Socialisation & Neutralisation

[Monah]

On a happy note... I'm slowly getting thru this thread and while it's probably way to late to even attempt neutralising either of my dogs (7 and 1.5) I find the topic very interesting. I'm hoping I can still get some of the focus out of the dogs to look to me (and hopefully the OH) as the pack leaders and to have a bigger trust in them when we start taking them camping with us.

I start drive training with my girl in a week or so.... how's that program going K9 Force .... and I'm pretty lucky with her that she's come pre-programmed not to be overly interested in dogs or people. Strange dogs probably rate about -3 to -4 for her, but she doesn't notice them once I have a toy in my hand.

My first question is around the seperation... I completely understand why K9 Force keeps his new puppies away from the other dogs... but for those of us that aren't willing or able to do this, does it impact too much... especially if you only have 1 or 2 other dogs?

Our aim is to purchase a farm within the next 5yrs and we'd like to run cattle, which in turn means we want a working dog, so I'm interested in understanding the level of neutralisation that would be recommended in this situation... as I've never owned a working breed before... let alone one that actually works.

Wow that's great.! You mean, the frenchies wont be herding?

I adore working dogs. cattle dogs are my favourite There are several breeders who breed 'working' lines. These are quite different than the show lines (although both are fantastic!!). A relative of mine has an incredible working line cattle dog, just in case you are interested in cattle dogs, just keep in mind the working lines, I'm positive this is the same in BCs and Kelpies too

I too agree K9 enjoys his dogs greatly, he spends masses of time training them too (obviously) and he is all important to them. The rest of us mere mortals can only marvel at his achievements and dedication. Of course it is difficult to put into practice some of the methods as we live in varying situations with businesses , families and also our dogs. But, if I can only help my dog in two or three instances, I will be over the moon. K9 is about helping us as owners, help our dogs. Training the humans in order for the dogs themselves to have a life that 'makes' sense' to the dog, which in turn helps us, and society in general. It's not about being controlling and not enjoying your dogs. In fact, it's really the opposite, getting even MORE enjoyment and fun out of and with your dogs :D

[corvus]

I respect control freaks! But K9 did ask for opinions, and opinions I have. I keep stepping on toes by not training pro-actively and not trying to control certain situations, but hey, that's the kind of person I am. I'm a wait-and-see sort of person. Being criticised for how you are isn't very helpful, so I'd be stupid for criticising anyone who cares more about control than I do. We all just cope with life's uncertainties in our own ways.

Doesn't neutralisation sort of happen on its own, though? My old dog walks past most things without batting an eyelid. She's been there done that with most of the world. Wouldn't they learn a bit from you along the way as well? Someone once related to me a story about a puppy in his fear period suddenly freaking out about a letterbox. I had a similar experience when my puppy freaked out about an exercise ball, and then a big green garbage bag. There was no picking what he'd suddenly get frightened of, but it wasn't a big deal to bring him around. It was just like "What? You're scared of this? You crazy dog. It's nothing, see?" And then you'd walk away and ignore it and he would just follow your lead and ignore it as well. Eventually.

Actually, this all reminds me of trying to get my old dog Penny over her fear of thunderstorms. Unfortunately, when I got her I was still quite young and a bit scared of them myself. I was over most of my fear by that stage, but thunderstorms still made me tense. I suspect the first thunderstorm she experienced frightened her a little and when she looked to me she discovered I was tense as well and that was it. Thunderstorm phobia for the rest of her life. They don't bother me anymore, and Kivi isn't bothered by them, but I was quite careful with him and actually separated him from Penny and myself the first time we got a storm. I didn't want either of us to impress a phobia on him! I was careful not to make it a complete, unusual separation, too. I was ready to keep doing that for a while, but he was okay. So there you go, I can be a control freak sometimes, even with dogs.

[Steve K9Pro]

D: Sorry, I need more explanation. Do you agree that total focus on me is not desirable in this case?

