"We have an extraordinary relationship with dogs - closer than with any other animal on the planet. But what makes the bond between us so special?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pssgh

Wednesday BBC 2 9pm

Thanks for posting a reminder, I read the Radio Times this week but missed this so would've missed the programe!! :-)

Oh my gosh what the heck are they doing to that poor dog in the link! a muzzle and a eye thingy!!

I am very intrigued to watch now...

sky +'d it.... it looks like a camera, maybe so we see what the dog sees? dunno, looks like its going for a human eye test tho lol.... poor little critter

looking at it again..  it seems to be smiling ?? lol

apparently a very intelligent dog..will be getting my lot to watch it Oh and myself :-)

Well it was a great programme. Full of my old uni, lecturers and studies I have read. Oh and it also mentioend my dissertation study on puppy and pointing gestures, fame at last eh? :)

It certainly confirmed for me that nature is really the main influence as opposed to nurture.

Fascinating stuff, and proves how absolutely vital it is that only animals of sound, solid temperament should be bred from.

What a fabulous programme just proves all our thought on our canine pals doesn't it. And how the human race wouldn't be where it is now without them. Mentioned all the studies I have read about and good to see the fox one in real life not just words. Will they use/ do they use the genetic test for CM in boxers health testing wise? Or is it not in those stages yet?
Very proud of the BC very intelligent breed anyway but wow to it's cognitive development. Think these idiots would tell me to fetch my own bloody stripey bone and slobber on a picture card. Not for lack of brain just lack of motivation lol same as me really.

Must say I went to Lincoln uni and daniel mills was my prof, didn't do anything like that there shame he doesn't involve undergrad students In any of these experiements. The main reason I left and probably why after the first year numbers went from approx 100 to around 40 pupils. Didn't even get to visit the kennels apart from when my own dogs went in for personality tests.

Thanks for flagging this up - I have not been watching much tv recently and wouldn't have bothered to look for anything tonight.  That BC has inspired me to do some more training with mine!  What a fantastic dog! 

The difference between the tame and aggressive foxes was amazing, and the foxes were really like German Spitz type dogs, and the wolf cubs behaviour, though ti was a bit sad that all that socialisation and they had to be taken back to the wildlife park.

agree with on this but.
the silver fox in russia progamme how they bred the good temperments one but the coat and defect came though after a couple of geneatons. ????
a bottle neck after 7 years of breeding,the same in some breeds of dogs today getting health problems.

i was upset when they did lease the wolf cub back into the pack think god are they going to let her into the pack .

this progamme should have been on bcc1 so some dogs owners would have seen this as well as the one that hit the head lines last years.and see another side of the story,of dogs

really interesting programme, felt so sad for those foxes in the little metal cages though.

me to

Really enjoyed the programme and it was funny to see Daniel Mills again ( he began his uni lecturing at Lincoln when I was in my final year, I would have been fascinated to work with  him in these studies)
The genetic research was a very clever angle and a pity this was not shown on BBC1 where it would have had more viewers.

forgot about this program :(
Hopefully they will show it again soon...

It's available to watch on iplayer. :-) (Second link on the BBC2 section.)

Just watched via link- Fantastic- we were commenting last night about how many words Tuppence knows so am going to try the toy naming game as I think she will love it.

Very interesting programme all round. The thing about pointing was interesting as it is what gundog owners and some collie owners do when working their dogs at distances where voices would be lost. The boxers and cardio myopathy research was interesting too.

As others have said great shame it is not on BBC1.

Watched this and it was fascinating - its true then they do knopw what we are saying. Poor silver foxs in Russia though.

Agree a good programme except for the silver foxes in Russia - the conditions that they were being kept in did not look very good. It has taken scientists a long time then to know what we have always known about our dogs, how they communicate with us, especially by the bark.  Always know by my dogs bark whether they are excited or whether they wish to go out to relieve themselves, or whether they have heard a predator, human or animal.   I have never doubted for one minute their intelligence, especially how they have managed to train me to their every wish and command!!

