjected to the four

learned aversion training sessions. They were observed to totally consume three electrified baits

during all of their training session. Previous research has reported that dog breeds such as

terriers and huntaways had low sensitivity to pain (Bowden, Beausoleil, Stafford, Gieseg, &

Bridges, Submitted). The low sensitivity to pain could theoretically imply that terriers have the

ability to withstand a certain amount of pain from the electrical corrections emitted by the

learned aversion device. This may enable the terriers to ignore the corrections, thus allowing

them to consume the bait rather than learn aversion from the pain caused by the corrections.

Consequently, a more powerful learned aversion device was required for the study, in

conjunction with the addition of salt water to increase the flow of the electrical current from the

device to the dog. It is likely that chronic health conditions with long term pain may be another

factor influencing pain sensitivity levels which reduce the effectiveness of aversion training

methods.

Genetics and breed: are modern day breed groups accurate in terms of their genetic DNA

It is questionable whether or not the dog breeds that were analysed within this study, did in fact,

hold the genetic aspects associated with their breed. Genetic tests have been conducted to

determine whether a dog from a specified breed actually did posses the genetic coding

associated with that breed, or if the dog’s DNA was a result of a series of genetic coding derived

from other breeds not normally associated with the breed that dog was classified as (Parker,

2012; Parker et al., 2004). Additionally, modern day DNA tests used microsatellites (repeating

sequences of DNA) from signatures derived from particular breeds, rather than the actual genes

derived from a genetic sample (Parker, 2012; Parker et al., 2004). Therefore, the genetic



identification of dog breeds was not based on their actual genes, and the results did not relate to

behavioural or physical characteristics of a particular breed (Parker, 2012; Parker et al., 2004).

Thus, breeds that were considered to be different in characteristics could possibly have the same

or similar genetic coding, thus the similarity would be based on DNA rather than physical

appearance (Parker, 2012; Parker et al., 2004). Consequently, the dogs sampled in this study

could potentially have possessed the genetic codes associated with their breed type, or they

could have genetic codes more similar to other breeds rather than their assigned breed (Parker,

2012; Parker et al., 2004). Introducing a DNA testing aspect (using the Wisdom panel) to future

similar studies could potentially reduce the uncertainty of whether or not the dogs are

genetically associated with their assigned breeds (Parker, 2012; Parker et al., 2004). This could

strengthen the connections and dissimilarities identified between different breed groups,

temperament traits and their reactions towards learned aversion training (Parker, 2012; Parker et

al., 2004).

Further research opportunities

Ideally, based on the variety of accidental poisoning occurrences to the domestic dog

population, training programs should not only be restricted to train learned avoidance towards

1080 poison baits, but expanded to other bait forms such as insecticides, rodenticide and slug

baits, as well as towards other toxic substances such as human medications and chocolate.

Study limitations

A larger sample of each breed group would have improved the accuracy of the results obtained

from the analyses. The sample of dogs within each breed group remained consistent until the

last training session (month 1), where approximately 12 dogs were withdrawn from the study,

either due to the owners moving, the death of a dog or no data having been collected for that

particular training session. The majority of the working dog group lacked the necessary data for

their final training session as they were originally trained using FoxOff®, but then were trained

using Probait® as the bait was more appropriate to their specific training requirements. The



sampling method was limited to social media, no responses from pamphlet requests or posters in

community centres generated participants. An additional limitation was the lack of pure bred

dog breed groups, the majority participants were mixed breeds and the classification into dog

breeds was reliant on the owner’s statement of dog type.

Conclusion

Accidental poisoning of domestic dogs within Western Australia occurs due to 1080 baiting

management plans, established within agricultural and conservational areas, to control

vertebrate pest species (such as wild dogs, feral pigs, feral cats, and foxes). As domestic dogs

are highly susceptible to the poison they are often at risk of a fatality. Learned aversion training

in domestic dogs has shown that chances of accidental poisoning scenarios can be reduced, and

thus baiting boundaries can be expanded.

Generally, the hypothesis that differences in temperament and breed in domestic dogs affects

their reactions and behaviours when undergoing learned aversion training, was supported by the

results of this study. The study identified that learned aversion training was more successful

with particular dog breed groups (working, domestic working, sporting and toy dogs) than

others (terriers). Significant differences between certain temperament traits (obedience,

excitability, bold and playful behaviour) and different breed groups, as well as significant

differences in the trainability and behaviour between those different breed groups were

identified to support the hypothesis.

