# Hand signals vs verbal commands



## Larry Krohn (Nov 18, 2010)

I was asked if I teach both, and yes I prefer to use both.

http://youtu.be/FFgGSWZ_lHM


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

All due respect, shouldn't the teaching of the hand signals be separated from the verbal?

I was taught to first teach the verbal (and I agree that ALL body and leash movement has to be eliminated). Then teach the relationship to the hand signal. So that the hand signal can be separated and used in total silence.

When the dog will command on voice alone and/or silent signal alone you've got hand signals down pat.

Watching you're video it seemed to me the dog was reacting more to the hand signals and not the voice. He didn't seem to begin the movement until you initiated the hand movement. It was the movement that queued the dog.

My wife was really bad for this... We fixed it for her by making her work dogs with her hands in her pocket... She became really conscious of how often she was using the Leeds or her hands to telegraph her vocals... She was then able to control and eliminate it.

As for the "quiet" he seemed to blow you off on every occasion. I lost count how many times you told the dog to be quiet and yet it kept going to the point you yourself commented on the behaviour.


----------



## Larry Krohn (Nov 18, 2010)

Mark Herzog said:


> All due respect, shouldn't the teaching of the hand signals be separated from the verbal?
> 
> I was taught to first teach the verbal (and I agree that ALL body and leash movement has to be eliminated). Then teach the relationship to the hand signal. So that the hand signal can be separated and used in total silence.
> 
> ...


Yes you are correct. Definitely should teach hand signals separate and after verbal. But in reality, and the reason I was asked and made the video, most inexperienced handlers do use some body language inadvertently and then are surprised when the dog fails verbal commands only. The barking for my dog I don't mind, unless I'm trying to film of course. If I needed to stop it I would very quickly, but again Luca is not used in any sport, just my family and personal protection dog. I like his enthusiasm when it comes to training. Now yes of course if I ever decided to compete in any dog sport I would clean any little quirks up. Also he was responding more to my hand signals because that's what we were doing, and ill always use hand signals unless like I said I decided to compete in anything. I appreciate your input and I really don't take offense to anything. Usually if I post a video it was due to many many requests from novice dog handlers. Not fancy and sexy but I try to address the question as best I can


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I've always done both. Formal for competition and a lot of informal also. 
My daughter #2 is a interpreter for the hearing impaired. She took it an extra distance with her first dog after she got married. 
JRT x Border terrier. Not exactly as per the formal ASL training she's had but the dog responded to many commands with hand signals. Of course also with verbal commands.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Larry Krohn said:


> I was asked if I teach both, and yes I prefer to use both.
> 
> http://youtu.be/FFgGSWZ_lHM


 Thanks for sharing. I had a similar experience with a pup I had awhile ago. The trainer asked if my pup knew all the commands I said yes and showed her. Then she told me to get close to the wall and face it, and give the pup the same commands. He didn't do any of them, it was all hand signals he was going by.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Ben Thompson said:


> Thanks for sharing. I had a similar experience with a pup I had awhile ago. The trainer asked if my pup knew all the commands I said yes and showed her. Then she told me to get close to the wall and face it, and give the pup the same commands. He didn't do any of them, it was all hand signals he was going by.



One of the many ways to proof verbal commands is just as you mentioned. Turn your back or even go out of sight. 
If the dog fails to do the command then you know it's not solid as of yet.


----------



## Angela Renee (Dec 1, 2012)

Good video Larry.

Mark: How do you even go about teaching verbal cues first? 
I don't do any sort of competing or formal training so the way I teach is through lures. Obviously the body language involved in that transfers to hand signals so its often what the dog responds to over voice commands. 

I have no problem moving away from hand signals. I just tried it out with my dogs here to be sure haha. They did respond to verbal only. I caught myself wanting to move my head but I was aware of it and stopped. I laced my fingers and rested them on my neck to be sure 

I just honestly can't grasp teaching without hand signals.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Angela Renee said:


> Good video Larry.
> 
> Mark: How do you even go about teaching verbal cues first?
> I don't do any sort of competing or formal training so the way I teach is through lures. Obviously the body language involved in that transfers to hand signals so its often what the dog responds to over voice commands.
> ...


