# what's a social butterfly ?



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

this term gets used a lot on here and usually it's considered something negative and NOT wanted.....for a 'working dog' 

starters :
1. what is your definition ?
2. how is it bad or good ?
3. is it (mostly) a trained behavior or genetic ? (i know it's usually a combo of both)

got my own defs and opinions of course, but would rather hear from others first to see if it's worth discussing and not start debates 

everyone should have an opinion here, so maybe some lurkers will join in


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

A Golden Retreiver. 

If I compare my dogs, a Malinois and a Dutch Shepherd to my friend's Golden, I see a scale of sociability. The Golden loves everyone, is instantly your best friend and will actively solicit (annoyingly to me, but others are charmed by his friendliness) pets and attention. My Mal seems to enjoy some attention from strangers, and will move towards kids and people to be petted, but is mostly interested in me. The Dutch is only interested in people to see if they have something for her - a toy, cookie or bite sleeve. She instantly loses interest if they don't. 

My preference is for a more social than not dog because that makes my life easier and requires less management on my part. Both are retired from bite sports and in the other activities we were doing, there were far more opportunities for interaction with strangers, who are not always respectful of a dog's personal space. 

I haven't done anything special to either promote or discourage any of my dogs social tendencies, and suspect that it is mostly genetic.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

I would agree with Leslie's post and idea... I had a female GSD who loved everyone... usually because they got suckered into playing with her (she would bring trash, a cigarette butt (not mine) anything, for them to throw..eww..but that was how she was... Born that way... My other GSD's were of various levels.. most would give a 'hi' when told to and suffer the pets, most did not seek out attention except from those deemed in the 'pack.' Our team has many goldens and they love everyone.. Seek out attention from anyone, just for love and pets - nothing else (unless you want to give it to them).. 'social butterfly'

My current girl is on the opposite spectrum.. She does not seek attention out from anyone except me and her 'loved ones' and she is picky about who they are. She is neutral around people unless they get too forward and desire to pet her before she says it is ok... Once it is 'ok' she is totally cool with it, but does not usually seek it out unless they got moved into the 'loved ones' category... So definitely not a 'scoial butterfly'

Being in SAR, I think I prefer the middle category dog.. Aloof, but willing to say "hi" and suffer the minstrations of those needy individuals who have to pet every dog around... Truly makes my dog easier, because my girls bark is so deep and menacing sounding (even when she is not) people automatically assume she is evil and out to kill them... Probably why she gave the (singular) bark anyways, but then I have to explain etc... I, am not, a social butterfly


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

My current partner is a hand slut. He loves everyone to a point that it's annoying. I'm not a big fan of this. I like my dogs to be indifferent to other people but he is what he is. My co workers can't believe he would bite someone, yet he just got another one the other night. Now, in training he is hard on decoys but his real street contacts leave a little to be desired as compared to my previous partners who quite enjoyed making bad guys pay dearly for their crimes. I am chalking it up to my failure in the training. Tonight I'm going to start training him to push into the bite instead of his pulling. The guy the other night had baggy clothes on so I'm gonna make an excuse here but I think training the push will fix that problem.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

A hand slut, love it!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I joke about my GSD Trooper as having a "Golden Retriever" slip in the pedigree somehow because he is quite friendly with most anyone. He'll be ten in May and still acts like a six month old Golden pup. PIA in my book!

My now passed GSD Thunder was "my" ideal dog. 

Will put up with people's attention IF I'm present but never solicits or tolerates it on his own unless he really know you.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Misty Wegner said:


> A hand slut, love it!


BWHAHAHAHWAHA!! and he said it on national woman's day or whatever the hell today was supposed to be about or for. LOL Howard, I think your hand slut reference qualifies as my favorite comment ever on the WDF!!

Ah, what can I say I am easily amused.

Back on topic, my input = basically what everyone else said.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Tx for the opinions and examples.....i'll send mine but still hoping some new members or lurkers will join in too 

i knew i shouldn't have bothered keeping my Q's short and numbering them //rotflmao//


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Well, the push training went pretty good. More to do though. He's still a whore. It's not gonna change. He's so easy that any other handler can do perfect OB with him right in front of me. Total cuckhold.](*,)](*,)


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

My youngest is a pure body contact queen. He wants and craves close attention. Even if he had the ability to crawl inside your skin that would not be close enough.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

why i started this thread with 3 simple Q's
- i wanted to discuss the issue beyond what's already obvious :-(

full rant will come later...still hoping some new members or lurkers might contribute since for me it's an issue that is all too common in the dog world

but for starters, here's a clip from my full response :
....."i define a social butterfly as a dog who wants to approach and interact with almost everyone it sees without showing any aggression in the process. what it 'wants’ from other people is only a PART of my definition; whether it's getting pets, begging for treats, getting handling, finding a backdrop for a body slam, finding a new face to lick, finding a ball tosser for a game of fetch….whatever."


