|
Post by willow on Jun 8, 2005 20:28:38 GMT -5
Kona said, and I quote: "I said that if a dog is in a panic situation and she has never learned proper bite inhibition, she is more likely to over-react and bite with all of her strength."
Kona, I don't see where what I said is "misquoting" you.
This is what I said: ...and do you seriously believe that a dog who has been taught "bite inhibition" will not bite hard in a panic situation?" So, o.k., I didn't add the "more likely".
Doesn't matter, still says basically the same. A dog has to be "taught" bite inhibition by us humans. I don't agree with this. At least not by playing "tug" with it. Wrestling with littermates and mom is what teaches "bite in-habitition", not playing tug with a dog. By the time they are approx. 8 weeks old they already know how hard they can bite and that if they bite too hard their litter mates (or mom) either bite back harder, or yelp.
Besides...I believe (gasp) that if a dog bites in a panic situation it goes back to their genetic makeup more than what they have been taught by us.
A lot of dogs have a certain point at which they will react and bite, period. How hard has nothing to do with what "we" have taught them. Some dogs, and I have been fortunate to have always had this type, will not bite no matter what. Is it because I didn't let them put their teeth on me, ever? Maybe, but this type that I have had have always been males and of a very soft temperment.
My female Aussie had the tenderncy when I got her, as I said, of wanting to put her teeth on me, but she has/had very good "bite inhibition" and never, ever clamped down hard on me. However; I did not want her putting her teeth on me at all, so with the aid of a muzzle etc., she now knows she cannot put her teeth on me no matter what.
How anyone can argue about how we got to that point, and say that what I did or did not do is the wrong way, unless it was by cruel/abusive means is beyond me!!
|
|
|
Post by Am on Jun 8, 2005 20:35:20 GMT -5
But tug doesn't really teach bite inhibition then Kona, at least not as far as I understand the concept. My understanding of "bite inhibition" is teaching your dogs that there are things he is allowed to bite hard, but there are also things in the world that need to be bitten softly. So for example he is permitted to maul chew toys, but he also learns to treat human body parts gently. ;D So tug might teach dogs that there are appropriate times to bite things. But it doesn't teach them anything about appropriate pressures, since they can bite the toy as hard as they like. Or am I still being dumb and misunderstanding the concept? (Edited to say... it's entirely possible - I'm stuck at work and am meant to be thinking about other things, roll on 5 o'clock!!!)
|
|
|
Post by willow on Jun 8, 2005 20:41:09 GMT -5
Am, you are not dumb and misunderstanding the concept. I would say you have a very good understanding of it and are "right on". ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Jun 8, 2005 23:20:57 GMT -5
Wow. That's the third time you misquoted the same thing. Follow me very carefully:
#1 "What you are saying, Kona, is that if they are not taught as puppies that putting teeth on you is o.k., but you have to teach them how hard to bite or they will bite you hard when adults...I disagree."
My reply: "Actually, no, that's not at all what I said. I said that if a dog is in a panic situation and she has never learned proper bite inhibition, she is more likely to over-react and bite with all of her strength."
#2 "...and do you seriously believe that a dog who has been taught 'bite inhibition' will not bite hard in a panic situation?"
So . . . I guess you didn't get the clarification? No, that's not what I said.
#3 And then you just repeated yourself for a third time. Sorry this is so hard to understand. Seriously.
I wrote over a thousand words about bite inhibition; its purpose, how it's taught in the wild, how it's our responsibility to teach it to pups, how it is different from bite prohibition, and a few different ways of teaching it. If you are hung up on one thing that I said to the point that you can't get the meaning of that one sentence, no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Jun 8, 2005 23:36:10 GMT -5
Am, let me try to clarify. I said that there are many ways that a dog can learn bite inhibition, and some of the tools that we can use include the commands Take It, Leave It, and Drop It; the game Tug-of-War; and teaching how much pressure a dog can use when touching your skin with his teeth.
These separately teach different aspects of bite control and inhibition. Take It teaches a dog to take things gently from your hand, what and when to take things from you, and reinforces that you are in charge. Leave It teaches a dog that some things are to be left alone, and reinforces that you are in charge. Drop It teaches a dog that even if he gets something in his mouth, you still have ultimate authority over what stays in his mouth.
The next two seem to be a bit more controversial, and that was much of the reason for the post in the first place.
