# When is "punishment" (or at least "no") acceptable?



## MRVivekB (Jun 21, 2014)

As per the other thread suggestion, i'm trying to teach myself when "negative reinforcement", or at least saying "no", is okay. Our trainer is a firm believer in only using positive reinforcement and/or treats to distract from bad behavior. Its certainly helped a lot, but there are still behaviors I want to train out. (ie, humping)

When would you use the word "no", and what other types of "negative reinforcement" would you use?


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

We are all human and I think the impulse to use "no" is really strong. I definitely use "no" sometimes, especially in the heat of the moment when I catch Gally doing something potentially dangerous, my first instinct is to say no. That being said, I am always trying to teach counter behaviors so that I don't need to use "no". "No" has a million meanings, so it is a lot easier to teach what you do want instead of asking your dog to understand what no means in every possible scenario (it might mean, don't dig, don't jump up, stop biting etc. etc.) If I can teach the dog what I want them to do, I can ask for that counter behavior instead of using a correction. Then I will work on reinforcing that counter behavior more so that it becomes the default behavior.

For example, when a dog is jumping up at a visitor I could say "no" or I could ask for a "sit". If I am really worried that he might hurt someone by jumping up I might react by saying "no" but I wouldn't expect that to end the behavior, though it might interrupt the behavior long enough for me to get my head and say "sit" or "off" instead.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Um.

No is tricky for me and for dogs, because it doesn't really MEAN anything specific. What you're asking the dog to do, specifically, is much, much more useful. People use no for everything, including things that are sometimes okay. No for barking, no for getting into the trash, no for chewing something we don't want them to, no for- well, no for asking us to throw the ball right now, just about anything we don't want the dog to do just that second. Dogs don't really, truly, work that way.

If I don't want the dog to bark, I tell them to be quiet. If I don't want the dog to chew THAT item, I switch with them and remove the old.

The only two circumstance when I use 'No' is if it is a behavior I absolutely do not want the dog to EVER do, in any circumstance (ie: not no chewing because dogs chew sometimes and I want them to be able to, but I did use a pretty loud no when Thud used to try to herd and jump on people ON STAIRS) and a much, much milder 'Nope' to signify to the dog that whatever behavior it is engaged in is not desirable right now. Ie: I'm training and the dog gets something wrong. Nope means 'you aren't getting a reward for that behavior'. That one's pretty consistently understood by the dogs, because it's so simple - and involves no volume or anger and the only deterrent is in knowing they got it 'wrong' and the removal of a possibility of reward - which is negative enough for most dogs.

Actual STOP THAT BEHAVIOR though? If it's not dangerous, I just make the dog do something else. If it's humping or getting into the trash, I typically just don't let the dog do it. I remove access where possible, call them away and ask them for another behavior, or whatever. I MIGHT use a mild no for those because I never want them doing it but with that particular sort of behavior and house manners in general, not letting them practice the behavior is typically all it takes for it to go away.

(I TRY to keep aversives down to behavior that is dangerous - immediately dangerous - for me or the dog. There aren't a lot of those, but where they exist I'm pretty unapologetic about my use of them. It's just that honestly? THERE ARE VERY FEW SITUATIONS where you have to worry about your dog seriously injuring or killing itself or you, and without time to train via alternative method or managing.)


----------



## MRVivekB (Jun 21, 2014)

Gally said:


> That being said, I am always trying to teach counter behaviors so that I don't need to use "no". "No" has a million meanings, so it is a lot easier to teach what you do want instead of asking your dog to understand what no means in every possible scenario (it might mean, don't dig, don't jump up, stop biting etc. etc.) If I can teach the dog what I want them to do, I can ask for that counter behavior instead of using a correction. Then I will work on reinforcing that counter behavior more so that it becomes the default behavior.
> 
> For example, when a dog is jumping up at a visitor I could say "no" or I could ask for a "sit". If I am really worried that he might hurt someone by jumping up I might react by saying "no" but I wouldn't expect that to end the behavior, though it might interrupt the behavior long enough for me to get my head and say "sit" or "off" instead.





CptJack said:


> If it's not dangerous, I just make the dog do something else.


oy, so obvious and yet it didn't occur to me. Ok now I feel silly.

Thanks yet again for helping the newbie.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

If I need a "punishment," then I am more inclined to use "negative punishment". That is where you take something good or valuable away from the dog in order to decrease a behavior. 

