Interesting Info from my Vet on Nipping - Feedback?

[Cadillac_Lady]

Hi All,

I'm getting to be a regular with 3 posts under my belt :D I just got back taking Kiko (13 week old male) from the vet. I brought my 8 year old daughter with me as well (which I recommend to anyone with children!!!).

Kiko has been nipping a bit lately, and we have been working on redirection with him which is taking some serious patience. We've also tried the 'walking away' method which seems to work on occasion and as a last resort, holding the muzzle.

So, while we were at the vet Kiko wanted to chew on him after he had given him tons of kisses. The vet firmly said no, and Kiko thought he was playing so he tried it again. The told him he was a bad boy while he quickly put his thumb in the dogs mouth under his tounge and pressed firmly against his gums on the left (or right) side until the dog was uncomfortable. He then immediately put his finger in the dog's face (like a dare) to see if he would do it again. He then praised him when the dog only gave him kisses. This was extremely successful, and recommended we try this at home, even my 8 year old!

In any event, I was a bit shocked that my vet recommended this, but it seemed to work quickly and he said we will have good results within 1 week. So, if not for information, I was wondering if anyone else had experience with this method??

Cadillac Lady

Happy mom to Kiko - who is healthy all down the line except for a few round worms... yucky!

[mark_sherry]

Cadillac_Lady,

I've heard of methods like that. It is a more physical version of negative association. Everytime the puppy bites or nips, if you place him in a position of discomfort, he will associate it with the nipping. Sooner or later, it'll sink in that he will become uncomfortable if he bites. If you trust and like your vet, I certainly don't see this as being any different that any other form of correction for your problem, and I believe that it will work. Just follow his instructions, and you should be fine.

Good luck,

Mark

[BarryMcD]

> Cadillac_Lady wrote: The vet told him he was a bad boy while he quickly
> put his thumb in the dogs mouth under his tongue and pressed firmly
> against his gums on the left (or right) side until the dog was uncomfortable.

It sounds like a great method if you want to cause discomfort for your dog and possible your thumb, too. :(

Seriously, there is no need to use punishment or adversives to make the average pup learn not to nip. When Kiko nips, yell "Ouch!!" in a loud, high-pitched voice, as though he just bit your thumb off! Pull your hand away fast. Then immediately turn away, leave him by himself, and ignore him totally for about 3 or 4 minutes. If you do this consistantly, and have anyone else in your family do it too, you should see a noticeable reduction in the behavior within a week, two at the most. When the biting has become infrequent, you can start handling an occasional nip with a stern "No Bite!" and continue to use that command from then on without going through the theatrics.

What you are doing is substituting the fained "Ouch!" reaction and then removing your attention from the dog in place of all the stuff the vet did. The difference is that the Ouch/Ignore method is what is called a negative punishment, while the gripping of the cheek is what is called a positive punishment. In the method I recommend, you are taking something AWAY from the pup to try to stop the undesireable behavior--your attention and presence. In the vet's method, you are doing something TO the pup to try to stop the undesireable behavior--you are hurting it.

100 years of behavioral science from Watson to Pavlov to Skinner has shown that negative punishment works better than positive punishment. (Actually positive rewarding works better than any other response in most situations, but it is hard to apply here.) Although ignoring the pup is a punishment, it does not inflict any direct physical discomfort or pain on the pup, which is unnecessary. What's more, believe it or not, the one thing your pup wants from you more than anything else (a primary need, like food) is you attention and companionship. By removing this for a few moments, you will make a larger impression than by using any physical action.

Finally, the reason for the "Ouch!" is that when pups or dogs play together, if one nips the other too hard, the other pup will let out a loud Yipe! and then withdraw for a moment and stop playing. This is nature's way of providing the offending nipper with feedback, telling it that when it bites that hard, its playmate will yell and stop playing. You will be using the dog's natural way of thinking and learning by imitating this canine behavior with your "Ouch!" and momentary removal of attention. With other dogs, the pup would learn exactly how hard it can bite each dog without causing it pain, and would remember that. The only difference is that in the game you are playing, the pup will learn that NO amount of pain, NO nipping or biting, is your tolerance level.

