Annie,

"Firstly, regarding the socialisation of puppies.  123 you did state that if the dog hadn't had its first injection and had to wait for its second then it would be almost 11 weeks before it was out and about.  That does leave 1 week for the meeting of 100 peeps!"

Yes, but I would never suggest anyone wait until their puppy is 11 weeks before taking it out and about, and I wasn't suggesting it here either!!  I was saying that IF this puppy didn't get out until then, it would have been a bad thing for its socialisation because it would have had only 1 week to do everything in AND BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE to do everything in 1 week!!  IE - I was effectively already saying, several posts ago, that it's not possible to socialise a puppy to 100 people in 1 week, but thanks anyway for coming back and saying the same thing!

"You could also narrow it down to breed diffrences but a sweeping statement of ALL puppies can never be made because, as I have said above, of the variables. "

Sorry but RUBBISH.  Of course we can generalise!!!!  The whole of science is based on generalisation - everything from tests on rockets to tests on human vaccines to tests on cars - is carried out under scientific experimental conditions, and if the results are satisfactory and if a lot of subjects/rockets/cars are tested, and further tests show the same results, then the product will be approved or the research will be published.   And as a result of that a lot of OTHER PEOPLE are given the medicine or drive the car or fly in the rocket!!  It's exactly the same with the socialisation of dogs - this HAS been tested under laboratory conditions, using different breeds to see if there are breed differences, and ALL tests have concluded that early socialisation, below the age of 12 wks, is best!!!  I defy you to find for me ONE study which states that puppies under the age of 12 weeks can, in ANY INSTANCE not be socialised!!!  I find your statement very dangerous and misleading and I sincerely hope that no new puppy owners come along and read it and think that it means they can not socialise and everything will be ok!!! 

"You cannot possibly state with confidence that a dog that has had no socialisation will never be as trustworthy as one that has because you don't know that."

I didn't say it will never be as "trustworthy" as that's a value judgement.  I said it would never be as well socialised.  And yes, scientific studies have been carried out where dogs have been deprived of all social contact, locked in rooms from small puppies, and then introduced to new stimuli at different ages.  It has been concluded that dogs which are seriously deprived early on fail to ever reach the levels of socialisation seen in dogs which have been well socialised from the beginning.  And these studies have not just been carried out with one breed, but with many breeds, many times.  So yes, I can with "confidence" state that. 

"With the knowledge you have you should have been asking about the differing variables in the environment, health and diet."

I think it is highly unlikely there is something else in the environment to be causing this, when the dog has snarled at a black poodle twice.... Although a v bad food with a lot of additives can exacerbate an aggression problem, it doesn't cause it in the first place and changing the food, by itself, is highly unlikely to solve an aggression problem.  Yes, just like I advised, the OP should take the dog to the vets for a check up and then should see a behaviourist.  I, or anyone else online, am no replacement for a behaviourist.

Either come back to this forum, accept how it is, like it and participate in it without criticising it, or go back wherever you were, to your peaceful "supportive" forums.  However, it's not fair to state with almost every post how much you dislike this forum and then continue to post on it.  If you don't like it, don't post here.

Hi 123

Firstly, can I just say that I am not in any way saying that introducing your puppy to different situations at a young age should not be done and I think you will find that I haven't said that anywhere in my post.  What I am saying is that every dog is an individual and some dogs cope with stress of new situations better than others and, therefore, in some breeds and some dogs "socialisation" or, as I like to call it, emotional development will take longer and will inevitably be a lifelong learning process.  Not from a behaviourists point of view, but from a common sense point of view, it would therefore be practical and useful to subject your puppy to new learning experiences from day one.  I have never said not to socialise your puppy.  That is reading into something that hasn't been said.

