Shy Dogs Are Dogs That Were Not Properly Socialised?

[laffi]

As title says. Do you think shy dogs are dogs there were simply not properly socialized as pups?

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Not always. Sometimes it's genetic.

[Rain]

Not always. Sometimes it's genetic.

I agree.

[Erny]

Not always. Sometimes it's genetic.

I agree too. But lack of proper and sufficient socialisation can have the affect that they are less than what they are capable of being.

[laffi]

So from what was said before there are two main reasons for a shy dog:

- genetic

- poor puppy socialization

When it's genetic, do you mean it's breed dependent (so the whole pedigree) or just that the parents were shy?

I guess what I am asking is: if the parents were not shy, would you then think it must be the socialization or still possibly genetic?

[sidoney]

Regarding the physiological component ("nature" rather than "nurture"):

"Shy" dogs may be more reactive (to noise, sight, etc. stimuli), and so avoid too much of these kinds of stimuli.

In humans, I have read that "introverts" (shyer people) require less external stimulation in order to maintain an optimum level, while "extroverts" require more - and so extroverts look for noise, company, excitement, while introverts look for more quietness, solitude, etc. There can be a heritable component to this.

IMO dogs may be similar.

Edited September 4, 2007 by sidoney

[B-Q]

i agree it can be both. Mac is a bit timid and her socialisation wasn't great. She's okay once she has a while to meet other dogs but she's not dog park material it would just freak her out. weird thing is, once she knows the other dogs well (like the ones here) she's an absolute bitch to them. Attacks harry on a whim now.

[spyda62]

One of my dogs is a very shy/timid dog.

Now over 2 years old. She was socialized as a pup. She comes everywhere with me. We are around people and dogs alot of the time. There is no reason for her to be like she is so I put it down to genetics.

[Kavik]

sidoney

I remember watching a show on thrill seekers and extreme sports etc - those that like to go skydiving, bungy jumping, BASE jumping etc - and it said a similar thing - that they required more stimulation than normal to get that excitement. Very interesting. My half brother and sister went bungy jumping when we were in NZ recently but my full brother didn't (neither did I!).

[Rom]

Interesting....

I wonder if that's the same as having a high or low threshhold to a trigger? Are people like dogs in that they just don't connect with the stimulation until it gets to a certain intensity that's individual to each? And I wonder if those threshholds can be manipulated to a certain extent in people as they can be in dogs?

ETA: Thinking about that a little further and I think they can be manipulated somewhat in the same way that we sensitise or desensitise a dog to a stimulus.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Rom

[PAX]

I have a really shy timid dog that was very well socialised as a pup, she has never had anything bad happen to her to make her timid. I actually had two pups with similar breeding, both raised by me from the same age. One is very outgoing, loves everyone and the other is very timid so in my dogs case it's genentic.

My friend has bought a puppy that is the repeat mating of my puppy and she is very outgoing.

[Rom]

I think that diversity is what helps promote survival of a species. There may come a time when environmental pressures for survival are altered and this alteration may not favour the survival of the confident, outgoing dog. Working lines that have been selectively bred for their abilities for hundreds or thousands of years still produce litter members that don't have what it takes to perform the duties that they were selected for to the required level.

So regardless of breeding I think that mother nature ensures that there is still some diversity in characteristics.

If you think about it on a human scale, despite the information age and access to education, not every child grows up to be an Einstein.....if they did nobody would be out growing crops for us to be fed. I don't mean to imply by that that those that grow crops are any less intelligent....just that sometimes diversity means that certain types of intelligence are more suited to different fields of knowledge.

Its diversity that allows us to function as a society in a manner that promotes survival.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Rom

[leopuppy04]

Hmm.... As those have already said - I see it as both 'genetic' and 'environmental'.

I'm one of those that can't see it without the other - in cases such as 'shyness' I think a lot of it is a result of both that you can't necessarily separate from the other. Of course - this is not always the case, but I think it plays a part.

A shy dog will need to be handled differently.... so our way of 'exposing' them to their environment during socialisation may have heightened their response rather than decreasing it - all of course unintentional.

There are dogs that are socialised to everything under the sun from day 1 and are still naturally shy.

There are dogs that are well socialised again, but one bad experience can set them back months.

There are dogs that are never taken out of their back yard until about 12mths old and are still confident about everything in the world!