Dog breeds that were easier to train (working dogs) could either be attributed to selective

breeding programs focussed on enhancing the dogs’ obedience and working purpose drive or

the result of a naturally submissive nature; for example toy dogs. These factors made working

and toy dog breed groups easier to train through learned aversion than the other breed groups

selected for this study. The breeds that were fairly difficult to train, e.g., sporting and domestic



working dogs could be credited to their loss of working and hunting drive due to companionship

domestication as a result of selective pressures placed on preferred behavioural traits by their

owners. Lastly, terriers were the most difficult to train as they became aggressive and bold

towards the negatively reinforced training method that was used within the study.

There is potential to conduct further research on the use of Canid Pest Ejectors (CPEs) using

pepper as the substance that is expelled from the device into the mouth of the domestic dog

(Government of Western Australia, 2017; Fleming et al., 2006). This form of CPE could be

combined with taste aversion, where, once lured to the CPE with bait, pepper would be ejected

from the shaft of the CPE and into the dog’s open mouth during their attempt to consume the

bait (Government of Western Australia, 2017; Fleming et al., 2006). This could potentially

discourage the dog from attempting to consume bait, due to the burning sensation and

discomfort caused to the dog by the pepper (i.e., taste aversion). This method could potentially

result in learned aversion within domestic dogs, including those who display no reaction

corrections delivered from the learned aversion device.

The outcomes from this study may contribute towards land managers being more confident in

terms of bait deployment, as well as domestic dog owners feeling reassured about the welfare of

their pet companions. By meeting both parties’ needs, there is potential for 1080 control

programs to continue reducing invasive predators within areas with long-term conservation and

livestock production outcomes, as well as reducing accidental poisoning.



Acknowledgements

Many thanks to John Snowball, Murdoch University’s electrical technical officer who created

the self-training device that was used in this project. Thanks also goes to Peter Adams for

assistance with the training methodology.

To Damon van der Linde for keeping me company on the long drives and the training sessions,

you were the best assistant I ever had.

A special thank you to my parents, Lynda and Johann Taylor for their help and support during

the editing and analysis process.

This study has approval of the Animal Research Ethics Committee (R2809/16).



Appendix

APPENDIX 1: TRAINING DEVICE INFORMATION AND SET UP

The device consists of an energizer which is attached to a non-toxic Fox-off ® bait (Animal

Control Technologies Australia) an earthing rod which is placed in the ground (Figure 7). The

bait was placed on a piece of clear plastic so that bait did not earth out on the ground and an

electric current was created. A single electrical pulse (cycle rate of 1 Hz) is given out every

second allowing the dog time to investigate the area and to possibly make contact with the bait

before the dog receives a correction (Kreplins et al., Draft). This is because the dog may be

alerted too early if a continual or faster pulse rate was used, which would in turn only train the

dog to avoid baits in which they sense to be electrified (Kreplins et al., Draft). The maximum

output that the device has consists of 550V and 10mA, which sits well below the lethal level of

100mA (Kreplins et al., Draft). The device system was designed so the dog undergoing the

training would only see the bait (Kreplins et al., Draft). All cords connecting the earthing rod

and learned aversion device to the bait are hidden from view using vegetation, sand, wood and

other items from nearby (Figure 8) (Kreplins et al., Draft).



a).

b).

c).

Figure 8. Self- training device. (a) The unit itself, (b) the self-training device including the energizer, cords, earthing rod and non-toxic version of the FoxOff Bait and, (c) the dogs

undergoing the training will only see the FoxOff® Bait (sourced from Animal Control Technologies, contains green scat markers)

(Kreplins et al., Draft).



Figure 9. The two drawings depict the set-up of the training device, bait and wires. The first image above showcases the device before it is hidden, and the image below it shows how the device is to be hidden by bushes, leaves or other objects within the area from the participating dog, (images by Robyn Taylor, 2017).



APPENDIX 2: TEMPERAMENT CATEGORIES DERIVED FROM C-BARQ AND TEMPERAMENT

TEST

C-BARQ Obedience and Trainability scoring categories

1. When off the leash, returns immediately when called.

2. Obeys the "sit" command immediately.

3. Obeys the "stay" command immediately.

4. Seems to attend/listen closely to everything you say or do.

5. Slow to respond to correction or punishment; "thick-skinned".

6. Slow to learn new tricks or tasks.

7. Easily distracted by interesting sights, sounds, or smells.

8. Will "fetch" or attempt to fetch sticks, balls, or objects.

C-BARQ Aggression scoring categories

1. When verbally corrected or punished (scolded, shouted at, etc.) by you or a household

member.

2. When approached directly by an unfamiliar adult while being walked/exercised on a

leash.

3. When approached directly by an unfamiliar child while being walked/exercised on a

leash.

4. Toward unfamiliar persons approaching the dog while s/he is in your car (at the gas

station, for example).

