# 9 week pup growls and nips when she wants to get down



## sky-summer (Aug 22, 2009)

Hi,

I am making great us of this great site and some more help is needed if I may please.

Our Leia 9 week old chihahua yorkie cross gets really angry and growls and nips when you are carrying her or pick her up when she does not want you too - possibly normal, not sure, but what should I do to stop this.

I have been saying "No" and "Time out" and putting her in the kitchen with the door closed for 3 mins - is this good? or can anyone else come up with any suggestions of what worked for them.

Thanks once again.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2009)

Not sure what you can do to stop it, but I wonder what is causing this reaction 
Is she frightened?
Is she hurting?
Is it the only way she has of communicating her displeasure?

If it's none of these, then your method may work.
How do you pick her up?


----------



## sky-summer (Aug 22, 2009)

rona said:


> Not sure what you can do to stop it, but I wonder what is causing this reaction
> Is she frightened?
> Is she hurting?
> Is it the only way she has of communicating her displeasure?
> ...


She is picked up with a very gentle scoop. I think its her communicating her displeasure and not getting her own way - so whats the best action? She loves being cuddled and fussed and having her belly rubbed but this behaviour is when she wants to be put back down on the floor.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2009)

I think she will get used to it eventually.
Let me give you a possible puppy perspective 
Flying though the air is not something a puppy would normally do naturally and being held still could feel as if it is a threatening thing


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

rona said:


> I think she will get used to it eventually.
> Let me give you a possible puppy perspective
> Flying though the air is not something a puppy would normally do naturally and being held still could feel as if it is a threatening thing


Quite so.

I don't know how often you pick her up but if I were you I'd only do it when absolutely necessary. You wouldn't be doing it if she were a Newfoundland puppy - well, not for long anyway lol - so there's no real need to keep picking her up.


----------



## Deed_not_Breed (Aug 20, 2009)

not to go against anyone on this but...... you should never just get use to it.
it obviously not the way you want it or you wouldnt be asking for help.

im going to steal a little from the gods here and say dogs arent born and carried in the arms of their mother. the mothers bite softly on the extra skin on the back of the neck. when the dog growls and nips, try grabbing that skin and lifting her out of your arms. if she proceeds..... grab the under side of the neck. not as an attempt to hurt the dog, but to let the dog know that the behavior is unacceptable. in the animal world a dog grabbed by the neck is the one who is being submitted and its only chance of living is to give up the behavior and submit. with time, she should relax. dont squeeze the neck in either spot to hurt the dog.
Its what they know....... the whole carrying thing is a new experience to it and it will get used to it. not you getting used to the bitting and nipping.

fair enough?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Sorry, but it's a dog, it should never be picked up (unless exceptional circumstances). It should walk on it's own four feet. It's obviously objecting to being picked up, so don't do it.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Deed_not_Breed said:


> not to go against anyone on this but...... you should never just get use to it.
> it obviously not the way you want it or you wouldnt be asking for help.
> 
> im going to steal a little from the gods here and say dogs arent born and carried in the arms of their mother. the mothers bite softly on the extra skin on the back of the neck. when the dog growls and nips, try grabbing that skin and lifting her out of your arms. if she proceeds..... grab the under side of the neck. not as an attempt to hurt the dog, but to let the dog know that the behavior is unacceptable. in the animal world a dog grabbed by the neck is the one who is being submitted and its only chance of living is to give up the behavior and submit. with time, she should relax. dont squeeze the neck in either spot to hurt the dog.
> ...


Not really.

Nobody is suggesting that the OP should just get used to being nipped - BUT the puppy is clearly uncomfortable with being picked up and carried so why insist on doing something that it doesn't like - especially when it's largely unnecessary?

I would certainly teach the puppy - with positive, kind methods, rather than grabbing it by the neck and upsetting it even more - that being picked up is not something to fear; just in case it is ever injured and HAS to be picked up.

But I would strongly disagree with doing something that makes the pup even MORE uncomfortable, to try to force it to endure something else it finds uncomfortable!


----------



## Deed_not_Breed (Aug 20, 2009)

i agree to some extent..... dont make a dog do something it uncomfortable with kind of. my dog isnt comfortable in a dog carrier. do i allow it to run a muck on me? or do i find ways to make it accept it.
Dogs are pack animals, they are constantly looking for guidance. grabbing the back of the neck is how a mother carries the dog, so to say its cruel or that its not the right thing to do is kinda weird? 
And in some instances it IS nessisary to carry a small dog like that. ever tried to catch a cab in new york while dragging a small breed dog? they cant walk as fast as you or as fast as they need to to keep up. 
Simply put you are the dogs owner, you are its leader, you decide what is nessisary to a certain extent (nothing rediculous) but what fits your needs without hurting the dog. and grabbing the neck doesnt hurt nor is it cruel.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sky-summer said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am making great us of this great site and some more help is needed if I may please.
> 
> ...


have you tried putting her into a shoulder bag to carry around? 9 weeks old is too young for her to be mixing with others so im taking it that you just want to socialise her a little?
If its aggression then try to ignore it but she may be telling you she needs to wee possibly. Simply 'ah ah' corrections and no attention should sort it out but be consistant
Some people dont belive this but I think that at this age - it is best you leave them to it - they dont know you from Adam, so keep any petting to a minimum (short quick strokes) and only do it when necessary. As I say a lot of people on here dont agree with that - but if you think about it, they dont know why you are approaching them, if you are good bad whatever, or what your going to do.... its a bit of a change for them to be rehomed without any littermates they will soon find out your the good sort


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Deed_not_Breed said:


> i agree to some extent..... dont make a dog do something it uncomfortable with kind of. my dog isnt comfortable in a dog carrier. do i allow it to run a muck on me? or do i find ways to make it accept it.


Yes, as I said, the OP should find a way to desensitise her dog to being picked up, for the odd occasions when it will be absolutely necessary but how often is it absolutely necessary? I can't remember the last time I picked my dog up, although she will accept it. I don't agree with small dogs being constantly carted around; they're not toys.



> Dogs are pack animals, they are constantly looking for guidance. grabbing the back of the neck is how a mother carries the dog, so to say its cruel or that its not the right thing to do is kinda weird?


a) The mother dog won't carry on scruffing a puppy/dog once it gets bigger
b) A puppy knows you are a human, not another dog/its mother.



> Simply put you are the dogs owner, you are its leader, you decide what is nessisary to a certain extent (nothing rediculous) but what fits your needs without hurting the dog. and grabbing the neck doesnt hurt nor is it cruel.


So what exactly DOES grabbing its neck achieve? Sorry, but if you're going to do it gently enough to not upset the dog at all, then it's pointless.... and if you do it firmly enough to be effective, then you are risking making your puppy fearful of you and your hands.

There are far better ways.

If I were the OP, I would begin by placing hands round the pup on the floor while giving a yummy treat, GRADUALLY working up to holding more firmly, still treating every time, so that pup learns GOOD associations with being picked up. And then once it was accepting of being picked up when necessary, I'd leave it on the ground to make use the legs that are handily positioned under each corner of the dog and are very good for getting around on.


----------



## Deed_not_Breed (Aug 20, 2009)

well each person has their own techniques and i was offering mine. i do not agree with holding little dogs everywhere you go, not at all. but at the times you need to do it, you dont want to have to deal with a nipping dog.

grabbing the BACK of the neck in a GENTLE mannor
and grabbing the dog firmly on the under side of the neck to acomplish the submission of the dog are two totally differnt things. each to be used at seperate times. by me saying not to hurt the dog i meant dont crush its throat. not grab gently.

and im not saying you are wrong either. once again this is what i do to break my dogs of bad habbits, such as nipping as a puppy.

either way you decide to break it of this, treats or submission, I believe it must be done with a small "toy" dog. Just as a small crying child should be taught it is not appropriate to scream at you while you are paying for food in a line at the store. you dont beat the child but you let them know who is in charge and it is un acceptable to act the way they are. IMO


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

So why do you suppose a dog might "submit" (if indeed it does)??

Does it submit because it is happy and relaxed? Or because it feels threatened. After all, you've made the analogy about a dog being grabbed by the throat and having to submit to stay alive.... doesn't sound as if it's a particularly enjoyable experience for the dog to me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2009)

Deed_not_Breed said:


> not to go against anyone on this but...... you should never just get use to it.
> it obviously not the way you want it or you wouldnt be asking for help.
> 
> im going to steal a little from the gods here and say dogs arent born and carried in the arms of their mother. the mothers bite softly on the extra skin on the back of the neck. when the dog growls and nips, try grabbing that skin and lifting her out of your arms. if she proceeds..... grab the under side of the neck. not as an attempt to hurt the dog, but to let the dog know that the behavior is unacceptable. in the animal world a dog grabbed by the neck is the one who is being submitted and its only chance of living is to give up the behavior and submit. with time, she should relax. dont squeeze the neck in either spot to hurt the dog.
> ...


I think this is actually good advise. I read this on a website once although it did say to surport the hind legs as well. When a pup is grabbed by the scruff of the neck it creates a calming reflex and their bodies go limp. I havent personally ever done this but it makes sence to me


----------



## Deed_not_Breed (Aug 20, 2009)

when you mouth off to your dad does he say if you stop talking to me like that i will give you a car? no. just like in the animal world, which btw dogs regardless of where they live or who they live with are still animals.... know that being submitted means the action they did to get to this point was un-acceptable. THIS IS WHAT DOGS DO TO EACHOTHER. DOGS unlike humans still believe in the RESPECT factor. I have grabbed and submitted my oldest male pit numerous times for numerous reasons.... does he fear my hand? No.he respects me. does it make him so fearful that he runs from me and hides and pees everywhere? no. he knows that when he is calm and not acting up, he has zero chance of being submitted. he is only submitted when his actions are bad..... as soon as the action is reversed he is praised by the same hand.

BOTH tecniques work in their own ways. my dogs do not fear me. they respect me as thier leader. they look to me before retrieving a ball or running to the door to bark at a stranger entering my house.

It is a personal prefrence on how you would like your dog to be. and from the sound of it, the OP wants his dog to be carried. no reason to argue methods if you disagree, say so and move on. give your way of doing things that have worked for you and move on, this way we can stay on subject. fair enough that way?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

lol good old training techniques getting raised again, have to say colliepoodle a dog doesnt know that your are human in the least, it know very little apart from instinct. Its not that i dont like you Colliepoodle as we always seem to argue - but you take on other peoples opions and pass them off as your own.... becoming handshy or seeing your hands as friends etc is taken straight from Bucksmum in the thread you and other escalated on treat training.

I agree to some extent with deed not breed - I cant believe youve not had to submit your dog, I have: largely due to the food he was eating (i think) as i have changed it now and all bad tempers have stopped insatantly, before I change however - he is a dominant boy who would lunge at you 1/ because of the food and 2/ because he wanted to.

A dog gets handshy not through submission but through abuse - slapping and hitting. Putting a dog on its back and keeping it there until its calmed is entirely different, and works well to put a dominance barrier between you. Its not affected my pup in the least, he loves attention and he does pretty much everything I ask.

With a 9 week old though - getting back to the topic........... a shoulder bag will help you out no end with his development if you want to take him into new situations


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> So why do you suppose a dog might "submit" (if indeed it does)??
> 
> Does it submit because it is happy and relaxed? Or because it feels threatened. After all, you've made the analogy about a dog being grabbed by the throat and having to submit to stay alive.... doesn't sound as if it's a particularly enjoyable experience for the dog to me.


it submits because it knows there is no other way for it to get up and trott about until it does. However, at 9 weeks all!!!!!!!!! try not to over fuss it and reinforce good behaviour - ignoring the bad. Pups bite - they actually bite quite a lot


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

The dog doesn't like being picked up so don't pick him/her up. Simples.

It's a dog, not a baby. 



james1 said:


> lol good old training techniques getting raised again, have to say colliepoodle a dog doesnt know that your are human in the least, it know very little apart from instinct.


Dogs don't think we are dogs either, so we shouldn't try to act like one.

They know what you teach them. If you grab them by the neck, and they feel threatened, they learn to fear your hands.



james1 said:


> Its not that i dont like you Colliepoodle as we always seem to argue - but you take on other peoples opions and pass them off as your own.... becoming handshy or seeing your hands as friends etc is taken straight from Bucksmum in the thread you and other escalated on treat training.


People can share the same opinion, it's not uncommon.



james1 said:


> I agree to some extent with deed not breed - I cant believe youve not had to submit your dog, I have: largely due to the food he was eating (i think) as i have changed it now and all bad tempers have stopped insatantly, before I change however - he is a dominant boy who would lunge at you 1/ because of the food and 2/ because he wanted to.


Perhaps you should consider why you "had to submit your dog" and others haven't. You can add me to the LONG list of those that haven't.



james1 said:


> A dog gets handshy not through submission but through abuse - slapping and hitting.


A dog becomes hand shy because it makes negative associations with hands. If you use your hands on a dog in a way which they are not comfortable with they will make negative associations and become handshy.

It depends on the dog, in this particular situation the dog is already not happy with being picked up, grabbing the neck is only going to make things worse.



james1 said:


> Putting a dog on its back and keeping it there until its calmed is entirely different, and works well to put a dominance barrier between you. Its not affected my pup in the least, he loves attention and he does pretty much everything I ask.


Why do you need to "alpha roll" your dog?


----------



## GSDlover4ever (Feb 21, 2009)

i knew of a tiny yorky - she was chi size and because of her small size - everybody would pick her up - because she was tiny and cute.

she would riggle and growl to be let down.

to cut a long story short hardly anybody listened to her growls etc... and eventually she began to bite everytime you went to pick her up and if you didn't back off she would run at you and try and bite your angles etc....

as a result she was hardly ever picked up, sadly on the odd occation when she had to be picked up she would shake etc... - it was horrible to see her like that.


----------



## Deed_not_Breed (Aug 20, 2009)

why do you need to alpha role your dog? to avoid problems in the future or to fix problems in the present. 

lol plain and simple. unless you are lucky enough to get the one dog out of a million who just do and never mis behave. which i have seen but it is so rare.

like alpha role is a bad thing. its natural to animals. even humans. 

and doing it early..... i have never submitted my dogs before 5 months. but i would never recommend doing it to a 90 pound pit bull that has never been "alpha roled".


----------



## WalterKitty (Aug 16, 2009)

Deed_not_Breed said:


> why do you need to alpha role your dog? to avoid problems in the future or to fix problems in the present.
> 
> lol plain and simple. unless you are lucky enough to get the one dog out of a million who just do and never mis behave. which i have seen but it is so rare.
> 
> like alpha role is a bad thing. its natural to animals. even humans.


i dont have a dog but i see from your sig pic that you are a pitbull advocacte so may have a pitbull.would it be possible that your way of training is not suitable for a tiny dog?and vice versa?


----------



## Deed_not_Breed (Aug 20, 2009)

WalterKitty said:


> i dont have a dog but i see from your sig pic that you are a pitbull advocacte so may have a pitbull.would it be possible that your way of training is not suitable for a tiny dog?and vice versa?


I dont base all of my dog ownership on cesar millan, but the man knows his stuff..... and applies it to all dogs.

all dogs came from a wild dog in some way so the basic concept of packing applies to all.

YouTube - Cesar Millan and small dog Demon Chihuahua, dogs training

copy and paste.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Alpha rolling a dog is old fashioned and is not seen the right thing to do now.

Alpha rolling the pup will make it more aggressive to your hand, and will make it scared. Dogs know we are not dogs, we are humans, and when we treat them as if we are dogs, they get confused. There are much better ways to deal with dominant dogs than alpha rolling. 

In the case of the OP, just don't pick him up. He's obviously unhappy so don't do it. Simple as.


----------



## Akai-Chan (Feb 21, 2009)

Oh no someones mentioned Cesar Milan  *Ducks and runs for cover*

What are your reasons for needing to pick him up? I don't think there's any way you can desensitize the pup to it. If it's unhappy about you picking it up, don't pick it up unless absolutely necessary.

Peace
Akai-Chan


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> lol good old training techniques getting raised again, have to say colliepoodle a dog doesnt know that your are human in the least, it know very little apart from instinct. Its not that i dont like you Colliepoodle as we always seem to argue - but you take on other peoples opions and pass them off as your own.... becoming handshy or seeing your hands as friends etc is taken straight from Bucksmum in the thread you and other escalated on treat training.


LOL!! "Other people's opinions" ... amazingly James, sometimes people agree on things! I don't see you levelling the same accusation at the Cesar-philes - after all, someone advocating the alpha roll didn't invent the concept, did they? 



> I agree to some extent with deed not breed - I cant believe youve not had to submit your dog, I have: largely due to the food he was eating (i think) as i have changed it now and all bad tempers have stopped insatantly, before I change however - he is a dominant boy who would lunge at you 1/ because of the food and 2/ because he wanted to.


No, I've never had to "submit my dog" 

If I ever had to, I'd consider my training had failed in some way, since I've had her from a puppy. If I had problems with an older dog, then I certainly wouldn't rely on outdated methods which are based on flawed concepts in the first place


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Colliepoodle said:


> No, I've never had to "submit my dog"
> 
> If I ever had to, I'd consider my training had failed in some way, since I've had her from a puppy. If I had problems with an older dog, then I certainly wouldn't rely on outdated methods which are based on flawed concepts in the first place


Totally agree with this.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> LOL!! "Other people's opinions" ... amazingly James, sometimes people agree on things! I don't see you levelling the same accusation at the Cesar-philes - after all, someone advocating the alpha roll didn't invent the concept, did they?


I know what you mean about agreeing on things, but you have pointed that a dog becomes handshy as if you have some experience of it. Submitting a dog does not make them handshy.... whether you agree with somone elses opinion or not jumping in with two feet saying 'ooooh they'll become handshy' when youve stated youve never done it, doesnt make sense and only puts doubt in people minds. Is what Im getting at. Its perfectly reasonable it done appropriately


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Deed_not_Breed said:


> why do you need to alpha role your dog? to avoid problems in the future or to fix problems in the present.


So you would alpha roll a dog before there is any problem behaviour?

What does that teach the dog? 



Deed_not_Breed said:


> lol plain and simple. unless you are lucky enough to get the one dog out of a million who just do and never mis behave. which i have seen but it is so rare.


So any dog that misbehaves needs to be alpha rolled?

Am I reading this right?



Deed_not_Breed said:


> like alpha role is a bad thing. its natural to animals. even humans.


It is a bad thing in my opinion, it's nothing more than bullying.

How is alpha rolling natural to humans?



Deed_not_Breed said:


> and doing it early..... i have never submitted my dogs before 5 months. but i would never recommend doing it to a 90 pound pit bull that has never been "alpha roled".


I wouldn't recommend doing it to any dog.

Why don't you do it before 5 months? What makes them suddenly ready to be alpha rolled at 6 months old?


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

james1 said:


> I know what you mean about agreeing on things, but you have pointed that a dog becomes handshy as if you have some experience of it. Submitting a dog does not make them handshy.... whether you agree with somone elses opinion or not jumping in with two feet saying 'ooooh they'll become handshy' when youve stated youve never done it, doesnt make sense and only puts doubt in people minds. Is what Im getting at. Its perfectly reasonable it done appropriately


I've dealt with the aftermath of it numerous times. Dogs DO become handshy because of such techniques, that is a FACT.

I've tried to explain this in my previous post but clearly you have overlooked it.

Some dogs can handle it and won't become handshy from being "submitted", some will and some will just become aggressive. There are better more humane techniques anyway so what is the point?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> I've tried to explain this in my previous post but clearly you have overlooked it.


you mean ive overlooked this?
ok then to quote:


HighPr00 said:


> Dogs don't think we are dogs either, so we shouldn't try to act like one.
> They know what you teach them. If you grab them by the neck, and they feel threatened, they learn to fear your hands.


you dont know what they think - they dont know they are dogs so how do you know they dont think were going to turn into them one day or they into us?
If you grab then by the neck - it is because they have done something incredibly wrong, it is neither a daily occurance or something that is done at a whim, so the association of fearing your hands isnt there, it is not done often enough and you neither grab it by the neck really - you simply turn in onto its back and hold it there - no neck grabbing at all.


HighPr00 said:


> People can share the same opinion, it's not uncommon.


people can, but when there is misinformation being presented to members it is not useful, Collie added that when she has already said "if she had to submit a dog she would question her training" - this tells you that it is guesswork as she has never experienced the results of submission so she is guessing at the consequences of it and where hand shyness really comes from - I have pointed it comes from smacking or hitting your animal.


HighPr00 said:


> I've dealt with the aftermath of it numerous times. Dogs DO become handshy because of such techniques, that is a FACT.
> Some dogs can handle it and won't become handshy from being "submitted", some will and some will just become aggressive. There are better more humane techniques anyway so what is the point?


I handnt overlooked it its just I didnt agree with it so decided not to reply though now you have brought it up - can you see the contradiction your making in the post above? 'dealt with it numerous times - dogs DO get handshy FACT' and then 'some dogs can handle it/some dogs cant' your really covering bases there 
Either they DO or the Dont get handshy - dont quote facts at me as they really arent facts they are misguided opionions. I have explained above that submitting them is a rareity, it isnt done in temper or with a grab, they are held and put on their backs until calm. Its similar to putting them in a crate for 10 mins to calm - though you probably dont agree with this either. It is really resided in the situation, if nothing else will work and needs must they are submitted.

I have done this only a few times... count them on one hand kind of thing, as that is all that is ever really needed, I am not championing it as a training method as it isnt a method, its a tool to instantly stem grossly undesirable behaviour. 
I am defending it as it is getting an unnecessarily bad wrap, when owners need at least some confidence if they ever do it. It wont cause hand shyness in the least, it hasnt in mine and as said it is used less than sparingly in any case  (i hope this explains my positon fully)


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

james1 said:


> you dont know what they think - they dont know they are dogs so how do you know they dont think were going to turn into them one day or they into us?


That's just absurd.



james1 said:


> If you grab then by the neck - it is because they have done something incredibly wrong, it is neither a daily occurance or something that is done at a whim, so the association of fearing your hands isnt there, it is not done often enough and you neither grab it by the neck really - you simply turn in onto its back and hold it there - no neck grabbing at all.


What is often enough, you don't know because it is different for every dog. Some dogs will become hand shy from one or two false moves.



james1 said:


> people can, but when there is misinformation being presented to members it is not useful,


Very true, but the only misinformation is coming from you. Your posts are beyond useless, they're dangerous and detrimental to the dogs of anyone that chooses to follow your advice. Your advice is based on very very outdated methodology that has been proven wrong by experts repeatedly.



james1 said:


> I handnt overlooked it its just I didnt agree with it so decided not to reply though now you have brought it up - can you see the contradiction your making in the post above? 'dealt with it numerous times - dogs DO get handshy FACT' and then 'some dogs can handle it/some dogs cant' your really covering bases there


It's not a contradiction at all.

