Neutralisation Vs Socialisation

[Kavik]

K: What about my question earlier - how do you teach the dog to accept things like bouncy friendly dogs or people or kids that come up noisily (or perhaps roughly) for a pat etc if they have only experienced those that give no reaction?

K9: first there is no reason to only teach a dog that other dogs will be calm, not bouncy, just teach the dog how to recat in al cases (that are common) and for those not common, look to the Alpha.

Also neutralising does not mean you need a dog that has no reaction to yours, just conttrol the outcomes.

So how would you do this? I was under the impression that to neutralise to other dogs you only introduce your pup to dogs which will ignore your pup so it would think other dogs are boring and will not play with it. If you do this, how do you then teach your pup to deal with dogs that may be bouncy, friendly, in your face etc. If your dog has never met a dog that does this, how is it supposed to know how to act around these dogs?

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: you don't allow interaction that ends with your dog gaining big rewards out of the experience.

Writing out the complete program would take a long, long time.

[Kavik]

I'm more interested in how you prevent negative experiences? Say a dog that gets unsure around bouncy playful dogs? How could you prevent/deal with this so the dog is more comfortable/relaxed around them?

[corvus]

A couple of things:

My mother had this pup once that went horribly wrong. I think looking back we realise that he was one of those ones born a bit scared, but it wasn't obvious because he would deal with anxiety with aggression. A get them before they get me mentality. He was really good with my mother and I think he trusted her deeply, but nothing she could do could convince him that something he thought was bad was safe to ignore. We both think that his socialisation regime did more harm than good and probably contributed heavily to how things went downhill, but I wonder how one can have a fighting chance with a dog like that by "being the alpha". I hear that all the time and I also hear all the time that you have to lead by example and ignore the source of the fear for your dog. If you do that with my Penny, though, you make it worse. I know because I believed in this method and I did it and it made it worse. What made it better was putting my arm around her and telling her gently that she had nothing to fear and to calm down. What helped was acknowledging her fear and reassuring her (not coddling, they are different!).

My thought is, if you have a dog that is scared, if you let them remain scared, you have failed them in their eyes. You failed to deal with the issue. How can they feel safe if it looks like you didn't even know there was danger and didn't listen to them when they were trying to tell you there was?

Also, I don't really agree that it is so easy to wipe out a very high positive value for something. Animals are like banks. If you have a bank balance of 20 000, then it's going to take a hell of a nasty experience to reduce that to a minus figure. I know this because I have a wild hare. His bank balance fluctuates every time something happens he's so jumpy. Practically nothing is a neutral to that creature, and if it's bad it tends to be bad in the hundreds at least. All the same, if my bank balance is high enough with him, I can do something truly terrible to him and still not ruin things. I might ruin them for 2 days, but Kit will come around and remember how I have all the food and water and how he quite likes fruit and head scratches and eventually he'll go out of his way to make friends again. Basically, it depends on the animal. Kivi cried about 6 times in the early visits to the dog park and still adores other dogs because that's the kinda fellow he is. He is a crybaby and he loves making friends. If Kit were a dog I would be an idiot to take him to a dog park in the first place.

[Steve K9Pro]

J: I guess I was talking in the view of showing the right behaviours to a young pup who doesnt yet know the difference between the two, as my girl is only 10 weeks so yeh of course a pup at this age is going to have desire to play play play and needs to be shown otherwise.

K9: well yes & no, no to play with things you cant control, such as people, dogs etc, yes to play play play with things you c an, like toys, you etc etc..

J: your kind of talking about the end result in this really, but to get to that result the dog could have come from any situation, a young pup who thinks everything is a play thing,

K9: Thinks everything might be a play item, neutralisation shows the pup that everything isn't a play item, only you & your toys are.

[Quickasyoucan]

Something that comes into my mind about the value of neutralisation time and time again is when you look at it in the wider context of the ever increasing limitations placed on dog ownership.

When I first came to Australia I was surprised at the restrictions on where you could have your dog off lead, where they were allowed and where they weren't. Maybe things have changed in the UK now but things were certainly a lot less restrictive over there when I left and they are certainly less restrictive (setting aside BSL which I know is in both the UK and Europe).

Really do you want a dog that assigns a value of +8 to strangers and tears up to them, or worse jumps up at them. Do you want to run the risk that person is litigious or reports you to council on the basis that your dog is "dangerous" remembering the "dangerous" in accordance with the law (certainly here in NSW) does not necessarily have to involve inflicting any harm.

