# Training "No" by Positive Methods.



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Enroll him in Montessori Puppy Kindergarten.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

avincent52 said:


> Specifically, I'm talking about table/counter surfing, which strikes me as a particularly difficult nut to crack since there's a built in "jackpot" when the dog successfully grabs something off the table.


Remove the opportunity. Positively train the dog to sit somewhere other than in range of the counter or the table during cooking and eating times. Body block her back to that location when she breaks stay, and reinforce her with snacks (not what you're cooking or eating) when she keeps it.

Teaching "no" in general positively doesn't make sense to me, since it's by nature an aversive. But most things you want your dog _not_ to do can be supplanted by teaching the dog an alternative.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

My dogs are all taught to do what I ask, and they do it happily. I beleive it is very important that a dog knows "no". It's simple, and to the point. There are many situations that IMO warrant a good ol' fashioned "NO!" with a quick response. Just like with children. I don't really think it's going to be of much help to sit a puppy down snd explain to him why chewing an electrical cord is not a good idea. I think it behooves him to know that when I say "NO!" or, "Leave it!" that means no, or leave, whether there is something coming to replace it or not. 

Old School.  (and, KISS)


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I completely agree with Pointgold. While I train obedience, rally, agility etc I use positive methods but for safety issues my dogs learn NO. It does not have to be harsh, just a command that your dog understands as he'd best stop now or you will stop him. I consider counter surfing to be a safety issue. 

I did find a link about teaching not to counter surf specifically using positive methods if you'd like to read about it:
http://www.petexpertise.com/dog-training-article-counter-surfing-stealing-food.html


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> My dogs are all taught to do what I ask, and they do it happily. I beleive it is very important that a dog knows "no". It's simple, and to the point. There are many situations that IMO warrant a good ol' fashioned "NO!" with a quick response. Just like with children. I don't really think it's going to be of much help to sit a puppy down snd explain to him why chewing an electrical cord is not a good idea. I think it behooves him to know that when I say "NO!" or, "Leave it!" that means no, or leave, whether there is something coming to replace it or not.
> 
> Old School.  (and, KISS)


Bravo !!! !!!!!!!!


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

I think the problem is that many people never set out to teach the dog the *right* thing to do, or proplerly manage the pup to prevent the wrong thing. Rather, they give the pup too much freedom and then want to know how to "discipline" the pup when he screws us.

I personally don't use "no" in my dogs' vocabulary. I can interrupt most any unwanted behavior with "eh eh". And more often than not, the "eh eh" IS followed with a correct alternative. And in the example of a pup and electrical cords, if I failed to manage the environment such that the pup got to the cords, I'd use "eh eh" to get them away and then realize I needed to set the pup up for success - be it a stay on a bed (if pup is capable), something to cover the cords, tethering the pup out of reach of the cords, etc.

Re: counter surfing - I think Tippy is exactly correct. NOTHING, short of perhaps very unplesant punishment, will teach a pup not to counter surf after the fact. Once the feet are up there, the pup has already won that round. That's why many report that saying "NO!" or whatever for counter surfing doesn't seem to work. The pup has already had his fun before you, the human, could get the word "No!" out of your mouth. Timing is everything.

Also, it's important to remember that an aversive is really only an aversive if it lessens an unwanted behavior. Punishers, aversives - whatever you want to call them, are only such by definition if the unwanted behavior decreases. Most of the time a "No!" or an "eh eh" is just an opportunity for us to practice nagging and nit picking like we primates are so prone to doing!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Sunrise said:


> I completely agree with Pointgold. While I train obedience, rally, agility etc I use positive methods but for safety issues my dogs learn NO. It does not have to be harsh, just a command that your dog understands as he'd best stop now or you will stop him. I consider counter surfing to be a safety issue.
> 
> I did find a link about teaching not to counter surf specifically using positive methods if you'd like to read about it:
> http://www.petexpertise.com/dog-training-article-counter-surfing-stealing-food.html


Me too. I use 95 percent positive training methods but a few things are unapologetically time for mild aversives. I will be mindful every way I can about not putting the dog in situations that tempt while they are babies, but once the teenage months hit, there are a few things I will go to the mat with a dramatic NO for- just once,usually, because they learn: No counter-surfacing, trash collecting, taking food off plates or the table, or humping. Absolutely none. Leave it aka "No Gross" is another one I don't teach positively at all times. For me, establishing the ground rules young has resulted in grown up dogs who rarely need no's of any kind bc they learned the house rules/manner the first year.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

avincent52 said:


> The Victoria Stilllwell thread about aversive sounds got me to thinking.
> 
> I can see how you can teach a dog to sit by using rewards.
> I can see how you can teach a dog to stop pulling by teaching it to heel using rewards.
> ...


I would argue that anything... ANYTHING that you DON'T want a pup to do can be solved by teaching something you want instead.

Do you get in a cab and say, "I don't want to go here... and I don't want to go there.. and don't take me to that place... and whatever you do, don't take me THERE!" and expect to end up at your desired destination? No.

