Mmm. I have heard that it is probably not a good idea if they are going to be companion dogs. This is because that sibling bond has a tendency to prevail over the human-dog bond. (I.E. the dogs will bond more with each other than their owner)
I have heard that this can cause issues with training.
However, I am definitely not an expert at all. And I am not really sure that there is anyone (other than Brad) that can really give us any first hand experience on this. I would love to hear what other people have to say about this.
Honestly, my biggest concern about it would be lack of diversity. If there is some genetic issue that results from that breeding, your chances of having that issue come up in both siblings are higher. Otherwise, I've never heard a concrete reason not to do it.
I've heard both that the sibling bond can be stronger than dog-human bond and also what Dave is saying. But about the bonding thing, I have no experience personally, though I have heard it from several breeders...
I've heard the bonding thing too, but every time I encounter someone who has siblings, they bond just fine with their owners. So am I just getting lucky and finding every single exception case or is having a bonding issue the exception?
Osy and I discussed this topic at length once (over IM). @Sangmort
Allegedly there was some study done with service dogs that yielded a result that implied there are certain negative developmental effects on litter-mates who were raised together from birth. This study supposedly states that puppies who are raised together do not develop into "individuals", among other things. I've never been able to find a record of this study, so I cannot speak to it's legitimacy, methods, or existence.
The ideas that came from this misinterpretation seem to have cemented themselves in certain training and behavioral circles, specifically in the "balanced dog" training and sport camps. The typical mantra that comes from this group is that, if you raise litter-mates together, you run the risk of... A) Some of the puppies may not grow to be "individuals". One "leader" will emerge from the group and the others will become "submissive". C) They may become dependent on each other. D) They may not bond properly with you (the owner).
I call bullshit on the concepts that came from this misinterpretation for these reasons... A) I've never seen a study that states the points above (A,B,C...), only heard about it. In Dr. Pfaffenberger published work he states (paraphrasing here) that guide dogs bonded to their humans best if they were separated from the litter no sooner than seven weeks. C) A puppy's individuality and personality is obvious minutes after their birth, so how would raising them together take that away from them? D) Litter-mates don't get what they need to survive from each other, like food. Owners feed them food, that creates dependence and that fuels a bond. So why wouldn't they bond with their owners?
See, I knew Brad would have something good to say about this!
I, personally, would never raise siblings together... The simple reason behind this is that I do not think I can handle two puppies at once!
It is good to know that the whole sibling bond thing is probably BS. It would be interesting, though, if someone would raise two siblings together into adulthood and let us know what they find. (Hmm... who would like to be the guinea pig here? Rina @okiron, I do believe you asked the question... So I nominate you!)
I'll also add that raising ANY 2 puppies at the same time is a challenge and you are inevitably going to have to compromise on training or attention at some point.
As Brad said, we've spoken about this a lot. Our discussion not only included littermates, but getting two unrelated puppies at the same time as well.
I agree with the points he made 100%, I think it's a load of BS too. For one, as he said, the bond dogs created amongst themselves is uniquely different then the bond created with a human. A dog gets all his resources from his human, outside of "playing" he really gets no resource from another dog. Dogs also know that we are NOT dogs, we are humans.
Outside of leaving two puppies alone all the time, with little to no human interaction, I think a responsible owner can raise any two puppies at the same time & still come out with two good dogs.
I've met a few people who have raised puppies together [ not necessarily littermates ] and have had well balanced social dogs who bonded with their owners as much as any dog raised solo. I don't see why "littermates" would have a different experienced then two unrelated same-sage, same-breed puppies.
Not to mention, oftentimes breeders will keep littermates to see which pup they want to hold back into their program, then re-home the puppy that they don't want to use. These pups turn out just fine too.
I think, the whole idea of this, is just to detter people who aren't responsible owners from the get go, & want to get two puppies in the hopes that "they can keep eachother company so I don't have to walk / play / etc. them."
I've known lots of siblings raised together and they're no different than any other dog, imo. I don't see why they would be. I probably wouldn't just because of the energy it takes to raise two puppies. Also, I prefer to have my dogs age staggered so that they aren't all old at the same time.
As far as dogs keeping each other company, that is sort of true. Rakka is an only dog for the first time in years and she has definitely started needing more attention from us and more exercise, since she has no dogs to play with. But, of course, the work of a second dog is greater than the work of spending more time with Rakka.
Guess I'm one of the few to raise siblings here. We kept two female pups from our male and female Jindos back in 1996. They've been together from birth up until this year when one of them died at 13 yrs of age.