5. When toys, bones or other objects are taken away by a household member.

6. When bathed or groomed by a household member.

7. When an unfamiliar person approaches you or another member of your family at home.

8. When unfamiliar persons approach you or another member of your family away from

your home.



9. When approached directly by a household member while s/he is eating.

10. When mailmen or other delivery workers approach your home.

11. When his/her food is taken away by a household member.

12. When strangers walk past your home while your dog is outside or in the yard.

13. When an unfamiliar person tries to touch or pet the dog.

14. When joggers, cyclists, rollerbladers or skateboarders pass your home while your dog is

outside or in the yard.

15. When approached directly by an unfamiliar male dog while being walked/exercised on

a leash.

16. When approached directly by an unfamiliar female dog while being walked/exercised

on a leash.

17. When stared at directly by a member of the household.

18. Toward unfamiliar dogs visiting your home.

19. Toward cats, squirrels or other animals entering your yard.

20. Toward unfamiliar persons visiting your home.

21. When barked, growled, or lunged at by another (unfamiliar) dog.

22. When stepped over by a member of the household.

23. When you or a household member retrieves food or objects stolen by the dog.

24. Towards another (familiar) dog in your household.

25. When approached at a favourite resting/sleeping place by another (familiar) household

dog.

26. When approached while eating by another (familiar) household dog.

27. When approached while playing with/chewing a favourite toy, bone, object, etc., by

another (familiar) household dog.



Temperament test: Stranger Aggression behavioural cues

The behavioural cues that were measured to distinguish whether a dog showed any stranger

aggression was based on a scale of 0-4 where 0-1 represented no aggression (no visible signs of

aggression), 2-3 represented moderate aggression (growling, barking and baring teeth), and 4

represented serious aggression (snaps, bites or attempts to bite). Table 6.

Table 6. Dog Stranger Aggression levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a Likert Scale, adapted from; (Vas et al., 2005).

Behavioural cues 0-1: No aggression 2-3: Moderate

Aggression 4: Serious Aggression

Hackles Neutral. Lowered. Raised. Body response Neutral. Alert. Threatening. Body position Neutral. Alert stance. Threatening stance.

Head position Neutral/Relaxed.

Head positioned forward in line with spine and directed towards stranger.

Head positioned high with nose directed upwards, towards

stranger. Ear position Neutral/Relaxed. Alert. Alert and forward.

Tail position Neutral/Relaxed. Raised to level of spine. Raised high above

spine.

Vocal cues None. Growling at stranger. Excessive

barking/growling at stranger.

Mouth position Neutral/Relaxed.

Clenched jaw, occasional bearing of teeth and opening of

mouth.

Baring teeth.

Back leg position Normal. Straight and extended,

boarding on flexed. Flexed.

Front leg position Normal. Straight and extended,

bordering on flexed. Flexed.

C-BARQ Fear and Anxiety scoring categories

1. When approached directly by an unfamiliar adult while away from your home.

2. When approached directly by an unfamiliar child while away from your home.

3. In response to sudden or loud noises (e.g., vacuum cleaner, car backfire, road drills,

objects being dropped, etc.).

4. When unfamiliar persons visit your home.

5. When an unfamiliar person tries to touch or pet the dog.

6. In heavy traffic.



7. In response to strange or unfamiliar objects on or near the sidewalk (e.g., plastic trash

bags, leaves, litter, flags flapping, etc.).

8. When examined/treated by a veterinarian.

9. During thunderstorms, firework displays, or similar events.

10. When approached directly by an unfamiliar dog of the same or larger size.

11. When approached directly by an unfamiliar dog of smaller size.

12. When first exposed to unfamiliar situations (e.g., first car trip, first time in elevator, first

visit to veterinarian, etc.).

13. In response to wind or wind-blown objects.

14. When having nails clipped by a household member.

15. When groomed or bathed by a household member.

16. When stepped over by a member of the household.

17. When having his/her feet toweled by a member of the household.

18. When unfamiliar dogs visit your home.

19. When barked, growled, or lunged at by an unfamiliar dog.



Temperament test: Novel object Fear and Anxiety observed behavioural cues

The behavioural cues that were measured to distinguish whether a dog showed any fear and

anxiety towards the novel object was based on a scale of 0-4 where 0-1 represented no fear and

anxiety (no visible signs of cowering and submission), 2-3 represented moderate fear and

anxiety (some whining and cowering is present), and 4 represented extreme fear and anxiety

(whining, cowering and submission is present). Table 7.

Table 7. Dog Fear and Anxiety levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a Likert Scale, adapted from; (Beerda et al., 1998).

