Neutralisation and defining a dog's rewards

I don't think we get to define what is rewarding to the dog. I'm going to repeat myself and say it again, even though it's unpopular. The dog defines what is rewarding. For some dogs, it's play with a certain toy, for others, it's affection, for others it's food. I don't get to decide that looking at my Minnesota Vikings sweatshirt is the ultimate reward for my dog. So, in the end, I don't have the ultimate control, I suppose. I'm not clear on when this window is suppose to happen so that the dog is forever fixated on the one trainer.

But that's not to say that some dogs don't fixate on a particular person.

corvus

What do other people think of neutralisation?

As described?  Ridiculous, just some guys take on an old theory.

Ron, I think if you controlled the dog's environment so strictly and never let the dog have opportunity to find rewarding stimuli, you might be able to "control" the dog's rewards simply because the dog has no freedom to develop a "self" with its own interests. The rest of the world who keeps dogs as family members to experience the world together, allow the dog to explore, sniff, engage itself, and develop that identity.

 As for the method. Keep in mind you are discussing this with a drive trainer. There are some trainers/owners in the world who wants the dog's "drive" to be solely based on the attention from their person. Some dogs live their lives in kennels and are only let out to work, such that the only freedom the dog has is when it is doing its job. It is thought to build willingness to work with the owner because of that limited freedom. Personally I think it's a bit of a shame, although I see how it is used in some types of police training (usually not to that extent though). I know a few friends with police working dogs and they have very strict rules on what freedom the dog has, where it sleeps (one has to have the dog sleep outside away from the family), etc. But they aren't quite so extreme as not letting the dog interact with anything.

It's not something I would implement, as I enjoy having dogs that experience their own lives and develop their own thoughts, opinions, and interests.

 I think to a certain extent we do this all the time anyway, if you never let a dog interact with a moving bicycle going down the path at the park, after a while it just ignores them and sees the bicycle as "part of the furniture".

However, doing it to the extent described, what happens to the dog if something happens to the owner/handler?  You get a dog who's been taught all its life that this one person is everything and everything else means nothing, that spells disaster to me.   Do I like my dog to view myself and my DH as the most important figures in his life?  Yes, but I don't want him to view us as the ONLY people in his life.

I think "neutralisation" or as it is better known here "ruff love program" is cruel. "Dog in the closet" idea. Suzanne Clothier has a nice article about it on her website.

corvus

The argument goes, if a dog is exposed to, say, other dogs but just exposed and doesn't interact, then when the dog is out of its impressionable period, other dogs have no value to it so you won't have to teach them to come away from other dogs when you need them to. So this trainer exposes pups to everything but makes sure he is the only source of good things and then the pup grows up to be very very focused and only looks to the trainer for rewards.

The problem that I can see with this is that it would only work if the handler can completely control the dogs environment its entire life.  What happens if one day the dog is walking with its handler and off-leash aggressive dog, this dog does not have the social skills to offer appeasement behaviors if the handler can not step in between the two dogs?  Or, as someone mentioned the dog is not with his/her handler, say at the vet or if the handler is on vacation (with out the dog), would the dog not be very anxious?

I don't like the concept because I like my dogs having their own will, but I think there are also practical problems with it.

I agree that this seems impractical if you're not planning on always being with your dog. Our two dogs stayed with my parents for 3 weeks over Christmas while we went on holidays. Kivi was so excited to be in her big yard with her dogs that he loves that I don't think he even noticed when we left and when he came back to us he was like "Oh, hi guys." Penny on the other hand was glued to the gate while we were packing up the car and barking at us. She was anxious and sulky, knowing that we were leaving her behind. When she came back to us she was very excited. I have to say I'm happier with the way Kivi handles things than Penny. I like to know that when I'm not there he's still happy. I don't really want my dogs to be so dependent on me that they are blue when I'm not around. Penny is a one person dog and has always been prone to being a bit depressed when I leave her behind, although she gets over it pretty quickly. That's just who she is. I would hate to think she was so attached to me that she wouldn't get over me leaving her quickly.

The trainer says you don't have to do it the whole life of the dog, just for the first period where they are developing values for things. He wouldn't put a time frame on it as it's different for every dog, but was suggesting just a few months.

Not dissing GSDs or GSD owners, but has anyone ever noticed that complete control freaks usually have GSDs?? 

corvus

Not dissing GSDs or GSD owners, but has anyone ever noticed that complete control freaks usually have GSDs?? 

I'm not sure where that came from. It seemed a bit out of context.

But, since you are mentioning a drive-based trainer, what I have learned from Liesje, who owns two GSDs and, I guess is a control freak in training, , the drive training she is using for Nikon is work-oriented for a future in Schutzhund. But I never gathered that she did it to bond the dog to her and only her, to listen only to her. In fact, there is drive training for developing the chasing, tracking, bite hold, etc. Then there is standard training for the day-to-day stuff. And it wasn't mentioned as so much drive training as it is working while in drive.