In the jumping up example you could turn away from your dog or leave the room, removing your attention which is rewarding. Eventually the dog learns that jumping up = no attention or human leaves. To speed the learning process along it is still best to teach a behavior you do want, such as sit. That way your dog is more likely to succeed.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Dog training requires, IME, some restructuring the way you think. It can feel clunky and strange for a while, but the premise is basically: 

It's much harder to teach a negative than a positive.

Don't teach the dog not to pee in the house - teach it to pee outside.
Don't teach the dog not to pull on the leash - teach it to walk by your side.
Don't teach the dog not to jump to greet people - teach it to sit to greet people.
Don't teach the dog not to chew the furniture - teach it to chew its toys. 

You get to the same place in the end, but because of where you're coming from your communication is clearer to the dog.

It also tends to adjust human attitudes for the better.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Actually I think your thread title more accurately describes how many people use the word no. If you review the definitions in the other thread you'll see how it's likely to fall under "positive punishment", although there are some people who use it as an NRM or no reward marker. But typically, the word is followed by an action the dog finds aversive, such as a collar grab, a swat on the butt, a yank on a lead etc. The dog will see the word as a predictor that something bad is about to occur.

How much are you paying your neighbours for advice? Listen to your trainer.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

For me and my dogs, I can't easily imagine a scenario in which I'd use negative reinforcement. The only exception would be to follow Dunbar's repetitive reinstruction as negative reinforcement (RRNR). Here's a brief summary from Reactive Champion,


> RRNR is actually pretty simple to implement. If the dog fails to respond, Ian continuously repeats the command until the dog complies. If the dog is at a distance, he will move closer to the dog as he repeats himself. If the dog was distracted, this helps bring the command to the dog’s consciousness, and if the dog simply chose not to respond, this lets him know that Ian was serious. Either way, once the dog has finally performed the cue, Ian will repeat the exercise until the dog responds on the first request, and then reward the dog.
> 
> Although many trainers worry that repeated cues will result in learned irrelevance, Ian doesn’t. He argues that if the dog fails to respond, the cue is already irrelevant in that moment, and you can’t make something more irrelevant. Besides, Ian makes sure that the dog does respond eventually, which means the dog will learn that the cue must be followed.


I do have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I understand how it can work and like does not rely on aversive methods (for most dogs) for reliability. On the other, it's a little too close to using intimidation or bullying strategies. I've used it, but try to minimize the need to use it.



Gally said:


> If I need a "punishment," then I am more inclined to use "negative punishment". That is where you take something good or valuable away from the dog in order to decrease a behavior.
> 
> In the jumping up example you could turn away from your dog or leave the room, removing your attention which is rewarding. Eventually the dog learns that jumping up = no attention or human leaves. To speed the learning process along it is still best to teach a behavior you do want, such as sit. That way your dog is more likely to succeed.


Like Gally, I'm far more inclined to use negative punishment when needed. Jump on me? I turn away and withhold attention until all four paws are on the floor. Again, I try to teach what I want and redirect and manage when cues aren't solid (e.g., my puppy is counter surfing and doesn't have a solid "leave it" or "off") or training isn't likely to work (e.g., my older dog steals items from the bathroom trash when we're away; easiest solution is to close the door).

I will use "hey" or "knock it off" to stop my dogs from doing something, but I don't see it as training and usually follow with a known cue. So, puppy has his paws on the counter, he gets a "hey" and then a "come" or "sit." The words "no" and "knock it off" don't really tell the dogs anything - those words have no meaning unless paired with an aversive. I use them to gain their attention and/or interrupt what they're doing. I could say anything with the right tone and get the same effect. I suppose, technically, it is positive punishment - I'm adding something ("no") to reduce behavior. Still, it's much less aversive for most dogs than many of the alternatives.



CptJack said:


> Dog training requires, IME, some restructuring the way you think. It can feel clunky and strange for a while, but the premise is basically:
> 
> It's much harder to teach a negative than a positive.
> 
> ...


I very much agree with CptJack. Teaching what you want and managing the environment goes a long way towards drastically reducing the need for punishment.

You might be interested in this: The Humane Hierarchy, Part 1 of 2: Overview


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I prefer to use an interrupter word over 'no' because it tends to come out... less harsh, I guess? Then I redirect to another behaviour. 

For example, Luna was trying to take a throw pillow outside the other day to play with. I said "Ah ah!" which distracted her enough to look at me, then I took the pillow and gave her a proper toy.

