# Genetic Limitations on Socialization.



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

My first Malinois I bought from Conformation lines. He was good pet...But was always a bit suspicious of people and was not very courageous. So, He basically would give a low rumble growl when new people would come over or approach him. He was reserved enough not to bite and the growl was short lived and he would let people pet him. He was socialized to the max, and was very friendly as a puppy. As he grew older this suspicion of people grew. 

I was then reading a book talking about socialization, schutzhund and it made a reference to the wolves. The trainer being interviewed...whom I cannot remember his name. Stated that wolf would not be able to do the work due to constraints on the genetics. That the wolf would never be able to work in close proximity to man no matter how much socilization was done. That a wolf just did have the genetic make up to do this. And that this what we are breeding away from.

now I have seen many posts on many forums accusing people of not socializing enough, even though the owners claimed to have done tons of socializing. But the people pressed on further accusing the owners that the socializtion must have been insufficent or not of the right kind. After my experience with my dog I questioned this....Is thier a genetic limit on how social the dog will become?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Not uncommon at all!
Not scientifically based but my own thoughts on dogs with a lot of fear based avoidance/ aggression/ etc is that it's nothing more then a throwback to early ancestors. Of course this can be environmental as well but if genetic it's going to limit what the dog is capable of.
It's way to easy to always blame this on "poor socialization".


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

In Bruce Fogle's book, _The Dog's Mind_, he breaks down forms of socialization into different categories, and even subcategories.

Aggression
Eating, Exploring, Eliminating
Fears, Phobias, Excitement
Pack, Sex, Maternal Activity

On Aggression he states...



> Dominance aggression is primarily influenced by genetics. Inter-male or sex related aggression is hormone related while other forms can be influenced by the environment (moving objects) or are learned in the operant learning mode. Some types of aggression are simply related to the excitement level of the dog's mind _(and by that, I think he's referring to "displacement aggression")_.


The neural pathways of the mind are malleable enough to suppose the "80/20" rule could apply, and change reversibly. Supposing 80% agressive cases were caused by 20% of gene expression, and 20% expressed aggression were derived from 80% genetic temperament. It's the 60% between that leaves me wondering... :-/ ;-)


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> In Bruce Fogle's book, _The Dog's Mind_, he breaks down forms of socialization into different categories, and even subcategories.
> 
> Aggression
> Eating, Exploring, Eliminating
> ...


Daryl
Would fear based aggression be a part of "displacement aggresion"?
Do you think the 80-20 would be able to turn around a dog with genetic, fear based aggression, aka that study? 
I'm old! I have a hard time understanding some of these studies. :lol:


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

My idea of a joke, with the 80/20 thing. I don't think displacement aggression has to do with fear, but excitement. I don't necessarily ascribe to Fogle's beliefs in their full intent, but here are his references regarding that particular chapter on aggression.

_Veterinary Clinics of North America, by Victoria Voith and Peter Borchelt

The Behavior of Domestic Animals, by Benjamin Hart

On Aggression, by Konrad Lorenz_

I just wanted to point out that there are different forms of socialization, and different aspects of each that may be more learned and changeable than others.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

OK, perhaps displacement aggression could be from surprise fear, but not prepondered fear. Like say, a first time bred female's reaction upon penetration.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Understood!
displacement aggression = redirected aggression as when my terriers would be raising hell at the back fence and get so excited that it would turn into a pile of nasty snarling littl bassids! 
I was trying to apply it to the OP's question of how genetics could limit how social the dog would become. 
I think, if it's genetic, then it's limited. controled maybe, but not eliminated with training.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Generally, I don't think of behaviors as either/or, genetic or environmental. I believe a foundation for many behaviors are inherent, but their expressions modified by experience through learning and environment, therefore changeable to "some" degree, but just how much being variable in each given aspect of temperament. Similar to the belief that you could affect a dog to be better or worse (through environment, imprinting, socialization, training) than its genetic potential would imply. Yet some genes are more inlfuential than others, or neural formations so firmly reinforced from a lifetime's habits, to be less easily reversible.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

James Downey said:


