Bitter Apple Spray on Hands to Slow Biting?

[xracer4844]

What harm was done?? He is a normal, well-behaved dog. He doesn't shy away from anyone that touches his face. He doesn't cower from me when I give him a command. He doesn't run in the opposite direction when I enter a room. He doesn't act out in an aggressive manner or any manner for that fact. To say you do something "as a trainer" but judge someone else for doing the same thing is judgmental and wrong. Btw, I never said I grabbed his scruff or have grabbed him forcefully.

I find it so crazy that some people that are just dog owners have such opinions and think they are right no matter what and refuse to accept other ways of thinking or doing things. This board is so full of judgmental, rigid people that it is sad. You should be able to express your opinion without being criticized or insulted just because you don't agree with it.

I know MY dog. I can do what I want to MY dog. I do what works for me and MY dog. You don't know my dog, you have never met my dog or me. You cannot tell me that I have physically hurt my dog or that we have a "weakened" relationship because I closed his mouth shut and told him not to bite when he was 9 or 10 weeks old. To say things that is just ignorant.

This does not even warrant a reply.

[beth101509]

This does not even warrant a reply.

Good. Solves that problem. Thanks!

[Labradorks]

What harm was done?? He is a normal, well-behaved dog. He doesn't shy away from anyone that touches his face. He doesn't cower from me when I give him a command. He doesn't run in the opposite direction when I enter a room. He doesn't act out in an aggressive manner or any manner for that fact. To say you do something "as a trainer" but judge someone else for doing the same thing is judgmental and wrong. Btw, I never said I grabbed his scruff or have grabbed him forcefully.

I find it so crazy that some people that are just dog owners have such opinions and think they are right no matter what and refuse to accept other ways of thinking or doing things. This board is so full of judgmental, rigid people that it is sad. You should be able to express your opinion without being criticized or insulted just because you don't agree with it.

I know MY dog. I can do what I want to MY dog. I do what works for me and MY dog. You don't know my dog, you have never met my dog or me. You cannot tell me that I have physically hurt my dog or that we have a "weakened" relationship because I closed his mouth shut and told him not to bite when he was 9 or 10 weeks old. To say things that is just ignorant.

From what I read, he just told you what man-handling is versus what you did by pinching your dog's nose and he said specifically that you didn't man-handle your dog. He also said that he has used those methods in the past, and does not do so any longer, not that he should because he is a trainer. Those of us who have been in dogs for a long time have seen and possibly even practiced the man-handling methods. He is not being hypocritical -- it is the way things used to be done. Much like kids used to sit in the back of trucks while our parents were cruising down the freeway. Times have changed! I'm not sure there is anyone here over the age of 40(?) who didn't do a Monks of New Skeet alpha-roll, scruff shake, sticking our dog's nose in their excrement when they pottied on the rug, spanking with a rolled up newspaper, or Barbara Woodhouse choke chain methods (she was probably the original Cesar Milan). The reason those methods are no longer used is because better, kinder methods have been discovered, many of which work better. No one is being rigid or judgmental, especially those of us who lived these methods and saw how they could go awry and seriously, who feels good about doing these things, even if it does work? Why wouldn't you want to train a dog to sit with a cookie verses jerking a choke-chain straight up in the air? So, "the other ways of doing things" that I think you are referring to, and I could be wrong, is actually the way things have been done in the past, and have been proven by professional trainers and behaviorists to be ineffective, harmful, or simply unnecessary when there are better methods.

[beth101509]

From what I read, he just told you what man-handling is versus what you did by pinching your dog's nose and he said specifically that you didn't man-handle your dog. He also said that he has used those methods in the past, and does not do so any longer, not that he should because he is a trainer. Those of us who have been in dogs for a long time have seen and possibly even practiced the man-handling methods. He is not being hypocritical -- it is the way things used to be done. Much like kids used to sit in the back of trucks while our parents were cruising down the freeway. Times have changed! I'm not sure there is anyone here over the age of 40(?) who didn't do a Monks of New Skeet alpha-roll, scruff shake, sticking our dog's nose in their excrement when they pottied on the rug, spanking with a rolled up newspaper, or Barbara Woodhouse choke chain methods (she was probably the original Cesar Milan). The reason those methods are no longer used is because better, kinder methods have been discovered, many of which work better. No one is being rigid or judgmental, especially those of us who lived these methods and saw how they could go awry and seriously, who feels good about doing these things, even if it does work? Why wouldn't you want to train a dog to sit with a cookie verses jerking a choke-chain straight up in the air? So, "the other ways of doing things" that I think you are referring to, and I could be wrong, is actually the way things have been done in the past, and have been proven by professional trainers and behaviorists to be ineffective, harmful, or simply unnecessary when there are better methods.

