Training methods that stress out your dog

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10716677/The-dog-training-methods-which-leave-your-pet-stressed.html

Article by the telegraph.. Personally, I feel that there needs to be a balance, not using any of the aversive methods stated here of course, but the usual 'no's" and retracting attention etc. I don't believe that you can train you dog by overindulging them and never giving any boundaries.

What are your views?

I agree, they need to know when no means no for dangerous or very naugty moments. I try not to over use it with Daisy so I don't invalidate it, usually a gentle oi does the trick!

I think its a bit of balance. On the whole training positively is for the best but there are situations where they have to be told No or corrected. However this doesn't need to be done in a stressful way to the dog.

Nico doesn't even respond to no, he responds well to oi, or hey, it more about tone I think! I try hard to be positive with him but let him know quickly by taking attention away when he's acting up. It is difficult sometimes

We have always used positive training for Bane with all of his commands, but without teaching him "no" and how to have boundaries he would be an absolute nightmare! He too responds better to the tone of our voice, rather than the word "no"

I tend to use 95% positive training with 5% negative training. By negative I mean a 'No' said in a stern tone then i look disapprovingly and ignore him for a good 10 mins then we go back to cuddles and messing about as you have to with a staffy.   

It seems to work with Radley, he is by no means a badly behaved pup and the last time I said No to him was when he decided to pee up a laundry bag and we've had no such re-occurrence since.

Personally, I think with Staffy's in particular it's all about the tone of voice and they absolutely hate being ignored as they love nothing more than pleasing their owner and receiving praise when they do so - which is why positive training works soo well with them.

But I still feel you need that boundary setter word that lets them know they've done something wrong and always at the point of the bad behaviour never after.

Roger Mugford's quote seems a bit strange:

There is a feeling that dogs have to be our friends and always trust us. But if a dog is out chasing sheep, or jumping up at old ladies, or chasing joggers, or trying kill next door’s cat, then he is not my friend and I have got to stop him.

I dont consider chasing sheep or cats to be a training issue. The key to training the dog, in my opinion, is training him (in my case) to do something in which he can succeed. I will not set him up to fail, not if it is known in advance that that will be the outcome. His desire to chase seems to be wired into the remotest, deepest part of his soul and, even if i were to win some concessions around sheep, I dont believe it would be wise ever to trust him.  Same goes for cats. Neither of these are training issues. These are moments when I take complete control and he has to lump it. We will have no accidents in these areas.

Training to sit, stay, wait, roll over, these are all fine and he's top of the class in these. But, amateur dog psychologist that I am, the mental resources he needs to manage these more superficial requests sit at a much more shallow level in his psyche.

Each of us knows our dogs and, while others may have achieved more saintly behaviour around sheep, I know Douglas will always walk with the Devil in this respect. Better the Devil you know....

All great points I use "no" as little as possible also, and generally "ahem" if I've asked her to do something and she's ignoring me will remind her and she'll carry out the task; albeit a little too late. I worked alongside a trainer last year that "didn't believe" in the word "no", we were spending time with a shelter staffy with no manners who was jumping on top of tables, knocking people over, stealing food, possessive with toys and horrendous on the lead. I sat and watched her with him for 30 minutes and not once did he work with her; she let him do all of these things because he was "just being a dog" I really tried but could not understand at all where her training methods were stemming from.

"yeahbut" I can definitely see what you mean, although many of my lecturers have in fact trained the actual chase out of a dog by giving them an alternative action, not the predatory instinct of course, but I have seen it done by much more advanced trainers than myself. I know of Roger through another trainer and have spoken to him once or twice regarding shelter dogs, I have found him to be very knowledgeable and he has been working with dogs for many, many years. Though don't agree with some of his ventures.

I'm sure Roger Mugford was quoted out of context. I've also heard his name before and am sure he's no fool.

On the substantive question (positive or aversive), positive gets my vote every time. It's easy with a SBT (or it is in my experience) as Doug loves his treats so much. He's a dream to train, very responsive. Also, he had a hard time for the first 18 months of his life where no one wanted him, so when I got him from the rescue, I resolved to ensure that he gets only positive experiences for the rest of it. The positive approach also suits my personal weltanschaung, as we (may) say in Scotland. Doesnt mean that I'm a pushover though, and we have several little routines here where he was to wait and get permission for whatever he wants to do.

Other dogs may be less food oriented. My mother rescued a bichon frise which had been kept in a cage for 4 years in Wales - by a breeder. The dog's coming out of her shell somewhat now, but she wont take a treat if it's offered. Waft it under her nose and she'll shrink and run away. No doubt bad things happened to her in the past when treats were offered and so she will be a tough nut to incentivise and train. Even with a dog like her though, positive is still best. She needs reassurance, confidence-building, never to be treated harshly.