A proper and allowable amount of pressure when his teeth are touching your skin teaches him that there are limits to how hard he can bite, which is of course the real definition of "bite inhibition." And it teaches that you are in charge.
Tug-of-War teaches a dog that he can use his teeth, even to the point of applying as much pressure as he wants, on an inanimate object that you are both holding. That teaches him that it is your skin that must be respected, and not a chew toy that is between the two of you. And of course it also teaches that you are in charge.
None of these by themselves will teach bite inhibition, which might be why it is hard to understand how just tug teaches it (which was never the point), but all of them together, combined with everything else that you teach your dog about the nature of your relationship and what is expected and allowable from him and what is not, teach bite inhibition.
[edited, as usual, for spelling, grammar, and punctuation]
|
|
|
Post by Am on Jun 9, 2005 0:12:14 GMT -5
OK, I misunderstood the article then.
You're saying that tug is just a tool for teaching a dog that you're in charge of when he can bite, but isn't meant to teach him actual bite inhibition.
Am I right now?
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Jun 9, 2005 0:34:50 GMT -5
Pretty much, yes. Tug is one part of the foundation that bite inhibition is built upon.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Jun 9, 2005 4:19:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Jun 9, 2005 17:20:35 GMT -5
"The game of tug is used by many sport dog trainers and police dog trainers to build confidence and in order to do that the dog MUST WIN sometimes. I will not play a game with my dog that allows them to win, I am the one who wins not them." Right, they let the dog win, as in they let the dog take the tug toy from them and go off to chew on it, which is not what I said helps to teach bite inhibition. So by not letting the dog win, you are establishing that you decide what the dog can tug on, when he can tug, when he must let go, and who has the ultimate authority. Surely these are all things that you want your dog to learn, right? If you simply wish to make the point that there are other ways to teach the same points, I'll concede that. My original post was an attempt, among other thigs, to differentiate between true bite inhibition and bite prohibition, which is actually what most people end up teaching their dogs (as evidenced by comments like " dogs that put their teeth on a human are showing disrespect for humans."). Teaching a dog that his teeth can never touch skin, regardless of whether you agree that this is good or bad, is not bite inhibition. "I read what you said very carefully and I do not see how the game of tug is a foundation for teaching bite inhabition." I said that it is one of many tools that together can form the foundation to teach bite inhibition. Each by itself teaches something different. Combined they help to form a more comprehensive understanding for the dog. In my post on June 8, at 9:36 pm, I went into more detail about what each one on its own teaches. "I assume we are using an inanimate object for the game right? Not the family cat or the small child down the block?" Ideally, yes. "So since that object cannot squeal because it is being bitten to hard, or turn and bite back WHERE DOES THE FONDATION LIE?" The foundation lies in combining tug with the other items that I mentioned: Take It, Leave It, Drop It, proper and allowable pressure of the teeth on human skin, and the overall relationship that you have with your dog including his understanding of pack dynamics and hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by masha on Jul 28, 2005 1:52:42 GMT -5
I'm so glad I found this thread, as it addresses a lot of isseus that have been bugging me. I agree with many of the things Kona has said, and certainly seen them reflected in my own dogs. I think that there it is often easy to forget that it comes down not just to the dogs temprement, but the combination of the owner and the dog. I wish I was more like some of the trainers at my dog club - they are ALPHA LADIES and their dogs would never THINK of biting them. I just dont seem to exude that kind of personal power, and I think that makes a big difference to what works for me and my dogs. I do all the NILIF things, dont allow my dogs to bite and so on, but I cant rely simply on the awsome power of my presence, like I suspect some of you can I have certainly found that playing tug with my puppy helped stop her biting me inapropriately. It was like she needed to play with her mouth so badly, and I was giving her an acceptable outlet for that which was under my control. Bite me and the game stops, and it also gave me the chance to train her to obey me while she is exited. It was also useful to use that kind of game as a way of channeling inapropriate behaviour - when I get home, she now goes and grabs and shakes her tug toy around by herself, instead of jumping all over me. But that said, I have also found that playing tug in certain situations does NOT work. Using it as a reward during agility exited her to such a pitch that she reggressed back to puppy biting while exited, refused to come when called and so on. Having stopped that, however, she went back to normal - from one day to the next! To my trainers amazement. I realy liked what Kona said about yelping like a puppy as a deterent. I certainly found that while it made Ana stop the first time, the second time and third time she just got into it - " hey, mom's acting like a pup and those noises are kind of EXCITING"
|
|