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Rick, I can't comment on what I can't related to. My short answer is that I gave hand slut more thought than I did the notion of a dog = social butterfly parallel. 

The Welcome Rant is laid out. Rant away.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I prefer a social butterfly as you can train it to see people as furniture if you want. I have three anti social asshats in my house, ranging from full asbo to ignorant prick. This is relating to people outside the majik circle. 
My house dogs are all social butterflies which I like as it makes people visiting easier. All the dogs in my yard have been "socialized" in exactly the same way, I think it is very much genetic. 
Tilly the doberman is an asshat, her full belly sister is a socially competent unit which would suggest it not being genetic but they don't have the same genes so who knows. I'm putting my money on genetic though as digga spent his first 7 weeks in a pig shed with no human contact other than the breeder old school style and Luna in a garage the same, both are socially and environmentally bomb proof, but both have the advantage of being bull types.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I vote genetics!

I recall my doctor saying that given the enormous number of genes in the human body it's almost a miracle that brothers and sisters can look alike.

I'm one of seven kids. 

We all have similar features yet have great differences in both looks and temperament/personalities.

My dad was one of 16 kids.

Everything from a priest to a murderer in there. :-o :lol:


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

convinced it will only be the regulars posting so i'll post mine soon.
longest post i've made because i have strong feelings about the subject

more like a mini-novel
because i drafted a few versions and refined it to cover all the bases i felt needed to be covered
.....and because i can  and i often look at things in my own weird ways //LOL//


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

the main point that will probably get lost in the length is that i hate to evaluate any dog outside the context of its owner or handler

others don't, but that's just me


----------



## Khoi Pham (Apr 17, 2006)

Hahaha "hand slut"


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Khoi

most members will probably agree with you, so on second thought, i'll pass 

the sarcasm and verbal abuse would crush me and i'd shut down for a few days ...rotflmao

this thread's a wrap for me


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

rick smith said:


> this term gets used a lot on here and usually it's considered something negative and NOT wanted.....for a 'working dog'
> 
> starters :
> 1. what is your definition ?
> ...


Personally, I think it's fine. It's just a dog that's more social, likes people. There are some social dogs that can really bring the heat when working. There are some anti-social dogs that do not love everybody that also work well and are very well-managed and trained. Some jobs may require or make more sense for one type or the other. Generally, I think a more social dog is just fine.

Is it good or bad? Not necessarily either. I like them, however I have seen more not-so-social dogs that I have also liked. If they are controllable and fit the handler's needs, it is good. Speaking in general terms, if the dog is solid and the handler is able to use it and channel the dog's energies, it makes no difference. There are probably exceptions. There are probably a good number of anti-social dogs (relatively speaking) that you would never know because they are genetically solid and well-trained to not react.

I think it is mostly genetic, with environmental factors influencing it (possibly greatly). I doubt you could make some hard ass civil working-line shepherd a social butterfly so much as train it to not destroy people invading its personal space.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

in closing, and just for the record, no dog that has been described in this thread fits my definition of a social butterfly and i was surprised that everyone felt its basically genetic


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Well, gee Rick, we all came out and played nice and answered your questions, and then you duck out of the thread you started saying you don't want to play anymore, but we're all wrong about it anyway. :roll:

If the point was to get a good discussion going, then throw out your opinion and let's have at it. Otherwise, why bother asking the questions?


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

rick smith said:


> Khoi
> 
> most members will probably agree with you, so on second thought, i'll pass
> 
> ...


Good God rick, what is it now? Do your feelings and emotions change with the moon or something? Knock it off already and finish what you started.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

rick smith said:


> convinced it will only be the regulars posting so i'll post mine soon.
> longest post i've made because i have strong feelings about the subject


I will echo Leslie and Nicole. We have a saying in the trailing world.... "the bullshit stops when the tailgate drops".

I'm waiting for your tailgate to drop.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

rick smith said:


> in closing, and just for the record, no dog that has been described in this thread fits my definition of a social butterfly and i was surprised that everyone felt its basically genetic


Is that so? 

Here I thought you were all done with this and then you come back with that?