We start working the pups at @ 5 weeks old. Sometimes alongside an older dog , sometimes in pairs with another pup, but most often on their own. Initially we use the leed and our hand to "put" the dog into the position we want and state the command as the dog is put into position. Through repetition we decrease the use of leed and physical touch to the point where only the vocal command is required to get the result. Once we have vocal compliance on leed we work for off leed compliance (to insure we aren't subtly communicating the command through the leed) and we finally work on vocal compliance where the dog can't even see the handler, thus eliminating any chance of visual queuing.

Once we have that, we then start working in a set of hand signals we use... They have not been shown to the dog prior to that point (though it's possible the dog may see them at a distance being used with older dogs). Those hand signals are taught by associating them with the vocal commands... Over time they are used at a distance (which is one of their purposes), and over time the vocal is phased out so only the visual can be used, and it will get the same result as the vocal.

It is then tested both close up and at distance (50 to 100 yards) in silence. This allows me (for example) to call a dog to foose position from the other side of a field... Or have the dog plutz where he is from 100 yards away in total silence. It also allows the dog and handler to enter/exit vehicles in silence, enter building in silence... I've even seen it used to silently command a dog to engage a target.

I often incorporate the silent commands into obstacle work off leed... Navigating fallen trees, rubble piles, or obstacle courses. Adds another dimension to the challenge.


----------



## Angela Renee (Dec 1, 2012)

Mark Herzog said:


> We start working the pups at @ 5 weeks old. Sometimes alongside an older dog , sometimes in pairs with another pup, but most often on their own. Initially we use the leed and our hand to "put" the dog into the position we want and state the command as the dog is put into position. Through repetition we decrease the use of leed and physical touch to the point where only the vocal command is required to get the result. Once we have vocal compliance on leed we work for off leed compliance (to insure we aren't subtly communicating the command through the leed) and we finally work on vocal compliance where the dog can't even see the handler, thus eliminating any chance of visual queuing.
> 
> Once we have that, we then start working in a set of hand signals we use... They have not been shown to the dog prior to that point (though it's possible the dog may see them at a distance being used with older dogs). Those hand signals are taught by associating them with the vocal commands... Over time they are used at a distance (which is one of their purposes), and over time the vocal is phased out so only the visual can be used, and it will get the same result as the vocal.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation. 

Seems to me, regardless of what training method or what cue is taught first both can be reliable on their own as long as the handler works on them seperately.

While I dont have any problems with teaching positions that way, I have always preferred to make the dog be active in training sessions so they do more than just learn the position but also learn to use their brain. I like a dog that offers new behaviors in order to figure out what you want from them. Given that I use lures, I teach both verbal and hand signals at the same time and work on them each separately later. The only chance I have to teach verbal first is when I mark a natural behavior. I did this to teach "tricks" like speak and smile (my pup submissively grins lol).

I know you didnt directly say it but are you implying that it is always incorrect to not teach the verbal command first?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Always taught hand signals first, maybe where I am going wrong, lol.

In addition to Bobs points, I test without body language by by sitting down and asking for behaviours.


----------



## Larry Krohn (Nov 18, 2010)

If you want to be really technical about it, no matter what age you start unless you free shape everything, it is very tough to teach new commands without some form of hand signal, luring, or body language. As long as you teach both thouroughly you will be ok


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Angela Renee said:


> I know you didnt directly say it but are you implying that it is always incorrect to not teach the verbal command first?


Not at all... Sorry if that impression was given. First, I'm not saying any method is wrong, I was simply answering your question when you asked me how we teach the vocals and hand signals. There is no such thing as "the right way" any more than "the only way". It is "a way" that has worked for me and for others I know of (first hand). It may or may not be the best way for you... That is for you to decide.

For my purposes the verbal and visual commands need to be separate and the dog needs to be clear on this. If the dog can hear me and I can speak then there is no need for visual command (except during the training process to build the association/understanding). If the visual command is being used it's because there is a need for silence (for me and my work, not necessarily for your application).

