Some people here (Leah, in particular) claimed that my views on the
"critical" socialization period were not only "wrong" but "dangerous".
When I get things wrong I admit it.

I wasn't wrong. And the current views on socialization are actually
*more* dangerous because of the almost complete misunderstanding many
people here apparently have about it.

Since you like cites by names you know, here's one for you: Patricia
McConnell says that some of the initial studies on the "critical window"
have been questioned, and that some in the field are now referring to this
as a "sensitive" period, not a "critical" one.

Meanwhile, some breeders won't let a puppy go home with its new owners
until after the dog is 12 wks. old because they feel it's important for
the pup to stay with its mother and littermates or else the dog will miss
out on its critical socilization period, which can only take place in the
litter.

I've known a number of dogs who weren't allowed contact with other dogs
until after the "window" had closed. And these dogs had no socialization
problems. Another trainer I respect says that he's seen dogs who had no
socialization with other dogs (other than the mother and littermates) for
up to 8 mos. and had no problems with socialization.

My own dog has had the same three social responses to every dog he meets
since he was 10 wks. old, despite the fact that I "socialized him early"
to other dogs. (He's either attracted to a dog, uninterested, or he
avoids the dog. He's always been like this and he probably always will.)
If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Puppy classes and "socialization" groups can actually be detrimental to a
dog's socialization, particularly since the mindset of some people is to
just throw the dogs together to get them "socialized". This often puts
the puppy in an unnatural situation with more stimulus than he can handle
and the natural process of learning how to get along with other dogs is
short-circuited. Socialization classes are unnatural and should be
avoided or outlawed.

Socialization to humans is different from socialization to other dogs.
"Dog = friend/family" takes place in the litter through a natural
"imprinting" process. Dogs do not naturally imprint to human beings and
should be given safe, friendly contact with as many different types of
people as possible during the socialization period.

Acclimating a dog to new sounds, surface textures, traffic, etc. is NOT A
PART OF THE SOCIALIZATION PERIOD. It's part of the FEAR DEVELOPMENT
PHASE. Lumping these two things together, even though they happen
concurrently, muddies your thinking. Anyone who says that a puppy needs
to be acclimated to new sounds, etc., as part of his socialization doesn't
understand what socialization is.

No dog should be expected to be socialized to all other dogs. In fact,
this is a baaaad idea. I say let the dog decide who he's comfortable or
uncomfortable with. Always trust your dog's instincts, not the "experts"
who still believe in the outmoded idea that dogs are capable of forming a
social hierarchy, etc.

Rousseau said, "Nature is never wrong." And since dogs are a part of
nature, dogs are never wrong.

I'm a human being, so I'm wrong about things from time to time. I'm not
wrong about this.

"LeeCharlesKelley" wrote:
My own dog has had the same three social responses to every dog he meets
since he was 10 wks. old, despite the fact that I "socialized him early"
to other dogs. (He's either attracted to a dog, uninterested, or he
avoids the dog. He's always been like this and he probably always will.)
If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Sure it has. He's comfortable around other dogs and knows how to communicate
with them. That's the point of socialization. The goal isn't to create a
"party animal," it's to create a sense of confidence that comes from
familiarity.

Puppy classes and "socialization" groups can actually be detrimental to a
dog's socialization, particularly since the mindset of some people is to
just throw the dogs together to get them "socialized". This often puts
the puppy in an unnatural situation with more stimulus than he can handle
and the natural process of learning how to get along with other dogs is
short-circuited. Socialization classes are unnatural and should be
avoided or outlawed.

Proper socialization is done with supervision, since the experience needs to be
"positive" for each pup. If you just throw them together and let fly what
will, you can certainly end up with a traumatized puppy or two.

However, IMHO proper socialization is more important than training. You have
the dog's life to train him, but only a short window of opportunity to
socialize him.

I've met far too many dogs who react fearfully and aggressively simply because
they were not properly socialized as young pups. So saying that socialization
classes should be outlawed is, to me, the height of ignorance.

