# Is this a bad training method?



## maya (Mar 20, 2009)

We have a 9 month old male JRT called Cesar. We have taught him sit, lie, kennel, come (sometimes works, still working on it) by giving treats and rewards so I suppose that is called positive training. I am working on 'leave' at the moment using treats.

However some of his behaviour we have used a water spray to stop him, eg he attacks any post that comes in the door, runs up the stairs with it and begins 'killing' it. I have spent ages trying to teach him 'leave' with rewards but its not working yet :frown2:. He sits waiting for anything to come through the door now like he is obssessed and since 'leave' isn't working yet I decided to get a water spray, sprayed him once with it when he tried getting the post and now he's stopped. We have used the spray before for stopping him do things but don't use it a lot now. If we just say 'spray' he will often stop whatever he is doing. 

He is not terrified or even mildly scared of the spray, in fact he will go up to it and lick water from it but I do feel uneasy about having used 'fear' and threats to stop behaviour.

Does no one use things like this?? Is it completely bad and will cause further problems? I am confused because obviously it works, he doesn't seem harmed or hurt yet I keep reading on here about the importance of positive training and want to do the right thing.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Well for one thing if he sees its YOU spraying him, he might start keeping his distance? I am split on the spraying to be honest, one side of me says the dog is not being harmed, and its seems to be getting the desired effect, the other side is telling me there must be a different approach that can stop this behaviour, but as I have never had dogs that do this so I cant really say.

Mo


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

Depends on the dog. I'm not keen on aversives, especially if the dog links them to YOU.

I have used a water pistol to stop my dog obsessively barking at my friend's bunnies when we visited. It did work, but she NEVER saw me doing it - I was lucky enough to be able to shoot her through a window so as far as she was concerned, it started raining every time she barked at them.

I wouldn't use one if I thought a dog would link it to me.

There are generally better ways to train


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2009)

I used spraying to stop my dog attacking the vaccum cleaner and now to break up any overly rough playing/behaviour between my dog and the new bitch. I precede that with a warning firm "no!" and if he does not listent to it and continue the unwanted behaviour then I spray.
It is not based on fear, my dog does not fear the water, the spray or me.
It is based on undesirable consequence (not that great to get water suddenly squezzed onto your face) and surprise/distraction.
I am all for positive training but not everything can always be purely positive all the time. *It does not stop me (quite the contrary) from praising him for stopping the behaviour when he does.*
Its like bringing up kids, there needs to be some form of "punishment" at times especially faced with "willful" breaking of the rules lol.
I dont think it is harsh if used properly, like I said it works mostly based on the distraction element in it.
It is particularly useful for obsessive type of behaviour when the dog does not respond well to usual training methods.
It works for me and my dog :thumbup1:


----------



## maya (Mar 20, 2009)

> There are generally better ways to train


I know and we do try to do a lot of positive training methods and I am looking more into clicker training now. 



Oblada said:


> I used spraying to stop my dog attacking the vaccum cleaner and now to break up any overly rough playing/behaviour between my dog and the new bitch. I precede that with a warning firm "no!" and if he does not listent to it and continue the unwanted behaviour then I spray.
> It is not based on fear, my dog does not fear the water, the spray or me.
> It is based on undesirable consequence (not that great to get water suddenly squezzed onto your face) and surprise/distraction.
> I am all for positive training but not everything can always be purely positive all the time. It does not stop me (quite the contrary) from praising him for stopping the behaviour when he does.
> ...


Yes that is more what it is, a distraction and surprise. He isn't hurt or scared and as I said, he licks the water bottle  I will be more careful to check he doesn't get fearful or link it to me in a detrimental way though, and try to make more effort to positively train him.


----------



## Birdie Wife (Mar 30, 2009)

I think if the dog isn't frightened by the spray and it's working to break his attention, it's a good thing - fear-based training isn't great and there are definitely better ways, but I would class this as a distraction, rather than negative training - it breaks his attention away from the obessive behaviour.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Wev used a water spray to deter unwanted persistent barking and what we find is it re directs the dogs as they come running for more spray  
Its worked for us and no fear was attached but we dont have to use it now, just spray for fun in the summer :thumbup1:


----------



## alysonandhedley (Oct 29, 2009)

IYou could distracting by throwing a tin full of pennies when an undesirable behaviour takes place. The noise it makes is a noxious stimuli it distracts, but also paired with the action teaches through conditioning, "when I do that, this happens" which will hopefully lead to extinction of the behaviour. It completely stopped our JRT chasing our cats. I cant comment on whether its a good training method, but it worked for us. Our JRT also used to "do" the post, if the door to the hall was left open!


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Aversive traing can work but it is extremely negative.

If your boss sprayed you with water everytime you made a mistake or sklapped you or made a loud noise near you (drop a tin of pennies near a dog? Do you know how sensitive your dog's hearing is? It will fear you in weeks) would you work for him through motivation or through fear of having something unpleasant happen to you?

Why not get a mail basket that sits on the inside of your door and the mail drops into it without the dog being able to get to it? That way the dog can bark and growl at it as much as he wants but he doesn't get the reward so therefore he will work out there's not much point doing what he is doing.

Can you restrict his access to the front door? That way when the post comes and he starts barking you say "thank you!" Get up and get the post leaving him in another room. He'll bark because he thinks that there is a threat coming through your door which is why dogs bark at the front door or the back door or even the window so anything that comes through the door he is dealing with it, especially the post because he can kill it. Watch a JRT with a rat and then soem mail and the shaking is exactly the same. SO he thinks that there is a threat coming through the door and barks - "Hey, we need to protect ourselves from a threat. I'll show you where it is!". You say "Thank you!" which is your key word (choose another if you want but make it upbeat and pleasant not a "NO!") to say thank you for notifying me of the threat. You then get up and go to the door and isolate him so he can;t get to the door - "I will go deal with it now thank you. You wait here.". You walk calmly back in, ignoring your dog until they settle and relax again - "Nothing to worry about." 

