Dogs Who Ignore Other Dogs

[vnv]

My two sisters and I tool our dogs to the beach yesterday for xmas (2 shih tzu's, my staffy x and a GSD).

They have all played together before so after the inital sniffing etc my dog completely loses interest in my sisters dogs and want's go and sniff other things. If an unknown dog comes anywhere near us she goes mental trying to get to it, she makes these monkey noises and will lunge at the end of her leesh. Her tail is wagging so I don't know if she is being aggressive or she just want's to play.

At the beach yesterday we saw lots of other dogs, most of them off lead, and they just toally ignored all 4 dogs, they were happy to just play with their owners. One dog trotted past behind his owner, about 2m from where we were standing without batting an eyelid (meanwhile I am walking further up the beach with my dog going mental).

Her recall is great at home and she very trustworthy and obedient at home or familar places where we walk, but because of the way she reacts to strange dogs I can't trust her off lead outside the backyard so yesterday she was the only dog who didn't get to play off-lead. My sister said I was being too controlling and that I never let my dog have any fun.

I got my dog from the pound just over 12 months ago, and I think she is about 18 months old now. So is it an age thing, a training thing, a temperament thing, all three??

I think she had fun at the beach despite not being let off-lead, I did have her on a long lead and we did run around a lot...

The other reason I didn't want to let her off is because the GSD is sometimes a bit full-on and will interrut my girl when she is trying to sniff very important things, so she will run off trying to get some peace! (When they lived together my girl used to jump the fence to get away fromt the GSD just so she could have a quiet lay down because he always wants to play).

[bj2circeleb]

Some dogs are more dog orientated than other dogs and it properly has a lot to do with their early upbringing along with genetics, etc. But, that does not mean that all dogs cannot be trained to be reliable offlead.

The biggest mistake I find people make with recalls is only calling the dog at the park or whatever to go home. No dog is going to come, no matter how many treats you have if it means going home if they want to stay!! You need to ensure that you call them most of the time for good things, so coming to you means good things happen, and if you do call them at a park or elsewhere that you do so at least 10 times before you take them home!!

The hardest part of training and the part which most people do not get to is proofing. All dogs and people are distracted by some things. By the sounds of things the most distracting thing for your dog is other dogs. This means that you need to focus on doing really simple obedience exercises like sit, with a dog about 20 metres away, and then slowly move forward until she can still listen to your commands with the other dogs next to her. When you attempt to take her off lead you need to do so, with you right next to her and with no other distractions around. She needs to learn to function with both distractions and with distance and with offead, and while initially they need to be done seperately they can then be combined, but when they are combined you need to move back to a very easy level, and then only increase one of them at a time.

My dog will ignore other dogs on leash, but happily plays with them at parks, the beach and the like. She has a 110% reliable recall, and in that I mean that if she is running full speed after a ball and I call her she will immediately turn around and come back. If she is eating, even her food she will drop it and come, and if she is playing with other dogs, even chewing on each other, chasing each other, etc she will come the second I call her. Some people have the strange idea that if they let their dogs play with other dogs, or even with other people their dog will not listen to them, etc. This is akin to the stockholm sydrome and if people's only way to train a dog is to neglect its social needs I find this really sad. Yes, to a degree i do control who my dog plays with, but my dog sees me as number 1, not becuse I force it or don't allow her to do anything else, but because of the benevolent leadership I provide. I let her play and have fun with other people and dogs and while I do like to chose who she plays with at parks, this is largely based on who I feel the owners are and what the dogs are like.

On another issue, many dogs find being on lead around offlead dogs incredilby stressful and dogs should always be allowed to meet other dogs in equal footing. Until you are happy to have your dog off lead, I would tend to stay away from other offlead dogs as it is only going to make things worse for her.

Taking her to obedince classes so she can learn to function around other dogs, even if she is already well behaved, will only help her. One of the main reasons of these classes is to teach dogs to function around other dogs. The dog will also be socalised to other dogs and will learn to better read their signals. While dogs are born knowing to a degree how to speak dog, they are really born knowing how to speak their own language, ie. Labrador, Jack Russell, German Shepard, etc and they need to spend time around other dogs to learn their similar and yet slightly different languages. Off lead is best but any time is better than none. You may also want to consider agility or some other fun classes so she sees you as fun. While obedience clubs are cheap, they are very focused on competition obedience and you may prefer to find classes designed for pet dogs, or even some trainer who can work with you individualy for a while.

http://flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html

Edited December 27, 2008 by bj2circeleb

[Just Midol]

1 word: Neutralisation.

