2 vs. 3 dogs?

[malmo]

Hi, everyone.

I had a solo dog for about 5 years before giving in and getting a second dog. The second dog made life so much easier and it was a delight to watch them play, make plans for them together, etc.

I'm looking toward the future and wondering exactly how difficult it would be with 3 dogs instead of 2. All would be under 30 pounds, and likely 2 of the 3 would be under 10 pounds. I'm a single female with no kids but lots of nieces and nephews. I own my own home with a nice-sized yard and garden, all fenced in.

I have the option of bringing my dogs to work. What I would probably do would be bring 1 of the 3 dogs to work at a time. That way, each dog gets some individual attention and training time, but the dogs left at home would have a buddy and not be alone.

What is your experience? Do you have 2 dogs? 3? More? I am specifically wondering about the advantages of 2 over 3 (or vice versa).

 

[Paige]

Three of similar ages and getting them around the same time was way too much for me. I would want puppies spaced a decent amount of time apart so I can have one dog trained and well behaved before adding a second and then the third. As it stands right now I want to get my current dog a bit less reactive when out and about as I slacked with it with an infant, then add on in a yearish time. My current dog is six.

A lot of people do it and do fine. For me it didn't work. I was in over my head.

 

[cliffdog]

For such small dogs, I don't see how it would be a big deal to add a third dog, unless the third dog turned out to have health or temperament problems. It's really when you add a third large dog when it becomes a problem. They require more food, bigger beds, bigger collars, stronger leashes, etc... all of which means higher expenses, not to mention that they take up more space and MUST be well-trained because they are harder to handle. Right now I could add a 20lb dog to my family without a second thought, but at about 50lbs or so I'd have to hesitate and consider whether a third dog was worth it.

That's just my input. Probably not worth much... but there you have it.

 

[Shai]

Well for me it's not a huge difference to be honest, other than cost. But I have, I am told, a "very structured house" and a certain rules must be adhered to, which helps. Fortunately all my dogs get along pretty well so that helps.

It was a bit of an adjustment though, especially since I added #3 when #1 and #2 had just turned 2 years old and we were just getting into the whole competition thing. But then, I'm a crazy person and you've already spaced yours out better .

 

[Barb04]

The more dogs, the more love & happy faces when you arrive home!

 

[SarahHound]

I think you will likely be fine

I found it fine getting a third dog when I got Lucy last September. I'd always had two, but she added in to the group nicely, and honestly, it was easy. Then Maddy died, and I got Katy. I have really struggled with three dogs since getting her, but I think its because she is a puppy and I don't like puppies. I think it will be easier having three once she is an adult.

I think small dogs are easier, and I am quite sure that if I did ever get a third dog again, once one of my current hounds are gone, I'd get a much smaller dog.

 

[malmo]

Shai, do you have any posts where you talk about structuring your home with 3? I have some ideas already, but would welcome any input and would love to learn from your experience.

 

[Beanie]

Three is no big deal to me; mine are pretty small too, all under 20 pounds. I had four in the house for a little over a week and that wasn't a big deal either, and that included two puppies. But I do think it depends on your three. No matter which three I've had, they tend to pair off and one does his own thing, then they switch pairs after a while. Well, excepting Pepper, who never pairs off with the boys - they play together and she likes to hang out with me. The boys sometimes play together with baby Georgie, all three at a time, but usually it's just a pair.

Mine are all evenly spaced... Auggie is six, Pepper is three, Payton will turn one in May. It just kind of happened like that considering I wanted to add a second dog long before Auggie was six and I sure never planned on Pepper. I like having them spaced out in age like that. If you're lucky, it will cut down on vet bill problems... having several elderly dogs at a time is hard. But things happen and sometimes even a young dog runs up expensive bills and goes too soon. =< Happy was only 11 and Kota anywhere between 13-15 and both of them went seven months apart... it's really hard to have that happen. So even if you try to space them out, things don't always go like that.

 

[Dekka]

I have 6 and have many more at times.

Its too many really in various ways. But as someone involved in showing/breeding its the nature of the beast.

However I would make sure they aren't all the same age. It would really suck if they all get old at the same time. Financially AND emotionally. So if you get a pup maybe get a young adult too? or get the pup and when the pup is mature and knows the ropes then get another pup.

