Saying 'No'

This is a place to gain some understanding of dog behavior and to assist people in training their dogs and dealing with common behavior problems, regardless of the method(s) used. This can cover the spectrum from non-aversive to traditional methods of dog training. There are many ways to train a dog. Please avoid aggressive responses, and counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice. Please refrain from submitting posts that promote off-topic discussions. Keep in mind that you may be receiving advice from other dog owners and lovers... not professionals. If you have a major problem, always seek the advice of a trainer or behaviorist!

(Page 7 of 11: Viewing entries 61 to 70)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Squ'mey

too old to eat- any more KD

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 2:10pm PST


	noms double post Edited by author Thu Nov 29, '12 2:11pm PST

[notify]

Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 2:11pm PST


	Where are you getting the corrections thing though, Lobo? This whole thread has been about training "no" without P+ I personally would prefer "no" to a conditioned name response solely, for that means "stop what you are doing," which just has more applications. If I am out in a field and my dog is happy sniffing around, sees another dog across the field, I say "no." He knows what that means. Keep enjoying yourself, but don't go to that dog. I don't want him to come over me....he's been out there having fun. In terms of interrupting, no matter his stress level, nothing wrong with that.....be a good thing and have him flip his attention. But he may resume his approach in the aftermath if he's keen enough. It's better to me, in that sort of instance, you say what you mean....you want him to keep enjoying himself, just not go over there. And trained right, he will oblige, or, shouldn't be off lead in the first place. Better a long line. A little P- is very beneficial for dogs out there having fun, in and amongst which they can get into some kind of trouble. Like let's say you have someone walking a dog on a leash. You don't want your dog going over to that. At the same time, when he's out there doing what he loves, do you want him to drop what he's doing? I mean, even if he gets a reinforcer, you don't want to become a pest, which is something I do see. Some poor dog being called back like thirty times in the throes of a walk. Better I say to have a dead trained dog.....comes when you call, starts heading to "x" and you say "no!" and he gets it, for on previous occasions when he did not respond you then picked up his leash. Party's over. No scolding, no jerking. Just pick up the leash. And then they need to walk with you because they cannot yet be trusted with that level of responsibility. Do that enough, and when they are heading somewhere and you say "no," they stop and head elsewhere due to that association. It's a fair point. Asher posted, within the last six or so months, that she'd not prefer to let her dogs run loose in the local park because there is a cliff she worries they will go over. For some people, they can't vibe with that. If I live near a park, I would want my dogs to run loose there. It's what some dogs really want, and you need to allow them that. Training can get you there. It can't be all "rainbows and sunshine," something I quote from an APDT regional training director, as in she works for them and has many years of shelter rehab experience on top, talking about those who are so bent on "kinder and gentler" that they can end up being pretty restrictive. You should be able to tell your dog "stop that." I don't think you HAVE to....it's fine if you don't, for YOU, and your dog isn't going to die....nor do I think there aren't some super creative R+ trainers who can accomplish these goals and see their potential. Asher gave a good strategy for a positive name association. If your dog is a foodie, I am sure it works very nicely. But that and "no" are not one in the same.

[notify]

Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 2:24pm PST


	And I agree with Guest, it's the number that is startling people. If you treated your dogs 250 a week....which is like 35 times a day....it would take you four months to accomplish the minimum goal point. I think "a lot" would suffice....a lot of people will hear that number and find it bizarre. Impossible to accomplish in a short frame of time if your dog isn't a massive foodie, for some dogs will bore of it. I don't think I could even hold Daniel's attention....and he is a foodie....if I tried to treat him 300 times consecutively, which would be bad for him health wise anyway. 300 what? How high value can a treat even be if the repetitions are that high, or, if less treats, then lots more time to meet the goal.

[notify]

Lupi

I\\\'ll do- anything for a- treat!

