From: Valaria_Vorlop@mindlink.bc.ca (Valaria Vorlop)
Subject: Re: Using names with commands/scolding (Was Re: Opal's...)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:11:20 GMT

>In article <1h86t8INNplm@overload.lbl.gov> eufnlasn@ux1.lbl.gov (elizabeth
>finlayson) writes:
>>In article <18809@mindlink.bc.ca> Valaria_Vorlop@mindlink.bc.ca (Valaria
>Vorlop) writes:
>>> rather than just NO or BAD DOG, it's ALWAYS "Name, NO!"
>>
>>Somewhere I got the idea that you are not supposed to use the dog's
>>name when you say NO.  Is there a difference between Name, NO! and
>>NO, Name!.  Does anyone know the reason for not using the dog's name
>>when you say NO?
>
>I have read and been told that you should not say the dog's name when
>it has been bad because it should associate its name with good things
>(whether it is a good dog or not...).  I find it very hard to stick
>to this rule, especially with more than one dog.

Okay, I've heard the same thing about names, but frankly I just don't buy
it! Dogs are smarter than that. Or maybe it's not a question of being smart
but just that they respond so much more to tone of voice and body language
than to the actual sound of the word. I've had lots of success with using
three different versions of the same name for each dog. When the dog is
doing something wrong I say the name in a Growly Voice, just like you might
say NO or BAD DOG and I usually omit the NO entirely 'cos I find the other
dogs often respond to a NO even if it is preceded by a different dog's
name. I use NO when everybody is bad at the same time :*) For commands I
use the name in a firm, calm Command Voice OR in a happy voice, depends
what we are doing. For praise I use your basic happy Praise Voice. I'm also
sure my body language is quite different with each form of the name. So,
even though I have used Dante's name as chastisement, he still responds
with happiness when I use his name as praise. The thing that really matters
is that you are consistent.

If I say 'SIT!' or even 'Name, SIT!' I will still often get more than one
dog who sits, UNLESS they are paying attention and see who I am looking at.
If I get their attention first, I can have one dog on a STAY while I give
the other dog commands. I've thought I might like to try training my dogs
to respond ONLY when a command is preceded by the individual name, except
for STAY. This is tough 'cos I didn't start this from the beginning with
Dante and I've never been totally consistent and sometimes forget to
precede a command with his name, but when I get my next puppy I would start
from day one. Although I'm not entirely sure this would be as practical as
it sounds, I'm still thinking about it...has anybody else done this? Do you
find it too tedious to say, "Bob SIT, Rover SIT, Fifi SIT!" when you want
all the dogs to do the same thing at the same time? What about a name that
ALL the dogs would respond to besides their individual names, like "Dogs
SIT!"? Or is this getting too complicated? Maybe it's best just to stick
with attention. I don't know if *I* can be THAT consistent :)

The only other thing I can think of is to teach each dog in a different
language, but I KNOW this would be too confusing...for ME! Besides, my
language of choice would be German and the commands are often too similar to
English.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *   ********************************************
Valaria_Vorlop@mindlink.bc.ca   *For YEARS I wondered what ceiling wax was.*
or:      a4080@mindlink.bc.ca   ********************************************
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                        *******