Actually I wasn't specifically thinking of anything when I mentioned "other things" I was just generalizing. Besides, I read you don't yank a chain or any leash straight up as it just creates pulling issues, you are supposed to yank it to the side to get the dog off balance and it is much easier to maneuver them.

BUT if I decide I want to try a choke chain (which I did and had no issue with besides it turned my dog's fur gray so that went back), or if I hold his mouth shut a couple of times to prevent biting, or whatever else (I can't think of any other horrible acts I have made towards my dog that you ((generalization you)) would find offensive) then it is my right to learn through trial and error. That is the only way I know what does and does not work for me or my dog. I understand that in the past this and that was done but now it isn't. It's just like eggs and butter -- are they good or bad for you this year? It's just some person's opinion.

So, having said that, I am going to remove myself from this particular thread as I honestly can't handle conversations that are closed minded and judgmental. Also, I feel this has gone WAY off topic from what the OP was looking for and that is not fair to them.

I think if a person chooses to use a product such as Bitter Spray to try and ward off unwanted biting, I say "go for it...see if it works for you, if it does, than awesome, if it doesn't, try something else until you get the desired effect you are going for". This goes for any type of training method. Trial and error, trial and error. I see no problem with that.

Oh, just so you know, I do use positive reinforcement. I also use corrections when needed. It works for me and it works for my dog.

[AlexS]

Recently I attended a HT in Medford where tick infestation is of epic proportions. I used plenty of DEET on myself, and on my clothes. I did not expose myself or my dog to anything unsafe. Used appropriately DEET is not an insecticide as defined by the FDA/EPA. Thus it can be safely used on adults and even small children.

On the other hand, cases of DEET toxicity have occurred when the chemical has been applied directly to the dog. Because dogs and cats lick their fur (after all... that's what dogs and cats do) Frontline or similar agents are the preferred method for repelling insects from pets. So, do not apply DEET to your dog!

I found out years ago that an application (singular, one application) of DEET to my upholstered antiques prevented any and all chewing on those expensive, indeed, irreplaceable pieces of furniture. (Whereas Bitter Apple did not.) Furthermore, that singular application of DEET has had an inhibitory effect for that dog's entire life, and is still effective years later when the next puppy has come into the household. (That is to say, the only reapplication needed has been when the furniture was reupholstered or refinished.)

So... when used on myself, there has been a LOT of DEET in my dog's environment. When used on furnishings, there has been a scant amount in the dog's environment.

Can dogs become toxic on DEET? Yes. When it's used on the dog. Take home message... don't spray it on your dog.

Just because your dog does not lick it or ingest it does mean that all dogs will not. Some dogs hate bitter apple spray and it works, some dogs it doesnt. To me it is not worth spraying toxic chemicals on something and risking my dog ingesting it.

[TuMicks]

DEET is not effective against ticks. You need something with permethrin in it. Just saying, since you obviously haven't read about tick repellents.



I think you just proved my point. Because dogs and cats lick their fur, and other things, DO NOT use DEET as a chewing deterrent. You were damn lucky if your dog(s) didn't touch the stuff. I would not trust any dog to leave it alone. Especially not a Lab. Look, if they can love things like pickle juice, DEET, which has scent added to it, may not repel a dog.



As I said, you were lucky. Who is to say another dog won't do it. I for one, will say, once again, DO NOT use DEET (or any other insecticide) as a chewing deterrent. And if it's stayed around through several dogs, then that is all the more reason to NOT use it. I do NOT want my dogs exposed to anything that can be harmful, when it's so much easier to deal with the problem with something safe. I had one chewer, and you know what worked? Tabasco sauce. Not toxic by any means, but one taste of that, and he would leave stuff alone if it was applied. In fact, just the act of taking the bottle out of the refrigerator made him run for the hills.