So "Thank you", "Wait here", ignore and carry on. It's that easy. It will also be the same when peopel call round and he goes nuts, if he runs out tot he back garden and barks or any other situation where he barks. Dogs bark for backup - "There is a threat here, need help." - which also works as a warning to the potential threat.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Yes water sprays can work BUT - big but - it can make some dogs very very anxious and wary of you - hence Moboyd's advice to try and make sure he doesn't think it comes from you.

I haven't seen any sign in posts so far, that once the dog had been squirted and stops what he is doing, he is *rewarded* for doing so. That is a primary part of this technique, to reinforce the good. Clicker training helps here, but even a high value treat once the dog has stopped the behaviour - and may be upset or worried by the spray - he needs reinforcement.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> Yes water sprays can work BUT - big but - it can make some dogs very very anxious and wary of you - hence Moboyd's advice to try and make sure he doesn't think it comes from you.
> 
> I haven't seen any sign in posts so far, that once the dog had been squirted and stops what he is doing, he is *rewarded* for doing so. That is a primary part of this technique, to reinforce the good. Clicker training helps here, but even a high value treat once the dog has stopped the behaviour - and may be upset or worried by the spray - he needs reinforcement.


From trying nearly every technique out there for training my dogs and getting them to understand the rules I never got how clicker training can chnage a behaviour. I know it can work wonders for getting a dog to follow a command but not how it works in behaviour which is the OP issues.

If you sue it for command trainign then the dog's head says "IF I do this do i get a treat?" Nothing.
"What if I do this?" Nothing.
"This?" Click. "TREAT! Ok so 'this' gets me a treat when you say that. Got it.........now what?"

If your dog is barking at the door he is defending your home, his den and is screaming "QUICK THERE'S A THREAT!!!!!!!!!". If you use a clicker it will go "QUICK THERE'S A THREAT!!!!!!!!!...." click "ooh I got a treat after I barked."

So the learned command then whenever there is a rattle at the door is "QUICK!" click "Ooh treat. Nom nom. THERE'S A!....." click "Ooh treat. Nom nom. THREA....." click. "Ooh treat." You are rewarding the bark anyway becasue it has learned through command training to try different stuff to make you click the thing and then it knows that that command is the one you wanted but then everytime it barks you click after it has barked. Either that or you click for silence and the dog doing nothing therefore it gets a treat for nothing and will then be wondering why if it does nothing doesn't it get a treat?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> You are rewarding the bark anyway becasue it has learned through command training to try different stuff to make you click the thing and then it knows that that command is the one you wanted but then everytime it barks you click after it has barked. Either that or you click for silence and the dog doing nothing therefore it gets a treat for nothing and will then be wondering why if it does nothing doesn't it get a treat?


 No you're not if your timing is spot on! I would never click while the dog is barking! Only when I have finally got it to stop... And if the dog gets a click for silence, that reinforces the fact that silence is a Good Thing.

If one really reads up on clicker training, then it becomes crystal clear. Dogs like Good Things... they spend a great deal of their time with us day-to-day just waiting around for Something Good To Happen.... this encompasses walks, fuss, exercise, treats or dinnertime. Or even a training session, or an agility session, or a little bit of time spent going over any tricks the dog has learned - they love that.

If they are rewarded for something they are doing, they will repeat that behaviour cos it is obviously a Good Thing... it gets them a nice sweetie and a lot of mental stimulation.... Good Things are welcomed and repeated and yearned for and waited for, when you see him sleeping in the corner he is waiting for any Good Thing to start up.

If you are mistaken with the clicker and click or reward for something you didn't intend, then the dog will hang onto that as a Good Thing. One would hope with plenty of repetition, one would get it right and the dog will eventually work out what you _really_ meant to signal is also a Good Thing. I doubt you would make the same mistake over & over.

Yes you can/are allowed to make mistakes with clicker training but the whole ethos of it _allows_ you to... as long as you eventually get it right and then the dog will understand. He will get more Good Things from doing it right than doing it wrong or if you make a mistake, over time. It's a dual learning process in the first stages but when you get it right, it's fab, and all done without any kind of correction, warnings, aversives or negative punishment.

You don't reward the bark - you find a way of stopping the bark and once it has stopped, you reward the dog for stopping and being quiet. Clicking and rewarding the dog for doing _nothing_ is part of the whole process - you are telling the dog that being quiet is a Good Thing!


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

I know of people whov had good results with the clicker training but I just found it too stressful and couldnt get along with it, my timeing seemed to always be out


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

So being quiet is a good thing I get that but my dogs are quiet most of the time so wouldn't they be expecting a treat most of the time?

Does the dog work to the command, the click or the treat?

If it's the command do you need the clicker or the treat?

If it's the click then do you need the treat?

If its the treat the do you need the click?

How does it work for distance training?

I am not against clicker training and think that people can use whatever methods they want I just thing it has it's limitations and teaching rules is one of them. Teaching a command maybe but not a rule.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Spraying although not physically causing any damage, to me is just one of those things you just shouldnt need to do. For instance; if you can be bothered to lay in wait and lean out of an upstairs window primed with a water pistol for 1/2 hr while you have been bothered to let him out to bark at rabbits for instance - then you can be bothered to go down and put some propper corrections in (no matter how many times) and train him to your voice rather than any 'implement'. 
The advantages of this are that once 'broken' the command can be used on other things of a wide variety so him tearing up the post is simply a matter of you addressing yourself to him that tell him - get off thats mine. If it means hes in the dog house for a day so be it. It means you wont have to be carrying around a water pistol when he does something you dont want.. always good lol
I just simply dont see the point in spraying - shows bad direction if you have to resort to this if you ask me


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> So being quiet is a good thing I get that but my dogs are quiet most of the time so wouldn't they be expecting a treat most of the time?