I'm sorry if it came across that I thought Larry was wrong in some way... My apologies. I was simply pointing out that to me the dog was being given BOTH verbal and visual commands at the same time which to me could cause confusion for the dog... Something I work hard to avoid. 

My comment about the quiet was a bit of a dig but not intended in a bad way... I also have one dog that sometimes resists when I tell her to be quiet... So I can relate. I lost count how many times Larry commanded the dog to stop barking and the dog appeared to blow him off... *for me* that's a huge no-no. *One direction one correction*... But that's my philosophy. What you accept is what you'll get. Larry's dog so it's up to him to decide what's right for him and what he wants and accepts.

I'm not trying to criticize... Simply trying to present a different viewpoint. O

I do have a curiosity question for those that use both visual and vocal together. If you give your dog two disconnected commands at the same time which will the dog perform (or neither)?

Example... 

- If you vocally command the dog to sit but at the same time hand signal a plutz, will your dog sit, plutz or neither? 
- Which would you want the dog to obey in that situation?
- would you think this could be confusing for the dog or is it clear to the dog and to you which takes precedence?


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Hand signals are cute and a nice novelty for demo dogs etc. But they are not infallible. I did a French Ring 3 trial and one of the trial decoys Mr Wade Morrell figured out that I had taught my dogs simple hand signals and took a pile of metres from my dog on the escapes by getting her to down and then creating distance. It was really creative work by the decoy but I was kicking my ass that I taught her those darned hand signals.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Geoff Empey said:


> Hand signals are cute and a nice novelty for demo dogs etc. But they are not infallible. I did a French Ring 3 trial and one of the trial decoys Mr Wade Morrell figured out that I had taught my dogs simple hand signals and took a pile of metres from my dog on the escapes by getting her to down and then creating distance. It was really creative work by the decoy but I was kicking my ass that I taught her those darned hand signals.


Interesting. Would your dog also take verbal commands from the decoy or just hand signals?

Part of my work is to instil in the dog an understanding that commands are only to be accepted from the handler. Regardless whether verbal or visual. My dogs for example will take commands from my wife but will look to me first for "permission" if I'm present. When it comes to anyone else, if I hand the leed to another trained handler my dogs will accept that... But they will be hesitant and tentative... But the pass off must be clear and physical. If that other handler was to just walk over and try to call the dog to foose or pickup the leed on their own the dog would respond with suspicion and probable aggression depending on exactly what is done.

Just thinking as I'm writing this... Only a limited number of times has anyone besides myself or my wife been allowed to "handle" my personal dogs and on those occasions NEVER was the dog off leed. It's always a pass off of the leed from handler to handler so the dog sees this transfer of control. This way the dog never sees it as okay for anyone other than the owner being allowed to give commands and be obeyed when the dog is not being held on leed. Avoids the type of thing you had happen I think.


----------



## Angela Renee (Dec 1, 2012)

Mark Herzog said:


> Not at all... Sorry if that impression was given. First, I'm not saying any method is wrong, I was simply answering your question when you asked me how we teach the vocals and hand signals. There is no such thing as "the right way" any more than "the only way". It is "a way" that has worked for me and for others I know of (first hand). It may or may not be the best way for you... That is for you to decide.
> 
> For my purposes the verbal and visual commands need to be separate and the dog needs to be clear on this. If the dog can hear me and I can speak then there is no need for visual command (except during the training process to build the association/understanding). If the visual command is being used it's because there is a need for silence (for me and my work, not necessarily for your application).
> 
> ...


No need to apologize! I just wanted a little bit of clarity so I understood where you were coming from.  I agree that verbal and hand should be solidly practiced seperately so they are both clearly understood. I just didnt understand why you, personally, taught verbal first. Honestly, I still don't agree that using both at the same time causes confusion for the dog. I often use them at the same time but can use either one by themselves and still get the same results. Granted, my dogs don't have near as much motivation or discipline as working dogs lol.

