WebCanine.com » Behavior

Track your dog – TAGG

mom — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:50:26 +0000

A great product that I feel comfortable endorsing on the website. I have had Tagg pet trackers for my 2 dogs for several months. This is great if you are concerned about your dog when you are not at home, or when you go out and if he tends to wander. Also, I can imagine this would make you feel more comfortable if you were on vacation and you wanted to check on your dog at home, or if your dog was accompanying you and got away.

The small tracker attaches to your dogs collar. It sends a signal by GPS and overlays that with a Google earth map to locate your dog at any time. If you have an Android phone there is an App that will show the place your dog is at any time. Also, you don’t even need a cell phone to use the tracker, you can log in to check on your dog from any computer.

It is inexpensive compared to other field tracking devices. It is only available in the U.S. And is about $99 to buy then $7.95/mo. for the tracking service.

I was not given any promotional consideration for this post, I doubt if the company knows I posed about them.

From the Tagg site:

The Tagg™ pet tracking system uses advanced GPS tracking technology to allow you to see where your dog is and receive a notification if he or she wanders off. The lightweight tracker attaches to your dog’s existing collar, and is designed to be worn at all times, even while swimming.

Three Step Set-Up

Once you order our pet GPS tracker, you’re only three easy steps from having it up and running. The first step, which can be completed even before you receive your dog location system, is to create your account. Once you receive Tagg—The Pet Tracker™, activate it. And finally, set up your Tagg zone, a “geofence,” for your dog.

Dog Collar Attachment

The Tagg tracker securely attaches to your dog’s collar with a two-piece clip. Once the collar clip assembly is attached, putting on the pet GPS device is a snap. If your dog has multiple collars, we recommend one collar clip assembly per collar.

Notifications

Whether it’s a text message about your dog leaving the Tagg zone or an email reminding you it’s time to charge your tracker, Tagg notifications make it the most efficient dog tracking system on the market.

Locate your pet

Pinpoint your dog’s whereabouts on the Tagg Map. After you locate him, zoom in. Take a look at his exact location on a computer, smartphone, or using the Tagg mobile app. Need directions? We’ll provide those too.

Marines need feedback : deployment with IDD’s

mom — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:16:52 +0000

For Immediate Release: Jan. 19, 2012

By Katherine H. Crawford, Office of Naval Research

Specialty canines were on a mission to sniff out trouble and display their explosive-detecting abilities Jan. 18 as part of an Office of Naval Research (ONR)-hosted “Top Dog Demo 2012.”

“These dogs have kept Marines alive by helping them move through the battle space,” said Lisa Albuquerque, program manager for ONR’s Naval Expeditionary Dog Program, part of ONR’s Expeditionary Warfare and Combating Terrorism Department. “Marines can focus on their mission because they’ve got these four-legged sensors helping to keep them safe.”

ONR and its partners have been working to improve the canines in three primary areas: nutrition and physiology; stress and cognition; and olfaction, or sense of smell. The Top Dog technical demonstration at Southern Pines, N.C., was an opportunity for senior Navy leadership overseeing the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Detector Dog (IDD) 2.0 Project to see the canines in action.

IDD 2.0 is funded by the Joint IED Defeat Organization, with ONR and the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory teaming to execute the work for the Marine Corps. The technical demo included project researchers from North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University and the Naval Research Laboratory.

Currently, there are 280 IDDs deployed at forward operating bases in Afghanistan, supporting counter-IED missions.

Throughout the workday, the dogs are unleashed and on the go. They move in a circular pattern, hunting 50 to 100 meters out in front of the Marines. An IDD will respond to commands from this distance and can be redirected at a moment’s notice without having to return to the Marine. It can detect smells even while running at full speed, and when it finds something suspicious, it alerts the unit.

“This is the only dog like this in the world,” said Albuquerque. “It’s extremely good in terms of answering the warfighter’s requirements and an incredible force multiplier.”

The IDDs are all hunting bloodline Labrador Retrievers, selected for their hunting abilities, endurance and sturdiness, so they’re inherently “ruggedized” for their mission. These unique dogs are 100 percent mission-focused, having been custom-developed based on Marine requirements. For example, the dog has to be able to keep pace with a Marine on foot and to keep moving for long periods of time each day.

