When you bring your new puppy home, you'll want to make him feel good while he's lying down or on his back. Give him a little stroke or an encouraging word. But don't overdo it. If you make the pup stay in that posture and he stays there, it teaches him a lesson both in submission and in dominance. That may seem okay. But the problem is that the dog also learns confrontation, not just with other dogs but also with people.
Dogs can be taught to be compliant without using force and confrontation. Do not shake him by the scruff of the neck and pin him to the ground, even though that's what wolves occasionally do to establish dominance. No matter how many times you've been told that you are the alpha animal, the fact is that people-dog relationships are not like wolf-wolf relationships. Dogs' teeth can inflict more damage than people's hands, so the wise thing to do here is not to start the confrontation.
Instead, start out with a companion-animal relationship where there's mutual respect for each other's roles (yours is to communicate direction, his' is to respond appropriately). Your dog will try to please you and be compliant, and you will praise him for doing so.
This is the kind of relationship you want to start as soon as you bring the puppy home, even before you take him to puppy kindergarten or hire a trainer to get him under control. Don't physically force your new pet to do things that he's not ready to do. Let him get used to one room at a time. Make sure that you keep track of when he is getting overly excited. This is your cue to say to him, "Settle!" or "Outside!" The word or phrase you use is up to you.
Try to go out the same door each time for the same activity. You will need to take him outside and stand there while he sniffs around and pees or poops, and you say, "Good Boy" then go indoors and play with him in a different location, so that he gets the idea that when we go to this one spot it's time to pee or poop, and when we go out a different door to another spot, that's where we play.
As you start to teach your dog good house-training techniques, you will also want to put him on a regular pattern of eating, usually three times a day at first. Occasionally, a pup will not seem too interested in eating. Besides finding out what he was eating when you acquired him, and offering him tidbits of chicken and beef from your fingers to whet his appetite, puppies like some company when they go to the food bowl. So if there is a litter-mate or a neighborhood puppy about the same age as yours who would like a dinner date, let them eat side by side a few times in the location you've chosen for daily feeding.
The idea is to make him comfortable and get him into a routine of regular eating, sleeping, elimination, and walking. Make sure that you don't do unpleasant things with your hands. Don't let your puppy start to chew or nibble on your fingers or hands. Even if the nibbling doesn't hurt now, it will hurt when he gets older and can lead to a bad habit that's difficult to break. Very soon, you'll be getting to know your new pet very well.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Using Caution When Dealing With Fighting Problems
What is in the dog's mind when it attacks every dog it meets or just has one enemy around the corner? Most of it is show of strength, very often a cowardly show of strength aimed at other people's toy dogs who can't answer a bully back. Face that same bully with a big dog likely to answer back and it will disappear into the distance, for the dog knows who will be boss even in its own race, and if it senses superiority of physique or brain, it will automatically be subservient.
That is why young dogs lie on their backs, all four feet in the air, when they meet an older or stronger dog; they know who is boss and are showing the other dog so by exposing the tummy to an enemy. That is why dog owners should know that this trick is not a nice one really and should be checked at an early age, for it is purely one of a weak animal giving in to one stronger in mind and usually an enemy at that.
Few owners would like to think their dogs look upon them as enemies, but that is the case. When a dog no longer looks upon you as a potential enemy it stops this lying on its back as protection, although many dogs in later life do it because their owners have scratched their chests, which they like, and they hope for it again. But primarily it belongs to the defense mechanism of the dog tribe. The mind of a dog that fights always has at the back of it the wish to be the boss of the tribe, and he fights other male dogs who are sexually mature to make sure there is no risk of his being questioned as "lord of all he surveys." Muzzle that dog and let him loose with the dog he has previously fought and nine times out of ten he will realize he is at a disadvantage and show no signs of aggression.
That is why dogs with fighting problems should be muzzled and then freed with trained dogs or non-fighters. They then learn to enjoy themselves in a community and the wish to fight goes away. Often, having muzzled, introduced and trained them for a short time together, formerly bad fighters are lying side by side without muzzles after a few minutes.