Socialization to humans is different from socialization to other dogs.
"Dog = friend/family" takes place in the litter through a natural
"imprinting" process. Dogs do not naturally imprint to human beings and
should be given safe, friendly contact with as many different types of
people as possible during the socialization period.

How do you account for the bazillions of dogs out there who are fine around the
other dogs at home, but fearful or aggressive to strange dogs? Whether human
or animal, a puppy needs to become confident around ALL other living creatures.
Exposure to the other pups in the litter simply creates a familiarity with
THOSE pups. Even then, if you take the dog away at 12 weeks of age and never
expose him to another dog, and at 6 months of age introduce him to a pup from
his own litter, chances are that he will react fearfully or aggressively.

No dog should be expected to be socialized to all other dogs. In fact,
this is a baaaad idea. I say let the dog decide who he's comfortable or
uncomfortable with.

Um... boggle. A dog who is socialized to many different breeds will be
comfortable with many different breeds. A dog who is not probably will not.

I did tell the story of the flop-eared pup who was initially afraid of all the
prick-eared pups in class, didn't I? All he knew were the pups from his own
litter. Within a week, however, he was comfortable and confident around all
other pups, no matter what kind of ears they had.

Patricia
McConnell says that some of the initial studies on the "critical window"
have been questioned, and that some in the field are now referring to this
as a "sensitive" period, not a "critical" one.

What context did you take this quote from? Is she saying that this is a reason
that they shouldn't be socialized? I doubt it. Sounds to me like she's saying
that socialization can occur outside of the "critical" period. Which is a
no-brainer. However, the older the pup gets, the less the success rate.

I have a puppy class right now with a year-old chi mix in it. For 3 weeks,
she's been hiding behind daddy's legs during play-time. However, she is coming
out to sniff butts when the others aren't paying attention to her, her tail is
no longer tucked, and she has started to give eye contact to the other dogs.
She's making progress, but it's a coin-toss as to how much more she will make.
However, if she were five months old or younger, I'd bet money that she would
be playing already.

Of course, I don't let the other puppies jump in her face. That's the "proper
supervision" part. But, as socialization goes, the other pups are also
learning to be gentler and less forward with their approaches to her.

Here's the bottom line. Your adult dog comes in contact with another adult dog
who seriously challenges him. An undersocialized dog will probably choose
flight or fight. Either way, he loses. A well-socialized dog may have the
skills to defuse the situation with the proper body language.

Canine Action Dog Trainer
http://www.canineaction.com
My Kids, My Students, My Life:
http://hometown.aol.com/dfrntdrums/m...age/index.html
Build Your Immune System, Lose Weight
http://www.re-vita.net/dfrntdrums

"LeeCharlesKelley" wrote:
My own dog has had the same three social responses to every dog he meets
since he was 10 wks. old, despite the fact that I "socialized him early"
to other dogs. (He's either attracted to a dog, uninterested, or he
avoids the dog. He's always been like this and he probably always will.)
If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Sure it has. He's comfortable around other dogs and knows how to communicate
with them. That's the point of socialization. The goal isn't to create a
"party animal," it's to create a sense of confidence that comes from
familiarity.

Puppy classes and "socialization" groups can actually be detrimental to a
dog's socialization, particularly since the mindset of some people is to
just throw the dogs together to get them "socialized". This often puts
the puppy in an unnatural situation with more stimulus than he can handle
and the natural process of learning how to get along with other dogs is
short-circuited. Socialization classes are unnatural and should be
avoided or outlawed.

Proper socialization is done with supervision, since the experience needs to be
"positive" for each pup. If you just throw them together and let fly what
will, you can certainly end up with a traumatized puppy or two.

However, IMHO proper socialization is more important than training. You have
the dog's life to train him, but only a short window of opportunity to
socialize him.