[Kelpie-i]

Lord Midol is correct...

In very layman's terms, neutralisation is the process of creating a neutral value to various things ie dogs or humans etc. This means your dog has neither a negative nor a positive value association toward the object, animal or person. It has totally neutral feelings towards them therefore has no interest in interacting. The only thing your dog should have a positive value is with you. However due to your dog's age, it's too late to successfully neutralise your dog, so this process would be somewhat useless to you. But may be worth looking into for a future puppy.

From what you describe, it sounds like your dog may be lacking in some social skills. Tail wagging doesn't necessarily mean your dog is friendly, this is merely an indication of arousal.

I suggest some regular attendance at an obedience school or club which will help immensely with your dog's overall obedience and regular, controlled exposure around other dogs to assist in creating the relaxed dog you desire when out in public.

[bj2circeleb]

Lord Midol is correct...

In very layman's terms, neutralisation is the process of creating a neutral value to various things ie dogs or humans etc. This means your dog has neither a negative nor a positive value association toward the object, animal or person. It has totally neutral feelings towards them therefore has no interest in interacting. The only thing your dog should have a positive value is with you. However due to your dog's age, it's too late to successfully neutralise your dog, so this process would be somewhat useless to you. But may be worth looking into for a future puppy.

What you refer to as neutralisation is akin to the stockholm syndrome. If the only way you can find for your dog to work or do anything for you is to take all other enjoyable things out of their lives then I can only say that it is incredilby sad. Police dogs, guide dogs for the blind and assistance dogs all have time off, play with other dogs, interact with other people, play with toys on their own, etc and yet they all manage to do incredible work and to place their handlers at number 1, and would never blink and eyelid when working. If you cannot allow your dog to have a full and meaningful life while still seeing you as number 1, then you need to learn how to train dogs!!

Why do people continue to feel that the only way a dog can see you as number 1 is to deprive them of all other enjoyment in life. There is no reason for this sort of behaviour and I struggle to see how such things can be seen as humane.

I suggest you read this article and then explain why what she says is not true and why it is that guide dogs of all dogs who are able to safely guide a totally blind person across a busy road, is capeable of playing with other dogs, interacting with other people and playing with toys when they are not working, and yet at the site of their harnesses they jump up and ran to have to put on with great enthusiasm.

It is possible for dogs to love working, to see their hanlder as number 1 and the most important thing in life and yet still play with other dogs, interact with other people and play with toys.

http://flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html

[ness]

I think some breeds are naturally more handler focused. I know with my own experience with my two BC girls - my older girl would much rather be doing something with me then off playing and my new 8 month old pup is the same to a degree. She will play with other dogs if they want to play but can also be quite snobbish if she is involved in an activity with me.

[Baby Dragon]

With the neutralisation training, what would be the ideal age to start that training, and is there any other information about it out there? I'm very interested in learning more about it.

As for the OP, I'm a total newbie when it comes to the issue (I've never owned a young puppy) but I'm under the impression that dogs ignoring other dogs probably comes down to a combination of breed, genetics, socialisation (probably especially while a puppy) and training. It's something that shelter dogs often struggle with, especially at first, because if a dog ends up at a shelter they may not have been considered part of the family, so they might not be well trained, socialised or taken on many outings so the dog could develop socialisation skills. There will probably always be exceptions at the shelters though.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The only thing your dog should have a positive value is with you.

Really?

I have a bitch for whom the best thing in the world EVER is lure coursing. It holds a massive positive value for her far exceeding anything else, including me. The minute she realises she is at the field and the machine is there she becomes incredibly alert and happy and is just itching to get out there.

I am not as exciting to her in that moment as a plastic bag on a string, but I still manage to get her back at the end of the run. Given that, why would I want to make her experience of lure coursing neutral? Seems to me that would be shutting down her drive to do what she was bred to do? It pleases me to see her so happy, and I have no issue at all with the fact that in that time and moment, the thrill of the chase is more important. How could dogs work effectively at things like coursing and earth-dogging if the owner was the only thing with positive value?

[Just Midol]

Lord Midol is correct...