We raised them primarily as indoor dogs, which I think is significant in bonding with me. (I've seen siblings being raised as kennel dogs that seem to bond to each other and cower from humans.)
As pups, the two would cuddle on top of each other when they slept, but all that changed when they were about 5 months of age, right around the time of their first heat. They had their first fight then (but in retrospect, it could have been catagorized as a spat). Not very fun to not only pull apart the two, but also ward off the parents that wanted to intervene.
I had enrolled in obedience school, handling one of them one semester and the other the following semester. The one that was left behind became very jealous of the one that I took. Whenever I returned home, I had to immediately walk the one left behind to settle her down... but then the other dog was jealous that she didn't go on the walk.
Being a newbie, I found some online advice and followed not only the preferential treatment of the higher ranked dog (remember, this was in the 'dark ages' in 1996) but also the removal of the instigator. Punishment was being placed in an unused outdoor kennel that was out of sight of the inside of the house. When the instigator whined in her "timeout" kennel, I waited a bit and returned with the other dog. If she growled/snarled, the dog was left where she was and I repeated when she whined again. The advice worked for the most part, probably because aspects of it paralleled NILIF and negative punishment. I didn't have another real fight for 4 years until we moved.
Moving was very much a trigger for fights for the sisters. It's like all the rules they set among themselves go out the window and they re-tested each other's boundaries. It was especially problematic when the living room floorplan of the house was cramped or there were too many hallways/doorways and not enough space. Once the bad feeling was established, it didn't really improve even when we moved once again but to a bigger, more open floorplan and a bigger yard. Being senior dogs didn't wane their animosity. If anything, their worsening eyesight and decreased hearing increased the frequency and the volume of their snarling and hackling.
I dunno, I've had a lot of puppies around, and for me it's easier to have more than one. Then again I don't have them sticking around for more than 2 months, things might get harder as they get older.
I agree with Shigeru when it comes to multiple pups at once, raising and housebreaking both of my guys at the same time didn't feel any different than when we just had Tetsu (Tikaani came 3 months after getting Tetsu). Actually I think it was a bit easier as they kept each other company when we were busy doing other things (like making food or cleaning). Though, I had the benefit of a second person raising them with me (technically Tikaani is Tom's dog), so it may be different if it were just one person with two pups.
I can see siblings bonding more with each other if they spend more time with each other than with their human. How do you expect the puppy to love you more than their playmate if you don't have fun and play with it as well. And if you aren't doing fun things with the pups, training would be difficult (especially since most of these theories were from the days of choke chains and force) as playing with the other pup is more fun.
And that who lack of being "individuals" is most likely due to the fact that the pups are stuck doing everything together and not individually. It's easier to take one walk with both dogs than a walk with each dog, it's easier to play games that involve both of them instead of personal time with one and then the other, it's easier to treat them as two parts of one dog than as individuals. When they are stuck doing everything together, then they are taught that together is the way it is and there must be something wrong if the other isn't there.
It is more in how the person raises and treats the two pups, and not the fact that they are siblings or have lived together since puppihood.
Comments
I have heard that this can cause issues with training.
However, I am definitely not an expert at all. And I am not really sure that there is anyone (other than Brad) that can really give us any first hand experience on this. I would love to hear what other people have to say about this.
Allegedly there was some study done with service dogs that yielded a result that implied there are certain negative developmental effects on litter-mates who were raised together from birth. This study supposedly states that puppies who are raised together do not develop into "individuals", among other things. I've never been able to find a record of this study, so I cannot speak to it's legitimacy, methods, or existence.
As far as I can tell the study comes from a misinterpretation of work done in 1959 and 1963 by Dr. Pfaffenberger: http://www.dogwise.com/authpub/newknowledge_excerpt.pdf
The ideas that came from this misinterpretation seem to have cemented themselves in certain training and behavioral circles, specifically in the "balanced dog" training and sport camps. The typical mantra that comes from this group is that, if you raise litter-mates together, you run the risk of...
A) Some of the puppies may not grow to be "individuals".
C) They may become dependent on each other.
D) They may not bond properly with you (the owner).
I call bullshit on the concepts that came from this misinterpretation for these reasons...
A) I've never seen a study that states the points above (A,B,C...), only heard about it.
C) A puppy's individuality and personality is obvious minutes after their birth, so how would raising them together take that away from them?
