How to correct gunshyness? - Page 2

My son flunked out of med school but, I still want him to be a doctor. Any advice

My experience was with a female Mali that a club member was training for French Ring. She was a great dog and he was aggressive (although not always sensible and experienced in his way of training her). As he prepared for her first Ring competition, he decided he would test her ability to handle the gun by putting her in a down stay indoors, then setting off a firecracker - obviously, the sound reverberated much more than it would outdoors, probably hurt the dog's ears and freaked her out - so what was a stable -VERY high drive mali became a suspect mali when faced with gunfire. The training steps I used were what was used to get her back to normal. FWIW, I think there are limits to what SHOULD be trained to pass a test (the best Schutzhund trainers could probably train a chicken to pass the test, but that doesn't mean that chicken should be bred). That said, I don't think there's anything wrong in training for the test and properly socializing a dog to understand that noise and other distractions shouldn't prevent him from doing his job. As an example, when Mondio ring was introduced, a lot of great Schutzhund dogs had a lot of trouble because they hadn't heard a clatter stick before.. should those dogs not be bred? In fact, if a dog hasn't been introduced to a clatter stick a good FR decoy could probably run them if they wanted. Does that mean it's not a good dog - or just that the training was sufficient? Similarly, great breeders of hunting dogs need dogs that are not gunshy, but they don't leave it up to chance either.. it's a part of the training. In my view, as a breed test criteria, it's a fine balance to decide what is a part of nature and what should reasonably be nurtured. --Alan...

Sounds like your reply is well thought-out. I have long wondered - are half the dogs who are gun shy actually just superior in hearing, and it kills them to hear this sharp crack? Again, I'm basically only a bystander, but my 1st registered dog was gun shy - found that early on. She was always gun shy until the day she died. But she was NEVER a *genuine* "temperament" or character problem. Never. In fact, Shana was the greatest dog I've ever known of. She was basically a rock-solid dominant fearless guard dog. That was the only thing truly wrong w/her. I know she could hear a pin drop until she was elder. She hated the UPS guys and could discern that truck a mile away (really). This just adds to my suspicion maybe she had fantastic hearing and gun shots were maybe just too piercing for her. ???

Thanks Shiloh for your reply. I refrained from posting originally. As I work my dogs in herding (large fields) and live by blueberry farmers, we are CONSATANTLY bombarded with loud banging noises (sounding like gunfire) on a continual basis for many months. ANY dog that shows unusual sensitivity to this is not bred. This test is done for a reason. If there are 'super' sesitive in thier hearing it is still a problem, not an asset. My dogs and offspring work in bomb detection, on large cruise ships, in herding fields, as assistance dogs in large cities etc. They HAVE to be sound. Can you condition a dog to not react? Maybe. And as mentioned, perhaps they had a bad experience but.... My 7 month old tried to get into my pool yesterday (loves water) when I was in it. He slipped a bit and only his head and front end went under. I was there pretty quick as he panicked and couldn't get up. I helped him out. Didn't stop him from trying to get in over and over and having a swim later. Dogs who are sound mentally can work through bad experiences.

Sell her and get another dog.

Sierra, Interesting post. And as you say, there's a reason for the test. I'm sure for a gundog it's perfectly fine, but it's not what we're talking about. The other day saw two 3-month pups (from different litters) fall into deep water as the bank's lip collapsed under them. One ran for its life, the other couldn't wait to get back in: which would you choose to breed from! In a nutshell, if most larger (commercial?) Breeders adopted gunshot conditioning as some sort of future insurance, this test would become meaningless and we'd be better off to abolish it altogether instead of being misled by misleading results.

I think that most do condition the dogs to gun fire.... I know during training most clubs that I have been to will have the gun go off during the obediance ect. If the dog has a reaction to it then the dog is conditioned. Also during the puppy training I have seen many do gun fire when the pups are the most excited...this is also conditioning. I would have to say that if a dog that has not had tramatic experiance with loud noises and/or gun fire...had such an extreame reaction to the gun fire and didn't calm down quickly...I would not use them for breeding. I admit when I am testing puppies I dont' keep the one that has that response..I keep the one that could care less or investigates the sound. But how many breeders (if they don't do the volhard test) really test this in thier pups?? Or if they just test the one that they are thinking about keeping....and could really care less about the others in the litter?? Here is a question.....say you have a litter of 10 and they are tested with Volhard test...say 5 of them had gun/loud noise shyness...would you still keep one of the pups that didn't and use it as a breediing dog?? Heather

Het, You pose an interesting question. The answer is obviously dependent on number of factors including quality and strength of underlying pedigree, Breeder intentions and preferences, and degree of response (Volhard test is largely subject to personal interpretation as well!). If you decided to keep one of the 'good' pups for breeding I think you'd definitely want a mate that's extra gun-proof! But, you note above 'If the dog has a reaction to it then the dog is conditioned'. If this becomes general practice, how could one ever be sure of obtaining such a mate?