Thank you very much!

And me, my OH has learnt Border collie off pat Im ok on spaniel and grade 3 on BC.

CM in Boxers - there was one test that was hailed as 'the' test...in the US (recently).
However it's being questioned if they have gone too soon with announcing it as 'the' test.
As some results on UK Boxers via this gene test have not gone as expected. (this is with other health test results from cardiologists etc)
All of this has been reported in the Dog press via the Boxer breed notes.
However research into CM within Boxers is ongoing and hopefully in my lifetime we will see
a gene test for CM that does apply to UK Boxers.

I really enjoyed it for two reasons. The production was done by seasoned professionals involved in proper reasoned and factual broadcasting.

It made me think about the Russian research and how bad the conditions they foxes were held, but the information that it has produced it to me amazing. It speaks volumes on how maybe putting a small group of foxes in what are not ideal situations but the impact on future medical advancements for both canine and humans to me is worth it.

I think the foxes could be kept in far better conditions without doubt but the sacrifice all those generations of foxes could be very significant.

That is how they are kept on fur farms.  At least the tame ones have same human contact to look forward to.

If they can find the gene for aggression or lack of then perhaps dangerous dog would be a thing of the past and every potential breeding animal would be tested for absence of the aggression gene/s.

>I think the foxes could be kept in far better conditions without doubt

As Brainless says, those are the conditions animals are kept on fur farms - in fact the cages were very clean compared to some. They can't be provided with bedding or they wouldn't grow such thick coats.

Also as you can see they a re not normally easily handled animals ans the wired cages allow the feces to fall through nd be cleared away without risk of the handlers being injured or the animal escaping.

I loved seeing the ones in a  home environment showing what lovely pets they could make somewhere between  cat and dog, and of course suited to the Siberian climate.

Standard conditions for all fur farmed animals worldwide - and the Belyaevs probably better kept than most in terms of interaction. The anti fur campaign is spot-on in my estimation.

However to change the conditions for the better for these foxes after 50 years of very useful - nay groundbreaking - work, could set it back another 50 years. Should they give it up? There are not as many foxes kept in the experiment as there once was, because of the changes in the Soviet/Russian political situation. Those that are tame, and can be sold as pets, and perhaps fund the research. As do the ones that are still sold for fur. I don't agree with fur farming at all, but if that's the only way to keep this research going then I will reluctantly side with the researchers. Maybe a charity could be set up to fund them without the need to sell some for fur to keep it going? Who's going to be the first to set up a fund?

I guess to some people watching the programme, the Belyaev fox experiment might have been new. For those, a concise overview of the whole ting, over the last half-century, is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

This short video explains even more, but if you didn't like seeing the wire cages, then this does have more of it.
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=55468
All in all, the experiment has done a great deal towards our understanding of the process of domestication and is STILL contributing, by way of finding/spotting specific genes that are significant. No, I do not like the wire cages but there are still thousands of minks and foxes kept in similar conditions worldwide to be made into fur coats. Change that first, before you judge the Belyaevs.

I loved seeing the ones in a  home environment showing what lovely pets they could make somewhere between  cat and dog, and of course suited to the Siberian climate.

Yes it was good to see. We say there watching it with all the girls watching both canine and feline and as usual the floor was full of puppies and kittens all laying down together.
snuggling .

I am pro animal testing and although I didn't like seeing so many of them in the conditions I do feel it will without doubt help so many of us in the future.

Thought I would throw this in:

As breeders one already knows that if you mate two dogs together with a bad temperment then you stand to produce some puppies with a bad temperament.

Equally if you mate two dogs together with good temperaments then you also stand to produce puppies with good temperaments, and if that is what you are trying to improve on in your breeding programme then the good tempered pups are the ones that you take forward to the next generation.

Still think that the conditions for the silver foxes are poor, even weighing up any benefits for humans that could possibly come from them.

> Equally if you mate two dogs together with good temperaments then you also stand to produce puppies with good temperaments,

but how is this inherited? 