In very layman's terms, neutralisation is the process of creating a neutral value to various things ie dogs or humans etc. This means your dog has neither a negative nor a positive value association toward the object, animal or person. It has totally neutral feelings towards them therefore has no interest in interacting. The only thing your dog should have a positive value is with you. However due to your dog's age, it's too late to successfully neutralise your dog, so this process would be somewhat useless to you. But may be worth looking into for a future puppy.

What you refer to as neutralisation is akin to the stockholm syndrome. If the only way you can find for your dog to work or do anything for you is to take all other enjoyable things out of their lives then I can only say that it is incredilby sad. Police dogs, guide dogs for the blind and assistance dogs all have time off, play with other dogs, interact with other people, play with toys on their own, etc and yet they all manage to do incredible work and to place their handlers at number 1, and would never blink and eyelid when working. If you cannot allow your dog to have a full and meaningful life while still seeing you as number 1, then you need to learn how to train dogs!!

Why do people continue to feel that the only way a dog can see you as number 1 is to deprive them of all other enjoyment in life. There is no reason for this sort of behaviour and I struggle to see how such things can be seen as humane.

I suggest you read this article and then explain why what she says is not true and why it is that guide dogs of all dogs who are able to safely guide a totally blind person across a busy road, is capeable of playing with other dogs, interacting with other people and playing with toys when they are not working, and yet at the site of their harnesses they jump up and ran to have to put on with great enthusiasm.

It is possible for dogs to love working, to see their hanlder as number 1 and the most important thing in life and yet still play with other dogs, interact with other people and play with toys.

http://flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html

You don't understand neutralisation at all.

Police dogs, assistance dogs, security dogs... All are neutralised.

I got about 3 paragraphs in and now I am 100% confident that you have no idea. It talks about isolating the dog so the dogs only social contact is with him. Locking her in a room whenever he isn't there so she is just bursting to play with him. That's not how neutralisation works, my dog has never been isolated from other dogs (though he never gets free roaming time with them) and he does wander around other people... He has just never cared about them as they have never given him any attention. I'm not depriving him from anything... He never KNEW them to be fun.

He isn't isolated from them, they just don't give him anything so they aren't something that is positive for them.

Anita, you also don't understand neutralisation. You're not neutralising your dog to it's drives (which is a stupid way to put it).

------------

Every time neutralisation comes up we get a barrage of people who don't understand it at all bad mouthing it. It's worse than the anti-prong and anti-ecollar people. Do some friggin research before you bad mouth methods you don't understand. Ignorance... Celebrated.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Lord Midol

[Cosmolo]

Okay i do understand neutralisation and personally don't do it with my or my clients dogs. Assistance dogs in my experience are socialised with certain things and neutralised with others.

[Kavik]

I understand neutralisation, tried to do it with Kaos, didn't work the way I had hoped. I won't be trying it with my next dog.

With regards to other dogs, I agree with ness that some dogs would rather be working/playing with their handler than playing with other dogs. Kaos is like this, he is not interested in playing with other dogs, would much rather be working with me. Diesel would rather play with other dogs though

[Just Midol]

Okay i do understand neutralisation and personally don't do it with my or my clients dogs. Assistance dogs in my experience are socialised with certain things and neutralised with others.

Which is exactly what people fail to understand (not you, but people in this thread), you don't have to neutralise to everything.

But I ask people who don't... What's the benefit of not neutralising dogs to other dogs and people.

The way Steve explained it to me was that you've got the scale of -10 to +10, and around -2/3 to +2/3 is fine. If the dog has a +3 value for other dogs and people it means he DOES enjoy playing with them, but enjoys playing with you more.

[Cosmolo]

But Midol if my dog has a positive value of +3 to another dog- it is not neutralised.

Understand that you don't have to neutralise to everything. In a training context we generally talk about it with regards to dogs and people (as having a neutral value to a lawnmower is obviously a good thing) and i don't want my dogs to have a neutral value for those things.

ETA answer to Midol's question- the benefits of not neutralising- my dog experiences normal enjoyable interactions with dogs and people and maintains normal social relationships with the other dogs in my home.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Cosmolo

[Kavik]

My question in regards to neutralisation is how do they deal with sudden things? Like people suddenly coming up to pat them, kids coming up to pat them, vet examinations etc if they don't get attention from other people? I want my dogs to enjoy getting pats from other people and to be fine with kids. Part of the fun of having a dog is enjoying its interactions with others. At the very least I do not want my dog to be scared of these things and if people only ignore the dog, how will you teach the dog to deal with these situations?