A lot of the time people forget that dogs (especially young puppies) don't actually KNOW what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't from the get-go, you have to teach them.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I have on occasion used *Positive Punishment*, more so when I was learning to train dogs when I was younger. Positive Punishment can be anything from hitting a dog, to yelling at it. It is basically introducing something that is aversive to the dog in an attempt to get rid of a behavior. 

I try to use *Negative Punishment* whenever I can, such as when I withhold treats when the dog performs a behavior incorrectly. Negative Punishment is removing something the dog wants to punish them for performing a wrong behavior.

I also use *Positive Reinforcement* a lot, which is giving the dog something it wants to reward a behavior, such as a treat or a toy.

*Negative Reinforcement* I don't think I have ever used tho I know people who do. Negative Reinforcement is removing something the dog doesn't like to reward it for performing the correct behavior. An example would be having a dog wear a shock collar and continuously shocking the dog while saying "come" and when the dog finally comes to you you stop shocking it to reward it for doing the behavior you wanted.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I use no all the time. lol It interrupts them and they redirect to me. Usually it's 'nuh uh' or 'hey' and not 'no' but they all have the same type of meaning- stop what you're doing and look at me. Then I try to give another command and praise them for doing what I like. 

We use physical punishment very rarely (we being the training group). It is only in cases where it is dangerous behavior or a behavior that needs to stop in a very short amount of time.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I have no problem with using the word "no" if the dog knows what it means. Usually though, dogs have zero idea what you're talking about and they hear the word so often in a neutral way (while you talk to others) that it loses any meaning it once had. Much easier to teach something specific like "leave it" or "off" for whatever situation you need. It can work as an interrupter, but I find less common sounds like "uh-uh" work better for that.

When most people use "no" and the dog responds, they're just responding to tone of voice, and that's fine to some extent, bu it can be too easy to control soft dogs by just sounding angry or disappointed all the time. The dog still doesn't learn what you would rather have it do. For dogs who don't care about your tone of voice, it won't get you very far to sound disappointed in them.


----------



## Hector4 (Sep 16, 2013)

I use no all the time and my dogs know what it means and it means so many different things depending on the situation.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

If you're going to tell your dog "no," follow the "no" with information that tells the dog what he should be doing. So, if dog is humping try "No, sit." If dog is diving into the trash can, it's "No, leave it." If dog heads in the opposite direction when you want him to come in from the back yard, it's "No, come." Just saying no leaves dogs hanging. It tells them you don't like what they're doing, but it doesn't tell them what to do instead. Tell them what they should be doing, and then praise, praise, praise when they do it. And if you have treats handy, shower the dog with them. It's always better to give a dog a chance to do something right that they can be praised for than to just leave it at the negative.


----------



## Kayla_Nicole (Dec 19, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> I prefer to use an interrupter word over 'no' because it tends to come out... less harsh, I guess? Then I redirect to another behaviour.
> 
> For example, Luna was trying to take a throw pillow outside the other day to play with. I said "Ah ah!" which distracted her enough to look at me, then I took the pillow and gave her a proper toy.
> 
> A lot of the time people forget that dogs (especially young puppies) don't actually KNOW what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't from the get-go, you have to teach them.


This is exactly what we do. We use "ah" or "ah ah" and they know it means to pause and then I can redirect. I almost never use the word no, because like the others mentioned, it doesn't really have a meaning.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I dislike no for a wide variety of reasons, it encourages lack of thought in training, encourages angry human behavior and is basically meaningless to a dog. If I want to interrupt Kabota, I have him trained to respond to "look at me". That's a nice, specific command, "look at my face now", as opposed to "no", which could mean anything. Imagine a dog standing on the couch in the living room at noon on a hot, bright day, chewing on a shoe. When you say "no", what are you referring to? Chewing? Chewing that thing? Standing? Standing on the couch? Standing and chewing? Standing on the couch in this particular lighting condition? Dogs are that specific.

I guess if you only use "no" for one specific thing, like "stop chewing that", but now you'll have to come up with 500,000 other negative commands for all the 500,000 other things your dog might do that you don't like. I've saved myself some trouble by creating one positive command that works in a wide variety of situations.


----------



## Hector4 (Sep 16, 2013)

No means that's not what I want, try something else.
No means don't do that, try something else.
No means that's not right, try again.
No means I don't like that.
No means that's not right.
No means stop what you're doing.
No means get away from that.
No means you can't have that.
No means you're not suppose to move so get back in position.

I don't know how no doesn't have any meaning. I use no as a verbal correction on a walk and don't even need to give any leash corrections and if I have keep repeating no then I'm going to do a lot of turns and tell the dog to heel.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hector4 said:


> No means that's not what I want, try something else.
> No means don't do that, try something else.
> No means that's not right, try again.
> No means I don't like that.
> ...