The one thing your vet did that I also do is after issuing a very occasional no bite command to my pup (now 9 months), I will place my hand or finger right in front of his mouth as though daring him to bite it. This both tests and reinforces the "No Bite!" command. But you should not do this until the pup is trained not to bite and understands well that he should not bite. (It makes no sense to tempt a pup who does not understand that biting is unacceptable to bite you!) Once he stops biting, you change to the "No Bite!" command because still being a pup, he will occasionally slip up, and that's when you start using a simpler command and the "daring" can be added. You definitely should not "dare" during the initial training, the "Ouch!" phase.

It's worked for me on three of my five dogs as pups (the other two were recued as adults), and on dozens of others that I have helped train. And I have never so much as touched any of these dogs to train them not to bite. :)

[Jamie & Odin]

Barry, worked for me. My boy was a nine month old nipper when I adopted him. At that age it took far less than a week to nip (pun intended) that in the bud:D .

I used the same method for jumping up, he immediately got my back side and no attention. No fun for him.

[mark_sherry]

The form of negative association that your vet describes is something similar to the Koehler Training Method I believe. This method has also been very succesful; however, Barry makes a very good argument, and his method is also very succesful. Both methods teach pups behaviors they would learn from their mother or alpha dog in a pack situation. Have you ever seen a pup get out of hand and the mother growl and snap at him? That's negative association. On the other hand, when one pup plays too hard and bites too hard, the other pup screams and pulls away. The aggressive pup then stops biting, and this is what Barry is talking about. Ultimately, it is your decision as to what method you wish to use, but understand that whatever you decide to do, it must be consistent until the pup stops nipping and biting. Rotties are mouthy little fellows, and it's going to take a lot of patience on your part as well.

[BarryMcD]

Mark and Jamie:

Thanks for the back-up. I have found the "Ouch!" method to be the most effective in my experience. Only with one or two stubburn pups did I have to use any additional techniques, and those to were stinkers all around from not being socialized early.

You can probably guess I am a positive trainer, but it seems to be simple common sense to me:

First, why cause any discomfort or pain for a pup if there are other effective methods?

It makes no sense for a person to punish a dog in any way for doing something it does not know is wrong! A pup at this stage needs lots of positive reinfocement and humane corrections.

Is the best way to correct or educate an animal that hurts you to hurt it back?!

I have no trouble "progressing" to more invasive and stern methods when necessary, but why start there! Always start with the least invasive and most positive and humane method available. And you stand to develop a better relationship and bond with your dog as a side effect! Mark stated in his first reply that the vet's method should work. Sure it will. So would smacking the pup with a broom! But who would want to begin there?

By the way, welcome to the forum, Cadillac-Lady! See all the discussion you can stir up with one question! :)

[Burnsway]

Originally posted by BarryMcD
Mark and Jamie:

Mark stated in his first reply that the vet's method should work. Sure it will. So would smacking the pup with a broom! But who would want to begin there?

In no way should the vets method be compared to beating a dog with a broom. Not that I agree with this method or disagree with it but lets not go from a little on hands /discomfort training to comparing it to abuse.

[Judi W]

The difference is between passive with the idea that the action will extinguish itself, and more active discouragement. With some behaviors and some dogs, the biting/nipping is self rewarding and they might need more active discouragement. With others, the shunning can be quite effective and just as quick to take effect. You don't know until you work with and understand the individual pup. With young children in the home it is sometimes helpful to get on with the more active discouragement as young children don't always have the skills or patience to handle the shunning and the biting can be detrimental to the bonding. Always it is preferred to go "with" the dog rather than against but individual circumstances and character might call for somewhat different measures.

Make sure you spend much more energy and time teaching the dog things that give it pride in learning and bonding than concentrating on stuff that needs "fixing". A pup that is happily sitting and coming when called for praise and/or a cookie, being taken for adventuresome walks, learning to find the hidden treasure, etc. is less likely to be chasing and nipping out of boredom.

[Chester'sMom]

Amen, Judy!
Having small children in my house, I totally agree with you. --- Personally, I don't think the Vet was bad. Training/Experience is everything. From Day One, Chester had his paws, ears & pretty much else "inspected"! We also use the "NO BITE/NO CHEW" command. As posted before; we had to put our 5-year-old daughter "at ease"! --- However, when I tell him to "OPEN", he goes :D :D :D
Nipping & stuff is pretty much a puppy thing. Please search this board for that. I have gotten great advise from these owners.

[BarryMcD]

> Burnsway wrote: In no way should the vets method be compared to beating a dog
> with a broom. Not that I agree with this method or disagree with it but lets not
> go from a little on hands/discomfort training to comparing it to abuse.