 No. The clicker interaction is the guide to tell them what you want. They will settle then.



> Does the dog work to the command, the click or the treat?


The promise of a Good Thing, i.e. the treat. The clicker is only a precise marker that tells the dog it has done something worthy of reward. Command comes later when the behaviour is established, though I found pairing a command at the same time worked for mine - other dogs may be different. It's usually recommended you get the behaviour pattern you want in place first, then add the cue.



> If it's the click then do you need the treat?


Yes. It is the Good Thing for the dog which will encourage him to repeat the behaviour.



> If its the treat the do you need the click?


 Yes. It is a primary signal to the dog he has done good.



> How does it work for distance training?


 Exceptionally well. The dog can hear the click a long way off. That sparks in his brain he has done a Good Thing.



> I am not against clicker training and think that people can use whatever methods they want I just thing it has it's limitations and teaching rules is one of them. Teaching a command maybe but not a rule.


I have been able to teach mine rules very easily using this method, from a puppy. If he is asked to so something and he does not, he does not get a Good Thing. Every time he does something I want, he gets something Good. You don;t need a clicker for that but the clicker is a very good assistance tool for teaching new things, especially in a puppy. As the dog grows (depending on the dog, bearing in mind mine is a BC cross) it will learn other signals from you that also mean Good Thing. But it helps enormously if you have started with a clicker, as the dog then knows to listen for a positive sound.

I can't say much more, but I would advise you or anyone reading to do more research. Books by Karen Pryor who campaigned the method are recommended. You can clicker train dogs, cats, horses, fish, birds, rats.

And I have personally seen the effects of clicker training pet rats, which is why I learned more before I got my dog - my previous dogs were trained with old fashioned choke & jerk.

There are much better ppl out there to ask about clicker training. I am only repeating what I have learned through my own experience and weighty reading.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

But this is my point . The dog works to hear that sound not the command. He works for the food reward not the reward of pleasing you. 

It may work for counter-conditioning but that's all becasue you are using a command to prevent/replace a behaviour not another behaviour.

If you are out walking and your dog spots another that it like the look of and it bolts (all dogs do it at one point or another), you call it but it doesn't respond. What next? Do you click? Do you repeat the command? What do you do when it comes back to you - repeat the command you used when it ran off and paid no attention to it, click and reward thus the dog has heard the command, ignored it, got the reward of seeing the other dog, came back, got heard the same word again but this time it got a click and a treat? I'd be confused and cross eyed but I wouldn't be hungry.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

james1 said:


> Spraying although not physically causing any damage, to me is just one of those things you just shouldnt need to do. For instance; if you can be bothered to lay in wait and lean out of an upstairs window primed with a water pistol for 1/2 hr while you have been bothered to let him out to bark at rabbits for instance - then you can be bothered to go down and put some propper corrections in (no matter how many times) and train him to your voice rather than any 'implement'.
> The advantages of this are that once 'broken' the command can be used on other things of a wide variety so him tearing up the post is simply a matter of you addressing yourself to him that tell him - get off thats mine. If it means hes in the dog house for a day so be it. It means you wont have to be carrying around a water pistol when he does something you dont want.. always good lol
> I just simply dont see the point in spraying - shows bad direction if you have to resort to this if you ask me


Couldn't agree more :thumbup1:


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> But this is my point . The dog works to hear that sound not the command. He works for the food reward not the reward of pleasing you.


No - he doesn't. That's why I suggested you read Karen Pryor. And Jean Donaldson - The Culture Clash was a real wake-up.

You use the clicker to get what you want then pair it with a command. Phase out the clicker and reward and you DO get a dog that does what it has been taught to do.

Very few dogs automatically 'please' - it's our job to guide them somehow, tell them and teach them how to please us. If you can tell them how and when to do something good, than that's right up there with the so-called 'please' isn't it?

I had horribly strict parents who were too quick and too fast to punish and criticize. Rarely was I praised or rewarded for anything... normally just shouted at and terriefied... that's led to me having a lot of issues in my adult life... If I'd been a dog and taught the way my parents taught me, it would have been classed as abuse. I ended up 'shut down' and too afraid to do anything out of fear, just like some of CMs dogs. And that's an admission I've never made before in public, but it means I have a great deal of understanding and empathy for dogs.

Now do you see why I have an insight? But don't take my word for it - go and read up. I won't willingly be responding in this thread any more, it's taken a lot out of me to admit to the above.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> Very few dogs automatically 'please' - it's our job to guide them somehow, tell them and teach them how to please us. If you can tell them how and when to do something good, than that's right up there with the so-called 'please' isn't it?


Ive always thought as training being them associating sounds to action. The more pleasant you make the sound the better they will take to it. A dog will sit if its own accord for instance not because you have told it to, you saying sit ties that action to a sound 'sit'. When food comes into it, the 'coaxing' is putting more emphasis on them looking for food than listening to your word. I think the introduction of food can add a real confusion on so many grounds unless the owner really understands what they are doing. 
If you want a dog to sit, then do a down, then allow you to walk away there is still as much physical temptation to move as when no food is present. The added thing here is the dog will be even more eager for the food reward. If you dont give it the food it could well think its not done it right or not be as inclined to do it again. Which means if you ever want to train in the future you have to be relying on food - not your tone.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

james1 said:


> Ive always thought as training being them associating sounds to action. The more pleasant you make the sound the better they will take to it.....


 yes I understand that and agree but that wasn't the point I was making in context.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> yes I understand that and agree but that wasn't the point I was making in context.