How do you teach the dog all those meanings of one word? 

"No" has no intrinsic meaning to a dog. They have to be taught what it means.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think a lot of that is tone of voice. In my experience especially with softer more biddable dogs tone of voice can effectively cut off a behavior. Mia especially reads me very well. I could say 'banana' though instead of 'no'. She's just picking up on body language and tone of voice.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I use "no" mostly as an interrupter. It tells the dog "Stop. You just did something wrong. Watch the human." Then I follow up with a command for an alternate behavior and a reward for obedience.

I do rarely use "no" as part of positive punishment, but that's mainly to intimidate the dog because it did something that is potentially dangerous, like when Louie recently blew off my "leave it" completely. He grabbed a tomato, and then rebelled by swallowing and taking off and evading me, acting like the whole thing was a joke. He got a very harsh act from me and lots of angry "NO" words. Had the object been poisonous, he could have killed himself that day.

But Louie is a hard dog. Most biddable pets will only need that maybe once at most in their lives.


----------



## Hector4 (Sep 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> How do you teach the dog all those meanings of one word?
> 
> "No" has no intrinsic meaning to a dog. They have to be taught what it means.


No here is usually the interrupter just as ah ah ah or hey. They are all interrupters. I don't use no as a predictor for a physical correction. 

It depends what we are doing. If I see him walking towards the trash can, I say no - he backs off or turns around. If he doesn't then I will body block him from the trash and send him to lay down. (because he knows he's not suppose to be digging in garbage).
He is pulling on the leash, I say no - he slows down or looks at me (because I have taught him llw and he knows pulling is not acceptable)
He is trying to follow us out an open gate, I say no - he will stop. (this is because he knows he's not allowed to do that and I will use the command stay if needed and I'll just close the gate).
If I'm teaching a trick, I say no if he's not getting it quite right after the intro of the cue to communicate that's not right - do something else. 
If he wants to start something with the other dog, I say NO AND go lay down.
If he's chewing something he's not suppose to, I say no and he will stop and drop it and I will go over there and remove the item.

and so on...and I don't have to correct the dog physically either and my two dogs are pretty soft. No just basically means stop what you are doing - that's it.

It's not that complicated.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> It's not that complicated


It sort of is, LOL. Explain it like you're explaining to someone who is new at training, how do you teach your dog what "no" means? Is it only the tone of voice as an interrupter? I think that's mostly how "ah ah" works---just a sharp noise that stops them. Or what?


----------



## Hector4 (Sep 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> It sort of is, LOL. Explain it like you're explaining to someone who is new at training, how do you teach your dog what "no" means? Is it only the tone of voice as an interrupter? I think that's mostly how "ah ah" works---just a sharp noise that stops them. Or what?


I'm going to explain just as I explained it on how I use it, whether a person understands it or not is up to them and I'm not here to teach someone how to teach a dog what the meaning of no means. NO is usually followed by a command, but not always because no just simply means stop what you are doing. 

Like just a while ago, I told my dog to go to his crate because he was begging and he headed for his bed and I said no, crate - that's it. Honestly, I don't know how I trained him to know the word "no". I don't know how they all know the word no, too bad they can't speak for themselves.


----------



## littlesoprano (Sep 21, 2013)

I use no and time outs as far as "punishment" goes. When Cosmo gets ready to go bark at the cat for the umpteenth time today, I'll tell him NO, and I like to think he knows what it means. If he starts to do a behavior and I tell him no, he stops immediately. Time outs are for both dogs, when they get too rowdy, or they don't quiet when they get told quiet, they go into the bathroom for a few minutes or until they calm down (thats more for Koko who will whine and bark in the bathroom). When they calm down, they are let out and life moves on. Other then no and time outs, that's all the punishment they get.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I use no all the time. lol It interrupts them and they redirect to me. Usually it's 'nuh uh' or 'hey' and not 'no' but they all have the same type of meaning- stop what you're doing and look at me. Then I try to give another command and praise them for doing what I like.


Me too. "No" is an interrupter. My dogs know that it means "stop whatever you're doing and wait for a command."


----------



## littlesoprano (Sep 21, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Me too. "No" is an interrupter. My dogs know that it means "stop whatever you're doing and wait for a command."


Pretty much, and if they stop what they are doing when I say no, I will treat too.