Yes, you are right in saying that we would be living in a very different world if tests were not carried out to discover new drugs etc, etc., but all the cases you have cited are "science" i.e. can have an end result of yes or no, works or doesn't work in any given situation.  Behavioural studies are not like that.  There are too many variables.  That is why you are told to train your dog in as many situations as possible so that he/she knows how to react in as many situations as possible.  You can publish the tests you discovered in a certain lab situation but that same dog or person would behave very differently in a different environment, or might even behave differently if they were fed on different food i.e. packed with preservatives.  So the conclusion would be that, while a dog/person does this in this environment, it may not do it in another!!!  Your answer to the problem with Miss Thing confirms this.  The trigger would have to include all the circumstances coming together, not just one.  So effectively you have said that while Fred's problem is due to bad socialisation or emotional development, Miss Thing's problem was to do with circumstances, environment etc., etc.,  So, you are really contradicting yourself and you essentially agree with what I am saying!!!!!

I have looked back at my post and the only reference I have made to this forum is in the last sentence.  I have not slated this forum in every post I have written.  This forum has a lot of very experienced dog owners, who have a wealth of knowledge and information that they can use to help people who are having problems with their dogs.  What I will say though is that a few of these knowledgeable people do tend to be judgemental, which is a shame because their knowledge could go a long way to helping members who are experiencing real distress and anxiety.  What passing judgement means is that you alienate the very person you are trying to help. 

There are a lot of factors at play in this particular situation and socialisation or emotional development may be one of them but I believe it is more likely to a combination of things in connection with the dog's pain he is experiencing with his mild HD; the fact that poodles look very different to other dogs; and, possibly changes in his environment such as perhaps new furniture, been doing some DIY, owner may have a new job that changes his routine and even a change in diet.  However until I ask these questions I cannot know if there have been any changes so the change in Fred's behaviour cannot be narrowed down to one thing it may possibly be.

If you practice behaviour and training, I am sure you will get a background of the dog; see the dog's environment; ask about any changes; check what diet he is on before using your knowledge (which you obviously have!) to suggest causes for the behaviour.  Why should it be any different on champdogs?

You may think that I am being belligerant but all I am doing is trying to get across that a little further thought before typing a reply can help more than alienating the person who is looking for help. 

Kind regards
Annie

"can I just say that I am not in any way saying that introducing your puppy to different situations at a young age should not be done"

Well, what exactly ARE you saying??!!?!?  That you SHOULD socialise your puppy below 12 wks, but if you don't, don't worry about it, you haven't done any harm?!!?   Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it - either early socialisation should happen, in which case if someone doesn't do it, they are remiss - OR early socialisation doesn't need to happen, in which case if someone doesn't do it, it doesn't matter - the option of "early socialisation is important but hey, don't worry if you don't get it done" just isn't there, I'm afraid.

Also sorry but you have implied that you don't think early socialisation is necessary, via your anecdotal accounts of your own dogs which were not socialised prior to 12 wks.  You might not have stated this explicitly, but it is clearly implied in several of your replies here.

"but all the cases you have cited are "science" i.e. can have an end result of yes or no, works or doesn't work in any given situation"

Sorry again, but that's not entirely true.  Which is why there are people (and dogs) who have bad reactions to vaccines and in fact any medical product.  Which is why rockets crash and everyone dies, despite extensive testing.  Science is not infallible.  And behaviourism IS a science, the science of learning theory, from Pavlov right through to Breland and Bailey.  Human psychology as a subject is also a science.  I think psychologists and scientists who work on learning theory might be a bit offended if you told them that their rigorous scientific experiments are not in fact "scientific".

"So effectively you have said that while Fred's problem is due to bad socialisation or emotional development, Miss Thing's problem was to do with circumstances, environment etc., etc.,  So, you are really contradicting yourself and you essentially agree with what I am saying"

No, these are completely different events.  One is a young GSD who has become unpredictably aggressive towards some dogs and not others, on several occasions now.  The other is a dog which has once chased a bicycle across a park.  I fail to see how you can expect me to react the same way to both of these and I think you'll find I'm not contradicting myself.  It is NOT normal dog behaviour to be randomly aggressive towards other dogs and aggression problems are 90% of the time caused by poor or under socialisation.  However, it is very normal dog behaviour to want to chase and pursue a moving object, especially in some breeds of dog and often this is not down to socialisation but just down to a breed specific behaviour.  This can be overcome by training, but in the absence of any training it will probably develop in some breeds. 