I think clicker training has its place though it just seems to be pushed and pushed for every circumstance on here when other methods are just as successful. The food is a weakenss in owner direction to me - but thats just my opinion


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

james1 said:


> The food is a weakenss in owner direction to me - but thats just my opinion


We're all entitled to opinions.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

james1 said:


> Ive always thought as training being them associating sounds to action. The more pleasant you make the sound the better they will take to it. A dog will sit if its own accord for instance not because you have told it to, you saying sit ties that action to a sound 'sit'. When food comes into it, the 'coaxing' is putting more emphasis on them looking for food than listening to your word. I think the introduction of food can add a real confusion on so many grounds unless the owner really understands what they are doing.
> If you want a dog to sit, then do a down, then allow you to walk away there is still as much physical temptation to move as when no food is present. The added thing here is the dog will be even more eager for the food reward. If you dont give it the food it could well think its not done it right or not be as inclined to do it again. Which means if you ever want to train in the future you have to be relying on food - not your tone.


Indeed. That's how I view training with food too but like you said MerlinsMum we all use different techniques and I have used clicker training with mine but I didn't find it anywhere near as effective as the method I use now to correct behaviour.

It is useful for getting a good response to a command but then after a while like you said they respond to the command so I did away witht he clicker and just trained to the command as thta was the goal anyway and I got there quicker.


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> Spraying although not physically causing any damage, to me is just one of those things you just shouldnt need to do. For instance; if you can be bothered to lay in wait and lean out of an upstairs window primed with a water pistol for 1/2 hr while you have been bothered to let him out to bark at rabbits for instance - then you can be bothered to go down and put some propper corrections in (no matter how many times) and train him to your voice rather than any 'implement'.
> The advantages of this are that once 'broken' the command can be used on other things of a wide variety so him tearing up the post is simply a matter of you addressing yourself to him that tell him - get off thats mine. If it means hes in the dog house for a day so be it. It means you wont have to be carrying around a water pistol when he does something you dont want.. always good lol
> I just simply dont see the point in spraying - shows bad direction if you have to resort to this if you ask me


LOL LOL and what would you call a "proper" correction??


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

hutch6 said:


> Indeed. That's how I view training with food too but like you said MerlinsMum we all use different techniques and I have used clicker training with mine but I didn't find it anywhere near as effective as the method I use now to correct behaviour.
> 
> *It is useful for getting a good response to a command but then after a while like you said they respond to the command so I did away witht he clicker* and just trained to the command as thta was the goal anyway and I got there quicker.


That's kind of the point... you don't use the clicker forever. You use it to TEACH a behaviour, but once you've got it reliably on cue then you can fade out the clicker.

Sometimes I do a clicker session with something my dog already knows, such as heelwork - just to tidy it up and keep the precision, but in general I keep it for learning new things.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> LOL LOL and what would you call a "proper" correction??


Id say it would be anything bar a spray in the face with a water pistol.?

If you want examples these might be a leave, a quiet, a down, a hey, a no, a come, a sit, a ah ah, a away, a thank you, a name call, a toy. Theres quite a few corrections to behaviour that dont involve such preperation like hanging ninja like from a window id say lol 

I thought you only ever used positive reinforcement too Colliepoodle? You have been an ambassador for this in any training post on here? You come down hard on anyone who suggests otherwise, especially towards techniques like this. I find that a bit strange and hypocrtical really given that you vehemently disagree to even shouting at a dog as you see it 'barbaric' though you are quite prepared to use shock tactics like the above. The amount of questioning you give to peoples training methods that arent positive im really quite surprised.:confused5:


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> Id say it would be anything bar a spray in the face with a water pistol.?
> 
> If you want examples these might be a leave, a quiet, a down, a hey, a no, a come, a sit, a ah ah, a away, a thank you, a name call, a toy. Theres quite a few corrections to behaviour that dont involve such preperation like hanging ninja like from a window id say lol
> 
> I thought you only ever used positive reinforcement too Colliepoodle? You have been an ambassador for this in any training post on here? You come down hard on anyone who suggests otherwise, especially towards techniques like this. I find that a bit strange and hypocrtical really given that you vehemently disagree to even shouting at a dog as you see it 'barbaric' though you are quite prepared to use shock tactics like the above. The amount of questioning you give to peoples training methods that arent positive im really quite surprised.:confused5:


I try to use positive methods whenever possible, yes. However I have NEVER said that there is NEVER a place for aversives. Everyone has their own ideas about what is acceptable. I would try to avoid shouting at a dog - not because being shouted at is the worst thing you could do, but because I want my dog to associate me with GOOD things. To me, the risk of my dog becoming fearful of me is not worth it.

Dogs learn through aversives in the wild, or even through their day-to-day lives. Sniff a hedgehog - get a sore nose. Lick a toad - get a nasty taste. It isn't the nature of the aversive I object to (although clearly there is a line that divides humane/non-humane) - what I am saying is that the vast majority of the time, there will be a NON aversive method, and that to avoid the risk of your dog associating the aversive with YOU, then it makes sense to use the kinder method.

Now, if I had rabbits myself, I would certainly have gone about things slightly differently. However, the rabbits were at my friend's yard. I only go over once a week. I do not want to spend my whole visit training my dog to ignore rabbits that she only sees infrequently. The method I chose in that particular situation worked. She barked at rabbits - she got sprinkled with water. She didn't see me, so didn't associate it with me. It took 3 squirts and she stopped barking.