----------



## doglover24 (Jul 17, 2014)

(I thought i already comment but, guess not lol)

I use no... a lot. I would say no and then give a command. Like for example when Logan jumped on the couch and i said "no, off" and then praised the heck out of him when he jumped off. Thats usually what i do when i say no. Id never tell a dog no and then leave them hanging. 

But i think one has to know when to say no, and when to say something else. Like when a dog barks, i dont say no i just redirect them to something else and then praise them for that. Dont use no for every thing the dog does. If its acceptable (but undesirable) behaviour, like chewing or barking, then i would redirect. If its unacceptable behaviour like jumping or biting, then i say no before i redirect. 

The word no has everything to do with timing. Because if you time it right, your dog will know what it means. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

To me, it sounds like many (most?) people are using "no" as an interrupter. It temporarily stops the dog's actions and turns their attention to the speaker, probably more due to tone of voice than "no" having any meaning for the dog. I tend to use "hey" because it comes more naturally to me or use the dog's name. It seems to serve the same function. 

One thing I'm not clear on, why use "no" and then give a cue? Why say, "No, sit" instead of "Fido, sit"? Is it because dogs can tune out their names since they tend to be used so much?


----------



## Hector4 (Sep 16, 2013)

cookieface said:


> To me, it sounds like many (most?) people are using "no" as an interrupter. It temporarily stops the dog's actions and turns their attention to the speaker, probably more due to tone of voice than "no" having any meaning for the dog. I tend to use "hey" because it comes more naturally to me or use the dog's name. It seems to serve the same function.
> 
> One thing I'm not clear on, why use "no" and then give a cue? Why say, "No, sit" instead of "Fido, sit"? Is it because dogs can tune out their names since they tend to be used so much?


My dog excels at responding to his name. I use no because it is an application of social pressure. NO = pressure on, dog stops = pressure off.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

cookieface said:


> For me and my dogs, I can't easily imagine a scenario in which I'd use negative reinforcement. The only exception would be to follow Dunbar's repetitive reinstruction as negative reinforcement (RRNR). Here's a brief summary from Reactive Champion,
> 
> 
> I do have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I understand how it can work and like does not rely on aversive methods (for most dogs) for reliability. On the other, it's a little too close to using intimidation or bullying strategies. I've used it, but try to minimize the need to use it.


I really think it depends on the dog. One of my dogs does much better when told once, and then wait time if he doesn't follow through, because he genuinely knows the command, is thinking about the command, and is just being a schnauzer about whether he's going to follow through on the command. The other dog sometimes needs to be told things more than once, or with greater proximity, because she's extremely distractable and isn't terribly bright.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Keechak said:


> *Negative Reinforcement* I don't think I have ever used tho I know people who do. Negative Reinforcement is removing something the dog doesn't like to reward it for performing the correct behavior. An example would be having a dog wear a shock collar and continuously shocking the dog while saying "come" and when the dog finally comes to you you stop shocking it to reward it for doing the behavior you wanted.


I think arguably something like letting a dog out of a kennel or off its mat after it's properly quiet and settled is negative reinforcement.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Whether you're saying no or hey or whatever the word and probably tone of voice is what is distracting. I would say people use no for the same reason you use hey. It probably comes out fairly easily and can interrupt a bad or dangerous behavior. Then after the dog is looking at you, you can give them a better option for what to do and then praise them.

I do think a lot of dogs get confused. I think some dogs though can know what 'no' or 'you'd better stop that' (lol this is me and Mia). Mia seems to have a pretty good grasp of body language, tone of voice, and even language- as in she puts 2 and 2 together really exceptionally.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

For me, the biggest reason to advocate not using the word 'no' for someone new to training or dog ownership in general is that it means something to the PERSON but not the DOG, and often the dog seems to be expected to know the meaning too.

I've heard lots of times "Ugh, I told you* no *10 times! Why do you keep doing that!" or something similar.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I use no all the time. lol It interrupts them and they redirect to me. Usually it's 'nuh uh' or 'hey' and not 'no' but they all have the same type of meaning- stop what you're doing and look at me. Then I try to give another command and praise them for doing what I like.


This is where I stand on it. I only use it when I catch them in the act of something they shouldn't be doing, and they know what it means. I don't see how it's cruel, or "damaging" in anyway.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I do think a lot of dogs get confused. I think some dogs though can know what 'no' or 'you'd better stop that' (lol this is me and Mia). Mia seems to have a pretty good grasp of body language, tone of voice, and even language- as in she puts 2 and 2 together really exceptionally.