The IDD program places dogs at the squad level without any additional resources—financial or manpower—primarily because there is no need for special dog handlers. A Marine is selected from the unit, trained to work with the dog and returns to the squad as a member of a fire team operating with a live sensor—the IDD. When the Marine completes a tour, the dog returns stateside and is retrained and recertified by the government prior to being redeployed with another Marine.

The program originated in 2006 in response to a Universal Urgent Needs Statement for an off-leash explosive detector dog that could work in harsh infantry environments and provide remote IED protection with limited user training and no increase in personnel or infrastructure.

The Marine Corps is currently seeking feedback from Marines who have been deployed with or supported during deployment by IDDs. Go to the online survey at http://mcpd.us/survey/283/ and enter survey ID code “IDD2011.”

For Immediate Release: Jan. 19, 2012By Katherine H. Crawford, Office of Naval Research http://www.onr.navy.mil/
Specialty canines were on a mission to sniff out trouble and display their explosive-detecting abilities Jan. 18 as part of an Office of Naval Research (ONR)-hosted “Top Dog Demo 2012.”
“These dogs have kept Marines alive by helping them move through the battle space,” said Lisa Albuquerque, program manager for ONR’s Naval Expeditionary Dog Program, part of ONR’s Expeditionary Warfare and Combating Terrorism Department. “Marines can focus on their mission because they’ve got these four-legged sensors helping to keep them safe.”
ONR and its partners have been working to improve the canines in three primary areas: nutrition and physiology; stress and cognition; and olfaction, or sense of smell. The Top Dog technical demonstration at Southern Pines, N.C., was an opportunity for senior Navy leadership overseeing the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Detector Dog (IDD) 2.0 Project to see the canines in action.
IDD 2.0 is funded by the Joint IED Defeat Organization, with ONR and the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory teaming to execute the work for the Marine Corps. The technical demo included project researchers from North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University and the Naval Research Laboratory.
Currently, there are 280 IDDs deployed at forward operating bases in Afghanistan, supporting counter-IED missions.
Throughout the workday, the dogs are unleashed and on the go. They move in a circular pattern, hunting 50 to 100 meters out in front of the Marines. An IDD will respond to commands from this distance and can be redirected at a moment’s notice without having to return to the Marine. It can detect smells even while running at full speed, and when it finds something suspicious, it alerts the unit.
“This is the only dog like this in the world,” said Albuquerque. “It’s extremely good in terms of answering the warfighter’s requirements and an incredible force multiplier.”
The IDDs are all hunting bloodline Labrador Retrievers, selected for their hunting abilities, endurance and sturdiness, so they’re inherently “ruggedized” for their mission. These unique dogs are 100 percent mission-focused, having been custom-developed based on Marine requirements. For example, the dog has to be able to keep pace with a Marine on foot and to keep moving for long periods of time each day.
The IDD program places dogs at the squad level without any additional resources—financial or manpower—primarily because there is no need for special dog handlers. A Marine is selected from the unit, trained to work with the dog and returns to the squad as a member of a fire team operating with a live sensor—the IDD. When the Marine completes a tour, the dog returns stateside and is retrained and recertified by the government prior to being redeployed with another Marine.
The program originated in 2006 in response to a Universal Urgent Needs Statement for an off-leash explosive detector dog that could work in harsh infantry environments and provide remote IED protection with limited user training and no increase in personnel or infrastructure.
The Marine Corps is currently seeking feedback from Marines who have been deployed with or supported during deployment by IDDs. Go to the online survey at http://mcpd.us/survey/283/ and enter survey ID code “IDD2011.”

