|
Post by Aussienot on Sept 8, 2006 20:47:50 GMT -5
I think this is the line in the sand that defines the really extremist purely positives. For the socialite set, the dog park is where the human-dog bond exists. They believe in a world where all dogs play together nicely like human children while the owners sip cappuccinos and chat. They only want the sunny natured golden dogs that can be globally social in an un-canine way that enhances the owner's social contacts. Then they pop the dog back in their handbags.
Dogs that by nature are very bad at free range mixing with strange dogs are evil and should be banned. Maybe it's just an Australian thing but I don't think so. Sue Sternberg style breed demonization seems to be taking over the world. There hasn't been a single law passed anywhere in the world that I know of that improves or strengthens you ability to own a dog, particularly a large or bully one.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 9, 2006 2:53:53 GMT -5
It's a NZ thing too, then. Many people I have met at dog parks seem to think that your dog doesn't need to be trained or under control as long as it's "friendly". If it annoys people at the park or provokes a fight with another dog, it's not their fault - because their dog is "friendly". People like this don't seem to understand that legally, it is their obligation to make sure their dog is under control at all times - whether or not they think it is "friendly". They also don't seem to realise that often their dogs' behaviour usually isn't friendly, it is usually rude. Even well socialised dogs often don't like being rushed, jumped upon or mounted by strange dogs. (Heck, I don't like being rushed or jumped upon by strange dogs - why is my dog supposed to put up with it? It's just not good canine manners.) A few nights ago at our local (onleash) dog park I had to fend off a loose bouncy young golden retriever who wouldn't recall and then ran up to us in an attempt to jump on my dog. The owner apologised to me, then thirty seconds later she turned the dog loose again, and it ran up and jumped with muddy paws all over a female jogger. The owner's excuse? Apparently it was OK, because her dog is "friendly"! I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Sept 9, 2006 5:52:58 GMT -5
It's a lazy dog owners way of exercising their dog under the guise of "training" plain and simple.
Not all fit into this category but we saw enough crap happen in two visits to our local "off leash" when Rocky was about 10 months old that we swore never to go back to one.
Ms Donaldson says she doesn't subscribe to the dog pack mentality nor the associated behaviors (paraphrasing here) yet what you see at dog parks is just exactly that: dogs fighting for pack leadership (sometimes nothing major other times, and all-out tooth, claws and major ass-kicking going on between dogs), dogs running around the park in large groups, ect. all while the owners are happily chatting away in some distant corner oblivious to what is happening- that is reality.
If we all owned sweet, not-a-mean-bone-in-their-body golden retrievers or labs who love everyone and don't care who is in charge then off leash parks would be great but that isn't reality.
Off leash parks are like a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. The times we went, a dog wasn't 2 feet in the gate and the rest of the pack came charging over and assimilated the unsuspecting canine into the pack and off they went. If the new member resisted there was lots of growling and posturing and if the new member was an untrained social misfit a good fight ensued. What a joke.
I accept that there is more than one way to train a dog (because each dog and dog breed is unique) yet PP people see their way as the only way and the rest of us are evil dog beaters because of the methods we choose to use. A little one sided ya think?
A while back, over at the "other site" we occasionally had PP types come and try to rake us over the coals. Mostly dysfunctional trolls looking for trouble but nevertheless, there were others who always had nasty, mean, rude remarks about us and our training methods. Defending against such malicous attacks was fun but became tiresome after a while.
If I only chose certain breeds that I knew wouldn't cause me headaches or weren't screwed up in the head or didn't have any strong breed characteristics, then I suppose PP training would be the only way, but once again, that isn't reality now is it - why pretend it is?