Or you can have a dog like Watson, who is the opposite of dogs like Mia. He really doesn't have an innate grasp of language or tone of voice, outside of what he's been taught. I've watched people (like my parents) say "no" 10 times and he keeps doing what he's doing. Then I say "leave it" or "off" once and he immediately does what I want. He knows those cues because I taught them specifically, but he has no innate grasp of "no" or that an angry or frustrated tone of voice means he's supposed to do something. If you take the time to teach him something clearly, he understands well. If I need an interrupter I use "uh uh" or some other sharp noise, because "no" is too commonly used in conversation and he tunes it out.

I have nothing against "no" if it works for you, but some people (new dog owners especially) seem to expect dogs to just understand what it means and then they get frustrated.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

cookieface said:


> To me, it sounds like many (most?) people are using "no" as an interrupter. It temporarily stops the dog's actions and turns their attention to the speaker, probably more due to tone of voice than "no" having any meaning for the dog. I tend to use "hey" because it comes more naturally to me or use the dog's name. It seems to serve the same function.
> 
> One thing I'm not clear on, why use "no" and then give a cue? Why say, "No, sit" instead of "Fido, sit"? Is it because dogs can tune out their names since they tend to be used so much?


Yea I absolutely use verbal interruptors all the time. I use EH EH instead of names because it is a very sharp, attention getting sound and the context of interrupting something I don't want them doing is pretty much the only time I ever use or say those exact words/noises in that exact tone of voice.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> For me, the biggest reason to advocate not using the word 'no' for someone new to training or dog ownership in general is that it means something to the PERSON but not the DOG, and often the dog seems to be expected to know the meaning too.
> 
> I've heard lots of times "Ugh, I told you* no *10 times! Why do you keep doing that!" or something similar.





elrohwen said:


> Or you can have a dog like Watson, who is the opposite of dogs like Mia. He really doesn't have an innate grasp of language or tone of voice, outside of what he's been taught. I've watched people (like my parents) say "no" 10 times and he keeps doing what he's doing. Then I say "leave it" or "off" once and he immediately does what I want. He knows those cues because I taught them specifically, but he has no innate grasp of "no" or that an angry or frustrated tone of voice means he's supposed to do something. If you take the time to teach him something clearly, he understands well. If I need an interrupter I use "uh uh" or some other sharp noise, because "no" is too commonly used in conversation and he tunes it out.
> 
> I have nothing against "no" if it works for you, but some people (new dog owners especially) seem to expect dogs to just understand what it means and then they get frustrated.


I guess, it just seems to me that many people (not necessarily anyone here) think dogs intuitively understand the many meanings of "no" and ascribe magical power to that particular word. Then, as mentioned, they get upset that "no" doesn't stop a list of undesired behaviors.

My husband seems to think Katie understands "no" in multiple contexts. I think she just responds to voices and tones.



sassafras said:


> Yea I absolutely use verbal interruptors all the time. I use EH EH instead of names because it is a very sharp, attention getting sound and the context of interrupting something I don't want them doing is pretty much the only time I ever use or say those exact words/noises in that exact tone of voice.


I'm a fairly quiet person, so anything louder than a few decibels over a whisper gets attention (not just from my dogs). "Kate," to me, can be sharp-sounding (more so than "hey" or "no"), and she's generally a good dog and doesn't get interrupted very often, so that may be why it works for us. Tyson may be completely different.


----------



## aegis (Jul 15, 2014)

I'd like to say thank you to everyone. The concept of verbal interupters is completely new to me, and I've been confused about how or if to use the word "no". The idea of using it just as a marker, and following up with a command, then treats and praise, is a fantastic solution and one that I will advocate and tell all my friends about from now on. 

I have some questions, and I'm sorry if I'm being a nuisance and asking too many.

Is it a bad idea to use a dog's name as a "stop it" marker? For example, saying "Gypsy" in negative tone when she is found chewing on the couch, followed by a sit. Most people seem to want dogs to have a positive meaning attached to their name, specifically "come here", so associating the name with everything good and PR would just seem to make more sense.

Several posters commented that it's better to redirect undesireable behavior, and only use a "no" marker for potentially dangerous behaviors. Is this more for cases of a sharp "no", or if you're at risk of getting angry? Is it okay to use a gentle "nope, come here" or "no, sit" for most behaviors in general?