Dogs do become hand shy because of such techniques, that is a fact. I am not saying ALL dogs become hand shy because of such techniques, I am simply saying it does happen. Why would you want to take such a risk when there are better techniques that do not pose such risk? We're not talking last chance saloon here.



james1 said:


> I have explained above that submitting them is a rareity, it isnt done in temper or with a grab, they are held and put on their backs until calm. Its similar to putting them in a crate for 10 mins to calm - though you probably dont agree with this either. It is really resided in the situation, if nothing else will work and needs must they are submitted.


If nothing else will work? Does that include the use of treats? Because from what I gather you haven't tried that yet?

You openly admit you don't/won't train with treats but you do "submit" your dogs so am I right in thinking you believe "submitting a dog" is a better technique than using treats?

It's certainly cheaper.

That isn't the case here anyway, we're talking about a dog that doesn't like being picked up, the answer is simple, don't pick it up.



james1 said:


> I have done this only a few times... count them on one hand kind of thing, as that is all that is ever really needed, I am not championing it as a training method as it isnt a method, its a tool to instantly stem grossly undesirable behaviour.


Yes, that's the affect of bullying a dog, they learn very quickly not to do things, because they don't like being bullied. Lazy, springs to mind.



james1 said:


> I am defending it as it is getting an unnecessarily bad wrap, when owners need at least some confidence if they ever do it. It wont cause hand shyness in the least, it hasnt in mine and as said it is used less than sparingly in any case


It hasn't in yours, that doesn't prove anything other than that it hasn't in yours. In many other cases it does. I've seen it time and time again.


----------



## Cloth101 (Aug 5, 2009)

Hey,
I haven't read the whole thread on here so I'm not sure this has already been said but I'll say it anyway =)
Obviously you need to be able to pick your puppy up. Someone said that you wouldn't pick a newfoundland up, but a newfoundland isn't in danger of being squashed by a chair of tripped over or falling off of something. I've just got my first puppy D) and I don't know where I'd be if I couldn't pick him up! 'Drop that' 'Leave that' 'No! Don't climb on that' the list of situations is endless!! 
But it seems that your dog either doesn't like being picked up or gets frustrated when she wants to get down? So, and this is just an idea, instead of telling her off when she gets impatient couldn't you pick her up and get your partner/friend/brother/sister etc to give her lot's of treats and attention. So that she knows that being picked up is pleasurable and that good things happen when she does.
But of course, if you can tell that she's unhappy and there's no reason for her to be off the floor then put her down. That way she knows that being picked up is a good thing but you're also respecting her space (I shouldn't like to be held and kept enclosed so I suppose dogs don't either).

Just a thought =) hope you find a solution =) x


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2009)

Im not going to bother reading the whole thread but my gut reaction was the dog isnt altogether comfortable being carried around, so dont. If its growling to get down I think that is OK, as a growl is a warning of discomfort. Start to punish or supress this and there is the risk of the warning disappearing and the next step being taken (Full blown bites)

If you pick him/her up in little doses over time they will get used to it, and be happy with it - as a pup buster hated being carried, now he will tolerate it as over time he has been picked up and moved from A to B in small doses, when its needed - although I only do it when absolutley necessary as he is a dog not a bag


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> If nothing else will work? Does that include the use of treats? Because from what I gather you haven't tried that yet?
> 
> You openly admit you don't/won't train with treats but you do "submit" your dogs so am I right in thinking you believe "submitting a dog" is a better technique than using treats?
> 
> ...


So you will discipline a dog using treats, that just does nto make sense. 
Your discipline of a dog involves treating it when its good and not treating it when its bad. That isnt discipline and doesnt help anything in letting people or your dog in knowing how to deal with aggressive behaviour. Your only suggestion for dealing with aggressive behaviour is to not pick it up - there are numerous reasons why you may need to pick a dog up! You dont want to be getting bitten every time you try it.
I think you really dont know what your talking about, a dog isnt as fragile as you make out - so long as abuse of the dog isnt happening, it will not get handshy from from being put on its back when all else has failed. Whatever you have seen is not through the result of submission it is probably through months or years of negletion.
And just to mention - as I did in my previous, I dont use it........ I have used it, it is not something that is employed or needs to be employed on a daily basis.
Sticking to one method doesnt allow you the benefits of others, a dog needs discipline as much as it needs praise.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2009)

I dont see how discipline is required in this situation? The dog is displaying its discomfort at being manhandled... Surely the easiest least stressful way of doing this is over a period of time, picking up in short bursts, not making a fuss or a big deal about it. Just up, few seconds down....then a bit longer, then a bit longer still, then include slight travel etc etc.

(have i walked in on a 100% praise vs discipline argument :S ...)


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Yes I agree, its only 9 weeks old or so, and I have pointed this out. Im just giving light on what the discussion has turned to:wink5:


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Thats what jumps out at me, the dog is 9weeks old! Unless it grew up feral it is unlikely to be a truely aggressive reaction. The puppy probably just wants to play and is treating its owner like a littermate.
I would use treats, I think. Reward calm behaviour when you pick her up and try to put her down before she starts to play up, so short sessions only. Try to lengthen the amount of time you are holding her.

I agree tiny dogs arent accessories but its also true you need to be able to pick them up sometimes. In a crowded street where they could get stepped on, with an aggressive ownerless dog or if they are injured. These are all instances where Ive had to carry my chihuahua, he isnt too keen on it but will let me until he squirms to get down!!Only when he was injured (trying to play with a labrador and a lurcher) did he let me carry him all the way home and 6Ib is remarkably heavy after half an hour!LOL


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I cant be bothered to read all the arguements. A small dog is going to be picked up a lot more than a large dog. The picking up isnt the issue, it is the fact that a small puppy is growling when it doesnt like something its owner is doing. This is not acceptable and must be stopped. 
Handshy seems to be cropping up. If the pup doesnt like being picked up then hands should not reach out to it. Get down to the puppy and encourage it right up to you then you can lift it without pulling at it. Support it comfortably and hold it firmly so it cant wriggle. If it growls either ignore it or, if your timing and your reading of the pup is good, then scruff it gently and use a firm voice to tell it that growling is not acceptable. Praise when it is quiet and titbit if that is what you want to do. Never put it down if it wriggles and growls, wait till it is quiet, and has had praise/titbit before putting down. But dont pick up too often if the pup isnt comfortable with it, just use it as a training exercise to show the pup that it has to succumb gracefully to things it doesnt like.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Sorry, but no dog should be picked up (unless putting them onto a table (for example a grooming table). Dogs have legs, let them use them.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I cant be bothered to read all the arguements. A small dog is going to be picked up a lot more than a large dog. The picking up isnt the issue, it is the fact that a small puppy is growling when it doesnt like something its owner is doing. This is not acceptable and must be stopped.
> Handshy seems to be cropping up. If the pup doesnt like being picked up then hands should not reach out to it. Get down to the puppy and encourage it right up to you then you can lift it without pulling at it. Support it comfortably and hold it firmly so it cant wriggle. If it growls either ignore it or, if your timing and your reading of the pup is good, then scruff it gently and use a firm voice to tell it that growling is not acceptable. Praise when it is quiet and titbit if that is what you want to do. Never put it down if it wriggles and growls, wait till it is quiet, and has had praise/titbit before putting down. But dont pick up too often if the pup isnt comfortable with it, just use it as a training exercise to show the pup that it has to succumb gracefully to things it doesnt like.


dangerous advice as when a dog stopps growling the risk is alot higher it will bite WITHOUT the warning....

why would u want the dog to stop telling u when its not happy about something?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Natik said:


> dangerous advice as when a dog stopps growling the risk is alot higher it will bite WITHOUT the warning....


yes, agree, a growl is a warning, so take it otherwise next time, it'll miss out the warning and just bite.


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

Why continue picking the dog up, it's a dawg gowd damit!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

All dogs need to be picked up at some point or other, whether its moving them off something, putting them on or moving them over something. 
This is essentially what ive talked about in other posts, and got basically shouted down for. At 8-9 weeks it doesnt know you whatsoever, it is in a new environment, with new things happening, with new people and no litter mates. It basically wants fo find out what the deal is and see whats what. The (any) owner trying to pet it, pick it up what-ever just stresses them out - you should pet them but when they come to you and it should only be in short reassuring bursts.
Theyll get to know you mean them no harm and things can move on from there. I dont know why so many people jumped on me for suggesting this but is seems a case in point really. Members were infact suggesting it would become handshy if you didnt pet it silly.... So you either do and it bites you or you dont and it gets used to you. Doesnt sound too difficult really and I cant see why others dont realise this


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

james1 said:


> So you will discipline a dog using treats, that just does nto make sense. Your discipline of a dog involves treating it when its good and not treating it when its bad.


Where have I said that?

Making things up just weakens your already poor arguement.



james1 said:


> That isnt discipline and doesnt help anything in letting people or your dog in knowing how to deal with aggressive behaviour.


No it's not discipline, well done. It's negative reinforcement. You remove the reward when the behaviour is undesirable.

And actually you can treat aggression problems with treat training far more effectively than by "submitting" it. There are 100's, probably 1000's of trainers that do so on a regular basis. As most aggression is fear based then all that needs to be done is build postive associations and make the dog comfortable around it's fears. It's not a difficult concept.

"Alpha rolling", flooding and the like do not treat aggression, they surpress it. Surpressed behaviours have a tendancy to re-emerge making dominance related methods extremely dangerous in the long term as well as the short term.



james1 said:


> Your only suggestion for dealing with aggressive behaviour is to not pick it up - there are numerous reasons why you may need to pick a dog up! You dont want to be getting bitten every time you try it.


Aggression problems? Lol.

The dog is not happy with being picked up and tries to communicate this to the owner by growling and nipping, that is not aggression. If you think that is aggression then you have clearly never dealt with real aggression problems.



james1 said:


> I think you really dont know what your talking about, a dog isnt as fragile as you make out - so long as abuse of the dog isnt happening, it will not get handshy from from being put on its back when all else has failed.


I also think you really don't know what you're talking about. You can't even understand simple training principles.



james1 said:


> Whatever you have seen is not through the result of submission it is probably through months or years of negletion.


So now you're diagnosing the problems of dogs you have never met, don't know the history of and who's behaviour I have not even described?



james1 said:


> Sticking to one method doesnt allow you the benefits of others, a dog needs discipline as much as it needs praise.


Nope, they needs boundaries NOT discipline. You don't need discipline to teach a dog what is unacceptable.

I don't stick to one method, my dogs are all trained very differently depending on what motivates them. It's all reward based though.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> All dogs need to be picked up at some point or other, whether its moving them off something, putting them on or moving them over something.
> This is essentially what ive talked about in other posts, and got basically shouted down for. At 8-9 weeks it doesnt know you whatsoever, it is in a new environment, with new things happening, with new people and no litter mates. It basically wants fo find out what the deal is and see whats what. The (any) owner trying to pet it, pick it up what-ever just stresses them out - you should pet them but when they come to you and it should only be in short reassuring bursts.
> Theyll get to know you mean them no harm and things can move on from there. I dont know why so many people jumped on me for suggesting this but is seems a case in point really. Members were infact suggesting it would become handshy if you didnt pet it silly.... So you either do and it bites you or you dont and it gets used to you. Doesnt sound too difficult really and I cant see why others dont realise this


But excuse me, but you only have a dog that has been trained for you, and a 6 month old puppy, so how can you claim to know so much? I don't claim to know anything, but people here are very experienced and they are very wise and they make much more sense than you have in any of your posts I've read. Your posts are getting seriously dangerous for new dog owners, and I'm worried that people will think this is the way to treat dogs, it's not, and many people will say the same as me.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Where have I said that?
> 
> Making things up just weakens your already poor arguement.
> 
> ...


Ive come to the assumption that your talk twaddle  you really do like the sound of your own voice, shouting over people and trying to get one over on them.
Id say you know absolutely nothing about training even - you call any method other than your method lazy, your method is food based and you jump to conclusions about events as if you were there at the time so can accurately undersatnd what was going on. I say you are made up of guesswork and bravado.
Simply because you dont agree with asomeones opionin is no reason to try and ram your hippy nonsense across a forum that is here to provide rounded responses.
As I have said on another thread - simply because treat trainig is effective and is employed pretty much accross the board as a training method does not make it the best. If a dog is receiving food for doing something - it will follow you into a volcano ...... does that make sense to you, I expect it doesnt. 
I suspect you as you are a new member you are actually either a banned patron or somone who has come back on under another guise. There is no need for you to be taking every one of my posts apart like you are some kind of peer reviewer, to me if not other you simply look small and inadequate in trying to take over a thread and push your opinions.

peace and much love


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> Ive come to the assumption that your talk twaddle  you really do like the sound of your own voice, shouting over people and trying to get one over on them.
> Id say you know absolutely nothing about training even - you call any method other than your method lazy, your method is food based and you jump to conclusions about events as if you were there at the time so can accurately undersatnd what was going on. I say you are made up of guesswork and bravado.
> Simply because you dont agree with asomeones opionin is no reason to try and ram your hippy nonsense across a forum that is here to provide rounded responses.
> As I have said on another thread - simply because treat trainig is effective and is employed pretty much accross the board as a training method does not make it the best. If a dog is receiving food for doing something - it will follow you into a volcano ...... does that make sense to you, I expect it doesnt.
> ...


she's actually talking much more sense than you, look at my above post to you


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> But excuse me, but you only have a dog that has been trained for you, and a 6 month old puppy, so how can you claim to know so much? I don't claim to know anything, but people here are very experienced and they are very wise and they make much more sense than you have in any of your posts I've read. Your posts are getting seriously dangerous for new dog owners, and I'm worried that people will think this is the way to treat dogs, it's not, and many people will say the same as me.


you dont have to excuse yourself  my posts arent seriously dangerous.

tell me - 
have you ever slapped your dog
have you ever shouted in anger at your dog

would you advise it

no

but did it work

yes.

my posts are not dangerous as you say ...... and they have nothing to do with what dogs ive trained.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> you dont have to excuse yourself  my posts arent seriously dangerous.
> 
> tell me -
> have you ever slapped your dog
> ...


I have never slapped my dog or shouted in anger at my dog. And I wouldn't advise it as it wouldn't work.

If you have no personal experience of training dogs, then you don't have any room to comment, otherwise you are just throwing comments around that you haven't done yourself.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> she's actually talking much more sense than you, look at my above post to you


if you read what she is writing she is not saying anything, one minute submission causes handshyness in all dogs the next it doesnt and affects dogs differently. In the post shes made on this page she has satated that she never said she used treats to correct aggreesion/unwanted behaviour and then straight after she is saying you simply withold treats.

she is basically pushing a method that is employed widely and wildly.

what part of my posts dont you understand? I thought i have been very clear.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I have never slapped my dog or shouted in anger at my dog. And I wouldn't advise it as it wouldn't work.


i dont belive you for a single second. your dog has never mouthed something it shouldnt or ran into a road and youve got excited?

i dont believe you whatsoever.

apologies if im wrong.:blushing::blushing:

you must have a very well behaved dog - it being a springer I doubt it


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> if you read what she is writing she is not saying anything, one minute submission causes handshyness in all dogs the next it doesnt and affects dogs differently. In the post shes made on this page she has satated that she never said she used treats to correct aggreesion/unwanted behaviour and then straight after she is saying you simply withold treats.
> 
> she is basically pushing a method that is employed widely and wildly.
> 
> what part of my posts dont you understand? I thought i have been very clear.


did I say that I didn't understand your posts? I don't think I did. I find your posts very dangerous, and new dog owners should not follow your methods.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> i dont belive you for a single second. your dog has never mouthed something it shouldnt or ran into a road and youve got excited?
> 
> i dont believe you whatsoever.
> 
> ...


it's not a springer by the way.  It's a cocker.

He is one of the best behaved dogs I know, and I'm proud to state that fact as I trained him myself (with a little help from dog classes). He's never run into a road or mouthed something he shouldn't.

If you don't believe me, fine, but I know that I am right and I'm not looking for your belief in the facts about my dog.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> did I say that I didn't understand your posts? I don't think I did. I find your posts very dangerous, and new dog owners should not follow your methods.





SEVEN_PETS said:


> people here are very experienced and they are very wise and they make much more sense than you have in any of your posts I've read.


if you read my posts - i make my positon ultra clear, i have said repeatedly now - it is not used as an everyday training tool but an effective one when there is extreme uncontrolable bad behaviour, as i take it your talking about submission. If you have no experience of it either - they why are you calling it and me deangerous.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> if you read my posts - i make my positon ultra clear, i have said repeatedly now - it is not used as an everyday training tool but an effective one when there is extreme uncontrolable bad behaviour, as i take it your talking about submission. If you have no experience of it either - they why are you calling it and me deangerous.


because it's not a correct method and should never be used.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

james1 said:


> All dogs need to be picked up at some point or other, whether its moving them off something, putting them on or moving them over something.
> This is essentially what ive talked about in other posts, and got basically shouted down for. At 8-9 weeks it doesnt know you whatsoever, it is in a new environment, with new things happening, with new people and no litter mates. It basically wants fo find out what the deal is and see whats what. The (any) owner trying to pet it, pick it up what-ever just stresses them out - you should pet them but when they come to you and it should only be in short reassuring bursts.
> Theyll get to know you mean them no harm and things can move on from there. I dont know why so many people jumped on me for suggesting this but is seems a case in point really. Members were infact suggesting it would become handshy if you didnt pet it silly.... So you either do and it bites you or you dont and it gets used to you. Doesnt sound too difficult really and I cant see why others dont realise this





SEVEN_PETS said:


> But excuse me, but you only have a dog that has been trained for you, and a 6 month old puppy, so how can you claim to know so much? I don't claim to know anything, but people here are very experienced and they are very wise and they make much more sense than you have in any of your posts I've read. Your posts are getting seriously dangerous for new dog owners, and I'm worried that people will think this is the way to treat dogs, it's not, and many people will say the same as me.


what is dangerous about this please


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> you dont have to excuse yourself  my posts arent seriously dangerous.
> 
> tell me -
> have you ever slapped your dog
> ...


The only reason slapping a dog works is because they associate pain with doing something wrong. Would you continue to do something if someone kept hitting you when you did it?

Does it work? Yes. Is it a safe, humane way to train a dog? Absolutely NOT.

Anyone who hits a dog for whatever reason has no business owning a dog at all.

Also it's dangerous to train a dog in such a way. There is only so much a dog will take until it snaps, and whose fault is it then? The dog for biting or the owner for not taking the proper time and care to train the dog?

It's horrible to see a dog shy away from a human hand.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> because it's not a correct method and should never be used.


as i have said - if you read my ultra clear posts - it is not a method it is a tool.

and why should it not be used, i have used it - as i have already said - maybe a fistfull of times and my boy is more than fine, so how can you say it "should never be used"

i dont want to keep repeating myself as I feel the topic of this is over


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> what is dangerous about this please


you say that no petting should be done with a young puppy, which is totally wrong and nearly the whole dog world would agree with me and say it's wrong. all dogs need human contact, it's ridiculous to say otherwise.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> The only reason slapping a dog works is because they associate pain with doing something wrong. Would you continue to do something if someone kept hitting you when you did it?
> 
> Does it work? Yes. Is it a safe, humane way to train a dog? Absolutely NOT.
> 
> ...


couldnt agree more - but theres no reason not to not talk about it and pretend you havent done it, when for that instant it worked as guilty as it felt


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> you say that no petting should be done with a young puppy, which is totally wrong and nearly the whole dog world would agree with me and say it's wrong. all dogs need human contact, it's ridiculous to say otherwise.


................. petting at a young age 8 - 9 weeks - it is in my post as it happens a rediculas waste of your time more like


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> couldnt agree more - but theres no reason not to not talk about it and pretend you havent done it, when for that instant it worked


I've never done it and I don't have to pretend. No dog owner should do it, and if you do do it, then you shouldn't have a dog, full stop.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> couldnt agree more - but theres no reason not to not talk about it and pretend you havent done it, when for that instant it worked


No need to pretend because I have never hit a dog in anger - or otherwise  Looks like you're just making excuses for yourself by assuming everyone else has done it.

I have clicker trained and treat/word praised both my dogs. Why should I resort to hitting them to get them to do what I want? A simple 'ssh, sit' calms them when they get over excited.

Edit: My OHs dog was a compulsive barker. I clicker trained/treat rewarded her when to and when not to bark. She now barks once when someone comes to our home. Once she has barked I tell her "Well done, now stop" and would you believe, she stops barking


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

its like saying youve never smaked a child or ever been smaked as a child - its utter rubbish as it obviously happens however much you disagree with it and it hasnt affected you in the least


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> No need to pretend because I have never hit a dog in anger - or otherwise  Looks like you're just making excuses for yourself by assuming everyone else has done it.
> 
> I have clicker trained and treat/word praised both my dogs. Why should I resort to hitting them to get them to do what I want? A simple 'ssh, sit' calms them when they get over excited.


ive never hit a dog in anger - but i have hit a dog

lol just read the end of that, love the fact that if your dogs quiet it gets a treat. That is just nonsensical to me


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> its like saying youve never smaked a child or ever been smaked as a child - its utter rubbish as it obviously happens however much you disagree with it and it hasnt affected you in the least


i will never smack a child, as I wouldn't smack a dog or any animal for that matter. you are finding an excuse for your own mistakes.ut:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> ive never hit a dog in anger - but i have hit a dog


then you should be ashamed of yourself. :cursing:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> ive never hit a dog in anger - but i have hit a dog


You've hit a dog for what reason?

Because it wouldn't listen to you? Because it was over excited? Because you felt like?

None of these problems are the dogs fault, they are the owners. If you cannot calm a dog down or train it without resorting to smacking it then you shouldn't be owning a dog.

Actually, anyone who feels the need to hit any living animal should not own a pet. Period.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> its like saying youve never smaked a child or ever been smaked as a child - its utter rubbish as it obviously happens however much you disagree with it and it hasnt affected you in the least


PMSL are you a psychologist now too?

And for your information yes I was beaten as a child. It's affected me in the sense that I now find it hard to trust men and I flinch at sudden movements/loud sounds.

Never affected me, hmm total BS on your part mate :dita:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> ive never hit a dog in anger - but i have hit a dog
> 
> lol just read the end of that, love the fact that if your dogs quiet it gets a treat. That is just nonsensical to me


She doesn't get a treat anymore either  See treats are used in the sense that a dog will learn to associate doing something good and getting a treat for their reward. Once you have the basics down you don't need to treat - or clicker anymore.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> You've hit a dog for what reason?
> 
> Because it wouldn't listen to you? Because it was over excited? Because you felt like?
> 
> ...


there was a recent poll on dog chat on " if you have ever hit your dog" I dont know the results as i cant be bothered finding it - but i was around number 20 to complete it

AND

something like 14 had and 6 hadnt - so im not alone on this in the least.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> PMSL are you a psychologist now too?
> 
> And for your information yes I was beaten as a child. It's affected me in the sense that I now find it hard to trust men and I flinch at sudden movements/loud sounds.
> 
> Never affected me, hmm total BS on your part mate :dita:


youd be surprised what a little love does - im sorry about that and dont mean to make fun of it. however i have had my legs slapped - as have 1/2 the population and it hasnt stopped me talking to my parents


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> there was a recent poll on dog chat on " if you have ever hit your dog" I dont know the results as i cant be bothered finding it - but i was around number 20 to complete it
> 
> AND
> 
> something like 14 had and 6 hadnt - so im not alone on this in the least.