As an aside, there was no Ninja antics - my friend lives in a bungalow. Also, I wasn't spraying her in the face. You're assuming, and putting words in my mouth there. Again. Her back was to me, and my aim isn't that good anyway. A sprinkle on her back was enough to stop her.

Now, note I said she stopped BARKING - which was all I wanted. She still lay and stared at the rabbits from time to time. The water treatment didn't stop her wanting to get them but that was fine for that occasional situation. If I had rabbits myself, I'd have wanted to counter-condition/desensitise.



> If you want examples these might be a leave, a quiet, a down, a hey, a no, a come, a sit, a ah ah, a away, a thank you, a name call, a toy. Theres quite a few corrections to behaviour that dont involve such preperation


Now, all the things you mention are CUES, or commands. They only become corrections when paired with an association. For instance, if your "no" is ignored, what ya gonna do? Hmm?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Lol, so you can use any means necessary so long as your dog doesnt see you then yes?  I dont think advising people to do this (sneakly or other) is very responsible - to coin a phrase 'its a bit dangerous'. TBH I think this goes to show you are not as whiter than white as what you make out and should think twice before you pass comment on peoples methods as you frequently do - in a negative way.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

james1 said:


> ...I dont think advising people to do this (sneakly or other) is very responsible - to coin a phrase 'its a bit dangerous'. TBH I think this goes to show you are not as whiter than white as what you make out and should think twice before you pass comment on peoples methods as you frequently do - in a negative way.


 And you never say anything negative about anyone, do you... LOL!!!


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> Lol, so you can use any means necessary so long as your dog doesnt see you then yes?  I dont think advising people to do this (sneakly or other) is very responsible - to coin a phrase 'its a bit dangerous'. TBH I think this goes to show you are not as whiter than white as what you make out and should think twice before you pass comment on peoples methods as you frequently do - in a negative way.


Where did I say I (or anyone else) could use "any means necessary so long as your dog doesn't see you"? You're reading things that aren't there again.

I didn't advise anyone to do anything - in fact I generally advise that positive methods ARE kinder and work better.

And as for thinking twice before commenting on people's methods - that's hilarious coming from someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about 99.9% of the time


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Colliepoodle said:


> And as for thinking twice before commenting on people's methods - that's hilarious coming from someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about 99.9% of the time


*Totally agreed.* Rep for you.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Colliepoodle said:


> Where did I say I (or anyone else) could use "any means necessary so long as your dog doesn't see you"? You're reading things that aren't there again.
> 
> I didn't advise anyone to do anything - in fact I generally advise that positive methods ARE kinder and work better.
> 
> And as for thinking twice before commenting on people's methods - that's hilarious coming from someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about 99.9% of the time


Considering that you said you were at your friends house who you dont see very often to be spending hours and hours training your dog not to bark at the rabbits. This shows that you resorted to a very lazy way of impact training rather than putting a little effort in. It also suggests that for all of your training knowledge; your dog doesnt understand a simple leave command *or* respect you enough to do it. This would lead to the suggestion that either your training methods dont work or you talk all the talk to other members but arent able to .. walk


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

james1 said:


> Considering that you said you were at your friends house who you dont see very often to be spending hours and hours training your dog not to bark at the rabbits. This shows that you resorted to a very lazy way of impact training rather than putting a little effort in. It also suggests that for all of your training knowledge; your dog doesnt understand a simple leave command *or* respect you enough to do it. This would lead to the suggestion that either your training methods dont work or you talk all the talk to other members but arent able to .. walk


Seriously. Why are you being so rude and provocative. :frown2:
Colliepoodle did not advice using a water pistol at any point in this thread. In fact I quote:



> I'm not keen on aversives, especially if the dog links them to YOU.


and



> *There are generally better ways to train *


It's not a difficult concept :001_huh: :

As everyone here has already mentioned; the issue with aversives is that, they can make an anxious dog more anxious and worried and in some cases make the issue worse. If the dog associates the aversive method (water spray for instance) with you, rather than associating this "punishment"/negative consequence with the undesirable behaviour, they actually can become wary of the handler which is the last thing you want.

I much prefer positive reinforcement. I think teaching an alternative behaviour would be better or simply preventing the dog accessing the post by putting up a stairgate for instance would work well. 
Prevention is often better than a cure. 
Maybe the stairgate, combined with teaching the dog to go to his/her bed when the post comes through the door would be a good option so that the stairgate can eventually be phased out.


----------



## PoisonGirl (Oct 24, 2008)

I would be tempted to buy one of those wire guards to go over the letter box.
When the post comes, you know it will be safe and can spend a litle time giving your dog a command to do.

This way- the post coming becomes the signal for the command-

EG- For my dogs... my hand on the back door handle = sit. The reward is having the door opened.
I started this by asking them to sit as I put my hand on the handle. If they moved, I took my hand of and did it again. I did not open the door until they would sit until I say OK.


So.. you could do, as soon as the post comes through the door, ask your dog to go to bed. Once you have collected the post, praise and reward- if he loves shaking the post so much why not let him have an envelope for waiting?

Or if he does fetch, teach him to bring it to you- practice with scrap paper first and do short distances.

x


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> Seriously. Why are you being so rude and provocative. :frown2:


 The member is keen to snipe at me so I am pointing out inconsistancies in what they are advocating. I realise you two are buddies who both advocate the same method always so I am not about to debate this with the pair of you. I was really asking colliepoodle a question, though she seems a little unkeen to anwer it even though we have only really just been exchanging posts


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

james1 said:


> Considering that you said you were at your friends house who you dont see very often to be spending hours and hours training your dog not to bark at the rabbits. This shows that you resorted to a very lazy way of impact training rather than putting a little effort in. It also suggests that for all of your training knowledge; your dog doesnt understand a simple leave command *or* respect you enough to do it. This would lead to the suggestion that either your training methods dont work or you talk all the talk to other members but arent able to .. walk


James Stop and think for a bit, please. What is all this about? Do you see yourself as the new Cesar Milan or something?