For me I would rather my dog didn't have an interest in interacting with strangers at all, sad but true, I don't want to run the risk of coming across an anti-dog loony who wants to rid the world of dogs and uses any sort of perceived bad behaviour as an excuse.

I may sound paranoid but look what has happened in the States, where off leash dog parks are few and far between.

PS. I was subject to a stealth mounting by a very overweight labrador at the dog beach this morning, according to his owner he "just gets so excited when he sees strangers he has to jump up at them, but he is not vicious or anything". Now I didn't really care (apart from being covered in sand), but imagine if I didn't like dogs or was scared of them, this was probably a 40kg plus dog gripping my thighs!, I could have caused some issues for that owner.

ETA I don't think you can compare hares to dogs. Just as you wouldn't compare cats to dogs, different species, different cognitive abilities.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Quickasyoucan

[Cosmolo]

My dogs have a high value for people and do not go racing up to them in parks etc. A dog with a high value is not always out of control.

[Quickasyoucan]

My dogs have a high value for people and do not go racing up to them in parks etc. A dog with a high value is not always out of control.

I agree, but I am sure not all dogs are as well trained as yours Cosmolo!

And I do meet quite a lot of over friendly dogs around the traps (I have the scratches on my legs to prove it!) certainly around my way. I guess I came across as over generalising but if you have a dog that assigns a high value to people then you have to do the training to ensure that they are controlled when the situation is appropriate. If a dog does not have a high value to people, I would have thought you would be less likely to have to use that control in the first place. I don't know the answer and certainly I am no expert but it just seems to make sense to me. I suppose there are many ways to skin a cat! (sorry for the analogy)

[Steve K9Pro]

C: My dogs have a high value for people and do not go racing up to them in parks etc. A dog with a high value is not always out of control.

K9: no of course not, but they have to be trained not to race up vs them not wanting to race up...

Neutralisation prevents distractions before they become distractions.

No where do I say to anyone including clients that they have to neutralise their pups, its just a recommendation & it works very well.

I dont see a benefit in having a dog assign a high value for strangers vs a low value, no benefit but plenty of downside.

Edited January 5, 2009 by K9 Force

[Steve K9Pro]

In my opinion i dont realy think it should be anything to do with what the dog regards as high value as long as the reward method we use is "high value" to outway anything in the end, and generally the leaders aproval is the most valueble.

K9: that is the correct theory, but in reality it doesn't always play out that way.

You have a dog that you allow to chase rabbits for example, using all of its prey drive & reaping the rewards for it.

You also train with a prey item, training will mean that the dog, for a less than desirable performance may not get that prey item, may have to do more than one formal (thought requiring) task for it.

When you have a dog that's tossing up the options of chasing a rabbit which will be prey drive satisfying for sure & your toy, sometimes that toy will look unachievable or "too expensive" to the dog & you have lost.

yes you can then employ corrective measures but of course its 2 steps forward & one step back then.

no a dog should not be running up to people out of excitment (i treat this as rude) and expecially no jumping (having kids around its a death sentence).

but just because it isnt allowed and the dog is taught not to do it doesnt mean the dog doesnt regard people with high value or not just knows how to behave in the right manner.

S: yes of course, as I mentioned earlier, its one more thing that has to be taught, trained & ultimately proofed as opposed to just not training it in the first place.

in majority of households a dog (in theory) needs to learn how to do both, it needs to learn to sit back and say watch kids running around but also know how to interact with thoes kids at the right time.

K9: Yes it does need to learn this, but learning can be inhibited when you over socialise & looking at my booking list, whilst they must learn these things, they are not doing it.

So it seems in this thread this whole value thing doesnt really do much justice.

K9: In a perfect worlkds, no, in ours, yes.

It should have nothing to do with 'how good such and such is" because in the end we should be the highest reward for our own dog, which means that we say what goes, wether this should be ignored (no matter how much it was played with before hand) or wether its ok to play with that now.

K9: Agreed & neutralisation is a sure step in that direction.

In my opinion any dog is going to want to race up and investigate on its own accord in the begining and the dogs that end up not doing this are still "taught" (as isnt that wat training is teaching?) to do otherwise, and because they are "taught" not to then in turn they end up "not wanting to".

K9: when its done fiorst, its called nuetralisation.