Your own personality needs to be strong to deal with fighters, because fighters are usually adult dogs. Few puppies fight, few females fight; therefore your mind must be stronger than that of the potential fighter so that you are the boss, not either of the dogs. If the dog is sex-mad you can do nothing but neuter it. Muzzling is only a stopgap, not a cure. Owners who won't have their fighting dogs neutered should always have them muzzled in public places.
That is why young dogs lie on their backs, all four feet in the air, when they meet an older or stronger dog; they know who is boss and are showing the other dog so by exposing the tummy to an enemy. That is why dog owners should know that this trick is not a nice one really and should be checked at an early age, for it is purely one of a weak animal giving in to one stronger in mind and usually an enemy at that.
Few owners would like to think their dogs look upon them as enemies, but that is the case. When a dog no longer looks upon you as a potential enemy it stops this lying on its back as protection, although many dogs in later life do it because their owners have scratched their chests, which they like, and they hope for it again. But primarily it belongs to the defense mechanism of the dog tribe. The mind of a dog that fights always has at the back of it the wish to be the boss of the tribe, and he fights other male dogs who are sexually mature to make sure there is no risk of his being questioned as "lord of all he surveys." Muzzle that dog and let him loose with the dog he has previously fought and nine times out of ten he will realize he is at a disadvantage and show no signs of aggression.
That is why dogs with fighting problems should be muzzled and then freed with trained dogs or non-fighters. They then learn to enjoy themselves in a community and the wish to fight goes away. Often, having muzzled, introduced and trained them for a short time together, formerly bad fighters are lying side by side without muzzles after a few minutes.
Your own personality needs to be strong to deal with fighters, because fighters are usually adult dogs. Few puppies fight, few females fight; therefore your mind must be stronger than that of the potential fighter so that you are the boss, not either of the dogs. If the dog is sex-mad you can do nothing but neuter it. Muzzling is only a stopgap, not a cure. Owners who won't have their fighting dogs neutered should always have them muzzled in public places.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
The Most Intelligent Poodle
The Poodle is commonly acknowledged to be the most wisely intelligent of all members of the canine race. There is a general belief that he is a fop, whose time is largely occupied in personal embellishment, and that he requires a great deal of individual attention in the matter of his toilet. It may be true that to keep him in exhibition order and perfect cleanliness his owner has need to devote more consideration to him than is necessary in the case of many breeds; but in other respects he gives very little trouble, and all who are attached to him are consistent in their opinion that there is no dog so intensely interesting and responsive as a companion. His qualities of mind and his acute powers of reasoning are indeed so great that there is something almost human in his attractiveness and his devotion. His aptitude in learning is never denied, and many are the stories told of his marvellous talent and versatility.
Not merely as a showman's dog has he distinguished himself. He is something more than a mountebank of the booths, trained to walk the tight rope and stand on his head. He is an adept at performing tricks, but it is his alertness of brain that places him apart from other animals.
The profuse and long coat of this dog has the peculiarity that if not kept constantly brushed out it twists up into little cords which increase in length as the new hair grows and clings about it. The unshed old hair and the new growth entwined together thus become distinct rope-like cords. Eventually, if these cords are not cut short, or accidentally torn off, they drag along the ground, and so prevent the poor animal from moving with any degree of comfort or freedom.
Corded Poodles are very showy, and from the remarkable appearance of the coat, attract a great deal of public attention when exhibited at shows; but they have lost popularity among most fanciers, and have become few in number owing to the obvious fact that it is impossible to make pets of them or keep them in the house. The reason of this is that the coat must, from time to time, be oiled in order to keep the cords supple and prevent them from snapping, and, of course, as their coats cannot be brushed, the only way of keeping the dog clean is to wash him, which with a corded Poodle is a lengthy and laborious process. Further, the coat takes hours to dry, and unless the newly washed dog be kept in a warm room he is very liable to catch cold. The result is, that the coats of corded Poodles are almost invariably dirty, and somewhat smelly.
Poodle's General appearance
---------------------------
Head: Long, straight, and fine, the skull not broad, with a slight peak at the back.
