Quickasyoucan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) C: If you depend on neutralisation, what do you do if you are walking your dog on leash down the street and a dog without an owner comes trotting up to you, hackles up, tail up, ears forward, eyes staring, growling?K9: I stand out in front of my dog & chase the otehr dog away. That is the job of the Alpha. I've been following this thread with real interest (pre-puppy research!), and have one question to ask please. I definately understand the benefit of socialising a dog to have a low value for other animals and non-family humans, especially if it's going to be a working or competition dog (which is what I'm after), I don't need to be convinced about that! And I understand the risk that indiscriminate socialisation can pose to a dog's temperament, if it gets attacked or scared by another dog. What I'm wondering about is whether neutralised dogs are as good at coping with interactions with strange dogs as most "socialised" dogs are? From what I've read here, it seems that a conventionally socialised dog may have participated in and seen many more dog-dog interactions than a neutralised dog will have. So will the conventionally socalised dog be more able to de-escalate problems by itself, rather than reacting inappropriately? ie, will the socialised dog be more capable at "talking dog" than the neutralised dog is? I should clarify that I'm not talking about chucking your dog into a dog park and letting the dog sort out any problems by itself (some people may be able to get away with that sort of thing, but one severely dog aggressive dog was enough for me.) I won't be routinely relying on my dog to deal with strange dogs by herself - I know that this is my job as alpha. I'm just talking about the situations during the life of your dog where having your dog around other strange dogs will be unavoidable, or will accidentally occur, even if it's just for a few seconds: e.g. you're out hiking with your dog in the bush, with your dog running 10m ahead of you, and suddenly you run around the corner into another group of hikers with their dog running ahead. Or e.g your dog needs to be transported with other dogs (in the back of a van) on occasion without you being right there. If the other dog is rude or pushy or aggressive towards your dog, will a "socialised" dog be more able to diffuse the situation than a "neutralised" dog, due to having more practice at communicating with other dogs? Is this an issue, or am I over thinking things? I'd welcome answers from both K9 Force and anyone who has done his puppy neutralisation program before. I am sure K9 force will be able to answer this better but 2 things spring to mind: 1. if you follow pack theory you are meant to be the alpha not the dog, therefore it is up to you to diffuse the situation not the dog. The dog would look to you to sort the situation out, you are the leader. Takes the pressure off the dog and it is much more likely to be calm under stress. Same idea as Cesar Milan, step up the leadership - take the pressure off the dog to make decisions - ergo balanced dog... BTW You mention dog being transported in a back of a van without you being there, surely common sense would dictate separate crates, you wouldn't put your child in a car without a harness, same applies for dogs. 2. K9 is talking about a dog that has a value of 0-2 towards other dogs, surely a dog that is disinterested rather than over excited therefore projecting a calmer energy is less likely to provoke a strong reaction from other dogs. Example: when I work at the rescue kennels there is always the dog (and you can learn to pick them), with the excited energy that if you walk past the other kennels all the other dogs will ark up. Then there are the disinterested ones you can walk past the same dogs with only a few dogs taking notice. Anyway that's my non-expert view. I don't think Steve is talking about having dogs that are unaware how to interact with others, merely that they see no value in doing so - big difference. Edited May 1, 2009 by Quickasyoucan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I plan to carefully socialise my next dog, choose who he/she interacts with carefully (certainly no rough play at dog park, instead meet with friends dogs who I know etc), but at the moment don't think I will neutralise. Yes, those are the two options I'm tossing up between too. Careful socialisation, or full neutralisation to everyone outside my immediately family. Why do you think you won't neutralise, Kavik? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Pretty much for the questions you raised - if the dog only ever encounters neutral responses from dogs/people (no reaction, play, patting, screaming etc) I'm not sure how they are supposed to know how to react when that does happen later on. I may be completely wrong, but at the moment, that is how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) BTW You mention dog being transported in a back of a van without you being there, surely common sense would dictate separate crates, you wouldn't put your child in a car without a harness, same applies for dogs. Yes, I thought someone would shoot down my examples No offence to you, Quickasyoucan. What I'm getting at is that sometimes it may be unavoidable for a dog to be transported alone. Yes, routinely I'd like to use a crate. What if I'm sometimes in a situation where I can't? I can think of several situation where that might potentially occur, given that I plan to take my dog many more places than I can take my crate! Or make up your own example as you please. My point was that, on those rare occasions where, due to bad planning or bad luck, I can't act like an alpha "should" (I bet even real wolf alphas muck it up sometimes), will a socialised dog be able to cope better than a "neutralised" dog, due to having more practice at dog-dog communication? Edited to add... just saw Kavik's post, thanks, it