K9: if by total focus yo mean the dog looking at you all the time then no of course, not, but I mean I would want the dog to be guided by me.

D: Re neutralisation--rather than jumping all over people, it is more the case that response to a whole range of environmental stimuli is what needs to be neutralised--sudden bangs, wheel chairs, walking frames, metal banging on metal, sudden screams etc. The dog's interaction with people is much more complex than just being calm, though calmness in certain contexts is important. For example, my dog visits a psychiatric ward where many of the patients have few interactions with the world--my dog's responsiveness in her interactions is highly valued in these cases and her pleasure in her interactions--that she is excited to see them is important.

K9: the you would aim for a higer value than some others, would, but if your dog doesn't value you leadership you may end up with a dog that acts undesirably when the pressure is on.

D: hat she is able to shift her focus from me and make someone else feel that they are the most important thing in her world is her greatest asset. I have no idea how you would train a dog to do this. As I said neither of my other two have this quality and I don't feel I can take the credit for my dog being like this. Certainly, I can't imagine a training regime such as the one you have described that you have put in place for your dogs would have enhanced this capacity in my dog. This is not a criticism at all of your training--I have attended one of your weekend sessions and it was excellent. My point, I suppose is that the dog that is totally focused on its handler is not necessarily desirable in all circumstances.

K9: thanks for the kind words, each discipline that we strive for is trained by polishing a method to suit the application. I would be using my scale to create a dog that has high value for another when the dog ius givem a re;ease command, then also train a gentle command so I could keep the dpog calm. I would also be choosing a certain type of dog that can submit easily without challenge.

We dont otther than competition helling dogs to have full focus on us, so we train with certain steps in place to get what we need in each application.

I hope that helps..?

[Steve K9Pro]

C: I think some people are control freaks.

K9: me too.

C: I don't know if this is just me, but frankly, the main reason I have animals is because they are in a sense uncontrollable.

K9: lol I think its just you.

C: I love that an animal is its own creature with an agenda and likes and dislikes, and I love feeding its likes and seeing it happy.

K9: Yes as do I, that would be called motivational training, but try & understand that likes & dislikes are often a learned condition.

C: I give it to them if I can. Provided it's harmless.

K9: Harmless is relative to opinion really, what one calls harmless, another may not.

C: I love that when they interact with me it's purely because they want to.

K9: lol next you will be telling me they love you & protect you.

C: I am happy to tamper with that if it seems necessary for their safety, or if it's necessary to open them to new things for them to enjoy, but ultimately, I don't want to mess with it just to make training easier.

K9: You might be messing around that is making training harder & safety less providable?

C: That's cheating, which is fine if that's all you want from your animals.

K9: cheating is when someone breaks the rules, this isnt breaking anyone's rules?

C: Anyway, there are always risks, but I think you can train a perfect recall without neutralisation, and I'd rather try that way first because of the way I enjoy my animals.

K9: No where did I say that you cant train the perfect reacll without neutralisation? I just said it will be harder, I dont know too many people that like the hard way.

C: We spend so much of our time dominating our animals when all we need to do is learn to work with them and enjoy them for who they are and what they are.

K9: Thanks for your reply, but your post is a little all over the place? Its not about being dominant at all, perhaps another quick read through would be of benefit to you.

[Steve K9Pro]

S: My first question is around the seperation... I completely understand why K9 Force keeps his new puppies away from the other dogs... but for those of us that aren't willing or able to do this, does it impact too much... especially if you only have 1 or 2 other dogs?

K9: I am more concerned about the negative values dogs get meeting new dogs than I am the positive values, positive values are easily degraded whereas negative values can be life long.

IHF: How do you neutralise older dogs? To people and to other dogs?

K9: It isnt possible in the short term, would be like trying to teach an adult that blue is red for example. But you can teach self control.

C: Doesn't neutralisation sort of happen on its own, though? My old dog walks past most things without batting an eyelid.

K9: lol no, your dogs drive has just lowered with age.