D) Litter-mates don't get what they need to survive from each other, like food. Owners feed them food, that creates dependence and that fuels a bond. So why wouldn't they bond with their owners?
I could keep going, but you get the point I hope.
This person seems to agree with me on this too, that the origin of this misinterpretation comes from Dr. Pfaffenberger work, which was done with guide dogs... http://www.helium.com/items/1563343-when-to-separate-puppies-from-mother-and-littermates
----
I, personally, would never raise siblings together... The simple reason behind this is that I do not think I can handle two puppies at once!
It is good to know that the whole sibling bond thing is probably BS. It would be interesting, though, if someone would raise two siblings together into adulthood and let us know what they find. (Hmm... who would like to be the guinea pig here? Rina @okiron, I do believe you asked the question... So I nominate you!)
I agree with the points he made 100%, I think it's a load of BS too. For one, as he said, the bond dogs created amongst themselves is uniquely different then the bond created with a human. A dog gets all his resources from his human, outside of "playing" he really gets no resource from another dog. Dogs also know that we are NOT dogs, we are humans.
Outside of leaving two puppies alone all the time, with little to no human interaction, I think a responsible owner can raise any two puppies at the same time & still come out with two good dogs.
I've met a few people who have raised puppies together [ not necessarily littermates ] and have had well balanced social dogs who bonded with their owners as much as any dog raised solo. I don't see why "littermates" would have a different experienced then two unrelated same-sage, same-breed puppies.
Not to mention, oftentimes breeders will keep littermates to see which pup they want to hold back into their program, then re-home the puppy that they don't want to use. These pups turn out just fine too.
I think, the whole idea of this, is just to detter people who aren't responsible owners from the get go, & want to get two puppies in the hopes that "they can keep eachother company so I don't have to walk / play / etc. them."
My $oo.o2 ~
As far as dogs keeping each other company, that is sort of true. Rakka is an only dog for the first time in years and she has definitely started needing more attention from us and more exercise, since she has no dogs to play with. But, of course, the work of a second dog is greater than the work of spending more time with Rakka.
We raised them primarily as indoor dogs, which I think is significant in bonding with me. (I've seen siblings being raised as kennel dogs that seem to bond to each other and cower from humans.)
As pups, the two would cuddle on top of each other when they slept, but all that changed when they were about 5 months of age, right around the time of their first heat. They had their first fight then (but in retrospect, it could have been catagorized as a spat). Not very fun to not only pull apart the two, but also ward off the parents that wanted to intervene.
I had enrolled in obedience school, handling one of them one semester and the other the following semester. The one that was left behind became very jealous of the one that I took. Whenever I returned home, I had to immediately walk the one left behind to settle her down... but then the other dog was jealous that she didn't go on the walk.
Being a newbie, I found some online advice and followed not only the preferential treatment of the higher ranked dog (remember, this was in the 'dark ages' in 1996) but also the removal of the instigator. Punishment was being placed in an unused outdoor kennel that was out of sight of the inside of the house. When the instigator whined in her "timeout" kennel, I waited a bit and returned with the other dog. If she growled/snarled, the dog was left where she was and I repeated when she whined again. The advice worked for the most part, probably because aspects of it paralleled NILIF and negative punishment. I didn't have another real fight for 4 years until we moved.
Moving was very much a trigger for fights for the sisters. It's like all the rules they set among themselves go out the window and they re-tested each other's boundaries. It was especially problematic when the living room floorplan of the house was cramped or there were too many hallways/doorways and not enough space. Once the bad feeling was established, it didn't really improve even when we moved once again but to a bigger, more open floorplan and a bigger yard. Being senior dogs didn't wane their animosity. If anything, their worsening eyesight and decreased hearing increased the frequency and the volume of their snarling and hackling.
I can see siblings bonding more with each other if they spend more time with each other than with their human. How do you expect the puppy to love you more than their playmate if you don't have fun and play with it as well. And if you aren't doing fun things with the pups, training would be difficult (especially since most of these theories were from the days of choke chains and force) as playing with the other pup is more fun.
And that who lack of being "individuals" is most likely due to the fact that the pups are stuck doing everything together and not individually. It's easier to take one walk with both dogs than a walk with each dog, it's easier to play games that involve both of them instead of personal time with one and then the other, it's easier to treat them as two parts of one dog than as individuals. When they are stuck doing everything together, then they are taught that together is the way it is and there must be something wrong if the other isn't there.
It is more in how the person raises and treats the two pups, and not the fact that they are siblings or have lived together since puppihood.