sounds like we have the same type of concern/question. Edited May 1, 2009 by Staranais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yes, those are the two options I'm tossing up between too. Careful socialisation, or full neutralisation to everyone outside my immediately family. Can you have different 'levels' of neutralisation though? Does it have to be one extreme or the other? My next puppy is a long way off so it's not something I need to worry about in the immediate future, but at the moment I would happily neutralise any dog I get in the future. Daisy isn't neutralised, but she is one of those dogs who just isn't fussed with other dogs, she knows how to play and interact and on odd occasions she will, but playing with other dogs is not of much value to her (she would rather have her nose on the ground). The only dog she gets really distracted and excited by is Micha, and they play every day to some extent. So having seen her both ways (incredibly excited to go over to another dog and not fussed by other dogs) I much prefer having a dog who has a lower value in other dogs than I do one who sees another dog and goes nuts wanting to play with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Pretty much for the questions you raised - if the dog only ever encounters neutral responses from dogs/people (no reaction, play, patting, screaming etc) I'm not sure how they are supposed to know how to react when that does happen later on. I may be completely wrong, but at the moment, that is how I see it. Midol used the neutralisation method with his pup, and he let me pat him But only for a short period and then the dog was called back to Midol who was more exciting than I was (if that makes sense). No idea if that is 'correct' or not though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussienot Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) What I'm wondering about is whether neutralised dogs are as good at coping with interactions with strange dogs as most "socialised" dogs are? From what I've read here, it seems that a conventionally socialised dog may have participated in and seen many more dog-dog interactions than a neutralised dog will have. So will the conventionally socalised dog be more able to de-escalate problems by itself, rather than reacting inappropriately? ie, will the socialised dog be more capable at "talking dog" than the neutralised dog is? My 'neutralised' dog was exposed to heaps of other puppies and dogs as a puppy and adolescent and regular exposure continues to this day. As a puppy and adolescent, she was allowed to play in a controlled manner with other puppies and "safe" older dogs occasionally. More often, when there were other puppies or dogs around, I would engage her in games and training with food rewards and cuddles. From an early age, (6 - 7 weeks) I could call her away from playing with others and get her to interact with me and this became a learned behaviour. I made sure she was comfortable in the presence of other dogs, but I intentionally devalued the presence of dogs. So she became accustom to focusing on me, my food and my toys rather than the dogs around her. As an adult dog, occasionally I do give her permission to greet another dog, but only when I know the owner and the dog and am certain the other dog will be socially receptive. So yes, I think she is reasonable fluent in dog speak, or at least as fluent as I want her to be. She's never shown any fear or aggression. She has seen fearful and aggressive dogs in training classes so I think she can recognise those kind of body postures and vibes. But she's never been allowed to interact with that kind of dog, and we only get as close as the distance where she doesn't feel the need to defend herself. I think it does go back to what kind of outcome you want. If I wanted a dog to go to the dog park with, I would have pushed her into a puppy free for all on a regular basis and left it at that. What I conditioned for and now have is a dog who is perfectly comfortable with other dogs around, but finds interacting with me much more engaging. Edited May 1, 2009 by Aussienot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 What I conditioned for and now have is a dog who is perfectly comfortable with other dogs around, but finds interacting with me much more engaging. When I get another dog which may be several years off that is what I will be aiming for too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 What I conditioned for and now have is a dog who is perfectly comfortable with other dogs around, but finds interacting with me much more engaging. When I get another dog which may be several years off that is what I will be aiming for too. Me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 My 'neutralised' dog was exposed to heaps of other puppies and dogs as a puppy and adolescent and regular exposure continues to this day. As a puppy and adolescent, she was allowed to play in a controlled manner with other puppies and "safe" older dogs occasionally. More often, when there were other puppies or dogs around, I would engage her in games and training with food rewards and cuddles. From an early age, (6 - 7 weeks) I could call her away from playing with others and get her to interact with me and this became a learned behaviour. I made sure she was comfortable in the presence of other dogs, but I intentionally devalued the presence of dogs. So she became accustom to focusing on me, my food and my toys rather than the dogs around her. As an adult dog, occasionally I do give her permission to greet another dog, but only when I know the owner and the dog and am certain the other dog will be socially receptive. So yes, I think she is reasonable fluent in dog speak, or at least as fluent as I want her to be. My understanding of neutralisation is that you don't let them play with other dogs. That they only meet 'neutral' dogs who will be disinterested in them, so that they have no