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 2:55pm PST


	Grrr...My last post got deleted! But that might be for the best because it was a wee bit snarky. So just to address Tiller's point about treats: As I stated in a previous post, why not use your dog's kibble? (If you feed kibble that is). A lot of people who seem uncomfortable with the idea of food rewards are fine with the concept of NILF. So take it to the next level and assert that nothing, not even one piece of kibble is free. If your dog normally eats 100 pieces of kibble a day, you can meet the 5000 reps goal (assuming you take that number literally) in less than 2 months, without any extra calories. Obviously, in truly high-distraction environments, dry kibble isn't going to cut it for most dogs. But why not use the tools you already have (your dog's own food) to their maximum potential? I'm not pretending all dogs will work the same for food, anymore than mine would bat an eyelash at a tennis ball. But I can honestly say that I DO NOT use treats for training, except for rare occasions. I have used her kibble to teach obedience and agility and to condition Lupi to tolerate strangers, bikes, skateboards, etc. If you add in all the other rewards (petting, allowing them up on furniture, sniffing stuff on walks, playing tug, chasing squirrels, etc, etc,) you will be training even faster and smarter.

my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals

[notify]

Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 3:24pm PST


	That is something that is discussed, but therein several problems. Not universal problems, but potential problems. But before "problems" is the one major issue I have with that approach. Dogs are still natural creatures, of nature and with their own inbuilt things that are affirming and satiating. They are not nibblers, not browsers. Those who feed raw...and I have individualized feeding per dog, using raw in part....are very aware of how inwardly fulfilling it is for the dog to have his prey item. We also experience with our dogs and their bones. I know for my fosters, I will often give chewies...almost always have a bag, and for a stressed dog, they are incredibly reassuring. We say that Kongs and such are great distraction techniques, true, but what we OVERLOOK is that a dog given something to work through, time for his meals, his bowl, etc., this is inwardly affirming to him that he is safe, that life is good, stable, the environment is well stocked. In nature, leaner pickings, little nibbles, has high potential to be a natural cue that the pickings are lean environmentally, and it is time to move on, certainly for a more nomadic species. The concept to me of a dog not having a meal is something I personally find disturbing. Although I have non foodie types, I have only had one dog in my lifetime who wasn't very gooey about food time. This is something I would never shorten/restrict, and for those who do, ok, but I personally consider it cruel. This is something that brings a dog a sense of security. In all this talk about what a primary reinforcer food is, to take from a dog that natural thing that speaks to him, that meal he can work on, that BIG prey source (even it it's a bowl of kibble), is a very strong affirmation of the security of his life. A wild dog whose day is getting dribs and drabs is not one who is thriving. One would imagine nature would be willing him on to nab something bigger. I am not saying you do this, Lupi, but you do see recommendations that you can CREATE a foodie by such a process, and that is something that deeply disturbs me and takes the "kinder" out of "kinder and gentler." Beyond this, kibble is something that can end up low on the value scale, particularly if this strategy is meant to condition in atmospheres that are highly distracting. Moreover, the number. 5,000 is very, very high. "A lot" will do and seems a lot less imposing to the average person reading, and inherent in that number is how long this would take. If you have a puppy, let's say, how long would it take to positively condition his name? That's what people WANT. Or with a recently adopted shelter dog. 5,000 ANYTHING is not really practical in these considerations. You don't need to make it that complicated. Just straight positive associations with his name, AND, I would argue, it is better if you mix it up rather than be a food junkie. If only food, he may anticipate and can weigh the equation. Better to use name = bum scritch, happy dance, steak piece off the counter, tug game!, time to run outside and play!, squeaky toy!, let's play chase! Edited by author Thu Nov 29, '12 3:29pm PST

[notify]

Lupi

I\\\'ll do- anything for a- treat!