As for the question you posed... I had to try it to find out. I only did it with my old lady, not the pup yet, but she listened to the verbal cue and not the hand signal when both were given at the same time. I said sit and gave a down motion. I said down and gave the cue to speak. I was honestly surprised by that one... that her favorite trick so I thought she would go for it.
She didnt seem all that confuse which tells me my voice takes precedence. Again, kind of surprised me given that I use hand signals to teach.
I don't really care one way or the other which one she listens to when given conflicting commands since shes just a pet. As long as she is reliable with both when they aren't conflicting then she can see or hear a command and respond, that's all I ask.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Angela Renee said:


> She didnt seem all that confuse which tells me my voice takes precedence. Again, kind of surprised me given that I use hand signals to teach.
> I don't really care one way or the other which one she listens to when given conflicting commands since shes just a pet. As long as she is reliable with both when they aren't conflicting then she can see or hear a command and respond, that's all I ask.


I like it. For me personally I would prefer the verbal over the visual, but that just personal.

Curiosity question... When you gave the verbal to down and the visual to speak, what was your intent? What I'm asking is which of the two did you WANT the dog to obey?

I ask because I believe in the concept if intent. I believe that a dog that is bonded to the owner communicates on a more intense level than just the verbal and the visual. I was taught that the dog can come to read the handler's intent as well as the vocals.

So I'm curious if you wanted the dog to down or speak (not what you thought might happen, but what you wanted to see happen) ? Do you think the dog understands what we want, not just what we say?


----------



## Angela Renee (Dec 1, 2012)

Mark Herzog said:


> I like it. For me personally I would prefer the verbal over the visual, but that just personal.
> 
> Curiosity question... When you gave the verbal to down and the visual to speak, what was your intent? What I'm asking is which of the two did you WANT the dog to obey?
> 
> ...


What I expected was for her to listen to the physical signal but I wanted her to listen to my voice. So I guess she understood pretty well  I didnt get her until she was over a year old but shes 10 now and we've been through a LOT together. Id say we are pretty well bonded.

I'm not extremely bonded with the pup here though. He is my roommates dog. I might have raised him and done all his training but I don't particularly like him. I'm sure that's horrible to say but a pain in the ass haha. So I will have to try this little experiment with him tomorrow and see what he does.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Mark Herzog said:


> Interesting. Would your dog also take verbal commands from the decoy or just hand signals?


Sorta went with the territory of the sport I do and how I used to train it. To be fair to the dog the decoy cannot say anything to the dog come trial day. There was a long time where the training decoy was correcting not just guiding the dog. As the sport is is evolving there is less and less training decoys that actually correct the dog now. But there is a still a camp that does decoy corrections. You can see it when the dog is one the field. 

Last fall I trained with M. Patrice Foucault and he was very against training decoy correction. He showed a few things, one was a another attendee's dog that while it was a big big biter if M Foucault held his hands together and made that leash action like you were hitting the dog on a prong ... the dog outted. That was with no collar or leash on the dog. :-o Seeing that made me realize decoy corrections and the like, even in sport can have a adverse effect on the dog's perception of the work. 



Mark Herzog said:


> Part of my work is to instil in the dog an understanding that commands are only to be accepted from the handler. Regardless whether verbal or visual. My dogs for example will take commands from my wife but will look to me first for "permission" if I'm present. When it comes to anyone else, if I hand the leed to another trained handler my dogs will accept that... But they will be hesitant and tentative... But the pass off must be clear and physical. If that other handler was to just walk over and try to call the dog to foose or pickup the leed on their own the dog would respond with suspicion and probable aggression depending on exactly what is done.
> 
> Just thinking as I'm writing this... Only a limited number of times has anyone besides myself or my wife been allowed to "handle" my personal dogs and on those occasions NEVER was the dog off leed. It's always a pass off of the leed from handler to handler so the dog sees this transfer of control. This way the dog never sees it as okay for anyone other than the owner being allowed to give commands and be obeyed when the dog is not being held on leed. Avoids the type of thing you had happen I think.


As my older dog is retired now I use her to train new handlers so yes while she will work for them she is the same tentative and suspicious. 