Behavioural cues 0-1: No fear and

anxiety 2-3: Moderate fear

and anxiety 4: Extreme fear

and anxiety

Hackles Neutral. Lowered. Flat against body. Body response Neutral. Cowering. Submissive

Body position Neutral. Sitting or lying on

stomach in a cowering stance.

Lying still with back on ground.

Head position Neutral/Relaxed. Lowered. Lowered or leaning against the ground.

Ear position Neutral/Relaxed. Lowered against

head. Flat against head.

Tail position Neutral/Relaxed. Lowered from the

spine, but not tucked between hind legs.

Tucked between hind legs.

Vocal cues None. Yapping. Whining and

moaning.

Mouth position Neutral/Relaxed. Clenched and

occasionally opening to let moans escape.

Constantly opening and closing to let

out whines.

Back leg position Normal. Tucked in, under or

against body.


their back.

Front leg position Normal. Tucked in, under or

against body.


their back.

C-BARQ Separation related behaviour scoring categories

1. Shaking, shivering, or trembling.

2. Excessive salivation.

3. Restlessness, agitation, or pacing.

4. Whining.

5. Barking.

6. Howling.



7. Chewing or scratching at doors, floor, windows, curtains, etc.

8. Loss of appetite.

C-BARQ Excitability scoring categories

1. When you or other members of the household come home after a brief absence.

2. When playing with you or other members of your household.

3. When doorbell rings.

4. Just before being taken for a walk.

5. Just before being taken on a car trip.

6. When visitors arrive at your home.

C-BARQ Attachment and Attention seeking scoring categories

1. Displays a strong attachment for one particular member of the household.

2. Tends to follow you (or other members of the household) about the house, from room to

room.

3. Tends to sit close to, or in contact with, you (or others) when you are sitting down.

4. Tends to nudge, nuzzle or paw you (or others) for attention when you are sitting down.

5. Becomes agitated (whines, jumps up, tries to intervene) when you (or others) show

affection for another person.

6. Becomes agitated (whines, jumps up, tries to intervene) when you (or others) show

affection for another dog or animal.

C-BARQ Bold behaviour scoring categories

1. Chases or would chase cats given the opportunity.

2. Escapes or would escape from home or yard given the chance.

3. Steals food.



4. Urinates against objects/furnishings in your home.

5. Investigates unknown objects with confidence.

6. Not fearful.

Temperament test: Novel object Bold observed behavioural cues

The behavioural cues that were measured to distinguish whether a dog showed any boldness

towards the novel object was based on a scale of 0-4 where 0-1 represented no boldness (no

visible signs of fearlessness), 2-3 represented moderate boldness (dog was demonstrating

courage), and 4 represented extreme boldness (dog was demonstrating fearlessness). Table 8.

Table 8. Dog bold levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a Likert Scale, adapted from;(Beerda et al., 1998).

Behavioural cues 0-1: No boldness 2-3: Moderate

boldness 4: Extreme boldness

Hackles Neutral. Lowered. Raised. Body response Neutral. Courageous. Fearless. Body position Neutral. Alert. Dominant.

Head position Neutral/Relaxed. Held along spine

level. Held upwards.

Ear position Neutral/Relaxed. Alert. Alert and Forward.

Tail position Neutral/Relaxed. Held along length

and height of spine.

Tucked slightly between hind legs (cautious boldness)

or raised high above spine

(fearless boldness). Vocal cues None. Yapping. Excessive barking.

Mouth position Neutral/Relaxed. Clenched and closed. Open, often

panting. Back leg position Normal. Flexed. Crouched. Front leg position Normal. Flexed. Flexed.

C-BARQ Playful behaviour scoring categories

1. Barks persistently when excited.

2. Licks people persistently.

3. Begs constantly for attention.

4. Playful, puppyish and boisterous.

5. Chases or would chase anything.

6. Chases own tail.



Temperament test: Novel object Playful observed behavioural cues

The behavioural cues that were measured to distinguish whether a dog showed any playfulness

towards the novel object was based on a scale of 0-4 where 0-1 represented no playfulness (no

visible signs of boisterous behaviour), 2-3 represented moderate playfulness (dog was

demonstrating boisterous behaviour), and 4 represented extreme playfulness (dog was

demonstrating energetic behaviour). Table 9.

Table 9. Dog playfulness levels based on behavioural cues that are measured on a Likert Scale, adapted from; (Beerda et al., 1998).

Behavioural cues 0-1: No playfulness 2-3: Moderate

playfulness 4: Extreme playfulness

Hackles Neutral. Lowered. Raised. Body response Neutral. Boisterous. Energetic.

Body position Neutral. Relaxed with slight

alert crouch.