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 4:21pm PST


	Tiller, to address some of the points in your post: "Dogs are still natural creatures, of nature and with their own inbuilt things that are affirming and satiating. They are not nibblers, not browsers." Actually, many dogs seem to be. Some are free-fed and prefer to "nibble"at will. This does not happen to be my dog! "Those who feed raw...and I have individualized feeding per dog, using raw in part....are very aware of how inwardly fulfilling it is for the dog to have his prey item. We also experience with our dogs and their bones." Yes, this I agree with. Just because I use my dog's kibble (primary feeding) for training does not mean I don't also give her bones, chews, Kongs etc. These offer little in the way of sustenance, but they do fulfill that predatory need. " I know for my fosters, I will often give chewies...almost always have a bag, and for a stressed dog, they are incredibly reassuring. We say that Kongs and such are great distraction techniques, true, but what we OVERLOOK is that a dog given something to work through, time for his meals, his bowl, etc., this is inwardly affirming to him that he is safe, that life is good, stable, the environment is well stocked. In nature, leaner pickings, little nibbles, has high potential to be a natural cue that the pickings are lean environmentally, and it is time to move on, certainly for a more nomadic species." Again, agreeing with the value of the Kong, but disagree that eating from my hand is less satisfying than eating from a bowl. Hand-feeding helps to cement the bond between dog and handler. Unless you free-feed; allowing the dog constant access to food, how does seeing a meal in a dish make a dog believe there is any more food available to him than if he receives it from a person? I believe that seeing "his person" as the consistent provider of good things will create stability and a desire to stay near that person, not "move on" as you say. "The concept to me of a dog not having a meal is something I personally find disturbing." I find it insulting that because I carry her food in my pocket, you think my dog doesn't have a meal. A great part of our daily ritual is the walk. Most of Lupi's food is fed to her on our walks, as we practice heeling, obedience, meeting strangers, etc. Often she gets fed following a rabbit chase. This is far more fulfilling to her than dish-feeding. It's as close to eating her prey as she'll likely ever get (she spots a rabbit, I let her chase, call her back and reward with food, release to chase again, etc.) "Although I have non foodie types, I have only had one dog in my lifetime who wasn't very gooey about food time. This is something I would never shorten/restrict, and for those who do, ok, but I personally consider it cruel. This is something that brings a dog a sense of security. In all this talk about what a primary reinforcer food is, to take from a dog that natural thing that speaks to him, that meal he can work on, that BIG prey source (even it it's a bowl of kibble), is a very strong affirmation of the security of his life. A wild dog whose day is getting dribs and drabs is not one who is thriving. One would imagine nature would be willing him on to nab something bigger." The only part I agree with here is that it is cruel to deprive dogs of their sense of routine. Again, with my dog our training sessions ARE her routine, her sense of security. Moreover, I regularly offer her the choice to eat a bowl full of kibble and she has never chosen to do that, turning instead to me, wanting to earn that food. This is not just my dog-every dog I dogsit has been the same. Way more fun to play "find it" or practice new tricks than to simply recieve a bowl of food. Dogs are intelligent, social animals. They want to hunt, to wor,k and on top of that, they enjoy pleasing us. There is nothing of the "wild animal" in a dish-meal. Moreso in a good raw meal, to be sure, but even still...not the same as having earned it. "I am not saying you do this, Lupi, but you do see recommendations that you can CREATE a foodie by such a process, and that is something that deeply disturbs me and takes the "kinder" out of "kinder and gentler." I certainly don't agree with starving a dog to make it perform, nor have I ever seen this recommended. Not the point I'm making at all. "Beyond this, kibble is something that can end up low on the value scale, particularly if this strategy is meant to condition in atmospheres that are highly distracting." This is true. However, as a start, it's great. "You don't need to make it that complicated. Just straight positive associations with his name, AND, I would argue, it is better if you mix it up rather than be a food junkie. If only food, he may anticipate and can weigh the equation. Better to use name = bum scritch, happy dance, steak piece off the counter, tug game!, time to run outside and play!, squeaky toy!, let's play chase!" It's not complicated. Name=food is the most uncomplicated equation there is. All those other rewards are great, but if you're talking shelter dog, food is the best place to start. Because it IS as you mentioned, a primary reinforcer.