"What I will say though is that a few of these knowledgeable people do tend to be judgemental, which is a shame because their knowledge could go a long way to helping members who are experiencing real distress and anxiety.  What passing judgement means is that you alienate the very person you are trying to help.  "

Well, you see, I think I see this differently, and it has been said before on CD by others.  When people ask questions here, I, and most others, will give our honest opinions.  Sometimes our honest opinions might not be what they want to hear.  Sometimes our honest opinions might suggest things they have done wrong.  And people either accept that and try to rectify it and work forward from where they now are, or they get very defensive, refuse to accept that they could possibly be wrong, and storm off.  Obviously the latter has happened here.  It's not called being judgemental - it's called giving an opinion.

"Why should it be any different on champdogs?"

Well, let's see now: Because online people can't see the dog, witness the behaviour, witness the owner's behaviour with the dog, witness the situation the dog lives in and so on.  And because no one here is getting paid to be here and give behavioural advice.  So if you ask a behavioural question, you'll get most people's "most likely" and "immediate" response - you won't get a 5 page analysis and written behavioural advice.  If you want that, go to a behaviourist and pay for it.

Because you can't see a dog or its surroundings that is precisely the reason that you HAVE to ask additional questions to make an informed opinion!!!!!!!!  You did not do that!!!!  I could go into more details as to why what you say is wrong but frankly I'm not going to waste my time.  One thing I will say is that I never ever doubted the effectiveness of early socialisation or emotional development in puppies, what I did say is that it doesn't end at 12 weeks and cited the case of one of my rescue dogs and this is from a common sense point of view, not a scientific point of view.  It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that anything that a dog experiences after the age of 12 weeks is insignificant to its emotional development.  I reiterate, behavioural studies cannot seek to answer any hypothesis other than what the study they have carried out has shown.   I am also sure that the behaviourists that have carried out the studies would agree with me on that one.  Any study could then THEORISE what effect this may have in the wider environment but it cannot be said for certain because of the variables.  I am sure you will find that any behavioural research will identify this as a weakness.

Please stop taking out of context the references I have made in my previous post.  I have stated simply what the situation is.  It is perfectly legible.  I believe I have put forward an intelligent alternative to what you believe but you refuse to even consider that I just might have a point.  Fair enough!!!  Different strokes for different blokes and all that.  Now, I have said all I have to say on this matter as this is going no further and I think you are becoming a bit fraught because I've dared to disagree with you.  I would advise you to read more up to date texts though and perhaps take a look at the studies currently being carried out in the USA which are more definitive as regards this.  Most of the research you have cited has been carried out many years ago and things have moved on since then.  10 years ago we were still all believing pack theory and now that has been disproved.  I am sure with all the new evidence that is coming into the public domain, many of these ideas on socialisation etc., etc., will change too.

Annie

Actually Annie, there has been very little "Recent" research into dog socialisation.  There has been quite a bit of research recently into kitten socialisation, but for dog socialisation not a great deal for you to accuse me of not "reading up" on it.  The texts that I cited came to you from a reading list for a canine behaviour diploma, so perhaps you would like to write to the people who wrote that course and tell them which "recent" texts they have left off their list??  But hey, you've tried placating me by telling me how knowledgeable I am, and it didn't work, so I guess the next best thing is to insult my knowledge instead, and maybe that will?

The socialisation window does indeed end at around 12 wks according to many studies.  However, it is possible to improve socialisation later in a dog's life, but this is not the type of socialisation which most people would understand "socialisation" proper to be. 

You said in your first post:

"If the socialisation window closes at 12 weeks (as evidence would suggest!) how do people with rescue dogs manage to turn them around and make them into well mannered dogs?"