Behaviours in dogs separated from litter at different ages

mom — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:28:30 +0000

Prevalence of owner-reported behaviours in dogs separated from the litter at two different ages

L. Pierantoni, DVM1,M. Albertini, DVM, PhD2 andF. Pirrone, DVM, PhD2

The present study examined the prevalence of behaviours in dogs separated from the litter for adoption at different ages. Seventy adult dogs separated from their dam and littermates and adopted between the ages of 30 and 40 days were compared with 70 adult dogs that had been taken from the litter for adoption at two months. Owners were asked to complete a questionnaire eliciting information on whether their dog exhibited potentially problematic behaviours when in its usual environment. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate whether the age at which the dog was separated from the litter might predispose it to developing undesirable behaviours. The odds of displaying destructiveness, excessive barking, fearfulness on walks, reactivity to noises, toy possessiveness, food possessiveness and attention-seeking were significantly greater for the dogs that had been removed from the litter earlier during the socialisation period. In addition, dogs purchased from a pet shop at 30 to 40 days of age were reported to exhibit some of the listed behaviours with a significantly higher frequency than dogs purchased from a pet shop at two months. No significant differences were observed with dogs obtained from other types of sources. The dogs in the youngest age group (18 to 36 months) had a higher probability of displaying destructiveness and tail chasing. These findings indicate that, compared with dogs that remained with their social group for 60 days, dogs that had been separated from the litter earlier were more likely to exhibit potentially problematic behaviours, especially if they came from a pet shop.

Veterinary Recordveterinaryrecord.bmj.com

Veterinary Record doi:10.1136/vr.d4967

Author Affiliations

CAN (Comportamento Animale Napoli), Naples, Italy
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Milan, Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milan, Italy

Correspondence to Dr Pirrone, e-mail: federica.pirrone@unimi.it

How Dogs Think And Learn About Human Behavior

mom — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:07:55 +0000

Can dogs read our minds? How do they learn to beg for food or behave badly primarily when we’re not looking? According to Monique Udell and her team, from the University of Florida in the US, the way that dogs come to respond to the level of people’s attentiveness tells us something about the ways dogs think and learn about human behavior.

Their research, published online in Springer’s journal Learning & Behavior, suggests it is down to a combination of specific cues, context and previous experience.

Recent work has identified a remarkable range of human-like social behaviors in the domestic dog, including their ability to respond to human body language, verbal commands, and to attentional states. The question is, how do they do it? Do dogs infer humans’ mental states by observing their appearance and behavior under various circumstances and then respond accordingly? Or do they learn from experience by responding to environmental cues, the presence or absence of certain stimuli, or even human behavioral cues? Udell and colleagues’ work sheds some light on these questions.

Udell and team carried out two experiments comparing the performance of pet domestic dogs, shelter dogs and wolves given the oportunity to beg for food, from either an attentive person or from a person unable to see the animal. They wanted to know whether the rearing and living envi-ronment of the animal (shelter or human home), or the species itself (dog or wolf), had the greater impact on the animal’s performance.

They showed, for the first time that wolves, like domestic dogs, are capable of begging successfully for food by approaching the attentive human. This demonstrates that both species – domesticated and non-domesticated – have the capacity to behave in accordance with a human’s attentional state. In addition, both wolves and pet dogs were able to rapidly improve their performance with practice. The authors also found that dogs were not sensitive to all visual cues of a human’s attention in the same way. In particular, dogs from a home environment rather than a shelter were more sensitive to stimuli predicting attentive humans. Those dogs with less regular exposure to humans performed badly on the begging task.

According to the researchers, “These results suggest that dogs’ ability to follow human actions stems from a willingness to accept humans as social companions, combined with conditioning to follow the limbs and actions of humans to acquire reinforcement. The type of attentional cues, the context in which the command is presented, and previous experience are all important.”

Reference
Udell MAR et al (2011). Can your dog read your mind? Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking. Learning & Behavior. DOI 10.3758/s13420-011-0034-6

Source:
Renate Bayaz
Springer

Dogs can learn object names

mom — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:35:51 +0000

Some Dogs May Understand That Our Sounds Refer To Particular Objects: Border Collie Comprehends Over 1,000 Object Names
08 Jan 2011

Researchers at Wofford College discovered that a Border Collie comprehends the names of over 1000 objects, differentiating between names of objects and orders to fetch them. This research deepens the findings of researchers in Germany, who had discovered a dog that knew the names of a couple of hundred objects. Important questions were left open as to how far a dog could go, and whether the dog really understood that the object names were nouns and not commands to retrieve the object. Medical News Today

John Pilley and Alliston Reid answered two central questions with their research: How large can a dog’s vocabulary become if given extensive training? What do dogs actually understand when we use human language to communicate with them? These findings are published in the Elsevier journal Behavioural Processes.

