Jump to content
BC Boards

Ankle nipper


Recommended Posts

I'm not an all positive trainer. Ouzo thought grabbing a hold of our pants was the best thing ever. And for the first couple of weeks, so did we :D

 

As you can see here - sorry for the awful picture, sometimes I look a bit better; not this time :D - 9 weeks old puppy.

 

This is how I walked for the first month after getting Ouzo :rolleyes:

 

3431768183_b4bfc26d0b.jpg

 

I soon became tired of this game, so I let the puppy know that. I don't recall how exactly, probably flickering his nose or grabbing his muzzle, not excluding the occasional (lovingly) butt slap, he soon learned that's not allowed. None of the verbal commands to let go of my pants registered until he felt something on his own skin. Immediately after this treatment, things clicked and he stopped on command.

 

Chris, however, loved this game and allowed it to go on for months. Many of his pants fell pray to the sharp puppy daggers. Even now, Ouzo would play-hugg his legs with his front paws, and Chris still finds it delightful. Ouzo knows better than to try that with me :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Fist of all root beer, nobody is trying to force their training method on you, I was simply making a statement to avoid the inevitable "expert" contradiction. I'd love to meet your "pack" of dogs that you have control over "with a look" as you so convincingly asserted in a previous thread, under the protective veil of an internet forum.

 

I'm very curious. Where did I say that I have control of my dogs "with a look"? I'd like the name of the thread and post number, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kristine,

 

I have great respect for your methods so I looked through this thread to find your training suggestion on this little ankle nipper. I didn't find one. Just you defending your right to make one. :D Sooo...what would you do in this situation?

 

Georgia

 

Oh, I would wave a hot dog in the air and say, "please little dog - if you stop nipping, I'll be really nice to you." And if the puppy would rather nip, I just allow the puppy to do whatever he or she pleases.

 

:rolleyes::D :D

 

Seriously, through reinforcement I would teach an "off" cue. Contrary to popular opinion, this can usually be done very quickly and without punishing the dog. It's my preference to teach without punishment, as everyone here knows. Teaching "off" is simple, clear, and can be used to help a dog learn boundaries, limitations, and even more enjoyable things throughout his or her life.

 

Once the pup knew the "off" cue, I would begin to use it during play sessions with the puppy and then in the nipping situations. Yes, I would reward the "off" heavily at first. This, to me, is not a weakness in training, but a strength. It sets the stage for the dog to learn the meaning of a reward, which will pay off big time when I set to train for sports, or even just basic manner type stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can all agree to disagree; as stated earlier, I am sure your methods work for you. But for the sake of new people who really have no idea how to stop annoying behaviors, can we all voice our opinions and explain our methods, and let each "new" individual try those methods that for whatever reason appeal to that person, and that they think will work best his/her situation?

 

Actually, this was exactly my point of posting in this thread to begin with.

 

I'd like to be able to voice my opinions and suggestions and explain different methods to the new folks without being accused of being afraid to hurt the dog's feelings (an incorrect assumption), of glibly allowing bad habits to persist (an incorrect assumption), or of just waiting around for behaviors to happen (a misunderstanding of a very specific training method).

 

To quote myself from earlier in this thread . . .

 

And you make your training suggestions and I'll make mine. I'm for letting the person asking the question decides what suits him and his dog, or her and her dog.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, through reinforcement I would teach an "off" cue. ... Teaching "off" is simple, clear, and can be used to help a dog learn boundaries, limitations, and even more enjoyable things throughout his or her life.

 

Once the pup knew the "off" cue, I would begin to use it during play sessions with the puppy and then in the nipping situations. ...

 

How do you teach the "off cue"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you teach the "off cue"?

 

There are many ways to go about it, depending on what the dog is motivated by.

 

For example, when we adopted Dean, he was very much enamored with jumping up. I used that to my advantage. I stared to tell him to jump up - he didn't really "know" the word at the time, but he got it very quickly, and then I said "off" and took a step back and then rewarded him when his paws hit the ground. In his case I used food since he was not toy motivated, but I also rewarded him by cueing him back up again, too.

 

He learned "off" very quickly and once he knew it, I used it when he put his paws up on the counter or the door or whatever. (I was actually told by someone here that teaching him not to counter surf without a correction would never work, but Dean apparently didn't get that memo.) Since "off" is not a correction - it is a directive like "stay" or "sit", I can use it any time I want him off of something - I used it with him when I was working with him on learning the table and the teeter in Agility, and paws up tricks in Freestyle (paws on my leg, paws on a cane, etc).