Are all the fox cubs good tempered from the good tempered parentage, as this seem to be the case,b ut you still get the odd bad natured, weak character turn up in litters with parents of impeccable character.

Certainly in my experience where breeders actively strive for temperament the swings from the desirable norm are small and within acceptable limits.

You need only look at some of the awful untypical temperaments cropping up in Labradors and Goldens to show what non selection does.

Is there an actual gene for viciousness?  Or will ti turn out to be polygenic, which seems likely with the linked changes in other features found when simply selecting for the temperament.

I was rather pleased to read on one of the links that the study is largely financed from selling them as Pets, as it means that some of the domesticated cubs are getting homes.  Would seem a shame to develop an animal with a people needing character and then not allow them to be pets.

> but how is this inherited?;
>

Think that it is considered to be polygenic, - do not think that with DNA testing they have got that far with polygenic genes (i.e. hip dysplasia, goniodysgenesis and others, patella luxation).   So you have to mate the two dogs together with the temperament that you are trying to achieve, and try and pick the pups with the trait that you are breeding for to take forward to the next generation, and so on.  There are lots of different temperaments in dogs as there are as many different breeds.; each breed has its own indivudal temperament.   Depends what you want, the scientists in the silver fox experiment were selecting for the best temperament, as we also do with our pedigree dogs and all the other features that we select for (including those without health problems) which distinguishes one breed from another, so suppose as its very basic level they were also doing what we do, which now is causing us so much grief.   So taking it to its logical conclusion as Brainless has, if we stop selecting for desirable traits, we will end up with more dogs that are of doubtful temperament - hmm is that what is wanted of dog breeders?

> if we stop selecting for desirable traits, we will end up with more dogs that are of doubtful temperament - hmm is that what is wanted of dog breeders?

Hmm This seems to indicate that you can't select for BOTH good health and temperament.

The programme also seems to suggest that the old argument of nature vs nurture that has been raging for decades, if not centuries, is proven here.  The subject is far more complex than that.  IMO there must always be a combination of both eg there have been many criticisms, not least on this forum, of studies on wolf behaviours not being valid as there was undue influence by humans - making the wolves behave in an unnatural, 'tame' way. The opposite could be said of the 'aggressive' foxes on this programme - what expectat6ions of these foxes were there by those who 'cared for them?  If they were know to be bred from aggressive parents wouldn't that influence the carers' attitudes and so the foxes' behaviours?  If nurture is so unimportant, why do we get so upset about puppy farms?  What is the difference between the way these foxes were bred and raised and some of the 'better' [ie similar husbandry] puppy farms?

>This seems to indicate that you can't select for BOTH good health and temperament.

Of course you can. But the more you select for, the more you narrow the gene pool, by eliminating individuals. Taken to the extreme it would end up as "do you want a supremely healthy, long-lived dog that hates you and will bite you at any opportunity, or one that is crippled but loves you to the end of its being?"

not posting to anybody just to the end of the post...
What would people say is "good temperament" for a dog? What is stated by the breed standard or what makes the dog easy to live with in our society?

What is seen as acceptable differs in different breeds, some behaviors seem acceptable in some breeds and unacceptable in others(just looking around the rings at shows)... Nervousness, aggressiveness etc...

Many people you see say their dog is "bad tempered" but to me they are only behaving like a dog, and often the behavior is actually "fed" by the owner...
Many dogs have their behaviors affected by experiences and this could be seen as not good tempered dog, should this dog be taken out of gene pool because of learned behavior?
How would you know what is learned behavior and what is something the dog was born with?

>What is seen as acceptable differs in different breeds, some behaviors seem acceptable in some breeds and unacceptable in others(just looking around the rings at shows)... Nervousness, aggressiveness etc...

I don't think aggression is listed as desirable in any breed standard, though I could be wrong! Aloofness or wariness, yes, but not nervousness or aggression. What people accept and what is correct, however, are two different subjects, and needs to be addressed pdq, with judges severely penalising incorrect temperament.

