# Training non-verbally



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Has anyone trained (from early on in a pup's life) with only hand commands and body gestures, without verbal commands?
If so, what did you observe about the dog's responses? 
Did you do it in conjunction with clicker training, or just strictly visual cues/feedback?
Did the dog look to you more?
Did you have an attention-getting cue (sound or gesture)?
How did you give praise? Body contact such as scratching, or gesture? 
Just curious.
I've observed dogs working cattle together are usually quiet yet aware of each other.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Has anyone trained (from early on in a pup's life) with only hand commands and body gestures, without verbal commands?
> If so, what did you observe about the dog's responses?
> Did you do it in conjunction with clicker training, or just strictly visual cues/feedback?
> Did the dog look to you more?
> ...


unless someone was a mute, and could not speak, I doubt many people, if any train that way, could be wrong though, it happens quite often.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Dogs are by nature more aware of physical cues than verbal cues anyway. It is very easy to teach a dog behaviors with physical cues, the hard part is fading the physical cues and making them reliable only to verbal commands


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re : "Dogs are by nature more aware of physical cues than verbal cues anyway. It is very easy to teach a dog behaviors with physical cues, the hard part is fading the physical cues and making them reliable only to verbal commands"

can't be stressed enuff imo !

what mike just wrote has got to be one of the most fundamental elements of training that a lot of people still seem to ignore or fail to recognize.
i NEVER say anything to any dog i am starting out with no matter what level of training the dog has, to include its name, if it has one.

i would go even farther and say most training is non verbal whether we admit it or not, which makes your decision as to when to use verbals even more important


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Has anyone trained (from early on in a pup's life) with only hand commands and body gestures, without verbal commands?
> If so, what did you observe about the dog's responses?
> Did you do it in conjunction with clicker training, or just strictly visual cues/feedback?
> Did the dog look to you more?
> ...


Yes. Your last sentence and what Mike said pretty well covers how or why it comes together pretty easily. I trained it before much was known about clicker training. I utilized sound for the queue if attention was needed but most of the work was in a specific context so the dog naturally looked for the queues to work off. Praise was through physical contact, but also was done by clapping of my hands in slightly over exaggerated gestures.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Joby Becker said:


> unless someone was a mute, and could not speak, I doubt many people, if any train that way, could be wrong though, it happens quite often.


Joby, any ideas why? (applies to both parts of the comment).

Because of the human need to verbalize?


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Nicole Stark said:


> Yes. Your last sentence and what Mike said pretty well covers how or why it comes together pretty easily. I trained it before much was known about clicker training. I utilized sound for the queue if attention was needed but most of the work was in a specific context so the dog naturally looked for the queues to work off. Praise was through physical contact, but also was done by clapping of my hands in slightly over exaggerated gestures.


Thanks for that information. Did you find the results any more or less satisfying or successful than the conventional (verbal) way of training?

I'm wondering what Bob Scott might add, as he has made reference to American Sign Language in the past.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Thanks for that information. Did you find the results any more or less satisfying or successful than the conventional (verbal) way of training?


I think that any time you find a way to communicate with your dog in an unconventional but deliberate way, it's a success. As mentioned here and by others in the past, non verbal queues are used all the time in training - whether or not deliberate. I simply chose to take it a step further as there have been/will be times when communicating with my dog in a non verbal manner is necessary.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Joby, any ideas why? (applies to both parts of the comment).
> 
> Because of the human need to verbalize?


I can think of a few reasons.

one is the reason that Mike stated, it is usually much harder to pair a verbal cue later on with a previously trained physical cue..this is why most people if training both, use the verbal first.

and a bigger reason why I doubt many people would ever do this is the fact that a dog has great ears, but can only respond to a visual cue if he is looking at the handler, he cannot respond to what he doesnt see.

how would you give a physical cue to a dog that is not looking at you?

the second part, meaning why am I wrong sometimes? I am human like everyone else.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

mike suttle said:


> Dogs are by nature more aware of physical cues than verbal cues anyway. It is very easy to teach a dog behaviors with physical cues, the hard part is fading the physical cues and making them reliable only to verbal commands


So true - just think of our body language - the dogs cotton on to it before the verbal commands come.