value for dogs as they will just be ignored and are boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yeah, that was my understanding too, that the neutralisation programme allowed very little or no actual play with other dogs. Maybe I got the wrong impression? Easy to do just by reading a webpage. Thanks for your answer, Aussienot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 What I'm wondering about is whether neutralised dogs are as good at coping with interactions with strange dogs as most "socialised" dogs are? From what I've read here, it seems that a conventionally socialised dog may have participated in and seen many more dog-dog interactions than a neutralised dog will have. So will the conventionally socalised dog be more able to de-escalate problems by itself, rather than reacting inappropriately? ie, will the socialised dog be more capable at "talking dog" than the neutralised dog is? K9: The idea of neutralisation is to set low values to other dogs & people outside the pack, not leave the dog as un socialised & have no skills in dealing with other dogs. There is plenty of interaction with other dogs, just we dont allow the interaction to lead to overly rewarding activities that the dog will seek over the Alpha & the alphas rewards & motivators. I should clarify that I'm not talking about chucking your dog into a dog park and letting the dog sort out any problems by itself (some people may be able to get away with that sort of thing, but one severely dog aggressive dog was enough for me.) I won't be routinely relying on my dog to deal with strange dogs by herself - I know that this is my job as alpha. K9: Say you have a neutralised dog & you walk it through a dog park through dogs that come up to yours, your dog would ideally look at the otehr dogs & look back to you & the walk progresses on, similar if your dog saw a park bench, its there, no big deal lets keep moving. I'm just talking about the situations during the life of your dog where having your dog around other strange dogs will be unavoidable, or will accidentally occur, even if it's just for a few seconds: e.g. you're out hiking with your dog in the bush, with your dog running 10m ahead of you, and suddenly you run around the corner into another group of hikers with their dog running ahead. Or e.g your dog needs to be transported with other dogs (in the back of a van) on occasion without you being right there. If the other dog is rude or pushy or aggressive towards your dog, will a "socialised" dog be more able to diffuse the situation than a "neutralised" dog, due to having more practice at communicating with other dogs? K9: pack skills are not diminished through neutralisation they are more importantly level headed not over the top excited wanting to play. Is this an issue, or am I over thinking things? I'd welcome answers from both K9 Force and anyone who has done his puppy neutralisation program before. K9: there are no effective downsides other than you wont be able to go down to the local park & have other peoples dogs excercise your dog & or entertain it, that will remain your job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 K: I plan to carefully socialise my next dog, choose who he/she interacts with carefully (certainly no rough play at dog park, instead meet with friends dogs who I know etc), but at the moment don't think I will neutralise. K9: Lets keep in mind that there is no such things as neutralisation, it is a name I added to get attention from my clients so they would not assume I wanted them to socialise as normal. There is no real way we can see whether there is an actual neutral value or slightly positive value. In my diagram I suggest set the value of otehr dogs & strangers for most pets at around 0 to + 3, the numerical value is just for us to understand don't go over the top but certainly get away from any uncertainty of what a dog is, what it represents, or what it can give you. It could have well been named "selective socialisation" or "careful socialisation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 There is plenty of interaction with other dogs, just we dont allow the interaction to lead to overly rewarding activities that the dog will seek over the Alpha & the alphas rewards & motivators. Thanks K9, I misunderstood the protocol then. I thought there was very little interaction with other dogs, so I was wondering how a pup learned what was "normal" canine behaviour. Lots of non-rewarding interaction makes much more sense to me! K9: there are no effective downsides other than you wont be able to go down to the local park & have other peoples dogs excercise your dog & or entertain it, that will remain your job. That doesn't seem like much of a down side - I was never able to go to dog parks with my Monster (RIP) and we always managed to keep ourselves occupied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Q: 1. if you follow pack theory you are meant to be the alpha not the dog, therefore it is up to you to diffuse the situation not the dog. The dog would look to you to sort the situation out, you are the leader. Takes the pressure off the dog and it is much more likely to be calm under stress. Same idea as Cesar Milan, step up the leadership - take the pressure off the dog to make decisions - ergo balanced dog... K9: yep & therefore a dog that plays with others, develops a high value for it is then unbalanced in the pack. BTW You mention dog being transported in a back of a van without you being there, surely common sense would dictate separate crates, you wouldn't put your child in a car without a harness, same applies for dogs. K9: Yep I think them all bouncing around the back of the van is a pretty poor looking picture but I have had quite a few dogs in the back of my truck, all leashed up with no issues at all, my dogs, others dogs, all no problem. I have also had my dogs out with 30 working dogs all off leash & doing their jobs, the dogs bumped