Don't spray it on the dog, and don't spray it around the dog where he/she might lick it off. Period. End of discussion.

Ok. Please, don't use DEET if you are not comfortable with it in your dog's environment. According to Oregon State University and the US Environmental Protection Agency,

• Reports of DEET toxicosis in animals are rare. Clinical signs in dogs and cats may include vomiting, tremors, excitation, ataxia, and seizures

Also:
Researchers administered DEET in the form of gel capsules to dogs at doses of 0, 30, 100, and 400 mg/kg/day for one year. At the highest dose tested, investigators noted decreased body weight, and increased incidence of drooling/salivation, and decreased cholesterol levels.

So, Sue, yes... a data driven analysis of the available research from credible sources suggests that a light spray of DEET on my antiques every year or two for the purposes of inhibiting canine chewing is not an unwise or unwarranted use of the agent. It validates my observation over the course of 35 years and 5 generations of labrador retrievers that it has (A) preserved my antiques and (B) produced absolutely no harm to any animal, including my grandchildren (not that they chew upholstery as a rule, but... they are inhabitants of my DEET containing home.)

Vis. Ticks: Yes, I used DEET on my skin while in richly tick infested Medford. I used it because it's the only agent I could safely use on my skin. But it was not the only agent recommended by the locals. Indeed the product most enthusiastically recommended was Centaur Insect Repellent for Horse and Rider whose active ingredient is Picardin (https://www.sawyer.com/MSDS/SP541_MSDS.pdf) which is not recommended for ingestion (much like DEET). But this agent was applied to the outside of my boots and clothing, rather than directly to my skin.

The point is that reasonable people can evaluate the available information for themselves and make good decisions for their dogs. As both a dog lover and a doctorally prepared pharmacologist and neuroscientist for 15 years (I published papers in the area of calcium transients in dorsal root ganglion neurons) I can only share my somewhat extensive experience (and multiple strong opinions!!!)

I prefer to avoid alarmism. My point to the OP was to suggest that biting is not a desirable behavior in puppies and young dogs, and that any behavior which is allowed to persist tends to become more habitual. Others here have made valid points in contradistinction to mine and I defer to their experience.

[Sue]

• Reports of DEET toxicosis in animals are rare. Clinical signs in dogs and cats may include vomiting, tremors, excitation, ataxia, and seizures

Also:
Researchers administered DEET in the form of gel capsules to dogs at doses of 0, 30, 100, and 400 mg/kg/day for one year. At the highest dose tested, investigators noted decreased body weight, and increased incidence of drooling/salivation, and decreased cholesterol levels.

Deet

If, after reading this, anyone applies DEET on or around their dogs, I would say you are risking their health. Oh, and kids, too. This was produced by a consortium of scientists from Cornell, Michigan State, Oregon State and Univ. of Calif. Davis. Reputable bunch, I would say.

ACUTE TOXICITY


Different preparations of Deet with different proportions of the misomer produced oral LD50 (the amount of a chemical that is lethal to one-half (50%) of experimental animals fed the material is referred to as its acute oral lethal dose fifty, or LD50) values varying from 1,800 to 2,700 mg/kg in male rats and from 1,750 to 1,800 mg/kg in females. Rats killed by dosages in the LD50 range showed lacrimation, chromodacryorrhea, depression, prostration, tremors, and asphyxial convulsions. Respiratory failure usually preceded cardiac failure (1, 9).
In rabbits, an intravenous dosage of 75 mg/kg was rapidly fatal, but 50 mg/kg was not. Five doses at the rate of 25 mg/kg/day produced no cumulative effect, except for injury of the intima of some veins used for injection. Single dermal applications to rabbits at rates of 2 or 4 ml/kg produced no systemic effect, but did produce mild to moderate erythema. Repeated dermal application of 50% solutions for 13 weeks at the rate of 2 ml/kg/day produced no evidence of systemic toxicity but did produce desquamation, coriaceousness, dryness, and fissuring in the same species. Except for some scarring, these lesions cleared within 3 weeks. Instillation of Deet into the eyes of rabbits produced mild to moderate edema of the nictitating membrane, lacrimation, conjunctivitis, and some corneal injury, as revealed by fluorescein staining. After 5 days, all eyes appeared normal. No sensitization was seen in guinea pigs (1, 9).