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 9, 2006 8:44:46 GMT -5
Aussie, yes. I would say Ms. Donaldson is a "really extremist purely positive." Richard, if you read some where that Jean D. is not in favor of dog parks, then she must have switched sides, because in her book, "Fight" on page 13, this is what she has to say about puppy classes and dog parks, and I quote: "There are a great many dogs who lack a sufficiency of experience meeting, greeting and interacting with other dogs. These can present in two ways, either as over-the-top 'Tarzans' or as proximity sensitivity. Both of these likely result from the relative social vacuum in which most pet dogs find themselves when they leave their litters.I will stop here for a moment, because to me this contridicts what she said about breeding playing a large role in a dogs basic temperament. "Correct" me if I am not understanding this correctly. Perhaps it is just that to me, she should have also said, "except in the case of where a dog is bred to be unsociable," etc. etc. Back to quote: "The good news is that this is starting to change: mass owner education combined with more sophisticated and non-aversive training techniques (bold print mine) has produced a swell in the number of owners who bring their puppies to puppy classes as well as the quality of these classes. There is even a trend toward earlier puppy classes, where seven to twelve week olds can meet, socialize and commence training. The hygiene measures in early puppy classes must be impeccable, but the early socialization to both dogs and people is well worth the effort. One of the prime elements in any good puppy class is the allowance of free play. The opportunity to rehearse the reading and expressing of social gestures and the enjoyable time playing - and thus potent positive CER (Conditioned Emotional Response) to other dogs - are invaluable. Another piece of good news is the establishment of dog parks, areas in public parks where dogs may socialize with each other and play off leash. The bad news is that in spite of the increase in puppy classes and dog parks, many, many dogs still have extremely limited experience with members of their own kind once they leave their litters. A swarm of Tarzan type dogs, with a double whammy of extreme over -the - top excitability around other dogs coupled with a poor ability to read and deliver the more subtle versions of dog social signals, is one predictable outcome." End of quote: She fails to address anywhere that I can see in this book the dangers of puppy classes and dog parks if your puppy/dog is attacked by a Tarzan type puppy/dog. Again, I am not saying that I don't agree with some of her theories etc., it is her methods of rehabilitation I question, as well as her extremely one sided training techniques.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 9, 2006 9:18:16 GMT -5
Oops...Sorry! I read " dog pack" in Richards post as " dog park". Guess I need my glasses changed. Thanks, Nicki, for pointing that out to me!
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 10, 2006 7:59:53 GMT -5
I all honesty I have NO USE FOR JEAN D Sorry I just don't. I am open minded but in the writtings I read confusion, almost like a converstaion with ones self One minute it's this way and then in the next parigraph there is contradiction and alot of after thought Dog parks are and will always be the best way to RUIN YOUR DOG I think most of us agree about that. Even with Soft Dogs or Extremly Social dogs one outing at the park and your dog can be DESTROYED. They tried very hard over the last couple of years to get a dog park in our town, I of course did my best to STOP THE INSANITY of that way of thinking. Our Kennel Club to was not to thrilled with the idea because all it leads to is dog fights. I will admit my dogs are not extremly social with other dogs. I do not think any of them would ATTACK another dog for no reason, but in a situation like that YOU BET I find it more important that my dogs are social with PEOPLE and that is what I work on constanly. When the KC has OB classes, during puppy class I had to really open my mouth about how they allow these pups to interact with each other and show them what they were running was nothing more than a puppy free for all. They would allow the pups to crawl on, snap at, and bully each other right during the session. Well after a few heated discussions with the director of training we stopped that. Now after the class is over, IF an owner wishes to let thier puppy mingle it is by their choosing and they can pick the playmate. I personally do not think that puppies need to be rolling around with each other to learn social skills, I think proper training by their owner is what developes them into social dogs. Now I have let my dogs play with choosen playmates but at my discretion, Raven has really not had that much interaction except with Brody and Willow, but I know that I have controll of her and she will tolerate other dogs as long as they do not present them selves as threatening. SHE IS WONDERFUL WITH PEOPLE and to me that will always be my primary goal. So yeah DOG PARKS PHOOEY
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 10, 2006 9:56:44 GMT -5
Ann, that is what I have found in Ms. Donaldson's books. Contridiction.
And I know we have had this discussion countless times here, but it's always good to have refresher courses, because we always get new members.
I think all the emphasis on "socialization" by PP behaviorists/trainers has contributed greatly to the dog aggression problems we are seeing.
As some of us here have stated in previous discussions, it is not normal dog behavior to accept and be social with strange dogs.
In the wild, strange wolves are not readily accepted into an established pack.
I have never, ever "socialized" either my puppies or older dogs to a lot of strange puppies/dogs the way it is emphasized today and I never, ever had an aggression problem either.
I feel again, if you give your dogs rules, boundaries, and limitations and they respect you as the pack leader, everything will fall into place, and while some dogs may never get to be really "social" with other dogs, (My Aussie Kara) they will not be aggressive to them either, and like you said Ann, that is all I ask of my dogs.
They don't have to love all other dogs and want to play with them. In fact, I like that they aren't that way. After the first introductory sniffs, they ignore the other dog and I like that!!!
In fact, I have always insisted on it with strange dogs, and the only time they get to even go up to another dog and sniff etc., is for instance, like when the neighbor got a new dog. He is in the habit of walking through our yard to get to the trail, so I introduced my dogs to "Molly" ahead of time so they would not rush up to her and possibly overwhelm her, when he walked through the first time.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 10, 2006 10:19:23 GMT -5
Yes Loey that is the most important and what I want out of my dogs to IGNORE THE OTHER DOGS. I did not get a dog to be the friend of every other dog on the planet I got them for my companions and for my children. So if my dogs are not accepting of every other canine GOOD I do expect them though to mind their manners with humans of all ages.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 10, 2006 10:31:10 GMT -5
I do expect them though to mind their manners with humans of all ages. I agree most definitely, but I do not allow my dogs to rush up to strange people and smell them either, no matter that Cesar says that is "normal" dog behavior. ;D With friends, my dogs are allowed to "greet them", and then they are expected to mind their manners and go lie down or otherwise ignore them too. I can't stand it when I go to houses where the dogs do not have boundaries and are up on the couch by me, getting in my face etc., even if they are friendly. It is also even scary to me if I go to someone's house for the first time and their dog rushes up to me barking etc., even if they say, "Oh...he's o.k. He won't bite!"
