Only Dogs (as in "only child') are smarter.

[LuvMyAbby&Kaela]

Sole (one only) dogs, when with the right master, are far smarter and have the potential of becoming so much more than dogs in multiple dog families. Just like the only child who doesnt turn out spoiled or neurotic often turns out to be intellectually advanced over his peers. It is the one-on-one time and focused stimulation that leads to this superior ability. I have seen street bums with the most amazing dogs. You would think the dog had an IQ of a human. It was all the one-on-one time. All the hobo had was his dog, all the dog had was his hobo; in the world. Also I have observed a neighbor lady with the most amazing dog, when I commented, one time, that she should get a friend for Bella she replied "I only want one dog - I dont believe in multiple dogs". Was she right? Maybe. I don think I ever have met a person with multiple dogs where one of the dogs truly "shine" I have only observed this on one-on-one dog to person relationships. Like Bocker for example. I think we may be setting our dogs up for failure, not allowing them to be all they can be with our childish notions of "Fido needs a friend" - "Suzy needs a sister". We are in essence making dumbass dogs.

[Adina P]

All the hobo had was his dog, all the dog had was his hobo;
I don't know why this strikes me as utterly amusing...a very cute picture in my head and funny.

We are in essence making dumbass dogs. ROFL--you crack me up.

Now on to my thoughts on this...

I don't think 'smarts' has anything to do with being an only dog...training, though, often does seem to be affected except by the most diligent of owners who have very high goals. I know one English Pointer breeder who has about 10 dogs and takes them all through a high level of training. But dogs ARE her hobby, she breeds, shows, trains them. And she is not someone who can stand living with a dog that isn't well mannered. Whereas not everyone has that same value. Not everyone needs/wants a dog that can heel on command on and off leash or who has a turn-on-a-dime recall. As long as they enjoy their dogs and their dogs are safe and loved...they are happy.

As much as I often want another doodle...and as much as I love all three of my dogs, I think I'm really a one-dog kinda gal. I prefer Rosco who is "my" baby and if I am to take only one dog with me I tend to take him. I trained Rosco to a level I'm satisfied with (more or less...he can always be better). Cass was very well trained by Clark as his only dog for 10 years. And Thule OUR 'neglected' middle child is the least trained because she was never an 'only' dog.

So I think in general, when it comes to the average pet owner, those with multiple dogs are more likely to have a lower percentage of their total dogs reach a highly trained status. It takes a LOT of time and effort to train ONE dog...let alone several dogs who are not finished with training. Which is why I usually recommend puppy owners wait until their current pup has reached a level of training they are happy with BEFORE getting a second dog. But that only reflects my preference. Not everyone cares if their dogs pull on leash, for example,...there are always tools to control that and make walks easy for a dog--trained or untrained.

BUT...unless it causes a problem for the dog or owner or others...I don't think it's holding the dogs back. They don't seem to care that they are not Bocker or not competing in obedience or whatever. It's only a problem when the owners WANT better training but have a hard time splitting their time between pooches.

[Adina P]

Our least trained dog, Thule, is way smarter than Rosco who is quite well trained. Cass, though, was a genius from the start and Clark trained her anyway.

You mentioned Bocker...I don't think he is more 'fulfilled' than Lynne's dogs below who are 'mere' wonderful companions. It's just that Bocker's mom, Marie, and Bocker found something they do well in and she's pursued it and they both enjoy it, it's lucrative and more power to 'em. Doesn't mean non-agility, not-heeling, or non-super-model-actor dogs are lacking.

Now for me it DOES matter to have a dog obey commands. Love and sweetness and attentiveness is not enough for me if a dog does not have self control or obedience. I want it all! LOL. I want the love and attention AND obedience and then I'm a satisfied dog owner. That responsibility only lies on my shoulders. And a 'dumb' doodle is still smarter than most and as trainable as any dog. Clark always has said the best dog is a dumb golden retriever...smart enough to learn/be trained but not smart enough to try to outsmart you.

As for a dog being all he can be. I've said this to a few people, but if I EVER had to rehome one of my doodles...my first choice (if I could choose) is for them to each go to a very skilled trainer who could help them excell and be impeccably trained. I'd choose that over the BIGGEST doodle lover who spoiled them rotten bu let them do whatever and behave however...because I value training and would love to know my dogs earned some titles. That would make me smile. (Of course such a trainer would also love my doggies TONS...that is a given).

[Lynne Fowler-Oodles of Doodles]

I see intelligence in dogs differently. I don't consider training as intelligence but just that...training. Intelligence, to me is the ability of the dog to understand, relate, follow and love. I have never been big on "tricks" but a dog who will sit and look at me and understand what I say, one who will follow me sit with me and want to be where I am, is more valuable to me. My dogs don't walk well on a leash, as we are always in the yard and they have a dogdoor to come and go into their domain whenever they choose. They will sit at my feet when I cook because they know it's for them. They will lay their head on my lap or next to me when I read or watch TV. They look me in the eyes when I talk to them and give that little tilt of their head as if they understand everything.

I have had just one many times and now I have multiples including a foster and they all have behaved this way, because that is how I behave with them. As Adina said, I have known people with single dogs who's dog was basically a bag of rocks. I have seen people with many dogs who are well "trained" but could care less who was around and I have seen singles and multiples who are devoted to their families because they are part of their families. Intelligence is not just training but how the dog understands and relates. In my opinion.