into each other, all dove into a bush scenting, were rewarded with tugs, various prey items & food & then laid down whilst we (the humans) had something to eat. Not a problem the whole day. If a stern look was exchanged by one dog to another, there would have been an "eh! get back to work" & no more would be heard or seen of it. When you go out with a group of working dogs, there just isn't the time to be sorting out squabbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Is this an issue, or am I over thinking things? I'd welcome answers from both K9 Force and anyone who has done his puppy neutralisation program before. K9: there are no effective downsides other than you wont be able to go down to the local park & have other peoples dogs excercise your dog & or entertain it, that will remain your job. Off topic but that is one thing that really irritates me when people say to me you should have 2 dogs so they can play together. Some people seem get a second dog so that they don't have to bother to do any work themselves, ie they believe that by chucking 2 dogs together in a back yard they are relieved of the responsibility of having to entertain the dog as the dogs will entertain themselves. Do that and IMO you can weaken your bond with both dogs not to mention that they can develop nuisance behaviours like barking etc, besides why bother get a dog if you don't want to put the time in to it? If you would rather have a hectic social life than exercise, train your dog, then don't get a dog get a cat. Might sound extreme but that is my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Star: What I'm getting at is that sometimes it may be unavoidable for a dog to be transported alone. Yes, routinely I'd like to use a crate. What if I'm sometimes in a situation where I can't? I can think of several situation where that might potentially occur, given that I plan to take my dog many more places than I can take my crate! K9: I think Q was hinting at the dog bouncing around the back of a van unsecured, but as for transporting with other dogs, no problems. Leash them up, on your map (size dependant). H: Can you have different 'levels' of neutralisation though? Does it have to be one extreme or the other? K9: sure you can, like you have dogs with different levels of drive for food, a toy or people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 What I'm wondering about is whether neutralised dogs are as good at coping with interactions with strange dogs as most "socialised" dogs are? From what I've read here, it seems that a conventionally socialised dog may have participated in and seen many more dog-dog interactions than a neutralised dog will have. So will the conventionally socalised dog be more able to de-escalate problems by itself, rather than reacting inappropriately? ie, will the socialised dog be more capable at "talking dog" than the neutralised dog is? My 'neutralised' dog was exposed to heaps of other puppies and dogs as a puppy and adolescent and regular exposure continues to this day. As a puppy and adolescent, she was allowed to play in a controlled manner with other puppies and "safe" older dogs occasionally. More often, when there were other puppies or dogs around, I would engage her in games and training with food rewards and cuddles. From an early age, (6 - 7 weeks) I could call her away from playing with others and get her to interact with me and this became a learned behaviour. I made sure she was comfortable in the presence of other dogs, but I intentionally devalued the presence of dogs. So she became accustom to focusing on me, my food and my toys rather than the dogs around her. As an adult dog, occasionally I do give her permission to greet another dog, but only when I know the owner and the dog and am certain the other dog will be socially receptive. So yes, I think she is reasonable fluent in dog speak, or at least as fluent as I want her to be. She's never shown any fear or aggression. She has seen fearful and aggressive dogs in training classes so I think she can recognise those kind of body postures and vibes. But she's never been allowed to interact with that kind of dog, and we only get as close as the distance where she doesn't feel the need to defend herself. I think it does go back to what kind of outcome you want. If I wanted a dog to go to the dog park with, I would have pushed her into a puppy free for all on a regular basis and left it at that. What I conditioned for and now have is a dog who is perfectly comfortable with other dogs around, but finds interacting with me much more engaging. K9: pretty much sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 My understanding of neutralisation is that you don't let them play with other dogs. That they only meet 'neutral' dogs who will be disinterested in them, so that they have no value for dogs as they will just be ignored and are boring. K9: sure, but they meet all types, but are prevented through control from engaging in high end play, they can go for walks with other dogs etc, hang with other dogs, just no over the top stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 S: Thanks K9, I misunderstood the protocol then. I thought there was very little interaction with other dogs, so I was wondering how a pup learned what was "normal" canine behaviour. Lots of non-rewarding interaction makes much more sense to me! K9: Lack of interaction = lack of socialisation learning = ignorance = fear in dogs, so no, plenty of interaction, but coming out your way. Another example is cats, they can be set as a relaxed part of the pack or a prey item... All depends on the interaction yes? S: That doesn't seem like much of a down side - I was never able to go to dog parks with my Monster (RIP) and we always managed to keep ourselves occupied K9: aha, now I know who your are lol.. With Monsters prey training, neutralising him would have made him even better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now