in trouble

[a.baker]

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.

[corgipower]

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.

[adojrts]

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.

[Maxy24]

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.

[a.baker]

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.

[Sch3Dana]

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.

[Boemy]

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."

[Sch3Dana]

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.

Ha Ha!

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.

[Maxy24]

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.

[Sch3Dana]

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.

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?