 

[~Jessie~]

I have 5, and could handle more. lol. Mine are small, though- my largest is 35lbs, and my smallest is 3lbs. They're all between ages 2 (as of yesterday!) and 6 1/2.

I didn't see a big difference between going from 2 to 3. We only had Rylie and Chloe when we added Tucker.

 

[Saeleofu]

For such small dogs, I don't see how it would be a big deal to add a third dog, unless the third dog turned out to have health or temperament problems. It's really when you add a third large dog when it becomes a problem.

Even small dogs take time to train. Training time is my biggest issue, and one of the main reasons I'm not keeping Tango - I don't have time to work sufficiently with 3 dogs. Sometimes it's a stretch to work with two dogs, but fortunately Gavroche is to the point where I'll dabble a little in UKC rally, and do some other fun stuff like lure coursing tests and possibly a herding instinct test, but aside from that I consider him semi-retired from competing. He's well behaved and well mannered, so there's not a lot I NEED to do with him aside from maintenance stuff. So I really only have one dog to work hard-core with.

Of course if you only expect house manners and the like from your dogs, then the training time is much less of an issue.

To me it seems adding a second dog is pretty easy, adding a third is more of a jump. I suspect adding a 4th is easier, and from there on out, what's one more dog? lol. When I was dogsitting (6 dogs plus my three) it was no problem when the owner added in two more dogs (for a total of 11 dogs). These were also dogs that primarily just needed house manners (which the two new dogs were TOTALLY lacking) so again training time is not really an issue.

 

[*blackrose]

We've always had three dogs around (medium-large in size, too), and I wouldn't have it any other way to be honest. Three is just a good number for me.

But yes, when adding any new dog to the family (be it one, two, three, or even more) you need to make sure you have the finances and the time for another dog. And it is a HECK of a lot easier adding in a new addition when your current dogs are healthy, well trained, and know the rules of the house.

 

[~Dixie's_Mom~]

Two has always been an easier number for me. When it was just Dixie and Lucy, things were great. When we added Holly, it became MUCH harder to juggle them. At first I would have Dixie and Lucy out (3lbs and 5lbs) together, and then put them away, and have Holly (40+lbs) out (she was good with other dogs, but at the time, I wasn't comfortable having them all out together). THEN Dixie and Lucy started fighting, and I had to rotate all THREE of them. That was really hard, and probably part of the reason things got so out of hand, and we ended up having to rehome all of them.

HOWEVER. At that time, I was really young and really stupid, and I didn't really know anything about anything (but I thought I did, lol). Of course you can never really predict that two dogs may develop a problem with each other. But if I'd been more educated, and more mature, I think I could've handled it a lot better than I did at the time. PLUS, where we lived was an AWFUL place to have dogs. There was no fenced yard, no real way to exercise them other than games like tug ON-LEASH and occasional trips to a ball field. Plus I was in school. It just wasn't a good situation in general, really. If it were to happen all again, now, I don't know that it would've gone as badly.

Currently we have two dogs, one little (8+lbs), one big (40+lbs). Everything works out perfectly. But we have a fenced yard now, we have an upstairs and a downstairs, and it's easy to exercise them, easy to keep them separated if needed, and much easier in general. We are able to be with them nearly all day everyday. I don't think a 3rd dog would be an issue here. It'd be different, and probably a little more stressful, but we dog-sit often, and a 3rd dog hasn't ever caused any problems. It's all about YOU individually, and also your living situation can make things a LOT easier or a LOT harder.

 

[malmo]

All very good points that are being raised. Many thanks to all of you for your thoughtful replies.

What do you think is a good age separation for adding dogs? 12 months? 18 months? 2 years? 3 years?

I know my little guys don't tend to seem fully mature (understanding and more or less following with their manners and expectations, let's say) until they're about 2 years old, though I hear that large and medium dogs can reach it earlier.

 

[Dekka]

I would think at least two years.

My guys go

Kaiden is 8 years old, Dekka is 7 years old, the whippets are 4 years old, Seren who will be 2 in March and Sport who is also 4.

 

[malmo]

I have 5, and could handle more. lol. Mine are small, though- my largest is 35lbs, and my smallest is 3lbs. They're all between ages 2 (as of yesterday!) and 6 1/2.