It's actually a shame that we cannot read their body language as quickly they can ours.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

There is a lady in my area who runs deaf Shelties in agility. Since the dog is completely deaf, the training is all physical cues. It's really interesting watching them run since your first reaction is "something is different", but it takes a minute to realize the handler isn't saying anything.

I haven't asked her about the details of how she trained the dogs, other than it was done with only physical cues (obviously) and mainly reward (based on what I'm told). But the dogs definitely pay attention to her and watch for the cues, both in and out of the ring. They also seem to have a strong bond with her and are eager to work with her, IMO 2 things that would be VERY important in this type of training.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I once saw a video of a dude that had trained his deaf doberman this way, if I can dig it up I will post it.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

This is a video of Alva, the deaf Sheltie. There are links to more of her videos on the right side menu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBB4VI0nNK8


----------



## Larry Krohn (Nov 18, 2010)

I have trained several deaf dogs and always enjoyed doing so. As a couple of folks here already stated the dog will always learn the physical cue over the verbal command first. A lot of people are disappointed when they use a lot of hand signals with verbal commands without any problems and then have a dog that does not respond at all to the verbal command only. This is because the dog really only knew the hand signals. In order to phase the verbal in to be reliable you have to give the verbal command just before the hand signal that is already known. it won't take long for the dog to start anticipating the hand signal once he starts learning the verbal. Once the dog starts anticipating the hand signal right after the verbal then you will be able to do away with the hand signal IF that is what is desired


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

Not even just hand signals, any body cues. ie when a person leans over and looks to their left as a cue for the dog to get into heel, or a head nod for a sit.. people don't even realize they do this


----------



## Leah Hein (Mar 19, 2013)

When I was just a kid in the 90s learning how to train my Bouvier, I was yelled at constantly by our trainer because I wasn't talking to my dog. She harped on how important it was to talk to him constantly and she wanted us to fade hand signals as soon as possible. I ignored her because I knew that Gus understood me perfectly well when I gave him signals, and totally ignored most verbal commands. I did use a finger snap or whistle for "look at me". Looking back as an adult, I wouldn't be surprised if he had some form of hearing deficit. 

After horses and other dogs, I find that I'm just not a talker when it comes to training.


----------



## Rick Scott (May 19, 2013)

My dogs understand physical cues. I normally start training by incorporating physical cues with verbal, and then starting using physical and verbal independently. It works. For instance for the 'wait' command, I use a closed fist, and then I will tap my side gently to recall. I will signal attack at times with a simple point.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Rick Scott said:


> My dogs understand physical cues. I normally start training by incorporating physical cues with verbal, and then starting using physical and verbal independently. It works. For instance for the 'wait' command, I use a closed fist, and then I will tap my side gently to recall. I will signal attack at times with a simple point.


Please do upload the photos or video of you training your "attack dogs" this way. I would like to study your technique. It's a serious business, and one does want to do the right thing in the right way.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Everything you do IS NONVERBAL...
The dogs pick up on your body language and how you act and react...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Thanks for that information. Did you find the results any more or less satisfying or successful than the conventional (verbal) way of training?
> 
> I'm wondering what Bob Scott might add, as he has made reference to American Sign Language in the past.



One of my daughters is an interpreter. She trained her first dog with sign. Not the formal version but her variation of it for the dog. She found that spelling out most simple behaviors with saign and the dog knew from the first letter or two and anticipated the command easily so she shortened much of it up.
The dog did not have any hearing issues but she just wanted to do it "just cause". She also talked with the dog but it's attention was much stronger when she used hand signals only. 
With no hearing a dog will be much more focused on the handler simply because it is the only means of communication. It "KNOWS" it has to pay attention to get instructions. Of course it's all in the training if you get any attention in the first place. :wink:


----------