No different with dogs, really.

A dog who is heavily rewarded for being on a dog bed while in the kitchen will find that it's more fun to do that than to try and get stuff off the counter.

Dogs do what they find to be rewarding. Period. We can maniuplate that to our advantage if we're willing to put the work in!

Simple, but not always easy!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

How is it that I have NEVER had a counter surfer? I'm not kidding. I haven't had one. Ever.

I get the same results with "eh eh". I just find "no" to be quicker and easier. Again, Old School. I just don't think that the word "no" is such an awful thing...


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

And I, too, train some things with true aversives (vs. the "nags" I spoke of earlier). Quiz learned, as a puppy, not to jump up on the couch b/c the first time he ever tried, I sounded as though the world was ending.... "Oh NOOOOOO! OOHHHHHHH!" as I dramatically scooped him up and placed him on the floor, praising like crazy when he feet were back on the ground.

That was a true aversive. 

I also made being on the floor very rewarding with petting, treats, etc.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Pointgold said:


> How is it that I have NEVER had a counter surfer? I'm not kidding. I haven't had one. Ever.


How much time do your dogs spend in the kitchen during everyday life? Don't your dogs split their time between the house and a kennel? Maybe they're just not statistically in the kitchen during the "high liklihood of surfing" times compared to other dogs?

Or do they try when young and you make it clear it's not accepted?

Or are your counters always so clean/picked up that they may try, but it's never rewarded, so it quickly extinguishes?

Why do you think you don't have counter surfers, being that it's such a common behavior?


----------



## Finn's Fan (Dec 22, 2007)

I guess I'm old school, too, as I always teach "leave it" and "no bite" (that would be on human flesh) immediately, reinforced with either a leash tug for leave it or hands closing a muzzle when teaching no bite. I've only ever hit a dog once in my life, and that was a soft kick in the rear when Cody was going for some trail snacks (horse poop) that he'd been told to leave alone. The funny thing there was an old man walking a Chow with the most matted coat I'd ever seen, and he started screaming at me about abusing the dog. My friend Dana said to him "you should wish you were one of her dogs; they have better lives than most people you know". I firmly believe in positive training but I also believe in firmly telling a dog off if he's doing something I don't ever want him to do, like counter surfing. My dogs will create saliva gluch waiting politely for a morsel of something, but not a one of them would ever have dreamed of counter surfing. They were taught early on that would be a violation of house rules.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

FlyingQuizini said:


> How much time do your dogs spend in the kitchen during everyday life? Don't your dogs split their time between the house and a kennel? Maybe they're just not statistically in the kitchen during the "high liklihood of surfing" times compared to other dogs?
> 
> Or do they try when young and you make it clear it's not accepted?
> 
> ...


Well, there is at_ least_ one dog in the house 24/7, which includes times when we are not at home, and there are plenty of "goodies" on all counters. So, when we are at work I suppose that it is possible that they are taking cookies or bread out of the bags and then putting them back where they found them... All puppies are raised in the house, 24/7, crate and loose, and do not stay in the kennel for any length of time until they are at _least _6-8 months old. 

I honestly have no idea. That's why I asked. I will say, though, that because my dogs do learn the word "no" as puppies, if they begin to do something that I don't want them to, all I have to do is say "no" and they stop. They will then move on to something else, usually one of their own toys, or just come and lay near us. I get the impression that there are those who think that the word "No" is bad. I don't think it is a bad thing for a dog to know, IMO. And as it is an intregal part of our language, is easy to use, it just makes sense to me to use it when living with dogs.


----------



## avincent52 (Jul 23, 2008)

> I would argue that anything... ANYTHING that you DON'T want a pup to do can be solved by teaching something you want instead.
> 
> Do you get in a cab and say, "I don't want to go here... and I don't want to go there.. and don't take me to that place... and whatever you do, don't take me THERE!" and expect to end up at your desired destination? No.
> 
> ...


The cab analogy is like pulling on a leash. If you teach them to heel, they won't pull, problem solved.

The counter surfing analogy is like teaching someone not to steal. (For most people, those guys with guns and those places with bars are the real reason they don't just boost the neighbors Jaguar.)

The alternative to counter surfing is standing around with four feet on the ground. Tessie is very, very good at this and does it successfully 99.3% of the time. I'm not sure that a few treats is going to make her any better at it, or less reluctant to abandon it when there's a waffle on the table. 

As for removing the temptation, that's not training the dog, it's training _me_.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I've never had a counter surfer either. I had one that tried it. Twice. The first time she surprised me. The second time I was ready for her. Never tried it again. 
Neither of the boys has ever shown any interest in counter surfing. 
I'm going out on a limb here, but I think it's because my dogs understand the concept of everything in the house is MINE MINE MINE and not theirs, and they don't challenge me. I could literally leave food on the coffee table, leave the room, and come back and they will not have touched it. It's MINE. 
Comes in very handy when the cat poops on the floor and I have to leave the room to get something with which to pick it up. The dogs clearly understand that the cat poop is ALL MINE and they stand there drooling hungrily, but leave it for me.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> How much time do your dogs spend in the kitchen during everyday life? Don't your dogs split their time between the house and a kennel? Maybe they're just not statistically in the kitchen during the "high liklihood of surfing" times compared to other dogs?
> 
> Or do they try when young and you make it clear it's not accepted?
> 
> ...