Backside positioned up in the air with body at an alert

stance.

Head position Neutral/Relaxed. Head is lowered along the spine.

Head is lowered as the backside is

lifted into the air. Ear position Neutral/Relaxed. Relaxed. Raised.

Tail position Neutral/Relaxed. Raised above spine. High in the air, often wagging.

Vocal cues None. Slight yapping. Barking.

Mouth position Neutral/Relaxed. Opening and closing

on occasion.

Open, tongue may be exposed and

dog may be panting.

Back leg position Normal. Slightly flexed. Flexed in order to raise backside into

the air.

Front leg position Normal. Slightly crouched.

Crouched low to the ground in order

to raise backside into the air.



APPENDIX 3: LEARNED AVERSION TRAININ CERTIFICATE



Figure 10. Learned aversion training certificate for dog owners, congratulating them on their dog’s successful performance in the training program, with the additional information of their dog’s temperament levels situated across six different temperament traits, (designed by Robyn Taylor, 2017).



APPENDIX 4: TABLE OF BREED GROUP PERCENTAGES

Table 10. Table comparing the first and last training session of breed group percentages in relation to distance from bait, time spent with bait, type of learned aversions demonstrated, body positions and behaviour responses to bait.

Dog classification Training Sessions

Descriptor

a). Distance from bait (meters)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Working dogs (n = 12) Day 0 Count 12 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 0 0 1 4 0 7

Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 33.33% 0.00% 58.33%

Domestic working (n = 11) Day 0 Count 11 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Percentage 18.18% 18.18% 18.18% 18.18% 18.18% 9.09%

Sporting dogs (n = 14) Day 0 Count 13 0 0 0 0 1

Percentage 92.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14%


Percentage 7.14% 14.29% 28.57% 42.86% 0.00% 7.14%

Toy dogs (n = 11) Day 0 Count 10 0 1 0 0 0

Percentage 90.91% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Percentage 9.09% 9.09% 18.18% 18.18% 45.45% 0.00%

Terriers (n = 8) Day 0 Count 8 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Percentage 37.50% 25.00% 12.50% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00%



Dog classification

Training Sessions

Descriptor

b). Time with bait (minutes)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Working dogs (n = 12)

Day 0 Count 2 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Percentage 16.67% 25.00% 25.00% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Domestic working (n = 11)

Day 0 Count 6 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 54.55% 18.18% 9.09% 9.09% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 90.91% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Sporting dogs (n = 14)

Day 0 Count 10 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 71.43% 14.29% 7.14% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Toy dogs (n = 11)

Day 0 Count 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 72.73% 18.18% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 81.82% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Terriers (n = 8)

Day 0 Count 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 62.50% 0.00% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%




Descriptors c). Urination on bait d). Demonstrated learned aversion

Working dogs (n = 12) Day 0 Count 0 10

Percentage 0.00% 83.33%

Month 1 Count 0 12


Domestic working (n = 11) Day 0 Count 0 8


Month 1 Count 0 11


Sporting dogs (n = 14) Day 0 Count 1 12


Month 1 Count 0 13


Toy dogs (n = 11) Day 0 Count 0 7


Month 1 Count 0 9


Terriers (n = 8) Day 0 Count 3 4


Month 1 Count 3 5





Descriptors

e). Type of aversion

Inspectional Boundary Attentional Complete None


Day 0 Count 1 6 4 1 0

Percentage 8.33% 50.00% 33.33% 8.33% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 0 6 0 6 0

Percentage 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00%


Day 0 Count 3 2 4 0 2

Percentage 27.27% 18.18% 36.36% 0.00% 18.18%


Percentage 0.00% 36.36% 63.64% 0.00% 0.00%


Day 0 Count 4 3 6 0 1

Percentage 28.57% 21.43% 42.86% 0.00% 7.14%


Percentage 0.00% 35.71% 57.14% 0.00% 7.14%

Toy dogs (n = 11)

Day 0 Count 3 0 4 2 2

Percentage 27.27% 0.00% 36.36% 18.18% 18.18%


Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 72.73% 18.18%

Terriers (n = 8)

Day 0 Count 3 0 2 0 3

Percentage 37.50% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 37.50%


Percentage 0.00% 12.50% 50.00% 0.00% 37.50%




Descriptor

f). Body position g). Behaviour to bait

Neutral Fearful Alert Neutral Bold Fear Aggressive


Day 0 Count 9 2 1 9 0 3 0

Percentage 75.00% 16.67% 8.33% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 1 10 1 2 0 10 0

Percentage 8.33% 83.33% 8.33% 16.67% 0.00% 83.33% 0.00%


Day 0 Count 8 1 2 9 1 1 0

Percentage 72.73% 9.09% 18.18% 81.82% 9.09% 9.09% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 5 4 2 6 1 5 0