I don't know what your issue is... but you have had many experienced people on here tipping you up on a lot of things you have said (including highly qualified dog trainers) - you have been reported to the mods on more than one occasion over your attitude... you are deliberately provoking some people (or so it appears to us!) and now you've started leaving visitor messages on my page.

I don't want to be rude, but it feels like me (and others) have no option... :shocked:


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

james1 said:


> The member is keen to snipe at me so I am pointing out inconsistancies in what they are advocating. I realise you two are buddies who both advocate the same method always so I am not about to debate this with the pair of you. I was really asking colliepoodle a question, though she seems a little unkeen to anwer it even though we have only really just been exchanging posts


God almighty James, now you have a persecution complex! This has gone far enough!!!!!!!!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> James Stop and think for a bit, please. What is all this about? Do you see yourself as the new Cesar Milan or something?
> 
> I don't know what your issue is... but you have had many experienced people on here tipping you up on a lot of things you have said (including highly qualified dog trainers) - you have been reported to the mods on more than one occasion over your attitude... you are deliberately provoking some people (or so it appears to us!) and now you've started leaving visitor messages on my page.
> 
> I don't want to be rude, but it feels like me (and others) have no option... :shocked:


you do seem to be pushing this ive been reported bit? Whats the idea of all that as I dont know - would you like to tell me? Are you saying its ok for someone to pop wise comments at me though I am not allowed to reply? The fact that there are some very experinced dog trainers on here is regarldess of the fact that I still have opinion. The way you react is also a little questionable - I have asked you to simply clarify what you said on occasion and you were un willing to - you now seem to be siding with anyone that disagrees with me simply as on one instance what you said was obviously outrageous though you didnt want to admit it


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> God almighty James, now you have a persecution complex! This has gone far enough!!!!!!!!


no ones being persecuted? calm down.

she has questioned me - i am questioning her whats the issue with that?


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

james1 said:


> The member is keen to snipe at me so I am pointing out inconsistancies in what they are advocating. :


But she did not advocate water spraying which is what I'm guessing you are refering to? ut:



> I was really asking colliepoodle a question, *though she seems a little unkeen to anwer it even though we have only really just been exchanging posts *


I may be stating the obvious but...
might the reason for her not replying be simply down to the fact that it's five to one in the morning?

All I'm saying is, it seems unnecesary to be rude and start an argument, for what seems like the sake of it?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

If anyone wants to take this further, just look at my visitor messages from James. A mod will be dealing with it ASAP.


----------



## WaveRider (Sep 8, 2009)

We must consider breeds, temperament, environment, diet, genetic predisposition, traits, owner attitude/behaviour/knowledge/intelligence, stimulus, exercise, imprinting, ....,......,....., that influence the way our pets live/behave. Our approaches to training will vary in many ways as they link with so many variables.

Some topics/post I have read I disagree with on the forum but a rationalise it and accept the differences.

How one reads, interpret and then execute a particular training method may work out differently to another individual.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

lemmsy said:


> But she did not advocate water spraying which is what I'm guessing you are refering to? ut:
> 
> I may be stating the obvious but...
> might the reason for her not replying be simply down to the fact that it's five to one in the morning?
> ...


I was referring to the training techniques she suggests in any training thread

and when I posted my original question she was online its a lot later now

edit: she has advocated the spraying as she had successful results with it, she has also thought hard enough of how to stop it barking even though she pushes her techniques so much. I was surprised and said so in my previous post that she did this given she only ever uses positve methods. Hence the question of her reliability/methods


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> If anyone wants to take this further, just look at my visitor messages from James. A mod will be dealing with it ASAP.


are you expecting comments on this? I think its a reasonably good observation really - your hysterical presumptous and are posting anything that will gain/intice a reaction

If people want to see my visitors page - you can see the language and style she uses


----------



## WaveRider (Sep 8, 2009)

James if you carry on ranting I may have to unleash my well trained (!!!) dog on you. It will give you the opportunity to try out the water pistol method!


BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

james1 said:


> are you expecting comments on this? I think its a reasonably good observation really - your hysterical presumptous and are posting anything that will gain/intice a reaction
> 
> If people want to see my visitors page - you can see the language and style she uses


I do apologise. 
I was thinking I was the sane one here. Putting you on ignore James, there's something not quite right going on. I suggest you put me on ignore too. 
Problem solved. 

Can we move on now?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

WaveRider said:


> James if you carry on ranting I may have to unleash my well trained (!!!) dog on you. It will give you the opportunity to try out the water pistol method!
> 
> 
> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH


lol im not talking to myself here! And id more use the croc dundee method


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

james1 said:


> lol im not talking to myself here! And id more use the croc dundee method


James - Please consult a behaviourist... 
FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!!

/end


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

re post #1 - maya 

>> ...he attacks any post that comes in the door, runs upstairs with it and ...'kill(s)' it. I have spent ages trying to teach him 'leave' with rewards but its not working yet . He sits waiting for anything to come through the door now like he is obsessed and since 'leave' isn't working yet I decided to get a water spray, sprayed him once with it when he tried getting the post and now he's stopped... I do feel uneasy about having used 'fear' and threats to stop behaviour.