Part of it would be breed dependant, and say - breeders (whether registered or not) misunderstanding what the 'standard' says..... I'll use an example I know (keep in mind this is hypothetical).... The aussie standard says that by rights they should be 'reserved with strangers'. This does not mean aggression nor 'shyness'... to me - all it means that your dog will not readily go up to a 'stranger', but if that stranger were to pat it, the dog wouldn't back off. The dog might be slightly more 'reserved' when the master is not there. But, that is only MY interpretation. A breeder may say - her brood b!tch runs away from strangers when they come to the door and won't greet them for 30mins straight - but that's ok - it is just the 'reserved' nature of the breed. I am not saying one is right and one is wrong... just pointing out that one word can be interpreted 1 million ways.

So - from that point - a dog that 'temperament' wise is not suitable for breeding could well be used..... the result could be a few shy dogs.... again, who are used and eventually - the problem does become genetic.

BUT - can we really separate the two? I do believe that puppies react in the ways in which their mother shows them - part of this during the 'critical period' so it is likely that they may always be a little bit 'shy' of one thing or another because their mother is.....

To me - I can't separate whether or not it would be genetic or environmental.... but I will be able to say, in some cases whether it be MORE genetic or MORE environmental - but with that you have to look at other relatives, litter mates etc

JMHO

[leopuppy04]

I think that diversity is what helps promote survival of a species. There may come a time when environmental pressures for survival are altered and this alteration may not favour the survival of the confident, outgoing dog. Working lines that have been selectively bred for their abilities for hundreds or thousands of years still produce litter members that don't have what it takes to perform the duties that they were selected for to the required level.

This is a very fair point.

A farmer would NOT want his dog going up to everybody on the job to say hi. Likewise - a 'flock guarder' should not view all that nice to intruders into their paddock. Those that did would not have been kept on the job long.

On the flip side - someone with a gundog could not have worked if the dog was gun-shy, but probably wanted a breed that works well for it's master and got on well with others (hunting in groups) as well as other dogs.....

A Pug wouldn't be much use 'attracting fleas' if it loathed sitting on it's mistress' lap....

Each dog was bred for a purpose, and although these purposes have changed.... many, many years of breeding are behind them.....

[benny123]

I have siblings, they had the same socialisation the same everything (same genetics too).

Spud is really laid back and relaxed and takes everything in his stride. Beanie seems really nervous, is hyperactive, wets herself when she's excited or fearful. Wets herself at the drop of a hat really.

I've no idea why they are so different.

Oh, and between the two of them she is the alpha. Very odd.

Actually, now that I've just said that I wonder if she feels she's the leader of all of us and that's why she's so flighty.

[Erny]

When it's genetic, do you mean it's breed dependent (so the whole pedigree) or just that the parents were shy?

I guess what I am asking is: if the parents were not shy, would you then think it must be the socialization or still possibly genetic?

Although some 'breeds' may be predisposed to being 'shy' it can also be a genetic factor in the lineage of the individual (breed regardless). Parents might represent an overall temperament, but that doesn't mean there can't be a throwback in the ancestory history. That's why it is good to not only check out the parents, which is important in itself, but where possible to trace back to the Grandparents and even to the Greatgrandparents.

[Tonymc]

Shy Dogs, yes as others have said can be Genetic or Enviromental. Tony

[Sarah L]

I do agree that shy dogs can be genetic or a learned behaviour. Learned behaviour is easier to overcome than genetic but genetic behaviour is not impossible to modify to a certain degree of manageability. Even if the genetics of the parents were predisposed to shy or fearful behaviour it is possible with the right training that any pup showing signs of this behaviour can be trained to overcome this by giving exposure to lots of situations under the right conditions, thus the pup/dog can learn to overcome it's shyness and be more confident in lots of different situations. Many people who want a dog for work or to do some kind of dog sport will chose a dog that does not display these characteristics, but as a trainer you have to deal with the dog that is presented to you so it can be a better learning curve on what needs to be done to help the dog.

[Tonymc]

Problems within Dogs that have a genetic origin is one of the reasons why I am against soley breeding Dogs based on aapearance only.Testing Dogs before any Breeding was done could start to turn some of these Genetic based problems around.

I know some European groups test Dogs before they are allowed in their respective Breed registeries.The sooner its done here the better. Tony

[Sarah L]

Tony I also disagree with breeding dogs solely on looks, it would be far better to breed for temperament. I am ever hopeful one day this will happen.