Burnsway,

My intent was not to suggest that the vet was abusive, but (clearly with a bit of exaggeration) to drive home the point that you don't bring out the big guns or the medium artillery or even the pistols until you've tried simple benign and peaceful methods.

That was my politically correct answer.

Here's the answer from my experience and my heart:

A smack with a broom, shaking a dog, putting a thumb in its mouth to pinch its cheek and cause discomfort, using a spiked or choke collar, burning the dog with a match, yanking the bezeezus out of its neck with a leash... Clearly these are all different levels of inflicting discomfort on the dog, which when severe enough becomes pain. None are humane. None are necessary in 99 out of 100 cases, and none should constitute the starting point for training. It is morally wrong to inflict pain as a training method on a pup that does not even know it is doing anything wrong. Quite frankly, I wouldn't visit this vet if he charged nothing and gave money away. And your phrase "discomfort training" is in the modern world an oxymoron.

I will admit that there are situations where more physical or aversive means may be required, and I'll respond to that as I address some of Judi's comments.

> Judi W wrote: The difference is between passive with the idea that the
> action will extinguish itself, and more active discouragement.

It is not "passive WITH THE IDEA that the action WILL EXTINGUISH ITSELF."

Consciously or unconsciously, you present the positive solution (subtly, and as many people tend to do) as something that may work, or something that is doubtful ("with the idea"), and also as a method that does not use the normal steps of rewarding or punishing a behavior, but leaves the dog to hopefully stop its own actions voluntarily ("will extinguish itself") while the owner or trainer keeps his/her fingers crossed.

The method I described is as bona fide and as scientific and as legitimately an effective training method as any other generally accepted method. The outcome--whether the dog stops biting--is no more uncertain or left up to the dog as it would be in the vet's method, or in many other sound methods of training.

I apologize if these were not the things you were thinking, but they are the things that your words suggest.

> Judi W wrote: With some behaviors and some dogs, the biting/nipping is self
> rewarding and they might need more active discouragement.

First, I do not agree that puppy nipping is very often a self-rewarding activity. Although many types of aggression are self-rewarding (and maybe that's the connection you are making here), puppy nipping and biting is not aggression. It is an instinctual and necessary learning behavior and has nothing to do with aggression.

Secondly. I often notice euphemisms creeping in whenever more aversive methods are referred to. I note the term ""more active discouragement" or something similar used 4 times in your post. Let's sat frankly what it is that started the discussion: a vet yelling at a dog and sticking his big thumb into its mouth, under its tongue, probably making it hard for the dog to breathe, but most certainly adding to the normal stress most dogs have when visiting a vet, and applying enough pressure to its gums and cheek to cause clear discomfort. More active discouragement, indeed. Also, I wonder how this puppy is going to feel about returning to that vet next time? A lot of things have certainly been accomplished by this vet's response, but I don't think teaching the pup to stop nipping is one of them. Later, you argue that there are circumstances where, for the sake of time or safety, more aversive methods need to be used. What was the big emergency or need here for this vet to employ discomfort as his first response, and I imagine recommend it to the owner?

Also, if we want to discuss the concept of self-rewarding behavior, let's mention that aversive corrections and punishments are also very likely to enforce negative behavior--in humans and canines. I can image some dogs seeing the vet's method as a game: you pinch me, I'll pinch you.

> Judi W wrote: With young children in the home
it is sometimes helpful to
> get on with the more active discouragement as young children don't always
> have the skills or patience to handle the shunning and the biting can
> be detrimental to the bonding.

IMO, the children are either old enough to be able to play what for them is a simple game, "Ouch!", or they are not old enough. If they are old enough, there is no need to go beyond the benign "Ouch!" and ignore method. And if they are old enough to apply the thumb under the tongue method, what do you think THAT might do to their handling the situation and bonding?

If they are not old enough to participate, then they are not old enough to be near the dog unsupervised, and should not be in a position to ever be bitten in the first place.

As any owner or trainer, I will always value human safety over any consideration of a dog's, but I really don't see children (which we are hypothesizing about--does Cadillac_Lady have any?) as being in danger here. As you may know, the majority of dog bites each year in the US occur to children, BUT... one of the main causes of this statistic is that children often abuse dogs! So I would respectfully suggest that if there is a child-dog problem to occur, it is more likely to be the children that need to be trained than the dog. And I am wondering if the children's psychologist will recommend sticking a thumb in THEIR mouths and squeezing until it hurts as a solution? I also wonder what values these hypothetical children are going to develop as they grow up seeing their mom sticking her thumb into their pup's mouth and squeezing until it hurts!

