Mumsnet does not check the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you're worried about your pet's health, please speak to a vet or qualified professional.
This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Anyone watching this terrible dog training programme?(52 Posts)
Terrible trainer using adversive training.
Which TV channel & time is it on?
Do you mean Dogs Behaving Very Badly?
' Dogs Behaving Badly' and it was on last night (Saturday) when I posted - not sure what time it started.
It was all about saying no to your dog rather than ignoring bad behaviour.
I thought it was about rewarding good behaviour and also saying no to bad behaviour
I know some people say you shouldn’t say no at all to your dog but he was also rewarding positive?
What adverse methods was he using? I didn’t see any force or anything?
Saying no is still surely giving the dog attention, rather than shaping the behaviour you want. Then (good) and well qualified trainers I've used have advised against that.
As in, surely you ignore the bad and ask for a behaviour you want instead.
I'm on the fence with this one.
It's very easy to reward bad behaviour with any response but equally if I say no to my dog he will stop what he is doing. In fact I did this today when he was getting frustrated as he wanted to play ball outside and started to scratch the sofa. Said a no and he instantly stopped and patiently waited instead.
Oh should have said I didn't see the tv show.
I've watched this programme in the past and I understand what you're saying OP.
In the main he uses reward based training, but he does tend towards reacting to bad behaviour, and something I don't like to see, jerking the dog away from undesirable things, e.g. if the dog has form for lunging towards busy roads, he'll jerk them away as the method of training.
And maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't notice a great reliance on treats as rewards, which is what I used when training my dog; she used to lunge at motorbikes and I cured it by getting her focus on me and rewarding her when she did, stopped it completely. Absolutely no need to jerk her head and neck to stop the behaviour.
He doesn't use any horrendous methods, as far as I can see, but I agree there are one or two things that seem a bit odd.
I’m not sure really, I say no to my dog, but I try to avoid it. But only because it’s not really a direction.
So for example when he jumps up, I’ll say ‘down’ rather than ‘no’
But if the concern is ‘giving attention’ then I’m still doing that.
But how is he to know I don’t want that otherwise?
I don’t really agree with ‘jerking’ but I’d rather see a dog jerked rather than run over.
These are generally more extreme cases on a tv show than normal cases
And if you need to jerk, and then also reward the positive to keep the dog safe whilst training proper behaviour so there’s no need to jerk
That seems better.
But how is he to know I don’t want that otherwise?
You don't train this, you train what you do want.
There are two ways to get the behaviour you want:
- the long way, which is to train all the things that are not that behaviour
- the short way, which is to train that behaviour
The problem with "no" is that is never, ever tells the dog what you want instead. For many mature dogs that have settled into life with their owners, the occasional "no" does not harm because they often have experience to tell them what else may be wanted. Or have learned to interpret "no" as stand still (or similar). For a young dog in training, it's much better to give good, clear info on what you really want.
Your dog cannot jump up and be in his/her bed at the same time. He or she cannot sit by your side and jump up at the same time. So reward the bed/sitting behaviour, rather than shout at the jumping.
Well yes but I actually said I was training ‘down’ which is the behaviour I want.
But as that is acknowledging a ‘bad’ behaviour, it goes against the theory of ignoring unwanted behaviour.
You’ve basically just repeated what I said whilst implying I’m wrong
The dog will not learn "do something other than jump" so if you were training a down you would pick a specific body position and train for that. e.g. a sit, a stand, lying on his back wiggling his legs, whatever. Maybe you are doing that but it sounds like what is happening is:
1. the dog is jumping up
2. you are saying "down" (maybe sternly, maybe not)
3. you then accept any body position
That's not training for a down and in this example, the word "down" is performing the same fuction as the word "no". So you may as well use "no" because it's all the same to the dog.
I was not trying to piss you off. I was trying to help explain. Feel free to tell me to jog on and carry on as yoi are.
Ok, no argument
I’m interested in what you’re saying
For example in the ‘down’ example, I don’t care what he does - as long as he isn’t jumping on people. If that’s sit, walk away, lie down, I’m ok with all of that.
If I want a sit whilst he’s jumping I would say sit, which he knows.