Percentage 45.45% 36.36% 18.18% 54.55% 9.09% 45.45% 0.00%


Day 0 Count 9 2 3 10 2 2 0

Percentage 64.29% 14.29% 21.43% 71.43% 14.29% 14.29% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 6 5 3 7 2 5 0

Percentage 42.86% 35.71% 21.43% 50.00% 14.29% 35.71% 0.00%

Toy dogs (n = 11)

Day 0 Count 3 5 1 5 0 6 0

Percentage 27.27% 45.45% 9.09% 45.45% 0.00% 54.55% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 1 9 1 2 0 9 0

Percentage 9.09% 81.82% 9.09% 18.18% 0.00% 81.82% 0.00%

Terriers (n = 8)

Day 0 Count 1 0 7 5 3 0 0

Percentage 12.50% 0.00% 87.50% 62.50% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00%

Month 1 Count 5 0 3 1 3 0 3

Percentage 62.50% 0.00% 37.50% 12.50% 37.50% 0.00% 37.50%



References

Allen, L. R. (2015). Demographic and functional responses of wild dogs to poison

baiting. Ecological Management & Restoration, 16(1), 58-66.

Baker, S. E., Johnson, P. J., Slater, D., Watkins, R. W., & Macdonald, D. W. (2007).

Learned Aversion with and without an odour cue for protecting untreated baits

from wild mammal foraging. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3), 410-

428.

Bates, N. S., Sutton, N. M., & Campbell, A. (2012). Suspected metaldehyde slug bait

poisoning in dogs: a retrospective analysis of cases reported to the Veterinary

Poisons Information Service. The Veterinary record, 171(13), 324-324. doi:

10.1136/vr.100734

Batt, L. S., Batt, M. S., Baguley, J. A., & McGreevy, P. D. (2008). Factors associated

with success in guide dog training. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical

Applications and Research, 3(4), 143-151. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2008.04.003

Beerda, B., Schilder, M. B. H., van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M., de Vries, H. W., & Mol, J. A.

(1998). Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of

stimuli in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58(3), 365-381. doi:

10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00145-7

Bowden, J., Beausoleil, N. J., Stafford, K. J., Gieseg, M. A., & Bridges, J. (Submitted).

A prospective study of breed differences in the thermal pain sensitivity of dogs.

Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2017.07.003

Cagnacci, F., Mossei, G., Cowan, D. P., & Delahay, R. J. (2004). Can learned aversion

be used to control bait uptake by Eurasian badgers? Applied Animal Behaviour

Science, 92(1-2), 159-168.

Craigon, P. J., West, P. H., Gary, C. W. E., Whelan, C., Lethbridge, E., & Asher, L.

(2017). “She’s a dog at the end of the day”: Guide dog owners’ perspectives on

the behaviour of their guide dog. PLoS One U6 Journal Article, 12(4). doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0176018

Deldalle, S., & Gaunet, F. (2014). Effects of 2 training methods on stress-related

behaviors of the dog and on the dog-owner relationship. Journal of Veterinary

Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 9(2), 58-65. doi:

10.1016/j.jveb.2013.11.004

Diederich, C., & Giffroy, J. M. (2005). Behavioural testing in dogs: a review of

methodology in search for standardisation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,

97, 57-72.

Dundas, S. J., Adams, P. J., & Fleming, P. A. (2014). First in, first served: uptake of

1080 poison fox baits in south-west Western Australia.

Ewing, T. (2006). Poisoning: an ever-present threat: deadly toxic substances are

everywhere in the typical dog's environment. Dog Watch, 10(9), 1.

Fleming, P. J. S., Allen, L. R., Lapidge, S. J., Robley, A., Saunders, G. R., & Thomson,

P. C. (2006). A strategic approach to mitigating the impacts of wild canids:

proposed activities of the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.



Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46(7), 753. doi:

10.1071/EA06009

Fratkin, J. L., Sinn, D. L., Patall, E. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality

consistency in dogs: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 8(1).

Glen, A. S., Gentle, M. N., & Dickman, C. R. (2007). Non‐target impacts of poison

baiting for predator control in Australia. Mammal Review, 37(3), 191-205. doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2907.2007.00108.x

Goh, C. S. S., Hodgson, D. R., Fearnside, S. M., Heller, J., & Malikides, N. (2005).

Sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) poisoning in dogs. Australian

Veterinary Journal, 83(8), 474-479. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb13296.x

Government of Western Australia (2016 ). 1080: Characteristics and use.: Government

of Western Australia Retrieved 19/06, 2017 from

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/1080/1080-characteristics-and-use.

