Quote: cindy easton rhodes

Anyway, how many of us have dogs that we work with regularly that show some weird or even flaky behavior at times and we get upset because they don't typically act that way?

Ah, yes. (Same with kids too.) But I guess the big picture needs to stay in focus and I always try to remember what that first session or attempt was like compared to where things are now. It helps to put things in perspective.

The "deal with who shows up" advice is great. I do try to do that with dogs...it's the people on the other end of the leash that I need to have more patience with I think!

 Quote: cameron feathers

I've always thought it came back to a lack of leadership. .... there isn't a problem with the dog because it has weak genes or an abusive past, it's because it had no leadership to trust in....

If only that were true.

There are dogs who are born (and even made) terminally screwed up. There are humans, too.

And I say this as someone who has spent a ton of time and had good luck working with panic-dogs.

But I've seen dogs -- many of us have, I think -- who were not fixable by anyone.


P.S. Do you know that Cesar Millan has his nerve-bag failures?

He's not a PTS guy, but he has two at his facility who cannot be around other dogs or any humans but him and one or maybe two assistants. They live a pretty good life, IMO, because he has the wherewithall and the facilities to give it to them: exercise, swimming, nothing to scare them, even limited socializing. But 99.99% of the trainers/owners/handlers do not have that, and to those people, there are dogs who are just not salvageable.


Still, this:

 Quote: cindy easton rhodes

A dog with "less than" nerves can be made much more stable and confident when in the company of a calm, self assured and clear headed human.

is certainly a great point!

 Quote: connie sutherland

 Quote: cameron feathers

I've always thought it came back to a lack of leadership. .... there isn't a problem with the dog because it has weak genes or an abusive past, it's because it had no leadership to trust in....

I don't think I was really being clear because I was responding to something that was said specifically. I need to get better about putting the quote in my response to avoid confusion! (lesson learned)
This wasn't a global statement, but a response to why a lot of dogs that DON'T fall into the "too far gone to help" category fail to "get better", or end up getting worse.
The dog I worked with years ago (mentioned earlier) SHOULD have been put down before he came to me. Yes, he came around and turned that corner. But for almost a year he sat in a shelter that refused to put him out of his misery because of policy. That wasn't fair to him.

 Quote: connie sutherland

There are dogs who are born (and even made) terminally screwed up. There are humans, too.

Absolutely! But many of these can be maintained in a "best case" type scenario - provided the leadership is there - Cesar's dogs are a good example of this. The fact that few could ever manage his dogs doesn't mean the dogs are too far gone, it just means that few people could ever provide the leadership needed to safely keep these dogs in a good quality of life.
I think we are actually on the same page here... I am just not doing a good job of explaining what I mean.

I understand.

I had to clarify partly because I have had two friends who did all that they thought (and so did all their consultants) could be done with genetic nerve-bags, and the dogs had to be put down.

This happens. I'd hate to see people who I know are excellent trainer/handlers who gave their all, start second-guessing something like what they went through. They are long-experienced and very good working dog folks.

And that was probably enough from me on this very small percentage of the dogs under discussion on the thread.

 Quote: Connie Sutherland

And that was probably enough from me on this very small percentage of the dogs under discussion on the thread.

Same here ;-)

Thats the art part of dog training though isn't it, Amber? When you work with a problem dog, don't you piece by piece put together a history of how the animal became what it is? You slowly decide it has weak nerves (or bad genetics) or conditioned through the wild card that is the owner handler.
Can this be done at first meeting? I don't really think so. Too many variables, even when you can rasonably trust the word of the owner/handler. Mentally you're doing some kind of intuitive Differential Calculus, and not with some abstract figure, but in some cases a life in the balance. Our own bias can not be discounted, and to that, we here at the board will always look to the owner/handler first, because as students of dogs we know as a species dogs are very stable as a whole with very few who don't fit in the pack someplace.
So can one pick out that aberration without knowing the story or learning enough to make an educated quess?
Until you reach into the box, Schrodinger's cat will always remain both dead and alive..............Just reach in and find out.


If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention.
Randy

would it be fair to say that underexposed dogs would be less curious, less driven, and less - i'm not sure if intelligent is the right word, but intelligent - than a dog that has weak nerves/genetics? can you look to those sort of pointers or would they occur in both undersocialized dogs and those w/bad genetics?

Jennifer - it is the curiosity/ability to bounce back and investigate something strange or scary that is the difference from weak and strong nerves.

Socialization/environmental exposure is just to show a dog things and have them be comfortable with them so that it isn't stressful or scary if they randomly encounter it in the future.

Underexposed dogs are nervous/scared/unsure of what they have never seen/heard/experienced before, but they recover and retain the memory of this is a thing that I Have seen and it did not hurt me. A weak nerved dog is scared because its scared of all new or strange things and must be worked through to tolerate these things it doesn't like. Does that make sense? A strong nerved/ok nerved dog that just hasn't been around stuff much bounces back, they may startle at first but they want to investigate and learn, they don't try to run and never come back. Weak nerved dogs just want to get away, that is their priority. Getting away and staying away.

that does. i'm just wondering if you could look at non-fearful behaviours as an indicator.

teagan doesn't have fear issues, but what i notice as differences between her and luc is drives, curiousity, and in some ways, intelligence. not that luc is stupid, but teagan problem solves. 2+2=4 to her. whereas with luc, 2+2 is two 2s.

i'm just wondering if that sort of mental process (or lack thereof) is characteristic of undersocialized dogs, can you look at those behaviours to help figure out where fear behaviours are coming from. but i've only got the experience w/luc and teagan, so i'm not sure how well that extrapolates out on a wider application....


Edited by Jennifer Mullen (04/16/2008 09:27 PM)
Edit reason: basically, can you look at behaviours unrelated to the issue to help figure out the dog's background and where the problem behaviour - fear - is coming from? i'm just wondering if there's other things that point to the dog's background