I have also never had a counter-surfer, for this reason you offer: "Or do they try when young and you make it clear it's not accepted?". I do think there is a window age in which, if they never 'practice" counter-surfacing, they never do it.

Cat poop? I envy Hotel4dogs. I am a failure on that one and have to resort to a babygate the cat can shimmy under.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

I will agree with the "NO" crowd 
Stealing food off the counter or table is something that, in my opinion, does not warrant teaching an opposite, positive behavior to replace it. 
NOTHING is going to be more rewarding to a dog than getting food off the counter, and you can teach them an opposite behavior til the cows come home but I guarantee it will not be more rewarding than stealing a piece of food when no one is looking. You surely are kidding if you think a dog smelling a piece of food on the counter can have the conscience to think "Oh boy it will be more fun to go lay on my dog bed than steal that food, especially if no one is around."
In my house, putting paws on the countertop or table is an undeniable, non-negotiable NEGATIVE. BAD BAD BAD and yes I will make you feel bad for doing it. DO NOT DO IT, and if you think you can get away with it I have news for you!!!
Visiting boarding dogs manage to learn this rather quickly as well.

I don't know why I take this so seriously -- to me it shows a distinct lack of respect and control on the dog's part, and a lack of manners and simple cleanliness on the owner's part. 

There are some things in life that WE deal with that are negative, and we aren't thrown into a tailspin because of it. Dogs are the same way. Make something like this black and white to them, very quickly, and it's something you won't have to harp on for their entire lives. I frankly don't have time to teach my dogs an alternative behavior to something as absolute as not getting on the counter. This is a one way street : MINE

And guess what. My dogs do not even think about putting a foot on the counter, or stealing food off the table. I regularly eat dinner in front of the TV, sitting on the floor with my plate on the coffee table. I can get up to answer the phone, leave the plate there, and nobody even bothers to get up and investigate. (however, finish dinner and it's game on to see who can lick the plate


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

Tilly was just born good. Never, ever even tried it. Harry stole some butter as a puppy and ate the whole block. He hasn't even tried since but lets say still wouldn't leave him alone with a freshly roasted chicken! 

As for training 'no', I'm not entirely sure if my dogs understand then meaning on not...I do say it to them plenty but I think it is more of a natural response rather than a command. I normally use 'leave it' which they were taught as pups by using rewards and they listen to that most of the time (apart from Tilly rolling in horse poo, never did crack that one!)


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

K9-Design said:


> I regularly eat dinner in front of the TV, sitting on the floor with my plate on the coffee table. I can get up to answer the phone, leave the plate there, and nobody even bothers to get up and investigate. (however, finish dinner and it's game on to see who can lick the plate


oh mine are like that too...infact I once left Tilly with a large tub of her food left wide open...she just sits and looks at it and actually looks quite upset that it is on the floor infront of her...I could leave a steak on the floor and she wouldn't eat it.


----------



## buckeyegoldenmom (Oct 5, 2008)

Never had a counter surfer either! But truly I think the "leave it!" command is the greatest ever tool. I taught it with the positive reward system. Now whenever I yell "leave it!!" they stop turn and come running to me in anticipation of a reward.

I love that command. Thank you puppy school!:yes:


----------



## buckeyegoldenmom (Oct 5, 2008)

Just thinking.... I wonder if part of the counter surfing, or lack there of might be related to those who allow their puppy to jump up on them and those who don't???? :gotme:


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I think the problem is that many people never set out to teach the dog the *right* thing to do, or proplerly manage the pup to prevent the wrong thing. Rather, they give the pup too much freedom and then want to know how to "discipline" the pup when he screws us.
> 
> I personally don't use "no" in my dogs' vocabulary. I can interrupt most any unwanted behavior with "eh eh". And more often than not, the "eh eh" IS followed with a correct alternative. And in the example of a pup and electrical cords, if I failed to manage the environment such that the pup got to the cords, I'd use "eh eh" to get them away and then realize I needed to set the pup up for success - be it a stay on a bed (if pup is capable), something to cover the cords, tethering the pup out of reach of the cords, etc.
> 
> ...


What exactly is different (from the dog's point of view) between "eh eh" and "No"? 

I like "no" because it is a gut reaction that can give me the edge when time is the essence.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Lucky's mom said:


> What exactly is different (from the dog's point of view) between "eh eh" and "No"?
> 
> I like "no" because it is a gut reaction that can give me the edge when time is the essence.