Animals topically exposed to Deet have developed dermal and ocular reactions. Dermal effects including erythema, desquamation and scarring in rabbits (9) and profuse sweating, irritation and exfoliation in horses (Blume et al, 1971) (10) have been reported following repeated applications of Deet at concentrations of 50 percent or greater. Direct ocular application of either diluted (30 or 40 percent Deet) or undiluted Deet in rabbits has produced edema, tearing, conjunctivitis, pus and clouding in the eyes (3, 9).


Repeated dermal application to horses produced hypersteatosis, an overactivity of the selacious glands, when the solution of Deet was 15% or higher (10).


Dermal application in humans of insect repellents containing Deet can produce a variety of skin reactions in humans. Cases of localized skin irritation, large painful blisters and permanent scarring of skin at the crease of the elbow have been reported in soldiers who applied solutions of 50 or 75 percent Deet (11) (Reuveni and Yagupsky, 1982). Results from questionnaire surveys conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) among Everglades National Park Employees indicated a variety of dermal reactions including rashes, irritation of skin and mucous membranes, and numb or burning sensations of the lips among park workers who were highly exposed to Deet-containing repellents (McConnell et al., 1986). Urticaria or dermatitis, resulting from topical Deet exposure has been noted in both children and adults (Maibach and Johnson, 1975; Mayenburg and Rakoski, 1983; Miller, 1982; Oransky et al., 1989; Roland et al., 1985). In one instance involving only limited Deet exposure, the urticaria was accompanied by an anaphylactic reaction (Miller, 1982) (3).


Controlled human exposure studies using 50 or 75 percent Deet have reproduced many of the dermal effects noted in field studies (9, 11). The U.S. Army conducted an investigation in volunteers using 75 percent Deet applied to the upper arm and elbow's crease. Of the 77 volunteers, 37 (48%) had severe dermal reactions at the crease of the elbow. No dermal reactions were observed on the upper arm or in the control group of men tested with ethanol solvent alone (3, 11).


Several cases of toxic encephalopathy associated with the use of Deet in children have been reported in the medical literature. The first reported case involved a 3.5 year old girl whose body, bedclothes and bedding were sprayed each night for two weeks with an insect repellent containing 15 percent Deet (12). Since then, five additional cases of toxic encephalopathy have been temporally associated with the use of Deet products in children, all of whom were females (Edwards and Johnson, 1987; de Garbino et al., 1983; Heick et al., 1980; Roland et al., 1985; Zadikoff, 1979). The toxic encephalopathy was characterized by agitation, weakness, disorientation, ataxia, seizures, coma and in three cases resulted in death. Autopsies conducted on two fatalities (Heick et al., 1980; Zadikoff, 1979) indicated edema of the brain, with one case presenting necrotic lesions in the cerebellum and spinal cord and an enlarged liver accompanied by microscopic changes (Heick et al., 1980). One child was reported to be heterozygous for ornithine carbamoyl transferase deficiency (a sex linked enzyme deficiency which may produce effects similar to those reported above) and it has been hypothesized that children with this enzyme disorder may be at greater risk of adverse reactions to Deet (Heick et al., 1980). This enzyme deficiency which usually causes infant death in males is of variable severity in females (Stanbury et al., 1983). Accidental and deliberate ingestion of Deet-containing products has produced neurotoxic effects similar to those described following dermal exposure (Tenenbein 1987, Zadikoff, 1979) (3).


Generalized seizures have also been temporally associated with the use of Deet-containing insect repellent on skin (Oransky et al 1989). These cases differ from those described above in that they involved males (four boys aged 3-7 years and one 29-year-old adult), had few associated neurotoxic effects and resolved rapidly. Lower exposure to Deet in these males (four of five males had either one or two dermal applications) may have accounted for the effects being less severe than in females. That the majority of identified neurotoxic cases involved children raises concerns that this subpopulation is at greater risk of adverse reaction following exposure to Deet than are adults (3).