I didn't see a big difference between going from 2 to 3. We only had Rylie and Chloe when we added Tucker.

~Jessie~, what about going from tiny dogs to a medium-sized one? That's something I'm really wondering about, too. I feel like I've sort of "got it down" when it comes to teaching basic life skills and manners to small dogs, traveling with them, navigating them at work and with the vet, etc. Wondering how much of a leap to handle a 30-pound dog.

Thanks!

 

[monkeys23]

Two or three is pretty equal as far as time requirements, especially if you've got time for a couple short training sessions per dog every day.

The only time is gets squiffy is when you are a super busy person and have dogs with extremely high exercise requirements. But it sounds like your schedule and types of dog you own/want won't pose an issue in that respect.

 

[k9krazee]

I had a Rottweiler for seven years as an only dog and then added Micki and Mini, JRT siblings. 3 years later we added two more. We had the five dogs until our Rottie died in 2007. Our dogs are now two at 10, and two at 7.

I think I would have preferred a two year age gap between the dogs, and in the future I doubt that I'll have more than four again.

I think your idea of bringing one dog to work and rotating is a good idea so everyone gets individual attention. That's really one thing the dogs never lacked in my house because there were six people and someone was always home. I know I personally have a hard time spending equal attention with our dogs, I'm too likely to pick favorites :/

 

[~Jessie~]

~Jessie~, what about going from tiny dogs to a medium-sized one? That's something I'm really wondering about, too. I feel like I've sort of "got it down" when it comes to teaching basic life skills and manners to small dogs, traveling with them, navigating them at work and with the vet, etc. Wondering how much of a leap to handle a 30-pound dog.

Thanks!

I still consider a 35lb dog to be small. He's still easy to travel with (however, the chihuahuas are definitely more portable since they're tiny!), has learned the same manners and obedience as the chis, etc.

The main differences are that Rory sheds more, tracks more dirt into the house, eats more, and requires more exercise (more of a breed difference than a size difference).

 

[Toller_08]

I can easily handle a lot of dogs (I've taken care of up to 14 at once), but to live with permanently, my preference is for two. I've never had just two dogs for any length of time, but there was a short period that we did and life was just so much more simple. Most of my life though we've had 3 to 4 permanent dogs and were fine. Having three is kind of awkward, though. I always feel like somebody is being left out, and it's just harder to balance. Four was better in that when the dogs played together, they'd seperate into pairs. With three, one often gets in the way and the two who are playing nicely get annoyed at the third who tries to join in. Dance in particular looks like she feels like she's being ganged up on. But at the same time, adding a fourth feels more chaotic somehow, even if there is that one benefit of everyone having a playmate. Two dogs is honestly just simple. It's not that much more time consuming than having just one, and then you also get the benefit of the dog living with another dog. And it's also nice in the respect that, if you like training and working with your dogs, you have two you can do that with so that one dog isn't getting "over worked". And it doesn't feel like an obligation with two (for me anyway). Once I've had my fun with two dogs, I'm satisfied and happy that I was able to spend an equal amount of time with them. With a third, it feels harder to make myself want to do anything with the third dog, because I've already given a lot of my time to the other two.

Anyway, everyone is different and what seems more difficult to one person may not be difficult at all to balance for another person. I make it work with three dogs and enjoy them, and likely will have three dogs again in the future, but I just find two easier over all. It might help if my dogs weren't so close together in age too, though. The girls aren't even a year a part in age, and Ripley is just over a year younger than Keira.

I didn't see the little vs. large dog question before, so I wanted to add my experience on that as well. We used to have little dogs and big dogs together, and I must say that our group of four that included two little dogs (Dachshunds), a big dog (Rottweiler), and a medium sized high energy dog (Toller/Border Collie mix) was actually easier to balance for me than my current three. I think breeds do make a difference too, regardless of size. The Dachshunds were pretty independent and were content with just being companions and cuddling on the couch, and Echo (the Rottweiler) while she loved to be busy and do things, wasn't as emotionally needy as my Dobermans are. I gave most of my time to Tango, and it worked well with that particular pack of dogs. My current three are so similar in energy levels and what they require both physically and mentally, that it's harder to give them all what they need and be fair about it. But I make it happen.