Of course it's complicated that dogs have to fit into an increasingly dog-hostile society, so temperaments need to reflect this; if 'aloofness' has to be sacrificed for a more sociable temperament, one of the breed characteristics will have changed slightly but that's surely better than being banned entirely!

> The programme also seems to suggest that the old argument of nature vs nurture that has been raging for decades, if not centuries, is proven here.  The subject is far more complex than that.  IMO there must always be a combination of both

I think the experiment showed us that even by raising a wolf cub as a puppy, it will still grow to be a wolf cub, not a puppy/dog and if you select to breed for aggression you will get aggresive offspring (as in the Silver Fox). But it never looked into how an 'agressive' behaviour can be changed/influenced by nurture from a human, it only looked at the personalities of aggresive fox cubs raised by tame fox cubs, (we would have to do a lot of work with a dog that had been raised by a tame dog but with no human influence on that behaviour) .Also we were given no clear definition of 'aggression', other than un-handled, caged foxes biting at an intruding human hand. I don't think one can include the fact that wolf cubs act like wolf cubs as an example of nurture failing to have any effect, afterall we want to know how nurture has an effect on 'aggresive' dogs, not wolves, and the sudy, to me, only proved the 2 are very different from birth.

I am sure that many 'tame' puppies/fox cubs could be made to show 'agressive' behaviour if they were raised to show it, despite being genetically programed to be 'tame' and I am sure it can work the other way around. So I do strongly agree that nature can defiantely be influenced by nurture and this study is not conclusive, just proves that genetic inherited factors do have a bearing on natural beahviour, which we allready knew.

In the ature v's nurture debate in regards to our dogs behaviour, I always assumend that 'nurture' reffered to the human influence.
The rest of the programme proved how amazing dogs can be at learning to communicate with humans, yet the influence of humans on a dogs behaviour (not a wolf, they proved wolves don't comunicate with us the same as dogs) was not studied.

Actually I thought that nature versus nurture was shown quite clearly :)

The fur foxes weren't tame foxes to start, they were still wild and no amount of human contact had changed them, the soviets had already been farming silver foxes for generations ;)  It was only when breeding animals were selected for slightly less aggressive tendencies that changes were seen and it took several generations of selective breeding, the control animals had the same amount of human attention but didn't change as they weren't bred selectively.   It was also clear that fox cubs weren't taking their agression from their mother (nurture) as their behaviour didn't change at all.

The wolf pups on the other hand had a lot of human interaction right from birth, including hand feeding and their nature clearly wasn't changed by human contact, they were returned to the park as they were becoming too dangerous to keep in a domestic setting.

I thought the reason they used wolf cubs was because they wanted to find out whether simply taking the cubs and keeping them with humans would have tamed them sufficiently to become dog-like.  Clearly domestication of the wolf wasn't that simple ;)

>I really enjoyed it for two reasons. The production was done by seasoned professionals involved in proper >reasoned and factual broadcasting.

Totally agree :) Thought the programme was very well done, the purpose of the programme was clearly stated and demonstrated. 

> Actually I thought that nature versus nurture was shown quite clearly :-)

It depends what 'nature v's nurture' is asked in relation to.

I think the study only shows domestication.. It proved that by breeding the foxes that were more willing to interact with humans resulted in domestacted foxes (which they called 'tame' foxes), and that breeding foxes that showed no will to interact positvely with humans resulted in 'aggresive' foxes (or un-domesticated). But we allready know this.
They then proved that nurture has no effect on the behaviour of an un-domesticated animal, by getting a domesticated fox to raise a non-domesticated litter and by getting humans to raise non-domesticated wolves.

Dogs are domesticated allready, so aggression from a dog is different than aggression from a non-domesticated animal. For me, the question of 'nature v's nurture', in relation to the behaviour of domesticated animals, is still unanswered.

I really enjoyed that programme. I'm going to try to get hubby help with an experiment to see if my dogs will follow fingers to find the treat, that was very interesting!

They will - following treats/fingers is lure-training and a very basic and useful foundation of many types of training.