Government of Western Australia (2017). Canid Pest Ejectors. Department of Primary

Industries and Regional Development Retrieved 20/06, 2017 from

https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/invasive-species/canid-pest-ejectors.

Gregory, T. (2011). Qualitative behavioural assessment on shelter dogs: Do enriched

hides or human interaction affect dog behaviour? (Bsc. Honours thesis in

Veterinary Biology), Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia.

Gustavson, C. R., Garcia, J., Hankins, W. G., & Rusiniak, K. W. (1974). Coyote

Predation Control by Aversive Conditioning. Science, 184(4136), 581-583. doi:

10.1126/science.184.4136.581

Gustavson, C. R., Kelly, D. J., Sweeney, M., & Garcia, J. (1976). Prey-lithium

aversions. I: coyotes and wolves. Behavioral Biology, 17(1), 61-72. doi:

10.1016/S0091-6773(76)90272-8

Harrington, F. H. (1982). Urine marking at food and caches in captive coyotes.

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 60(5), 776-782. doi: 10.1139/z82-107

Hart, B. L. (1995). Analysing breed and gender differences in behaviour. The Domestic

Dog: It’s Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. (Vol. 5, pp. 66-

78): Serpell, J.

Helton, W. S. (2009). Cephalic index and perceived dog trainability. Behavioural

Processes, 82(3), 355-358. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.08.004

Helton, W. S. (2010). Does perceived trainability of dog ( Canis lupus familiaris) breeds

reflect differences in learning or differences in physical ability? Behavioural

Processes, 83(3), 315-323. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.01.016

Helton, W. S. (2010). Does perceived trainability of dog (Canis lupus familiaris)breeds

reflect differences in learning or differences in physical ability? Behavioural

Processes, 83, 315-323.

Holland, C. C. (2007). Leaking with excitement: if your dog urinates during greetings

and other times, behavioral remedies can help. Dog Watch, 11, 6+.

Horowitz, A. (2012). Fair is fine, but more is better: Limits to inequity aversion in

domestic dog. Social Justice Research, 25, 195-212.

Jackson, J., Moro, D., Mawson, P., Lund, M., & Mellican, A. (2007). Bait Uptake and

Caching by Red Foxes and Nontarget Species in Urban Reserves. The Journal of

Wildlife Management, 71(4), 1134-1140. doi: 10.2193/2006-236

http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/1080/1080-characteristics-and-use

http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/invasive-species/canid-pest-ejectors



Jones, A. C., & Gosling, S. D. (2005). Temperament and Personality in dogs (Canis

familiaris). A review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behaviour

Science, 95, 1-53.

King, T., Marston, L. C., & Bennett, P. C. (2012). Breeding dogs for beauty and

behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable

behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions. Applied Animal Behaviour

Science, 137(1-2), 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.11.016

Kinnear, J. E., Pentland, C., Moore, N., & Krebs, C. J. (2016). Fox control and 1080

baiting conundrums: time to prepare for a CRISPR solution. Australian

Mammalogy. doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/AM16020

Kreplins, T. L., Adams, P., Bateman, P. W., Dundas, S. J., Kennedy, M. S., & Fleming,

P. A. (Unpublished data). Training domestic dogs to avoid poison baits using a

'learned aversion' device. Murdoch University.

Ley, J. M., & Benett, P. C. (2007). Understanding personality by understanding

companion dogs. Anthrozoos, 20(2).

Maejima, M., Inoue-Murayama, M., Tonosaki, K., Matsuura, N., Kato, S., Saito, Y., . . .

Ito, S. (2006). Traits and genotypes may predict the successful training of drug

detection dogs. . Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 19, 572-579.

Marshall-Pescini, S., Frazzi, C., & Valecchi, P. (2016). The effect of training and breed

group on problem-solving behaviours in dogs. Animal Cognition, 19(3), 572-

579.

McKinley, S., & Young, R. J. (2003). The efficacy of the model-rival method when

compared with operant condition for training domestic dogs to perform a

retrieval-selection task. Applied Animal Behaviour, 81, 357-365.

McLeod, R., Norris, A., & Cooperative Research Centre for the Biological Control of

Pest, A. (2004). Counting the cost: impact of invasive animals in Australia,

2004. Canberra: Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control.

Meenken, D., & Booth, L. H. (2010). The risk of dogs to poisoning from sodium

monofluoroacetate (1080) residues in possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). New

Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 40(4), 573-576.

Moss, Z. N., O'Connor, C. E., & Hickling, G. J. (1998). Implications of prefeeding for

the development of bait aversions in brush tail possums. Wildlife Research, 25,

133-138.