I am not sure about your neutralisation "program" but it is still "teaching" the dog hence it is still "training" the dog to not want to do something.

K9: Its not training the dog not to ant to, its blocking a natural reward path that later on will delay training & keep in mind you don't have to be sure about it, because I am.

A dog needs to get the best of both worlds (in my opinion anyways) as it is growing up. So I kind of see both theorys coliding with each other.

K9: The best of both worlds? are there only two worlds?

Wether im getting at what im saying the long way or not, but if such and such isnt a play thing, the dog is still taught that it isnt.

You seem to kind of make it out that a dog does these things without being "trained". Trained to me is still conditioning/teaching the dog.

K9: What I am saying is that I take a different approach to socialisation, that in itself is training.

Ok my puppy now has my young girl rattling keys infront of her while my pup is laying down near the door, my pup looked but didnt react (seems this is your neutralisation theory) no the pup wasnt taught for that particular instance to ignore, but is in the process of teaching her not to be "over excited" around my daughter and that majority of things she has she cant play with. So pup in turn is "learning" that its not worth it in most situations, but doesnt put any less or higher value on my daughter.

K9: This means to me that the pup didn't find the keys stimulating, not much else. if the pup doesnt see the keys as a trigger to any drive, your not achieving anything.

[Diva]

I haven't read all the posts in detail so I hope I'm not off topic. But as dog owner in the eighties and early nineties my idea of 'socialisation', or rather the objective of it, always was 'neutralisation' as I understand it to mean.

I was naively shocked, for example, when in the late nineties I joined the local dog club, and suddenly other trainers and handlers were wanting to feed my dogs treats. In my previous training experience, the good things came from me, not strangers and not the environment without my permission (to the extent environmental reinforcement was under my control, which it isn't entirely of course). I would address a dog's negative value for someone or something with positve reinforcement if appropriate, but didn't expect or want a strong reinforcement history associated with strangers or strange dogs in general. Still don't.

Edited to clarify: I'm talking about pet dogs mostly.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Diva

[Steve K9Pro]

J: Another words a dog doesnt get the chance to chase things get pats from people in your 'program'. but to me that would be the 'perfect world' and doesnt always happen that way.

K9: Well I am not saying my world is perfect but it happens just that way here. People who would come up to my pup would be asked not to pet the dog, only interaction in the beginning the pup has with people are my set ups.

The dog is not off leash until it has a solid recall.

J: as for a dog tossing up between a rabbit and the reward, just as you make the reward not accesable until the job is done you would then not allow the dog to get the reward from the rabbit. it would then still be neutralisation in that instance?

K9: Its a bigger subject than a few answers will do justice but, the dog will never be released to get the rabbit, when the dog desires drive satisfaction, I will provide it for work completed.

[corvus]

Well you cant exactly compare this to a 'hare'

Excuse me, but I can and I did. All animals respond in much the same way to good things and bad things, you know. It's actually universal. I could compare this to just about any animal on the planet that has a brain and it would be relevant. Dogs are just not special in that way. And I don't know what those quotation marks are for. He is indeed a hare, not a big, leggy rabbit.

One of the things I love about having a big cuddly drop-dead gorgeous dog that loves everyone is the opportunities it presents. Wherever we go we get people asking about Kivi Tarro and going ga ga over his sweet and loving disposition. As far as I'm concerned, that gives me warm fuzzies, the person getting Lapphund cuddles warm fuzzies, and quite possibly Kivi warm fuzzies as well. I've never met a Lappie that was luke warm about strangers and I think that's one of the things people find so attractive about the breed, and I guess why they want to learn more about them in a lot of cases.

Is there a particular reason why a handler needs to be the bestest thing in the world to a dog? Looking at my Lapphund who is a natural snugglebum and is in his element when being a social butterfly, but will still stick with his people and can be easily won over from a tempting scenario with a treat... well, I don't really see any benefits and I see a few possible downsides. And that's ignoring my weird preference for a dog that blows me off on a regular basis.

On the other hand, if I end up with a Basenji like I so dearly want, I think this might be a big help in establishing oneself as something worth paying attention to. Especially considering dogs like Basenjis are a little out of their element in suburbia. I'm still trying to get my head around creating artifical values, though. Finding the right reward is just so fun. I only wish my cuddly Lapphund cared about something interesting so I could use it, but apart from his weird obsession with birds, he doesn't need much encouragement to do things I want him to do for the most part. It makes for a lazy trainer in me and I hardly ever learn anything from him.

