# Of Hostages and Relationships



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I normally very much like Suzanne Clothier's articles and her book "Bones Would Rain From the Sky." Thoughts on this one as I vaguely consider getting a pup this summer?

http://www.flyingdogpress.com/hostage.html


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

I think it's making some pretty broad generalizations (and exaggerations) about the popular notions of raising puppies (at least as _many_ people here view it). Controlled socialization, relating back happiness w.r.t. the handler as much as possible, "all fun in life comes from me" doesn't have to include sensory deprivation. She's saying these basic practices are tantamount to abusive deprivation, that's unfair.

Her complaining about dog interaction is silly to me:



> Consider the concept that dogs should have limited, if any, play or social interactions with other dogs. The rationale here is that a dog dealing with another dog must either be dominant or submissive. In having to learn the rules of normal dog behavior, these trainers believe that these dogs will have their fragile egos irreparably damaged by having to submit to other dogs, or become unduly dominant, thus rendering them incapable of successful competitive work. Does this really make sense? What happened to stable dogs who can actually deal with life?


She's forgetting that you keep a puppy away from other dogs so an adult doesn't knock the sh!t out of your pup and mess him/her up...regardless of how well they "deal" with it.

And it's typical anthropomorphizing, kind of disappointing. A dog is not a human hostage. It's looking for pack structure. 

In the words of the great Dave Chapelle as Rick James..."I wish I had more hands...so I could give four thumbs down [to that article]"

But I will be the first to admit raising a puppy hard and fast to the "rules" would take a lot of fun out of having a puppy. ;-) Here's a horrible instance of my kiddo breaking the spirit/bond of a young pup at my breeder's, the week before we picked up Annie. Tragic.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Well, I hate to say it, because I have read some good stuff from her, but ditto.

I thought that there was exaggeration to an extreme that rarely exists in order to pose the argument against that extreme.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> Here's a horrible instance of my kiddo breaking the spirit/bond of a young pup at my breeder's, the week before we picked up Annie. Tragic.


I had to look away.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Actually she addresses dogs who kick the crap out of pups



> There is a grain of truth here - a very small grain at best. There is no question that an inappropriate playmate can scare the pants off a dog (especially a puppy), sometimes leaving a serious and lasting impression.


Although she does humanize things, and is taking some concepts to the extreme, I think she has some good points in the article. I've met more than one trainer who does exactly what she's describing, or at least says they do. To the point of even removing food bowls from the dogs kennel, because the dog was so bored it began using them as toys, and the handler didn't want the dog to have ANYTHING that it might be able to use to amuse itself when not working. Maybe they aren't as extreme as they like to claim, but I only have their word to work off of as far as how they raise/train the dog, so ...


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Ah, missed that.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

My GSD routinely got his butt whipped as a pup by my JRT. Today he is completely social with other dogs. Not dominant, not aggressive, not fearful. On the training field he totally ignores other dogs. 
With years of having a multiple dog household I've alway allowed interaction between dogs. 
I do many things that go against the ideas of rasing puppys. In particular working puppys. They know who feeds them.

Woody, how dare you expose that child to a vicious dog. In case you didn't notice, that dog is stalking your son.      :wink:


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

While I dont like how she explains her point I dont totally disagree with it either.I think dogs need some natural interaction with other dogs.They also should be worked around other dogs on a regular basis.
The way I have seen some training is from the crate to the field with all other dogs put up and out of sight and then back to the crate.This type of isolation creates instability.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

I don't disagree with some of the sentiment I think is behind the article...I just don't know what to DO because of reading that article.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> I don't disagree with some of the sentiment I think is behind the article...I just don't know what to DO because of reading that article.


You do what works for you and your family. From past discussions with you I don't see any problems with Annie. 
Trust your instincts and ask questions if your end stinks to bad.  :wink:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Personally, I found the article as refreshing as I think it is on the money. A friend of mine was working his dog in schutzhund. The dog was kenneled all the time because the trainer told him that was how to do it. At the same time, his other dog had free run of the house and yard. The dog didn't know how to act around other dogs and he wasn't a good prospect for a sport dog in my opinion. He was just one of the friendliest dogs in the world. 

This seems to be a common recipe for a good sports dog. The dog is suppose to see you as his world. That's crap. The article, the way I interpreted through the example of the checkers is.....the kid had no interest in the checkers and likewise, most dogs have no interest in being schutzhund III's. Why do they incorporate these methods routinely.....because "you got the wrong dog for the work". You can't make a macho dog out of a pussy cat no matter how much deprivation they go through. This type of training is to make inferior dogs look better. What I see in the article is you simply have the wrong dog if you have to resort to this type of training. Yes, I know, "But this is the dog I have, and paid for, and got attached to, so he is going to do it whether he likes it or not.... because my family won't let me get rid of him."

I know I am sticking my neck out here from past experience. , but, you have all heard the phrase, "That dog don't hunt!" . Think about it. If he don't hunt, I don't waste my time. I get one that will.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Again, the article is exaggerating, and if anyone told your buddy that he's supposed to keep a dog kenneled all the time...that's a dumb thing to do, particularly to a sport dog, IMO. Even more specifically for a Sch dog...I mean geez, a Sch routine is boring enough as it is [/Jeff]. Hah, just kidding.

What most of us are working towards here is getting the (sport) dog to focus on us by teaching the dog that good things come from us. Praise, food, play. The party line is to provide lots of socialization early on to build confidence, awareness, and self-control later. Some people take that to an extent that is impractical (or in my mind, not a lot of fun for anyone) by _severely_ restricting who interacts/touches the dog. It's grounded in some very practical concerns about the nature of these animals and what they can do in uncontrolled environments, but still a bit much for me. But I have an extremely sociable dog.