There is a huge difference between tapping a dog on the nose and whacking it with a lead/stick/rolled up newspaper/whatever.

If you purely meant tapping a dog on the nose with your finger then you should have said so and we could have avoided all this 



james1 said:


> youd be surprised what a little love does - im sorry about that and dont mean to make fun of it. however i have had my legs slapped - as have 1/2 the population and it hasnt stopped me talking to my parents


You clearly haven't got a clue mate. I'm not talking a slap on the legs. I'm talking thrown into a fridge freezer, punched in the face, dragged along the road sort of beating.

But then again you're so far up your own arse you probably haven't got a clue


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> It doesn't get a treat anymore either  See treats are used in the sense that a dog will learn to associate doing something good and getting a treat for their reward. Once you have the basics down you don't need to treat - or clicker anymore.


you shouldnt need one in the first place - a dog doesnt need a treat or a clicker to shut up. It needs to be corrected everytime it barks out of turn, simple as
this is what i hate about treat training (im not aiming it at you) but the dog wil receive impropper attention when simple owner assertiveness will handle the problem as with any training (to an extent) that is needed.

sorry but i just dont use them and my dog(s) are sorted - and before you or others say i havent trained my sniffer......... have you ever received a dog fulled trained by someone else in search patterns and drug detection for 9 years of its life??
NO. I can tell you now it is not easy to have them under your control so please dont suggest i know naff all about how to handle my dogs (more aimed toweard seven pets)


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> you shouldnt need one in the first place - a dog doesnt need a treat or a clicker to shut up. It needs to be corrected everytime it barks out of turn, simple as
> this is what i hate about treat training (im not aiming it at you) but the dog wil receive impropper attention when simple owner assertiveness will handle the problem as with any training (to an extent) that is needed.
> 
> sorry but i just dont use them and my dog(s) are sorted - and before you or others say i havent trained my sniffer......... have you ever received a dog fulled trained by someone else in search patterns and drug detection for 9 years of its life??
> NO. I can tell you now it is not easy to have them under your control so please dont suggest i know naff all about how to handle my dogs (more aimed toweard seven pets)


As I understand it you have one dog trained for you and one dog that is very naughty. Says it all really  When you know what it entails to train a dog maybe then we can talk about it.

Don't mean to come across as snobbish but it's common sense to be honest!

So if I don't need to clicker train or treat reward my dogs, how should I go about correcting them? Don't say 'hit it' either because that's just moronic.

Edit: Should I choke it with a choke chain? Should I roll it over aggressively? Should I put a prong collar on it? Should I electrocute it?

All very out of date and barbaric methods.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> There is a huge difference between tapping a dog on the nose and whacking it with a lead/stick/rolled up newspaper/whatever.
> 
> If you purely meant tapping a dog on the nose with your finger then you should have said so and we could have avoided all this
> 
> ...


a hit is a hit is a hit Seq. Your going on back on yourself now. I am a tough judge on myself so I dont need others trying to manipulate what I say - I say things clearly even if they are not read. I have never hit my dog in anger - as i have stated (again) but i at least i admit i have


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> you shouldnt need one in the first place - a dog doesnt need a treat or a clicker to shut up. It needs to be corrected everytime it barks out of turn, simple as
> this is what i hate about treat training (im not aiming it at you) but the dog wil receive impropper attention when simple owner assertiveness will handle the problem as with any training (to an extent) that is needed.
> 
> sorry but i just dont use them and my dog(s) are sorted - and before you or others say i havent trained my sniffer......... have you ever received a dog fulled trained by someone else in search patterns and drug detection for 9 years of its life??
> NO. I can tell you now it is not easy to have them under your control so please dont suggest i know naff all about how to handle my dogs (more aimed toweard seven pets)


if using the treat at the beginning worked for sequeena, then who are you to judge her method of training? my dog is well behaved (apparently more well-behaved than yours :001_tt2, and I've used treats, so nothing wrong with them.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> but i at least i admit i have


but we don't have to admit it, because we never have hit our dogs. Are you calling me a liar?


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> you shouldnt need one in the first place - a dog doesnt need a treat or a clicker to shut up. It needs to be corrected everytime it barks out of turn, simple as
> this is what i hate about treat training (im not aiming it at you) but the dog wil receive impropper attention when simple owner assertiveness will handle the problem as with any training (to an extent) that is needed.
> 
> sorry but i just dont use them and my dog(s) are sorted - and before you or others say i havent trained my sniffer......... have you ever received a dog fulled trained by someone else in search patterns and drug detection for 9 years of its life??
> NO. I can tell you now it is not easy to have them under your control so please dont suggest i know naff all about how to handle my dogs (more aimed toweard seven pets)


It just gets better and better.Not only did you inherit a fully trained dog but it was 9 years old when you got it.So by my maths you have owned dogs for 2 years.

Come back in 25 years and give some advice when you have learnt something.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> As I understand it you have one dog trained for you and one dog that is very naughty. Says it all really  When you know what it entails to train a dog maybe then we can talk about it.
> 
> Don't mean to come across as snobbish but it's common sense to be honest!
> 
> ...


sooooooooooooo what exactly DIDNT you read in that post.
keep talking as the whole worlds listening, and i hope your not trying to associate me with those implements . I think your not but im just making sure I state it before you are taken out of context with the amount of reading that goes on in here


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> a hit is a hit is a hit Seq. Your going on back on yourself now. I am a tough judge on myself so I dont need others trying to manipulate what I say - I say things clearly even if they are not read. I have never hit my dog in anger - as i have stated (again) but i at least i admit i have


No. A hit is not a hit. A finger tap is not going to scar your dog for life. Out right smacking it whether you do it with an open hand or a closed fist will.

Why do you hit a dog then? What makes you do it? Does it make you have a sense of power?? What drives you to do it?

Question for anyone who admits to openly beating their dogs? When you do this does your dog lose control of its bowels and yelp? I wonder why it does it :idea: Could it be that it's terrified?

I have seen this done and guess what, I used the man's own training methods on him. I then took the dog and phoned the RSPCA. I've seen the man since with the same dog and guess what? He doesn't have to hit it anymore!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> It just gets better and better.Not only did you inherit a fully trained dog but it was 9 years old when you got it.So by my maths you have owned dogs for 2 years.
> 
> Come back in 25 years and give some advice when you have learnt something.


and what DIDNT you read in my post hmmm:blushing:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> sooooooooooooo what exactly DIDNT you read in that post.
> keep talking as the whole worlds listening, and i hope your not trying to associate me with those implements . I think your not but im just making sure I state it before you are taken out of context with the amount of reading that goes on in here


Doesn't bother me as I will talk til the cows come home. Perks of being a woman 

You can sit there and wave off my questions but you have answered none of them.

Of course I'm not associating you with those implements. I'm just stating the other alternatives to clicker/treat/praise training.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> if using the treat at the beginning worked for sequeena, then who are you to judge her method of training? my dog is well behaved (apparently more well-behaved than yours :001_tt2, and I've used treats, so nothing wrong with them.


the problem is there are so many different applications for using treats and the amount of owners that use the incorrectly is simply astonishing, so why use them at all
my dog came to me - ill give it a treat
my dog didnt bark - ill give it a treat
my dog wore a dress and begged - ill give it a treat

astonishingly poor ownership and training in my eyes


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> No. A hit is not a hit. A finger tap is not going to scar your dog for life. Out right smacking it whether you do it with an open hand or a closed fist will.
> 
> Why do you hit a dog then? What makes you do it? Does it make you have a sense of power?? What drives you to do it?
> 
> ...


your making excuses Seq, a hit is a hit

but taking your route:
then i have never hit my dog either - but i know i have.

why are you attempting to coerce an audience into thinking that i mistreat my dog please? I have stated i have turned him onto his back a fistful of times? and I admit to having given him one of YOUR slaps when hes been out of order. dont put words in peoples mouths or i will report you


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> the problem is there are so many different applications for using treats and the amount of owners that use the incorrectly is simply astonishing, so why use them at all
> my dog came to me - ill give it a treat
> my dog didnt bark - ill give it a treat
> my dog wore a dress and begged - ill give it a treat
> ...


no, good ownership and good training. (apart from the wearing a dress and begging. :001_tt2: )


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> the problem is there are so many different applications for using treats and the amount of owners that use the incorrectly is simply astonishing, so why use them at all
> my dog came to me - ill give it a treat
> my dog didnt bark - ill give it a treat
> my dog wore a dress and begged - ill give it a treat
> ...


This is how treat training goes for me. Feel free to rip it apart as I know you will 

My girl came to me at 8 weeks old. We started training straight away. The first command I taught was sit. I stood her in front of me and held a treat up. I pushed her bum down as I said sit and gave her the treat.

I repeated this until she did it without me pushing her bum down. Once she got that right I stopped with the treats. Now all I have to do is click my fingers and point at her - she automatically sits. Don't know why she associated that with sitting but good on her really.

When I taught her to give paw I made her sit (no treats). I took a treat and placed it under her chin whilst saying paw. She automatically lifted her paw because she wanted to get at the treat. As soon as she did that I gave her the treat.

I repeated this until she was able to give me paw without me putting a treat under chin. Now she does not need treats at all and though she was only trained to give one paw she will give me both one after another.

Have I simplified it enough for you?


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> your making excuses Seq, a hit is a hit
> 
> but taking your route:
> then i have never hit my dog either - but i know i have.
> ...


Not sure why you think I'm trying to make people believe you beat your dog but whatever floats your boat  I'm simply asking questions as to why you hit your dog.

But wait, it gets better. 'I have never hit my dog either - but I know I have'  Not sure what world you live in but that makes no sense.

And I have no need to make excuses as I have never hit my dog in anger or otherwise. Neither have I had to tap her on the nose or any other part of her body.

Got a clear conscience me


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> the problem is there are so many different applications for using treats and the amount of owners that use the incorrectly is simply astonishing, so why use them at all
> my dog came to me - ill give it a treat
> my dog didnt bark - ill give it a treat
> my dog wore a dress and begged - ill give it a treat
> ...


Is this the same James that has NEVER TRAINED a dog. Sounds like it.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> Is this the same James that has NEVER TRAINED a dog. Sounds like it.


see page 8 avid readerhmy:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Oh actually - there is one thing.

I suffered a miscarriage in June and my poor girl did suffer once for it. It was completely my own fault and I will never forgive myself or forget it.

So I retract what I said about having a clear conscience. I have hit her once - out of anger/grief/frustration.

It didn't make me feel big and it didn't make me feel good. My girl yelped and hid outside for half an hour.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> see page 8 avid readerhmy:


Yep, page 8 says it all.James has NEVER TRAINED a dog.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

just to say my pc crashed and ill be back later as i have other things to do 

but id be interested to know who has received a fully trained dog more than any of you will ever know ftch inc and had to take it on yourself.

with experience it will take months to have it under your control and without experience as in my case I have got him engaged and active so there is little need to say i dont have experience 

byes for now


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> just to say my pc crashed and ill be back later as i have other things to do
> 
> but id be interested to know who has received a fully trained dog more than any of you will ever know ftch inc and had to take it on yourself.
> 
> ...


Your dog is an ex police dog. It's perfectly trained in every way shape and form.

It's an ex drug dog - it likes to sniff things. If you can't keep your dog under control when it wants to go off and sniff dog that's no-ones problem but yours.

My girl is a serial sniffer. If she catches scent of anything she likes she wants to go but I keep her under control. She's not trained to a police standard and I can keep her under control.

Says it all!


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> just to say my pc crashed and ill be back later as i have other things to do
> 
> but id be interested to know who has received a fully trained dog more than any of you will ever know ftch inc and had to take it on yourself.
> 
> ...


That was predictable.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> just to say my pc crashed and ill be back later as i have other things to do
> 
> but id be interested to know who has received a fully trained dog more than any of you will ever know ftch inc and had to take it on yourself.
> 
> ...


my dog is a cocker spaniel, ie a scent dog, and I can still keep him under control.


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

That was an interesting read!!!!
Some people!
What about the OPs original question?
Do we feel they have been helped with their request?


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

PennyH said:


> That was an interesting read!!!!
> Some people!
> What about the OPs original question?
> Do we feel they have been helped with their request?


I admit I got carried away :laugh:

But the OP has got a lot of sound advice from members that I respect a great deal. I can't add anymore to what they've said


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

PennyH said:


> That was an interesting read!!!!
> Some people!
> What about the OPs original question?
> Do we feel they have been helped with their request?


I think it was answered before the debate, there was good advice.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

PennyH said:


> That was an interesting read!!!!
> Some people!
> What about the OPs original question?
> Do we feel they have been helped with their request?


im actually waiting for Highpro to make an appearance - dullishly


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> Your dog is an ex police dog. It's perfectly trained in every way shape and form.
> 
> It's an ex drug dog - it likes to sniff things. If you can't keep your dog under control when it wants to go off and sniff dog that's no-ones problem but yours.
> 
> ...


He is perfectly trained yes (not now however) in everything from drugs and explosives to person avoidance (he would shy away from any affection other than what his handler gave). He was kenneled outside for 9 years of his life and worked intensively thoughout, no interaction or unnessary praise from the handler. Made to point items, jump 5 ft obstaclies as an everyday, and stay clam in extreme circumstances. Teaching him new things is not easy, and teaching him not to do old things isnt easy. I would say one word and hed go in an opposite direction, he'd be searching persons walking past in the street stopping if he got scent, hed have his nose in every bag or coat that passed him, any dog that was a bit dubious (drug/scent wise) again hed stop - and when its an aggressive type owned by somone who wants it aggressive it doesnt make for easy handling. All the time hed be pulling to make your hands blister.
So id say there were dogs that sniff and dogs that sniff, keeping him under control isnt my problem and I dont know why you assume otherwise - you do keep making strange comments to say this is a forum you can obviously read again if necessary.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> He is perfectly trained yes (not now however) in everything from drugs and explosives to person avoidance (he would shy away from any affection other than what his handler gave). He was kenneled outside for 9 years of his life and worked intensively thoughout, no interaction or unnessary praise from the handler. Made to point items, jump 5 ft obstaclies as an everyday, and stay clam in extreme circumstances. Teaching him new things is not easy, and teaching him not to do old things isnt easy. I would say one word and hed go in an opposite direction, he'd be searching persons walking past in the street stopping if he got scent, hed have his nose in every bag or coat that passed him, any dog that was a bit dubious (drug/scent wise) again hed stop - and when its an aggressive type owned by somone who wants it aggressive it doesnt make for easy handling. All the time hed be pulling to make your hands blister.
> So id say there were dogs that sniff and dogs that sniff, keeping him under control isnt my problem and I dont know why you assume otherwise - you do keep making strange comments to say this is a forum you can obviously read again if necessary.


I assume sniffing would be a problem in ex drug dogs because you know, that was their job 

So what is your problem?  All of his problems can be sorted with a bit of training. Have you tried training classes or a behaviourist?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> I assume sniffing would be a problem in ex drug dogs because you know, that was their job
> 
> So what is your problem?  All of his problems can be sorted with a bit of training. Have you tried training classes or a behaviourist?


oh no no no

you know me Seq treats everytime!! :001_tt2:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> oh no no no
> 
> you know me Seq treats everytime!! :001_tt2:


Oh they'd work great too  So would a clicker and praise!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

In my previous post I was joking  you dont seem to realise along with others, that the only reason im giving advice on here is through my success with him. Within a few months I had im under perfect control without treats just using simple commands and associating good behaviour with good body language/praise/play. I have had him a good few years now and training classes dont exactly suit him due to their level. He has worked hard enough to earn his retirement so I am happy to have him as he is. The classes however were a success with very little effort. Thanks to moi


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> In my previous post I was joking  you dont seem to realise along with others, that the only reason im giving advice on here is through my success with him. Within a few months I had im under perfect control without treats just using simple commands and associating good behaviour with good body language/praise/play. I have had him a good few years now and training classes dont exactly suit him due to their level. He has worked hard enough to earn his retirement so I am happy to have him as he is. The classes however were a success with very little effort. Thanks to moi


Nothing changes the fact that he was a ready TRAINED DOG when you inherited him.Everyone is aware that you have not trained one dog from pup to adulthood in your life,how is anybody supposed to take you seriously?


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> In my previous post I was joking  you dont seem to realise along with others, that the only reason im giving advice on here is through my success with him. Within a few months I had im under perfect control without treats just using simple commands and associating good behaviour with good body language/praise/play. I have had him a good few years now and training classes dont exactly suit him due to their level. He has worked hard enough to earn his retirement so I am happy to have him as he is. The classes however were a success with very little effort. Thanks to moi


I knew you were joking :001_tt2:

Then why didn't you explain that before? I'm sorry but I'm no mind reader and can only go off what information I have 

You praise reward! See! I knew it!! :001_tt2:


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> Nothing changes the fact that he was a ready TRAINED DOG when you inherited him.Everyone is aware that you have not trained one dog from pup to adulthood in your life,how is anybody supposed to take you seriously?


I give advice just like you - if i didnt have any dogs I could understand your point. If you read my post at the top of this page you will realise the efforts I have had to go to in getting him to trust and do as I ask. 
I dont know why you think i have a problem with my dogs as i havent:idea:.
I dont believe praise/play as a reward is aywhere close to giving them a treat to get desired behaviour. I am championing it yes - albiet with a long struggle on this forum as you dont have to treat to gain results - i cant understand why people would.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> I give advice just like you - if i didnt have any dogs I could understand your point. If you read my post at the top of this page you will realise the efforts I have had to go to in getting him to trust and do as I ask.
> I dont know why you think i have a problem with my dogs as i havent:idea:.
> And i dont believe praise/play as a reward is aywhere close to giving them a treat to get desired behaviour. I am championing it yes - albiet with a long struggle on this forum as you dont have to treat to gain results - i cant understand why people would.


James,you have an eleven year old dog that you inherited when he was nine.Dress it up as much as you like,you talk rubbish as you have NO experience to speak from and it shows.
As i said ,come back in 25 years when you've trained a few dogs yourself.Then people may take you seriously.
Goodnight.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

awww your so sweet goodnight too Bucksmum :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2009)

Wow what did i miss last night heh... I think the OP has been scared off lol! Ask a simple question get a 10 page argument


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Wow, seriously heated debate.
IMO rewarding a dog with a 'treat' for desired behaviour just means giving it something it likes for being a good pooch. Wether that is a bit of chicken, a cuddle or a play with their favourite toy. Its whatever floats your dogs boat!!
And I agree that you shouldnt need to hit your dog during training. But to say you would never ever hit it is unrealistic. I have knocked my chihuahua from one side of the room to the other! It was the only time I have hit a dog and was a purely knee jerk reaction to get him away from the live wire he was chewing as quickly as possible. Have to say tho, he didnt know what he had done, just yelped and looked confused, poor baby. So I really cant see that hitting teaches a dog anything.


----------



## sky-summer (Aug 22, 2009)

OMG - I only asked a simply question and its got all this going on - I must admit its put me off so I dont think I will be posting again.

I only wanted a small bit of advice about how to handle a small pup getting fed up with being handled at times when she needs to i.e. when out buying a lead etc and she can not be put on the floor yet due to not having all her jabs etc and running into danger in the garden.

Also not sure what OT is - is that me?

I have not read all the posts as I would be here for ever but I really did not want all this hassle.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

sky-summer said:


> OMG - I only asked a simply question and its got all this going on - I must admit its put me off so I dont think I will be posting again.
> 
> I only wanted a small bit of advice about how to handle a small pup getting fed up with being handled at times when she needs to i.e. when out buying a lead etc and she can not be put on the floor yet due to not having all her jabs etc and running into danger in the garden.
> 
> ...


Please don't be put off, I admit a few of us got carried away but it was nothing to do with what you said.

OP means original poster


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Not your fault, some of us just like to argue more then others!!
My experience of chihuahua puppies though is that they are tiny little energizer bunnies when young and often prefer playing to being picked up. Most do grow out of it though by about 7-8mths of age.Luckily chi's mature pretty quickly compared to big breeds.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2009)

sky-summer said:


> OMG - I only asked a simply question and its got all this going on - I must admit its put me off so I dont think I will be posting again.
> 
> I only wanted a small bit of advice about how to handle a small pup getting fed up with being handled at times when she needs to i.e. when out buying a lead etc and she can not be put on the floor yet due to not having all her jabs etc and running into danger in the garden.
> 
> ...


Dont be put off just try to filter out the irrelevant stuff!... Have you tried to build up contact in really small bursts so she gets used to it? Literally just handling for a few seconds at first, and building it up slowley... 
Also I will try dig out a video of someone clicker training a dog who didnt like his feet being touched as a good example of desensitisation to being handled.

OP = Original Poster 

edit:





I know its not quite the same, but gives you an idea of how you can get a dog used to being handled... slowley building up contact.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Nice to see James arguing with someone other than me for a change 

I have come to realise that having him in discussions is a Good Thing - all I have to type is "I agree with whoever James is disagreeing with" 

I think by now that most people have probably worked out that James is rather young, and inexperienced about modern dog training methods 

Oh, and those spouting about "discipline" would do well to remember that the word is mainly used to describe LEARNING; I don't claim great knowledge about the Bible but I think the Disciples were learning from Jesus. I'll leave it to any Christians on the forum to correct me and point me to the passages where he Alpha rolled them/smacked them on the nose with a rolled up papyrus.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Colliepoodle said:


> Nice to see James arguing with someone other than me for a change
> 
> I have come to realise that having him in discussions is a Good Thing - all I have to type is "I agree with whoever James is disagreeing with"
> 
> ...


 Spot on!!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> Nice to see James arguing with someone other than me for a change
> 
> I have come to realise that having him in discussions is a Good Thing - all I have to type is "I agree with whoever James is disagreeing with"
> 
> ...


Its ok ive Collie/Bucks  I have to say thanks for all your advice on how to effectively train - the forums a much better place for all you ideas.  Youll be glad to hear I have now disciplined myself! I am now stuffing food down my throat everytime I intend to learn something new, good or bad! Really effective and im picking things up great ut:


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> Its ok ive Collie/Bucks  I have to say thanks for all your advice on how to effectively train - the forums a much better place for all you ideas.  Youll be glad to hear I have now disciplined myself! I am now stuffing food down my throat everytime I intend to learn something new, good or bad! Really effective and im picking things up great ut:


But they're not OUR ideas - inasmuch as we didn't invent the concept of positive training. Any more than the Cesar-lovers invented the concept of the Alpha roll (any more than Cesar did, come to that).

Positive trainers train that way because it is more effective and more ethical. Note I say POSITIVE trainers not TREAT trainers because you still seem to struggle with the concept of using whatever reward the DOG values most to motivate it - which may well be food (a primary reinforcer) but can also be praise, toys, the chance to sniff, the chance to play with another dog, the chance to bite (in a controlled way), the chance to herd...

It really doesn't matter what animal you are training - the idea is simple.