my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals

[notify]

Rolo

1236640

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 4:42pm PST


	Dogs have primal needs, shelter, water, food. When we commit to owning a dog, we commit to fulfilling those needs. Somehow, making a dog 'work' or 'train' or 'dance' for its supper strikes me as somewhat unethical, too. I would never restrict Rolo's food, or Sonny's -- both were starved before I got them. Rolo loves his meals so much that he "tolls" as his supper is being prepared -- dances and prances, throws his head back gloriously, jumps over the chaise back and forth. Meals are sacrosanct to me. Rolo must be that 'different' sort of shelter dog, what he works for is affection from me. When the transport brought him, he was scared stiff, and didn't want to get out of the floor of the car. Once I was handed his leash, he decided he was mine. He wanted nothing more than to be next to me. While I've used treats to lure and reward certain behaviors, it's never been a necessity. Proximity, affection, a happy "good boy!" are his favorite rewards.

[notify]

Tyler

Whippy- The- Whipador

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 4:55pm PST


	I use "no" quite regularly with my two as an interrupter. It's just such a normal and often said word that i think i'd find it very hard not to use it in day to day situations ( especially with Miss Missy! ). I don't believe i've ever used it as a punishment, but there has been a few times i've needed to speak it firmly, and in one case scream it at Tyler. He jumped from my car as i was dealing with Missy and he was about to cross a very busy road to get to me and i shouted at him "NO, wait" and he stood exactly where he was and waited until i crossed over to collect him I don't see it as a bad thing to use no. I think in most respects it has the same kind of meaning as "leave it" does.

[notify]

Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 5:00pm PST


	"I am not saying you do this, Lupi" was in my original post. I don't know how you can get personally offended when I took the time to exclude you out. I will note too that I do not find food primary with shelter dogs. I find it is play. Sometimes it is food. They will let me know. Although Cockers are notorious foodies, I have found they do much better with play, which is releasing. "Positive frustration" is the term used in bite dog circles, and it works the same way with food (when the dog has to "earn" it, vs being streamed it in a conditioning process)....it IS very positive and creates an insanely good worker, but frustration is an inherent part of it. It IS positive, but it is still a tension-release cycle. It is more arousing, puts the dog in a drive state, which heck knows is primed for learning and I highly recommend these phases, but it should not be lost that is tension-release. I prefer play with new shelter dogs, or if it is food I would not put them in that frame, but rather let them eat from my hand with long strokes. I agree with Rolo. And further think a trainer needs a range to flow with what works for the individual dog. Food, balls, tug, silly dances, etc. I do not decide my dog's reinforcer. He does. Edited by author Thu Nov 29, '12 5:16pm PST

[notify]

Mulder

Spooky Mulder

Barked: Thu Nov 29, '12 5:18pm PST


	I continue to remain confused at this ongoing debate that food is ALWAYS the best reinforcer for a dog? Like... I genuinely, earnestly, not being snarky don't understand. Neither of my Shepherds prefer food to play. They both LIKE food, I use food for plenty of things, but given the option of food vs a tug, and I'm being literal here as I've seen them do it COUNTLESS times, will spit the food out if they think there's the possibility of tug. Or a ball. I don't get why this is so bad? Or hard to believe in? Probably a little OT, but this is always the vibe I get when using food as the enforcer gets brought up in these debates.

[notify]

(Page 7 of 11: Viewing entries 61 to 70)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dogster

Saying 'No'

Love Dogs?

Want a Dog?

Have A Dog?

Be in the Know!

Dogster

Forums Home » Behavior & Training

Saying 'No'

Love Dogs?

Want a Dog?

Have A Dog?

Be in the Know!

Prefer Cats?