[corvus]

C: Doesn't neutralisation sort of happen on its own, though? My old dog walks past most things without batting an eyelid.

K9: lol no, your dogs drive has just lowered with age.

Haha, my dog never had much drive in the first place! I spent ages trying to get her to chase rabbits as a youngster (before I had them as pets) and it was really hard. But my mother has a pretty high drive Boxer/Kelpie cross, and she walks past most dogs without even looking at them, as does her Vallhund. A kangaroo is quite a different matter, but I was just curious about the dogs thing because you seemed to focus on it a bit. My pup doesn't walk past any dogs without at least gazing after them longingly, and I know the Boxer cross used to be the same way. She just got over it all on her own.

Cheating? Well, that depends on whose rules you're following. I set some silly rules for myself sometimes. And I know you didn't say you couldn't train a recall the hard way, but some people were talking about sacrifices and I just wanted to point out that there doesn't necessarily have to be a sacrifice.

The dominance thing was just an idle thought. I was thinking, being the only source of good things in your dog's life is kind of like dominating their mind, isn't it? In a passive sort of way. I once had a boyfriend a bit like that. It didn't work out.

There is always an uncontrollable element in other living creatures, though. It's fun and exciting and unpredictable. Ultimately you want to reign that in a bit for obvious reasons, but I guess I just feel reluctant sometimes to come in too hard on it. Penny is very cheeky at times and every now and then I call her and she gives me her mischief look and races off in the opposite direction. If I called her in my serious tone, she'd stop and come right away, but as long as she'll do that much I'm happy to run after her screaming "I'll get you!" and waving my arms over my head like a maniac sometimes as well. I feel like I find out a lot of interesting things about my animals when they don't do what I want them to. Sometimes I learn interesting things about myself that way, too. That must be why I like the harder way. And why I depend a lot on management to begin with!

[BJean]

YB:

So when we are talking neutralisation we need to think in tearms of reward for ignoring the surroundings ok so if the dog is totally focussed on something and we cant get there focus back to us what do i do wait tit out jump up and down until the dog realises i exist or hit myself on the head for putting the dog into a situation he wasnt ready for

K9: the best trainer in the world sets up everything, he or she is active, not reactive.

If you found yourself in thats situation I would correct the dog away & reward for leaving.

How does isolating puppies from 'the pack' compare to pack life 'in the wild'? (As, obviously, 'in the wild', pups would be with the adult dogs and not by themselves.)

If I may attempt a suitable answer :-

Many unwanted behaviours exhibited by dogs are actually "normal" in the wild and, in the wild, would not be seen as a "problem behaviour". Most problem behaviours exhibited these days are only "problems" due to our own domestic requirements and social standards.

Therefore, I doubt that a "neutralisation" program such as K9 describes would be necessary in the wild. Hence, it would IMO be inappropriate to draw comparison between pups in a wild dog pack to those required to live in our domesticated environments.

Neutralisation is a programmatic method that can be used to chanel and mould a dog's instinctive behaviour and goals into a behaviour more suitable for domestic life situations.

interesting discussion / concept / strategy wrt neutralisation

like Nat/Tess32 others have said -

i think neutralisation depends on the purpose of the dog -

if I have a dog and its purpose is to act on its instincts - and it is these instincts which guide it

then neutralisation and stock guardian dog will be counter productive -

I think with some strong tempered LGD individuals (atypical) neutralisation could produce opposite of

"suitability for domestic life situations".

BUT if I had dog whose focus I wanted on me all the time, like GSD, Rotti, Lab

then neutralisation seems like logical / necessary training ethos for absolute reliabilty.

Edited November 10, 2008 by lilli

[Steve K9Pro]

L: interesting discussion / concept / strategy wrt neutralisation

like Nat/Tess32 others have said -

i think neutralisation depends on the purpose of the dog -

if I have a dog and its purpose is to act on its instincts - and it is these instincts which guide it

then neutralisation and stock guardian dog will be counter productive -

K9: Thats dependant, you seem to be reading that it removes instincts, when nothing removes instinct. Say you had a LGD with very high prey drive, wanted to chase & down every Lamb it laid eyes on? Not productive either.