In closing, and just for the record, I'm forever going to think of your typing style as the illusive "hand slut". You never know if he's coming or going. First, he gets you all worked up with, then leaves you hanging, then he comes back unable to help himself. Closer he brings the story to conclusion and then …. Shall I go on? Cause I can. :twisted:


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Nicole Stark said:


> First, he gets you all worked up with, then leaves you hanging, then he comes back unable to help himself. Closer he brings the story to conclusion and then ….


I had to laugh when I read this as it reminds me of a guy having bedroom performance issues. :-k


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Nicole for the win!


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Leslie : "Well, gee Rick, we all came out and played nice and answered your questions, and then you duck out of the thread you started saying you don't want to play anymore, but we're all wrong about it anyway. "

1. 'we all came out and played and answered your questions'
- really ?? 
one of my Q's was how do u define a social butterfly......your answer : a golden.....sorry Leslie, i don't consider that a definition by any stretch. but if you were playing, then i can understand why you might say i don't want to play :-(
2. 'you started saying you don't want to play anymore, but we're all wrong about it anyway.'
- NEVER said that but please cut/paste what i wrote that made you think that i thought you guys are ALL WRONG about it :-( :-(
- for me it's just another example of reading between the lines but not paying attention to the lines that were written
(common here on the WDF...Sarah just gave an example on another thread.......did i jump all over and slam Gina and say "you're wrong" ?)

Sarah : i can't remember reading your definition of a social butterfly either. please cut/paste again if you wrote one and refresh my memory
- actually i don't even remember reading any answers to any of my Q's ... does that mean you too were playing but i wasn't ?

and did Matt, Misty, Bob, Howard, Khoi or Nicole give a definition ? they all responded to the thread, but mostly talked about their dogs. Khoi finally jumped in too //rotflmao//

i would think ALL of the above people are perfectly capable of coming up with a definition if they really wanted to 

i've already sent my detailed views on the topic because i was serious about discussing a common issue that i think can be misunderstood as far as the genetic component vs the aspect of a trained behavior
.....to people who asked and were serious about hearing my viewpoint

- oddly enuff, no one wrote anything about the reasons except for "genetics" side
- i am definitely NOT the smartest knife in the drawer, but no one needed to remind me there was a genetic component, and that's why i POLITELY said i wanted to get beyond the obvious and why i was surprised that aspect was never brought up
......NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM WAS I STATING OR EVEN IMPLYING THAT YOU ARE ALL WRONG :-(

amen

if you still wanna read my "mini book", PM me with serious answers to my Q's and convince me you're interested in my take on the subject and i'll be glad to shoot it to you

i'll try my best to ignore any more sarcasm here, but like a train wreck, i expect i'll read em anyway 

sure, i often look at issues from a different perspective......but i rarely if EVER have i said anything remotely close to : "my way is the best way and you are wrong" ..... and i've posted a few thousand times on this forum !
- i can only remember taking that extreme of a view once 

if anyone disagrees, then take Sarah's advice and stop the BS and quote when i have said that or even IMPLIED that...in ANY response i've ever posted
- it gets old to hear that crap, but for sure, i don't lose any sleep over it //rotflmao// 

amen again, but don't take THAT word at face value ... i'm not religious //LOL//


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Wait - I made a funny in my first response, but then went on in what I thought was the spirit of the post and using the dogs I know as examples, expanded on that thought. Is that not how this works here? 

I don't want to read your answer in a PM. If you want to start threads on general subjects, why not give your opinion in the thread? I don't want to have to hunt you down for it. OShare it that we all may learn something. Even if I don't agree, I am interested in your point of view and maybe, by hashing it out with each other, someone, maybe even you or I, will learn something, or approach a training issue or problem dog in a different way. Or just shut up about it and let the thread die if it's not going the way you want it to and you don't care to share your pearls of wisdom with us. 

Sarcasm, humour... kinda makes the board a fun place to drop into.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

1. a dog that craves attention more times than not. Craves and demands close contact and/or attention

2. Neither good or bad. Unless it interferes with the job or task.

3. Genetic predisposition. Enhanced by association and/or training

And since you have said no one has described a social butterfly to your standard how about you post your definition. Because, clearly, we are not measuring up to your standard. Once you post that, then maybe we can hold up our end of the conversation because, clearly, you seem to have something particular in mind. Perhaps, if you post a video of your definition of a social butterfly we may finally see one. I'm still waiting for the tailgate to drop.....


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

rick smith said:


> ... i'm not religious //LOL//


Well, that's too bad. Cause if you were we'd at least:

1. have hope for you.
2. an explanation for your sermons.

:-?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I may have to look back over these posts but I don't recall anyone saying a "social butterfly" was genetic.