A behaviour which is positively reinforced will tend to be repeated. A behaviour which is ignored MAY fade out - it depends on what it is. A behaviour which is punished may be extinguished - or simply suppressed.

Tell me James - how do you think marine animal trainers teach a Dolphin to jump through a hoop? How would YOU do it? Presumably by working out daily in an attempt to become strong enough to physically FLING Flipper through that hoop?


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> Its ok ive Collie/Bucks  I have to say thanks for all your advice on how to effectively train - the forums a much better place for all you ideas.  Youll be glad to hear I have now disciplined myself! I am now stuffing food down my throat everytime I intend to learn something new, good or bad! Really effective and im picking things up great ut:


As colliepoodle says they are not OUR ideas.They are methods used by many successful trainers in all aspects of dog training by people that have trained many dogs over many years.
This is something that everybody on this forum knows you have never done despite your insistance that you are always right as it is now common knowledge that you have not actually ever trained a dog yourself.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> As colliepoodle says they are not OUR ideas.They are methods used by many successful trainers in all aspects of dog training by people that have trained many dogs over many years.
> This is something that everybody on this forum knows you have never done despite your insistance that you are always right as it is now common knowledge that you have not actually ever trained a dog yourself.


So you keep on saying, and despite all the members on here posting threads about this and that I dont see you giving any idea/pointer or as your 25 years of experince should give you - advice.
It seems your more at home in keeping your 25 years to yourself and jumping in 1/2 way through threads to either escalate it or to try an belittle somene making a point. I have not pushed my methods I have defended them as they have been useful with my dog - nothing more. I wont take attacks about the health of my dogs but you seem to enjoy pushing an argument and not actually posting anything solid
I have not seen one thread on here where you have offered any of your 25 yrs of 'knowledge' as regards training - i havent looked in depth but please correct me if im wrong

:wink5:


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> So you keep on saying, and despite all the members on here posting threads about this and that I dont see you giving any idea/pointer or as your 25 years of experince should give you - advice.
> It seems your more at home in keeping your 25 years to yourself and jumping in 1/2 way through threads to either escalate it or to try an belittle somene making a point.
> I have not seen one thread on here where you have offered any of your 25 yrs of 'knowledge' as regards training - i havent looked in depth but please correct me if im wrong
> 
> :wink5:


seems i've hit a nerve,the whole reason you and i agree to disagree is because i gave my opinion on using treats as rewards for gundog training and you insisted i was wrong to do so.
If you weren't so busy giving out your extemely limited advice you may have had time to read some more threads.
Lastly,yes,i do admit to coming in midway through an arguement as when i log on and read your utter nonsense i am concerned that some people may not be aware how little experience and knowlege you have so it's only fair to let them know.

Oh and my advice, yes treat training every time.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> So you keep on saying, and despite all the members on here posting threads about this and that I dont see you giving any idea/pointer or as your 25 years of experince should give you - advice.
> It seems your more at home in keeping your 25 years to yourself and jumping in 1/2 way through threads to either escalate it or to try an belittle somene making a point.
> I have not seen one thread on here where you have offered any of your 25 yrs of 'knowledge' as regards training - i havent looked in depth but please correct me if im wrong
> 
> :wink5:


Where have you got the 25 years figure from?? You do tend to make things up as you go along, you know ut:

I've offered plenty of advice but unlike some people (and no, I'm not having a dig at anyone in particular) I also know when NOT to advise, which is why I certainly WILL jump into a thread where, for instance, someone with an aggressive dog is being told to "submit it", and urge them to seek a behaviourist. That, to me, is the only responsible thing to do.

Housetraining and teaching a dog to lie down is one thing, but the internet is NOT the place to try to diagnose and solve absolutely every problem - particularly some problems which, handled the wrong way, could end in disaster.

I appreciate that 99.9% of the time, people are trying to help. I also, believe it or not, appreciate that there is no ONE way of training. Every dog is different but the fact remains that trainers and behaviourists will tell you that they get more work through people who have tried dominance-based/aversive methods and made things worse, than people who have trained their dogs using positive methods.

I just don't get you, James. You seem well-meaning (tantrums aside) but you have this THING about positive training. It isn't that you've tried it and didn't get on with it - you haven't tried it at all. You seem dead set against teaching a dog something using treats if the same thing can be achieved in a harsher way. Why? Why, as an animal lover, would you NOT want to be as kind as possible, if you get the same result?

You do realise, don't you, that if you teach a behaviour using treats, the dog is not thinking "Ha!! Sucker!!!"?

Have you ever read any recent studies about how dogs think and learn? You are very stuck in the Barbara Woodhouse type mindset.... though you come across as far too young to have even heard of her. Baffling 

ETA - ah, you were addressing Bucksmum. My bad. Although I'd guess you'd level the same accusations of jumping into threads halfway through at me, too - so my response still stands


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> But they're not OUR ideas - inasmuch as we didn't invent the concept of positive training. Any more than the Cesar-lovers invented the concept of the Alpha roll (any more than Cesar did, come to that).
> 
> Positive trainers train that way because it is more effective and more ethical. Note I say POSITIVE trainers not TREAT trainers because you still seem to struggle with the concept of using whatever reward the DOG values most to motivate it - which may well be food (a primary reinforcer) but can also be praise, toys, the chance to sniff, the chance to play with another dog, the chance to bite (in a controlled way), the chance to herd...
> 
> ...


marine animals dont really interest - I cant exactly take them for a walk in the country. Mind you if i were stuck in a pool with nothing else to do and no chance of running off to get eaten by something bigger I might find a dude in a swim suit enjoyable - who knows.
Food is not the primary reinforcer - the owner is the primamry reinforcer - all I have done is substitute food for me and my praise, something which you dont seem able to grasp. But along with my praise is discipline.

You say you reinforce good behaviour, so you never correct you never checked a lead and youve never shouted at your dog, youve never given it stern eyes if it lets you down? As these are all areas of discipline.

I realise now that positive training is more than treat training - however as you say - you use it as the primary reinforcer - so in effect it is treat training, the fact that you use other items is beside the point as the dog will always require some kind of reward for it doing good. 
I am certainly not cesaresq btw


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> seems i've hit a nerve,the whole reason you and i agree to disagree is because i gave my opinion on using treats as rewards for gundog training and you insisted i was wrong to do so.
> If you weren't so busy giving out your extemely limited advice you may have had time to read some more threads.
> Lastly,yes,i do admit to coming in midway through an arguement as when i log on and read your utter nonsense i am concerned that some people may not be aware how little experience and knowlege you have so it's only fair to let them know.
> 
> Oh and my advice, yes treat training every time.


As you would colloquially put, that was obvious.

I dont really care about your position on training, I am simply making the point that you dont have to offer food everytime you dog does something.

And you miss my point yet again - you have never offered any of you 25 yrs knowledge in any of the recent threads, instead you happy to pretend to hit nerves when you dont have an answer.

Hope that isnt nerve hitting - as it obviously is Oh Great One. mum.:001_tt2:


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> marine animals dont really interest - I cant exactly take them for a walk in the country. Mind you if i were stuck in a pool with nothing else to do and no chance of running off to get eaten by something bigger I might find a dude in a swim suit enjoyable - who knows.
> Food is not the primary reinforcer - the owner is the primamry reinforcer - all I have done is substitute food for me and my praise, something which you dont seem able to grasp. But along with my praise is discipline.
> 
> You say you reinforce good behaviour, so you never correct you never checked a lead and youve never shouted at your dog, youve never given it stern eyes if it lets you down? As these are all areas of discipline.
> ...


No, because rather than correct a behaviour, I prefer to teach the dog what I want them to do instead. If you can teach a dog to heel using treats rather than jerking the lead, why wouldn't you?? It works just as well, if not better, and it's kinder 

If you can substitute food for praise - brilliant! What I'm saying is, not every dog values praise as highly as food. The DOG chooses what motivates it.

Put it this way - you've got to work for either a back rub or a slap up meal. What would you prefer? It doesn't matter how much someone tries to persuade you what you SHOULD prefer - YOU know best. And chances are, what you would like best will change according to circumstances. If you're starving, you'd choose the meal but if you're not hungry and your back aches, you'd choose the back rub. There is no "should" about it.

And if you build up enough good associations with doing as you're told, then the time will come when you don't need to be rewarded every time - it will become second nature. No thinking about it - you obey because you've never NOT obeyed - it's automatic.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> As you would colloquially put, that was obvious.
> 
> I dont really care about your position on training, I am simply making the point that you dont have to offer food everytime you dog does something.
> 
> ...


James ,unlike yourself i don;t like ramming my methods down other peoples throats,but when you tell me a way of training that i use is wrong that i have used for over 25 years that has enabled me to win field trials i am not going to change it because somebody comes along and tells me i should do it his way when this person has never trained a dog in his life.

My advice to you would be to listen to others more exerienced than yourself and try and train your new pup using methods the dog will enjoy,including treat training.
Good luck with training your first dog.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> No, because rather than correct a behaviour, I prefer to teach the dog what I want them to do instead. If you can teach a dog to heel using treats rather than jerking the lead, why wouldn't you?? It works just as well, if not better, and it's kinder
> 
> If you can substitute food for praise - brilliant! What I'm saying is, not every dog values praise as highly as food. The DOG chooses what motivates it.
> 
> ...


And you think everybody is this dilligent or do you think there are a lot of people that dont make it past the first stage of 'my dog is great look what he can do for food'. There is a heck of a lot of it about even with older dogs. Its unhealthy for the animal physically and mentally as when it does get to this stage - the dog isnt working because its motivated/wanting to say jump over a fence, it is jumping over a fence as there is food at the other end.
Working without treats benefits them from the outset and it conditions the owner to have resonsibility over the dog - something which will not go out of the window as soon a food is presented.
How old is your dog now? and do you still use treats for it? be honest - im not talking about new commands - or should I say motivations? lol


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

As I've mentioned before. Treat training doesn't go on forever. I use it until the dog gets whatever I'm training them and then it's praise all the way.

It doesn't mean they don't get treats though, today they got raw bones :001_tt2: why? Because I wanted to and my butcher gave them to me


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> James ,unlike yourself i don;t like ramming my methods down other peoples throats,but when you tell me a way of training that i use is wrong that i have used for over 25 years that has enabled me to win field trials i am not going to change it because somebody comes along and tells me i should do it his way when this person has never trained a dog in his life.
> 
> My advice to you would be to listen to others more exerienced than yourself and try and train your new pup using methods the dog will enjoy,including treat training.
> Good luck with training your first dog.


You dont like giving any advice either though do you! 
And you do like to big yourself up and boost your ego a lot, again though without really contributing knowlege to any threads that arent in heated arguments
And to let you in on a little tid bit - there are very few trainers on here - instead this is an open forum where the majority are dog owners who choose to give/ask for advice on training.

good luck on your new posts i look forward to them


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sequeena said:


> As I've mentioned before. Treat training doesn't go on forever. I use it until the dog gets whatever I'm training them and then it's praise all the way.
> 
> It doesn't mean they don't get treats though, today they got raw bones :001_tt2: why? Because I wanted to and my butcher gave them to me


sounds like a very nice man


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> sounds like a very nice man


He is, but like he says the bones will only go in the bin anyway


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Ive just had a thought Collie - can you really say that its a new and modern method now if I say its the oldest and easiest one in the book and Bucksmum is saying that shes used it for the past 25 years (see prev page)


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Ooooh, beware folks!!
run......hide.....
its THE THREAD THAT WOULD NOT DIE!!!!!
ARGH!!
*runs away and hides from possible attack*


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Can I just say that any dog (even if it's not been trained with treats) will jump over a fence for food, run across a field for food, and follow a human with food, because that is their survival instinct, to eat when it presents itself. A dog that hasn't been trained with treats will still follow a human with treats and may ignore you, because the food is better.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

No James i am not bigging myself by saying i have 25 years experience.

My point is that it's been that length of time listening,watching,talking and learning from other people that is the way i have learned.You will never learn anything as you are not prepared to believe any one is right but yourself.

And a point you are very wrong on-there are some very good trainers on this forum who have success working,showing or just having a well behaved pet.
You on the other hand have done neither,
I am always wanting to listen and learn of other people but i'm afraid you'll have to have actually trained 1 dog before i start taking you seriously.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

But still, you dont contribute to any other threads that arent heated.

And you do big yourself up - if its not saying that youve done this and that, telling me to come back in 25 years or snyping to other members in trying to quash or divert what I have been saying. 
For instance - I have never said that im a dog trainer - the people on here arent expecting dog trainers to be answering their posts, they are posting to get a round of opinion, something which - giving them a treat doesnt do, it just passes the responsibility from them the owner to the foodstuff, then people wonder why they are having problems with their animals. 
With any training it is the owner who needs the training as much as the animal in how to deliver the command - i have maintained this throughout. I have also maintained that you need discipline as much as you need praise when rewarding good behaviour again........ something you and collie would not advise - which to be honest, 25 years experience or not is laughable, you just like things personal.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Can I just say that any dog (even if it's not been trained with treats) will jump over a fence for food, run across a field for food, and follow a human with food, because that is their survival instinct, to eat when it presents itself. A dog that hasn't been trained with treats will still follow a human with treats and may ignore you, because the food is better.


If a dog will jump fences etc then why are treats used so much in agility. However, you miss my point, if it will jump obstacles without the use of treats - as a natural instinc..... why should you give it a treat for doing so. A dog will not follow food either, my younger is very good with this. Id like to think I was more appealing than a chunk of biscuit, and you should too


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> If a dog will jump fences etc then why are treats used so much in agility. However, you miss my point, if it will jump obstacles without the use of treats - as a natural instinc..... why should you give it a treat for doing so. A dog will not follow food either, my younger is very good with this. Id like to think I was more appealing than a chunk of biscuit, and you should too


James you constantly miss the point.

If you are more appealing than biscuit - great! But what MAKES you more appealing? Are you simply standing there, allowing your dog to gaze at your wondrousness? Or are you, perhaps, praising your dog and making a fuss of it? Because if you are, then you are reward-training every bit as much as someone who uses treats or toys.

Do you praise your dog EVERY time it obeys? Or, when it learns a new behaviour, do you become stony-faced and stop praising? After all, you want it to obey because you told it to, not for the praise, don't you?

Your arrogance is staggering. You admit you are not a trainer, and in fact have not trained a dog. And yet you tell people who ARE trainers, and who are in contact with other trainers, that their methods are wrong, even though they can DEMONSTRATE that their methods work.

Ready to tell us how YOU teach "sit" yet?


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> If a dog will jump fences etc then why are treats used so much in agility. However, you miss my point, if it will jump obstacles without the use of treats - as a natural instinc..... why should you give it a treat for doing so. A dog will not follow food either, my younger is very good with this. Id like to think I was more appealing than a chunk of biscuit, and you should too


What instinct makes a dog jump a fence?? Nature dictates that to expend the sort of energy needed to jump a fence, a dog would need SOME sort of motivation!


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> And you think everybody is this dilligent or do you think there are a lot of people that dont make it past the first stage of 'my dog is great look what he can do for food'. There is a heck of a lot of it about even with older dogs. Its unhealthy for the animal physically and mentally as when it does get to this stage - the dog isnt working because its motivated/wanting to say jump over a fence, it is jumping over a fence as there is food at the other end.
> Working without treats benefits them from the outset and it conditions the owner to have resonsibility over the dog - something which will not go out of the window as soon a food is presented.
> How old is your dog now? and do you still use treats for it? be honest - im not talking about new commands - or should I say motivations? lol





> the dog isnt working because its motivated/wanting to say jump over a fence, it is jumping over a fence as there is food at the other end.


Then food is its motivation. A dog won't jump a fence for no reason - why would it?



> im not talking about new commands - or should I say motivations? lol


No - commands/cues and motivations are two very different things. You seem very confused between cues/commands/reward/bribe/motivation.

And if treat training is so unhealthy, how do you explain the hundreds of EXTREMELY fit dogs doing Working Trials/Schutzhund/Agility without an ounce of spare flesh on them? I can assure you that if treat training in any way compromised health then trainers would be ditching it quick smart because they would LOSE.

You really don't have the first clue LOL LOL!!


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

> marine animals dont really interest - I cant exactly take them for a walk in the country. Mind you if i were stuck in a pool with nothing else to do and no chance of running off to get eaten by something bigger I might find a dude in a swim suit enjoyable - who knows.
> Food is not the primary reinforcer - the owner is the primamry reinforcer - all I have done is substitute food for me and my praise, something which you dont seem able to grasp. But along with my praise is discipline.


Regardless of whether marine animals interest you, the principle of learning remains the same. Whether you are teaching a dog to retrieve, or a whale to jump through a hoop, or a goldfish to swim under a bar, they all learn the same basic way; by associating a certain cue with a certain action, and associating that action with either a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

They will DO things to either gain Good Things or avoid Bad Things. Simple as that. If you think otherwise, then I'm sorry but you really do have no idea about how animals learn or how their brains work.

"Discipline" means "teaching" so yep - I agree. I discipline my dog all the time. I think you have a slightly different definition to it than I do though


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> If a dog will jump fences etc then why are treats used so much in agility. However, you miss my point, if it will jump obstacles without the use of treats - as a natural instinc..... why should you give it a treat for doing so. A dog will not follow food either, my younger is very good with this. Id like to think I was more appealing than a chunk of biscuit, and you should too


What? You have missed my point. A dog will jump over a fence if there is food on the other side. And as has been said before, treats in the agility ring are banned. Treats are only used for agility TRAINING, ie first jumps, first seesaw etc. After that, it's just hand gestures and voice control. (I know because I do this now after about 3-4 months from beginning of agility training, I do not use treats round the course, only reward once the run is finished).


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> Then food is its motivation. A dog won't jump a fence for no reason - why would it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

James, i have asked this before, but you failed to answer (repeatedly). 

How do you motivate and train a dog who doesnt respond to praise?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> I'm sorry but you really do have no idea about how animals learn or how their brains work.


Dont assume what my discipline is, you assume too much as it is. I love it when you get personal - you love to attack every one of my posts no matter how much sense they talk simply to reinforce your idea of treat training. If your happy with it then carry on, but dont think its a new and improved better than the rest method when you can see that its been around for years - it only takes one other poster to support my view and you retract. Could it be its becasue you are questioning the amount of times your reward perhaps?

And I get the idea of positive conditioning - its not that hard to grasp. As I have said on other threads - anyone could train a dog using treats, it doesnt take any skill at all, which again is why I said I firmly believe that certain perople should not own dogs simply because they cant handle one. Everyone has the right yes - but not the capacity.

That is not aimed at you, before you take it personally again. And if you support the idea that everyone should own a dog then your seriously misguided.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> James, i have asked this before, but you failed to answer (repeatedly).
> 
> How do you motivate and train a dog who doesnt respond to praise?


Nonnie you argue more than Collie - what do you think my answer to you is. Im not in a yolke to be floured. Everyting I say is taken apart as it is no matter how truthful it is, so why would I give you bait to undermine me


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> Colliepoodle said:
> 
> 
> > Then food is its motivation. A dog won't jump a fence for no reason - why would it?
> ...


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> What? You have missed my point. A dog will jump over a fence if there is food on the other side. And as has been said before, treats in the agility ring are banned. Treats are only used for agility TRAINING, ie first jumps, first seesaw etc. After that, it's just hand gestures and voice control. (I know because I do this now after about 3-4 months from beginning of agility training, I do not use treats round the course, only reward once the run is finished).


It wouldnt take a master to use hand signals from the outset. Just percevierance, and the respect of your dog in the first place - If you assume that the dog has already been appropriatly trained in the first place with hand signals. 
What kind of reward do you use? a treat? the dog has just enjoyed itself, it is excited at the occasion, so why does it need a treat at the end? - all that it has done is replace a treat after each object with going around a course for a treat. Is this really beneficiall to the dogs health or should you not stop with the reward (treat??) at the end and let it enjoy iteslf. I hope you see my point.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> james1 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone can disagree with that, everyone agrees that treats should only be used as an introduction and not used forever. Yes, I agree some owners don't wean the dog off and this (I think) is what you are against. But I think most people on this forum agree that treats only be used as an introduction and all dogs should be weaned off. Therefore, what are we arguing about?
> ...


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> It wouldnt take a master to use hand signals from the outset. Just percevierance, and the respect of your dog in the first place - If you assume that the dog has already been appropriatly trained in the first place with hand signals.
> What kind of reward do you use? a treat? the dog has just enjoyed itself, it is excited at the occasion, so why does it need a treat at the end? - all that it has done is replace a treat after each object with going around a course for a treat. Is this really beneficiall to the dogs health or should you not stop with the reward (treat??) at the end and let it enjoy iteslf. I hope you see my point.


Can I ask why you think treats are unhealthy? Treats are given in such small amounts that it doesn't do hardly anything to the health of the dog.

Hand gestures have to be taught with the use of treats. Dogs won't automatically go over a jump just cos you say so, there has to be something in it for them to do it.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

james1 said:


> Nonnie you argue more than Collie - what do you think my answer to you is. Im not in a yolke to be floured. Everyting I say is taken apart as it is no matter how truthful it is, so why would I give you bait to undermine me


Funny, as this is the first time ive posted.

I really am curious. You say treats are not needed, so what method would you use?

Its not a difficult question. I do agree with certain points you have made as well.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Can I ask why you think treats are unhealthy? Treats are given in such small amounts that it doesn't do hardly anything to the health of the dog.
> 
> Hand gestures have to be taught with the use of treats. Dogs won't automatically go over a jump just cos you say so, there has to be something in it for them to do it.


If I say up, my dog will jump into the boot of my car, i have then extended this to jumping tree stumps, theres no reward its a matter of associating an act with a signal. 
Treats are unhealthy in large quantities in my opinion but they are also unhealthy as they give the owner a false consciouness that they can get thier dog to do certain things when infact the dog is just doing it for a tid-bit. (my opinion)
Though, healthwise - unless its being freely exercised the dog wont have any effects from food, you have to consider the amount of indoor training there is however. You also (well i do at least) have to consider their mental health, that they are learning not to do anything without the expectation of getting food - instead of allertness to its environment it is becoming sedated by hunger.
I just try not to use them - especially when I can get most things done without and know that once impressed I wont have to go back to treating should it fail, id just address myself, in the way ive given the direction. 
probably a few talking points in this 

edit:
A flat palm when looking at your dog in a stay or a cupped hand when giving a down direction isnt used with a treat - I havent used them at least, the learing is dual - a command stay with palm or cupped hand with down, you then just stop saying the word, that remainds me - I need to get back doing some


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

I don't think I'm getting any more personal than you, really.

But I do stand by my comment that you are clearly inexperienced, constantly confuse various dog-training terms and have little idea of how dogs learn.

You accuse others of dodging questions, yet you still refuse to describe how you teach "sit" yourself LOL!

To answer your question about whether I still use treats - it depends on the behaviour. For an instant/emergency "down" on a walk - no, I never treat any more. The eventual release is the reward in itself. For heelwork, I use a toy now rather than food treats, and not every time. Sendaway is rewarded with a toy and being released from the mark. Formal retrieve - dumbbell no - but other, "strange" objects she gets food for as she is still a little reluctant to hold different textures/materials in her mouth.