> My first Malinois I bought from Conformation lines. He was good pet...But was always a bit suspicious of people and was not very courageous. So, He basically would give a low rumble growl when new people would come over or approach him. He was reserved enough not to bite and the growl was short lived and he would let people pet him. He was socialized to the max, and was very friendly as a puppy. As he grew older this suspicion of people grew.
> 
> I was then reading a book talking about socialization, schutzhund and it made a reference to the wolves. The trainer being interviewed...whom I cannot remember his name. Stated that wolf would not be able to do the work due to constraints on the genetics. That the wolf would never be able to work in close proximity to man no matter how much socilization was done. That a wolf just did have the genetic make up to do this. And that this what we are breeding away from.
> 
> now I have seen many posts on many forums accusing people of not socializing enough, even though the owners claimed to have done tons of socializing. But the people pressed on further accusing the owners that the socializtion must have been insufficent or not of the right kind. After my experience with my dog I questioned this....Is thier a genetic limit on how social the dog will become?


James, let me take a stab at what you are seeing. Dog is very suspicious of people. Had lots of socialization. The dog appears to be totally normal and has confidence when with other dogs and let's say you are watching it out the window? Lack of socialization can have several expressions, but, does the dog react to people like you may expect a feral animal to act. It is intersting. I recently had a litter that, On day three when I went out to dock the tails, displayed a large degree of avoidance when I opened the whelping box. This was quite noticeable as opposed to the fact that 3 day old pups don't usually react a lot one way or the other. These pups, because of that reaction I saw, received more attention than I normally give pups. I still have them at 7 mo. They absolutely love to be with me. They sit, down, get in their pen when told. I can't touch them. I decide I was going to see what it took to change the "best" of the pups. Took her in the truck with me, had her in the house. Fed her goodies like beef, chicken. Let her on the bed. Today the dog adores me. Will sleep right up against my side....if she so chooses and I don't try to touch her. She is right with me in the yard and will sit by me as long as I don't try to touch her. If in the house and I sit, she will lay right by my feet if I don't try to touch her. She will jump up and take treats out of my coat pocket if I keep my hands on the rail or shovel. In the yard, her tail is always up, I have never seen it up in the house, but, she likes to be in the house with me and actually chooses to come in. What is interesting and I wondered if this could happen. The dogs are very closely bred. This is a 10th generation litter. The same ones that I mentioned some time back produced all solid as rocks, great pups across the board. Well, it does seem that much of what they are is across the board. These pups are all confident and are fun to watch. Love to be close to you. Will obey commands better than most.....just can't touch them. Oh, and they are death on squirrels and such. They have it all but there is this feral tendency that they have.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don, it is time for you to take all those notes and thoughts and start writing a book. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Mike Jones (Jan 22, 2009)

I was talking to a dog trainer who is also a zoo veterinarian in charge of the wolves and other wild canis. He told me that some dogs exhibit more of there wolf foundation then others. Man has tried to breed this wild behavior out of some dogs while maintain a small amount in others. In domestic dogs this so-called unsocial behavior is often times termed as an unstable dog. However, it is quite normal for a wild dog such as a wolf, jackal or fox. I believe that the domestic dog's wolf ancestor peeks it head more often than not.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Interesting mike. More so because thes dogs are raised in individual pack with older siblings, aunts and such. They have been bred for extreme natural hunting ability. Possibly to much so. This litter is making me wonder how dogs in Indian camps were. They are always close and responsive yet display a strong feral tendency to being touched by people.In years before, I have seen them with this feral tendency but, with those, it was total avoidance.
Here they are at 4 mo. just waiting for me to come off the deck.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Sorry Don, I want to fully understand your interesting experiment. What happens if you touch one of the dogs? Have you tried that yet? Sorry if I missed something.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Sorry Don, I want to fully understand your interesting experiment. What happens if you touch one of the dogs? Have you tried that yet? Sorry if I missed something.


Have I tried touching them yet? Every time I am with them for seven mo. I make every experience with them a good one. Yet, they act mortified if I reach for them. They slink to a safe distance and wait till I am doing something and come back to me.

