in trouble

How do you talk to your dog when they are in trouble or displease you?

I just say my dogs (works for both of them) their name really low and slow in the tone showing I am disappointed. They both hang their heads low just like a child was if they were caught. Mind you my one is a puppy and the other a year old today so still kinda puppy.

I don't view it as the dog is in trouble or displeasing me. I view it as a training issue - the dog didn't understand, the dog wasn't ready for me to ask that of him. If it's a life event - for example if the dog gets into the garbage can, I shouldn't have left him alone with the garbage.

I don't want those kinds of responses from my dogs, therefore I find ways of training them better or managing them to avoid it. Same goes for my kid.

Depends what they are doing. If they are about to do something dangerous I might give a sharp eh-eh for attention/interruption but you mean if they are chewing on the couch or something? I don't think I'd be talking, I'd remove him, body block if he tried to go back and when he'd stop I'd happily redirect him to a chew toy. It's really situational for me, but i don't think I'd act angry or anything, It's my fault or simply an accident.

See the reason I am not sold on the clicker is because what would you do if you lost it? And always having to hold it. I like the voice better to get the attention and redirect. I also like it better with the voice because than other people in the house can instantly say and they listen rather than my daughter trying to use the clicker who might not have the hand strength yet... depends or my husband who loses everything. Plus for outings and guests that come over can say and they listen.

I think shaming a dog can be an effective form of correction. I don't put the trash can away- I train my dogs not to get into the trash. Likewise, I want to be able to leave my food on my desk for a second and come back with it untouched. I don't think that is unreasonable and scolding/shaming is very effective for that sort of thing. It doesn't take months and months of perfect supervision and training.

Most puppies learn the lesson in a very small number of reps if you start when they are young. We've bred the ones that respond to this kind of training for thousands of years, so it's no surprise that it works really well.

The important thing is that the training is fair. Meaning, you must catch and correct the puppy when they are starting the bad behavior. And, I wouldn't use their name if you scold them- you don't want them to associate their name with bad things.

With my cats, I use their name in a "you know better than that" voice. I've tried using other words because I didn't want them to get negative associations with their name . . . but then all three cats react! In any case, if I say their name in a happy voice they respond instantly, so I don't think it's done any harm. And I feel better about it than using a spray bottle. (Only tried that once . . . I felt so bad. And it wasn't even effective.)

What's funny is if you use the warning voice right BEFORE they're about to do something naughty (like jump on the window screen and hang on it) . . . They either look indignant and start grooming their shoulder or turn the action into something innocent, like, "Look, I was just going to PAT the screen. With no claws! I'm such a good kitty."

Ha Ha! :hail:

People have been training dogs for thousands of years without clickers. They are a useful tool, but I also would not want one to be the only form of communication I had with my dog. Dogs are incredibly in tune with our body language, facial expressions and voices. To not take advantage of that is strange to me.

The clicker is only used during training, once the dog learns the command/behavior the clicker is not used, simply the command word. You also have to remember while clickers have not been used for thousands of years, during those times people just saw a dog do something they did not like and hit/kick/yell at/leash pop etc. Training methods developed, and for a good reason, we can now train without using a lot of punishment. And you can use a word in place of a clicker, the clicker is just a unique noise that the dog does not regularly hear, so he never hears it without getting the reward and the tone never changes (if the dog learns that when he hears the click a reward does not always come he may stop seeing it as a reward marker) so if a word is chosen it should be a very rarely used word.

Just because you clicker train does not mean you cannot communicate with your dog using your face/body, you just use little punishment.

My problem with using a "naughty" voice is if they associate it with punishment, then each time you use the voice the dog is filled with fear (just like each time you click a clicker the dog is filled with joy). I guess some animals respond to the voice innately, i guess I wouldn't know since Phoebe is regularly hit at her house I don't use any "naughty" voice with her because I know what she must think is coming.

There seems to be a general assumption that until very recently dog training was all about punishment. If you search around to read about the history of dog training, it seems to go back just a couple of hundred years and then just stop. But dogs have been with us for many thousands of years and have been very useful as hunters, herders and guards.

Certainly much of the training information I read from the past 200 years is very compulsive. But that is all written since the time when dogs have been caged, chained and otherwise contained.