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 22, 2006 0:00:20 GMT -5
I feel again, if you give your dogs rules, boundaries, and limitations and they respect you as the pack leader, everything will fall into place, and while some dogs may never get to be really "social" with other dogs, (My Aussie Kara) they will not be aggressive to them either, and like you said Ann, that is all I ask of my dogs. Sorry I'm replying to an old post, but I just found it. I'm not sure if I can agree with the above, just speaking from my experience with my own dog (which is admittedly limited experience, since this is the only dog aggressive dog I have ever owned - but he is very DA!) I'm pretty sure I am a good leader. My dog has rules and limitations. He isn't allowed on the bed. He never pulls on the leash. He waits before going out the door. He is on NILIF and earns all his toys and his food. He is regularly exercised, regularly trained, and is corrected if he ever acts like a little snot. But that doesn't take away the aggression towards other dogs. Me being a strong leader doesn't take away his desire to fight at all, and the best I have ever been able to get him to do is ignore other dogs - as long as they don't come too close. He will never be able to be trusted to go up and sniff strange dogs!
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Sept 22, 2006 4:39:51 GMT -5
Ed Frawley talks about the idea of 'neutralizing' rather than socializing. The goal being to have your dog behave and be non-responsive to the presence of other dogs. This is what I think you have achieved, and with a dog like yours it's no small achievement.
I'm not sure when the idea that all dogs should be able to play together took hold in the public conscience. There's a great deal of evidence that beyond puppy-hood there's no purpose or value in recreational dog to dog interaction. That continued dog play is an example of the extended juvenilization of the domestic dog. Maybe because it's heaps easier to have another dog exercise your dog than it is to do it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 22, 2006 10:24:01 GMT -5
Aussie that is 100% correct. AM, that is what I meant. Aussie said it better.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 22, 2006 18:58:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment Aussienot, but I don't think he is really neutralised. My understanding of neutralisation (which may be wrong) is that if I let a neutralised dog offleash in a room full of strange dogs, he'd pretty much ignore them since they hold no value to him. That's not the case with my boy. My boy will only ignore the other dogs if I command him to do so - if I released him in their presence, he'd definately be starting some serious fights!
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Oct 8, 2006 19:18:14 GMT -5
Ed Frawley talks about the idea of 'neutralizing' rather than socializing. The goal being to have your dog behave and be non-responsive to the presence of other dogs. This is what I think you have achieved, and with a dog like yours it's no small achievement. I'm not sure when the idea that all dogs should be able to play together took hold in the public conscience. There's a great deal of evidence that beyond puppy-hood there's no purpose or value in recreational dog to dog interaction. That continued dog play is an example of the extended juvenilization of the domestic dog. Maybe because it's heaps easier to have another dog exercise your dog than it is to do it yourself. I agree that not all dogs will want to be or should have to be social as adults and that if you can train a neutral reaction in otherwise aggressive dogs you have achieved a great deal. However, nobody told my two dogs that there is 'no purpose or value in recreational dog to dog interaction'! They are both extremely social adult dogs who love nothing more than a good play with another dog. The purpose is the sheer joy my dogs experience, and in fact I often use free play with other dogs as a reward and stress reliever at the end of a formal training session. I am not saying this is right or necessary for all dogs, but I certainly think it is wrong to suggest this has no value. I am pretty sure one of my dogs would value the opportunity to interact with another dog above even the best food treats or game of fetch. Yes, it probably is an example of the extended juvenilization of the domestic dog, but that is what I own, two domestic dogs.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Oct 9, 2006 12:07:56 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion. The many wolf documentaries that I have seen all say that adult wolves never play unless they are babysitting puppies. So I do think that adult dog play is a part of domestication. Sunny loves to play with his friends. Friends is the operative word. He has a couple that he would pass up a steak to hang out with. I truly think that he enjoys this more than anything. And with these dogs, they clicked immediately. But with most males Sunny encounters, the actions are ritualistic posturing, more in line with the wolves...definitely not play. I would not trust him to just go play with a group of strange dogs because he is very dominant with other dogs, not aggressive but if there was a show down, I don’t think he would easily back down. We had a thread a few years ago on dog parks and I thought it had some very valuable insight especially about what happened to Michele’s dog and also my observations when I went to visit the park near me. dogden.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=Aggression&action=display&thread=1075274758
|
|