Since Mike mentioned the primal nature of the wolf showing in domestic dogs, I am going to mention another thing I have never seen here in all the years of breeding. Some time back I had mentioned a very masculine bitch that was not going to be a good producer. Small litters bred and have no pups, this sort of thing which I have seen before. A few mo. back, she had 10 pups. all died within 2 days. I decided to place her if I could at that point. Since she just had a litter, I figured I could leave her in with the male....no problem. Shortly past a month later, dogs are barking and I looked out the window and she is tied. She did this several more times over the next few days. I am blown away really, and my mind is working overtime If she is pregnant, she is due again in about 2 weeks. She is a big girl and hard to tell but I really figured it to be something of a fluke but started supplementing her diet. Now this morning I am out feeding. It is still pretty dark. As I walk by one yard, a male and a female are standing back to back. I walked over there and they are tied sure as heck. This bitch had one pup in her last litter which went home a week ago Sunday at 10 weeks. Naturally I figure they can stay together for a few mo before other arrangement are made. These are both tough bitches and they are not going to be bred unless they want to be. Now, my mind is blown. Wild animals that lose a litter can go back and cycle again. That is why lions kill off the young, to bring the lioness back in. But, domestic dogs????? I have never seen it and I am baffled. Intrigued but baffled. I can live with it if both produce because they throw great solid pups. Now I am getting a bit worried about leaving the breeding pairs together. Has anyone seen this and I am simply not aware of it?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

How many people can say that they breed as tightly as you do ??? It is something that I saw around the same point as you are now. The Uber dog or some shit. LOL 

However, there is always one bitch that pulls the others into season, I am thinking you have found her.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Interesting mike. More so because thes dogs are raised in individual pack with older siblings, aunts and such. They have been bred for extreme natural hunting ability. Possibly to much so. This litter is making me wonder how dogs in Indian camps were. They are always close and responsive yet display a strong feral tendency to being touched by people.In years before, I have seen them with this feral tendency but, with those, it was total avoidance.
> Here they are at 4 mo. just waiting for me to come off the deck.


 
Don. I think your describing the "real" Basenji to a T. It was never an individuals dog but always a village hunting dog. Mostly left to their own but would gather when hunting parties got to gether.
In the 80s a group of Americans went over to find pure village Basenjis to refresh the breed over here. It wasn't until then that the brindle color was accepted.
Unknowling they brough a different set of genetic problems.
The Basenji (many of them) is still know to be a very standoffish dog with most people.


----------



## Mike Jones (Jan 22, 2009)

Speaking of genetic issues there may be other things to consider when breeding lines tight besides ancestral traits. There could be some physical problems with the pups that may cause this behavior. Have they been examined by by an experience veterinarian.

I am sure that you are familiar with this documentary. If not check this out: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44215931


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I haven't seen it Mike. Besides all I had to see was that it was a BBC documentary. No one speaks favorably of breeding close Mike. Nort much point in reading what is written because those doing the writing have never done it. Most all of the litters produced, 10 generations and up are outstanding pups in every way across the board. Since they are bred so close, I always wondered if this feral attitude towards people could possibly take place, also across the board. With dogs this tight there is a tendency for them all to be extremely similar. This is the first that produced it. My vet see the pups every time they are shipped. He just shakes his head and says I have some of the soundest pups he has seen.
Here they are at 4 mo with their first squirrel. The older dog in the picture just trounced the one standing back.









Jeff, there are people out there that breed close....just not for so long. There was a person here earlier that asked why three in the yard were so much bigger than the other three, I told him they were a different cross and 5 mo older. He shook his head and said they all look just alike just some are bigger. LOL

Getting back on topic, from what I have seen, genetics definitly limits the what can be done with "conditioning". I don't like to see handling pups from an early age as socialization because for those that don't understand what is happening, it is misleading. Socialization sounds better to most but it is conditioning so the pups are simply more comfortable in a given situation with people. The pups in this one litter displayed an avoidance to me from 3 days old which was obvious. As they got older, I was equally surprised that they really like to be around me and were very trainable. Normally there would be total avoidance as they got older.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Don, puppies cannot hear or see until they are around 14 days old (give or take a few days). At that age, they can smell (if I remember right, though don't quote me on that) and are thermotactic (they seek heat from mom and littermates because they cannot regulate their body temperature well), but would not be able to tell you are there unless you picked them up or unless they caught your scent or felt a vibration of foot steps. So I wonder what was the mode of detection.