So, what was happening when dogs lived with us without physical restraints? I have no hard evidence, but my knowledge of dogs, humans and behavior lead me to believe people were not brutal with their dogs, as a general rule. Dogs trained with strongly forceful methods must be physically restrained with fences or leashes, otherwise they will escape the harsh training. Dogs used to hunt and herd cannot be easily trained using restraints as they must work far from the handler. Therefore, people probably used natural rewards (sharing the meat from the hunt, the pleasure of working together) and praise with a balance of threat, scolding and some punishment. Too much punishment and dogs would leave, making them completely useless. Moderate methods must have been the rule.

Likewise, dogs living without restraint were unlikely to be trained with purely positive methods. These also depend pretty heavily on restraint and containment. Which is why the purely positive trainers emphasis supervision and keeping the trash put away. Without crates, leashes and fences, clicker training is fairly useless, except as a way to train tricks. It will do nothing to stop dumpster diving, counter surfing and chicken killing.

My point? I think training suffered through an ugly period when people were experimenting with more precise training for competitions and war dogs. Now, there has been a swing in exactly the opposite direction as people are experimenting with more positive methods. But, I think it is unfair to say that dog training was always a brutal business. If we were really that terrible to our dogs, would they have chosen us as partners?

Like I said, phoebe gets hit regularly at her house but she is super excited when her owners walk in the door, she runs to greet them. She loves them. They feed her, sleep with her, play with her and walk her, they are her family, so I don't think she would leave them.
Supervision is key during training, but commands can be taught as can behaviors so that supervision is no longer needed. It's just easier to put the trash in a cabinet. These things can be taught with positive training. A dog can be taught that waiting earns him food but breaking the wait gets him blocked from the food and therefore does not work. Yes it's supervision but once the dog is taught it does not work he will stop. yes you could smack the dog, collar pop the dog or scream at the dog (although a great number of dogs will not care about your yelling when there is food) but there ARE positive ways of doing it, they may take longer but they last and you don't have to scare the dog. The dog learns for himself that he cannot get the food no matter how hard he tries so he chooses to stop. you can also teach a command incompatible with the behavior but those are usually for while you are in the room or are stepping out for a few moments.

I'm not saying I don't punish, I do. I use removal (of myself, attention, the dog, food, toys/games etc.) but that's pretty much it I think.

I'm not saying punishment will destroy your dog, though it may some, and I'm not telling you you are "doing it wrong" or to stop, I'm just saying there are other ways that work and for ME punishment is not the way to go because I don't have to and don't really want to.

I try to NEVER yell at or scold my dog. About once or twice a year I get purely mad at her and yell, but it's when I'm in a very bad mood and she's done something fairly bad. Can't even remember the last time it happened, but I'm not going to say it's never happened. When she does something bad, I generally make a noise to get her attention and then redirect her attention to a better behavior. It's certainly a much harder method of training, and I'm sure not everyone will be able to do it - not yell at their dogs. But for ME it makes sense, and I personally don't ever want to see my dog "hanging her head" or cowering away from me.

If I catch Meg doing or about to do something wrong, a very chipper "Um, excuse me?" will generally redirect her attention to me. She is a dog who can shut down very fast and very hard if she thinks anything is wrong, so using her name or any other word with a harsh tone is just going to lead to more issues with her.

I adore clicker training because of the incredible precision it gives me, whether I'm working with the horse or the dog. I trained my horse to stick his tongue out on command by simply capturing the behavior with the clicker exactly 6 times while he was licking something. After three clicks, he was clearly considering the behavior and offering the tongue out. After the next three, he clearly got the behavior and I put it on cue. I don't think any other training technique would have given such a quick response. Of course, he was very in tune to the clicker already.

My dog can and regularly does work for me with no clicker; actually, I'm not even sure where one is at the moment. I've been too busy lately to train anything new. But when I am ready to train a new behavior, I know that is the simplest way for me to get to what I want. I also know if I never found the clicker and continued to train, I'd get the behaviors I wanted anyway, as long as I can avoid scaring the bejeesus out of my dog.

Oh for craps sake when will people get it through their heads that when training with a clicker ................THAT THE CLICKER IS FADED, JUST AS THE REWARDS ARE.
Who in their right mind carries and uses a clicker for extended periods of time, hell once the dog is even half way trained in a behaviour I forget my clicker all the time, oh gezzz the dog still does the behaviour, go figure.
My husband and son have never used a clicker and yet lo and behold they can still get the dogs to do behaviours and I may add that neither of them works on ANY level at training the dogs.
It makes me laugh at the thought of the number of dogs at agility trials that have been started on certain behaviours with a clicker. And it makes me wonder if people actually entertain the idea that we are running courses clicking away!! By the way, nothing movtivating other a verbal can be used in any agility ring, not food, toys, tugs or clickers.
Why is it, that people think that a clicker has to be carried and/or used for years? Same with food rewards?
Don't people read and get educated before making such comments???? Well I guess thats it, they oblviously don't know or understand or they wouldn't.