Exactly -- to the dogs it is just a sound we make, it's the emotion and context that mean anything to the dog. You could yell MUSHROOM PIZZA and it would mean the same thing as "no" if said in the same tone. 
I have grooming clients who tell their dogs "Wrong." In a very pleasant voice. This always cracks me up. 
I have to admit I do not understand why saying the word NO is so taboo to some dog trainers. It obviously makes them feel better to ban that word from their vocabulary, so go for it. It makes no difference to the dog. If this is the one reminder they need to stay unemotional and offer information rather than a correction, then, um, okay.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Lucky's mom said:


> What exactly is different (from the dog's point of view) between "eh eh" and "No"?
> 
> I like "no" because it is a gut reaction that can give me the edge when time is the essence.


There's not a difference from the dog's POV, but I find for most people, when they say "No!" the information tends to stop there vs. "eh-eh" where it seems it's easier for people to remember to follow up with what they WANT.

I can easily belt out "Eh!" just as quick as I can say "No!" Just a personal preference, combined with observing many students over the years. And I do strongly feel that blanket negatives are nowhere near as useful as a negative followed by info on how the dog can be correct. "Eh-eh!" to stop a dog from chewing a cord followed by "get your toy" vs. just "No!" There's just something about human nature, I guess, that "No!" often ends there for many people.


----------



## Ardeagold (Feb 26, 2007)

> How is it that I have NEVER had a counter surfer? I'm not kidding. I haven't had one. Ever.


I had never had one either...until Molly, the Landseer Newf. And she taught Cole!! Our Goldens NEVER did anything like that. Once, many years ago, we had one grab a loaf of bread off the table...but we were there, and stopped that immediately.

Bad thing is, Newfs can reach anything on any counter we can reach, so the only safe places are the top of the fridge and in cabinets. Fortunately they don't open cabinets...ours don't anyway. Some do...refrigerators and freezers too.

AND...they KNOW they're not supposed to do it because they NEVER do it when we're in the room. They lay there feigning sleep...but don't step one foot out of that room or anything in the sink or on the counter or even on a shelf over the microwave...is free game.

Molly has taken cokes, one by one out of a 12 pack on the counter and bitten into them to have a "drink". She got through 7 before I got back into the room...5 minutes later. She DID share with her friends tho.

She got four filet mignon steaks, and six pork chops (all boneless, TG)...thawing ... in a container from a bookcase over my microwave...at different times. She didn't share those. Now they thaw in a container on top of the fridge.

Last week, she took a can of UNOPENED dog food off the counter (it was there because Jacques was getting ready to open it for 13.5 yr old Sasha...but walked out of the room for a minute). I walked in before he did...and saw her in the corner on her bed....facing the wall. THAT's not normal. So I walked over and sure enough she had the can of dog food! She had bitten through the can in several places and was squeezing the food out through the holes.

Any dish, plate, pot, pan, whatever in the sink will be found "hidden" somewhere in the room sooner or later...if she doesn't drop it on the floor and we hear a clank, rattle, etc.

When about a year old..she'd destroy anything on counters. Remotes, glasses, books, mail, paper, etc. She got over that tho. Food is her only interest up there now.

The problem we've ALWAYS had ... she's very very smart. She never even looks up, moves or acts interested in a single thing when we're there. In fact, like I said, you'd SWEAR she's sleeping. Well....if food's involved, she's not. I have not ever caught her in the act in almost four years. I've never even seen her LOOK at the counter or the sink. But she does, and will steal anything edible, if given the opportunity.

Cole's not quite as smart, yet. He's gotten caught a couple of times, so doesn't do it anymore. Actually, I just think he doesn't have a chance if Molly's around...and she's always where he is. They're glued at the hip.

