Does it matter where puppies spend the first 2 months of their lives?

There is a lot of emphasis nowadays on bringing up a litter in the house so that they can get used to everyday sounds.

I have had 2 puppies that were raised in kennels and one that was raised in the breeders home. I have found they all got used to the hoover, washing machine etc provided they were introduced to them in the right way. Obviously a lot of socialisation is needed when you bring any puppy home. But are the first two months really so significant in acclimatising a puppy to a home environment?

Does anyone think it makes a difference that puppies are born and brought up in the home?

I don't think it makes much of a difference provided the puppies are from good tempered & well adjusted parents, grandparents, g.grandparents, etc. If they come from lineage with temperaments that are typical of the breed, they should have no trouble adjusting from kennel to house. So I guess it comes back down to the nature/nurture debate.

Two of my current dogs are from kennels and had never stepped foot in a house until they came home with me. Both are very confident (probably too confident ) with no problems or fears at all.

I have kennels but have never used them for my pups, I like to have my pups close by, it gives me more time to see the different personality of each pup, ergo I find it easier to place the right pup in the right home

The breeder I got Poppy from used to rotate the pups around the house, they were crated and would spend a few days in the kitchen so they had the sounds of the dishwasher, washing machine, hussle and bussle of kids in an out having their tea etc; the lounge so they got used to the TV, kids playing, parrott squalking etc; the hallway for people in and out, the door bell etc.

When I got Poppy she was fine with all the sounds within the house, so I would have to say it did make a difference.

Both scientific studies and practical experience prove the importance of early socialization. The studies have shown that human contact is important from the day a puppy is born, but that puppies don't pay much attention to anything but their mother and each other before 6 weeks. At 6 weeks, they begin exploring their world and quickly learn to accept new things. This continues to 12 weeks, and some studies have suggested 16 weeks. After that, they are much slower to accept new things if at all. I have no links to the studies, but most general dog books reference them and quote them. The link where Ian Dunbar discusses the importance of early socialization and the risks, and how to safely socialize your puppy, that I have posted many times no longer works. It does take you to the APDT site. I did a search there on early socialization and turned up numerous articles on its importance starting with http://www.apdt.com/petowners/articl...rsonLetter.pdf I did a general net search and found many references, http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/av...-socialization http://dog-training.suite101.com/art...puppy_training http://dogs.about.com/od/dogtraining...ialization.htm

While a good breeder can and will expose puppies to many things, I can't see how anybody can adequately give a litter of 8-10 puppies the socialization they need. That is the small minority responsible to do it. I have no idea how many time I have breeders here and elsewhere argue against early socialization or only in terms of dog socialization.

While I agree a breeder can expose puppies to many things and a few work at it, I don't see how they can do the job a dog owners can. Your puppy needs to be socialized to your home and neighborhood. Cats, children, noise, traffic, trains, men wearing hats, the door bell, and on and on.

There is a good reason why I am not only given a 7 week old puppy, but a tag allowing me to take it in public places including food stores and restaurants. The standards for service dogs are much higher than pets, but that doesn't mean fearful pets are OK. If a breeder can do such a good job, why doesn't the school have the puppies stay with the breeding stocks host family? It is not like the school is paying for the food or anything but the vet care. They have plenty of people to host breeding stock and wouldn't have any trouble adding more work for them.

I have often wondered this. Fudge was a rescue pup and had spent all of her long 8 weeks in the centre before we brought her home.

She is very people friendly and is generally good with other dogs but is very sensitive and can be anxious. Obviously I have no way to know if she would have been this way if brought up in a home.

She was socialised as a puppy and has always had people/children round her.....

This is true. I was once given a 1 1/2 year old Lab that had spent most of his life shut in a garage. He responded well to training and in 2 weeks, the dog guide school accepted him for training, and he went on to graduate. It is hard, but not impossible to ruin a good dog. Some times poorly socialized dogs do fine. That doesn't make it a good idea.

I love Merle's Door and all the discussion of how well letting dogs run loose works. Maybe it worked for him, but I am not going to try it.

If the parents of the puppies were good natured and healthy that would be more important to me than whether they were raised in a kennel. Because I know I will spend lots of time making sure my puppy is socialised.

I have met many lovely rescue dogs that have had a bad start and yet turned out to be fine. So in the nature v nurture debate I believe nature is more important.

Now this would be a good reason to prioritise a home reared litter but I don't think all breeders are as knowledgeable about their puppies.

My experience is that provided puppies are born to relatively unstressed parents (particularly the mother) & allowed to remain with mother & siblings for a significant time (i.e. at least longer that 6 to 7 weeks, preferably 8 to 12 weeks depending on environment), then these puppies have a better chance of developing into well-adjusted adult dogs.

There are obviously a lot of variables that can affect a puppy's mental & behavioural development, but the presence of a secure attachment figure in the form of its mother, & later an owner to whom the dog has formed a secure emotional attachment, can have quite a profound effect on behavioural responses.

I do get quite worried about the endless lists of things that new puppy owners are supposed to expose their puppies to, all in the first 12 to 14 weeks of life, on the grounds that if you don't do it then, your puppy will be fearful of people/other dogs/traffic/trains/noises/domestic appliances/livestock/grooming etc etc. I've sometimes seen these lists in vets waiting rooms. If, by the time you get your puppy, then it's had it's vaccinations, then you start taking it out, I suspect that exposing it to everything on the list in the brief time you have left could be called "flooding"

I think the input a puppy gets from an unstressed mother & litter mates, plus regular contact with several humans & normal domestic noises, smells etc, would give a puppy a pretty good chance of normal behavioural development & coping with a normal domestic situation. But there is a difference between socialisation ~ i.e. learning how to recognise & interact with your own species & other species that you'll come into contact with, & habituation,i.e. learning that certain sounds, smells, sights & situations etc, don't have any relevance to you.

But all is not always lost if a puppy fails to get the "correct" amount & quality of socialisation & habituation at the "correct" time. Look how many ex racing greyhounds, raised in a kennel environment & not exposed to many domestic things, go on to make the most lovely & affectionate pets

Interesting thread xx