There are definitely genetics such as a spooky dog, genetically aggressive dogs, whatever that would probably preclude them from becoming a "social butterfly" but I think any well socialized, happy, friendly to the world dog could be looked at as a "social butterfly". 

Developing that regardless of desire or it just happening has to require the right dog and the right owner.


----------



## Jeremy White (Sep 23, 2016)

I consider my gf's dog a social butterfly. He will break commands (incomplete training) to socialize running right over. He won't focus on her in play if people walk over. He's excited and happy meeting new people. He lives for it. 
Its a hindrance. My dog is approachable, but doesn't go out of his way. Hes more worried about me, and what I'm doing. 
This in my opinion is due to nurture and nature. My gf's dog, being an abandoned puppy learned humans provided bottle feedings, food, warmth, and social time. My gsd was in a litter and is very similar to his dam.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

(1)I would define a social butterfly as it sounds. A dog that flits from human to human, dog to dog and causes no harm.

(2)It is good as less training, less stress and less liability or it is bad as it is more training, more stress and more liability, depending on the dogs application.
It can also be bad in terms of dog theft. 

(3)Like Bob I would suggest the genetic aspect is more of a set of genetics (temprament traits) that allows a dog to be a social butterfly and conversely another set that prevents the possibility. After that it is down to training but no amount of training (learning) will completely override genetic predisposition.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Oh, look! I found Rick...!


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Sarah, I'm probably embarrassing myself by asking this but who or what is that?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Bob
…..re : "I may have to look back over these posts but I don't recall anyone saying a "social butterfly" was genetic.” 
re :….."I vote genetics!”
- that was your quote too Bob, so I thought you were clear where you stood 

re : Jeremy’s post….
bingo

everyone with a decent knowledge of canine behavior knows the pros of a social dog, and has experienced it first hand if they’ve owned a few. but for me, to not consider the conditioned aspect and how that can and does create huge problems is would not be covering the issue in depth. 
- conditioning is training and training is conditioning. for me the terms are interchangeable even tho one term might imply some "added value”
- hope we would all agree that every dog owner and handler conditions and therefore ‘trains' their dog, whether they are doing it intentionally or unintentionally.

when you spend most of your time working with other people’s dogs, the unintentional type becomes easier to see

actually it is often hard to evaluate a dog on its own, without seeing it interact with the owner or handler. with different humans it can be a totally different dog. if you don’t agree with that you won’t agree that nurture is as important as nature and further discussion is pointless.

whether it’s how much gas comes in the tank or how it uses the gas its got, both are necessities for the car to run.....duh 
- but if you base the limits on gentics, you are imposing limits, whether valid or not, just like most people will stop for gas b4 they run out. in most cases i’ve seen, that’s the point the owner or handler stops conditioning....

and for me, canines respond more to nurture than almost any other creature on the planet !

----------------------------------------------------------------------
have fun girls !!!! i'm sure you can spin this into a joke or gif. or try and relate it to a song or tv show one way or another //rotflmao//


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

.oops :-(
line 8.....delete "is" and it will make more sense ..


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Nice post rick. 

I'm curious, are you familiar with the saying that you shouldn't reward behaviors you don't want?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Nicole
based on some of your comments on this thread...
is this a serious question you want me to respond to ?
i've written about this before so i'm a bit surprised you would ask 

not asking you to play nice ...just seriously asking


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

just like with people (but not children), you should always play with your dog, but if you are actually trying to make a conscious effort to teach it something, it should never be play only

if you don't mix in the serious side, that is one surefire way to condition (aka: train) a social butterfly and make it a problem dog for others even if it's not a problem dog for you. regardless of its basic genetics


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

hope that covers your question Nicole


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

rick smith said:


> just like with people (but not children), you should always play with your dog, but if you are actually trying to make a conscious effort to teach it something, it should never be play only
> 
> if you don't mix in the serious side, that is one surefire way to condition (aka: train) a social butterfly and make it a problem dog for others even if it's not a problem dog for you. regardless of its basic genetics


I disagree to an extent that extent being there are some dogs where this is not true. All Sali's training was and mostly still is through play and she was still an antisocial asshole, same with my dobe Tilly. Not saying my personal subjective opinion negates what you are saying just pointing out it is not a rule.
As a side note both these dogs are Civil and both are edgy.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

rick smith said:


> Nicole, based on some of your comments on this thread…
> 
> *** the primary point of reference regarding my comment on the topic is I said I could not define what I could not identify with. That said, me saying my response otherwise was = basically what everyone else said, was me extending a genuine attempt to try and keep the thread moving.*
> 
> ...