We have a very clean kitchen sink, counter, island and table. Spotless 99.9% of the time. :lol: She has us trained well.



``````````````````````````````````````````


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

> I have grooming clients who tell their dogs "Wrong." In a very pleasant voice. This always cracks me up.


Ah, that is the No Reward Marker. We use "Too Bad". But mostly in training obedience in the ring, when the dog is trying hard and offering behaviors in an engaged way. It simply gives the dog the information no click/treat is coming for what he did, and isnt really a NO substitute, lol. For example, thanks to a tip from Quiz, when practising go outs with Tally and Tango, anything less than 180 degrees when they turn and sit, gets a "Too Bad" in a neutral tone. It does work. Tally will then straighten his sit. It is effective for obedience.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I do use "no" too, though I've said many times that every time I've been able to replace using "no" to extinguish a behavior with positively training an alternate behavior, I've been happy with the improvement in our dogs' attitudes and our relationship to them. It is, though, helpful to have the ability to get your dog to stop doing what he's doing, no matter what.

I've never had any trouble with counter surfing, and I can leave a sandwich unattended on the coffee table while I head back to the kitchen for a drink with no fear that one of the dogs will grab it. While Jax is still at the age in which I wouldn't 100% trust him, so I don't set him up to fail, but he still hasn't shown any indication that he'd try to steal food if given the opportunity.

As far as the regular use of "no," behavioral psychology and my own personal experience have strongly confirmed that aversive behavioral modification doesn't stick as strongly as reinforced behavior modification. That is, if you tell a dog "no" for doing something, he's somewhat likely not to do it the next time, but the longer he goes without being corrected, the more likely he is to try again. But, if you can reward a dog for doing something, that behavior modification works faster and sticks for longer, even in the absence of continued reinforcement. It's a common misunderstanding that for a behavior to be really solid, a dog needs to know what's "bad" and be shown it aversively. That's simply not the case.

For all those reasons, "no" is something I use as sparingly as possible and not something I rely on to shape a habit. It's more for interrupting new or dangerous behaviors, or behaviors that we haven't figured out a positive alternative for. Biting, chewing, surfing, begging, jumping, etc. are all problem behaviors that are more easily and productively shaped into alternative behaviors than they are extinguished with pure aversives.

And as far as needing to punish a dog to keep him from counter surfing, you simply don't. Comet has never once been reprimanded for counter surfing because he's never tried it. He's been rewarded for keeping all four paws on the ground his whole life. Ajax tried exactly once and was gently told "off" (a positive command in our house) and led back to his spot to lie down. He has never tried again, also because he has been consistently rewarded for going outside the kitchen door and lying down to watch.

I totally disagree that you can't teach him it's better to go sit in his spot than to grab food using purely positive methods. Saying that a treat is less appetizing than what the human is cooking shows a total misunderstanding of how positive reinforcement works. The dog isn't choosing between grabbing your steak or getting a dog cookie at his spot. He's had habits built deep into his mind over time that his spot is where he should be and the steak is not for him. The cookie's not more powerful than the steak, but the habit is.

Right now, Comet is uncrated in the house and there are bags of peanuts on the counter, dirty dishes next to the sink, and all kinds of temptations. I have no concerns that he'll surf because he simply doesn't understand that it would work and his understanding of the kitchen has been carefully shaped so that obeying the rules feels good.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> My dogs are all taught to do what I ask, and they do it happily. I beleive it is very important that a dog knows "no". It's simple, and to the point. There are many situations that IMO warrant a good ol' fashioned "NO!" with a quick response. Just like with children. I don't really think it's going to be of much help to sit a puppy down snd explain to him why chewing an electrical cord is not a good idea. I think it behooves him to know that when I say "NO!" or, "Leave it!" that means no, or leave, whether there is something coming to replace it or not.
> 
> Old School.  (and, KISS)


I totally agree, but teaching your dog not to chew wires works better when you make sure you have something he _can_ chew to offer him. The urge to chew exists in the dog, and extinguishing it by saying "don't chew that" goes much faster and sticks for longer when it comes with "_do_ chew this."

It works both because positives are more powerful and longer lasting than negatives and because you're not working directly against the deep desire to chew.

I do agree, though, that in real life you don't always have a nylabone handy, and communicating that wires are a big no-no is important whether you have an object to redirect to or not.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Well, there is at_ least_ one dog in the house 24/7, which includes times when we are not at home, and there are plenty of "goodies" on all counters. So, when we are at work I suppose that it is possible that they are taking cookies or bread out of the bags and then putting them back where they found them... All puppies are raised in the house, 24/7, crate and loose, and do not stay in the kennel for any length of time until they are at _least _6-8 months old.
> 
> I honestly have no idea. That's why I asked. I will say, though, that because my dogs do learn the word "no" as puppies, if they begin to do something that I don't want them to, all I have to do is say "no" and they stop. They will then move on to something else, usually one of their own toys, or just come and lay near us. I get the impression that there are those who think that the word "No" is bad. I don't think it is a bad thing for a dog to know, IMO. And as it is an intregal part of our language, is easy to use, it just makes sense to me to use it when living with dogs.