> Judi W wrote: Always it is preferred to go "with" the dog rather than against
> but individual circumstances and character might call for somewhat different measures.

There is only one circumstance that I can see necessitating "somewhat different measures." That would be a puppy who is overly aggressive and out of control. Nothing in Cadillac-Lady's original post suggests that this is the case. When it is the case, there are five and only five likely situations which would have created such a devil dog.

1) Irresponsible breeding. Not the owner's fault, but something prospective purchasers should be aware of and try to avoid. 2) Failure on the part of the owner to socialize or train the dog; i.e., owner negligence. 3) Abuse of the pup by the owner or others, or unwitting abuse in the form of strongly punishing training techniques. 4) Possibly environmental or physiological causes such as playing frequently and learning from another dog that is out of control, having a disease such as hyperthyroidism, or living in whatever way in a stressed environment, and 5) Some combination of the above.

Dismissing #5 as just a combination of the others, we end up with the four most likely possibilities, and three of these are clearly the owner's responsibility or fault. The other one (#1) could be said to be part of the owner's responsibility, although perhaps not the owner's fault.

So in the case of a devil dog that needs strong intervention, first, it was probably the owners or breeder that made the dog what it is, not the pup's choice. So we are punishing the pup for the sins of others instead of educating those other to use more positive methods to correct their oversights or errors.

Second, although there is a tremendous range of puppy behaviors, even among the same breed, I do not find it to be a continuum from perfect dog to monster, with every shade in between. Rather, I see it as two groups of dogs on one side or the other of a fairly clear dividing line. The dog is either safe enough and has the potential to be trained using simple positive methods--and any moderate aggressive tendencies it may have clearly counterindicate aversive methods! See for example James O'Heare's "The Canine Aggressive Handbook" (2001). It has been a clear and virtually uncontroversial concept over the past five years that aggression should NEVER be treated with aggression or aversives or even assertiveness! It always makes the problem worse. Read any aggression expert who has published in the last five years!

On the other hand, the dog is on the other side of the line, and is clearly out of control and a threat. In such a case, the owner should consult a qualified trainer or expert in aggressive behavior because the dogs on this side of the fence are too potentially dangerous to be self-trained using any method. Here, I agree, we definitely keep the kids out of it!

Your final comment is excellent advice. As we know, a training relationship will minimize specific problems, even if they are not the problems we concentrate on during training. Pups need plenty of positive experiences and reward, and I am in absolute agreement with your final paragraph.

I hope I have not exaggerated or misread your comments, but regardless, they served as an excellent outline for related issues and counter arguments that I think are important and often overlooked. I also have been talking generally and hypothetically here, and nothing I have said was intended to be an accusation or attack on any poster or on Cadillac-Girl who brought the situation to our attention. If I have sounded a bit excited, I am because I feel strongly about the unnecessary use of aversives, and I have great faith, borne out through my own experience and in the current literature on training and aggression that I keep abreast with, in positive non-invasive methods.

It is often said that each individual has the right to make his or her own choice about what methods to use. Unfortunately, this is a human right, not one that takes the dog into consideration, and I must disagree with this idea as well. I have a neighbor who has three poorly or completely untrained mastiffs who are positively viscous to anyone but this 300 lb. man who owns them. He routinely lets them out of his house, off leash, into a an unfenced backyard, where they inevitable run into my yard and excite my fenced in pack of five. This occurs on the average of at least once every two days. When it occurs, he walks over into my yard and grabs each dog and slaps the living daylights out of it as he curses it. He then drags it, practically choking it, by the collar, back into his house, only to repeat the feat again a day or two later. My wife has been almost attacked twice as she came home from work by one of these loose dogs. I have reported the man to the dog warden a number of times, and unfortunately, living in a small rural town, there is no enforcement agency such as an SPCA enforcement division, to appeal to. I am near the point of taking him to court. So, let me say it again now, after telling this story. "Each individual has a right to make his or her own choice about what methods to use?" In many cases, I think not. This is an extreme case, but the number of times good trainable dogs are unwittingly, ignorantly, purposely, or unnecessarily misused in the name of training is phenomenal. The number of times dogs end up intractable or aggressive due to poor training is phenomenal. I would estimate that at least 70% of the dogs I have trained needed training and counterconditioning because of the way they were originally trained. I wonder how many other trainers would agree with those statistics?