 

I taught it to Sammie using the furniture - he very much enjoys sitting on furniture. I told him to get up on the bed/sofa and then cued him off and then rewarded him by telling him to get back up. At first I did show him what I wanted with a food lure, but was able to fade that almost immediately. I spent two or three short training sessions cueing him "up" on the furniture, and then "off", and he learned it quickly and clearly. He isn't a sport dog or anything. His "off" cue comes into play when he is on a piece of furniture and we want him off of it for some reason or other.

 

With a young puppy, I might teach this with paws up, a I did with Dean, or I might use something else, depending on the pup's particular interest. I think this is where the process might appear to be "negotiation", but it's really not. It is simply making a particular (and powerful) use of what is already there. This process does not take place forever. Once the dog knows that word, it can be applied in different situations without the reward - it's a directive like any other.

 

In the case of a puppy who was grabbing onto clothing, I probably would use a tug toy or a sock or something to teach this. Again, not to "negotiate", but simply to teach the puppy that there are times to grab onto material and there are times to let go. In addition to teaching the pup to let go, "give", "off", this would serve as a fantastic opportunity to teach the dog to take a tug toy, ball, the end of a rope to pull something on cue.

 

"Off" is very easy to teach, it is usually very quick to teach, and it is extremely useful, both for teaching manners and then later on to use as a directive in other types of training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very curious. Where did I say that I have control of my dogs "with a look"? I'd like the name of the thread and post number, please.

 

 

Okay Root Beer.

 

in Post #112 of this thread

http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.p...1430&st=100

 

you said this:

 

I'm the ALPHA and the leader in my home, it is my absolute rule that my dogs completely accept the fact that I am a human being and I refuse to growl at them, bark at them, zzzzzt at them (what wild dogs zzzzt at each other, anyway?), scruff shake them, leash pop them, or get "rough" with them. The dogs are under my domination and I, as LEADER, decree that they will be happy, content, obedient, and respectful dogs without me doing any of those things. If they don't like it, tough. They don't get a say in the matter.

 

Maybe I misunderstood, but if you are making no audible noises, and you are making no physical contact, all that's left if a look from your eyes - unless I'm missing something, which I very well could be. Tell me then, without using any sound from your mouth, and without touching the dog physically, and without using a look, how do you "decree" that your dogs submit to you?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, i very well may have misunderstood you and would like clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you said this:

Maybe I misunderstood, but if you are making no audible noises, and you are making no physical contact, all that's left if a look from your eyes - unless I'm missing something, which I very well could be. Tell me then, without using any sound from your mouth, and without touching the dog physically, and without using a look, how do you "decree" that your dogs submit to you?

 

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, i very well may have misunderstood you and would like clarification.

 

Yes, you have misunderstood. And I'm glad that this came up because I think that clarification is an excellent thing.

 

I think that the way that you and I use the word "submit" is not exactly the same.

 

Have you ever met people who use different leadership styles? Some are very domineering "my way or the highway" sort of folks. Some are strict until they know that you are going to tow the line and then they are more lenient. Some are more the type to treat those under their leadership as people who are contributing members of a team and actually solicit input and gear their leadership style to those people. None of these styles are necessarily "bad" or "wrong" or "right" - the best kind of leadership comes from someone whose leadership is appropriate to those who are being led, the situation, and the strengths of the leader his or herself.

 

I know that might seem like a tangent, but it's not. The fact is that half of the dog/owner equation is a human being. That is not anthropomorphism - it's a fact. Yes, the dog is a dog, but the human is a human. And even when it comes to our dogs, we do not all share the same leadership style.

 

My leadership style with my dogs is to teach them by communicating clearly what I want from them. I am not concerned with "correcting" what is "wrong". If they clearly know what I do want, they can behave appropriately according to my standards as the leader in my household.

 

So, when I said, "they will be happy, content, obedient, and respectful dogs without me doing any of those things", I was not saying that I was going to control them with a look. It's interesting to me that you thought that's what I meant. Such an idea has never crossed my mind.

 

Tell me then, without using any sound from your mouth, and without touching the dog physically, and without using a look, how do you "decree" that your dogs submit to you?

 

By teaching them clearly what is expected. And yes - I use words and gestures to communicate with them. The idea that I'm going around the house not speaking to or touching my dogs is rather comical, but it isn't in line with reality.

 

Honestly, as a human being, I have zero interest in teaching my dogs what not to do.

 

Before you assume that means I run around letting them do whatever they want with no boundaries, limits, or self discipline, let me be clear that it's quite the opposite.