You seem to think that it takes more skill to train without reward - but you then say that you DO use reward. Again you are confused.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

> You also (well i do at least) have to consider their mental health, that they are learning not to do anything without the expectation of getting food - instead of allertness to its environment it is becoming sedated by hunger.


PMSL!!!!!!   

So, all these reward-based trainers whose dogs are excelling at all sorts of different competitive sports, not to mention the Assistance dogs who are clicker/treat trained, have dogs with mental ill-health?????   

All the dogs in Working Trials who are trained to track using rewards, are not alert to their environment??

The dogs who are trained with rewards and excel at the protection phase of Schutzhund are not alert to their environment??

Going to ignore you now, James - you're clueless to the point of insanity


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

Please excuse my ignorance but what is Schutzhund?


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Dog sport 

Schutzhund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

I dont say it takes more skill to have a dog act without reward!!!!! I say it takes perceviernace/dedication whatever you like to call it. You still assume!
I say it takes the owner to know their dog, when my spaniel has had enough he will lay down. He will also do a dance and look in oposite dircetions - I dont take this that hes ignoring me I take this that (as I know now) he needs to toilet, needs water, stimulation from a dog hes just seen, or that he is not understanding what im aking. 
Its a very easy thing to give up on when you think they are not showing an interest - which is why people have brought up non working breeds and their ability to either do things or to be mentally aware to do what your asking. 
If a lab is one of the more intelligent breeds then why are they being treated?
If a non working dog is bought then the owner needs to get to know what floats its boat either vocally or physically/mentally, to me understanding how they operate has far more benefits.


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

Thank you - I thought it was a new breed of dog !!!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> PMSL!!!!!!
> 
> So, all these reward-based trainers whose dogs are excelling at all sorts of different competitive sports, not to mention the Assistance dogs who are clicker/treat trained, have dogs with mental ill-health?????
> 
> ...


Its you that has just looked very immature here.

People who treat as a training method do not enter trails/advanced training. They are using it to have their dog do as they say within a home enviornment.

Clueless - i say your closeted collie


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

> I say it takes the owner to know their dog, when my spaniel has had enough he will lay down.


LOL LOL!! Enough of what? Could it be that you struggle to motivate him?


> He will also do a dance and look in oposite dircetions - I dont take this that hes ignoring me I take this that (as I know now) he needs to toilet, needs water, stimulation from a dog hes just seen, or that he is not understanding what im aking.


Needs stimulation from another dog?? Why would he need that? You need to work on becoming stimulating enough that your dog doesn't NEED anything else  Oh, and if he isn't understanding what you're asking him, then you are moving too fast for his level of training.

Definitely sounds as if you need to re-think your training methods 

Anyway - that's you on ignore now, we're going in circles and now you've admitted you struggle to interest your dog enough to stop it lying down and trying to get to other dogs, you've sort of lost any credibility you had. Ta-ra


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

james1 said:


> If a non working dog is bought then the owner needs to get to know what floats its boat either vocally or physically/mentally, to me understanding how they operate has far more benefits.


My dog was motivated by running off, and tugging games. An SBT is a game dog, and many of their behaviours will reflect this. Their "work" is not something that should ever be encouraged.

What floated his boat was rewards/treats, so thats what i used. I havent used any with him outside of the house for over ten years now, but i will continue to back up his training inside, by rewarding him when he does something i ask him too.

There is no right or wrong way to train a dog, unless you think prong/pinch and e-collars are acceptable. There are various methods and people are free to chosse which one works for them and their dog. As long as the end result is obtained, does it really matter how someone goes about it?

Plus stop avoiding answering my question. How do you train a dog that wont respond to praise? If you cant answer, just say so.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> Its you that has just looked very immature here.
> 
> People who treat as a training method do not enter trails/advanced training. They are using it to have their dog do as they say within a home enviornment.
> 
> Clueless - i say your closeted collie


Sorry, I've got to reply to this one.

You are out and out wrong on that, simple as.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> Sorry, I've got to reply to this one.
> 
> You are out and out wrong on that, simple as.


laughs at you - along with the world for your childish put downs


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> My dog was motivated by running off, and tugging games. An SBT is a game dog, and many of their behaviours will reflect this. Their "work" is not something that should ever be encouraged.
> 
> What floated his boat was rewards/treats, so thats what i used. I havent used any with him outside of the house for over ten years now, but i will continue to back up his training inside, by rewarding him when he does something i ask him too.
> 
> ...


If a dogs not responding to praise it is probably dominant. Not a dominant breed but a dominan character, it probably assumes that what ever it does it will still have a reward somewhere along the line - so Id make sure it was under control and listening, that means not doing anything unless you say so. 
It could also be handshy - if it is fearing you fussing it contact is usually involved here so it may be running away to both avoid or ignore you for the time that you want to fuss it. 
Id personally build up contact wih the dog and any signs of distress/aggession/mouthing as is the usual leave it alone.
I couldnt really say without seeing it as the staffs I know are even tempered and loyal to things like recall


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

james1 said:


> If a dogs not responding to praise it is probably dominant. Not a dominant breed but a dominan character, it probably assumes that what ever it does it will still have a reward somewhere along the line - so Id make sure it was under control and listening, that means not doing anything unless you say so.
> It could also be handshy - if it is fearing you fussing it contact is usually involved here so it may be running away to both avoid or ignore you for the time that you want to fuss it.
> Id personally build up contact wih the dog and any signs of distress/aggession/mouthing as is the usual leave it alone.
> I couldnt really say without seeing it as the staffs I know are even tempered and loyal to things like recall


Lol, he's far far from being fearful or hand shy. He loves being fussed, and cuddled. But wont respond to it as a reward for his behaviour.

He's very smart, and will only do something if he's getting something else out of it. Misbehaving is self rewarding, unless there is food involved being obedient gets him nothing he values.

You say he needs to be under control and listening, but how to you achieve this to start with? Why would his focus be on me?

Btw, i talk in the present tense, however he is pretty well trained these days, but does like to keep me on my toes, even at 11 years of ages. I never treat him outside of the house, as he isnt interested in food.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> But still, you dont contribute to any other threads that arent heated.
> 
> And you do big yourself up - if its not saying that youve done this and that, telling me to come back in 25 years or snyping to other members in trying to quash or divert what I have been saying.
> For instance - I have never said that im a dog trainer - the people on here arent expecting dog trainers to be answering their posts, they are posting to get a round of opinion, something which - giving them a treat doesnt do, it just passes the responsibility from them the owner to the foodstuff, then people wonder why they are having problems with their animals.
> With any training it is the owner who needs the training as much as the animal in how to deliver the command - i have maintained this throughout. I have also maintained that you need discipline as much as you need praise when rewarding good behaviour again........ something you and collie would not advise - which to be honest, 25 years experience or not is laughable, you just like things personal.


I have beenon other threads James if you care to look.
I'd rather comment, if i'm going to on other threads apart from the behaviour topic as i believe there are much more knowledgable 
posters on here than me when it comes to behavioual issues.
As i have explained to you we work and trial labs and also hunt a pack of terriers that in my opinion does not give me the expertise to advise on serious behaviour problems so i'd rather leave that to people who may have exerienced these problems.
If you go back to my first post on this thread i was merely saying that for best results with PUPPIES we use treats.
I would also like to point out on no occasion have i said i do not use discipline, but we find that after establishing a habit of good behaviour using treats we need no more discipline than tone of voice and do not,as you have admitted to doing, use 'smacking' your dog.
There is no need to get that physical if the basics have been done consistantly James .
There,i have given some advice as you asked for ,i hope this helps you with training your first dog :wink5:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

bucksmum said:


> I have beenon other threads James if you care to look.
> I'd rather comment, if i'm going to on other threads apart from the behaviour topic as i believe there are much more knowledgable
> posters on here than me when it comes to behavioual issues.
> As i have explained to you we work and trial labs and also hunt a pack of terriers that in my opinion does not give me the expertise to advise on serious behaviour problems so i'd rather leave that to people who may have exerienced these problems.
> ...


I agree. I do not discipline my dog, ever. He is well behaved because I trained using positive reward methods (ie treat and praise). I would only bring him in from the garden if he's barking, not saying a word and ignoring him, but I don't really class this as discipline. All my "discipline" is by ignoring, and then when he does something right, he gets praise.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Lol, he's far far from being fearful or hand shy. He loves being fussed, and cuddled. But wont respond to it as a reward for his behaviour.
> 
> He's very smart, and will only do something if he's getting something else out of it. Misbehaving is self rewarding, unless there is food involved being obedient gets him nothing he values.
> 
> ...


11 years of age they are intent on doing their own thing, how much time do you spend cuddling him is it lots? You could return back to basics and do simple come recalls on lead having him turn in the oposite direction to follow you stopping between your knees for a few seconds. My 11 year old I dont train that much as hes worked most of his life, he worries me but I just have to be quick on my feet when I see another dog or hell be mounting it


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> ,as you have admitted to doing, use 'smacking' your dog.


DO NOT TALK RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I NEVER SMACK MY DOG AS A TRAINING EXERCISE AND IF I HAVE SMACKED MY DOG I DO NOT EMPLOY OR CONDONE ITS USE WHATSOEVER!!!!

I have admitted to smacking my dog - as have others - what is your point?



BOILS


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I would only bring him in from the garden if he's barking, not saying a word and ignoring him, but I don't really class this as discipline. All my "discipline" is by ignoring, and then when he does something right, he gets praise.


That is discipline - and exactly the discipline I am talking about.

Some people are more intent on spreading their reputation Buckmum.

Id ask you to retract your comment but you couldnt care less and are just intent on making remarks than making any positive contribution. As has been seen in non of the threads you have commented on as regards training/behaviour.

:cursing:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> Some people are more intent on spreading their reputation Buckmum.
> 
> Id ask you to retract your comment but you couldnt care less and are just intent on making remarks than making any positive contribution. As has been seen in non of the threads you have commented on as regards training/behaviour.
> 
> :cursing:


Are these comments directly at me?



james1 said:


> That is discipline - and exactly the discipline I am talking about.


Oh right, sorry. Yes, ignoring is the best type of discipline as it does not harm the dog in any way.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Colliepoodle said:


> Sorry, I've got to reply to this one.
> 
> You are out and out wrong on that, simple as.


I agree Colliepoodle.
We always use treats to start our pups off and so do all the other owners i know who trial and work their dogs.
It beggars belief the arrogance of James who has never trialed,worked or even TRAINED his own dog that he knows better than some of the most successful trainers in the country (and no,James i do not include myself :001_tt2
You have James inherited a 9 year old dog with several health problems who is now 11.You also have a 6 month old pup who you admit yourself is wild and comes back when he has run out of energy.
You will learn a bit more when your pup is at the 18 month age,if you can let him off the lead by then.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> DO NOT TALK RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I NEVER SMACK MY DOG AS A TRAINING EXERCISE AND IF I HAVE SMACKED MY DOG I DO NOT EMPLOY OR CONDONE ITS USE WHATSOEVER!!!!
> 
> ...


Yes you have admitted it.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

> Originally Posted by james1
> Its you that has just looked very immature here.
> 
> *People who treat as a training method do not enter trails/advanced training. They are using it to have their dog do as they say within a home enviornment.*
> ...


Erm...

I don't think that is true at all!

Have you ever heard of:

Mary Ray? Agility,obedience and K9 freestyle champion
Chris Burns - champion gun dog handler
Aled Owen- sheepdog handler, trainer etc...
Kate Nicholas- K9 freestyle, flyball, obedience, agility, working trials (this is Kate as in Kate and Gin from Britains Got Talent!)

I could go on forever. 
Treat training is part of something called operant conditioning (learning theory), so I don't understand why you label it "treat training" when it is infact positive reinforcement -when you reward and therefore reinforce a behaviour you like/want with something the dog REALLY wants! Operant conditioning and learning theory has been proven as one of the ways that dogs learn.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> DO NOT TALK RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I NEVER SMACK MY DOG AS A TRAINING EXERCISE AND IF I HAVE SMACKED MY DOG I DO NOT EMPLOY OR CONDONE ITS USE WHATSOEVER!!!!
> 
> ...


OHHHHHHHHHH......... so tell us James,what did you hit your dog for ,what was the poor thing doing???


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Erm...
> 
> I don't think that is true at all!
> 
> ...


That is besides the point that any treat training is only used in high end dog tasks. The majority is accounted for in everyday ownership, only a small percentage being for work requirements


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> OHHHHHHHHHH......... so tell us James,what did you hit your dog for ,what was the poor thing doing???


You are on ignore
You are on here to manipulate ideas and comments - and your are not worth my attention

goodbye and goodluck.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

bucksmum said:


> OHHHHHHHHHH......... so tell us James,what did you hit your dog for ,what was the poor thing doing???


I'd like to know in what sitaution you think hitting a dog is more acceptable than treat training(as you call it).
And which of your dogs did you hit ,the old one or the pup.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> You are on ignore
> You are on here to manipulate ideas and comments - and your are not worth my attention
> 
> goodbye and goodluck.


You critise people for using methods that work,throw insults at everybody,but you don't like it when people know the truth.
There's no need to hit a dog James,your methods obviously don't work if you need to do so.
Try reward training,much kinder:wink5:


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Erm...
> 
> I don't think that is true at all!
> 
> ...


Yep.

Literally everyone I know, from Obedience Trainers to Working Trials and Schutzhund competitors to Assitance dog trainers, uses reward-based training because it is kinder and more importantly it works.

I can't understand how someone who knows nothing about it can claim otherwise. James claiming to know anything about dog sports is rather like me spouting about Morris Dancing or Long Distance Knitting


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

james1 said:


> 11 years of age they are intent on doing their own thing, how much time do you spend cuddling him is it lots? You could return back to basics and do simple come recalls on lead having him turn in the oposite direction to follow you stopping between your knees for a few seconds. My 11 year old I dont train that much as hes worked most of his life, he worries me but I just have to be quick on my feet when I see another dog or hell be mounting it


I think i may have confused you. I have no problems with him now. Im just asking how you would have dealt with a dog such as him when he was in his youth. He's not an "old" 11, and is just as active and hyper as he was 5 or 6 years ago.

He was just a bugger to train as he was very independant and far too smart for his own good. He has mellowed a tad, and is far more interested in me now. But he never really used to be when he was out and about.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> Yep.
> 
> Literally everyone I know, from Obedience Trainers to Working Trials and Schutzhund competitors to Assitance dog trainers, uses reward-based training because it is kinder and more importantly it works.
> 
> I can't understand how someone who knows nothing about it can claim otherwise. James claiming to know anything about dog sports is rather like me spouting about Morris Dancing or Long Distance Knitting


Exactly!

Only the other day I was talking to my local APDT trainer behaviourist friend. We were discussing training methods, as at a dog show I witnessed a so called experienced trainer spray water into a IMO very obviously fear aggressive dog's face the moment it reacted when another dog eyeballed it! Oh yeah cuz that's really going to make the dog less scared of other dogs and solve the issue! Punishing the symptoms and not even dealing with the real problem. Sometimes people want quick results and when they see such methods stop an undesirable behaviour they think wayhey- this is the way to go. It's only a few months down the line when they discover it's all going wrong. The dog realises it will be punished for barking and so climbs the scale of aggression and begins to growl and snap- so the problem gets worse!
You would think an experienced trainer would understand the very basic concept of desensitization and counterconditioning and be able to apply it!

Anyway, my friend was saying how the reason she loves positive reward based methods is the following. Number 1, the dog learns a heck of a lot more and more thoroughly, they have a greater bond with their owner. 
and Number 2- they have a heck of a nicer life!

Also regarding dog sports- I can't see that there would be any other way of teaching something like a tunnel entrance in agility other than using positive reinforcement?! Unless you were to force and push the dog into the tunnel in which case said person should not be doing agility!! It's supposed to be a way of mentally stimulating the dog and having fun- not bullying it! And how is pushing a dog into a tunnel going to motivate the dog to repeat the behaviour (what we want)?


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

lemmsy said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Only the other day I was talking to my local APDT trainer behaviourist friend. We were discussing training methods, as at a dog show I witnessed a so called experienced trainer spray water into a IMO very obviously fear aggressive dog's face the moment it reacted when another dog eyeballed it! Oh yeah cuz that's really going to make the dog less scared of other dogs and solve the issue! Punishing the symptoms and not even dealing with the real problem. Sometimes people want quick results and when they see such methods stop an undesirable behaviour they think wayhey- this is the way to go. It's only a few months down the line when they discover it's all going wrong. The dog realises it will be punished for barking and so climbs the scale of aggression and begins to growl and snap- so the problem gets worse!
> You would think an experienced trainer would understand the very basic concept of desensitization and counterconditioning and be able to apply it!
> ...


 Makes complete sense


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Are these comments directly at me?
> 
> Oh right, sorry. Yes, ignoring is the best type of discipline as it does not harm the dog in any way.


No sorry it wasnt.

It was directed at the member I mentioned in the thread whos more intent on deceit and scaremongering

sorry about that, she got under my skin while I was writing your reply


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> No sorry it wasnt.
> 
> It was directed at the member I mentioned in the thread whos more intent on deceit and scaremongering
> 
> sorry about that, she got under my skin while I was writing your reply


I am not deceiving anyone James.

You hit your dog,you have admitted it and i'm simply saying maybe if you tried a different method of training you may get results without needing to hit your dog.

I also await your answer as to whether it was the old dog you hit or your pup and for what reason.

Somehow i don't think i'll get an answer.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2009)

IMO there is no excuse for hitting/smacking/slapping a dog whether it be with an open hand, fist, newspaper etc.

These are outdated, old fashioned barbaric training methods based on ''breaking'' a dog into doing what you want it to, in other words scaring the ever loving sh** out of them.

Don't work, it's been proved many times.

People that do this are weak in my eyes and shouldn't own a dog full stop there is no valid reason for hitting, slapping, smacking or using violence of any kind towards any animal.

Dogs are just dogs, they don't understand logic and however much we like to think they can, they cannot become ''humanized'' they are just not programmed to think like us and neither should we expect them to behave at all times the way we want them to.

I'm probably going to get shot down for this, but I absolutely hate it when I see people slapping/smacking their dogs, I don't like seeing people advise "well just give them a quick cuff on the nose etc" makes me feel like slapping the owners.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Nicci said:


> IMO there is no excuse for hitting/smacking/slapping a dog whether it be with an open hand, fist, newspaper etc.
> 
> These are outdated, old fashioned barbaric training methods based on ''breaking'' a dog into doing what you want it to, in other words scaring the ever loving sh** out of them.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you.
Unfortunately James has had to resort to this as his training methods clearly do not work.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> I totally agree with you.
> Unfortunately James has had to resort to this as his training methods clearly do not work.


http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/52929-have-you-ever-smacked-your-dog.html

looks like youve got a lot of people to chastise


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/52929-have-you-ever-smacked-your-dog.html
> 
> looks like youve got a lot of people to chastise


Couldn't ignore me for long could you :001_tt2:

Other people may smack thier dogs but they don't keep banging on as you do that their way is the only way.
I'm simply saying that if you listened to other peoples advice you may get results without having to hit your dog which you have admitted having to resort to doing.

It's not the way James,there are kinder more effective methods.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

The only PEOPLE banging on about it is you, for motivations I dont yet know. Probably as I said earlier to simply undermine perfectly reasonable posts. 

I did not say it was reasonable in the least, I was making the point that people do discipline their dogs when they patently say they dont by means of a shout, a stare or sometimes a slap for a whole number of different reasons. I never once said I use it to as a training method.

YOU on the otherhand have taken it in some kind of deluded sense that:
1/ I am a trainer and 
2/ use it personally in training my dogs. 

You have no respect and little in the way of decency

As I say a scaremongerer and ignored


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2009)

james1 said:


> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/52929-have-you-ever-smacked-your-dog.html
> 
> looks like youve got a lot of people to chastise


Really? 

I have my opinions James and other people have theirs.

I've never hit my dogs, never felt the need or urge to however much they have got on my nerves or not done as they were told/behaved the way I wanted them to. I stand by my views as I am entitled to them.

I understand they are dogs and I don't ever expect them to think like me or behave the way I would always want them to and I certainly don't expect them to understand me or the way I think as a human being because they are a totally different species to me. I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are yours but I can honestly hold my hands up and say, I've never struck any of my dogs for any reason, however much of a bad day I have happened to have had.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> The only PEOPLE banging on about it is you, for motivations I dont yet know. Probably as I said earlier to simply undermine perfectly reasonable posts.
> 
> I did not say it was reasonable in the least, I was making the point that people do discipline their dogs when they patently say they dont by means of a shout, a stare or sometimes a slap for a whole number of different reasons. I never once said I use it to as a training method.
> 
> ...


I have absolutely no respect for you,no.

Could you please tell me then if you have not hit your dog during training WHY did you hit your dog????
For what reason????

And which dog did you hit?? The old one who has health problems or the young pup????


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nicci - please see above


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

bucksmum said:


> I have absolutely no respect for you,no.
> 
> Could you please tell me then if you have not hit your dog during training WHY did you hit your dog????
> For what reason????
> ...


Will you not answer or do we assume you hit both of them.


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> Will you not answer or do we assume you hit both of them.


Agree with ya. Poor dogs imo I think they would have preferred a Treat


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

clueless said:


> Agree with ya. Poor dogs imo I think they would have preferred a Treat


I'm sure they would,he has alot to learn


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

clueless said:


> Agree with ya. Poor dogs imo I think they would have preferred a Treat


lol yeah perfect a treat to discipline, a dog going back to chew a broken jam jar despite being called off would get a nice winalot from me


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> lol yeah perfect a treat to discipline, a dog going back to chew a broken jam jar despite being called off would get a nice winalot from me


Well, could i suggest you distract the dog away from the broken jam jar with a treat rather than your way of hitting out.

Could you answer my question James.

Why do you hit your dogs and under what circumstances???


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

james1 said:


> lol yeah perfect a treat to discipline, a dog going back to chew a broken jam jar despite being called off would get a nice winalot from me


So did ya just Wack it instead Nice """"


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> Nicci - please see above


I don't really understand what you are getting at ?

Forgive me James it is late I'm a little tired and cannot trawl through the whole of the thread.

I understand you may feel a little ''pressure'' from the question(s) put forward to you - but I honestly see no reason to slap, smack or strike a dog in anyway shape or form infact that goes for any animal as they are totally defenseless, yet it is they whom are ''labelled'' in the wrong when they become fear aggressive and lash out through violence being directed at them.