I think with some strong tempered LGD individuals (atypical) neutralisation could produce opposite of

"suitability for domestic life situations".

K9: You need to understand the value of zero compared to an unsociable dog.

BUT if I had dog whose focus I wanted on me all the time, like GSD, Rotti, Lab

then neutralisation seems like logical / necessary training ethos for absolute reliabilty.

K9: I never train dogs by breed, but by goal & temperament. The GSD's that we get to work as Patrol dogs can not focus on the handler, yet are neutralised.

[Steve K9Pro]

C: The dominance thing was just an idle thought. I was thinking, being the only source of good things in your dog's life is kind of like dominating their mind, isn't it?

K9: No its providing rewards. Depends if you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution as far as the dog is concerned.

C: In a passive sort of way. I once had a boyfriend a bit like that. It didn't work out.

K9: cant really say, never had a boyfriend that didn't work out, lol so either they all did or I just never had one... You can guess that one.

C: There is always an uncontrollable element in other living creatures, though. It's fun and exciting and unpredictable. Ultimately you want to reign that in a bit for obvious reasons, but I guess I just feel reluctant sometimes to come in too hard on it.

K9: coming too hard is only necessary when you allow high values for distractions to be created.

[corvus]

C: There is always an uncontrollable element in other living creatures, though. It's fun and exciting and unpredictable. Ultimately you want to reign that in a bit for obvious reasons, but I guess I just feel reluctant sometimes to come in too hard on it.

K9: coming too hard is only necessary when you allow high values for distractions to be created.

Ahhhh. I see. But from my perspective, how would I know what might be a high value distraction and what might be just good fun? I can come in and rule out every potential high value distraction and risk taking out the harmless fun as well, or I could wait and see and then be faced with trying to win my dog back from a high value distraction, but I would know for sure what's ace and what's merely okay and I'd have a juicy problem to solve that may or may not ever be solved.

Kivi thinks rabbits and hares are boring except for the moment when he gets his harness on for his walk, at which point he bounds over to the hare, who has just been fed and is feeling jittery out in the open, and gets the fun of watching the hare run. When I first got Kivi I put him in a crate the rabbits had lived in once and gave him a blanket that had been in with them for the last few weeks and that was where he spent his nights and ate most of his meals. I wasn't really sure what else I could do beyond just continuing with the routine and trying not to let him get a chance to figure out they could be fun to chase. Clearly I failed. At least to some degree. Kivi ignores the rabbit and the hare 99% of the time, but if I go and stir up the hare by going into his cage, I make sure Kivi is inside because there's a good chance he'll turn up and start bounding around frightening the poor hare. And I've been rigorously heading the morning hare chasing routine off at the pass and Kivi is under loose voice control. He'll leave the hare as long as I'm telling him to and am ready to head him off at any moment, but if I go inside to grab something and leave my partner in control, inevitably I hear a crash and my partner telling Kivi off as the hare shoots into the side of his cage or something. So the habit isn't broken yet, and now it's a double habit perpetuated by my hare, who forms very strong habits very quickly.

Sorry, long-winded. Ultimately, what should I have done in the first place before Kivi learnt that hares are fun when they run?

[Erny]

Ahhhh. I see. But from my perspective, how would I know what might be a high value distraction and what might be just good fun? I can come in and rule out every potential high value distraction and risk taking out the harmless fun as well, or I could wait and see and then be faced with trying to win my dog back from a high value distraction, but I would know for sure what's ace and what's merely okay and I'd have a juicy problem to solve that may or may not ever be solved.

The point is, Corvus, that once neutralisation and training is 'completed' you can allow your dog to explore and enjoy what you might otherwise have regarded as "high value distractions" but they will not be as valued by your dog as you are, which puts you in the position of more effective control (recalls away from distractions when you need to).