Interestingly, rats and mice are the same way. They don't even have their ear canals open until about day 14 (eyes open around the same time), but they can be weaned 7 days later, which is pretty amazing. Because I love comparative developmental anatomy, these are from my current litter at 10 days old. They've just got a little flap for the pinnae and no ear canal.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I was picking them up to dock tails. Normally it is an easy, quick process. These had to be grip to keep from dropping them. The whelping box is opened by sliding a 3'x3 1/2 ' lid back which vibrates the whole box. Normally I only see a reaction to that when they are about two week and older. Their eyes open, or start to at 14 days. If memory serves, they start generating their own heat at about 10 day. This was of some concern with the single pup mentioned that was picked up the Sunday before last whos mom went right back to breeding. That pup was born when it was in the low 20's and lived in an outdoor whelping box with no siblings and mom was outside a lot after the first few days. I checked on that on and it was always warm to the touch.

I am more curious as to what you thinking is on why these two have turned around and stood for the males so quickly but that is off topic in regards to the socialization question.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Very interesting Don. I feel my dog has a touch of what yours are showing but I made him deal with contact at a younge age. He still bobs and weaves when I but my arms out. I still try to reward his retrieves sometimes with a pat and am lucky if I catch his ass before he moves off.

He loves to be with me, in view, same room, inside, wherever but he doesn't sit where I can reach out and touch him. He will come closer if I tell him to but will quickly get up and move away again. I always thought this weird for such a social dog, never had one that wasn't up in my grill 24/7 if given the chance. If I throw him outside lose, he's right at the sliding glass door watching my every move and wanting in. He likes people, just doesn't appear to like the petting part, however he will deal with it because I forced it, for my own selfish reasons, thinking every normal dog wants to be petted. 

This a real confident, dominant dog, bold in every way, stable as they come


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Don. I think your describing the "real" Basenji to a T. It was never an individuals dog but always a village hunting dog. Mostly left to their own but would gather when hunting parties got to gether.
> In the 80s a group of Americans went over to find pure village Basenjis to refresh the breed over here. It wasn't until then that the brindle color was accepted.
> Unknowling they brough a different set of genetic problems.
> The Basenji (many of them) is still know to be a very standoffish dog with most people.


You always surprise me Bob. Why would you know that about Basenji's of all breeds? All I know about them, which I found out by accident is that they are sight hounds. Never would have thought it. You must read alot.


----------



## todd pavlus (Apr 30, 2008)

Aren't basenji's the dogs that don't bark, they have more of a yodel type sound


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> You always surprise me Bob. Why would you know that about Basenji's of all breeds? All I know about them, which I found out by accident is that they are sight hounds. Never would have thought it. You must read alot.


 
The history of breeds has always facinated me. I read a ton on dogs. Have all my life.
Doesn't make me any smarter. I just have a bigger load of bs to bring to the conversation. :lol: :wink:
For the love of me I can't remember the woman's name but she was also active in showning Border Terriers in the breed ring. I had a long discussion with her in the early 90s about this particular thing. 
It was one of the very few exceptions that AKC allowed dogs with no written pedigree to be allowed into the breeding program.
BTW, The Basenji was at one time called the Egyptian Terrier. Look at their structure in relation to the Pharo Hound and the Ibithan (sp) Hound.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> ... For the love of me I can't remember the woman's name but she was also active in showning Border Terriers in the breed ring..


Was it Vandra Huber?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Not it! She was/is? a show judge also, in addition to one of the people that went over to select the dogs. 
Seems like it was Dame something or other. I'm old ya know! :lol: 
This is gonna kill me till I figure it out. ](*,) ](*,) 
It was at the 91-92 National Terrier Specialties at Montgomery Penn.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Merrith Kipp?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Damara Bolte was the ladies name.
I found it in in some of my old show records. 
I couldn't cut and paste it but I also looked up her name in GOOGLE and found an article on the trip.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I think the factors involved in "touch avoidance/touch prefered" that Don mentions must be few. I have two full-sister calico cats, both spayed, one likes to be near but never touched, while the other really likes being touched. So, because of that, I don't think it's a lot of change that takes place over generations, with many factors involved. Whether early environment or mostly genetic, I wouldn't know.


----------