There is a change occurring in dog training, and it is based on scientific and behavioral evidence and a more accurate understanding of how dogs behave and act. As with many things, there are people who strongly and violently oppose this slow shift toward such methods as Clicker Training and other positive methods. But I believe there are also many well-meaning people that haven't really examined their ideas about what is appropriate treatment for dogs, many owners who just don't know, and who often get advice from the worst sources--traditions and myths and long-abandoned practices like "rub the pup's nose in the pee" to house train it."

I hope all that I have argued will be taken as an expression of my defense and concern and compassion for dogs, and not at all as an attack on anyone whose comments I have responded to. I know the two people I have answered specifically in this post are intelligent people entitled to their own opinions, but I think once our semantics and misunderstood statements and occasional overzealousness (that one goes to me!) are clarified, we probably agree on many points more than it seems. I know I have seen many posts by Judi that recommend postive approaches and humane treatement of dogs. But I believe, and strongly hope, that five years or ten years from now, the positive philosophy will pervade the canine world and that if not now, at that time all of us will agree that many of today's common ideas were not quite right.

[Birdie'sMom]

I think this may be one of those debates that will never be fully agreed upon, like is it okay to swat an out of control child on the behind (and I do not mean beat a child!). It's nice to hear both sides of the argument and I agree with some points made by all of you. In the end it comes down to your own personal philosophy. I have used the walk away and ignore method, but find that yelling "ouch!" only excited my puppy more and made her quite fiesty! Just my experience! But the ignoring part did work!

[moondog]

The way I taught my dog to keep her teeth off me doesn't seem to be falling into the discussion here. I didn't do any cheek pinching, muzzle clamping, yelling or ignoring. I didn't do any of that at all. What I did do is redirect her to a stuffed toy ... every single time.

Puppies are puppies, and I took biting and chewing as a normal and expected part of her activity. I did not want to frustrate my dog by forbidding a natural part of her character, and I really didn't want to stifle her wonderful sense of play, but of course I didn't want her chewing on me, the cat or the furniture either. It was very important to me that she understand how she was allowed to use her natural inclinations from the get go.

When she tried to chew on me, I stuffed her mouth with a toy and told her "This is what you get to bite, you little rascal." When she played too rough with the cat, I shook her stuffed bear under her nose and tossed it across the room for her to chase and told her, "This is what you get to chase, you little rascal". If she looked cross eyed at the chair leg, I stuck a bone in her mouth and told her "This is what you get to chew, you little rascal." Long before she became my shadow, I was hers.

What I have now is an adult dog who, when she hits a certain level of excitement, immediately looks for a toy to pounce on. If we're not at home (or in the proximity of a toy) when she gets excited, she looks up at me like "What am I supposed to do?" and we do obedience (either heel, or sit or whatever suits the moment). It's really like a switch has been installed in her brain. I was really quite amazed when I first saw her make that decision on her own, have always praised her for making a good choice, and she's only gotten better since.

Anyway, that worked for us. :)

[Jamie & Odin]

moondog, good points. Offering the pup something positive to do instead of just stopping what it's doing is very constructive.

I think the ignoring worked so well with my dog because as a bit of an older adoptee, we had absolutely no level of bonding or trust when I needed to stop the behavior. Grabbing him or being stern would not have helped to establish those things.

For him, it wasn't a matter of needing to chew and using people's hands to do it. He had learned in his previous home that it worked to get attention. Ignoring when he did it, quick praise and attention when he ceased, addressed the very core of the issue, and made immediate sense in his bright, doggy mind:D

[moondog]

I hear ya, Jamie (finally I spelled your name right!) :)

Luna has been with me since she was 7-1/2 weeks old, so I was able to start at the beginning. It's a whole new ball game with an older dog where so much of their experience is unknown, they're at a completely different stage in life and so much has to be worked through while those ever so important bonds are being established. Far more complex than having the luxury of raising a puppy from the first weeks of life. In any case, we've got to discover and do what works best for our dogs. :)

[Jamie & Odin]

In any case, we've got to discover and do what works best for our dogs.

And THAT is the key to everything, isn't it?:D