I can't and will never agree to violence being directed towards animals and I as an owner have always used positive based methods to get the kind of behaviour I want from my dogs. Whatever I've been doing with mine for the last 18 years, I've never had a problem apart from with one of my girls whom became fear aggressive due to being attacked by other peoples dogs being walked offlead. The problems I encountered with her were addressed and dealt with, without the need of ''breaking'' whatever confidence she had left with the help of an appointed trainer/behaviorist I'm also not ashamed to say I had to admit defeat with her and get her some help 
You cannot fight fire with fire where training a dog is concerned it will only attract the kind of behaviour you do not want.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> lol yeah perfect a treat to discipline, a dog going back to chew a broken jam jar despite being called off would get a nice winalot from me


Surely the point is, that if the dog is appropriatly trained, a solid leave command would avoid this. Buster is clicker trained, with food as his motivation (he is nowhere near fat if you check my pics), I can stop him in his tracks at home no matter what he is going to chew! Be it spilled food, broken glass etc etc. I am pretty clumsy in fact and often have to give the stay, leave and away commands (away will tell him to go and sit in the next room). 
As he is properly trained as such, I see no reason whatsoever to "discipline" in this case. If you feel the need you have to then maybe it would be better to revisit training in these areas? Thus preventing the same danger again in the future (prevention better than the "cure"?) I also believe that this would apply to most situations where people feel the need to "discipline" their dogs. If a dog is not doing as it is asked, remove it from the dangerous situation revisit training rather than giving it a slap and hoping that it will be able to link the slap to whatever it is they have done.

yes i know iv come in a bit late


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Savahl said:


> Surely the point is, that if the dog is appropriatly trained, a solid leave command would avoid this. Buster is clicker trained, with food as his motivation (he is nowhere near fat if you check my pics), I can stop him in his tracks at home no matter what he is going to chew! Be it spilled food, broken glass etc etc. I am pretty clumsy in fact and often have to give the stay, leave and away commands (away will tell him to go and sit in the next room).
> As he is properly trained as such, I see no reason whatsoever to "discipline" in this case. If you feel the need you have to then maybe it would be better to revisit training in these areas? Thus preventing the same danger again in the future (prevention better than the "cure"?) I also believe that this would apply to most situations where people feel the need to "discipline" their dogs. If a dog is not doing as it is asked, remove it from the dangerous situation revisit training rather than giving it a slap and hoping that it will be able to link the slap to whatever it is they have done.
> 
> yes i know iv come in a bit late


Agree with this. A good, reliable "leave" command, taught properly, would avoid the need to "discipline" with violence.

Some people really shouldn't be allowed to have dogs


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

james1 said:


> lol yeah perfect a treat to discipline, a dog going back to chew a broken jam jar despite being called off would get a nice winalot from me


Just to make things abit clearer because it seems that positive reinforcement is being misunderstood here by a long mile:

Operant conditioning, which is something you'll hear many positive reinforcement trainers talk about, is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behaviour. This means that essentially in dog training that it is the use of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS to train a certain behaviour or duration to a behaviour. 
It differs from classical conditioning (pavlovian conditioning) in that it deals with making the subject voluntarily offering the behaviour (THEREFORE IT IS NOT BRIBERY!)

Many positive reinforcement trainers/behaviourists will use operant conditioning in the form of positive reforcement to train a behaviour (for example on a basic level a "sit" with basic positive reinforcement and also clicker training). Many trainers will choose not to use the punishment aspect of operant conditioning (except in the instance of ignoring a dog or withdrawing attention which is something the dog wants when he/she displays an inappropriate behaviour). The reason for this is that often punishments such as smacking or hitting will actually interfer with the idea of classical conditioning (learning by associations) and so the dog will learn to associate the punishment with the person who hands it out (the handler/owner) and will therefore become fearful of the owner rather than learning not to perform the desirable behaviour. This negative association with the owner can sometimes cause problems like fear aggression, nervousness and defensive behaviour. Therefore trainers opt to train an appropriate alternative behaviour which in turn serves more purpose than the punishment aspect of operant conditioning anyway.

In the example James describes, the owner would see the risk that the dog would chew glass and would remove the distraction (glass). They would then work on training a relevant command or alternative behaviour. As Sarahl, righly points out the behaviour in this instance would be a firm leave command. Once this command was perfected they would be able to apply it to the original setting and would not need to unfairly "punish" the dog as they would tell the dog what they actually want him/her to do.

It's a pretty simple concept and which allows you to maintain a strong relationship with your dog, in which the dog is not confused and does not fear that you will hit/smack it unpredictably.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Just to make things abit clearer because it seems that positive reinforcement is being misunderstood here by a long mile:
> 
> Operant conditioning, which is something you'll hear many positive reinforcement trainers talk about, is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behaviour. This means that essentially in dog training that it is the use of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS to train a certain behaviour or duration to a behaviour.
> It differs from classical conditioning (pavlovian conditioning) in that it deals with making the subject voluntarily offering the behaviour (THEREFORE IT IS NOT BRIBERY!)
> ...


Fab post


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Thanks Colliepoodle. 

The word bribery along with treat training kept coming up- so I felt I ought to mention that used correctly operant condition is not bribery as the dog is offering you the behaviour. 
This IMHO is what is so fantastic about clicker training, you don't even have to show them what they are working for (the reward- ball, toy, food etc)- experienced clicker dogs with work for the click (because they associate the click with the reward- therefore the click is a FAB thing!!- <Example of classical conditioning btw!>).

Something I missed out from my previous post is a note to James.- You mention the phrase "treat training" alot. Not sure why as in positive reinforcement you reward and reinforce the dog with something they really LOVE! Some dogs aren't at all motivated by treats but would go crazy for a tennis ball. Likewise some dogs couldn't give a monkeys about chasing a toy but would eat themselves silly. So positive reinforcement isn't just all about treats at all, it's about understanding your dog and what motivates them. It's about timing (especially if clicker training) and knowing how to gradually shape a behaviour.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Thanks Colliepoodle.
> 
> The word bribery along with treat training kept coming up- so I felt I ought to mention that used correctly operant condition is not bribery as the dog is offering you the behaviour.
> This IMHO is what is so fantastic about clicker training, you don't even have to show them what they are working for (the reward- ball, toy, food etc)- experienced clicker dogs with work for the click (because they associate the click with the reward- therefore the click is a FAB thing!!- <Example of classical conditioning btw!>).
> ...


Your last paragraph sums up what I've been trying to explain to James for what feels like years now


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Thanks Colliepoodle.
> 
> The word bribery along with treat training kept coming up- so I felt I ought to mention that used correctly operant condition is not bribery as the dog is offering you the behaviour.
> This IMHO is what is so fantastic about clicker training, you don't even have to show them what they are working for (the reward- ball, toy, food etc)- experienced clicker dogs with work for the click (because they associate the click with the reward- therefore the click is a FAB thing!!- <Example of classical conditioning btw!>).
> ...


Very nicely posted and explains it Simples


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

lemmsy said:


> Just to make things abit clearer because it seems that positive reinforcement is being misunderstood here by a long mile:
> 
> Operant conditioning, which is something you'll hear many positive reinforcement trainers talk about, is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behaviour. This means that essentially in dog training that it is the use of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS to train a certain behaviour or duration to a behaviour.
> It differs from classical conditioning (pavlovian conditioning) in that it deals with making the subject voluntarily offering the behaviour (THEREFORE IT IS NOT BRIBERY!)
> ...


Fantasic  really clearly explained.

I've yet to have an answer on why he had to hit his dog.
Maybe this unacceptable incident could have been avoided if James had used a reward method of training which many people are trying to explain to him.

James,you say you did not hit the dog during training so when else do you class it as appropiate punishment??

I cannot think of any such instance


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

bucksmum said:


> Fantasic  really clearly explained.
> 
> I've yet to have an answer on why he had to hit his dog.
> Maybe this unacceptable incident could have been avoided if James had used a reward method of training which many people are trying to explain to him.
> ...


Just playing devils advocate but i dont remember reading that james1 actually condones smacking dogs....just that he has in the past (probably out of anger/frustration or something). At one point he did systematically state that he does not use it as training, nor does he condone such activity...


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> DO NOT TALK RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I NEVER SMACK MY DOG AS A TRAINING EXERCISE AND IF I HAVE SMACKED MY DOG* I DO NOT EMPLOY OR CONDONE ITS USE WHATSOEVER*!!!!
> 
> ...


found it 

/devils advocate off


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Savahl said:


> Just playing devils advocate but i dont remember reading that james1 actually condones smacking dogs....just that he has in the past (probably out of anger/frustration or something). At one point he did systematically state that he does not use it as training, nor does he condone such activity...


Yeah,i see what your saying 

I am asking James why he felt the need to hit his dog when he did?
Could some other way have been used and suggesting to him that had he established a habit of good behaviour earlier on he would not have needed to be so harsh.
James has consistantly told people on here that their methods are wrong but clearly he needs to re think his own.

If he did not hit the dog during training as fair enogh he says he did not,then i was wondering under what other circumstances he did it.

He may not condone it but he has done it and i wonder if it could have been a situation that could have been dealt with in a kinder more effective manner.
Most probably


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

bucksmum said:


> Yeah,i see what your saying
> 
> I am asking James why he felt the need to hit his dog when he did?
> Could some other way have been used and suggesting to him that had he established a habit of good behaviour earlier on he would not have needed to be so harsh.
> ...


I agree that there are always better ways than feeling you have to resort to raising a hand to a dog - im a strong believer that if a dog does wrong it is due to improper or insufficient training of certain aspects than the dog just deliberatly being naughty - i dont believe they make that choice so a smack achieves little.

Just thought it ought to be pointed out that he is not condoning violence to dogs in general, as this is how it was coming across


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Savahl said:


> I agree that there are always better ways than feeling you have to resort to raising a hand to a dog - im a strong believer that if a dog does wrong it is due to improper or insufficient training of certain aspects than the dog just deliberatly being naughty - i dont believe they make that choice so a smack achieves little.
> 
> Just thought it ought to be pointed out that he is not condoning violence to dogs in general, as this is how it was coming across


Hi,
no i completely accept he's not condoning violence.

Just thinking that if he was to stop telling everybody that their way is wrong and his is the only way he may learn something which may save him whacking his dogs in the future,for whatever reason he did it.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Savahl said:


> Just thought it ought to be pointed out that he is not condoning violence to dogs in general, as *this is how it was coming across*


Dont you mean, this *is* how it is coming across, thanks to some choice members fueling a fire that is not apparent. All you have to do is read to above post to see ambivalence to anything that is said


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> Dont you mean, this *is* how it is coming across, thanks to some choice members fueling a fire that is not apparent.


James,it is apparant.My point is actually very relavent to the discussion.

You critisise anyone that uses rewards based on food during training.

You have admitted hitting your dog.
You say you did not hit your dog during training.Fair enough.
So.... i am asking you in what circumstances did you have to resort to hitting your dog.Was it perhaps a situation that could have been handled in a far less brutal manner as seems to be the methods used by most posters.

Simply put James if your non 'treat training' had worked i don't think your dogs would ever had been whacked


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> You say you did not hit your dog during training.Fair enough.(


So why have you dedicated 4 pages to signifying that I hit my dogs as a characteristic of my training.

A lot of members do not read posts fully and instead read what is repeatedly said.

You are and have taken my views on this OUT OF CONTEXT and now a lot of members think that I hit my dogs.

Cheers for this. Your a great woman. Im sure a lot of members are keen to hear more.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> So why have you dedicated 4 pages to signifying that I hit my dogs as a characteristic of my training.
> 
> A lot of members do not read posts fully and instead read what is repeatedly said.
> 
> ...


No James, i did not say you hit yor dog as a characteristic of your training.

I am ASKING you under what circumstances you hit your dog and maybe some of us could give you a bit of guidance so you don't have to do it again.

You will not answer as to why you hit your dog if not during training under what other circumstances?

I simply cannot see that a young 6 month old pup or an elderly dog with health problems would ever need nor should be subjected to such harsh handling.
Other methods are more effective such as reward training .


----------



## MySugar (May 24, 2009)

Wow, what a long read! I just want to say, I think James1 has said he has finger tapped his dogs nose. Not slapped him. From what I read, that is how I interpreted it. 

I have no dog training experience but read this thread out of interest and there is some great advice here. As someone who plans to one day get a dog, it is safe to say I will be following the clicker/treat method of training and would never, under any circumstances 'Alpha Roll' a dog.

I understand James defending himself with training is ex Police dog* as it must be difficult to home a dog who has been strictly trained by one person and lived so very differently. However, this does not make for an experienced dog owner imo.

*EDIT - NOT defending his methods! Just the fact that he didn't receive a 'perfectly trained' dog who would fit right in.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MySugar said:


> I understand James defending himself with training is ex Police dog as it must be difficult to home a dog who has been strictly trained by one person and lived so very differently. However, this does not make for an experienced dog owner imo.


you would not believe the trouble a highly trained dog can cause you until youve owned one, it may not be experience in the rulebook - but it is an experience that you learn to have to be quick on your feet at seeing what motivates a dog.
Even experienced hanlders can have difficulties with an unfamiliar trained dog, and I have to say - I have not done badly at all


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

MySugar said:


> Wow, what a long read! I just want to say, I think James1 has said he has finger tapped his dogs nose. Not slapped him. From what I read, that is how I interpreted it.
> 
> I have no dog training experience but read this thread out of interest and there is some great advice here. As someone who plans to one day get a dog, it is safe to say I will be following the clicker/treat method of training and would never, under any circumstances 'Alpha Roll' a dog.
> 
> ...


No ,he may not have received a perfectly trained dog but the problem with James is he insists everyone else's way is wrong and he is right.
Having had one dog from 9 years old and a 6 month old pup he has no experience of training a dog from puppy to adulthood.

I'm very glad you are thinking of the reward based training for your pup,
you will find it alot more effective and the dog will enjoy it far more than an alpa roll.
Good luck when you get your pup


----------



## MySugar (May 24, 2009)

james1 said:


> you would not believe the trouble a highly trained dog can cause you until youve owned one, it may not be experience in the rulebook - but it is an experience that you learn to have to be quick on your feet at seeing what motivates a dog.
> Even experienced hanlders can have difficulties with an unfamiliar trained dog, and I have to say - I have not done badly at all


I can understand that. But from an outsider looking in, a lot of this arguing could have been avoided by accepting that other training methods work. You seem hellbent on insisting your way is the best way and slating other people's tried, tested and very successfull methods.
I absolutely am not looking to join the arguing, I was actually defending you to a degree. And I think it is great that you have given a hard-worked dog a relaxing retirement home


----------



## MySugar (May 24, 2009)

bucksmum said:


> No ,he may not have received a perfectly trained dog but the problem with James is he insists everyone else's way is wrong and he is right.
> Having had one dog from 9 years old and a 6 month old pup he has no experience of training a dog from puppy to adulthood.
> 
> I'm very glad you are thinking of the reward based training for your pup,
> ...


Yes, i know. I have just mentioned the same thing 

Thank you. I know good advice when I see it and feel with that method I will one day own a good dog  Just not sure when that will be, I'm not ready for it yet. But very much looking forward to it.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MySugar said:


> I can understand that. But from an outsider looking in, a lot of this arguing could have been avoided by accepting that other training methods work. You seem hellbent on insisting your way is the best way and slating other people's tried, tested and very successfull methods.
> I absolutely am not looking to join the arguing, I was actually defending you to a degree. And I think it is great that you have given a hard-worked dog a relaxing retirement home


This isnt an argument at all i realise that...
Treats do work yes, but when they are unnecessary and over used, owners become oblivious to alternative methods, and once started with treats it is very difficult to get them off them with new commands. I simply dont see why treating a dog for sitting is needed, (a dog will lay for instance or stand) when a dog will sit (etc) naturally then words/praise associations can be attached to it. My opinion is that the dog becomes far too attached to treats to do things and the owner seeing that results can be gained uses then as an excessive reaction, If you dont use them from the outset you have a much more natural dog that is very willing to take on requests. But to be honest i cant really be bothered continuing this thread - nothing personal


----------



## MySugar (May 24, 2009)

james1 said:


> This isnt an argument at all i realise that...
> Treats do work yes, but when they are unnecessary and over used, owners become oblivious to alternative methods, and once started with treats it is very difficult to get them off them with new commands. I simply dont see why treating a dog for sitting is needed, (a dog will lay for instance or stand) when a dog will sit (etc) naturally then words/praise associations can be attached to it. My opinion is that the dog becomes far too attached to treats to do things and the owner seeing that results can be gained uses then as an excessive reaction, If you dont use them from the outset you have a much more natural dog that is very willing to take on requests. But to be honest i cant really be bothered continuing this thread - nothing personal


That is fine if you don't want to continue...it has been going on a while! However, I would just like to say one more thing. I understand what you mean about over using the treats. That would not be affective in the long run. But I do not think that is what is being advised. It is as a primary encouragement then fazed out to be command (be it vocal or visual) alone.

A lot of your posts seem to me to get misconstrued due the way you word it perhaps.

Anyway. I agree, enough said!

I hope the OP has not given up here and found a way to work out the original issue


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> This isnt an argument at all i realise that...
> Treats do work yes, but when they are unnecessary and over used, owners become oblivious to alternative methods, and once started with treats it is very difficult to get them off them with new commands. I simply dont see why treating a dog for sitting is needed, (a dog will lay for instance or stand) when a dog will sit (etc) naturally then words/praise associations can be attached to it. My opinion is that the dog becomes far too attached to treats to do things and the owner seeing that results can be gained uses then as an excessive reaction, If you dont use them from the outset you have a much more natural dog that is very willing to take on requests. But to be honest i cant really be bothered continuing this thread - nothing personal


I'm sorry you are leaving my question unanswered 

please don't resort to hitting,smacking or other harsh methods again before you have tried reward training.
Your young pup will learn alot faster and enjoy it alot more.

Try it :wink5:


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

james1 said:


> This isnt an argument at all i realise that...
> Treats do work yes, but when they are unnecessary and over used, owners become oblivious to alternative methods, and once started with treats it is very difficult to get them off them with new commands. I simply dont see why treating a dog for sitting is needed, (a dog will lay for instance or stand) when a dog will sit (etc) naturally then words/praise associations can be attached to it. My opinion is that the dog becomes far too attached to treats to do things and the owner seeing that results can be gained uses then as an excessive reaction, If you dont use them from the outset you have a much more natural dog that is very willing to take on requests. But to be honest i cant really be bothered continuing this thread - nothing personal


All id like to know is what these alternatives methods are.

Im always looking for new techniques that dont involve being physical (ie choke chains etc), as one of mine wont eat outside of the house, which is why i havent used treats for years and years. I train in the hosue with him, and thankfully a good fuss and praise works fine on walks. But if i were to get a non-food minded dog in future, having more knowledge under my belt would be great.

James, i think you have many valid points, but its your attitude that rubs people up the wrong way.


----------



## MySugar (May 24, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> All id like to know is what these alternatives methods are.
> 
> Im always looking for new techniques that dont involve being physical (ie choke chains etc), as one of mine wont eat outside of the house, which is why i havent used treats for years and years. I train in the hosue with him, and thankfully a good fuss and praise works fine on walks. But if i were to get a non-food minded dog in future, having more knowledge under my belt would be great.
> 
> *James, i think you have many valid points, but its your attitude that rubs people up the wrong way*.


I agree completely!


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

james1 said:


> This isnt an argument at all i realise that...
> Treats do work yes, but when they are unnecessary and over used, owners become oblivious to alternative methods, and once started with treats it is very difficult to get them off them with new commands. I simply dont see why treating a dog for sitting is needed, (a dog will lay for instance or stand) when a dog will sit (etc) naturally then words/praise associations can be attached to it. My opinion is that the dog becomes far too attached to treats to do things and the owner seeing that results can be gained uses then as an excessive reaction, If you dont use them from the outset you have a much more natural dog that is very willing to take on requests. But to be honest i cant really be bothered continuing this thread - nothing personal


Hi James, 
Just thought I'd mention this.

In positive reinforcement- generally once the dog has mastered a behaviour (such as a very simple sit) you vary the "rewards" and don't reward so often. For instance I own a border collie (we do agility and freestyle tricks, frisbee etc- so a sit is not exactly difficult for him LOL ). If I were to ask him to sit at the road side, I may just praise him (e.g. "Good Boy") and move on. However if say I was in an environment where my dog was getting stressed I would tell him to sit and reward him by giving him his ball- in this situation I have given him something to do and made the situation easier for him. He has responded in a difficult environment which is why I reward him. Positive reinforcement is not about stuffing a dog full of sausages forever it's about effectively shaping a behaviour and reinforcing it with rewards then varying the rewards (sometimes just praise, a stroke, sometimes a low value treat, sometimes a toy, sometimes no reward especially if I am setting the dog up for another behaviour- e.g. for a jump chute in agility for example ). 
I think that this aspect of positive reinforcement is being misunderstood. It's not about bribery and just treats. It's about understanding what motivates your dog, strengthening your relationship with your dog and perfecting your timing to shape behaviours.

I'm not being at all critical but I have a few questions 

What sort of methods do you use to train your dog?
How for instance would you train a sit without rewards?

Thanks


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

I've been asking James how he would teach a sit for ages. Here's hoping he will reply to you


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Hi James,
> Just thought I'd mention this.
> 
> In positive reinforcement- generally once the dog has mastered a behaviour (such as a very simple sit) you vary the "rewards" and don't reward so often. For instance I own a border collie (we do agility and freestyle tricks, frisbee etc- so a sit is not exactly difficult for him LOL ). If I were to ask him to sit at the road side, I may just praise him (e.g. "Good Boy") and move on. However if say I was in an environment where my dog was getting stressed I would tell him to sit and reward him by giving him his ball- in this situation I have given him something to do and made the situation easier for him. He has responded in a difficult environment which is why I reward him. Positive reinforcement is not about stuffing a dog full of sausages forever it's about effectively shaping a behaviour and reinforcing it with rewards then varying the rewards (sometimes just praise, a stroke, sometimes a low value treat, sometimes a toy, sometimes no reward especially if I am setting the dog up for another behaviour- e.g. for a jump chute in agility for example ).
> ...