Ultimately, what should I have done in the first place before Kivi learnt that hares are fun when they run?

First teach through neutralisation and training that you hold the 'power' to the valued rewards.

You're conversation is with K9 I'm aware, and with respect I invite K9 to correct me where/if I he believes I am wrong in my take on it.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Erny

[BJean]

L: interesting discussion / concept / strategy wrt neutralisation

like Nat/Tess32 others have said -

i think neutralisation depends on the purpose of the dog -

if I have a dog and its purpose is to act on its instincts - and it is these instincts which guide it

then neutralisation and stock guardian dog will be counter productive -

K9: Thats dependant, you seem to be reading that it removes instincts, when nothing removes instinct. Say you had a LGD with very high prey drive, wanted to chase & down every Lamb it laid eyes on? Not productive either.

I am reading that if instinct is to go out and assess situations and act on its own voilition - and that is relied upon -

then to redirect that on to a person is counter productive for the dogs purpose.

If the dog is neutral to outside stiumulus, then the dog is counter productive, bcz it the dog's action upon that stimulus with no human overseer which is valued.

I think a LGD with high prey drive is about as useful in working capacity as a GSD with no nerve? Yes both are not producitve, as I said, purpose of dog matters.

I think with some strong tempered LGD individuals (atypical) neutralisation could produce opposite of

"suitability for domestic life situations".

K9: You need to understand the value of zero compared to an unsociable dog.

BUT if I had dog whose focus I wanted on me all the time, like GSD, Rotti, Lab

then neutralisation seems like logical / necessary training ethos for absolute reliabilty.

K9: I never train dogs by breed, but by goal & temperament. The GSD's that we get to work as Patrol dogs can not focus on the handler, yet are neutralised.

I think also it is important to undersatnd existence of unsocial dogs, and why many atypical ASD and CAO are typically 'unsociable'.

If I take goal - to make reliable response dog with temperament of atypical specimen

then the two will not ideally intertwine - unless

owner live in rural area

but in suburban setting will not work because of high defence, territory and aggression.

[corvus]

Question, Lilli:

Don't you want an LGD to become "neutralised" to certain things anway? For example, say the first time a car drives past the dog thinks that's a big deal. If you lived by a road, you wouldn't want that to continue. The dog needs to figure out that cars are commonplace and can be ignored. Which goes back to my question about neutralisation being somewhat natural anyway. I think I must be making sweeping generalisations and missing the difference, here.

It occurs to me that I've been agreeing that this neutralisation thing is easier than teaching a really good recall. I'm suddenly not so sure that's true. It sounds like initially you put in a fair bit of work controlling surroundings and socialising and neutralising. Leslie Nelson says you should have a conditioned emergency recall in your dog using her methods within 12 months. And there isn't that much work involved. You practice it 3 times a day for the first 3 weeks (after laying down the groundwork most people would be doing anyway) and after that you just need to practice 3 times a week. In the meantime, you don't let your dog off in situations you don't know that he's up to yet. Nonetheless, we have found that Kivi usually responds by racing into our arms even when we've had to use the recall in a situation we were worried would be beyond his current training (my partner has a different idea of when to use this recall than I do as he wouldn't watch the bloody dvd and there's no telling him).