I've met far too many dogs who react fearfully and aggressively simply because
they were not properly socialized as young pups. So saying that socialization
classes should be outlawed is, to me, the height of ignorance.

Socialization to humans is different from socialization to other dogs.
"Dog = friend/family" takes place in the litter through a natural
"imprinting" process. Dogs do not naturally imprint to human beings and
should be given safe, friendly contact with as many different types of
people as possible during the socialization period.

How do you account for the bazillions of dogs out there who are fine around the
other dogs at home, but fearful or aggressive to strange dogs? Whether human
or animal, a puppy needs to become confident around ALL other living creatures.
Exposure to the other pups in the litter simply creates a familiarity with
THOSE pups. Even then, if you take the dog away at 12 weeks of age and never
expose him to another dog, and at 6 months of age introduce him to a pup from
his own litter, chances are that he will react fearfully or aggressively.

No dog should be expected to be socialized to all other dogs. In fact,
this is a baaaad idea. I say let the dog decide who he's comfortable or
uncomfortable with.

Um... boggle. A dog who is socialized to many different breeds will be
comfortable with many different breeds. A dog who is not probably will not.

I did tell the story of the flop-eared pup who was initially afraid of all the
prick-eared pups in class, didn't I? All he knew were the pups from his own
litter. Within a week, however, he was comfortable and confident around all
other pups, no matter what kind of ears they had.

Patricia
McConnell says that some of the initial studies on the "critical window"
have been questioned, and that some in the field are now referring to this
as a "sensitive" period, not a "critical" one.

What context did you take this quote from? Is she saying that this is a reason
that they shouldn't be socialized? I doubt it. Sounds to me like she's saying
that socialization can occur outside of the "critical" period. Which is a
no-brainer. However, the older the pup gets, the less the success rate.

I have a puppy class right now with a year-old chi mix in it. For 3 weeks,
she's been hiding behind daddy's legs during play-time. However, she is coming
out to sniff butts when the others aren't paying attention to her, her tail is
no longer tucked, and she has started to give eye contact to the other dogs.
She's making progress, but it's a coin-toss as to how much more she will make.
However, if she were five months old or younger, I'd bet money that she would
be playing already.

Of course, I don't let the other puppies jump in her face. That's the "proper
supervision" part. But, as socialization goes, the other pups are also
learning to be gentler and less forward with their approaches to her.

Here's the bottom line. Your adult dog comes in contact with another adult dog
who seriously challenges him. An undersocialized dog will probably choose
flight or fight. Either way, he loses. A well-socialized dog may have the
skills to defuse the situation with the proper body language.

Canine Action Dog Trainer
http://www.canineaction.com
My Kids, My Students, My Life:
http://hometown.aol.com/dfrntdrums/m...age/index.html
Build Your Immune System, Lose Weight
http://www.re-vita.net/dfrntdrums

On 27 Oct 2004 17:19:52 GMT, (Leah) wrote:

"LeeCharlesKelley" wrote:
My own dog has had the same three social responses to every dog he meets
since he was 10 wks. old, despite the fact that I "socialized him early"
to other dogs. (He's either attracted to a dog, uninterested, or he
avoids the dog. He's always been like this and he probably always will.)
If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Sure it has. He's comfortable around other dogs and knows how to communicate
with them. That's the point of socialization. The goal isn't to create a
"party animal," it's to create a sense of confidence that comes from
familiarity.

Exactly. Racing Greyhounds are a good example of the benefits of
socialization with other dogs. On the breeding farms, the litters
stay together until the pups are several months old. This no doubt
helps prepare them for their future life on the track, where they live
in kennels of 40 - 60 dogs and are routinely turned out with many
other dogs. Racing Greyhounds are very used to being around other
dogs (other Greyhounds, at least) and generally are good at
communicating with other dogs. However, this doesn't mean that
because they had so much socialization with other dogs, they want to
be buds with every other dog they meet.