If you want to know where all this went wrong, it went wrong right here in your first post.  People with rescue dogs do not turn them around to be AS well socialised as they would have been, had they been socialised prior to 12 wks.  There have been experiments to prove this, as I have said above.  This statement implies that early socialisation is not as important as everyone has been saying, because lost ground can be recovered later.  You do not, in this first post, say that you think early socialisation is important.  This can be interpreted as lets say "anti early socialisation".  IN fact you go on to say:

"You can "over-socialise" a puppy by flooding.  This can make the puppy fearful and has the exact opposite effect of what is intended.  "

Again, this leans towards not socialising a puppy, after all perhaps we had better not socialise our puppies if we are going to make them afraid?  Luckily I pointed out that flooding is not what socialising is - phew - for any new puppy owners reading this.

Lastly, you concluded:

"I got 2 of my dogs at 9 months and 3 years respectively and both have been turned around.  The 3 year old had had no socialisation whatsoever and was tied outside for the 3 years of his life.  A nicer dog now you could never meet.  Also, I got my Bracco puppy at 12 weeks.  She had had her first injection but not her second.  She has grown into a wonderful dog who loves everything and everybody she meets."

Again, implicitly this is anti early socialisation.

If you still don't understand why this argument has developed then I think there is no hope. You have now done a complete turn around and are saying you think early socialisation IS important - just who is doing the contradicting here??

Believe me, I have in no way tried to placate you by telling you how knowledgeable you are  None of what you say in your last post adds up.  Again, things have been taken out of context.  If you can't understand my posts for what they are i.e. an intelligent alternative to what you are saying, then that's fine.  Couldn't really care less!!  This all started because you said that GSD2004 problems was almost certainly related to under-socialisation when you had taken no time to ask about possible environmental causes and I pulled you up for it. Basically you are trying everything you can to counteract my intelligent argument but can't so you've become personal!  So what!!!!   Why do you think behaviourists carry out new research?  Because somebody has applied their findings to the real world and discovered that perhaps their findings in the real world is not adding up.  I don't think that the socialisation window closes at 12 weeks and my reasons for this are stated in the post above.  Whatever you say will not change my mind.  I believe that learning continues throughout life!! I have always said from the beginning that from a common sense point of view introducing your very young puppy to as many different situations as possible would be beneficial but it learningdoesn't stop at 12 weeks. 

What you are saying is ridiculous and I have no desire to continue this any longer.  I am sure most of the other readers of this thread will be able to see what I am trying to say, even if you can't.  As far as I am concerned now that is my conversation with you over.  Thank you

Annie

What you are saying is ridiculous and I have no desire to continue this any longer.  I am sure most of the other readers of this thread will be able to see what I am trying to say, even if you can't.  As far as I am concerned now that is my conversation with you over.  Thank you

Annie

Annie, I've found that the best thing to do in such situations it to hit the ignore button given to us kindly by Admin, then you don't have to even read the antagonistic twaddle! :rolleyes:  You can PM the poster to ensure that they are not misled. :D

>You can PM the poster to ensure that they are not misled

Debate is good :)  I have enjoyed reading Annie's well reasoned arguements, as I'm sure others have. I hope she does not restrict herself to private advise.

Look, the fact is, Annie, that I agree with what you are finally saying here - that it is extremely important to socialise below 12 wks, but that if, for some bizarre reason, this doesn't happen, then SOME socialisation can be carried out after that.  However, I do believe that the dog would never be the dog it would have been, had socialisation happened below 12 wks. 

What I DON'T agree with is the bits I have quoted above from your first post on this thread.  For the reasons I've given - I believe them to be anti-early socialisation, or at least able to be read in that way by new puppy owners reading this board. 

What you are now saying is NOT what you were first saying in your first post....

Actually, it is 123!!!  But just to conclude what all my posts say.  Early introduction to new environments and stresses in a puppy is extremely beneficial to a puppy's emotional development.  However, I strongly believe that the puppy's emotional development does not stop at 12 weeks and that it goes on throughout its lifetime i.e. it is good for dogs to learn new experiences just like it is for humans!!  Due to the fact that behaviour studies are carried out in lab conditions one can only apply the theory to our everyday lives and that some dogs and more specifically some breeds will have longer developmental processes than others.  If early socialisation or emotional development has not taken place it is still possible, with the correct management and understanding of the way that emotion affects behaviour, to turn around a badly socialised adult dog.  This should be done taking into consideration the dog's temperament, diet, environment and history.  There are of course areas where more work will be required than other areas but most definitely it can be done because I have done it myself.  I cannot say how my dog would have been if he had had proper socialisation at an early age because he didn't get it.  However, he is now a wonderful dog that loves everybody he meets and everybody he meets loves him.  You can't ask for more than that, can you?

