puppy raising - Page 1

I would like to ask people opinions on this topic.

would you begin shaping and cultivating behaviors through puppyhood to develope life long skills.

or

would you simply say its a puppy do as you please and drive build / redirect into toy etc........


What do you feel the pro's and cons are of either avenue?

I say imprint the puppies training program young;  I feel it makes your job easier later when they go thru the teenage stage;  I don't get as much negative feedback from them when I train young.  I feel they still need to have their puppy, baby play time;  but work is work.

I feel it gives them a better mindset to train young, that has been my experience but each has it's own level as far as how much you can push them;  how much they can consume at an early age.  Especially find this true for the GSD.  Makes a much better dog later no matter what you do with them. 

Food for thought,  Nan

would you begin shaping and cultivating behaviors through puppyhood to develope life long skills.



yes...you can do this and still let them be puppies!

I agree, you can do both, just don't push the pup too hard. Teaching them  a few manners is a good thing, HOW you do it is the key.

Yes, Imprinting is very important.  You can do both and they can still be puppies.  You should have a plan for the ultimate goal for the pup.  If it is a sport dog, agility, working K9, conformation show dog, pet, etc, imprinting is essential.  The puppy gets time to do as it pleases and be a pup, but  a plan has to be in place for what you ultimayely want to achieve with the dog.  Then begin shaping and imprinting behaviors at 7 or 8 weeks.  Why not?


Jim

I've approached it both ways. Not through choice, but because I happened to acquire a few dogs that were older puppies and although they had the major components worked with, had little imprinting in some other things. I definitely prefer working with a puppy from the start, using positives of course. It just fits me better as a trainer and a person... Although it's more work raising a puppy from a young age.

 

 

I started this due to a lot of what I have read on here i think has been mistaken or misrepresented in puppy raising. or I just took it that way.


I am all for neurological imprinting through puppyhood and teaching life long skills. I like to keep the conflict to a minimum in the latter stages of the game.

However I have seen a lot of just let it be a puppy and when it bites you redirect. but its a puppy and let it be a puppy. I just wanted to get some clarification as to the true intent of the posters as I dont think everyone just lets a dog go for a year. and stakes it out for agitation from time to time haha.

I was also curious to if people were going to come up with any good documention/ tricks of the trade learned through bitter experience.

Also-

Good ol jimmy if you would be so kind-


how would you differ the developement of a pup (49 days-1year) for development of being in law enforcement/miltary dual purpose-  vs  sport(sch,PSA,ring, etc...)  


?????

just curious to see peoples opinions and experience

To me, it would be a waste to just let a puppy be a puppy and just re-direct bties and not teach manners or basic obedience, attention, cues, etc. I mean, there is so much that can be taught at a young age. Not to mention the development of a relationship...or the skills a dog can learn at developing a relationship. Dogs change trainers all of the time, but the ones that have the best carry-over are the ones who have learned how to learn to be a part of a team.

I've learned  that decades ago, working dogs were put away until a year or so, but that was because training was harsh and it took an older puppy or young dog to take it. The trainers that recommend that now, do it becuase they are wary of what owners are going to do their puppies to squash the drive and willingness to learn.

Something else to think about is that are great dogs born or made?  There was a recent study done, looking at soccer players. The boys that excelled over their peers were actually born a few months earlier and so were a little more coordinated and then encouraged more and given more training when all ages were in the same group. These older boys (by only a few months)  ended up being the best players in the sport.  Overall, it didn't have much to do with natural talent, but more about their physiological coordination, etc. that caught the eye of coaches who in turn nurtured those kids more.  It was very interesting.