Mustang Sally

On 27 Oct 2004 17:19:52 GMT, (Leah) wrote:

"LeeCharlesKelley" wrote:
My own dog has had the same three social responses to every dog he meets
since he was 10 wks. old, despite the fact that I "socialized him early"
to other dogs. (He's either attracted to a dog, uninterested, or he
avoids the dog. He's always been like this and he probably always will.)
If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Sure it has. He's comfortable around other dogs and knows how to communicate
with them. That's the point of socialization. The goal isn't to create a
"party animal," it's to create a sense of confidence that comes from
familiarity.

Exactly. Racing Greyhounds are a good example of the benefits of
socialization with other dogs. On the breeding farms, the litters
stay together until the pups are several months old. This no doubt
helps prepare them for their future life on the track, where they live
in kennels of 40 - 60 dogs and are routinely turned out with many
other dogs. Racing Greyhounds are very used to being around other
dogs (other Greyhounds, at least) and generally are good at
communicating with other dogs. However, this doesn't mean that
because they had so much socialization with other dogs, they want to
be buds with every other dog they meet.

Mustang Sally

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:48:05 -0400 LeeCharlesKelley whittled these words:
I wasn't wrong. And the current views on socialization are actually
*more* dangerous because of the almost complete misunderstanding many
people here apparently have about it.

Many people have the wrong idea about what the term "socialization" means.

Since you like cites by names you know, here's one for you: Patricia
McConnell says that some of the initial studies on the "critical window"
have been questioned, and that some in the field are now referring to this
as a "sensitive" period, not a "critical" one.

OK

Meanwhile, some breeders won't let a puppy go home with its new owners
until after the dog is 12 wks. old because they feel it's important for
the pup to stay with its mother and littermates or else the dog will miss
out on its critical socilization period, which can only take place in the
litter.

That can be a misunderstaindg of the principles, or it can be a
misunderstanding of the rationale, or it could be a mischaracterization of
a particular breeders reasoning. Any and all of these things are
possible. The decision of when to send puppies to a new home can be based
on correct principles as well as incorrect ones. Depending upon the
breeder's time and skills, and the environment of the new home, the best
timing will vary.

I've known a number of dogs who weren't allowed contact with other dogs
until after the "window" had closed. And these dogs had no socialization
problems. Another trainer I respect says that he's seen dogs who had no
socialization with other dogs (other than the mother and littermates) for
up to 8 mos. and had no problems with socialization.

Your phrasing here suggests a misunderstanding of the term
"socialization". What the trainer might have observered is lack of
problems with dog to dog interaction. Lack of socialization may or may
not cause problems in dog to dog interaction. Lack of socialization is an
explanation for observed behavior but is not itself a behavior.

My own dog has had the same three social responses to every dog he meets
since he was 10 wks. old, despite the fact that I "socialized him early"
to other dogs. (He's either attracted to a dog, uninterested, or he
avoids the dog. He's always been like this and he probably always will.)

Social interaction can be influenced by socialization. But they are not
codependent. Socialization is the learning process faciliatated by
experience. And like most learning the more wide and varied the
experience the more broadly it can be applied. It is very common when the
breadth of experience is limited that the learning is similarly limited.

If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Taking him to the dog run starting at 8 weeks could have had a negative
effect just as easily as a positive one depending upon his experiences
there.


Puppy classes and "socialization" groups can actually be detrimental to a
dog's socialization, particularly since the mindset of some people is to
just throw the dogs together to get them "socialized".

Absolutely correct. This is a significant problem when people think
"socialization" means "playing with." It does not mean playing with, nor
does it necessarily mean interacting with. It means becoming familiar
with.

This often puts
the puppy in an unnatural situation with more stimulus than he can handle
and the natural process of learning how to get along with other dogs is
short-circuited. Socialization classes are unnatural and should be
avoided or outlawed.

Outlawed - sheesh youer hyperbolyle really dents your credibility.

Socialization to humans is different from socialization to other dogs.