I think what it all boils down to is that reading relevant theories and having a general understanding of canine behaviour is good and appropriate but, IMHO you cannot beat a hands-on understanding of how to read a dog!!!  I hope this sets everything straight.

As I have said I have 2 rescue dogs that I got later in their emotional development and have reared 2 dogs from puppies.  With the puppies, I had my working cocker in a rucksack from the age of 8 weeks walking around with me.  With the Bracco.  I got her at 12 weeks and she was really quite big so, as she had had her first injection and I know there are no dogs where I walk that have disease, I took the chance and let her come with us on short walks from about day 5 - just after she had had her second injection.  So, you see, I do agree with the theory of early socialisation.  I just don't agree that there is a cut-off point.

I hope this makes sense and I hope we can shake hands and be friends

Annie

I think it helps in understanding the 'window of socialisation', and the way it steadily closes, to compare it to the way humans learn. Small children absorb information like a sponge (think about how fluent they are in language before they even start school!) whereas the speed of absorption slows down more and more as they age - how long does it take an adult to learn to speak a foreign language? Dogs, like humans, never stop learning - but it becomes slower and more difficult the older they are.

Thus with dogs (and humans) the more new experiences they have at an early age the more synapses develop within the brain, making additional learning quicker and easier. An individual given minimal mental stimulation can become permanently mentally handicapped - consider the plight of many of the Romanian orphans from a few years ago. Many can be turned around into reasonably competent adults - but it's a slower process than it would be given a more normal background.

Ok, let's just say that your first post didn't come across as what I now understand you mean (even if you intended it to mean what I now know you mean) - if you know what I mean.  :)

I completely agree that it is good for dogs to continue to have new experiences throughout their lives.  In fact there has been research with wolf cubs which were extensively socialised with people up to the age of 16 wks and then not socialised at all with them until 6 months.  They found that they regressed in their attitudes towards humans, although at 16 wks they had been very well socialised with them.  I think this just shows that it's important to keep socialisation up throughout a dog's life, not just do it when they're below 12 wks.  But I do think that the period below 12 wks - the socialisation window - is very special and has a different quality to it than the type of socialisation which can be carried out later in a dog's life. 

Ok, let's stop arguing now.  I think we basically agree anyway, at the end of the day.  :)

HI there

Yes, I do think the earlier the better with regards to socialisation and I think the way that JG has explained it is excellent.  I went back to uni at the grand old age of 36 and got an honours degree.  I really don't think I would have been able to get the grades I got at 40 if I was 20 - but that's basically because my head then was full of boys and discos!!!

Its always very difficult in the written word to get across what you mean.  What you believe to be perfectly understandable can be taken the wrong way.  I hope now that I have condensed what I was saying it is now more logical.  Glad we're all friends again!!!!

Kind regards
Annie

Just as a matter of interest - did the poodle have a lot of coat, as sometimes I feel that other dogs mistake the coat for the dog's heckles being up, which could appear as aggression to the other dog.

I think the Poster mentioned Lion clip, which of course would distort the shape making the dog look not like any dog the GSD may have ever encountered before,a dn of course it was black, which is again harder to see and read.  For a dog that has suspicious gurafing tendencies these things may have combined to meke himn think it was a dodgy customer.

I would agree that this idea of a cut off date with socialisation is very negative and would lead people to write off dogs.

Three freinds and I own a well adjusted dog that spent 6 months in solitary confienment away from other dogs from 9 weeks of age, yet only 3 days out of quarantine was friends with every dog and person he met.

I am currently fostering a young bitch who has lived in an isolated country home with only her own kind and few people or outside experiences, and no training of any sort.  I fully expect her to become a well adjusted canine citizen with work, just as I would have to do with a pup.