The old school wanted the dogs respecting the decoy. Which was how she was trained. Really though now IMO the dog is fighting the decoy, so there should be no respect. An example for me would be a dog not outing .. is a dog not respecting the handler, as the handler is the one giving the command not the decoy. I don't believe in respect for the decoy. (within the rules of the sport) So I don't want my dog to respect the decoy whatsoever. I want him to bite, take him down and then hump him. LOL! I want my dog respecting *me*. It is much easier to deal with a dog concerned with the handler than a dog in conflict with the decoy. 

Unfortunately with my older dog I made many mistakes by letting training decoys correct her in training. I didn't know any better .. neither did the decoys, such is life. She is still a cool dog in spite of the mistakes I made. Now my training decoys use the leash for guiding. Just blocking the bad options, but never correction anymore.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Larry Krohn said:


> If you want to be really technical about it, no matter what age you start unless you free shape everything, it is very tough to teach new commands without some form of hand signal, luring, or body language. As long as you teach both thouroughly you will be ok




Excellent point! From there it's just a matter of weaning off the luring, etc if your going with verbal only and being careful about your own body language if your putting visual signals in there.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Angela Renee said:


> No need to apologize! I just wanted a little bit of clarity so I understood where you were coming from.  I agree that verbal and hand should be solidly practiced seperately so they are both clearly understood. I just didnt understand why you, personally, taught verbal first. Honestly, I still don't agree that using both at the same time causes confusion for the dog. I often use them at the same time but can use either one by themselves and still get the same results. Granted, my dogs don't have near as much motivation or discipline as working dogs lol.
> 
> As for the question you posed... I had to try it to find out. I only did it with my old lady, not the pup yet, but she listened to the verbal cue and not the hand signal when both were given at the same time. I said sit and gave a down motion. I said down and gave the cue to speak. I was honestly surprised by that one... that her favorite trick so I thought she would go for it.
> She didnt seem all that confuse which tells me my voice takes precedence. Again, kind of surprised me given that I use hand signals to teach.
> I don't really care one way or the other which one she listens to when given conflicting commands since shes just a pet. As long as she is reliable with both when they aren't conflicting then she can see or hear a command and respond, that's all I ask.


That's odd because supposedly dogs interpret body language better than verbal.
Another thing maybe someone can explain, one of my dogs is fluent in french commands and English. I was thinking, is the dog genuinely fluent in both or do you think it is doing like a sit just slightly different for each command. Anyone else's dogs know two commands for the same behaviours?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

"down"(English) or "Phoosay" (JP)
dog responds to either verbal in exactly the same way. 
no biggy to train, and of course it's not necessary 
and it is not in any language the dog speaks or understands; they are just sounds 

i often use the word "Cawmoo" (Jp for BITE) instead of "speak" when i don't allow some clueless stranger to pet my dog and they immediately ask me, "why, does it bite ??" 

i work with people who may not speak any english at all. when i say "down", they say "wow, you're dog knows english!" ...then i say phoosay and get the same response to show them dogs don't use language at all. that is just humanizing being displayed, or maybe applying a "cool factor" to impress people. i've been guilty of both 

btw, i don't agree that a dog can learn a verbal and a hand signal given at the same time, and the term "hand signal" is too general since it's always just part of the handler's body language and the dog will always pick up on more than a hand or a few fingers


----------



## Angela Renee (Dec 1, 2012)

rick smith said:


> btw, i don't agree that a dog can learn a verbal and a hand signal given at the same time, and the term "hand signal" is too general since it's always just part of the handler's body language and the dog will always pick up on more than a hand or a few fingers


I think you and Mark are onto something. I've always been aware that dogs take very subtle cues but I guess I didnt realize just how subtle they could be. There had to be something I wasnt concious of that I was doing that displayed my intent for the dog.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

there was a study that showed how little the dog actually needs. I'll see if I can find it but basically the guy took trained service dogs and regular pets. The only cue given if the dog was correct was an eye blink. The service dogs picked the cue in just 2-3 renditions over the regular pets. This is probably because we maintain alot of eye contact when we work our dogs so even though we are not gesturing with our hands, you are probably signaling without being aware of it. Kinda like having a tell in poker.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Sarah Platts said:


> there was a study that showed how little the dog actually needs. I'll see if I can find it but basically the guy took trained service dogs and regular pets. The only cue given if the dog was correct was an eye blink. The service dogs picked the cue in just 2-3 renditions over the regular pets. This is probably because we maintain alot of eye contact when we work our dogs so even though we are not gesturing with our hands, you are probably signaling without being aware of it. Kinda like having a tell in poker.