As you have just said - and I in my post previous to yours, a dog will sit of its own accord; it will also go down, stand, run out as a natural act so your cue is given to that movement. Its not rocket science and nothing new, I simply use praise, giving praise after the exercise is done. On new commands, it is offered instantly after each - and once bedded with repetition - say fifth time of asking, you delay the praise possibly to not even issue, instead going to another command say to 'come' and then issue the sit. The praise is then given though not every time. Hand signals are then given alongside the command using the same parctice.
Its not confusing, as I have said throughout it just takes persistance.No food, just simple owner communication. 
In stressful situations the dog shouldnt be looking for a treat at all, it should be looking at what your asking it to do - this is why i see treats as unnecessary. It should have no other thought - foodbased or other (which is why you either delay or not give praise) that you are wanting it to do something - at this stage hand signals should be enough. 
The food to me is more of a distraction as the dog will not only receive verbal cues that its a 'good boy' but it will also be wanting food and physical petting that its done so well - weaned off or not the dog to me will be thinking i didnt get the food last time so i must be doing something wrong. If food wasnt inplace to start off with, then there is not this added expectation - only the strenght of what you tell it.
I am not against treats per say; a lot of people seem to think that they are weaned off them but this only comes essentially with age. Realistically (the general population of non attending classes or giving up half way through) the ease at which dogs perform when food is offered, its an easy discipline of having a dog do as you say. Owners do not make the jump to no food associations so stay with it.
Ive just been in the judged today alongside a 5 year old tbh and the first thing the owner did was show it her hand that obviously had the scent of food on (i missed out on a merit by only a few points with my pup, but hey I have neither been practicing regularly or expected to be tested)
How old are your dogs? Not being critical but if they are above the age of 2 and you have been training them since pups - you shouldnt be using treats at all if you have taken on the weaning process? How long will it take the dog to understand what it is you want - is what i mean?..... does anybody actually say when a dog shouldnt be receiving treats? I dont think they do so this essentially gives a free reign as regards time. If the end objective is to have it perform to command without food, why put food in the mix to start off with, your fighting 2 evils: 1/ the food and 2/ the dogs will (survival). Both should be under control and its only achieved when food isnt present confusing their "will".
No lesson - just what I do.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> As you have just said - and I in my post previous to yours, a dog will sit of its own accord; it will also go down, stand, run out as a natural act so your cue is given to that movement. Its not rocket science and nothing new, I simply use praise, giving praise after the exercise is done. On new commands, it is offered instantly after each - and once bedded with repetition - say fifth time of asking, you delay the praise possibly to not even issue, instead going to another command say to 'come' and then issue the sit. The praise is then given though not every time. Hand signals are then given alongside the command using the same parctice.
> Its not confusing, as I have said throughout it just takes persistance.No food, just simple owner communication.
> In stressful situations the dog shouldnt be looking for a treat at all, it should be looking at what your asking it to do - this is why i see treats as unnecessary. It should have no other thought - foodbased or other (which is why you either delay or not give praise) that you are wanting it to do something - at this stage hand signals should be enough.
> The food to me is more of a distraction as the dog will not only receive verbal cues that its a 'good boy' but it will also be wanting food and physical petting that its done so well - weaned off or not the dog to me will be thinking i didnt get the food last time so i must be doing something wrong. If food wasnt inplace to start off with, then there is noy this added expectation - only the strenght of what you tell it.
> ...


How can you tell somebody how to train a dog over the age of 2?????

You have never owned or trained a 2 year old yet James 

You do not have any,not any,experience of handling a dog of that age.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Your a bore and a pest, politely - scarper 

If you have owned a dog since 8wks and you cant get it to sit by the age of 2, lol im speechless - what kind of training are your doing!!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> Not being critical but if they are above the age of 2 and you have been training them since pups - you shouldnt be using treats at all if you have taken on the weaning process?


Lordy, lordy James. It is absolutely essential with certain breeds that training remains ongoing throughout the dogs life.

I can't speak for all breeds only the ones I have experience of owning & with certain breeds the training process never stops and should never stop, full stop.


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> Your a bore and a pest, politely - scarper


I am simply stating the truth.

If you could please answer my earlier question as to why you have hit your dogs when reward training would be kinder for the dog, if you don't mind.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nicci said:


> Lordy, lordy James. It is absolutely essential with certain breeds that training remains ongoing throughout the dogs life.
> 
> I can't speak for all breeds only the ones I have experience of owning & with certain breeds the training process never stops and should never stop, full stop.


and your still using treats at that age? if you are then it obviously hasnt learned in those long long years what a sit or whatever command it is your asking is then.

true or false?


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> Your a bore and a pest, politely - scarper
> 
> If you have owned a dog since 8wks and you cant get it to sit by the age of 2, lol im speechless - what kind of training are your doing!!!!


My dogs all sit well before 2.

Christ they've entered working tests by then


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> My dogs all sit well before 2.
> 
> Christ they've entered working tests by then


I - could - not - care - less 

EDIT
and just to add, dont be so egotistical that everytime i write a post - that I am directing it at you. Though the sentance above is. 

byes byes


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

I have recently read most of this thread, and not posted until now.......

I am all for treat/toy training. My current ESS and my old Lab were both trained in this way and my Lab was an immepecable doggie citizen. My ESS i rescued in Dec 08 and he wasn't trained in the slightest (he was 3) he was also 'hit' so training was and still is very very hard. He has responded to reward based methods very well. He likes to be trained to his ball most of the time, however if we training inside anywhere he like treats. 

He is an extremely nervous dog, if you so much as raise your voice he will still on the odd occasion submissively urinate. I wouldn't even dream of 'alpha rolling' him nor would i scruff him or grab the underside of his throat. He needs TLC and lots of it, to learn to trust me. I don't think grabbing him in this sort of way will instill any kind of trust.

I am dead set against this sort of treatment of dogs, its old and honestly i believe wrong way of dealing with a dogs 'naughty moments'

It does not instill 'trust' it instills fear and as some call it respect. If i am am truly honest i do wish my dog to 'respect' me. I want my boy to live alongside me as my family in health, happiness and with above all....trust. Treating a dog this way will not achieve any of that, the dog will be worried constantly about when you are next going to try and throttle him/push him to the ground. Regardless of whether you people can see it, he will. Put yourself in his paws???

My Lab could be a right little *bleep* when he was an adolescant. I never once resorted to any kind of violence. He was trained purely through reward based methods............and guess what?? When the treats were no longer needed he never once failed. He knew what was right and what was wrong simply through training him patiently and one step at a time, with rewards.

I will always use these training methods. Why? Because they work and they are kind, easy ways of getting your dog to understand what he asked to do.

If you get a puppy that you have to train all by yourself, tell me how you would train him/her to come back to you when you called....everytime without fail???


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Nicci said:


> Lordy, lordy James. It is absolutely essential with certain breeds that training remains ongoing throughout the dogs life.
> 
> I can't speak for all breeds only the ones I have experience of owning & with certain breeds the training process never stops and should never stop, full stop.


Yes, training is something that should never stop. Trainers know this.

However, there are two schools of thought on reward training. Two branches of opinion, if you like....

There are the EDUCATED opinions of top trainers, behaviourists and competitors in all sorts of dog sports, who have years of experience of training all different breeds of dog to do all sorts of different things.... and then there is James' opinion


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> I - could - not - care - less


Would you answer my question James.

Why did you hit an old sick dog or a young puppy?

Why is this more effective than reward training?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> If you get a puppy that you have to train all by yourself, tell me how you would train him/her to come back to you when you called....everytime without fail???


Crikey, im not here to answer all the worlds problems, maybe you should start a new thread so people can offer some advice


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> Yes, training is something that should never stop. Trainers know this.
> 
> However, there are two schools of thought on reward training. Two branches of opinion, if you like....
> 
> There are the EDUCATED opinions of top trainers, behaviourists and competitors in all sorts of dog sports, who have years of experience of training all different breeds of dog to do all sorts of different things.... and then there is James' opinion


then there is Collies whos goes with the majority


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

james1 said:


> and your still using treats at that age? if you are then it obviously hasnt learned in those long long years what a sit or whatever command it is your asking is then.
> 
> true or false?


No James, with dominant breeds training must remain ongoing throughout the dogs life, otherwise you get taken for a mug and before you know it the dog is in total control, clever dominant breeds know exactly how to manipulate certain situations


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> Crikey, im not here to answer all the worlds problems, maybe you should start a new thread so people can offer some advice


Well you seem to think 'your' way of training is so much better than reward based.

Answer that one???

Or can't you?

Oh and for your information i actually HAVE trained a dog to recall very well!!!!!!!!! That amongst many many other things including various tricks! With ............. bet you can't guess? Thats right rewards!


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> Crikey, im not here to answer all the worlds problems, maybe you should start a new thread so people can offer some advice


Backtracking

I think people are asking you so you can explain exactly how you do it,only you can't can you.

Because you've never actually done it.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> Backtracking
> 
> I think people are asking you so you can explain exactly how you do it,only you can't can you.
> 
> Because you've never actually done it.


It is very unfortunate that someone who thinks he has all the answers with regards to training of dogs without 'rewards'..........that he can't answer simple questions about basic dog training!!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> Well you seem to think 'your' way of training is so much better than reward based.
> 
> Answer that one???
> 
> ...


so why do you want to know then? arent you just wasting your time? or are you just looking to jump in on or prokoke an argument?


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

I can't believe this thread is still going  Why not make a new thread so no-one gets confused :laugh:


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> Well you seem to think 'your' way of training is so much better than reward based.
> 
> Answer that one???
> 
> ...


I don't think he can or will answer.
We get critisised for using treats but i'm not allowed to ask him why hitting his dog is acceptable and under what circumstances.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

sequeena said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going  Why not make a new thread so no-one gets confused :laugh:


LOL! Good idea! I have only just started too  
xxx


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

sequeena said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going  Why not make a new thread so no-one gets confused :laugh:


I would but I don't know what to call it :lol:


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> then there is Collies whos goes with the majority


That's because the majority's methods work well and they don't end up hitting their dog as you have done.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> I don't think he can or will answer.
> We get critisised for using treats but i'm not allowed to ask him why hitting his dog is acceptable and under what circumstances.


You have been reported for keeping on saying this,

just to let you know.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

Why do people get personal


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> I don't think he can or will answer.
> We get critisised for using treats but i'm not allowed to ask him why hitting his dog is acceptable and under what circumstances.


I think, he started out with an opinion that he didn't really research enough and now he has dug himself this great big hole!!

Of course he can't answer questions about recall and other training because he has never had to do it!!!!!!!!!!

Reading/believing is one things experience is quite another! lol!!

P.S I do not believe in hitting a dog in any way shape or form, i never ever have and i never ever will. Even my old Lab, as a pup or adolescant, did the naughtiest things ever i wouldn't ever dream of it.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> I think, he started out with an opinion that he didn't really research enough and now he has dug himself this great big hole!!
> 
> Of course he can't answer questions about recall and other training because he has never had to do it!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


what are you talking about:idea:


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Nicci said:


> I would but I don't know what to call it :lol:


How about the big confusion thread where everything is a jibe 

*prepares to be attacked* :laugh: I love you all really, I can see from both sides why you're so passionate but have to agree with DD, please don't get personal. It's a forum, none of this should affect our real lives


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> You have been reported for keeping on saying this,
> 
> just to let you know.


James i am not saying anything that is not true.
I am so baffled as to why you are so against kinder more effective methods,it just doesn't make sense.

I feel very strongly that reward based training is a far more humane way than physical smacking.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> what are you talking about:idea:


Exactly what i wrote............

Well how would you train a dog to recall??


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> Exactly what i wrote............
> 
> Well how would you train a dog to recall??


I understood that bit, but what was the rest of your post going on about.:blush2:


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> I understood that bit, but what was the rest of your post going on about.:blush2:


Can you please answer it?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> James i am not saying anything that is not true.
> I am so baffled as to why you are so against kinder more effective methods,it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> I feel very strongly that reward based training is a far more humane way than physical smacking.


you can rub yourself up as much as you want, youve still been reported


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> Can you please answer it?


what dont you understand about "what are you talking about" ?


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

james1 said:


> you can rub yourself up as much as you want, youve still been reported


I can WHAT!!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

now now please no one rub any one..:yikes:


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> what dont you understand about "what do you mean" ?


What don't you understand about ''tell me how you would teach recall without reward based methods''

Oh and to your answer i was actually talking to another member, not you at the time.

Do i get my answer now??


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

James- going to answers to bits of your post in chunks as this could get confusing LOL 



> I simply *use praise, giving praise after *the exercise is done. On new commands, it is offered instantly after each - and once bedded with repetition - say fifth time of asking, you delay the praise possibly to not even issue, instead going to another command say to 'come' and then issue the sit. The praise is then given though not every time. Hand signals are then given alongside the command using the same parctice.


Thank you for making it clearer- it seems then that you do use positive reinforcement as you give praise "after the exercise is done" as a consequence reward for the behaviour. The only issue I have with just using praise (this is just my opinion due to my own experiences with dogs) is that when you do not vary the rewards you use (such as your example of only using praise) it could weaken the dogs motivation to perform a behaviour- when they no that the consequence of a recall is praise from you and they have to choose between that and chasing a rabbit. If you vary your rewards during your training sessions (sometimes use a favourite toy, food, praise, tuggy game etc depending on how far advanced the dog is in it's competence of performing the behaviour), this makes you more unpredictable and could serve for say a better recall or a firmer behaviour 


> In stressful situations the dog shouldnt be looking for a treat at all, it should be looking at what your asking it to do - this is why i see treats as unnecessary. It should have no other thought - foodbased or other (which is why you either delay or not give praise) that you are wanting it to do something - at this stage hand signals should be enough.


In the made up example I used, the dog does not look for a treat. I give the dog a command and then AS A CONSEQUENCE CHOOSE TO REWARD THE DOG BECAUSE I LIKE THAT BEHAVIOUR AND WANT TO REINFORCE IT SO THAT THE DOG REPEATS IT IN THE FUTURE.



> How old are your dogs? Not being critical but if they are above the age of 2 and you have been training them since pups - you shouldnt be using treats at all if you have taken on the weaning process? How long will it take the dog to understand what it is you want - is what i mean?..... does anybody actually say when a dog shouldnt be receiving treats? I dont think they do so this essentially gives a free reign as regards time. If the end objective is to have it perform to command without food, why put food in the mix to start off with, your fighting 2 evils: 1/ the food and 2/ the dogs will (survival). Both should be under control and its only achieved when food isnt present confusing their "will".


James- I think you are misunderstanding the concept of operant conditioning and positive reinforcement. Have you heard of clicker training per chance? I did explain it all in a post somewhere a page or so ago. Essentially though operant conditioning focusses on making the dog voluntarily perform a behaviour. The dog chooses to perform a given behaviour. The desirable behaviour is then REINFORCED using whatever motivates the dog. For instance one dog may be more toy than food motivated whereas Max the labrador will eat himself silly. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT TREATS and it certainly IS NOT BRIBERY.

For the record my dog is 2 years old. He is a border collie. We are his second home. I'm not sure what you mean about the "weaning proccess" you seem to have misunderstood the idea of varying rewards during training sessions. As it happens my dog is far more toy orientated than he is food orientated. Typical collie in that sense. With regards to the comment that my dog shouldn't really be recieving treats after the age of two years? I don't know whether you have trained advanced behaviours or what breed of dog you own and how old they are but TBH I think we'll stick with positive reinforcement thanks! We have just started competing in agility and have alot of promise so I can't think that we are doing too badly 
Out of interest do you do advanced training with your dogs James?


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> What don't you understand about ''tell me how you would teach recall without reward based methods''
> 
> Oh and to your answer i was actually talking to another member, not you at the time.
> 
> Do i get my answer now??


Can i have my answer as well


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> now now please no one rub any one..:yikes:


Lol!!!!!!!!!!! Rep for that hun. xx

P.S I really am in love with the baldy babies in your sig ♥ ♥


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> now now please no one rub any one..:yikes:


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

bucksmum said:


> Can i have my answer as well


Hehe, i doubt will get it!


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

bucksmum said:


> I can WHAT!!!!


He wants you to rub yourself up, but what with is the question   

I wonder if he will answer that


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> Lol!!!!!!!!!!! Rep for that hun. xx
> 
> P.S I really am in love with the baldy babies in your sig ♥ ♥





bucksmum said:


>


Thank you..Thought i would try and brighten the mood..:001_tt2: :001_tt2:
Plus you all know i cant do the serious stuff...


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

Nicci said:


> He wants you to rub yourself up, but what with is the question
> 
> I wonder if he will answer that


Obviously not a biscuit


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2009)

Nicci said:


> He wants you to rub yourself up, but what with is the question
> 
> I wonder if he will answer that


Friggin heck Nicci...


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Nicci said:


> Lordy, lordy James. It is absolutely essential with certain breeds that training remains ongoing throughout the dogs life.
> 
> I can't speak for all breeds only the ones I have experience of owning & with certain breeds the training process never stops and should never stop, full stop.


Halleluiah!
Border Collies are the real deal in that sense. 
And they are certainly not the kind of dog where you can say- dog trained- never need to get my clicker out again!?
NO WAY! They'd be climbing the walls!


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Just to make things abit clearer because it seems that positive reinforcement is being misunderstood here by a long mile:
> 
> Operant conditioning, which is something you'll hear many positive reinforcement trainers talk about, is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behaviour. This means that essentially in dog training that it is the use of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS to train a certain behaviour or duration to a behaviour.
> It differs from classical conditioning (pavlovian conditioning) in that it deals with making the subject voluntarily offering the behaviour (THEREFORE IT IS NOT BRIBERY!)
> ...


There we go- there is the explanation of positive reinforcement based methods. BTW operant and classical conditioning are proven psychological theories that have been around for donkey's years. 
Positive reinforcement has been proven countless times in studies of the way that dog's learn


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> James- going to answers to bits of your post in chunks as this could get confusing LOL
> Thank you for making it clearer- it seems then that you do use positive reinforcement as you give praise "after the exercise is done" as a consequence reward for the behaviour. The only issue I have with just using praise (this is just my opinion due to my own experiences with dogs) is that when you do not vary the rewards you use (such as your example of only using praise) it could weaken the dogs motivation to perform a behaviour- when they no that the consequence of a recall is praise from you and they have to choose between that and chasing a rabbit. If you vary your rewards during your training sessions (sometimes use a favourite toy, food, praise, tuggy game etc depending on how far advanced the dog is in it's competence of performing the behaviour), this makes you more unpredictable and could serve for say a better recall or a firmer behaviour
> In the made up example I used, the dog does not look for a treat. I give the dog a command and then AS A CONSEQUENCE CHOOSE TO REWARD THE DOG BECAUSE I LIKE THAT BEHAVIOUR AND WANT TO REINFORCE IT SO THAT THE DOG REPEATS IT IN THE FUTURE.
> James- I think you are misunderstanding the concept of operant conditioning and positive reinforcement. Have you heard of clicker training per chance? I did explain it all in a post somewhere a page or so ago. Essentially though operant conditioning focusses on training a voluntary behaviour. The dog chooses to perform a given behaviour. The desirable behaviour is then REINFORCED using whatever motivates the dog. For instance one dog may be more toy than food motivated whereas Max the labrador will eat himself silly. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT TREATS and it certainly IS NOT BRIBERY.
> ...


Sorry if this comes across bitty, but a lot of people are having a go on here:

You dont have to answer my post, you asked me what i do and I have told you, it doesnt need assessment.
- Of course use positive reinforcement, what else was you thinking I did?
- I do not issue praise everytime - this is why he is willing to perform, I thought I said this
- Operant conditioning does not focus on voluntary behaviour it induces behaviour - you could get a dog to stand on its head and whistle out the national anthem with a sparkler in its rear if you conditioned it enough
- If you support operant conditioning; havent you just contradicted yourself in a dog becoming too used to the reinforcer? - therefore not do as you say?


lemmsy said:


> The only issue I have with just using praise is that when you do not vary the rewards you use it could weaken the dogs motivation to perform a behaviour


Which if you look at what it is I am saying about them needing to go back to food training as they believe they are doing something wrong if they dont receive it?
- Ive not misunderstood the idea of varying rewards - you asked ME what I do and I have told you, and I didnt mention that all my time isnt spent training
- You avoided the one question I posed, which was - If a dog (general owners) hasnt learned a command through treats by the age of 2 to the extent that they need to still return to the treat, is the weaning process working and does the treat practice work.
- I never questioned how well you were doing I asked that - as a general - what age should the weaning be in effect.
- What kind of advanced training are you talking about - I am not a trainer, I just tried to answer your question.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> What don't you understand about ''tell me how you would teach recall without reward based methods''
> 
> Oh and to your answer i was actually talking to another member, not you at the time.
> 
> Do i get my answer now??


this is what you wrote


Acacia86 said:


> I think, he started out with an opinion that he didn't really research enough and now he has dug himself this great big hole!!
> 
> Of course he can't answer questions about recall and other training because he has never had to do it!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


how am I supposed to answer you if I dont know what your going on about.

You have already said your dog is fine in recall so I assume, as I pointed earlier that you just want to jump in on or instigate an argument.
If you want to clear that up


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> this is what you wrote
> 
> how am I supposed to answer you if I dont know what your going on about.
> 
> ...


I want you to answer my question to *you* about training a dog to recall without reward based methods.........

I know what i typed thanks. After all i typed it!

The dog that recalled well isn't with me now, my ESS is not recall trained to perfection. I have said this already. I had a Lab who was trained by me who we had at 8 weeks, my ESS is rescued (dec 08) and knew zero when he came to me, and after a few months of positive training he is coming on very well.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

If you read the content of the above post (mine) it looks like your being quite sly, you wont get an answer out of me as neither will cookiemum colliepoodle and a few others


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

james1 said:


> If you read the content of the above post (mine) it looks like your being quite sly, you wont get an answer out of me as neither will cookiemum colliepoodle and a few others


James how old are you ?

I can't believe the way you ''speak'' to people on here, yet you accuse others of being downright rude...

Yet YOU expect people to answer YOUR questions, why is that when you won't answer simple questions being directed at you ?


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> If you read the content of the above post (mine) it looks like your being quite sly, you wont get an answer out of me as neither will cookiemum colliepoodle and a few others


I'm sorry where was i 'sly'?

I have only just posted on this thread and all i did was put my own opinion and then asked you a simple question. Which you have done all you can to avoid!

To be honest James1 you seem to put your opinions and questions on here and expect them to be answered....which they have been.

Yet when someone asks you a very simple question you can't answer!!

If you truly believe in your 'methods' then answer the questions put to you! Like i have said i think you started out with an opinion and have now dug yourself such a big hole............and by this i mean you have run out of things to strengthen to your so called opinion against reward based methods!

Feel free to prove me wrong by answering the questions..........i really do want to know how you would train a dog to come back everytime he/she was called, no matter what distractions were around, without rewarding dog.................


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nicci said:


> James how old are you ?
> 
> I can't believe the way you ''speak'' to people on here, yet you accuse others of being downright rude...
> 
> Yet YOU expect people to answer YOUR questions, why is that when you won't answer simple questions being directed at you ?


I havent posed many questions in this at all - and why should i answer a post when it is going to be taken apart, its just not going to happen.
I have already given my trainging methods - if the poster wants to jump in and cause an argument thats not my problem.
I dont accuse people of being rude - you only have to look at their spam to realise im being pretty well mannered all things considered


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> I havent posed many questions in this at all - and why should i answer a post when it is going to be taken apart, its just not going to happen.
> I have already given my trainging methods - if the poster wants to jump in and cause an argument thats not my problem.
> I dont accuse people of being rude - you only have to look at their spam to realise im being pretty well mannered all things considered


But you haven't answered my question of how you would train a dog using 'your methods' on the very important recall...........you are completely avoiding the question James1.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> But you haven't answered my question of how you would train a dog using 'your methods' on the very important recall...........you are completely avoiding the question James1.


why would i want to answer you if i think your being sly, how do you think you are going to get me to answer you with comments like this. Ill answer it again as its obviously not sinking in - Your Not. 



Acacia86 said:


> Oh and for your information i actually HAVE trained a dog to recall very well!!!!!!!!! That amongst many many other things including various tricks! With ............. bet you can't guess? Thats right rewards!





Acacia86 said:


> It is very unfortunate that someone who thinks he has all the answers with regards to training of dogs without 'rewards'..........that he can't answer simple questions about basic dog training!!