[corvus]

Yeah, I see what you are saying Jesskah. I think your average pet home people don't care much about the wheres and whys and quirks of their dog's behaviour as long as the dog is easy to get along with. Ultimately that means the dog is friendly but not, say, howling in excitement and shredding someone's legs. That's something that is pretty easily achieved just by teaching rules. You want cuddles, you sit first etc. Would neutralisation better achieve the "friendly but not over the top" aim most people have for their pet dogs?

[Cosmolo]

I want my dogs to be able to enjoy and have value for interactions with other dogs and people. I realise that the neutralised dog does not desire for what it doesn't know but I feel like i would be depriving my dogs if they were neutralised.

I would find it very difficult to control every interaction with people that my puppy would have without it becoming insular. I have had many people come up to my dogs and pat before asking and before i could say stop! I also think that if a dog has been very well socialised by their breeder they will already have a positive value for dogs/ people whewn you get them.

[Just Midol]

I want my dogs to be able to enjoy and have value for interactions with other dogs and people. I realise that the neutralised dog does not desire for what it doesn't know but I feel like i would be depriving my dogs if they were neutralised.

I would find it very difficult to control every interaction with people that my puppy would have without it becoming insular. I have had many people come up to my dogs and pat before asking and before i could say stop! I also think that if a dog has been very well socialised by their breeder they will already have a positive value for dogs/ people whewn you get them.

That's a huge problem I have with Montu, and why his level isn't as low as I want it.

[Steve K9Pro]

J: a person can still go to pat the dog even talk to the dog when asked not to.

K9: if you stand there and allow it yes, it seems your putting forth the reasons that this wont work when I don't think (from your posts) that you have tried it, and disregarding the fact that I have hundreds of clients that have successfully achieved this without issue.

J: i wouldnt be letting my dog out to chase things either, but i was using that as say a dog done it before you got the dog.

K9: Then a dog that come to me with this value system is one that has already been socialised, had a value assigned to what ever it chasing. This dog would not then be neutralised but trained not to chase through another training program.

There is no one singular program that does everything, neutralisation is just one step in raising a dog.

C: One of the things I love about having a big cuddly drop-dead gorgeous dog that loves everyone is the opportunities it presents. Wherever we go we get people asking about Kivi Tarro and going ga ga over his sweet and loving disposition. As far as I'm concerned, that gives me warm fuzzies, the person getting Lapphund cuddles warm fuzzies, and quite possibly Kivi warm fuzzies as well. I've never met a Lappie that was luke warm about strangers and I think that's one of the things people find so attractive about the breed, and I guess why they want to learn more about them in a lot of cases.

K9: & its your call if that's why you have a dog. I don't have dogs to please others, to give other big warm fuzzy cuddles & I dont choose a breed of dog based on what other people think or like.

And again there is no arm twisting here, Neutralisation is what "I" feel is best, you can do what ever you like.

C: Is there a particular reason why a handler needs to be the bestest thing in the world to a dog?

K9: Yeah I think some people call them Alphas. The one that beholds all rewards & information will attract the most respect in a dogs eyes.

C: Looking at my Lapphund who is a natural snugglebum and is in his element when being a social butterfly,

K9: These are human traits your describing & I dont feel Anthropomorphism is an accurate way of deciding why a dog does what it does.

My feeling would be that your dog knows what works, squirm around the feet of a person, lick them perhaps & I get good things.

but will still stick with his people and can be easily won over from a tempting scenario with a treat... well, I don't really see any benefits and I see a few possible downsides. And that's ignoring my weird preference for a dog that blows me off on a regular basis.

K9: I wonder if a human companion was the same would we think it so attractive? As long as you have the right bribe, you will have their attention...

This provides quite a good argument for neutralisation in my opinion.

If your dog wasnt food driven the I guess you wouldnt be able to win him over & he would just walk off with whomever was providing the highest reward at the time.

[Steve K9Pro]

J: In my opinion a dog should be as loveable to say strangers,

K9: & thats where we differ, I see no benefit in strangers receiving affection from my dog/s.

I think the handler needs to only become the "best thing" when it comes to training such commands etc, but then multiple handlers could do this.

K9: Yep but for many people this can be hard to achieve or sometimes just never happens.

Which is why I was stating that it shouldn't matter how much regard a dog has for say strangers, unless maybe training a gaurd dog. In most situations a dog should be able to interact with strangers (when appropriate) but learn not to jump hystericaly on them of course.