I was taught that this was truly the basis for real communication with the dog. Like a flock of birds in flight, they communicate across the flock in an instant, even though we don't fully understand how. Like two dogs who in a moment can silently communicate back and forth and decide friend or foe, fight or flight, etc. Often we can't even see it in slow motion video let alone in real time. 

Dogs are incredibly good at "reading us"... Understanding not just what we say or sign but what we mean... Even our intent.

Think past the surface level... When you give a vocal command the dog doesn't just hear the command, the dog hears and knows whether it's your voice or a strangers voice... It hears and reads the tone of your voice, the pace of the speech, the intensity, the need, etc.. My mentor used to beat into me that I needed to "say it like you mean it" because he would insist that how you said it was more important than what you said.

This becomes even more important when handling multiple dogs. I often have two dogs with me when travelling by vehicle. Being able to control and communicate with two dogs, on or off leed, working in public (for me) requires the dogs to read my intent as well as my vocals and visuals. Without the addition of intent there is usually a real sense of confusion and uncertainty.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Rick I am not talking about the dog talking different languages, lolz
I'm talking about two completely distinct verbal cues.
Like for instance both in english 'sit' and 'down' are two distinct cues but in this case for two distinctly different behaviours. 
Whereas 'Sit' and 'Assis' are cues for the same behaviour. 
How many different cues for the same word could you do? 
Endless? 
Is the dog listening to the sounds and distinguishing them or is the dog picking up subtle body cues? 
Or even is the dog picking up tone/frequency contained within the words that are the same for each that we cannot distinguish?
I could get really whacky here and start rambling about how everything is just magnetic waves (energy) anyway so what we think is going on is actually not at all what is actually going on, but I think I will have totally derailed Tony's thread lol.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Matt Vandart said:


> How many different cues for the same word could you do?
> Endless?
> Is the dog listening to the sounds and distinguishing them or is the dog picking up subtle body cues?


I believe the answer is yes to all of these.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Matt Vandart said:


> ...* what we think is going on is actually not at all what is actually going on,* but I think I will have totally derailed Tony's thread lol.


But I think you've actually hit the nail on the head, in this thread and many others. I think often we don't really see what's going on, we get it wrong.

My wife worked a number of pups from a litter for several months. Always on leed. Their obedience was quite good... Foose, sit, down, plutz, etc was good. Many times it was pointed out to my wife that she was unconsciously using the leed and her hand movements in conjunction with her vocals. She worked hard to control this and she 100% believed that the dogs understood and were obeying her vocal commands.

She was asked to remove the leed and perform the identical series of commands while perfectly stiff, hands in pocket, staring straight ahead, no movement, eye contact, etc. the dogs did none of the commands but instead looked at the handler and waited. They had inadvertently been trained to obey the vocal when accompanied by a visual confirmation to proceed... It was as if they were waiting for the visual as a proceed command. They did understand the vocal but for her they performed it when it was combined with either movement of the leed or her hand, because that's how she taught them she wanted it. She didn't intend to teach it that way...

To confirm that the dogs understood what the verbal alone meant, another handler put the dog on leed and commanded sitz, the dog waited, the handler gave a very tiny correction and repeated the sitz, the dog then sat. This was repeated and second time the dog sat on the verbal without correction but a bit slow (uncertain). This was praised and the leed removed. The verbal alone was now given again and the dog sat without leed or visual clues. It was very obvious that the dog did understand the verbal.

As a test we then asked my wife to handle the dog and give the sitz command without leed and without visual clues... The dog once again waited for my wife to add a visual or physical cue to proceed. My wife now fully understood what was going on... And how to fix it.