Using that plus clicker training mine would "go touch" anything I marked or told him to at a young age, after only two sessions. I can still do this with him, I tell him to touch an object (anything!) then I can hide it or put it at a distance... he will then 'go touch' it with his nose. I've not done any serious scent work with him but it's not far removed from this... if I could combine it with a retrieve then I' have it cracked.

One of mine knows her 'touch' command, and all of them were taught sits, downs etc with lures. But it's not quite the same as somebody pointing at a pot that is several feet away - I am looking forward to seeing if it works! :-)

> One of mine knows her 'touch' command, and all of them were taught sits, downs etc with lures. But it's not quite the same as somebody pointing at a pot that is several feet away - I am looking forward to seeing if it works!

I've always taken it for granted that a dog knows what you mean when you point and found it amazing that a chimp doesn't pay any attention! The fact that dogs follow eye gestures is not suprising also, but again suprising that chimps don't.
One thing I have noticed with Buster, more so than other dogs I have owned, is his abitlity to direct me with his eyes. For example, he will sit next to the kitchen counter that has his treat tub on top and will make deliberate, obvious, eye movements to who ever is in the room, then back at the treat tub, he will repeat this untill the person realises what he's 'saying', if it doesn't work he'll start doing frantic head nods*. Bless him, he's such a scav. :)

* I taught him to 'nod' in answer to questions (started as 'do ya love me?' but once learnt, any question will work if used in the same tone/with same hand-signal), he found that nodding without being 'asked' a question gets a great response from people so he uses it to 'beg', LOL

As Polly said below:

> The thing about pointing was interesting as it is what gundog owners and some collie owners do when working their dogs at distances where voices would be lost.

When gundog training you use hand/arm signals to send your dog either to the right, left, or back at the end of which they hopefully find the retrieve.   Back in the 60's we would use hand signals when training our GSD, you could drop him across a field just by raising your arm.

This form of human/dog communication has been in use a long time.

LOL at Buster's head nodding!
My girl does the same directing with eyes too.
She waits to catch your eye and then very obviously moves her eyes(and your eyes) to what ever she wants to point out to you.
I bet there has been hundreds of owners pointing things to their dogs after the program :) in our household I have taken it for granted as well that they know what pointing means...

One of mine used to bring in anything that she was capable of retrieving, put it on your knee and then wait expectantly for you to throw it, if you didn't she would look at the item then up to you trying to catch your eye, if you still ignored her she would then paw you until finally you would give in!!!!!!!!!!  As I said earlier had me well trained.

Oh yes, Ellie uses her eyes - she pins me with a LOOK, then stares meaningfully at the treat bag, and then switches between my eyes and the treat bag, escalating to irritated yowling barks, until I give in and do as I'm told! :-p

> But the more you select for, the more you narrow the gene pool, by eliminating individuals. Taken to the extreme it would end up as "do you want a supremely healthy, long-lived dog that hates you and will bite you at any opportunity, or one that is crippled but loves you to the end of its being?"

Jeangenie [sorry for the delayed response btw] This is the perrenniel problem for you breeders isn't it - how to mix and match so to speak to gain the best genes  in lots of different aspects of a breed, and then reproduce them.  It also seems to me that this is why there are programmes such as the one some time ago about pedigree dogs and their health problems - some breeders have focussed too much on certain aspects rather than taking a long-term, holistic  approach for the betterment of their chosen breed/s. One of the many reasons I won't get into dog breeding is that it is sooooo very complex.

Not sure now who said about altering temperament to fit todays' societal expectations but I agree absolutely.   Humans have been carrying out selective breeding for centuries according to their particular needs [and desires] at those times.  Our times now dictate that we can't have dogs [generally, I know there are still many dogs who still are active working dogs] with 'anti-social' behaviour patterns inherent in their breed type. Having said this, I personally have a little problem with it as it could lead to further splits within breeds, eg working, show or pet types.
My brain hurts now - told you this breeding was too complicated for me LOL.