NSS

"Dog = friend/family" takes place in the litter through a natural
"imprinting" process. Dogs do not naturally imprint to human beings and
should be given safe, friendly contact with as many different types of
people as possible during the socialization period.

Just as they should with dogs.

Acclimating a dog to new sounds, surface textures, traffic, etc. is NOT A
PART OF THE SOCIALIZATION PERIOD.

Yes, it is.

It's part of the FEAR DEVELOPMENT
PHASE. Lumping these two things together, even though they happen
concurrently, muddies your thinking. Anyone who says that a puppy needs
to be acclimated to new sounds, etc., as part of his socialization doesn't
understand what socialization is.

No dog should be expected to be socialized to all other dogs.

No dog whould be expected to like all other dogs, nor be expected to
interact indiscrimenantly with them. But a dog should be able to behave in
a calm and non-threatening manner.

In fact,
this is a baaaad idea. I say let the dog decide who he's comfortable or
uncomfortable with. Always trust your dog's instincts, not the "experts"
who still believe in the outmoded idea that dogs are capable of forming a
social hierarchy, etc.

This has absolutley nothing to do with correct socialization. Correct
socialization requires introduction to dogs that are themselves behaving
in a normal and approriate manner. Many dogs are not normal

Rousseau said, "Nature is never wrong." And since dogs are a part of
nature, dogs are never wrong.


I'm a human being, so I'm wrong about things from time to time. I'm not
wrong about this.

You have some correct points, you are just perpetuating an incorrect
characterization of what socialization means, and what effective
socialization involves. Maybe you would do better to just stay way from
the technical terminology as you seem to consistently misapprehend it.
Generally you do at least pick the most common misuderstandings, but your
arguments against correct theory by picking on incorrect application don't
do much for your ability to persuade those who do understand and use the
terms correctly.

--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:48:05 -0400 LeeCharlesKelley whittled these words:
I wasn't wrong. And the current views on socialization are actually
*more* dangerous because of the almost complete misunderstanding many
people here apparently have about it.

Many people have the wrong idea about what the term "socialization" means.

Since you like cites by names you know, here's one for you: Patricia
McConnell says that some of the initial studies on the "critical window"
have been questioned, and that some in the field are now referring to this
as a "sensitive" period, not a "critical" one.

OK

Meanwhile, some breeders won't let a puppy go home with its new owners
until after the dog is 12 wks. old because they feel it's important for
the pup to stay with its mother and littermates or else the dog will miss
out on its critical socilization period, which can only take place in the
litter.

That can be a misunderstaindg of the principles, or it can be a
misunderstanding of the rationale, or it could be a mischaracterization of
a particular breeders reasoning. Any and all of these things are
possible. The decision of when to send puppies to a new home can be based
on correct principles as well as incorrect ones. Depending upon the
breeder's time and skills, and the environment of the new home, the best
timing will vary.

I've known a number of dogs who weren't allowed contact with other dogs
until after the "window" had closed. And these dogs had no socialization
problems. Another trainer I respect says that he's seen dogs who had no
socialization with other dogs (other than the mother and littermates) for
up to 8 mos. and had no problems with socialization.

Your phrasing here suggests a misunderstanding of the term
"socialization". What the trainer might have observered is lack of
problems with dog to dog interaction. Lack of socialization may or may
not cause problems in dog to dog interaction. Lack of socialization is an
explanation for observed behavior but is not itself a behavior.

My own dog has had the same three social responses to every dog he meets
since he was 10 wks. old, despite the fact that I "socialized him early"
to other dogs. (He's either attracted to a dog, uninterested, or he
avoids the dog. He's always been like this and he probably always will.)

Social interaction can be influenced by socialization. But they are not
codependent. Socialization is the learning process faciliatated by
experience. And like most learning the more wide and varied the
experience the more broadly it can be applied. It is very common when the
breadth of experience is limited that the learning is similarly limited.

If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Taking him to the dog run starting at 8 weeks could have had a negative
effect just as easily as a positive one depending upon his experiences
there.