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Matt
i get what you were saying
"All Sali's training was and mostly still is through play" indicates there might be at least a tiny bit of 'serious' involved
- keyword being 'through' ... that's how i interpret the word

nor did i say it was a rule .. just that it is a VERY easy (and common) way to condition a social butterfly 

the only "rule" i stated was you should always play with your dog


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

rick smith said:


> i stated you should always play with your dog


I agree and I wish that play arrived in a neat box with every puppy. The Dutch is a rather unpleasant dog to play with. The "game" in her head is not the same game I am trying to play with her. I'd rather play with knives and hammers.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Matt
some further ramblings regarding "playing with dogs"

would you agree there are different routes to conditioning an anti-social asshhat as compared to a social dog ?

my examples would be 
1. a dog who is overly serious and reactive and bordering on full anti-social. that particular dog would not be one i would play with when i had it out in public. because i tried that route and got burned a few times. a bull terrier i thought would lighten up....it damn near nailed someone but fortunately only got me. did it with a gsd and my own dog too and made zero progress.
2. a social dog will get a lot of play when i'm out, but it will be very close to getting a correction for losing focus on me during the play

of course these are for "outside' situations, where handler control is more of an issue than on a home base or neutral area, but that's where i do a lot of work once i'm past foundation stuff

what say you ??


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

like all dog terms. different defs for different people

i have met many many people who think sitting in a chair and tossing a ball to their dog, who runs after it, grabs it, runs around with it like a freshly butchered chicken for five minutes, finally gets bored and brings it back and drops it 5 meters from its owner, who then gets up and fetches it, and then comes back sits down and tosses it again, and repeats this as many times as this sentence runs on........is "playing with their dog" :-(


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Playing with my dog is just that. And if she wants to drop the ball 10 feet from me so I have to wander over and pick it up and then run ahead to catch it as it lands, I'm all good with that. She also likes to play bite the leash on walks and I am less fond of that game, but will sometimes indulge her. 

I had someone yell at me in a park once that I should make my dog sit before I threw the ball. It made me think about why I don't do that, and I realized that for me it's okay if my dog makes the rules and gets to play the game the way they want to sometimes. 

If I incorporate play into training it looks very different, and she looks very different. We play by my rules then. And yet, if it's not fun for her, then it's not play. 

How is that related to being a social butterfly? 

Also, rick, please define what_ you _mean by a social butterfly. If you have already, I apologize for missing it, but I can't seem to find it in your posts.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I'm like that too Leslie, especially with the house dogs 

Well the way I dealt with it with Tilly is gave her a boot in the ribs, basically put her in her place CM style and that was the end of that in terms of being an asshat but she will never be a social butterfly. 
You can do that with Dobes/bull breeds I would not suggest it for a Mal or anymore at all as it goes, just saying that is what I did and why I feel I can say CM is an idiot, I have learned better ways and so should he really.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Nicole Stark said:


> I agree and I wish that play arrived in a neat box with every puppy. The Dutch is a rather unpleasant dog to play with. The "game" in her head is not the same game I am trying to play with her. I'd rather play with knives and hammers.


That is your Dutch's genetics. I don't thing she, as an individual dog could ever become a "social butterfly" because of many generations of very serious breeding and from what I've seen in her sleeve work video. 

THAT is a serious dog!.

Can it happen in some of that breeding? Of course! 

My own dog Trooper comes from very serious dogs on both sides but he's a big teddy bear.

I have seen a dark side to him but it's very rare.

He would let anyone in the house or yard and greet them with his Kong in his mouth.

Social butterfly crossed with the proverbial bull in a china shop.

My now passed dog Thunder was very clear headed and I played with him all the time as did my grandkids but he very rarely solisited play other then to earn a game of tug. 

He was social because I worked at it but a social butterfly. No way!


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

just for the record
for me "playing with a dog" assumes it is interactive

if it isn't, i consider it allowing a dog to self satisfy. including when it isn't playing with itself

i also assume most regular members here do it without thinking, but a ton of people don't have a clue what interactive means in regards to dogs

i never lose hope that lurkers and newcomers sometimes read these threads since the forum god selects a lot to send out to the world in their wonderful newsletter along with their other advertising spam :-(


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I'm gonna make up another one, "social chameleon" I rekon Hunter Allreds dog Jager might be a social chameleon. 
He seems like a dog that will do it all, be "social" and also a serious badass.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i remember them too 
you still in touch with him ?

- "balanced", 
.........and the more weight there is on either side, the more impressive.....for sure that dog had a heavy dose on both


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Yeah, Jager had a couple of litters so the genetics are out there. 
One day I might talk into me getting a pup out of him  Always wanted a GSD just don't like many of them.


----------