With other dogs, because of my experiences with a dog aggressive dog, I have no problem with the idea of neutralising to other dogs. But how do you then teach the dog to deal with playful, exuberant dogs if all other dogs it has met have not been interested in interacting?

[Just Midol]

But Midol if my dog has a positive value of +3 to another dog- it is not neutralised.

Understand that you don't have to neutralise to everything. In a training context we generally talk about it with regards to dogs and people (as having a neutral value to a lawnmower is obviously a good thing) and i don't want my dogs to have a neutral value for those things.

ETA answer to Midol's question- the benefits of not neutralising- my dog experiences normal enjoyable interactions with dogs and people and maintains normal social relationships with the other dogs in my home.

Not strictly, but it'd almost be impossible to hit 0.

-3 -> +3 is close enough to zero for me. It's low enough that he will never go to that item over me, but high enough that it isn't aggression.

Kavik, Lily is naturally not a dog dog. When a dog is pissing her off and is too excited she ignores it. It can be jumping on her head and she just pretends it doesn't exist.

Though, my dogs will never come into contact with playful, exuberant dogs. I don't do dog parks, nor social outings. They have no benefit to my dog and no benefit to me.

How do you get a dog that hasn't been neutralised used to sudden things? Doesn't that have more to do with the dogs nerves (how it reacts to new things) than the dogs training?

My dogs are used to vets, that's a part of neutralisation. As in, the dog has no negative or positive value for it. Montu is fine with kids, babies, young children, large children. He is fine with them all.

Why do you want your dog to enjoy getting pats from strangers? Surely you can provide this enjoyment? To me, the enjoyment of your dog playing with other dogs or other people is more for the benefit of the handler than the dog. If you can provide all the enjoyment your dog needs & requires then why do they need to obtain it from others?

[Cosmolo]

Why do i want my dog to enjoy getting pats from strangers? Because strangers often pat my dogs. And i believe the dogs playing with other dogs, even within the home benefits them- not me. I don't see any negative fallout with my dogs from having positive values for other dogs and/ or people.

[Just Midol]

Why do i want my dog to enjoy getting pats from strangers? Because strangers often pat my dogs. And i believe the dogs playing with other dogs, even within the home benefits them- not me. I don't see any negative fallout with my dogs from having positive values for other dogs and/ or people.

But what negative fall out is there from the dogs not playing with strangers or other dogs.

ETA: Within the home, so is your dog neutralised to dogs outside of your "pack"?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, I prefer neutralised dogs... I just hate it when people attempt to claim I am cruel for neutralising.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Lord Midol

[bj2circeleb]

I have an assistance dog and I work in an office with a guide dog. Both of our dogs play together during the day. How is it that they have been neutralised to dogs. They have pets and belly rubs from other staff and I cannot see how that makes her any less want to be with me. The second I drop something before I even ask her to pick it up, she has done so. The guide dog does not have to be called if the blind person wants to go somewhere. The dog senes it, immediatley stops playing and is by the desk ready for work. Our dogs love their jobs ahead of all other things in life, but that does not mean that they are not able to interact with otther people and dogs at appropriate times.

Our dogs are not patted while they are working and they will not interact with the public at such times. Both of our dogs know that harness or vest on means you ignore the other dog, but they also ignore everything else anyway. Why? Becasue they need to be able to foucs on the task at hand. Buses have signs up near the driver asking you not to talk to them while they are driving. If someone came up and gave me a hug now while I was typing this I would stop, and/or I would at least slow down and be very distracted. When in public open places my dog already has enough to cope with without having to deal with people patting her, etc. And a guide dog has the job of keeping a blind person safe and cannot do that while being patted and/or playing. But just because the dog is focused when working does not mean that they are neutralised to other people or animals. I do not know of any guide dog or assistance dog program that would place a dog under such conditions and none of them are trained in such a way. If they were trained in such a way they would never be able to effectively transfer the leadership from the puppy raiser to the trainer and then to their disabled handler. My dog is not neutral to other dogs and people when working any more than a guide dog is. She is just so focused on the job at hand, like a dog lure coursing or whatever, that they are unable to focus on anything else!