This article is taking the basic logic of bond-building out to an irrational extreme by claiming that it's sensory deprivation.

There is no credible trainer I have ever met that would suggest deprivation as a way to turn something into anything, except a pile of crap and potentially dangerous nerve bag.

I will throw out the notion that herders might view the relationship with their owners differently from other breeds. That is not a knock on you, I'm just saying I've been around terriers and I've been around herders and there is a striking difference in their interest in their people (for very obvious reasons stemming from what both types were raised for). Herder trainers are trying to capitalize on the fact that, genetically, herders take a great deal of interest in pleasing their owners.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

LOL, I'll have to give you that up to a point Woody. Terriers tend to be "very" independent compared to many breeds. In the yard here, I have so so influence when I tell them to do something. The difference is astounding when I load the up to go hunting. They live to hunt and when I tell them to load up, it is a done deal. Their hearing improves dramatically.
Remember, there are 20 to 25 dogs here in the yards, always interacting. 

It seems to me that if they loved to do sport work, the reaction would be much the same. Now, I was wrong once or twice, years ago but, if a dog is meant for what you are doing, it turns him on. He is a "natural" is the term most commonly used in hunting. Many trainers use deprivation techniques to turn a dog on. If the dog isn't interested in the work, they crate him so that they can see the others out doing what he should have done. Eventually, he wants to do it in limited fashion. I think they call it drive building. If the dog needs drive building, the way I see it, you got the wrong dog.

Woody, I may be to cut and dried for much of the modern way of thinking and, being a breeder, I am not willing to go with dogs that don't have the desire naturally. Breeding and trainers have very different outlooks on much of this. I will not breed dogs that have to be coaxed into things. They are no more than pets. Trainers will take those same dogs that need coaxing....and coax them into something. From my view point all the coaxing in the world will still not make them the right dog. Granted, there are varying degrees. Some or not far off and are workable, many are not worth the time. You also may have a dog that can cut the mustard and this may not be relative to you personally. 

I did find the article to be on the money from what I have seen of competative methods of training. That does not mean that they all use the same methods.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I have to say I have always belonged to the school of not doing much socializing with other dogs or people where my dogs are concerned. I do enough so they aren't schizoid, but I want my dog to feel the majority of fun stuff comes from me. The few dogs & people my dog does socialize with are family members, close friends & some of their dogs. My dogs have all been very stable & confident in schutzhund. What the lady writes is ok for some but not others.

There are times when a dog is going through an "unfocused" period. If you take this dog, & put him up except when working him, he will become happier to work. Doing this temporarily sometimes works wonders. As with most techniques, it is only cruel if done excessively or incorrectly.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

There are many many sport trainers who want the dogs kenneled unless they are out there working on something specifically and then right back to the crate.If that isnt sensory deprivation I dont know what is.

If the dog has a good foundation you can simply put the dog or pup in a down stay and let him watch and accomplish the same thing.The dogs are learning even while they are kenneled and IMO they are learning the wrong things.

I dont make a point to do any socializing with my dogs.They get plenty just in day to day activities.I let them interact with each other under supervision.I find that most people are paranoid about their dogs getting enough socializing and they think if they dont they will be skittish or a fear biter or something....BS.If you have a skittish dog then you had one the day you brought him home.Or maybe you are the one thats skittish?


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> This article is taking the basic logic of bond-building out to an irrational extreme by claiming that it's sensory deprivation.


i don't think that's what the article is saying. i would add one word to your above quote and agree with it:

This article is taking the basic logic of *EXTREME* bond-building out to an irrational extreme by claiming that it's sensory deprivation.

i think it's talking about people who goto extreme measures in the name of bond-building (total isolation from outside stimuli). that is what they are talking about being "sensory deprivation".


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> There are many many sport trainers who want the dogs kenneled unless they are out there working on something specifically and then right back to the crate.If that isnt sensory deprivation I dont know what is.


Yeah, I think that's wrong. And pointless. And missing out on a lot of fun because dogs are cool. And it's beating up on a herding dog that was not ever meant to be in that kind of environment.

If people want an expensive, time-consuming hobby that requires a lot of work, patience, and thoughtfulness without the burden of also maintaining a well-rounded and happy animal...they should take up golf. Golf clubs are really dumb and can sit in kennels as long as five or six months up here in Minnesota. 

Tim, I understand what the article is saying. What I'm saying is that it's inflammatory and lets a casual dog owner rationalize a lot of dumb decisions. IMO.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

There are some sport dog trainers who do this on a routine basis, but not the good ones. Those that do this kind of crap are found out because their dogs don't hold up & eventually their reputation proceeds them!


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> Tim, I understand what the article is saying. What I'm saying is that it's inflammatory and lets a casual dog owner rationalize a lot of dumb decisions. IMO.


it's only inflammatory to people who practice the extreme isolation concepts that she addresses. if you don't do this, you should not be outraged by her conclusions.

i do agree that she anthropomophizes (sp? is that even a word?) quite a bit to get her point across. she doesn't need to do that. where i think she falls short in her logic is that those who practice those methods probably don't care if their dog is "stable". they just want points and trophies and ribbons. to that person stability is not highly sought after...


----------



## Amber Scott Dyer (Oct 30, 2006)

IMHO - my dogs are sport dogs, but *hopefully* PP dogs also. If they can't live in the house or around family, they can't protect us. A dog's not going to be a whole lot of help defending you if it's in a kennel.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I did not read the book or artcle just the bit that Woody posted. For me I could care less if my dog ever interacted with dogs, as I find that if they are allowed to interact too much then they quickly learn that dogs are the better deal, being that they ask for nothing. Some dogs it doesn't matter, but the habit is still there in my head.


----------