Puppy classes and "socialization" groups can actually be detrimental to a
dog's socialization, particularly since the mindset of some people is to
just throw the dogs together to get them "socialized".

Absolutely correct. This is a significant problem when people think
"socialization" means "playing with." It does not mean playing with, nor
does it necessarily mean interacting with. It means becoming familiar
with.

This often puts
the puppy in an unnatural situation with more stimulus than he can handle
and the natural process of learning how to get along with other dogs is
short-circuited. Socialization classes are unnatural and should be
avoided or outlawed.

Outlawed - sheesh youer hyperbolyle really dents your credibility.

Socialization to humans is different from socialization to other dogs.

NSS

"Dog = friend/family" takes place in the litter through a natural
"imprinting" process. Dogs do not naturally imprint to human beings and
should be given safe, friendly contact with as many different types of
people as possible during the socialization period.

Just as they should with dogs.

Acclimating a dog to new sounds, surface textures, traffic, etc. is NOT A
PART OF THE SOCIALIZATION PERIOD.

Yes, it is.

It's part of the FEAR DEVELOPMENT
PHASE. Lumping these two things together, even though they happen
concurrently, muddies your thinking. Anyone who says that a puppy needs
to be acclimated to new sounds, etc., as part of his socialization doesn't
understand what socialization is.

No dog should be expected to be socialized to all other dogs.

No dog whould be expected to like all other dogs, nor be expected to
interact indiscrimenantly with them. But a dog should be able to behave in
a calm and non-threatening manner.

In fact,
this is a baaaad idea. I say let the dog decide who he's comfortable or
uncomfortable with. Always trust your dog's instincts, not the "experts"
who still believe in the outmoded idea that dogs are capable of forming a
social hierarchy, etc.

This has absolutley nothing to do with correct socialization. Correct
socialization requires introduction to dogs that are themselves behaving
in a normal and approriate manner. Many dogs are not normal

Rousseau said, "Nature is never wrong." And since dogs are a part of
nature, dogs are never wrong.


I'm a human being, so I'm wrong about things from time to time. I'm not
wrong about this.

You have some correct points, you are just perpetuating an incorrect
characterization of what socialization means, and what effective
socialization involves. Maybe you would do better to just stay way from
the technical terminology as you seem to consistently misapprehend it.
Generally you do at least pick the most common misuderstandings, but your
arguments against correct theory by picking on incorrect application don't
do much for your ability to persuade those who do understand and use the
terms correctly.

--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

Kelley's OP:If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were
so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Leah:Sure it has. He's comfortable around other dogs and knows how to
communicate with them. That's the point of socialization.

Apparently you missed the point of what I said: there has been no
appreciable difference in his social behavior from the time he was 8 wks.
old to today, despite the fact that I deliberately put him in new social
surroundings as soon as possible. The level of socialization that he had
when he left the litter is basically the same level he has now at 12 and
1/2 years old.

Leah:If you just throw them together and let fly what
will, you can certainly end up with a traumatized puppy or two.

And that's exactly what some "schools" are doing these days, all in the
holy name of "socialization", which is based on a deep misunderstanding of
what that actually means.

Leah:How do you account for the bazillions of dogs out there who are fine
around the other dogs at home, but fearful or aggressive to strange dogs?


That may be due to a number of factors having nothing to do with the
critical period. The most common structural dynamic in the homes of most
dog owners is geared toward repressing a dog's natural behavior. That
seems to work fine as long as there's no change in the structural dynamic,
but when it changes -- BAM!! -- the dog doesn't know what to do with his
energy. This can often be seen in the anxiety that many "perfectly
trained" dogs exhibit when the owners move to a new home, or there's a
divorce, or some other change in the underlying structural dynamic of the
household. Some dogs get anxious when you move the furniture around on
cleaning day. That's because their natural way of doing things has been
messed with, either through ignorance of the owner, or through bad advice
from a professional trainer.