Police and customs dogs live in kennels with other dogs and are handled by kennel staff, with the exception of the times that they are working. How are these dogs neutralised to other dogs and people???

Just like I appreciate having a number of people in my life, I feel my dog deserves the same respect. As a living being she has a right to spend some time around her own species, and she has a right to chose to spend time around other people. I am not so self centred as to think that I am the only thing that should ever matter to my dog. I also have to consider what would happen if I got hit by a car and killed or whatever. There have been cases of guide dog living through such accidents and the hanlder dying. Should such dogs be put to sleep just because the handler has gone. I think not, but if my dog was not capeable of bonding to other people this would have to happen. You do not raise children by never allowing them to ever be near another child or adult so why do it with dogs. The simlpe reality is that I am human and I cannot hope to possibly meet all of my dogs wishes and needs, even if I could wish that I could.

The idea behind neutralisation is that dogs are not going to see the hanlder as a leader if they do allow them to have access to other dogs and people. This is simply not true, and any well trained dog proves this. effective leadership comes from providing for the dog and for making the difficult decisons in life, it does not come from denying the dog contact with other people and dogs. Yes, given a choice I will always be number 1 in my dogs life, but that does not mean that when I am doing something else she does not have a right to have contact with other people and dogs, and that their will not be times when I am ill or injured and unable to look after her when she will be happy to be with other people. To neutralise a dog you do not allow it contact with other people and dogs in the first few months of life. This in effect creates a situation akin to the stokholm syndrome when the dog gives up and no longer tries to ever be near another person or dog.

[Just Midol]

Just like I appreciate having a number of people in my life, I feel my dog deserves the same respect.

Your dog is a dog, it has no concept of respect.

As a living being she has a right to spend some time around her own species, and she has a right to chose to spend time around other people.

Again, it's a dog.

I am not so self centred as to think that I am the only thing that should ever matter to my dog.

Anthropomorphism[sp].

I also have to consider what would happen if I got hit by a car and killed or whatever. There have been cases of guide dog living through such accidents and the hanlder dying. Should such dogs be put to sleep just because the handler has gone. I think not, but if my dog was not capeable of bonding to other people this would have to happen.

Neutralised dogs will bond with a new handler, once their old handler is out of there lives. Again, you show no understanding of the goals of neutralising and how the process occurs.

You do not raise children by never allowing them to ever be near another child or adult so why do it with dogs. The simlpe reality is that I am human and I cannot hope to possibly meet all of my dogs wishes and needs, even if I could wish that I could.

Fail. Dogs are not people.

Police and customs dogs live in kennels with other dogs and are handled by kennel staff, with the exception of the times that they are working. How are these dogs neutralised to other dogs and people???

Neutralisation does not equal devoid of all contact with humans and dogs.

The idea behind neutralisation is that dogs are not going to see the hanlder as a leader if they do allow them to have access to other dogs and people.

Thats not the idea at all. Most working dog owners I know have neutralised dogs and let their dogs run together. They go to boarding kennels and sometimes someone other than the handler will walk and feed them.

You don't know what neutralisation is.

This is simply not true, and any well trained dog proves this. effective leadership comes from providing for the dog and for making the difficult decisons in life, it does not come from denying the dog contact with other people and dogs.

Whilst neutralisation might help leadership (because of the way we carry it out) the goal of neutralisation is not to enforce leadership.

Yes, given a choice I will always be number 1 in my dogs life, but that does not mean that when I am doing something else she does not have a right to have contact with other people and dogs, and that their will not be times when I am ill or injured and unable to look after her when she will be happy to be with other people.

A neutralised dog does have other people and dogs in his life, but they are viewed as neutral, not positive, or negative. They might be slightly positive or negative though.

To neutralise a dog you do not allow it contact with other people and dogs in the first few months of life. This in effect creates a situation akin to the stokholm syndrome when the dog gives up and no longer tries to ever be near another person or dog.

That's not how neutralising is performed.

Where on earth do you get your information?

Edited December 27, 2008 by Lord Midol

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I'm not saying one is better than the other, I prefer neutralised dogs... I just hate it when people attempt to claim I am cruel for neutralising.

Did anyone use the "c" word? Perhaps I missed it.

Someone said they struggled to see how it could be humane. That's a statement about them, not about you.