Most popular dog breeds. (2003). Weekly Reader, Senior Edition (including Science

Spin), 82(11), S3.

Parker, H. G. (2012). Genomic analyses of modern dog breeds. Mammalian Genome,

23(1), 19-27. doi: 10.1007/s00335-011-9387-6

Parker, H. G., Kim, L. V., Sutter, N. B., Carlson, S., Lorentzen, T. D., Malek, T. B., . . .

Kruglyak, L. (2004). Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog. Science,

304(5674), 1160-1164. doi: 10.1126/science.1097406

Peckmezian, T., & Taylor, P. W. (2015). Electric shock for aversion training of jumping

spiders: towards an arachnid model of avoidance learning. Behavioural

Processes, 113, 99–104.

Popular breeds of 2011. (2012). Dog Watch, 16(5), 2.



Radcliff, R. (2016). Understanding Dogs: Temperament in Dogs- Its role in decision

making. Humane Society International, 1-5.

Range, F., Horn, L., Virany, Z., & Huber, L. (2008). The absence of rewards induces

inequity aversion in dogs. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences,

106, 340-345.

Saunders, G., Coman, B., Kinnear, J., & Braysher, M. (1995). Managing Vertebrate

pests: Foxes. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Serpell, J. A. (2017). Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire.

CBARQ. Retrieved 20/05, 2017, from

http://vetapps.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/about.cfm

Serpell, J. A., & Hsu, Y. (2005). Effect of breed, sex, and neuter status on trainability in

dogs. Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals, 13, 197-207.

Starling, M. J., Branson, P., Thomson, P. C., & McGreevy, P. D. (2013). "Boldness" in

the domestic dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behavioural

Processes, 97, 53-62.

Svartberg, K., & Forkman, B. (2002). Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis

familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79, 133-155.

Taylor, K. D., & Mills, D. S. (2006). The Development and assessment of temperament

tests for adult companion dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical

Applications and Research, 1(3), 94-108.

Tonoike, A., Nagasawa, M., Mogi, K., Serpell, J. A., & Ohtsuki, H. (2015). Comparison

of owner-reported behavioural characteristics among genetically clustered

breeds of dogs (Canis familiaris). Scientific Reports, 5(117710).

Trut, L. N., Plyusnina, I. Z., & Oskina, I. N. (2004). An Experiment on Fox

Domestication and Debatable Issues of Evolution of the Dog. Russian Journal of

Genetics, 40(6), 644-655. doi: 10.1023/B:RUGE.0000033312.92773.c1

Turcsán, B., Kubinyi, E., & Miklósi, Á. (2011). Trainability and boldness traits differ

between dog breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic

relatedness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(1), 61-70. doi:

10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.006

Twigg, L. E., Eldridge, S. R., Edwards, G. P., Shakeshaft, B. J., dePreu, N. D., &

Adams, N. (2000). The longetivity and efficiancy of 1080 meat baits used for

dingo control in central Australia. Wildlife Research, 27, 473-481.

Vandeloo, J. (2009). The importance of intergrating natural selection within a detector

dog selective breeding model. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical

Applications and Research, 4(6), 245-245. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2009.05.005

Vas, J., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (2005). A friend or an enemy?

Dogs’ reaction to an unfamiliar person showing behavioural cues of threat and

friendliness at different times. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 94(1), 99-

115. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.001

Veterinary Poisons Information Service (2015). Veterinary Poisons Information Service

Annual Report, 2015.

Victoria State Government (2017). Information on 1080 and PAPP pest animal bait

products. Victoria State Government: Economic Development, Jobs, Transport

and Resources Retrieved 21/05, 2017 from

http://vetapps.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/about.cfm



http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farm-management/chemical-

use/agricultural-chemical-use/bait-use-and-1080.

Welzl, H., D'Adamo, P., & Lipp, H. (2001). Conditioned taste aversion as a learning

and memory paradigm. Behavioural Brain Research, 125(1-2), 205-213.

Young, J. K., Olson, K. A., Reading, R. P., Amgalanbaatar, S., & Berger, J. (2011). Is

Wildlife Going to the Dogs? Impacts of Feral and Free-roaming Dogs on

Wildlife Populations. BioScience, 61(2), 125-132. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.7

Ziv, G. (2017). The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review.

Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 19, 50-60.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farm-management/chemical-use/agricultural-chemical-use/bait-use-and-1080

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farm-management/chemical-use/agricultural-chemical-use/bait-use-and-1080

Documents

HOW DOES TEMPERAMENT AND BREED - Murdoch University...Ten of the main dog breeds within Australia classed as the top ten most popular Australian dog breeds and the top ten most intelligent