What about in a shelter situation? I'm planning to help at the county shelter in Arlington once I get settled in here, and I know they have to manage over four hundred dogs on most days. Is there any way to reinforce a "stop what you're doing marker", or for that matter, specific commands here? Can dogs learn the right way to behave while being trained with a wide variety of methods and commands (not to mention while being under the added stress, anxiety, boredom, and depression that is an inherent part of being in a kennel)? Does a large shelter scenario require an entirely different approach, or is it simply imperative to move dogs into foster homes if they are to have any hope of learning good behavior and being socialized? 

Again, I'm very sorry if I'm bugging anyone, I'm just so very curious, and I dream of empty shelters. How can this training method be applied when a dog becomes fixated? Especially on a walk, when your dog may start barking and pulling at another dog. I don't have a lot of experience with this, so, would the dog react well if you provide a treat, say "nope, come here" or "heel", and go the other way? When walking my folk's Chihuaua, their little dog seems to have a Napolean complex. She tries to challenge every single dog every single time. I tried every bit of PR I know, I tried keeping a large distance, and a couple times I used a high-value treat to prevent her from fixating, when I noticed she was about to, but once fixated, the only thing I could do was pick her up. Even dropping a piece of chicken in front of her didn't distract her from lunging and barking at a possibly DA dog behind a fence.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

In terms of their name, we learned in class that their name means "Pay attention to me". So if they were doing something you didn't like, you could say their name to get their attention, and then redirect them to a more appropriate behaviour. I would try to not use it in a negative tone. (So, "Gypsy! Come" or "Gypsy! Sit!", etc) I guess in that way it's similar to an interrupter word.

Lots of people use a gentle 'nope' or 'oops' or something like that to indicate to the dog that that wasn't what they were looking for. So for example, if you asked for a 'down' and the dog did a sit instead.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

You might want to watch Kikopup's positive interrupter video. It addresses some of your questions.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I try to never, ever use a dog's name as anything other than a positive, happy, "Good things are going to happen soon!" sort of thing. I really don't want my dog to ever associate his name with bad things happening.

Not all dogs are particularly good at reading human voice tones or body language/facial expressions. Some dogs are good at it, but any negatives scare them to the point of shutting down. (Kabota does this.) For dogs like these, "no" isn't helpful unless it's taught as "freeze". Since I'm giving advice to lots of people with lots of different dogs, why bother suggesting something that might only work half the time or less? "Look at me" works 100% of the time. I also don't know anyone's particular level of self control or willingness to scare/hurt their dog, so I always suggest something that is least likely to result in scaring/hurting. "No" can get out of hand pretty easily, "look at me" has far less potential for trouble.


----------



## MRVivekB (Jun 21, 2014)

ireth0 said:


> In terms of their name, we learned in class that their name means "Pay attention to me". So if they were doing something you didn't like, you could say their name to get their attention, and then redirect them to a more appropriate behaviour. I would try to not use it in a negative tone. (So, "Gypsy! Come" or "Gypsy! Sit!", etc) I guess in that way it's similar to an interrupter word.


Ever since I started this thread, i've been attempting to do this. More because its a good trainer for *ME*, it reminds me to follow up with a command. IE, other dog walks by, he wants to go crazy, I say "Raja! Sit! Good dog, here's a treat". (Which lasts for all of 4 seconds post-treat then he goes again, at which point I repeat but with a different command, ie Raja! Down! Good dog, here's a treat".

AKA, as someone said above, i'm really trying hard to avoid "no" unless its a big deal thing that needs to be stopped ASAP. Its only been 2 days, and I've been carrying around cut up steak so high value (very little to no dinner after evening walks to offset calorie). Hoping to wean down to low-value treats soon but increase high verbal praise, then down to zero treats with only verbal praise.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

cookieface said:


> I'm a fairly quiet person, so anything louder than a few decibels over a whisper gets attention (not just from my dogs). "Kate," to me, can be sharp-sounding (more so than "hey" or "no"), and she's generally a good dog and doesn't get interrupted very often, so that may be why it works for us. Tyson may be completely different.


Ha, I jibber jabber to mine constantly. So I have to use SRS WORDS. 

And in all seriousness because I often do activities with more than one dog at a time it's very helpful for me to have one thing I use for everybody.

It also avoids those awkward situations where my mouth has cycled through everyone's names before my eyes tell my brain who I'm actually talking to. Pi- Mais- AAAARGGHH I MEAN SQUASH


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I think that once you've interrupted a dog doing the same thing a few times, the dog will remember what "no" means in that context. Here are a few examples:

If Casper jumps up and puts his paws on the table, if I say "no" he'll go back to four on the floor. (Ideally I'd say "off," and usually do, but sometimes I'll react too quickly with my "no," heh.)