Muzzle: Long (but not snipy) and strong not full in cheek; teeth white, strong, and level; gums black, lips black and not showing lippiness.
Eyes: Almond shaped, very dark, full of fire and intelligence.
Nose: Black and sharp.
Ears: The leather long and wide, low set on, hanging close to the face.
Neck: Well proportioned and strong, to admit of the head being carried high and with dignity.
Feet: Rather small, and of good shape, the toes well arched, pads thick and hard.
Legs: Fore-legs set straight from shoulder, with plenty of bone and muscle.
Hind-legs: Very muscular and well bent, with the hocks well let down.
Tail: Set on rather high, well carried, never curled or carried over back.
Coat: Very profuse, and of good hard texture; if corded, hanging in tight, even cords; if non-corded, very thick and strong, of even length, the curls close and thick, without knots or cords.
Not merely as a showman's dog has he distinguished himself. He is something more than a mountebank of the booths, trained to walk the tight rope and stand on his head. He is an adept at performing tricks, but it is his alertness of brain that places him apart from other animals.
The profuse and long coat of this dog has the peculiarity that if not kept constantly brushed out it twists up into little cords which increase in length as the new hair grows and clings about it. The unshed old hair and the new growth entwined together thus become distinct rope-like cords. Eventually, if these cords are not cut short, or accidentally torn off, they drag along the ground, and so prevent the poor animal from moving with any degree of comfort or freedom.
Corded Poodles are very showy, and from the remarkable appearance of the coat, attract a great deal of public attention when exhibited at shows; but they have lost popularity among most fanciers, and have become few in number owing to the obvious fact that it is impossible to make pets of them or keep them in the house. The reason of this is that the coat must, from time to time, be oiled in order to keep the cords supple and prevent them from snapping, and, of course, as their coats cannot be brushed, the only way of keeping the dog clean is to wash him, which with a corded Poodle is a lengthy and laborious process. Further, the coat takes hours to dry, and unless the newly washed dog be kept in a warm room he is very liable to catch cold. The result is, that the coats of corded Poodles are almost invariably dirty, and somewhat smelly.
Poodle's General appearance
---------------------------
Head: Long, straight, and fine, the skull not broad, with a slight peak at the back.
Muzzle: Long (but not snipy) and strong not full in cheek; teeth white, strong, and level; gums black, lips black and not showing lippiness.
Eyes: Almond shaped, very dark, full of fire and intelligence.
Nose: Black and sharp.
Ears: The leather long and wide, low set on, hanging close to the face.
Neck: Well proportioned and strong, to admit of the head being carried high and with dignity.
Feet: Rather small, and of good shape, the toes well arched, pads thick and hard.
Legs: Fore-legs set straight from shoulder, with plenty of bone and muscle.
Hind-legs: Very muscular and well bent, with the hocks well let down.
Tail: Set on rather high, well carried, never curled or carried over back.
Coat: Very profuse, and of good hard texture; if corded, hanging in tight, even cords; if non-corded, very thick and strong, of even length, the curls close and thick, without knots or cords.
A General History of Dogs
There is no incongruity in the idea that in the very earliest period of man's habitation of this world he made a friend and companion of some sort of aboriginal representative of our modern dog, and that in return for its aid in protecting him from wilder animals, and in guarding his sheep and goats, he gave it a share of his food, a corner in his dwelling, and grew to trust it and care for it. Probably the animal was originally little else than an unusually gentle jackal, or an ailing wolf driven by its companions from the wild marauding pack to seek shelter in alien surroundings. One can well conceive the possibility of the partnership beginning in the circumstance of some helpless whelps being brought home by the early hunters to be tended and reared by the women and children. Dogs introduced into the home as playthings for the children would grow to regard themselves, and be regarded, as members of the family
In nearly all parts of the world traces of an indigenous dog family are found, the only exceptions being the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the eastern islands of the Malayan Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian Islands, where there is no sign that any dog, wolf, or fox has existed as a true aboriginal animal. In the ancient Oriental lands, and generally among the early Mongolians, the dog remained savage and neglected for centuries, prowling in packs, gaunt and wolf-like, as it prowls today through the streets and under the walls of every Eastern city. No attempt was made to allure it into human companionship or to improve it into docility. It is not until we come to examine the records of the higher civilisations of Assyria and Egypt that we discover any distinct varieties of canine form.