Acacia86 said:


> I think, he started out with an opinion that he didn't really research enough and now he has dug himself this great big hole!!
> 
> Of course he can't answer questions about recall and other training because he has never had to do it!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> why would i want to answer you if i think your being sly, how do you think you are going to get me to answer you with comments like this.


LOL!! They are my own experiences and opinions!

I want to know your way of teaching a dog recall...........

I am hardly 'sly' its seriously laughable!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> LOL!! They are my own experiences and opinions!
> 
> I want to know your way of teaching a dog recall...........
> 
> I am hardly 'sly' its seriously laughable!


your opinions are guided by Bucksmum and they are out of order

i reckon you have an alterego as .............. bucksmum too - just my opinion course :001_tt2:


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> LOL!! They are my own experiences and opinions!
> 
> I want to know your way of teaching a dog recall...........
> 
> I am hardly 'sly' its seriously laughable!


quite the comedian


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> your opinions are guided by Bucksmum and they are out of order
> 
> i reckon you have an alterego as .............. bucksmum too - just my opinion course :001_tt2:


Are you serious? I do not know Bucksmum. (much as i'd like too) Not on here not anywhere, you are more than welcome to do your research on here if you don't believe me.

In fact ask 'petforums' which is the owner of the site.......me and bucksmum are not the same person!! I am the only member here from the Channel Islands as far as i know! Get your *facts* right!!!!!!!!!

I have my OWN opinions thanks. I will always have them too.

I'm sorry James1 i did think you were ok at first, but this thread seriously proves otherwise.

You are downright insulting.

And worse than that you can give it out but not take it..............

You STILL cannot answer a few very very simple questions.


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

james1 said:


> I havent posed many questions in this at all - and why should i answer a post when it is going to be taken apart, its just not going to happen.
> I have already given my trainging methods - if the poster wants to jump in and cause an argument thats not my problem.
> I dont accuse people of being rude - you only have to look at their spam to realise im being pretty well mannered all things considered


James how do you expect people to take you seriously ?

You've commented that a dog over two years old shouldn't need consistent training, as they should already ''know'' what has been taught to them. Can I ask, how long have you been a dog owner ? And what breeds you have experience with ? How exactly do you train your dogs and how long for and up until what age ?

I've been a dog owner for 18 years, I have experience of many breeds from Bullmastiffs, to Bulldogs, American Bulldogs, Dobermans & St Bernards and a couple of other breeds. All these breeds need firm but gentle consistent training from puppyhood to adulthood, no matter how old they get in life you always have to keep the upper hand with these ''type'' of dogs. I admit I am still learning, you never stop learning. I don't profess to know everything but I like to think I have enough experience with these types of breeds to help others with advice if they need it. The training with my dogs never stops, it's always there daily in short bursts of time, whether it be me playing with a ball to get what I want out of them or positive based treat training. Obviously my dogs see it as a game but that is just me manipulating them to get what I want out of them rather than forcibly putting them into situations they feel uncomfortable in, there is nothing wrong with that - yet you seem to rubbish these kinds of ideas from many people who have had positive experiences with this kind of training.
It works for me, it works for my dogs so I guess I will never change or understand the methods you use on your own dogs.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Every single dog, no matter what breed/mix, needs consistent training. 

Nicci, i hope you get a straight answer.........because no one else has!!!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> Are you serious? I do not know Bucksmum. (much as i'd like too) Not on here not anywhere, you are more than welcome to do your research on here if you don't believe me.
> 
> In fact ask 'petforums' which is the owner of the site.......me and bucksmum are not the same person!! I am the only member here from the Channel Islands as far as i know! Get your *facts* right!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


supporting claims that i beat my dog is insulting.

fact on to me whatever you like - you are the insult looking for an argument having not read any of my posts. end of story. or should i say FACT


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nicci said:


> James how do you expect people to take you seriously ?
> 
> You've commented that a dog over two years old shouldn't need consistent training, as they should already ''know'' what has been taught to them. Can I ask, how long have you been a dog owner ? And what breeds you have experience with ? How exactly do you train your dogs and how long for and up until what age ?
> 
> ...


if your would have read my posts it clearly says - how long does this weaning process take - which still hasnt been answered, do you hear me cross examining people? Do you not think a 2 year old trained from puphood will have understood you enough to not need treats?? As Bucksmum so proudly announced - she has done working trials with 2 year olds!!
training does go on as a daily activity yes, but as far as food based rewards - why confuse them with training when you can see behaviour presented without. I have said this earlier along with my methods if you want to read them you can if not - the shoe is on the other foot - I cannot take you seriously now can I............... or does majority have final rule... seems so!

and again you miss my point - stated throughout ..... simply because treat training works *as that is the argument here, it does not mean that is the only method. BUT if you were to ever com onto this forum - as has been shown ! - then people better not ever disagree with it as that is how you train dogs and nobody is willing to either listen or approach it sensibly.
I am opposed to the owner not getting involved with the dog and having it perfom because they want it to not because there is a bacon sandwich on offer.
And yes i do get pos reinforcement isnt all treat based - but as has been explianed it it the primary reinforcer used in this method.
ummmph how many times


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

james1 said:


> if your would have read my posts it clearly says - how long does this weaning process take - which still hasbt been answered do you hear me cross examining people?
> training does fo on as a daily activity yes, but as far as food based rewards - why confuse them with training when you can see behaviour presented without. I have said this earlier along with my methods if you want to read them you can if not - the shoe is on the other foot - I cannot take you seriously now can I............... or does majority have final rule... seems so!


Weaning process ??

I hear you loud and clear James, since when has positive treat training had anything to do with weaning a dog - or are you saying it shouldn't be happening full stop because a dog has already been taught a command and should know it & remember it ?

You clearly know nothing about what training a dog entails or breed traits of certain breeds.

Training should not stop, full stop whatever age a dog happens to be.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> supporting claims that i beat my dog is insulting.
> 
> fact on to me whatever you like - you are the insult looking for an argument having not read any of my posts. end of story. or should i say FACT


I am very sorry where on earth have i said i support such claims? I would love to see them.

Yes i put on my *own* post i did not hit my dogs. That does not mean i have put anywhere that i believe you have. :cursing: Please, please read throughly James1

Again....you choose to raise something else and pick on someone else's points rather than answer the question........................

And you wonder why people will not 'support' you! At least we can answer any question put to us! This is something you know you haven't done..........


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

james1 said:


> if your would have read my posts it clearly says - how long does this weaning process take - which still hasnt been answered, do you hear me cross examining people? Do you not think a 2 year old trained from puphood will have understood you enough to not need treats?? As Bucksmum so proudly announced - she has done working trials with 2 year olds!!
> training does go on as a daily activity yes, but as far as food based rewards - why confuse them with training when you can see behaviour presented without. I have said this earlier along with my methods if you want to read them you can if not - the shoe is on the other foot - I cannot take you seriously now can I............... or does majority have final rule... seems so!
> 
> and again you miss my point - stated throughout ..... simply because treat training works *as that is the argument here, it does not mean that is the only method. BUT if you were to ever com onto this forum - as has been shown ! - then people better not ever disagree with it as that is how you train dogs and nobody is willing to either listen or approach it sensibly.
> ...


Thing is though James, I never asked you to take me seriously, yet you seem to expect other people to take you seriously.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nicci said:


> Weaning process ??
> 
> I hear you loud and clear James, since when has positive treat training had anything to do with weaning a dog - or are you saying it shouldn't be happening full stop because a dog has already been taught a command and should know it & remember it ?
> 
> ...


you clearly arent reading my posts. weaning off treats was referred to by another member as i dont use them how am i supposed to know? So can you tell me when a dog should stop receiving treats for basic commands... all im wanting is an opinion

i added some to my previous post btw but you quoted me too fast


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nicci said:


> Thing is though James, I never asked you to take me seriously, yet you seem to expect other people to take you seriously.


thats such a valid response to a perfectly reasonable post, its just a shame it completely missed the essential points of it - but it did help you to not give any answer i suppose


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> thats such a valid response to a perfectly reasonable post, its just a shame it completely missed the essential points of it - but it did help you to not give any answer i suppose


Not give any answers??? Your a fine one to talk!

You haven't given any answers to simple questions!


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

james1 said:


> you clearly arent reading my posts. weaning off treats was referred to by another member as i dont use them how am i supposed to know? So can you tell me when a dog should stop receiving treats for basic commands... all im wanting is an opinion
> 
> i added some to my previous post btw but you quoted me too fast


I've always used treats throughout my dogs lives depending on what I feel drives them, whether it be food or a toy..

I've never stopped using treats and don't really see the relevance of the question, unless you are advising me I stop doing what happens to work for my dogs because they should ''know'' how to behave how I want them to.

With certain breeds James the training don't ever stop however it is rewarded, my American Bulldog was a real ''git'' excuse the pun and she was still being ''reminded'' how I desired her to behave right up until the day she passed.

But I hope that has answered the question.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> I am very sorry where on earth have i said i support such claims? I would love to see them.
> 
> Yes i put on my *own* post i did not hit my dogs. That does not mean i have put anywhere that i believe you have. :cursing: Please, please read throughly James1
> 
> ...


lol - baffled
why are you bringing up hiting a dog then - is it to show what an angel you are or something? as i really dont see what purpose it serves - you have simply built on peoples assumptions of me which i dont like seen as i am the one in the firing line here.
Answering a striaght forward question is easy answering how would you train my dog to run and come back tp point is a hole lot more analytical. And your on here for an argument so - whay entertain it


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nicci said:


> I've always used treats throughout my dogs lives depending on what I feel drives them, whether it be food or a toy..
> 
> I've never stopped using treats and don't really see the relevance of the question, unless you are advising me I stop doing what happens to work for my dogs because they should ''know'' how to behave how I want them to.
> 
> ...


this is exactly my point and whilst you might not be representative of people on here (ie people may have stopped using treats) it is exactly what im talking about. 
simply because treats get things done doent mean it is the only way. I do believe that at a certain age a dog should know what it is your wanting - i dont see any reason why it shouldnt.
i have never said training should stop


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

james1 said:


> lol - baffled
> why are you bringing up hiting a dog then - is it to show what an angel you are or something? as i really dont see what purpose it serves - you have siply built on peoples assumptions of me which i dont like seen as i am the one in the firing line here.
> Answering a striaght forward question is easy answering how would you train my dog to run and come back tp point is a hole lot more analytical. And your on here for an argument so - whay entertain it


LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You make me laugh!!!!

I don't 'build' on anyone thank you very much, i am me. Simple as that.

You are the one bringing up the 'hitting' not me! I was simply replying to a post when i said about it! Which by the way was a while ago!!! lol!!! I never mentioned you in that part at all.

James1 get off your highness attitiude and answer the questions.....

Like i said i *did* think you were ok but since this thread you have turned out to be something completely different................


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

james1 said:


> this is exactly my point and whilst you might not be representative of people on here (ie people may have stopped using treats) it is exactly what im talking about.
> simply because treats get things done doent mean it is the only way. I do believe that at a certain age a dog should know what it is your wanting - i dont see any reason why it shouldnt.
> i have never said training should stop


I'll use my Am Bull as an example - they are a pretty hard breed for the novice and not one I would recommend. With dogs like these James, and other ''working'' bred dogs - they don't really see the point in doing anything if there is nothing ''in'' it for ''them''. Sometimes you have to scratch the surface a little to find out what ''drives'' them, whether it be food, toys or ''work'' based training & what not.

My girl was an extremely intelligent dog, and one I would say that was easy to train to an extent as she was so intelligent - but in saying that she knew how to try and manipulate you & this type of behaviour always, always has to be nipped in the bud with breeds like these as things can get so easily out of control with them if they happen to think they are in ''charge''
She knew exactly what I wanted from her and what I expected from her - but I never ever stopped ''reward'' based training as it was me who was manipulating her into doing what I wanted & I never saw any reason for that to stop as if I did she would have been thinking ''well what exactly is in this for me'' some breeds do work and operate that way James and at times you just have to understand how to balance that to get what you want out of them.
I see nothing wrong with gentle nudges in the right direction as quick reminders for a dog, whether that be with food, toys or other ''reward'' based methods.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Blimey - this thread may well go on forever! 

TBH James has lost the ability to irritate me - I think he's proved fairly thoroughly that he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about so his opinion can be pretty safely ignored  ...

He can't describe how he teaches "sit"

He struggles to keep his dog's attention when there's other dogs around - in fact it lies down when it's had enough

He can't understand the basic difference between bribery and reward

He states that it's only pet owners that use treats. When he is told, quite truthfully and reasonably, that MOST top trainers and competitors use reward training, he backtracks and says, basically "Oh, well yes - a FEW competitors might use rewards"

Tell you what James - we'll stick to our methods and carry on having controllable dogs, some of whom compete at various sports. You stick to your methods and carry on having trouble controlling your dog, and struggling to stop it lying down when it's had enough PMSL


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I think everyone should calm down, leave the thread and leave the insults to die down. There are personal attacks here, and the thread really needs to be closed.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Hi James. Thanks for your reply.


> - Operant conditioning does not focus on voluntary behaviour it induces behaviour


My understanding of operant conditioning having studied and been examined in basic psychology is that yes operant conditioning induces behaviour. However it deals with the modification of "voluntary behaviour" (what psychologists call operant behaviour). So believe you are incorrect in saying that it does not deal in operant behaviour- (that is where the word comes from!!!) In the context of animal training we use this in the context of consequential rewards or good things happening immediately after we see a behaviour performed that we want to encourage. Therefore I repeat that IT IS NOT ALWAYS TREATS! SOME DOGS ARE NOT AT ALL MOTIVATED BY TREATS AND NON-FOOD REWARDS ARE OFTEN MORE APPROPRIATE DEPENDING ON WHAT WE ARE TRAINING!
The follow may make things clearer James, as perhaps my explanations are not particularly clear  :
Classical and Operant Conditioning



> - Of course use positive reinforcement, what else was you thinking I did?


I just wondered- as I thought that from your posts you against positive reinforcement altogether which as you have explained you are not. Thank you for clarifying.


> I do not issue praise everytime - this is why he is willing to perform, I thought I said this


Ah I see so you do vary rewards. What other reinforcers do you use aside from praise and no praise? Or is that the way you train- with praise? Fair enough 



> you could get a dog to stand on its head and whistle out the national anthem with a sparkler in its rear if you conditioned it enough


Very true. I expect you could. That would be cruel though.



> If you support operant conditioning; havent you just contradicted yourself in a dog becoming too used to the reinforcer? - therefore not do as you say?
> Which if you look at what it is I am saying about them needing to go back to food training as they believe they are doing something wrong if they dont receive it?


 Nope- because we VARY REWARDS and become if you like, like a jackpot so to speak. If I were to ask my dog to sit. He would do so because I have conditioned him using positive reinforcement. So he knows if he does that it will result in a good thing happening whether that is a "Good boy", pat on the head, a piece of kibble, sausage, a ball... However I do not need to use high value rewards to reinforce the behaviour as he has thoroughly learnt this and we are working on various advanced behaviours now. Just occasional and variable reinforcement is needed to keep it going.



> You avoided the one question I posed, which was - If a dog (general owners) hasnt learned a command through treats by the age of 2 to the extent that they need to still return to the treat, is the weaning process working and does the treat practice work.


 Because you VARY THE REWARDS the dog DOES NOT NEED TO RETURN TO THE TREAT. They perform the behaviour because they understand that if they perform the behaviour, good things happen. You seem to have come up with the idea of weaning proccess? Yes you do gradually wean a dog off the intial reward once you feel that they have mastered the behaviour by VARYING THE REWARDS AND THEIR REGULARITY.



> What kind of advanced training are you talking about - I am not a trainer, I just tried to answer your question


Totally fair enough. I can see from your point of view that you feel that you are being had a go at at all angles. I just wondered if you did advanced training with them as I personally own a breed that NEEDS to learn new stuff, else they become bored, frustrated, destructive etc... You get the picture. Anyway that is why with my particular breed of dog positive reinforcement is so important- we are constantly learning new things and shaping new advanced behaviours. Positive reinforcement is IMO the best way to do so 

Thanks for your reply anyway


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Wow, this still going?



> I simply use praise, giving praise after the exercise is done. On new commands, it is offered instantly after each - and once bedded with repetition - say fifth time of asking, you delay the praise possibly to not even issue, instead going to another command say to 'come' and then issue the sit. The praise is then given though not every time. Hand signals are then given alongside the command using the same parctice.


James, i have tried, repeatedly i might add, to explain that for many dogs and many breeds, that praise just isnt enough of a reward. You have experience of a working breed. One that looks for guidance and instruction, and will be focused on that handler waiting for the next command. That is of course if they see you as value.

Training is about finding the right motivator, for some dogs that will be praise, some toys, others treats. You have to give a dog a reason to do something. They arent all born with an innate desire to please humans and be obediant. Many dogs are very independant and find doing their own thing far more rewarding than performing on cue.

Training is also on going throughout the animals entire life. You dont just train them once and expect them to remember it for all time. The training should and does evolve, but it will always need maintaining in various forms.

I do agree that a dog doesnt need treating for every little thing, and tbh perfectly honest, ive never met anyone that does this. Most people will condition using treats, then will gradually spread out the frequency with which they are given. This gives the dog more focus imo, as they dont know what command will get them the reward. I could tell my dog to sit 15 times, then on the 16th i will reward. He knows that at some point he will get something he desires, so will obey numerous times in order to get it. I do not, and will not, expect an animal to do what i say without giving something back. It is possible to do a transition from treats to praise and this worked for one of my dogs and not the other. It depends on the individual.

I agrre that you can use what i call word association. Ie, a dog sits of its own accord and you say "good sit" and praise. However ive found this takes a considerable amount of time, and i dont see the point in waiting for a dog to do what i want, when i can just as easily show it.

I got Alfie at 7weeks, by 8 weeks he had mastered sit and lie down. It took me just an hour to teach him "give me your paw". Because i have maintained his training he has never ever forgotten. I also havent rewarded him with food for about 8 years (outside/on a walk).

The only thing i will say to people on here, is can we please stop persecuting James for striking his dog? He's not the first, and he wont be the last. I dont for one second get the impression that he walloped his dog. I dont know under what circumstances he did strike his dog. It could have been in anger, something that can be uncontrollable for many people. I dont know, and it makes no difference to me if i do or dont. Atleast he willingly admits it.


----------



## corrine3 (Feb 22, 2009)

here here nonnie, let your post be the end of all this!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Wow, this still going?
> 
> James, i have tried, repeatedly i might add, to explain that for many dogs and many breeds, that praise just isnt enough of a reward. You have experience of a working breed. One that looks for guidance and instruction, and will be focused on that handler waiting for the next command. That is of course if they see you as value.
> ----
> The only thing i will say to people on here, is can we please stop persecuting James for striking his dog? He's not the first, and he wont be the last. I dont for one second get the impression that he walloped his dog. I dont know under what circumstances he did strike his dog. It could have been in anger, something that can be uncontrollable for many people. I dont know, and it makes no difference to me if i do or dont. Atleast he willingly admits it.


Thats the point though nonnie. Working breeds do not look for instruction they are highly intelligent yes, though they will use this to do anything but what you ask, its just that once they know what to do - if you train well enough they remember it. Thats why it is said that you should never buy a spaniel as your first dog, they are just too hard to handle for inexperienced owners and will run rings around you at any given chance. - this is more than applicable to labs
And the strkie or now even wallop as you call it was nothing of the sort but has been thought of as such by people reading little of what I have written and more of what others assume, but thank you for pointing this out .


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> you should never buy a spaniel as your first dog, they are just too hard to handle for inexperienced owners and will run rings around you at any given chance.


I have a cocker spaniel (and he is MY first dog, although it is the family's third) and he is not hard at all. Yes, he's hard to handle in the teenage phase, but then nearly every dog is, but he is good in every other way though.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I have a cocker spaniel (and he is MY first dog, although it is the family's third) and he is not hard at all. Yes, he's hard to handle in the teenage phase, but then nearly every dog is, but he is good in every other way though.


sounds good - is he the show type?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

james1 said:


> Thats the point though nonnie. Working breeds do not look for instruction they are highly intelligent yes, though they will use this to do anything but what you ask, its just that once they know what to do - if you train well enough they remember it. Thats why it is said that you should never buy a spaniel as your first dog, they are just too hard to handle for inexperienced owners and will run rings around you at any given chance. - this is more than applicable to labs


Maybe its just your dogs then. Ive worked labs, springers, collies and kelpies (i was under 16 at the time aswell). All required constant training to do their jobs, all constantly looked for instruction. The gundogs were professionally trained, but the training still needed to be maintained.


> And the strkie or now even wallop as you call it was nothing of the sort but has been thought of as such by people reading little of what I have written and more of what others assume, but thank you for pointing this out .


Even when people are trying to defend you, you still try to cause an argument. I said


> I *dont* for one second get the impression that he walloped his dog.


Where have i said you walloped your dog?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> sounds good - is he the show type?


yes, he is.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Even when people are trying to defend you, you still try to cause an argument. I said Where have i said you walloped your dog?


yes, ok, in that post you didnt - my bad :blushing:


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> yes, he is.


They are good pets


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

No James,i have not accused you of just 'walloping' your dog. I've never used that word.
I'm simply asking that could the circumstances when you did hit your dog have been avoided by a reward based method.

And just to confirm,myself and Arcacia are not the same person (i'm sorry to say as she's alot prettier than me  )


----------



## bucksmum (Jul 19, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I have a cocker spaniel (and he is MY first dog, although it is the family's third) and he is not hard at all. Yes, he's hard to handle in the teenage phase, but then nearly every dog is, but he is good in every other way though.


Unfortunately James has never owned a dog yet during the teenage phase.

He has that all to look forward to 

I love cockers, glad you're doing so well with him


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

I cannot believe this thread is still going.....
The OP wanted help and advice because her QUOTE
9 WEEK PUP GROWLS AND NIPS WHEN SHE WANTS TO GET DOWN UNQUOTE.....
Who would have believed such a question would lead to all this???
I for one an totally gobsmacked - I am fairly new here. Is this usual? (i.e. do threads often get hi-jacked like this and then turn into personal tit for tat style questioning?)
Just wondered..... :wink5:


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

PennyH said:


> I cannot believe this thread is still going.....
> The OP wanted help and advice because her QUOTE
> 9 WEEK PUP GROWLS AND NIPS WHEN SHE WANTS TO GET DOWN UNQUOTE.....
> Who would have believed such a question would lead to all this???
> ...


Yes sometimes, but i think it's the same on most forums.
They are easy to avoid and the mods will sort them out if it gets too bad 
Generally though we are quite friendly


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

PennyH said:


> I cannot believe this thread is still going.....
> The OP wanted help and advice because her QUOTE
> 9 WEEK PUP GROWLS AND NIPS WHEN SHE WANTS TO GET DOWN UNQUOTE.....
> Who would have believed such a question would lead to all this???
> ...


Short answer? Yes :yesnod:


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

Ok at least I know now......
hmy:


----------