Dana:
Why would you assume that when training with a clicker that we don't use other forms of communtication? Nothing could be further from the truth.
If anything, it heightens our awareness of a dogs body language and reponses, not to mention improving timing for all aspects of training. Clicker trainers are hardly stoic and silent, that never touch our dogs.............

Dana:

Quote:

Likewise, dogs living without restraint were unlikely to be trained with purely positive methods. These also depend pretty heavily on restraint and containment. Which is why the purely positive trainers emphasis supervision and keeping the trash put away. Without crates, leashes and fences, clicker training is fairly useless, except as a way to train tricks. It will do nothing to stop dumpster diving, counter surfing and chicken killing.
End Quote:

I beg to differ, my dogs don't get into the trash, they don't counter surf (yes they could, my one dog can clear a 6 ft fence when he chooses to, so a counter or table would be a piece of cake for him) and my neighbors have all kinds of free range birds that are always at my farm. My dogs LOVE to take chase of those birds and would kill them in a heart beat if not trained and they do have very high prey drives that have been encouraged by hunting them to live quarry as Jrts were meant to do. Luckily for me, I have solid 'off's' on the dogs..........all trained with positive methods.

A couple of years ago, my dogs were out in the backyard, next thing I know the rest of the dogs are barking like crazy and I go to check, my stud dog is missing.
My neighbors Guinea Hens had been outside of the yard again, chasing each other (breeding season for them and they chase each other, screaming etc). Drives my stud dog nuts and he can't contain himself, over that 6 ft fence he goes in hot pursuit.
By the time I go out to the front, he is on the tail of one of the birds, ready to take it down, he grabs it, just as I called 'Bobbi Off!", it goes down and he turns to me on a dead run, right up onto the veranda. Bloody feathers hanging out of his mouth!! I told him he was a star, went around to the back, removed the feathers and THEN went into the house and gave him a reward, a piece of cheese if I remember right.
Countless times that I have had to 'off' a dog from chasing something, all of them, except my pup but then she is still in training (somewhat).

Btw, have you read about how clicker training was developed by Bailey? It's very interesting, it had nothing to do with dog training, nor training tricks but with Goverment Funded Defense work. They need results and they needed them quickly, of course as technology progressed they didn't need it anymore.

My point isn't that purely positive methods won't work over time to redirect a dog's basic impulses or prevent them from developing. My point was that those basic impulses will develop if a dog is allowed to run free without supervision.

If you are going to raise a dog without containing him, like people did for millenia, your best bet is to inhibit him when he is young. Teach him that he is not allowed to mess with livestock, people food, etc when he is young and impressionable. If you don't, he will probably start killing chickens or stealing from the kitchen while you are out farming or hunting or fetching water. Then, since you are poor and hungry, you will probably end up killing the dog instead of letting your children starve. Again, this is speculation. But it seems realistic to me.

And, honestly adojrts, your story about the guinea hen only shows me what I am talking about- without constant confinement and supervision, your dog is still likely to kill the chickens. What you have is control, but not inhibition. That works pretty well for many people in modern society, but it's very different from a dog that just won't mess with the chickens (or trash or table).

Well I have Jrts, as we know a breed bred to hunt, a breed only developed in the last couple of hundred years, so yes they have been controled and confined.
But having said that, I grew up on a farm and other than the hound that we had all the dogs were not confined. Day or night. They stayed home, yes that was training but they certainly were not kept away from the other livestock or chickens etc.
We got our dogs from the pound, my dad wouldn't keep a runner (as he called them) and I spent time with him when he boundry trained them. He walked them first on leash until the dog was good off leash and then off around the boundry of the farm each day, then he progressed to him walking on the other side (lol the dark side) and the dogs walking on our side, if they started to cross, he pointed and told them to go back, if they did he threw kibble or food, if they continued towards him, he would scuff his feet. But to my knowledge he never gave a harsh correction, or threw anything at them etc. The dogs knew 'no' and he liked his dogs to be a bit snarky in a sense. He wanted them to kick up a fuss if someone came in the driveway, he wanted them to really kick up a fuss if someone went near the building etc.
Lol, even family didn't get out of their vehicles until Mom or Dad came out. I never saw him ever hit a dog or give anything other than a verbal correction, but I saw him countless times, come out of the house, say 'enough' to his dog, to which that dog would immediately quit and allow the person in the vehicle (including myself as an adult) get out without worry, but Dad would say, don't touch him or you could get bit. Then he would tell his dog, good boy, I watched him then go into the house for a dog biscuit (if he didn't already have one on him) and give it to the dog with a pat.
I doubt he ever read a dog training book and considering that my Mother never gets rid of anything lol, I never saw one Dog training classes, not on your life :rofl1:

I think you are right- terriers would not have lasted long without fences :rofl1:

Your dad's training sounds good and like the sort of natural training I am talking about. Not overly harsh, not purely positive. Balanced, fair and with a good relationship between dog and person. And, the dogs were doing what many people for millenia wanted- staying home and sounding the alarm. Maybe killing some mice or rats, but no chickens or livestock.

Well from what I understand in a pack from watching dogs the leader does place fear in others just a like a parent would if a child was acting out; consequences. This has nothing to do with hitting or yelling. To say that is what consequence is or trouble is reading into something not said.

But dogs will test just like people. Thats how learning is done in basics. You must put them in their place when they are young. So if my dog jumps on the chair to the table where I left my food when I leave the room and is trained to know not to do that, then their is a reaction from me. I don't say oh well my fault. The dog should know better because they already know thats a bad unwanted behavior. All dogs can be good dogs and get into trouble and test, thats there nature. I also as part of me training test them.

Now my dogs know my daughter is the weakest in our "pack" and therefore watch her as she eats also knowing she drops stuff on the floor. When I eat they don't beg form me or watch me. They lay down and pretend to take no notice. But when my daughter eats they watch her like a hawk. They don't go for her food because I am there. Mind you they are both still puppies so they have much learning to go and I think food learning is a process. This to me is natural.

So we have my daughter also train them with commands and treats and have her speak up for herself instead of me protecting her. And I find this is greatly helping. She is showing the dogs she is above them in the pack. When you watch dogs in action they naturally do this to each other. Has nothing to do with hitting or yelling. I feel body communication, words and tone of voice are important. Dogs are very smart and learn this quickly.

They can cue my tone of voice just like a word command and people naturally talk the same way. So even if someone may not know the word command they can still communicate with my dogs with their tone of voice. My hyper puppy is learning to calm down with my clear low key sounding voice no treats just a tone of voice. My dogs are never skiddish of no person. I believe there is not just one form of training but many.

And as it bothers some with their opinions of the clicker, the same it bothers me when some tell me I'm doing it all wrong because I "don't do it this way". My dogs show me what I do works with results and the trust I can place on them. I have never had problems with my dogs and they know their place and I have never owned a nervous dog or one I couldn't trust when I leave the room. I should be able to trust my dog without my presence. For me to be on top in a loving way shows them where they are and I can trust them all around.

I have now a puppy who came and was so very scared and abused. He now trusts me and keeps his tail up and is happy as can be. His fear of other dogs has quickly gone and he is nothing but a people lover!

I have never seen a tool as misunderstood as a clicker. I didn't read through all of the long responses which I'm sure had some fantastic information in them but I just had to say....cause I get SO annoyed with people dismissing something because they don't understand it -

A CLICKER IS A REWARD MARKER

IT SIMPLY MARKS A BEHAVIOR THAT YOU LIKE AND SIGNALS TO THE ANIMAL THAT A REWARD IS ON IT'S WAY

A REWARD MARKER CAN BE ANY STATIC SOUND OR SIGNAL- A WORD, A WHISTLE, A FOOT STOMP - A THUMBS UP, A FLASH LIGHT.....

THE MARKER IS ONLY USED UNTIL THE LIGHTBULB MOMENT HAPPENS - SOMETIMES A FEW AS 6 TIMES/BEHAVIOUR

THE REWARD MARKER IS ONE OF THE QUICKEST FADES IF DONE CORRECTLY

IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO DRASTICALLY IMPROVE SPEED OF COMPLIANCE

REWARD MARKERS ARE INVALUABLE FOR TREATING EVERYTHING FROM LEASH PULLING TO SEVERE DA AND HA.....AS IS DONE IN MY GROWL CLASSES WITH LASTING PREDICTABILITY, NO COMPARISON TO WHEN I ONLY KNEW HOW TO PUNISH REACTIVITY.