Leah:IMHO proper socialization is more important than training. You have
the dog's life to train him, but only a short window of opportunity to
socialize him.

Again, that's based on your misunderstanding of what happens during that
window of time.

Leah:I've met far too many dogs who react fearfully and aggressively
simply because they were not properly socialized as young pups.

How do *you* know? To me that's merely your knee-jerk reaction, based on
your misunderstanding about what socialization is. You can't say with
100% assurance that these behaviors are caused by lack of "proper
socialization" and not by some other contributing factor, including "PR"
type training. There may be a multitude of other factors involved having
nothing to do with the "critical" period.

Leah:So saying that socialization classes should be outlawed is, to me,
the height of ignorance.

Sure, because your beliefs about socialization are based on studies and
opinions by "experts" that have since been discredited. To me it's not
ignorance to want to outlaw such classes, but plain common sense. What's
ignorant is consistently ignoring the information that's right there in
front of your eyes (if you'd only look at it), and relying instead on
outdated, discredited ideas from so-called experts. Now *that's*
ignorance.

Kelley's OP:No dog should be expected to be socialized to all other
dogs. In fact,
this is a baaaad idea. I say let the dog decide who he's comfortable
or
uncomfortable with.

Leah:Um... boggle. A dog who is socialized to many different breeds will
be comfortable with many different breeds. A dog who is not probably will
not.

Boggle? It's not about being comfortable or uncomfortable with "different
breeds", it's about being comfortable or uncomfortable around individual
dogs.

McConnell says that some of the initial studies on the "critical
window"
have been questioned, and that some in the field are now referring to
this
as a "sensitive" period, not a "critical" one.

Leah:What context did you take this quote from? Is she saying that this
is a reason that they shouldn't be socialized?

No one is saying that dogs shouldn't be socialized. All I'm saying is
that your view of what socialization means is skewed. It has nothing to
do with making the dog familiar with other breeds, or getting him used to
"prick-eared" dogs, etc. The imprinting takes place in the litter.
That's the only aspect of socialization that could be possibly be
construed as being critical. And if the dog is handled properly, with an
understanding of how the canine mind really works, even missing *that*
period of socialization in the litter can be overcome.

Kelley's OP:If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were
so important,
wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks. have had some
effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any* appreciable
effect.

Leah:Sure it has. He's comfortable around other dogs and knows how to
communicate with them. That's the point of socialization.

Apparently you missed the point of what I said: there has been no
appreciable difference in his social behavior from the time he was 8 wks.
old to today, despite the fact that I deliberately put him in new social
surroundings as soon as possible. The level of socialization that he had
when he left the litter is basically the same level he has now at 12 and
1/2 years old.

Leah:If you just throw them together and let fly what
will, you can certainly end up with a traumatized puppy or two.

And that's exactly what some "schools" are doing these days, all in the
holy name of "socialization", which is based on a deep misunderstanding of
what that actually means.

Leah:How do you account for the bazillions of dogs out there who are fine
around the other dogs at home, but fearful or aggressive to strange dogs?


That may be due to a number of factors having nothing to do with the
critical period. The most common structural dynamic in the homes of most
dog owners is geared toward repressing a dog's natural behavior. That
seems to work fine as long as there's no change in the structural dynamic,
but when it changes -- BAM!! -- the dog doesn't know what to do with his
energy. This can often be seen in the anxiety that many "perfectly
trained" dogs exhibit when the owners move to a new home, or there's a
divorce, or some other change in the underlying structural dynamic of the
household. Some dogs get anxious when you move the furniture around on
cleaning day. That's because their natural way of doing things has been
messed with, either through ignorance of the owner, or through bad advice
from a professional trainer.

Leah:IMHO proper socialization is more important than training. You have
the dog's life to train him, but only a short window of opportunity to
socialize him.

Again, that's based on your misunderstanding of what happens during that
window of time.

