Thread: Teaching NO !

Originally Posted by Ruff

I dunno, yu sort it out, you seem to have the biggest issue.

you so crack me up, Man!!!!!

Originally Posted by Tussock

Me and Wirehunt have already done it today. With 11 dogs

Here's the issue with tonal training, and why some will naively believe it gets them a result. Dogs respond to an elevated tone because it is always followed by action from the handler. Inherent in this lesson is the lack of action with the quieter command which preceded it.

Over a short period of time the handler will find only the gruff/growled command is obeyed.

When i started to learn from Paul Hutton it amazed me how his quiet commands were always complied with and there was never a growl or tonal warning of impending action... when queried he offered that he placed the same importance on the quiet command and so the dog knew if not complied with the handler would take action... most dogs learned quickly the handler would give a command which could be ignored, next would a stronger tonal command which would be followed by action... this was complied with. By giving a quiet command and following it with action resulted in the quiet command being complied with... always.

The other fault, obvious in light of this, is that tonal commands required repeated commands a no no in any book on dog training, even the bad ones... it's just a poor way to handle.

Like many things in dog handling it can appear to give a result, when in actuality it represents more confusing handling, a breakdown in dog handler relationships and people still believing that because the dog, eventually, did as asked it is effective.

Primarily this is because to 90% of handlers out there, any compliance is a victory... it can be so much better than that with less effort.

A secondary point, which cannot be ignored at all, is that it is subservient dogs that growl at other dogs.. not dominant ones. This is often a behavior misinterpreted... it's the subservient dog with a bone that growls... a dominant dog with a bone glares and then bites, rarely growls... the growl in subservient behavior... doing that to your dog is not going to help anyone aye?

Originally Posted by EeeBees

you so crack me up, Man!!!!!

Good, I like making people laugh. You believe, wrongly, i will counter anything you say... that is not the case, and I can prove it... just say one thing regarding dog behavior and training that I agree with and you will see me say so.

Branleur!!!!!

ne pas être un mauvais perdant

You two be french kissing soon...

Originally Posted by Ruff

ne pas être un mauvais perdant

I havent been a poor loser, Ruff. I havent lost a thing.

Originally Posted by EeeBees

I havent been a poor loser, Ruff. I havent lost a thing.

quelqu'un qui parle en français parce qu'ils ont une race française de chien a perdu avant de commencer

Originally Posted by Tussock

Define "take action".

Taking action is the physical action that is appropriate to the dog.

Originally Posted by Tussock

I sat most nights last year, drank a coke and watched four dogs eat from one bowl.

They ate in order, the same order every night.

The dog that ate first would growl, just a low rumble, if any of the other dogs came closer than was acceptable. If they really pushed their luck it would turn around a bit and snarl that was as far as it ever got. When it did fight one of the dogs it was a no contest, that dog that ate first came out on top, with the other scuttling off with its tail between its legs (this happened once, the loser was a younger, larger male, the winner a female).

The next dog would come in to eat and would growl in turn at the others, but would vacate if the first dog returned and would not growl at it.

The last two fought most nights unless I intervened.

So, if your statement is correct, the subservient dog ate first, followed by the dominant ones? I do not buy that.

I wasn;t selling anything.

several points... No tonal training I have seen begins with a low grumbling.

Any handler that sits back and watches this sort of interaction is a spectator, not a trainer.

I don;t see anything in your experiment, if that's what it was, that has any relevance to dog training.

Ultimately no one has to "buy" anything I say. I will take solace in comparing the dog work I get compared to what I see others get... while I am often told how wrong I am, I see few with evidence to substantiate it. If you have no issues to resolve there is no reason to care what they hell I advocate.

what are you actually teaching "NO" for . I must admit IM a little with Ruff on this in that the stop command can cover all n sundry .
I think No is a waste of space in general .

Yes , I think the point is "stop "covers the lot sufficiently even if we have a couple of tonal growls as well .I mean I arrggh aarrgh at my dog but in reality it does bugger all .I just remove the dog from the unwanted behavior if need be .
What does always amaze me is how a dog can get into sync with the owner with hands and verbals

Originally Posted by Ruff

quelqu'un qui parle en français parce qu'ils ont une race française de chien a perdu avant de commencer

If you think I am a loser from the onset because I wish to speak French because I have a French breed then I am proud to be such a loser. And I see no reason for this comment from you considering that one of my dogs knew NO Anglaise before he came to this country, but then you would not know that of course.

I am not going to pursue this with you Ruff...although I must say how disappointed I am that you lay down a challenge for us to meet with our dogs then when I accept the challenge you withdraw but continue to lamblast me.

No more of this...I am wearied by it...as I am sure other members would be as well...

Originally Posted by el borracho

What does always amaze me is how a dog can get into sync with the owner with hands and verbals

More than words, for sure. I have a six-months young pup here at the mo who didn't have a single word applied to him as a bit of an experiment. Turns, recall etc all done by body language. So far putting a command to body language has been far easier than vice versa, I think I'll stick with it!

I don't use no, and more importantly, I don't use any kind of stop without chaining something to it as stopping a dog without giving it another option is drive diminishing. Stopping a dog on the stop whistle and not giving him another command is really good to knock the go out of them. Stop whistle, then send him out, back, throw a retrieve etc. Never just 'stop, and sit there all sorry for yourself'