The authors demonstrated that their dog, Chaser, learned the names of 1022 objects – no upper limit is apparent – they stopped training the dog after three years due to their time constraints, not because the dog could not learn more names. This study demonstrates Chaser’s ability to learn the names of proper nouns, and her extensive vocabulary was tested repeatedly under carefully controlled conditions. The authors admitted that she remembered the names of each of her 1022 toys better than they could. Chaser’s ability to learn and remember more than 1000 proper nouns, each mapped to a unique object, revealed clear evidence of several capacities necessary for learning receptive human language: the ability to discriminate between 1022 different sounds representing names of objects, the ability to discriminate many objects visually, an extensive vocabulary, and a substantial memory system that allowed the mapping of many auditory stimuli to many visual stimuli.

Their second experiment demonstrated that Chaser really understands that these are names, and not commands to fetch the object. In order to test independence of meaning of nouns and commands, the authors randomly combined nouns with commands to see if Chaser would produce the correct behavior toward the correct object in each trial. Without special training, Chaser responded to each combination correctly, even on the first trial, demonstrating that Chaser understood that the commands and proper-noun names had independent meanings. The dog understands that names refer to particular objects, independent of the action requested involving that object.

Their third experiment demonstrated that the dog also understands names for categories of objects or common nouns, and not just individual names or proper nouns. For instance, she learned that name “toy” referred to the 1022 objects she was allowed to play with, each with a proper-noun name. By forming categories represented by common nouns, Chaser mapped one label onto many objects. Chaser also demonstrated that she could map up to three labels onto the same object without error. For example, Chaser knew the proper-noun names of all objects used in the research. Chaser also mapped the common noun “toy” onto these same objects. Her additional success with the two common nouns “ball” and “frisbee” demonstrates that she mapped a third label onto these objects. Her demonstrations of one-to-many and many-to-one noun/object mappings reveal flexibility in the referential nature of words in border collies.

Each of these experiments showed that the dog could learn names using procedures involving associative learning. Their fourth experiment demonstrated that Chaser could also learn names by exclusion – inferred the name of a novel object by exclusion of familiar already-named objects. Retention of these names using this procedure was limited to short periods, however, just as usually observed with children.

According to Alliston Reid, “This research is important because it demonstrates that dogs, like children, can develop extensive vocabularies and understand that certain words represent individual objects and other words represent categories of objects, independent in meaning of what one is asked to do with those objects.”

Additional research is needed to determine whether these impressive language abilities are shared by other breeds of dogs. This work encourages research into how the historical relationships between humans and dogs may have influenced the abilities of dogs to communicate with humans, and whether this influence is unique to dogs.

Notes:
“Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents” by John Pilley and Alliston Reid. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.11.007

About the authors
John W. Pilley, Ph.D. is a retired professor of psychology at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC, where this study was completed.

Alliston K. Reid, Ph.D. is Reeves Family Professor of Psychology at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC, and currently serves as president of the Society for the Quantitative Analyses of Behavior.
Source: Francesca Webb …Elsevier
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213040.php

“Deed Not Breed” In Dangerous Dogs

mom — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:39:14 +0000

Overwhelming Support For Deed Not Breed In Dangerous Dogs Consultation, UK

26 Nov 2010

The government has published the results of the Defra consultation on dangerous dogs revealing overwhelming support for an overhaul of the failed Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

The consultation closed in June and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) submitted a joint response based on sound scientific evidence and expert veterinary opinion. The response called for an end to breed-specific legislation that targets dogs based on the way they look rather than their actions.

The BVA and BSAVA are delighted with the summary of the 4,250 responses published today that reveals:

- 88% of respondents do not believe that current legislation is effective in protecting the public;
- 71% believe that breed-specific legislation should be repealed;
- 84% are in favour of all dogs being microchipped.