Does no one use things like this?? Is it completely bad and will cause further problems? I am confused because obviously it works, he doesn't seem harmed or hurt yet I keep reading on here about the importance of positive training and want to do the right thing. << 


hey, maya! 
better idea~ ! ;--) 

this IMO is not so much a training-issue as a management issue - 
if U are not at home when the post comes, the dog should Not, IMO, have any access to the post. 

so skip the punishment, think management - 
if this were my dog + my door, i would install a brass-box to catch the post + hold it securely, safe from the dogs teeth and too deep for anyone outside to pilfer it thru the slot. 
punishment *can* cause many completely un-predictable side-effects - since we can never be exactly sure how a particular dog will react, there can be long-lasting and complex behavioral problems, post-punishment. 
avoiding ppl, shutting down, chewing destructively as a self-calming behavior, obsessive licking (oneself, carpet, ___, ...), lots of possibilities, none very nice + all of them are a PITButt to re-train, reduce, or re-direct. 

manage instead with an interior solid drop-box, and ta-da! :thumbup1:
no more worry over the post being shredded, no punishing the dog; 
a safe solution without needless confrontation. 
cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

re post #17 - hutch

>> But this is my point . The dog works to hear that (click) not the 
((Cue - my preferred term, as COMMAND sets up a whole slew of human-expectations and attached emotional baggage!! ;-)) . 
S/he works for the food reward not the reward of pleasing you. << - hutch 
>

hey, hutch! :--) 
food is used during the learning phase - 
one does not pay-out 1 treat per sit, as an invariable A-B-C sequence, for the dogs lifespan from initial learning till their death, LOL... 

if a pup learns to sit with 80% compliance on a 1st-cue, they have long-since ceased to get a treat per sit, ; they are working for praise, and a now-and-then treat or toy or ___ reward as a payoff/wages for an EXTRA-good single performance (shaping for more fluency, greater speed, precision, etc), or as a randomized payout... 
just like a gambler in Vegas playing slots. 
the randomized-payout is the real hook!! 
;--)

the anticipation of getting something-super keeps the learning dog on their toes, + in a state of eager compliance. training sessions can be as short as the commercial-breaks in a TV-program, and be highly, highly effective - a real plus.

>> It may work for counter-conditioning but that's all b/c you are using a ((cue - tmp)) 
to prevent/replace a behaviour, not another behaviour. << - hutch

nope - 
clicker can be used very effectively in a number of applications, including chained complex behavioral-strings, CC, DS, new learning, capturing a novel OFFERED behavior (sneezing, shake-off, rolling, etc), shaping a desired behavior via successive approximations, and many, many more.

>> If you are out walking and your dog spots another ((dog)) that ((s/he)) likeS the look of and ((s/he)) bolts 
(all dogs do it at one point or another), you call ((the dog)) but ((get no response)). 
What next? Do you click? << - hutch 
>

nope - 
a click marks DESIRED behavior; bolting is not desired! 

what i would do, depends on what the dog in Q knows, and how well s/he has been proofed; an NRM/no-Reward Marker, is another option - i use *Ooops!* as my NRM, it is delivered in a cheerful, offhand tone, but the dogs know (from prior exp) that they just gave a wrong answer - many will stop whatever they are doing, orient to me, and kinda go, 
** ?well ? whaddya WANT me to do?? **, LOL... 
which gives me an opp to insert another cue, and THEN i can click! :thumbup1:

but what i am to do in the given scenario, depends on the dog + the event. 
remember Mgmt comes BEFORE training - if this dog is not already complying 9 times of 10 with another dog present while in a fenced area, i am not turning them loose in an UNfenced area, as i do not have sufficient proofing installed to want to risk the dog practicing taking-off.

i hope that makes sense? 
it is late, and i am getting sleepy, sorry!  
cheers, all, and pleasant dreams, 
from a soggy Tidewater, 
-- terry


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

james1 said:


> Considering that you said you were at your friends house who you dont see very often to be spending hours and hours training your dog not to bark at the rabbits. This shows that you resorted to a very lazy way of impact training rather than putting a little effort in. It also suggests that for all of your training knowledge; your dog doesnt understand a simple leave command *or* respect you enough to do it. This would lead to the suggestion that either your training methods dont work or you talk all the talk to other members but arent able to .. walk


You seem to be confused again. A while ago, you were telling everyone that positive reinforcement/clicker training was "the lazy way to train". Now you're saying that using aversives - what you would call "corrections" - is the lazy way to train? Honestly James, I think you should maybe write a book. Clearly YOUR method (that you've never actually outlined lol) is the only way... although you've frequently asked for advice on your own dogs so maybe your method doesn't work that well. In a bit of a pickle really, aren't you??


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

mind answering the question in the quote at all??? Clicker training is a very fast method of training. No arguments there I dont think, but anyway - the question. !


----------



## Colliepoodle (Oct 20, 2008)

What question?

ETA - nope, I've read through again and can't find a direct question. Assumptions, yes. False statements, yes. Nothing unusual there. But no question.


----------



## maya (Mar 20, 2009)

O-oh, didn't mean to cause a problem!

Thank you to everyone who has replied with help and advice specific to the original post.

Some of you have suggested something to catch the mail, I think this is a great idea but dh thought you shouldn't pander to the dog, and should be able to control the dog in any situation  
After spending a lot of time on the weekend with my son outside pushing paper through the letterbox I think it is time to get one of those mail catchers and work on sending the dog to his bed when post comes. Unfortunately we can't easily restrict access to the door.

I think for us the over all problem is that we have a very strong minded little JRT ! After we trained him to sit, lie etc we sort of stopped the training, but I have come to realise it is a long term thing. I am willing to commit time daily to it! I just need to find the best way for us and Cesar, what will work best for us.

Thanks again.