Thanks for answering, Erny. I think I suddenly see why K9 thought it was funny when I said I like my animals choosing to be with me because they want to! This morning Kivi decided he would rather be exploring the swamp next to the dog park than being with us. Interesting, I thought, I can almost see him trying out this new idea that he could have fun all on his own. When we called him using our normal recall, he thought about it and decided the swamp might be more interesting. Ah, I thought, maybe he's right. Perhaps I should go down there and explore it with him! Which is how I might deal with my mother's very independent Vallhund when he decides to go foraging. Why does he go foraging? Because people are boring. I like foraging as well, though, and it turns out he'd far rather be foraging with a friend than foraging on his own. Suddenly we are bonding, having a forage together, sharing in something that deeply satisfies him and my presence forms a few new connections in his mind. Next time he got out of the yard to go hunting on his own, he saw me from half a mile away and ran right up to me because he'd found a bird nest and thought I would help him get it. That was handy. Anyway, Kivi is not my mother's independent Vallhund and we did not really have time to explore the swamp together, so my parnter used the emergency recall and Kivi came bounding back. He got his reward and then we all ran around being idiots together. It was all very fun. My rambling point is, how do I learn from my animals if I never find a need to because I set myself up to be the best thing in the world from the start? :rolleyes: It seems kind of selfish to diminish the enjoyment of something that isn't me just so training is a bit easier. It would be a terrible shame if someone had conditioned me at a young age to find, say, drawing less enjoyable than, say, spending time with my friends. That would have far-reaching effects on who I become as an adult. Obviously this is a pretty wild comparison, but then, we are constantly finding out animals are more like us than we thought. I only have myself to compare, so if I wouldn't like it, I try not to do it to them. In this case, I wouldn't know any better, but all the same, I can't help thinking my life would not be as rich if I didn't like drawing - which is something that always came naturally to me - so much. Anyway, I doubt anyone will get where I'm coming from so I might leave that argument right there.

Wrt the rabbits, unfortunately it all started when I was silly and forgetful and didn't put Kivi inside when I was feeding Kit one day. I guess it was inevitable, though. I don't think it would have been any less inevitable if I'd put extra effort into neutralisation. Got anything else.

[Flaves]

IHF: How do you neutralise older dogs? To people and to other dogs?

K9: It isnt possible in the short term, would be like trying to teach an adult that blue is red for example. But you can teach self control.

Can you explain how to teach that please?

[Jigsaw]

Can you teach self control to stop them barking at birds?? Bane of my life noisy divebombing birds!

[BJean]

Question, Lilli:

Don't you want an LGD to become "neutralised" to certain things anway? For example, say the first time a car drives past the dog thinks that's a big deal. If you lived by a road, you wouldn't want that to continue. The dog needs to figure out that cars are commonplace and can be ignored. Which goes back to my question about neutralisation being somewhat natural anyway. I think I must be making sweeping generalisations and missing the difference, here.

Yes and it would become indifferent to passing cars if passing cars were frequent - at same distance / speed.

ie: on one property on Western Hwy (west Vic)

the dogs ignore the 1000s (?) of trucks that pass each day

but should a truck / car slow and divert from 'what is normal' then this will get the dog's attention.

I doubt that I explain properly corvus, but I try anyway

When I refer to the described neutralisation:

I prefer to neutralise my dogs to everything accept me & what I can give the dog. So that is me, my affection, praise, pats, prey items & food that my dog finds valueable, not anything else.

I think good LGD should value and needs to value other things, not just what comes from the owner -

but anyway as I said I think neutralisation is good for trainiing goal as indicated in this thread

but imo it would be counter producitve to LGD's goal and temperament.

I dont want my dogs tossing up if they would rather come to me or go play with another dog.

This opens up a huge can of worms when it comes to dog parks, meeting friends & letting your dogs play etc.

See if I call my dog inside and they turn around and ignore me and run towards the back paddock, I like that - they need to be able to do that -

to put what I want on pause until fox/stray/something(?) in paddock is removed / gone.

likewise if there is a big raucous at 3am and I call them inside but they refuse and raucous go on and on

I call and still they ignore me (other dogs are quiet why they go crazy in the dam paddock???)

so I get up angry what's going on out there -

and I find foal seperated from its mother in distress and caught up in the fencing -

had the dogs valued only what comes from me and recalled to the house obediently when I called them, then I would not have known the foal was in danger.

The dogs here are not barking to protect the foal, but the foal by being on the wrong side of the fence, was breaking the 'order' / routine that the dogs value - to them most things seem to have their time / place - the foal in the fence disrupted this, hence the carry on over the disruption.