I agree with PG--my pup knows 'no' and I can use it to stop any behavior without having to train for any little thing that could happen. And why do that anyway? What's so wrong with 'no?' IMO it can be a faster and more effective way of teaching without being detrimental. I even use it when shaping because it speeds up the learning. Rather than ignoring the bad I can softly, playfully tell her NooOOOooo and she will get it that much faster because now she knows what not to do.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> I agree with PG--my pup knows 'no' and I can use it to stop any behavior without having to train for any little thing that could happen. And why do that anyway? What's so wrong with 'no?' IMO it can be a faster and more effective way of teaching without being detrimental. I even use it when shaping because it speeds up the learning. Rather than ignoring the bad I can softly, playfully tell her NooOOOooo and she will get it that much faster because now she knows what not to do.


The downsides to using a "no" in the teaching phase is that it can shut a dog down and prevent him from trying creative behaviors. When you train for something like agility or obedience, it can be a really big help if the dog will confidently try twenty different things so you can mark and reward the right one when it finally shows up.

No an aversive "no" and the "nooooooo" you're describing may be different, but it's still worth being really careful.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> The downsides to using a "no" in the teaching phase is that it can shut a dog down and prevent him from trying creative behaviors. When you train for something like agility or obedience, it can be a really big help if the dog will confidently try twenty different things so you can mark and reward the right one when it finally shows up.
> 
> No an aversive "no" and the "nooooooo" you're describing may be different, but it's still worth being really careful.



I agree, if used incorrectly


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> The downsides to using a "no" in the teaching phase is that it can shut a dog down and prevent him from trying creative behaviors. When you train for something like agility or obedience, it can be a really big help if the dog will confidently try twenty different things so you can mark and reward the right one when it finally shows up.
> 
> No an aversive "no" and the "nooooooo" you're describing may be different, but it's still worth being really careful.


 That certainly can be the case for a person that is abusive to animals, or is somewhat clueless about dog training. However, after reading the responses written in this thread there is no doubt that the folks that keep it simple and teach their dog the word "NO", and pair it with some correction, especially at a young age have very little problems down the road. Just take a look at the responses and how effective it is. It is no different than a child.

And by the way, when I hire a new trainer, and he or she starts with the "eh-eh", I never let them continue with that. Think about it from the dog's point of view. If you never paired it with a correction, what does that mean to the dog?

I have always believed that when you teach the word "no" and pair it with some sort of correction you are now sending a clear and fair message to the animal. Especially at a young age. After now being on the road for the last 3 months and speaking to thousands of people, I believe that there seems to be this small percentage of people that get so worked up about what is positive and what is negative.

Just reading the response, "The downsides to using a "no" in the teaching phase is that it can shut a dog down and prevent him from trying creative behaviors." I so respectfully disagree with this.

As I wrote in my book.... "the completion of the bad behavior is in itself the reward". You need to not let the dog complete the action using some sort of correction. Someone in an earlier response touched very nicely on this.

When you have a dog jumping on a person at the front door, you have two choices. Correct the dog, or not correct the dog. If you want to call a person putting a leash and collar on the dog and correcting the dog at the front door a NEGATIVE, go ahead. Done the right way, it does not hurt the dog. Paired with the word "no" it sends a clear message of what you want. When you eventually fade out the correction, "no" now means something. Just like a child.


----------



## avincent52 (Jul 23, 2008)

> When you have a dog jumping on a person at the front door, you have two choices.


Um, don't you have _three_ choices, one of which is teaching the dog how to greet people with four feet on the ground?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

JoelSilverman said:


> That certainly can be the case for a person that is abusive to animals, or is somewhat clueless about dog training. However, after reading the responses written in this thread there is no doubt that the folks that keep it simple and teach their dog the word "NO", and pair it with some correction, especially at a young age have very little problems down the road. Just take a look at the responses and how effective it is. It is no different than a child.


Exactly, and people who yell at their kids or spank them without providing clarity and alternative expectations aren't doing right by their kids either. I don't say "no! bad!" to a child when she grabs something off a supermarket shelf; I ask her to return the item to the shelf and I discuss the reasons why. Child behavior is studied even more extensively than dog behavior, and the news is already out: children who are engaged with rather than just punished are more confident and acquire better language skills. I'm not saying you can't punish kids or allow them to complete undesired actions, but I am saying that the punishment is not nearly as effective as positively supporting the behavior you would like to see.



JoelSilverman said:


> And by the way, when I hire a new trainer, and he or she starts with the "eh-eh", I never let them continue with that. Think about it from the dog's point of view. If you never paired it with a correction, what does that mean to the dog?


It means you're making a loud, sharp sound that interrupts them. You don't have to slap the dog or jerk the collar for it to work as an interrupter. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but when you say "pair it with a correction" what are the negative stimuli you're talking about? For my dogs, the volume and pitch of "no" is itself the correction, so the pairing is instant.

However, I'm with you that a lot of would-be trainers make corrective noises that are completely useless and confusing. Applied properly, though, "eh eh" can be a terrific way to interrupt and use a mild negative at the same time.



JoelSilverman said:


> Just reading the response, "The downsides to using a "no" in the teaching phase is that it can shut a dog down and prevent him from trying creative behaviors." I so respectfully disagree with this.
> 
> As I wrote in my book.... "the completion of the bad behavior is in itself the reward". You need to not let the dog complete the action using some sort of correction. Someone in an earlier response touched very nicely on this.


