Hi Everyone -

I have been studying Ed's DVDs and need some clarification. I am currently training my dog for PPD (going the PSA route at the moment). However, Ed teaching in his PPD video that one should teach the dog to perform leg bites first, being that it is easier to teach the dog to go high than it is to bite low. However, when pursuing a person, all his videos teach the dog to bite high (drive into the center of the upper back) to take the person to the ground. My trainer teaches to attack the legs (when in pursuit) to take the person down. I understand everyone has their own way of doing things, however, I am looking for additional input (experiences) on which method is preferred and why. I suspect the reason Ed teaches the dog to go high is that he can drive into the hit better - but I am not sure.

Thanks for your thoughts.

-Al

Everyone has their own personal opinion on where a dog should bite. It seems most say either the arms or the legs. My view on those two are:

If the dog goes for the guys leg that leaves him with two free arms and hands to stab, shoot, or what have you to the dog.

If the dog goes for the the arms there is a 50% chance the dog will get the arm that is holding the knife or gun. But also you can argue a higher chance of missing the target.

For me, bottom line. Your dog should be confident in biting any area of the subject as need be. Arms, legs, back, chest what ever is open to the dog. Of course you are going to want to have your primary target but you do not want your dog to not bite because he can not get to it, If he cant you want to be confident that he will go for what ever else is available. Ultimately, It is up to you as far as the legs or the arms that you want to train him on most.

At least that is my take.

I like to contradict Michal west

AN untrained man will have lots of trouble keeping his footing while a dog biting his leg his arms are further away from the animal and once biten he won't be able to run that fast. Whereas a dog biting the arm, presents his head, troath and chest in proximity of a potential weapon. Add to this that a human tends to defend himself with one arm (shield arm) and to strike with the other (sword arm)

And for training a dog to bite

It schould start on the arm. which gives the decoy more posibilities to guide the dog to a better bite.
As soon as a dog is confident in an armbite he should be transfered to the leg. If he is strong enough to stand the presure of a llegbite he may oontinue to bite there. If not he is transfered on the arm

Greetings

Johan

 Quote: Johan Engelen

I like to contradict Michal west

AN untrained man will have lots of trouble keeping his footing while a dog biting his leg his arms are further away from the animal and once biten he won't be able to run that fast.

Like I said, everyone has a different opinion That being said, no matter who gets bit and where they get bit (Not all but i would put money on most) are going to stop running regardless. The way I see it is dogs are (or at least in my own personal opinion should be) trained to bite and hold. So that pretty much eliminates the option of the subject getting up and running off. Now lets say worse case scenario that the subject beats your dog off of him/her (or kills) and then runs. Sure then a damaged leg would be better off then a damaged arm but that's what i would think be a small probability.

 Quote: Johan Engelen

Whereas a dog biting the arm, presents his head, troath and chest in proximity of a potential weapon. Add to this that a human tends to defend himself with one arm (shield arm) and to strike with the other (sword arm)

This is true and the simple fact each dog is different and each situation is different. My view on this is the simple fact the shock of the pain will more then likely make the subject drop what ever he has in his hands (that and the fact I wont be far behind) Also keep in mind when a subject is running away the dog sees that subjects, back, triceps (back of the arm), legs, back of the neck, feet, ect ect. This is not a person who is going to be feeding the dog a wrap and have the dog bite a forearm so the dog would be completely exposed. More then likely the dog is going to be on the back half of the subject where the dog is protected by the subjects own body and with any luck the dog will face plant the subject when he hits him .

(Keep in mind that I am talking about when a subject is running away. And there are extream amounts of different possibilities and variables that come into play. I have no doubt Johan can make a equal or stronger argument for legs over arms and we could argue the subject to we are both blue in the face )

 Quote: Johan Engelen

And for training a dog to bite

It schould start on the arm. which gives the decoy more posibilities to guide the dog to a better bite.
As soon as a dog is confident in an armbite he should be transfered to the leg. If he is strong enough to stand the presure of a llegbite he may oontinue to bite there. If not he is transfered on the arm

Greetings

Johan

Now the only thing i have to say about this is the first part I agree with. Start with the arms, then work on legs. But the only thing I say differently is train the dog to bite all areas, dont settle for him being good at legs and thats it, work on arms, legs, backs, armpits, ect ect.


Bottom Line. Situation dictates, dont be blinded by thinking your dog has to bite in one exact spot. This is not a sport.