K9: & not walk off with them when your calling it back, & not run over to people to say hello, & not want to go sit with them when they are having a picnic for example, & not ignore your commands as the dog is already recieving rewards from someone else.

The list can go on & sure these can be trained out of the dog I just dont see the point of training them in so they can be counter trained later.

I would say the only reason that people really believe that dogs should assign a high value to strangers etc as that is what they grew up believing was the right way.

So in most "pet homes" (what most people usually want) is kinda a balance of both I guess.

K9: Sure they do, but in most pet homes, they are not getting that balance.

C: Would neutralisation better achieve the "friendly but not over the top" aim most people have for their pet dogs?

K9: Yes of course, you would just be aiming at your dog having a low to medium value of strangers.

[Steve K9Pro]

CM: I want my dogs to be able to enjoy and have value for interactions with other dogs and people. I realise that the neutralised dog does not desire for what it doesn't know but I feel like i would be depriving my dogs if they were neutralised.

K9: I guess its like meeting someone who doesn't eat fish for example, do they lead less of a life not enjoying the great taste of seafood, not at all but if you were a lover of seafood it is hard to accept that another cant see the same benefits. (swap the seafood/fish for any food to make the scenario make sense with your food preference)

After using a strict neutralisation program on many working dogs, I can tell you first hand that they don't miss out on anything & training dies flow much smoother/faster/easier & I am yet to find one downside, keeping in mind that I dont have dogs for other people, I only have them for me.

CM: I would find it very difficult to control every interaction with people that my puppy would have without it becoming insular.

K9: It is a lot easier than you think. A simple jacket on the dog that says "please don't pat me Im working" will stop 99.9% of people & as a side note, its not forever, its whilst your puppy is trying to figure out what it can get from strangers.

We have shown some pups as little as six strangers over 3 days & the pup from there on in decided strangers dont bare any goodness& just ignored them after. Some take longer but as you know, no two dogs are exactly the same.

I have had many people come up to my dogs and pat before asking and before i could say stop! I also think that if a dog has been very well socialised by their breeder they will already have a positive value for dogs/ people whewn you get them.

K9: Could happen, I dont see a lot of breeders taking litters out though, & if I am picking a pup for myself, I would try & advise the breeder what I didnt want done.

As an example, when I was in Victoria, I think it was Ballarat doing a Training in drive workshop, one of the dogs we called out was very well trained & had great drive, super focus on the handler.

I think I remember the lady bred this dog, but it was a while ago (& many thousands of dogs & owners ago too)

Later when we talked about Neutralisation, she piped up & told the story of this dog she had with her at the workshop. That it was the best one she had bred, but what happened to this dog when it was a pup was that, it had suffered a broken leg & was kept indoors & missed the socialisation process.

I remember the lady thinking this pup would turn out terrible without socialisation but in fact it was the best one she had.

It was the most bonded, focussed & obedient dog that she had (bred) from what I remember her telling me.

She inadvertently neutralised this dog, used her previous training experience & was herself impressed on just how good this dog come out.

Edited January 6, 2009 by K9 Force

[Quickasyoucan]

I have been thinking about this a lot and the fact that people think they are depriving their dogs by not allowing them to socialise with strangers.

What about the negative side of things, I own an SBT cross, as people who own breeds that are not perceived as warm and fuzzy know, you get a different reaction from a not insignificant part of the population. What about the dog that thinks strangers are great, very politely goes up to them only to have the person scream at them, run away, cross the road, pick their child up? That can't be a great experience for the dog?

Or what about the lab at the park this morning (sorry nothing against labs just seem to meet lots of manic ones), who bounced up to me first stole the ball out of my hand ran away and then came back and ripped a full poo bag out of my hand and ate it (I am seriously not making this stuff up). Now that dog obviously views strangers as a total source of reward, and probably puts them on a value of 10+. He is intensely annoying to strangers (he has scratched the xxxx out of my legs on more than one occasion), he is now annoying event to his idiot owner (even though it is her fault) even though she says I only bring him here to socialise him. Now for someone to get him under control would have to "convince" this dog that what he thinks is great is no longer allowed (that's not going to be pleasant for the dog). Would have been so much easier if he didn't have such a high value for it in the first place?

Besides I don't think we are talking about strict value of 0 here.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Quickasyoucan