Commenting, Harvey Locke, President of the BVA, said:

“There is enormous support amongst experts in dog health and welfare for an end to the failed breed-specific legislation.

“The Coalition Government’s programme promised to take action on dangerous dogs and Ministers must now take on board the strong views from this consultation to implement changes.

“The problems caused by dangerous dogs impact on public safety and animal welfare and maintaining the status quo is not an option.”

Grant Petrie, President of BSAVA, added:

“The problem of dangerous dogs will not be solved until the government accepts that the Dangerous Dogs Act has failed. This view is supported by the thousands of responses to the consultation.

“The support for repeal of the Act and for compulsory microchipping of dogs are clear and we look forward to hearing Defra’s plans in the New Year.”

Notes

1. The summary of responses to the consultation is available on the Defra website.

Source:
British Veterinary Association

Animal Behavior Resource

admin — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:22:15 +0000

http://abrionline.org/articles.php

new animal behavior resource information page from veterinary non-profit, articles and resources to help understand . . . → Read More: Animal Behavior Resource

What Really Prompts The Dog’s ‘Guilty Look’

admin — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:58:34 +0000

ScienceDaily (June 14, 2009)’ What dog owner has not come home to a broken vase or other valuable items and a guilty-looking dog slouching around the house? By ingeniously setting up conditions where the owner was misinformed as to whether their dog had really committed an offense, Alexandra Horowitz, Assistant Professor from Barnard College in New York, uncovered the origins of the guilty look in dogs in the recently published Canine Behaviour and CognitionSpecial Issue of Elsevies’s Behavioural Processes.

Horowitz was able to show that the human tendency to attribute a guilty look to a dog was not due to whether the dog was indeed guilty. Instead, people see ˜guilt in a dog’s body language when they believe the dog has done something it shouldn’t have ‘ even if the dog is in fact completely innocent of any offense.

During the study, owners were asked to leave the room after ordering their dogs not to eat a tasty treat. While the owner was away, Horowitz gave some of the dogs this forbidden treat before asking the owners back into the room. In some trials the owners were told that their dog had eaten the forbidden treat; in others, they were told their dog had behaved properly and left the treat alone. What the owners were told, however, often did not correlate with reality.

Whether the dogs’ demeanor included elements of the “guilty look” had little to do with whether the dogs had actually eaten the forbidden treat or not. Dogs looked most guilty if they were admonished by their owners for eating the treat. In fact, dogs that had been obedient and had not eaten the treat, but were scolded by their (misinformed) owners, looked more guilty than those that had, in fact, eaten the treat. Thus the dog’s guilty look is a response to the owner’s behavior, and not necessarily indicative of any appreciation of its own misdeeds.

This study sheds new light on the natural human tendency to interpret animal behavior in human terms. Anthropomorphisms compare animal behavior to human behavior, and if there is some superficial similarity, then the animal behavior will be interpreted in the same terms as superficially similar human actions. This can include the attribution of higher-order emotions such as guilt or remorse to the animal.

The editor of the special issue, Clive D.L. Wynne of the Department of Psychology, University of Florida, explained, this is a remarkably powerful demonstration of the need for careful experimental designs if we are to understand the human-dog relationship and not just reify our natural prejudices about animal behavior.He pointed out that dogs are the oldest domesticated species and have a uniquely intimate role in the lives of millions of people. Recent research on dogs has indicated more human-like forms of reasoning about what people know than has been demonstrated even in chimpanzees.

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Elsevier, via AlphaGalileo.

Journal Reference:

1. Horowitz et al. Disambiguating the ‘guilty look’;: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour. Behavioural Processes, 2009; 81 (3): 447 DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.03.014<

Dogs and Prostate cancer

admin — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:39:47 +0000

Dogs can be trained to correctly identify certain prostate cancer cell-derived volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in urine, according to new data from researchers in Paris. These promising new data were presented on June 1, 2010 during the 105th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA). The session was moderated by AUA Public Media Committee Chair Anthony Y. Smith, MD.

In recent years, new findings have emerged to indicate that dogs, due to their strong scenting ability, are capable of detecting cancer. Past studies have focused on breast, lung and bladder cancers. This new study addresses the ability of canines to accurately detect the presence of prostate cancer.

