I think this is a poor test- possibly with no scientific study involved at all! Science has to be objective in nature, logical, statistically proveable and amenable to repeat testing. Results have to be demonstrable and unequivocal. Analyses have to isolate all the factors and show which are valid. Standards cannot change. (Wait until the SPCA has too many dogs to see if this holds true). Science demands a high standard of proof.

Science is not about giving ten tests, some of which could be deemed to be provocative to dogs (e.g. staring dogs down, removing food, blowing air horns), and making judgements on that basis.

I want to know how the test is graded, or what we have is really not important. Any old fool can make up stuff like this (and make money, trips, and PhDs out of it!!! ) Lay people always go on the defensive and wait for "scientific" disproval of theories. There have been some horrendous theories that got by because questions have not been asked. The onus is on the SPCA to prove that this system works for the benefit of dogs. We're not the ones who are in the business of killing dogs. I am trying to get more details from the British RSPCA about the studies. I would like to see the data.

We all know how it could be used. Of course some dogs are too aggressive to keep. Nobody's disputing this. You don't need this sort of "scientific test" to tell you this. Claims that CAMP is scientific are just to fool people into thinking that all is well in the best possible of all truly "scientific" worlds. Why is the SPCA is so reluctant to give out meaningful information- even to their members ? We need the data, not self-serving press releases.

We should not admit the validity (or credibility) of such tests as, when they use them for whatever purpose they want, we will have nothing that we can say.

Joanne