We're not talking about bad behavior only. We're talking about shaping all kinds of behaviors. If, while introducing weave poles in agility, I want my dog to go through a weave pole instead of around it, I don't correct him for going around. To do so could confuse him and limit his willingness to offer creative behavior, such as going through. A joyful dog will experiment in and around a potentially scary element, and I can mark it and reward him when he does what I want. I get faster compliance than somebody pairing negatives and positives, and I have a dog that will try the next element more happily and confidently.

You're certainly right that if my dog countersurfs, I shouldn't let him complete the action and be rewarded. That seems obvious to me. My point is simply that stopping him or disciplining him for trying is not the truly effective part of the action in terms of eliminating the behavior. Solidifying behaviors with negative stimuli simply does not work as well as doing so with positive stimuli. As a book-writing expert, you're clearly familiar with the research on this. Positively trained behaviors last longer to boot. Negatively trained behaviors start to erode as soon as the negative stimuli is removed.




JoelSilverman said:


> When you have a dog jumping on a person at the front door, you have two choices. Correct the dog, or not correct the dog. If you want to call a person putting a leash and collar on the dog and correcting the dog at the front door a NEGATIVE, go ahead. Done the right way, it does not hurt the dog. Paired with the word "no" it sends a clear message of what you want. When you eventually fade out the correction, "no" now means something. Just like a child.


It does not send a clear message of what you want. It sends a clear message of what you do _not_ want. There's a huge difference. You're saying "I do not want jumping," not "I want sitting." Working directly and negatively against the natural urge to engage with a human face to face is not as productive, fair, or effective as working with the urge to greet by positively training an alternative. My dogs know "don't jump on company," but they also know "sitting for company will get you attention and the greeting you desire."

There is indeed a third choice: focus your efforts on teaching your dog that sitting appropriately is a positive instead of just teaching him that jumping is a negative. I don't need a leash and a collar to teach greeting behaviors. I need guests who aren't going to reinforce jumping and a handful of chicken. My dogs don't think jumping will result in their being hurt; they think it doesn't work.

Look, I'm completely in favor of having a sound you can make that your dog associates with unpleasantness. It's a way to protect their safety if nothing else. However, the constant use of negatives during training is an old-fashioned, outdated, and less effective way of getting compliance and engagement from your dogs than using techniques that skew heavily towards the positive.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Well I guess I will have to admit to having varying degrees of "NO". Something minor might elicit an "Eh-EH" which means more like good try but not quite what I am looking for. My "NO" means incorrect, not what I want. And lastly there is "PHOOEY" which means WHATEVER you are doing stops NOW!! Of course the tone has more to do with it than the words themselves but over the years it has worked for me.


----------



## Finn's Fan (Dec 22, 2007)

Allen, to me, correcting the dog includes teaching the behavior you expect. I think that's effective training; let them know that a particular behavior is unwanted and tell them which behavior is expected and acceptable.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

IMO, the key is to start _early. _This ancient, decrepit trainer still believes in KISS and the old school use of the word "no" (with dogs AND children) and won't apologize for it. It's not PC, evidently, and perhaps my not worrying about harming "fragile egos" etc etc won't increase my rep points, but hey - the resulting happy, safe, well trained dogs who are confident without constantly challenging their owners doesn't seem like a downside to me. 
Dog training is not brain surgery, and while taking the time to overthink and overanalyze what's going on or what should be done about it can allow the puppy opportunity to include several _more_ behaviors we'll need to address. :doh:

I'm sure not saying My Way or the Highway, but it's worked for me and my clients for over 20 years. And I guarantee you that the dogs are HAPPY.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Finn's Fan said:


> Allen, to me, correcting the dog includes teaching the behavior you expect. I think that's effective training; let them know that a particular behavior is unwanted and tell them which behavior is expected and acceptable.


 
TA DA!!!! Yup. *K*eep *I*t *S*imple *S*tupid.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Kids and dogs both need to hear "no" sometimes, but too much of traditional dog training emphasizes making things unpleasant. I used to use negatives much more readily, including scruff shakes, a loud "no," tapping the butt, and even the alpha roll. The fact is that everything I read about behavioral science confirms that those things simply don't work as well as positive reinforcement. Shocking a rat when it doesn't do something does not make it repeat the behavior as much as rewarding it sporadically when it does. Period.

And my personal experience is that every time I've been able to phase a negative out of my training repertoire in favor of a positive, I've seen faster, longer-lasting results and a more confident dog. I'm heavily influenced by my local center and a creative, brilliant trainer there who takes even the most unruly dogs and has them working right with her in minutes. I've never once seen her pop a leash, grab a scruff, or even use a corrective vocalization. She's out there with just a handful of chicken, a skill with making sounds that interest dogs, and an extraordinary ability both to read dog body language and to express what she wants through her own. I aspire to that kind of training.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Kids and dogs both need to hear "no" sometimes, but too much of traditional dog training emphasizes making things unpleasant. I used to use negatives much more readily, including scruff shakes, a loud "no," tapping the butt, and even the alpha roll. The fact is that everything I read about behavioral science confirms that those things simply don't work as well as positive reinforcement. Shocking a rat when it doesn't do something does not make it repeat the behavior as much as rewarding it sporadically when it does. Period.
> 