 

The rules in my house are not super strict. The dogs are absolutely allowed to bark when someone pulls into the driveway or knocks on the door, they are not only allowed on the furniture, but welcomed. They are allowed to start games when they want to play (with me or . . . gasp . . . with each other!). They are allowed to show me when they need to go out to the bathroom, or if they want to go out and play, or if they are hungry.

 

This is the way that I, the human being, want things. (Hence, the "ALPHA" leadership parallel that I made in the post you quoted)

 

They also know to wait at the door before being let out, to stop barking when I tell them that they have barked enough, to come when I call them, to get off the furniture when directed to. There are limits. There are manners.

 

The fact that I give my dogs quite a bit of input in their lives and their training does not mean that I don't make the final decisions on the "rules" that I have for them and their training.

 

When I said that they must "submit", I was using a bit of sarcasm. I'm not really worried about submission. I want the dogs to be well mannered, reasonably happy pets who are at the ready to participate in sports and other activities with me.

 

I communicate with my dogs in a manner that I feel befits me as a human being. Everyone is not going to share this opinion, but that is how I, as the human, see things, and that is my choice as the leader in my home.

 

What does this have to do with this post and the OP? Quite a bit. The OP is entitled to the knowledge that there are a great many different ways to handle a nipping problem with a puppy. It is entirely possible and legitimate to do so using methods that don't involve punishment. That may or may not be the OP (or anyone's) choice, but having that knowledge has been a very good thing for many of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Kristine. My comment that you quoted wasn't really aimed at you. Rather, it was just a generalized comment not unlike yours:

 

I'd like to be able to voice my opinions and suggestions and explain different methods to the new folks without being accused of being afraid to hurt the dog's feelings (an incorrect assumption), of glibly allowing bad habits to persist (an incorrect assumption), or of just waiting around for behaviors to happen (a misunderstanding of a very specific training method).

insofar as those training methods which utilize verbal corrections (or even a scruff shake) are called cruel (an incorrect assumption), and that they will cause the dog to be forever after afraid of the handler or to shut down (also an incorrect assumption).

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Root beer. I see your point, I misunderstood and thought you implying something different.

 

I too use positive training, and physical correction. I don't think any method is wrong if it works. So many seem to thing that "correction" means the trainer is unsing the "alpha roll" and that's all. Wrong. for me, the Alpha roll is one tool, which is useless if not done correctly through and through, it's more about the non-physical connection between dog and owner, only emphasized by the physical touch. I also use positive association. I use both methods. I do not feel that they are mutualy exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is entirely possible and legitimate to do so using methods that don't involve punishment. [emphasis mine]

It is statements like this that make me wonder--do you consider a verbal "Acchhtt" a punishment?

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I misunderstood, but if you are making no audible noises, and you are making no physical contact, all that's left if a look from your eyes - unless I'm missing something, which I very well could be. Tell me then, without using any sound from your mouth, and without touching the dog physically, and without using a look, how do you "decree" that your dogs submit to you?

 

Well, there are always those little things called training and practice to get your dogs to behave in ways you want. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is statements like this that make me wonder--do you consider a verbal "Acchhtt" a punishment?

 

A

 

 

That depends entirely on how it is used. It can be, but it isn't always.

 

I've got a question relating to ^^ these two posts.

 

What if you find your dog has, say, torn up a pillow and you catch him/her in the act. Would you not punish what he/she is doing? If you use no punishment, how do you handle something like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jennifer

I can answer for me. I don't punish my dogs, I correct them. Punishment might be for children that can understand that something they've done previouly is wrong and that's why they are getting punished now, like grounding or removing something they like. A dog can't understand the connection. So a correction is my method of choice. If I were to ground my dogs for something they did before, they'd never get it.

 

I'm also not a fan of putting a dog in time out. I might choose to "stop" an action right then and there, or stop them from doing something they are enjoying if it's not an appropriate thing, but the connection would be for the right there and now. Not 1-5 minutes later.

 

Recently Mick was put inside while the other dogs played ball, he was snarking the other dogs butts with his own game. So I removed him from the situation. Not sure if he understood but by doing that the other dogs got to keep playing without getting snarked or even thinking they might get snarked. I would venture to guess he learned nothing from the situation because he'd do it again in a heart beat.

Mabye I could/should have taken the time to correct his actions and get more of the issue resolved but I wasn't ready to take on that battle, it would have upset the girls and ended the game (the are very sensitive to me correcting anyone around them) so that's what I choose to do for that incident.

 

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a question relating to ^^ these two posts.