Well thank you for that Brainless!!!!  I am really pleased to hear that you have great success in helping dogs readjust.  I have had the same success which led me to question the socialisation theories. I hope your foster dog is doing well.

Kind regards
Annie

The ideal situation IMO, is that a dog is out and about with it's owners at the earliest of age, straight after FIRST jab and it learns to trust it's owners judgement in keeping it safe, especially with a protective guarding breed. Breeding plays a major part of course and also a stable enviroment. However, this is not always available and sometimes dogs just do not like the look of some-one or something, just like us. It must always be remembered that we are dealing with a thinking feeling being and not a programable machine.

Even better is for the pup to be taken out and about in its owner's arms well before even the first jab. I start taking my litters (one at a time) out into the village from about 6 weeks - but I don't let them on the ground or be sniffed by other dogs. If I waited till the first jab (my vet wouldn't do the first one till 10 weeks and the second at 12 weeks, to allow the maternal antibodies to wear off) they'd likely be very apprehensive.

Well done you!

I agree JG - this is what I do with mine, too.

Well I've really enjoyed all that; many thanks to dogdeli and 123 for their efforts.

A much better quality of debate than you generally get on radio and streets ahead of the telly.  This is why I keep coming back to CD despite the occasionally acerbic tone of some postings.

Just to make myself clear I do accept there is a window for optimum socialisation but there is hope for the ones that miss it.  And I speak as the adoptive mother of a child with a degree of attachment disorder.  It can be done but, boy, you'd better be ready for the long haul!

Just a point about the original poster - s/he went back to poorly run classes because they truly believed they were doing the best for their dog.  Us pet owners know we're not experts and place a lot of (sometimes misguided) faith in those that claim they are - especially if backed by a reputable organisation. We may feel what they're doing is wrong - but what do we know? We're the ones with the 'problem dog'.  So cut us some slack, wise ones; we are always sincere if not always effective.

Happy Easter,

Linda 

I agree with the " cut us some slack". If you are not an experienced dog owner you do tend to listen to the people you consider experts. Our pup was from a rescue so did not get his injections until he was 12 weeks old and the rescue centre said he had to be kept in for a week after his injections. We checked this with our vet who told us the same but said he could attend the puppy socialisation parties at his practice. The parties were then cancelled for 3 weeks (one puppy had kennel cough) and so he was nearly 15 weeks old before he met other dogs and was "allowed" out and about. We listened to the experts but none of them said we could take him out after the first injection or carry him around even before them. Now we know differently but it didn't occur to us to question any of the advice given.
From my point of view forums can provide really helpful advice but I have been put off asking a question that someone more experienced might deem a simple obvious question as I would hate to be shot down in flames and end up feeling stupid and incompetent.
And, from reading lots of posts it is obvious that even the experts can disagree

Slack duly cut :)  Maybe I was having a bad hair day.  Or something.  :)

we all have those from time to time :)

Ditto :D

Hiya

I think what Muttsinbrum says is absolutely true.  The average pet owner does put their trust in what they believe to be the experts.  I made loads and loads of mistakes with the first dog I ever solely owned - as I'm sure we all did but Megan is still here to tell the tale and she is a lovely girl!  When I first got her I took her along to the local training club where they were still into the check chains.  I arrived with my collie cross on her flat collar and - wait for it - flexi-lead only to be told in so uncertain terms that I had to put a check chain on her.  I didn't know any better but I refused to do it because it didn't feel right.  I stayed for one class and never went back.  I was put off and "trained" her myself.  I would hasten to add that "train" is said in the loosest of terms because Megan is such a good girl she trained herself because I think she felt sorry for me!!:rolleyes:

Bazil was the one that I really had to put all the work in with because of his background and that is where I learned.  There is nothing like a problem dog to make you go out and look for information, is there? 

It's good to debate and good to have a constructive argument because it makes you think and look at new ideas.  I am always the first to admit I am wrong if I am though and am always willing to look at new views and new ideas.

Take care.
Annie