Leah:I've met far too many dogs who react fearfully and aggressively
simply because they were not properly socialized as young pups.

How do *you* know? To me that's merely your knee-jerk reaction, based on
your misunderstanding about what socialization is. You can't say with
100% assurance that these behaviors are caused by lack of "proper
socialization" and not by some other contributing factor, including "PR"
type training. There may be a multitude of other factors involved having
nothing to do with the "critical" period.

Leah:So saying that socialization classes should be outlawed is, to me,
the height of ignorance.

Sure, because your beliefs about socialization are based on studies and
opinions by "experts" that have since been discredited. To me it's not
ignorance to want to outlaw such classes, but plain common sense. What's
ignorant is consistently ignoring the information that's right there in
front of your eyes (if you'd only look at it), and relying instead on
outdated, discredited ideas from so-called experts. Now *that's*
ignorance.

Kelley's OP:No dog should be expected to be socialized to all other
dogs. In fact,
this is a baaaad idea. I say let the dog decide who he's comfortable
or
uncomfortable with.

Leah:Um... boggle. A dog who is socialized to many different breeds will
be comfortable with many different breeds. A dog who is not probably will
not.

Boggle? It's not about being comfortable or uncomfortable with "different
breeds", it's about being comfortable or uncomfortable around individual
dogs.

McConnell says that some of the initial studies on the "critical
window"
have been questioned, and that some in the field are now referring to
this
as a "sensitive" period, not a "critical" one.

Leah:What context did you take this quote from? Is she saying that this
is a reason that they shouldn't be socialized?

No one is saying that dogs shouldn't be socialized. All I'm saying is
that your view of what socialization means is skewed. It has nothing to
do with making the dog familiar with other breeds, or getting him used to
"prick-eared" dogs, etc. The imprinting takes place in the litter.
That's the only aspect of socialization that could be possibly be
construed as being critical. And if the dog is handled properly, with an
understanding of how the canine mind really works, even missing *that*
period of socialization in the litter can be overcome.

Diane:Socialization is the learning process faciliatated by experience.

I was speaking specifically about the so-called critical period, which
entails not so much a learning process but one of imprinting. There's a
difference.

Diane:And like most learning the more wide and varied the experience the
more broadly it can be applied. It is very common when the breadth of
experience is limited that the learning is similarly limited.

I agree that after the dog has been imprinted in the litter the rest of
the socialization process is merely a matter of expanding the dog's
already existing social vocabulary. But this can take place at any time.
The only "critical" period is when the pup is in the litter.

Kelley's OP: If contact with other dogs during the "critical" stage were
so important, wouldn't my taking him to the dog run starting at 8 wks.
have had some effect on his social behavior? Yet it hasn't had *any*
appreciable effect.

Diane:Taking him to the dog run starting at 8 weeks could have had a
negative effect just as easily as a positive one depending upon his
experiences there.

You're kind of missing the point, aren't you? He has the same three basic
responses to other dogs at 12 yrs. that he had at 8 wks., which was before
I started "socializing" him to other dogs. Why is there no appreciable
difference?

Kelley's OP: Acclimating a dog to new sounds, surface textures, traffic,
etc. is NOT A PART OF THE SOCIALIZATION PERIOD.

Yes, it is.

It's part of the FEAR DEVELOPMENT
PHASE. Lumping these two things together, even though they happen
concurrently, muddies your thinking. Anyone who says that a puppy
needs
to be acclimated to new sounds, etc., as part of his socialization
doesn't
understand what socialization is.

Diane:You have some correct points, you are just perpetuating an
incorrect characterization of what socialization means, and what effective
socialization involves. Maybe you would do better to just stay way from
the technical terminology as you seem to consistently misapprehend it.

Hah! That's funny. If anything, I'm the only one being precise about the
subject. To me, it's *you* who are suffering under a misapprehension.
Particularly since you seem to believe that the fear development phase has
anything to do with the imprinting of "dog = friend/family", which takes
place in the litter.