Using urine samples from 33 patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer, researchers trained dogs (using the clicker-training method) to recognize the characteristic olfactory signatures of prostate cancer-derived VOCs. The dogs were then trained to discern cancer urine from control urine and, finally, were asked to signal cancer urine from among five individual samples (only one was from a patient with confirmed cancer). Sensitivity and specificity were 100 percent and 91 percent respectively; of the 66 total urine samples (33 in each group), the dogs correctly classified 63 samples. The negative predictive value was 100 percent.

“These data suggest that prostate cancer tumors may excrete certain VOCs that turn up in a patient’s urine and that this ‘scent’ may be specific to prostate cancer,” said Dr. Smith. “What we need to do now is figure out what those VOCs are and whether or not we can develop a specific test to identify them. But, don’t be surprised in a few years if we have to ‘call in the dogs’ to make a diagnosis-if it holds up, the dogs are better than PSA!”

Source: American Urological Association

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/190633.php

Problems with aversive dog training

admin — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:52:51 +0000

Welfare Organisations Join Forces To Highlight Problems With Aversive Dog Training Techniques, UK

23 Dec 2009

The British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) have joined forces with several UK animal welfare, behaviour, and training organisations (full list below) to warn of the possible dangers of using techniques for training dogs that can cause pain and fear, such as some of those seen used by Cesar Millan ‘The Dog Whisperer’, who has announced a UK tour next year.

The organisations have come together to voice their serious concerns about techniques which pose welfare problems for dogs and significant risk to owners who may copy them. These concerns are shared, and the statement supported, by similar organisations around the world and in continental Europe.

Aversive training techniques, which have been seen to be used by Cesar Millan, are based on the principle of applying an unpleasant stimulus to inhibit behaviour. This kind of training technique can include the use of prong collars, electric shock collars, restricting dogs’ air supply using nooses/leads or pinning them to the ground, which can cause pain and distress.

The use of such techniques may compromise the welfare of dogs and may worsen the behavioural problems they aim to address, potentially placing owners at considerable risk. A number of scientific studies have found an association between the use of aversive training techniques and the occurrence of undesired behaviours in dogs.

The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour. Dog trainers all over the UK use reward-based methods to train dogs very effectively.

Where dogs have behaviours which owners find unacceptable, such as aggression or destruction, qualified behaviourists achieve long term changes in behaviour through the use of established and validated techniques of behaviour modification without subjecting dogs to training techniques which may cause pain or distress.

We urge dog owners to carefully consider the help they choose to train their dogs or tackle behavioural problems. Anyone can call themselves a behaviour expert, but we believe that only those with a combination of appropriate qualifications, up to date knowledge as well as skills and experience should be treating dogs, and should only do so in a way which does not put the welfare of the dogs at risk.

The jointly-sponsored website http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org has information on:

- the misconceptions which underlie the use of aversive training techniques
- the development of behaviour in dogs
- the problems associated with the use of aversive training techniques
- finding a suitable trainer or behaviourist

The organisations involved in the campaign are:

- Dogs Trust
- The Blue Cross
- RSPCA
- The Blue Dog
- Wood Green Animal Shelters
- World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)
- The Kennel Club
- Raystede Centre for Animal Welfare
- Canine Partners, UK
- Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB)
- Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC)
- Association of Pet Dog Trainers, UK (APDT, UK)
- UK Registry of Canine Behaviours (UKRCB)
- Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group (CABTSG)
- British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA)
- British Veterinary Association (BVA)
- Australian Veterinary Association (AVA)
- Australian Veterinary Behaviour Interest Group (AVBIG)
- American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB)
- American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB)
- The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC)
- The Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, Inc. (CCPDT)(USA)
- European Society of Clinical Veterinary Ethology (ESCVE)
- European College of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine – Companion Animals (ECVBM-CA),
- Flemish Veterinary Working Group on Ethology (VDWE)
- Norwegian Association for Pet Behaviour (NAPB) Norsk Atferdsgruppe for Selskapsdyr (NAS)

Source
British Veterinary Association

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/174193.php