----------



## PoisonGirl (Oct 24, 2008)

If you keep at it and use the same command every single time your son puts paper through, your dog will start to use that as the cue for 'bed' and will do it without you telling him- just don't forget to give heaps of praise for walking in the opposite direction of the post! 
Just try and make sure you either use the command when the postman comes too, or keep the dog out of the room when you arent there to supervise- if the post comes and you arent ready with the command it can send the training backwards a bit.
You're not pandering to the dog, you are using preventative methods while training.. you won't need the mail guard forever 

x


----------



## k8t (Oct 13, 2009)

Hi

Well its done now, so I would stop beating yourself up about it. 

Now you have hopefully reduced the barking, you can work on the positives for not barking and turn the whole thing around. I would train to a clicker as your timing will be more precise. 

Set up some friends to come and put stuff through the door and do some clicking and rewarding, along with some desensitisation of the the things that trigger the behaviour, (i.e. people walking up and away, the noise of the door, the mail coming in etc etc.)

Better still, get a letter guard, as was mentioned then you prevent it happening in the first place!

Reminds me of a problem I was once called about 'my dog keep going upstairs and getting on my bed!'. Answer 'shut the bedroom door'!.

Kate


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Yes very sorry for the tangent in conversation I didnt mean this


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2009)

obedientdog said:


> I had an issue with one of my dogs around been agressive towards other dogs when we were out she even barks at the TV when an animal (not just a dog comes on).
> 
> We tried all kinds of training with her and even landed on using a water gun, but she saw where the spray was coming from so knew to avoid it.
> 
> ...


I would not recommend the use of any device with a shock setting... they can be dangerous and very counter productive if used incorrectly without proper training and instruction.

The only time i would advocate use of a shock collar is after proper, thorough, instruction from a professional and in extreme, life or death, circumstances


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

I also definately would not recommend using any kind of collar with a shock setting on. Totally unnecessary, unkind and could have counter-productive effects. Plus another thing to consider is the ethics of deliberately creating a fearful and avoidant response in a dog/pup.  Awful 

The OP's case to me just sounds like a terrier pup being a terrier pup.
Preventing the dog getting to the letters and training the dog to "go to her place" (bed/mat say) when the post comes would be a good idea. Either that or giving her another useful behaviour to perform when the post comes (fetching a toy for instance). 
The result should be a happy well mannered dog who knows which behaviours are acceptable


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

I would prob use a lead, gently tug on the lead when they go to the letters and NO LEAVE, call the dogs name with something very smelly and tasty like liver, cheese or hot dog that they could see 

Or keep the dog on lead ask the to sit and stay, when the letters come through block there path say leave ask again to sit (and maybe gently tug on lead if needed) then paise once they have sat e.t.c


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

lemmsy said:


> The OP's case to me just sounds like a terrier pup being a terrier pup.


I agree, our staffy got into the habit of "killing" the post, we just used commands that were already well trained - "no" and "leave" - to stop her.

If that's not possible then prevention is the best option, imo.

Definately *DO NOT* use a shock collar for such a trivial matter.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

re post #60 - obed-dog



> _ Edited for readability _
> 
> ...one of my dogs [has] been aggressive towards other dogs when we were
> out [on leash? i guess] -
> ...


in my personal + professional opinion, this is a Really Bad Idea.

Why? 
because _*adding aggro to aggro always increases aggression - it Never reduces the tension or alleviates stress, it makes things worse.*_

desensitizing the dog to whatever stimulus is not hard to do; and there are many, many resources available now, that were not in the past.

*Click to Calm* and *Control Unleashed* are only 2 of the many books on the market that are good sources for help, require only a library card or less than $20 investment, are available to pet-owners, and use safe, humane B-Mod to change behavior, without dangerous confrontations or harsh aversives.

i would suggest that a $20 book beats a $200 shock-collar any day, especially as the book does not suggest or apply punishments that can only increase the likelihood of aggression, especially to the owner / family.

the single Most-Common side-effect of SHOCK used on dogs is aggro, even in dogs who have never had any prior history - which is PRECISELY why shock in any form (boundary fence with shock collar, so-called remote training shock, no-go wireless shock-zones, nothing!) is ** ever ** suggested for dogs who _already display aggessive behavior. _

bad advice, IMO + IME. 
cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

maya said:


> We have a 9-MO M JRT called Cesar. We have taught him sit, lie, kennel, come (sometimes works, still working on it) by giving treats and rewards so I suppose that is called positive training. I am working on 'leave' at the moment using treats.
> 
> However some of his behaviour we have used a water spray to stop...
> he attacks any post that comes in the door, runs up the stairs with it and begins 'killing' it.
> ...


so whats the current state?


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

maya said:


> We have a 9 month old male JRT called Cesar. We have taught him sit, lie, kennel, come (sometimes works, still working on it) by giving treats and rewards so I suppose that is called positive training. I am working on 'leave' at the moment using treats.
> 
> However some of his behaviour we have used a water spray to stop him, eg he attacks any post that comes in the door, runs up the stairs with it and begins 'killing' it. I have spent ages trying to teach him 'leave' with rewards but its not working yet :frown2:. He sits waiting for anything to come through the door now like he is obssessed and since 'leave' isn't working yet I decided to get a water spray, sprayed him once with it when he tried getting the post and now he's stopped. We have used the spray before for stopping him do things but don't use it a lot now. If we just say 'spray' he will often stop whatever he is doing.
> 
> ...


Hey . I think it depends on the dog. If you have a dog that tends to be timid then I wouldn't do it, but if you have a confident wee chap then I doubt spraying them with water will affect him in that way lol. I'm sure you know your dog and know if he's getting scared of you . We have three doors between the letterbox and the four leggeds lol, so we haven't hard thart problem lol. Good luck! x


----------