Signs and symptoms of more subtle neurotoxicity have also been associated with extensive dermal application of Deet in adults. Questionnaire results indicate that Everglades National Park employees having extensive Deet exposure were more likely to have insomnia, mood disturbances and impaired cognitive function than were lesser exposed co-workers (McConnell et al., 1986). A young male who repeatedly applied Deet to his skin prior to spending prolonged periods in a sauna was reported to develop acute manic psychosis characterized by aggressive behavior, delusions and hyperactivity (Snyder et al., 1986) (3).


Either o-DET or p-DET, or both occur as impurities in commercial m-DET (Deet). A thorough study of the o-and p-isomers showed that the o-isomer is slightly more toxic than the others (oral LD50 1,210 mg/kg in rats). However, no alarming difference was found, and it was concluded that the presence of 5% of o-DET or p-DET as impurities in the insect repellent is not a serious health problem (1, 14).

Tumicks, you originally posted that the use of DEET was recommended to you by some old time dog trainer. Obviously, you didn't even look into the effects at this time.

As has been mentioned, there are far far better ways to prevent chewing and biting without the use of potentially toxic chemicals. I'm glad your antiques were so important to you that you'd risk the health of your dogs.

[TuMicks]

"1,800 to 2,700 mg/kg"

That's the LD50. So the average weight of a lab rat is about 200 grams. Doing the math that would be, for my 80 pound lab, I would need to feed her almost a pound of DEET and (the meaning of LD50 is) she would stand a 50/50 chance of dying.

Sue you are pretty much busted.

By comparison, you probably have onions and garlic somewhere in your house. These contain very dangerous oxidants for dogs. Their red blood cells (unlike ours) are catastrophically damaged by them and the release of hemoglobin and other complex proteins from the lysed RBC's causes tubular necrosis in their kidneys and often irreversible kidney failure. And unlike DEET... dogs love to eat stuff with onions and garlic in/on them. They will dig onions out of gardens and dine on them.

I'm just saying, if you want to be an alarmist, you're barking up the wrong tree.

And yes, I had been using DEET for a long time before I got my PhD in Pharmaclogy, Physiology and Cellular Molecular Biology. It's been in common usage in some hunting circles to keep dogs from cutting their adult teeth on the stocks of shotguns (among other things.)

Relax. Focus on what matters.

[Sue]

"1,800 to 2,700 mg/kg"

That's the LD50. So the average weight of a lab rat is about 200 grams. Doing the math that would be, for my 80 pound lab, I would need to feed her almost a pound of DEET and (the meaning of LD50 is) she would stand a 50/50 chance of dying.

Sue you are pretty much busted.

By comparison, you probably have onions and garlic somewhere in your house. These contain very dangerous oxidants for dogs. Their red blood cells (unlike ours) are catastrophically damaged by them and the release of hemoglobin and other complex proteins from the lysed RBC's causes tubular necrosis in their kidneys and often irreversible kidney failure. And unlike DEET... dogs love to eat stuff with onions and garlic in/on them. They will dig onions out of gardens and dine on them.

I'm just saying, if you want to be an alarmist, you're barking up the wrong tree.

And yes, I had been using DEET for a long time before I got my PhD in Pharmaclogy, Physiology and Cellular Molecular Biology. It's been in common usage in some hunting circles to keep dogs from cutting their adult teeth on the stocks of shotguns (among other things.)

Relax. Focus on what matters.

No I am not busted. The facts speak for themselves. DEET is NOT to be used to curb chewing. Period.

What matters is you keep on recommending some unproven and toxic chemical to deter biting and chewing.

And I'm damn curious how and why any hunter would allow his dog to "cut their adult teeth" on a gun stock. And sorry, those same old time hunters and trainers used to beat their dogs into submission to get them to retrieve. Not a glowing recommendation or reliable source.

Please stop recommending this.

And onions and garlic are not a fair comparison.One, I don't have any in my house, and two, the dogs don't get them. Three, garlic and onions in high dosages may be toxic, but not to the level of ingesting chemicals.

[Tanya]

but really - given ALL the options to train a dog to not bite, a puppy, how is using a toxic substance, even if it's not "that toxic and shouldn't kill the dog" even on the list. there are simply SO MANY other safe options with zero risk.

I've been tempted to flag this post to an admin - even if it's not "that toxic" recommending someone use a toxic substance for their dog to lick/bite to detour biting is dangerous.