 

What if you find your dog has, say, torn up a pillow and you catch him/her in the act. Would you not punish what he/she is doing? If you use no punishment, how do you handle something like this?

 

No. I would not punish this.

 

If the dog is not ready to be loose with an object like a pillow, this is my own fault for leaving the dog loose with the pillow. If the dog were crated (when alone) or properly supervised, it would not have happened.

 

How would I handle it? I would take the pillow away and give the dog something appropriate to chew or tear. If the pillow is fixable, I would sew it up, wash it, and put it up until the dog is ready to have access to it and know it is not a chew toy. If the pillow is ruined, I throw it in the trash.

 

Chewing is a very appropriate activity for a dog and it is my job to provide the dog with appropriate items to chew and to teach the dog what is appropriate for the dog to chew on.

 

What designates "this is a dog toy" and "this is not?" I really don't have the time, nor the energy to go around correcting a dog for trying to chew on everything possible. I prefer to dog proof the house sufficiently and then spend my time and energy teaching the dog what is his to chew on.

 

I must do something right. All four of my dogs are loose in the house even when we aren't there, and they don't destroy things. They got the idea without ever being told that what they were doing was "wrong" in any way. They still enjoy chewing on their bones and toys, although none of them are big into chewing anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a question relating to ^^ these two posts.

 

What if you find your dog has, say, torn up a pillow and you catch him/her in the act. Would you not punish what he/she is doing? If you use no punishment, how do you handle something like this?

 

Personaly I would correct this.

 

- DISCLAIMER! I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANYONE ELSE TRY THIS! THIS IS JUST HOW I WOULD DO IT! I AM NOT SAYING MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY! I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT ANYONE ELSE'S METHOD IS WRONG OR LESS EFECTIVE! I AM ONLY STATING THAT THIS IS HOW I MIGHT HANDLE THE SITUATION, AND THIS IS ONLY A VAGUE BASIC SKELETON OF A TYPICAL POSSIBLE SCENARIO-

 

I leave my dogs alone unsupervised all of the time, for hours on end, not in a crate, and they have zero accidents, and destroy zero property. This is because of how I trained them. If I found my puppy ripping up a pillow, caught him/her in the act - still ripping the pillow - the first thing I would do is something audible, like an "Ahht!" or "Schhh!" or "Zzzzt!" or "Hey!", while I snap my finger and point at her. If the puppy responds by giving me her attention and dropping the pillow, I walk towards her and stand with my ankles almost touching the pillow, staring at her until she get's that this is mine and not hers. If she doesn't get this point, and goes back down to bite the pillow some more, I'd repeat the vocal warning and snap of the finger, if she ignores this, I'd give a liittle hand-bite on the scruff with my rigid fingers, while using the same vocal warning. I would never take the pillow away by grabbing it and relocating it, because this doesn't tell the dog that I've claimed it as something for me and not for her. Whenever she would finally get it, and leave the pillow there, I'd grab one of her toys and give it to her, saying it's name - typicaly 2-syllabol words that end in "y" or the "ee" sound seem easy for dogs to memorize, in my experience - and once she grabs the toy and starts playing with it, I'd start praising her, petting her, and saying something like "good girl, good squeaky" or whatever name you gave the toy. This way, I'd mix physical correction with positive association.

 

That being said, my method has produced happy dogs who enjoy having free roam of the house - with access to their personal spaces (individual crates) - and never destroy anything. At the same time, the people who have dissed my methods and said how they are wrong admit that their dogs cannot be alone and must be kept in a crate... so, just keep your options open to what seems like - in view of common sense - would be the right method for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, the people who have dissed my methods and said how they are wrong admit that their dogs cannot be alone and must be kept in a crate... so, just keep your options open to what seems like - in view of common sense - would be the right method for you.

Okay, let's back up a minute, please, and stop being so defensive. I have been following this thread, though I haven't posted since the beginning, and if you read my post, then you know that I am probably more in line with what you do with respect to the problem than perhaps what others might do. That said, nowhere did I take Kristine to say that her dogs can't be left alone. In fact, she said the opposite. What she *did* say, and which you apparently chose to misinterpret, was that if her dogs weren't ready to be left alone, then she would either not do so or make sure the area the dog was in would be completely dog-proofed. That doesn't translate the way you translated it. And it's these kinds of comments that have you alienating people.

 

Speaking for myself, when my young dogs are still in the stage of learning right from wrong, I don't leave them out where they can choose to do the wrong when I'm not there to do something about it. Making that choice says nothing about me or my methods as a trainer. All it says is that I put my youngsters up in a safe place when they are still in the stage of training where they need supervision.