The dog was not greatly appreciated in Palestine, and in both the Old and New Testaments it is commonly spoken of with scorn and contempt as an "unclean beast." Even the familiar reference to the Sheepdog in the Book of Job "But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock" is not without a suggestion of contempt, and it is significant that the only biblical allusion to the dog as a recognised companion of man occurs in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16), "So they went forth both, and the young man's dog with them."
The great multitude of different breeds of the dog and the vast differences in their size, points, and general appearance are facts which make it difficult to believe that they could have had a common ancestry. One thinks of the difference between the Mastiff and the Japanese Spaniel, the Deerhound and the fashionable Pomeranian, the St. Bernard and the Miniature Black and Tan Terrier, and is perplexed in contemplating the possibility of their having descended from a common progenitor. Yet the disparity is no greater than that between the Shire horse and the Shetland pony, the Shorthorn and the Kerry cattle, or the Patagonian and the Pygmy; and all dog breeders know how easy it is to produce a variety in type and size by studied selection.
In order properly to understand this question it is necessary first to consider the identity of structure in the wolf and the dog. This identity of structure may best be studied in a comparison of the osseous system, or skeletons, of the two animals, which so closely resemble each other that their transposition would not easily be detected.
The spine of the dog consists of seven vertebrae in the neck, thirteen in the back, seven in the loins, three sacral vertebrae, and twenty to twenty-two in the tail. In both the dog and the wolf there are thirteen pairs of ribs, nine true and four false. Each has forty-two teeth. They both have five front and four hind toes, while outwardly the common wolf has so much the appearance of a large, bare-boned dog, that a popular description of the one would serve for the other.
Nor are their habits different. The wolf's natural voice is a loud howl, but when confined with dogs he will learn to bark. Although he is carnivorous, he will also eat vegetables, and when sickly he will nibble grass. In the chase, a pack of wolves will divide into parties, one following the trail of the quarry, the other endeavouring to intercept its retreat, exercising a considerable amount of strategy, a trait which is exhibited by many of our sporting dogs and terriers when hunting in teams.
A further important point of resemblance between the Canis lupus and the Canis familiaris lies in the fact that the period of gestation in both species is sixty-three days. There are from three to nine cubs in a wolf's litter, and these are blind for twenty-one days. They are suckled for two months, but at the end of that time they are able to eat half-digested flesh disgorged for them by their dam or even their sire.
The native dogs of all regions approximate closely in size, coloration, form, and habit to the native wolf of those regions. Of this most important circumstance there are far too many instances to allow of its being looked upon as a mere coincidence. Sir John Richardson, writing in 1829, observed that "the resemblance between the North American wolves and the domestic dog of the Indians is so great that the size and strength of the wolf seems to be the only difference.
It has been suggested that the one incontrovertible argument against the lupine relationship of the dog is the fact that all domestic dogs bark, while all wild Canidae express their feelings only by howls. But the difficulty here is not so great as it seems, since we know that jackals, wild dogs, and wolf pups reared by bitches readily acquire the habit. On the other hand, domestic dogs allowed to run wild forget how to bark, while there are some which have not yet learned so to express themselves.
The presence or absence of the habit of barking cannot, then, be regarded as an argument in deciding the question concerning the origin of the dog. This stumbling block consequently disappears, leaving us in the position of agreeing with Darwin, whose final hypothesis was that "it is highly probable that the domestic dogs of the world have descended from two good species of wolf (C. lupus and C. latrans), and from two or three other doubtful species of wolves namely, the European, Indian, and North African forms; from at least one or two South American canine species; from several races or species of jackal; and perhaps from one or more extinct species"; and that the blood of these, in some cases mingled together, flows in the veins of our domestic breeds.