[Jacquie Yorke (DRC)]

It has nothing to do with training.....In fact there have been studies that indicate that dogs that are less intelligent "cognitively" are much easier to train than those considered to be more intelligent. A dog capable of reason and problem solving such as poodles and border collies are prone to challenging a trainer based puely on intellect....That's why a smart dog is more likely to get into trouble..lol

[Jacquie Yorke (DRC)]

I would tend to agree with you on this based on the scientific evidence......Dogs in general are cognitively much more intelligent than wolves or any other wild canine and the reason for this is purely a result of their interaction with humans..........Pack instinct in a sense forces a solitary dog is to interact with it's human companion(s) more so than in multiple dog families where the dogs have each other to rely on for companionship. They tend to develop their own pack dynamic amongst themselves and look to each other for cues.....A solitary dog will generally have a more advanced human "vocabulary" than those living in multiple dog homes because of the "one on one" dynamic with humans...It makes sense...and I have witnessed it myself....

http://www.uwsp.edu/PSYCH/s/275/Science/CleverCanines05.pdf

[Adina P]

Interesting perspective. I can see how that tendency shows itself to be true in many households.
Yet I still think it depends on the owner. IF the dog owner has the time and ability to invest in each dog individually (and WANTS to) then each of those dogs can excel at whatever. I don't have enough motivation to be working on multiple dogs at once and building that solid relationship with many dogs... I love having my ONE devoted furry companion who I bond with and can take anywhere. LOVE IT!

[Adina P]

So now that you've added another pup...are ya feeling guilty about stifling their individual talents ? :)

[LuvMyAbby&Kaela]

"So now that you've added another pup...are ya feeling guilty about stifling their individual talents ? :)"

I am not feeling guilty. I already had a pair, now I have a trio. But I do believe if I had just one dog, that dog would be brighter, and have more capabilities. I would devote all my time to that one dog and you get out what you put in. If I had one dog and no children the dog would be even more amazing. Because I have multiples I only shoot for mediocrity which is OK with me. I admire "amazing" dogs. But I am willing to settle for a cuddly dumbass. I am spread way too thin in my life but I am too restless to have it any other way. If i could just sit down and be passionate about one particular thing I could have amazing outcomes. My attention span, however, seems to have doomed me to a life of flitting from one thing to the next. LOL

I am 6 yrs older than my sister. At the risk of sounding like I am tooting my own horn, I was a very mature, intelligentt and academically advanced child upon starting grade school in comparison to my peers, There are home movies of me talking fluently with an impressive vocabulary of a much older child at under 2 yrd old. Almost all of my company for the first several years of my life were adults. The one on one time with my mom and the constant exposure to adults simply made me "smarter". Then my sister came along and it has been downhill since - I cant even remember my own cell phone number! LOL

I think a dog benefits by being an only dog.

[Adina P]

Cuddly dumbass...Teehee :)

How does a dog benefit from being a single dog? What does achievement do for the dog itself? Does a dog CARE if it excels in a sport or tracking or whatever? I don't think so unless it is involved and enjoying the endeavor (sp?).

For me *I* am more satisfied with my dog when he/she is obedient (a product of MY diligence) and that may or may not impact the dog's level of security and complete some desire for order/leadership...but is the dog really BETTER off in a major way?

I still don't think 'intelligence' is created by achievement...it only allows for it and maybe increases the knowledge and skill that are built upon the intelligence the dog has genetically been gifted. Just like some people have natural talent and do things with ease and others may not have the gifts but have succeeded with hard work.

[LuvMyAbby&Kaela]

" still don't think 'intelligence' is created by achievement...it only allows for it and maybe increases the knowledge and skill that are built upon the intelligence the dog has genetically been gifted."

And here in lies a worldwide controversy itself. Is it nurture or nature? Is "intelligence" A biological thing you are born with? The brains capacity at empty? Or is it like a computer - all about the programming? If you said a biological brain was akin to an empty computer waiting to be programmed then intelligence is not biological at all. Intelligence is the sum of the data, and experiences that have been inputted in to that computer and processed.

If I was like the Hobo I could be devoting all my time inputting data into my dogs brain, with no competition to my time , or distractions of having to do the same to the other . And the dog would have no distractions from being intent on his Hobo and learning from this master. It is almost like it was an ESP bond I saw in the situation. The dog walked with a tattered old backpack on its back in the most horrible of traffic and the bum pushed the shopping cart. The dog looked at the bum often. Making eye contact. He didnt get run over. The bum didnt have him on a leash, he just pushed the cart. The dog wasnt distracted by anything. Even when I saw him laying on the street corner with his master and my dog on a leash lunged at the dog. The dog just looked at us. Amazing.

[Adina P]

I don't see that dog as 'more' intelligent...just more bonded and perhaps trained via life experience.

I believe intelligence is nurture that builds on nature.

The analogy that always comes to mind is muscle building. Steroid use aside there are some men, who do no body building, and yet are NATURALLY prone to build a chiseled frame that other men can't achieve with lots of training. That naturally muscle bound dude...put on a serious exercise/diet regime will be able to reach even greater results with all that nurture. But the 'other' less muscley guy, put on the same regime has NO hope.

My hypothesis is that it is the same with dogs. That's why so FEW dogs who are SELECTED to be service dogs in a program actually pass the tests...YES training builds on their natural ability but without natural ability training alone won't cut it. Average Joe with average athletic genes could never in a million years hope to compete at Lance Armstrong's level...no matter the personal coaches and dietitians.

It IS both nature and nurture...but genes set limits that nurture can't always overcome...depending on the genetic issue.

Nurture a semi bright child and you'll get more out of her...nurture my sister with Down syndrome and you'll get lots too...but nothing in comparison to the child who started off with the higher intelligence.

The other issue is we all seem to disagree on the term 'intelligence' ... so we will be talking about different things entirely!

[Kathy Wilson]

Sooo, I have two cats.....does my soon-to-be-born puppy still qualify as an "only" dog?