> And my personal experience is that every time I've been able to phase a negative out of my training repertoire in favor of a positive, I've seen faster, longer-lasting results and a more confident dog. I'm heavily influenced by my local center and a creative, brilliant trainer there who takes even the most unruly dogs and has them working right with her in minutes. I've never once seen her pop a leash, grab a scruff, or even use a corrective vocalization. She's out there with just a handful of chicken, a skill with making sounds that interest dogs, and an extraordinary ability both to read dog body language and to express what she wants through her own. I aspire to that kind of training.


*sigh* Ok, my two cents. I have heard many a time that science and studies prove that aversives are detrimental. But c'mon, shocking a rat and telling a dog 'no' don't even fall within the same ball park, really. I think all those studies have proven are that extreme aversives are bad--not ALL aversives. It is not a black and white thing for me, there are varying degrees of it and all have not been studied. And even if they had? You're going to tell me that every scientific study you've read was believable? Sometimes what holds up in the lab doesn't in the real world.

...and to tell you where I am on this--when I first got into training I did fall sway with the all-positive crowd and those who would not use 'no.' I've since met a wonderful trainer and I am a lot more open about training than I used to be...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> *sigh* Ok, my two cents. I have heard many a time that science and studies prove that aversives are detrimental. But c'mon, shocking a rat and telling a dog 'no' don't even fall within the same ball park, really. I think all those studies have proven are that extreme aversives are bad--not ALL aversives. It is not a black and white thing for me, there are varying degrees of it and all have not been studied. And even if they had? You're going to tell me that every scientific study you've read was believable? Sometimes what holds up in the lab doesn't in the real world.


As far as the side-effects of strong aversives vs. weak ones, I think you're dead on the money. There are side effects with strong aversives that you see not less but none of with a weak aversive.

And you're right that shocking a rat and saying "no" to a dog aren't the same thing, but they work on the same behavior principle: when you do X, it's unpleasant, so you stop doing X. It stands to reason that if a strong aversive doesn't last well over time unless it's reiterated that a weaker aversive would be no more time resistant.

I completely agree about not running off half-cocked because of a study or three, but I'm talking about study after study after study, the bulk of the recent literature, combined with my real world experience.

I'm not arguing for purely positive training, and I don't practice it. I am, however, making the point that methods that emphasize positive reinforcement are generally superior to those that emphasize aversives, that non-experts tend to train their dogs with an ineffective and problematic amount of negative stimuli, and that the training establishment in general needs to move more towards positive, creative methodologies.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> IMO, the key is to start _early. _This ancient, decrepit trainer still believes in KISS and the old school use of the word "no" (with dogs AND children) and won't apologize for it. It's not PC, evidently, and perhaps my not worrying about harming "fragile egos" etc etc won't increase my rep points, but hey - the resulting happy, safe, well trained dogs who are confident without constantly challenging their owners doesn't seem like a downside to me.
> Dog training is not brain surgery, and while taking the time to overthink and overanalyze what's going on or what should be done about it can allow the puppy opportunity to include several _more_ behaviors we'll need to address. :doh:
> 
> I'm sure not saying My Way or the Highway, but it's worked for me and my clients for over 20 years. And I guarantee you that the dogs are HAPPY.


I could not agree more!! KISS. I do not understand why people make this so confusing and constantly overanalyze this.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I could not agree more!! KISS. I do not understand why people make this so confusing and constantly overanalyze this.


 
WOW the Red Wings JUST might win the Cup. :scratchch
PG and Joel AGREED!! Surely that is worth some kind of "Award", Joe!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

AmbikaGR said:


> WOW the Red Wings JUST might win the Cup. :scratchch
> PG and Joel AGREED!! Surely that is worth some kind of "Award", Joe!


It's the fourth sign of the apocalypse, Hank. Get in your bunker and start prayin'.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Yep. It's almost enough to make me change my mind.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Yep. It's almost enough to make me change my mind.


See? I knew you'd come around.


----------



## katieanddusty (Feb 9, 2006)

I think the "problem" with No is just that a lot of people instinctively deliver it in a tone that is overly threatening/scary and reminiscent of the really outdated trying to be "dominant" through brute force and intimidation. If it's delivered in a more neutral tone (informative rather than just plain scary) and followed up with what the dog is supposed to do, I don't think anyone would have a problem with using the word no in place of wrong, eh-eh, whatever.


----------



## avincent52 (Jul 23, 2008)

FWIW, it seems that "eh eh" is simply better at getting a dog's attention. It sounds less like the "blah blah blah no tessie blah blah blah" that they tune out. 

And while there's something to be said for "no" or it's equivalent, I've started practicing down stays (toast, in Tessie parlance) inside, and worked more on leave it. That--and a taser--should probably do it.

Finally, it's nice to see an innocent thread like this create such strange bedfellows.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

avincent52 said:


> FWIW, it seems that "eh eh" is simply better at getting a dog's attention. It sounds less like the "blah blah blah no tessie blah blah blah" that they tune out.


Oh, good god, nothing's less effective than the people who have whole scolding conversations with a misbehaving dog. "Misty! no! I can't _believe_ you're pulling right now. No! You quit it this instant or else I'll...no!"

Ummm...what on earth do you think your dog is taking away from that?

Note: this isn't an argument against "no," just an argument against bad communication.


----------



## avincent52 (Jul 23, 2008)

I guess you don't have kids? 
Those kinds of conversations are very effective.
Unless, of course, you expect that the dog (or the kid) is listening.
Words just get in the way. A sharp smack upside the head is all that's required.


----------