What is the benefit of expecting a certain body position? (Again not arguing, interested as I’m not doing this and perhaps would consider changing what we are doing)
Try living with a strong willed Jack Russell without ever saying no!
The problem with asking for 'anything other than this' is...
1. It's actually hard to learn a negative (don't do that) which is a more complex learning process than a positive (do that). Dogs learn best when lessons are simple and clear. This is because you don't really mean "I don't care what you do as long as your don't jump" - for example, would it be ok for him to pee instead? Or tug on your trousers? Or run around on all the furniture? It wouldn't be and you could spend a loong time going through all the "don't do that" actions before you got to one you liked. The shortcut is to pick one you like and reward that.
2. Even if the dog learns a negative, you never really know what action the dog links "down" to because you're not being specific. Maybe the dog understands that "down" means put all four feet on the floor. Or maybe he learns that "down" means don't look you in the eye (which he's probably also doing). Or maybe he learns that it means "don't approach me" because he's probably doing that too.
3. Learning by the "don't do that" method is bonkers frustrating for your dog because it's hard to guess what is wanted instead. There is an activity you can do in which you try to 'train' a human partner to do something by not telling them what it is and just using the word "no" when they get it wrong. Try it. It'll drive both of you mad within minutes. You want your dog to think training is fun, not stressful or frustrating.
A specific body position allows you to be very clear what you want - and this is the first step to your dog knowing. For all the reasons above your dog will learn "sit" to greet much more quickly then he will learn "down" to greet because "sit" is specific but "down" is vague (to a dog).
We humans are so vague, expecting dogs to know what we mean in different contexts. "Down" is a great example. When jumping up at humans it means get off the human. When counter surfing it means get off the counter. When on a sofa it means get off the sofa. When preceeded by "lie" it means lie down where you are. It's a lot to expect a dog to apply it to all these different situations because dogs are a bit rubbish at generalisation (applying learning to similar but not the same situations) and very good at discrimination (applying learning only ever to the situation they learned it in).
p.s. I use 'No', 'get down', 'get off', 'oy', 'stop' and all those vague terms all the time - because I am human and that's the language that comes naturally.
However, it's never once actually helped with training and I know I am just wasting my breath
I don't think there's anything wrong with telling a dog "no" or "stop". Because at the end of the day, they're just words.
I remember at puppy class our trainer saying she once trained a dog in agility using the words salt and pepper to mean left and right. In other words, dogs don't speak English so you can say whatever you damn well please as long as you have the right body language to back up what you're saying!
Agree adaline it's not the word, it's the concept that is problematic.
You could use the word 'balloon' to mean 'don't do that' and you'd still encounter the same challenges.
The problem is that for NO to work as a command it has to mean so many things...
So for a dog that has taken a step into a forbidden sofa NO means don't go any further forward and remove that single paw from the sofa.
But for a dog that has picked up a forbidden toy NO means open your mouth and show the toy no more interest.
For a dog that is helping himself to a chicken in the side NO means stop eating and back down from the jump up position.
I think some people just use it as an interrupter to then be followed up by a specific instruction but it is a bit useless as the whole instruction in itself.
I totally agree with what everyone is saying
That’s what I was saying originally
‘No’ on its own isn’t an instruction.
My original point was just that ‘giving attention’ for an unwanted behaviour isn’t always a bad thing.
I say no because I’m human and make mistakes, but always try to follow up with a direction when I make these mistakes.
I also don’t think a ‘negative’ instruction like ‘down is always bad. Surely it’s about your training
For the ‘down’
I teach ‘down’ and reward all 4 paws on the floor.
We practice four on the floor, rewards stopping when four are not on the floor (though I also accept sit and lie down and in reality like in the park when he may want to jump on people and dogs I’m happy with walking away/ bringing his attention back to me too which I appreciate isn’t as clear but either way is desired behaviour)
I think it’s really about your training
Down to my dog means four on the floor (or move away) it doesn’t really matter what it’s down from because we train in lots of environments.
I appreciate he would get ‘sit’ quicker, so I get that as an alternative, but I’ve found it doesn’t really convey what I do want as well, for me personally