 

Note that nowhere in this post have I said that your method is wrong or misguided. I do think, however, that you are picking fights for no real good reason.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's back up a minute, please, and stop being so defensive. I have been following this thread, though I haven't posted since the beginning, and if you read my post, then you know that I am probably more in line with what you do with respect to the problem than perhaps what others might do. That said, nowhere did I take Kristine to say that her dogs can't be left alone. In fact, she said the opposite. What she *did* say, and which you apparently chose to misinterpret, was that if her dogs weren't ready to be left alone, then she would either not do so or make sure the area the dog was in would be completely dog-proofed. That doesn't translate the way you translated it. And it's these kinds of comments that have you alienating people.

 

Speaking for myself, when my young dogs are still in the stage of learning right from wrong, I don't leave them out where they can choose to do the wrong when I'm not there to do something about it. Making that choice says nothing about me or my methods as a trainer. All it says is that I put my youngsters up in a safe place when they are still in the stage of training where they need supervision.

 

Note that nowhere in this post have I said that your method is wrong or misguided. I do think, however, that you are picking fights for no real good reason.

 

J.

 

 

I wasn't refferig to you. There are others who in this thread and especialy another thread have gone on and on about just how ignorant, young, uninformed, archaic, and rude i am, and how my methods cannot possibly work. These same people have said things like

"if you wagged your finger at my dog, he'd bite it off"
implying not that they have a balanced and well behaved, happy dog, but that they have a nervous, unsure, dog who is only obeying in the presense of their master, but is still so confused and nervous that they would "bite [my] finger off". So, don't take offense, I wasn't reffering to you. And I'm not picking fights. Others have been jumping on everything I've said all day, insulting me, questioning me, assuming things about me, belittling my methods, and then calling me rude... I simply wanted to avoid that here, hense the disclaimer and the comparrison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Julie wasn't taking offense. She was pointing out how you keep misunderstanding the posts of others (which you just did again with Kristine's post) and then being so defensive in response that you feel the need to insult other board members in practically every single post you write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Julie wasn't taking offense. She was pointing out how you keep misunderstanding the posts of others (which you just did again with Kristine's post) and then being so defensive in response that you feel the need to insult other board members in practically every single post you write.

 

Who did I insult? I carefuly listed my method, and then said they can use any method, including those of people like the lady who said her well-behaved dog would bite my finger off. I mentioned that while they will no doubt read how many people are saying not to listen to me, a lot of those same people have admited things about their dogs that mply missbehavior. Did I use Kristine's name, her profile name, or quote her? No. You two brought her into this, not me. I've made ammends with her in this thread already, and in another thread, I have no issues with her, i don't even dissagree with most of the stuff she says. I insulted nobody, I simply repeated something somebody wrote to me. Who's being defensive here? Not me, maybe you, sense you think I've said something insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JBlaylock,

I know you weren't referring to me. I mentioned my earlier comments in my post to make clear to you that I am not coming from a POV that is anti whatever training method you use. In the post I was citing it was clear you were referring to Kristine, since she was the one who mentioned putting untrained dogs in crates. I am simply trying to say that you could have just as easily posted your method and left it at that instead of making a gratuitous snarky comment about crating a dog, especially when your comment was a misinterpretation of what she said in the first place. I noted that while I would and do use physical corrections for things like ankle nipping (which Kristine doesn't) I *also* will use a crate for a young dog's protection when I can't be around to supervise and train (which is something Kristine apparently does do) as a subtle way of trying to remind you that yoou are engaging in the exact same "absolutes" game you accuse others of playing. Saying one crates an unsupervised dog in training is not the same as saying a dog can never be left alone. That's a great leap you make from one to the other.

 

You said:

At the same time, the people who have dissed my methods and said how they are wrong admit that their dogs cannot be alone and must be kept in a crate...

 

The point I was making was that Kristine didn't say that *at all.* If you want to argue with people, feel free, just please leave off the gratutitous insults, which is what the above quoted phrase is, and argue on the merits of your case.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not an insult. Who says i was refering to Kristine? I didn't mention her and I didn't quote her. When I quote, as you can see in any of my posts, I use the

nifty quote tool you see here
. I use crate training too, with unsupervised untrained pups, as part of the training. I did'nt say this was a bad method, and agian, I didn't insult anyone. I said there were people here who bashed my methods and said they didn't work, and those same people cannot leave their dogs alone. I didn't say Kristine was who I was talking about. I didn't even read her post when I made mine, most likely she posted it as I was typing mine. Other people here have said that, as well as the "bite my finger off" remark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...