So, if your possible trainer is a drive trainer, does that mean that he uses tug as a reward, like K-9 trainers do. That would still be positive reinforcement training as many is the dog that is reward by doing the job they like best. Or is rewarded by expressing a drive. I have done such. Shadow would track a cotton rat. I would call for an obedience. He would comply and be rewarded with the chance to continue tracking.

JackieG

corvus

What do other people think of neutralisation?

 

As described?  Ridiculous, just some guys take on an old theory.

Agreed.  So, if I understand the theory, you make your dog's life joyless, dull and boring in the name of obedience?  That would be like keeping your child in his room, only letting him out for the omelet you just made him, and putting him back in, until he gets to high school, on the theory that he will not drive too fast or take drugs because your omelets are all that matters. 

GoldenAC

corvus

The argument goes, if a dog is exposed to, say, other dogs but just exposed and doesn't interact, then when the dog is out of its impressionable period, other dogs have no value to it so you won't have to teach them to come away from other dogs when you need them to. So this trainer exposes pups to everything but makes sure he is the only source of good things and then the pup grows up to be very very focused and only looks to the trainer for rewards.

 

The problem that I can see with this is that it would only work if the handler can completely control the dogs environment its entire life.  What happens if one day the dog is walking with its handler and off-leash aggressive dog, this dog does not have the social skills to offer appeasement behaviors if the handler can not step in between the two dogs?  Or, as someone mentioned the dog is not with his/her handler, say at the vet or if the handler is on vacation (with out the dog), would the dog not be very anxious?

I don't like the concept because I like my dogs having their own will, but I think there are also practical problems with it.

I agree.  

Dogs are social creatures and the owner would be doing the dog a great disservice if they took away their ability to communicate effectively with their own kind......

spiritdogs

So, if I understand the theory, you make your dog's life joyless, dull and boring in the name of obedience?  That would be like keeping your child in his room, only letting him out for the omelet you just made him, and putting him back in, until he gets to high school, on the theory that he will not drive too fast or take drugs because your omelets are all that matters. 

That made me LOL!

Ron, this trainer does use tug as rewards and so forth. I generally don't mind his drive training philosophies and he seems to know what he's doing there, I just don't like the way he raves about how important it is to be the alpha in your dog's life and how bent he is on owners being the most important thing to their dogs. He thinks it's a big problem when a dog would rather do something else exciting than spend time with their handler. He also has been insisting that dogs aren't born liking the things we might use as rewards for them and if we don't allow these things to become valued to the dog then they won't and therefore it's not genetic for them to like those things in the first place. 

We have some interesting discussions, but when he tells me dogs don't snuggle naturally with each other unless they are cold it's hard to take anything he says seriously.

I am thinking that there are certainly some things we would like to neutralise our dogs to. As an example, perhaps cyclists. Ultimately we want the dog to get no rewards from cyclists but not develop a negative association with them either.  

Dogs aren't born to like freeze dried liver, tennis balls on a rope, or Chuck-its, maybe, but dogs are born with the need to eat, the need to socialize, the need to exhibit prey drive in appropriate forms, and the need to play. The form these things come in is moot, IMO. So to say they are born liking the things we give them is a pretty stretched out concept. We just fit their needs with certain things that dogs come to like very well!

corvus

As an example, perhaps cyclists. Ultimately we want the dog to get no rewards from cyclists but not develop a negative association with them either.  

But cyclists are good. With ketchup. Admit it, that was funny, and partly true.

I'm willing to concede that a one-day-old puppy hasn't developed preferences for red tennis balls just yet. But they will develope some preferences by the time they are 10 weeks, when they should go to their forever home. Is your trainer proposing to totally isolate the pup from mom at birth? The dog is going to have preferences and we don't get to decide what they are. It would be silly for me to decide that all dogs are most rewarded by affection, comprised of me saying good boy and a rub on the head. But there are some who think just that very thing. Plenty of dogs can't be "bribed" with a treat if they are locked on target. Because their personality is to do a job regardless of distractions. So the way to reward them for breaking off is to give them a substitute to play with and exercise their drive, which is still pos R. And that something to chew on is defined by the dog, rather than the human, who might have wished to feed treats.

So, it's like others have said. You can't isolate the dog enough to control every wish and desire of theirs. I don't know if there's any proof that dogs can be controlled in their wish fullfilment at a certain age. And we can thank nDNA for that.

 I have noticed the control freaks with GSDs thing, and I think it's really sad. GSDs are such incredible dogs, when they're allowed to thing. Breaking them is a terribly sad thing to do.

I have, at times, defined what was rewarding to my dogs. I "prime" certain toys, make certain games more interesting, etc etc. I have never isolated my dogs to do this, though. Of course, I have ridiculously independant, thinking dogs AND I like it. I love being blown off. It gives me an opportunity to better myself, as a trainer.