I believe we must constantly ask ourselves if we have correctly identified what the dog is doing and the reasons it is doing these things. Ask what other explanations might be possible and consider them honestly... We may not like what we see, but if we don't then we are building on weak foundations. It comes back to bite us later... At least for me it has.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

lol this thread has really gone west, sorry Tony 

My dobermans do left about turns differently for me than they do for my missus.
They go round the back for her.
Same verbal, spose same visual i.e none (except for the change of person)


----------



## Angela Renee (Dec 1, 2012)

Im enjoying this thread. 
I just tested my dog by turning around with my hands in front of me and gave the verbal command "sit." I heard her move so I peeked around and she had sat. Praised her, turned back around and told her "down." Didnt get a response the first 2 times but on the 3rd, with a bit of a more harsh tone, I heard her move so I peeked back and she had downed.
To test the hand signals again I covered my eyes so she couldnt see them but I could still she her hind end as she stood in front of me. I gave the motion for sit and she sat. Same for down.  

I tried the same thing with my roommates pup and he listened too. :-o 
He did perfect with my back turned to him and with the hand signals he kept moving around so it was hard to get his attention. I had to snap before each one but he did it. I also tried the two different commands thing and he also listened to the verbal over the hand. I didnt try it with my eyes covered though. Maybe that would have made a difference.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Lol, I got this mixed up with the 'fight drive thread'


----------



## Larry Krohn (Nov 18, 2010)

Many people fail to understand just how in tune dogs are with our every movement. Here is one example. I was discussing this with my wife and kids one night and I wanted to show them how dogs pay attention to us even when it seems that they are not. I had 4 dogs. My female Dutch Shepherd was given an estrogen pill every night and I would put it in a piece of cheese and all the dogs would get a piece of cheese. So while all 4 dogs were sleeping on the kitchen floor I told my family to watch me. I opened the medihttp://youtu.be/FFgGSWZ_lHMcine cabinet. I started picking up different medicine and vitamin bottles. None of the dogs moved. As soon as I moved the estrogen bottle, which wasn't much different than any other bottle, all the dogs jumped up because that exact sound signaled that cheese was coming. My wife and kids were blown away. That's how observant our dogs are about their surroundings. It's important and very helpful to remember that during training.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Larry Krohn said:


> Many people fail to understand just how in tune dogs are with our every movement. Here is one example. I was discussing this with my wife and kids one night and I wanted to show them how dogs pay attention to us even when it seems that they are not. I had 4 dogs. My female Dutch Shepherd was given an estrogen pill every night and I would put it in a piece of cheese and all the dogs would get a piece of cheese. So while all 4 dogs were sleeping on the kitchen floor I told my family to watch me. I opened the medihttp://youtu.be/FFgGSWZ_lHMcine cabinet. I started picking up different medicine and vitamin bottles. None of the dogs moved. As soon as I moved the estrogen bottle, which wasn't much different than any other bottle, all the dogs jumped up because that exact sound signaled that cheese was coming. My wife and kids were blown away. That's how observant our dogs are about their surroundings. It's important and very helpful to remember that during training.


I'd like to add one thing to that Larry... I find a lot of people don't realize that we are "training" all the time, whether we intend to or not, whether we realize it or not, whether we want to or not. Most people I talk to don't understand this. They think they have a training session and the training starts and stops, that the rest of the time is just free time for the dog and they aren't training. Reality is that every waking moment we spend with the dog the dog is observing and learning... we are training whether we understand it or not. Unfortunately I find that much of the unwanted behaviours and actions come from these unintended training sessions.

This is why consistency is so important for me.


----------



## Larry Krohn (Nov 18, 2010)

Mark Herzog said:


> I'd like to add one thing to that Larry... I find a lot of people don't realize that we are "training" all the time, whether we intend to or not, whether we realize it or not, whether we want to or not. Most people I talk to don't understand this. They think they have a training session and the training starts and stops, that the rest of the time is just free time for the dog and they aren't training. Reality is that every waking moment we spend with the dog the dog is observing and learning... we are training whether we understand it or not. Unfortunately I find that much of the unwanted behaviours and actions come from these unintended training sessions.
> 
> This is why consistency is so important for me.


Absolutely Mark. Everything is training. You are either training to create wanted behavior or you're training to create unwanted behavior. Great point Mark


----------