If Casper is poking at the cat with his nose and the cat is getting annoyed, either "leave it" or "no" will get him to leave the cat alone.

With Crystal, I tend to use "no" more as a "you did the wrong thing; try again" word. If I tell her to roll over and she plays dead instead, I can say "no" and then she'll roll over without me having to give the command again (she's a smart dog! She also knows that "again" means "repeat previous action").

I find I tend to use "HEY!" as an interrupter in more serious situations -- like on the rare occasions the dogs get into a scrap over a toy. I try to use their names only for positive stuff, although I don't always succeed in that.


----------



## jade5280 (Feb 20, 2013)

I rarely use "no". I say "off" and "leave it". He has no concept of what "no" means. Sometimes I unintentionally say his name in a stern manner if his head is in the trash or something....I wonder how he perceives it? I say "Ryker" in a stern or somewhat accusatory voice, when I want him to stop something and to come to me. If I'm in the other room and I hear him foraging through the trash I say "Ryyyykeerr" and he will stop. I mean to say leave it, but saying his name comes more naturally. I'm assuming that he only knows what I mean by the tone of my voice.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

To the answer the question, a punishment is acceptable if it proves to modify the behavior in the future. Rarely is it necessary to prove it, so, I use an attention-getter and cue a behavior I prefer. It's a matter of habit and preference, so I rarely seek to punish or use no in this home, my dog, or with any dog really.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

I don't use no, the first year is all about focusing to go in the right direction for the time spent in the moment when something should be different... They know my sentences ,, WTH ???,, Are you kidding me????,,,, Give me a Break "" hand covers the eyes in dismay" lol hands on the hips with mouth wide open, turn around and walk away lol lol ... stop stare throws hands up in the air turns and walks away.. Mamma's a visual drama queen,, they know me so well...


----------



## froeschli (Aug 28, 2014)

I rarely use "no" with my dog, but at ten years old, we kind of have figured out what is acceptable and what isn't. though the edibility of road kill is still a bone of contention, sometimes.

When we first had him though, he took to biting/tugging with my arms. Eventually, he had me bruised up so badly that people started thinking "domestic abuse", so something had to be done. crying out only had him bite harder and removing myself was impossible on my own (apparently he had been trained to grab arms).
we started to use the word "muzzle" in conjunction with putting a muzzle on him until he calmed down. it took only a few instances, until the word alone made him let go. he finally quit doing it altogether as we got our "relationship" sorted out.

I was pretty green back then, but except for avoiding being "bit" altogether, i don't see how else i would tackle similar behaviour if i encountered it again.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

I use "nuh-uh" as a warning, and it is probably more the tone than the words themselves. It also serves a non-emergency interrupter; like if Snowball's heading into the garden and its muddy ("Nuh-uh, come/out"), or if he's found something tasty on the ground to snack on ("Nuh-uh, leave it").

For emergencies, like an impending dog fight, I also shout "HEY!" and it's usually enough to interrupt the impending apocalypse.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I use no all the time. lol It interrupts them and they redirect to me. Usually it's 'nuh uh' or 'hey' and not 'no' but they all have the same type of meaning- stop what you're doing and look at me. Then I try to give another command and praise them for doing what I like.
> 
> We use physical punishment very rarely (we being the training group). It is only in cases where it is dangerous behavior or a behavior that needs to stop in a very short amount of time.


Pretty much exactly how I deal with things, including the issue of dangerous behavior. 
With NO....I again agree with Laurelin..... 



Laurelin said:


> I think a lot of that is tone of voice. In my experience especially with softer more biddable dogs tone of voice can effectively cut off a behavior. Mia especially reads me very well. I could say 'banana' though instead of 'no'. She's just picking up on body language and tone of voice.


though I also use No as a No reward marker, and also kind of like a positive interrupter. Kikopup's video on positive interrupters is good, except when she goes off about how awful it is to say NO to a dog.....IMO, it has the meaning you attach to it.....if you have a habit of saying No (a completely human impulse!), teach your dog to redirect attention towards you then how evil can it be, especially if you've used a ton of treats to cause that response....if there aren't collar grabs, smacks or whatever associated with the word No....it isn't exactly a crime. 



Willowy said:


> How do you teach the dog all those meanings of one word?
> 
> "No" has no intrinsic meaning to a dog. They have to be taught what it means.


All of those things boil down to "positive interrupter" or "no reward marker" (which if you really strip those two things down....they both mean "no treat, try something else and you may be rewarded")


----------