In nearly all parts of the world traces of an indigenous dog family are found, the only exceptions being the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the eastern islands of the Malayan Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian Islands, where there is no sign that any dog, wolf, or fox has existed as a true aboriginal animal. In the ancient Oriental lands, and generally among the early Mongolians, the dog remained savage and neglected for centuries, prowling in packs, gaunt and wolf-like, as it prowls today through the streets and under the walls of every Eastern city. No attempt was made to allure it into human companionship or to improve it into docility. It is not until we come to examine the records of the higher civilisations of Assyria and Egypt that we discover any distinct varieties of canine form.
The dog was not greatly appreciated in Palestine, and in both the Old and New Testaments it is commonly spoken of with scorn and contempt as an "unclean beast." Even the familiar reference to the Sheepdog in the Book of Job "But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock" is not without a suggestion of contempt, and it is significant that the only biblical allusion to the dog as a recognised companion of man occurs in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16), "So they went forth both, and the young man's dog with them."
The great multitude of different breeds of the dog and the vast differences in their size, points, and general appearance are facts which make it difficult to believe that they could have had a common ancestry. One thinks of the difference between the Mastiff and the Japanese Spaniel, the Deerhound and the fashionable Pomeranian, the St. Bernard and the Miniature Black and Tan Terrier, and is perplexed in contemplating the possibility of their having descended from a common progenitor. Yet the disparity is no greater than that between the Shire horse and the Shetland pony, the Shorthorn and the Kerry cattle, or the Patagonian and the Pygmy; and all dog breeders know how easy it is to produce a variety in type and size by studied selection.
In order properly to understand this question it is necessary first to consider the identity of structure in the wolf and the dog. This identity of structure may best be studied in a comparison of the osseous system, or skeletons, of the two animals, which so closely resemble each other that their transposition would not easily be detected.
The spine of the dog consists of seven vertebrae in the neck, thirteen in the back, seven in the loins, three sacral vertebrae, and twenty to twenty-two in the tail. In both the dog and the wolf there are thirteen pairs of ribs, nine true and four false. Each has forty-two teeth. They both have five front and four hind toes, while outwardly the common wolf has so much the appearance of a large, bare-boned dog, that a popular description of the one would serve for the other.
Nor are their habits different. The wolf's natural voice is a loud howl, but when confined with dogs he will learn to bark. Although he is carnivorous, he will also eat vegetables, and when sickly he will nibble grass. In the chase, a pack of wolves will divide into parties, one following the trail of the quarry, the other endeavouring to intercept its retreat, exercising a considerable amount of strategy, a trait which is exhibited by many of our sporting dogs and terriers when hunting in teams.
A further important point of resemblance between the Canis lupus and the Canis familiaris lies in the fact that the period of gestation in both species is sixty-three days. There are from three to nine cubs in a wolf's litter, and these are blind for twenty-one days. They are suckled for two months, but at the end of that time they are able to eat half-digested flesh disgorged for them by their dam or even their sire.
The native dogs of all regions approximate closely in size, coloration, form, and habit to the native wolf of those regions. Of this most important circumstance there are far too many instances to allow of its being looked upon as a mere coincidence. Sir John Richardson, writing in 1829, observed that "the resemblance between the North American wolves and the domestic dog of the Indians is so great that the size and strength of the wolf seems to be the only difference.
It has been suggested that the one incontrovertible argument against the lupine relationship of the dog is the fact that all domestic dogs bark, while all wild Canidae express their feelings only by howls. But the difficulty here is not so great as it seems, since we know that jackals, wild dogs, and wolf pups reared by bitches readily acquire the habit. On the other hand, domestic dogs allowed to run wild forget how to bark, while there are some which have not yet learned so to express themselves.
The presence or absence of the habit of barking cannot, then, be regarded as an argument in deciding the question concerning the origin of the dog. This stumbling block consequently disappears, leaving us in the position of agreeing with Darwin, whose final hypothesis was that "it is highly probable that the domestic dogs of the world have descended from two good species of wolf (C. lupus and C. latrans), and from two or three other doubtful species of wolves namely, the European, Indian, and North African forms; from at least one or two South American canine species; from several races or species of jackal; and perhaps from one or more extinct species"; and that the blood of these, in some cases mingled together, flows in the veins of our domestic breeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)