# Help me understand why everyone is so pro-treat training



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

First off, this will be a long post! Apologies - I want to be as clear as possible, and sometimes that takes a little longer!

If you have read many of my other posts, you will know that I have a bit of an...aversion (for lack of a better word) to "treat training". However, it seems that this forum is incredibly pro-treat. Although I have lots of experience with dogs, and feel pretty darned confident in how I work with dogs, I know that no-one knows everything, and I am always hoping to understand different perspectives. So I am not necessarily looking for advice here, I am trying to gain a better understanding of something, and possibly have an interesting discussion. I am NOT a first timer, nor am I attempting to start any kind of drama, so please lets keep it polite? Thank you! 

On the recommendation of a couple forum members, I had a look at kikopup on youtube. While I agree with most of her principles (not every single one, but I don't want this to turn into a kikopup discussion!), what I saw brought to mind the same issues that I see with pretty much all treat training. I'm going to outline them, and I would like to hear your thoughts - is there something that I am missing, or misunderstanding?

1. The sheer volume of treats given is staggering!! In a 30 sec clip from a video, I watch as 10+ treats are given.....this just can't be healthy! This is my primary issue with treat training - the treats are free-flowing at all times....even if you just gave treats during a 15 min training session once a day, if you followed these videos exactly, you would be giving the dog a whole bag! Some people may say "break the treat into pieces" but giving 100 quarter biscuits is still 25 biscuits! The treat-giving was just...constant. And if you train constantly throughout the day (sitting at street corners on walks, teaching leave it around the house, etc etc)....

2. Related to that is the next issue. As I see it, either you are just giving treats during "training sessions", which I have seen usually result in a dog that performs excellently during these sessions, but completely randomly outside of them. Most people get into a bit of a training session "routine", and the dog picks up on changes in body language, picking up the treat bag, collecting toys, etc etc, and starts to associate the commands ONLY with these sessions. This isn't just a theory, I have seen it more times than I can count! Or, you are giving treats as you train throughout the day, at which point the treat-toll rises to a ridiculous level. 

3. Treat training works largely on creating something that is often referred to in human psychology as the "gambler mentality". Studies throughout behaviorism and cognitive psychology have been very consistent - when animals are presented with a lever/button that dispenses treats, two things will happen. If the treat is consistently given when the lever is pressed, the animal will learn the behavior, and carry on with their life. This continues if the treat is dispensed every 5, 10, 20 presses - the animal learns. But if the treat is dispensed randomly, the animals become almost deranged, continuing to push the lever to the exclusion of food or rest - studies have shown rats pressing a lever obsessively until passing out with exhaustion or birds pecking a button until they actual damage their beaks, some rats even starved to death attempting to get a treat! This behavior is often used to explain gambling in humans, and usually is referred to as a serious mental issue. SO - if you start off giving the dog a treat "sometimes", or start using treats and then stop, you are creating this mentality, that many psychologists would consider a mental instability. I just can't get past the picture of animals literally damaging and killing themselves to get the treat - I can't think that that is a happy animal!! Only if you train absolutely consistently with treats, giving them every single time, can you be certain of avoiding this...which circles us back around to health issues. Some animals are more prone to this behavior than others, which goes a long way to explain why some dogs take to treat training very well, and others really don't - it is always possible that this mentality will not develop. And theoretically, if you were able to treat every 20th behavior EXACTLY, you wouldn't have an issue, or every behavior without over-feeding. But I would rather not take the chance!

4. Here is the real crux - why is a FOOD treat so important? I basically use the principles of "treat training" - the same exercises, games, commands, etc, the same build up in difficulty - but using praise and affection rather than food. If you have a strong bond with your dog, pleasing you should be a huge reward on it's own - dogs LOVE to make their people happy! And this is something that can be given in unlimited amounts, anywhere, anytime, with zero impact on health, and that never has to be weaned away as the animal learns. It's also FREE, and I have yet to meet a dog with an intolerance to praise, although I have seen more than one dog brought to the vet after a training day with a new brand led to explosive diarrhea! I may reinforce the commands learned using praise AND a toy (continuing to train during playtime) or praise AND something else the dog loves (being let away to play with another dog after sitting quietly first), but praise is the number one motivator at all times. 

Finally (I warned you it would be a long one!) I just wanted to give a little info on how I train at the moment, and how I do use treats (yup, I do use them occasionally). I use treats to create a positive association with new or potentially scary situations - the first bath, the first time in the vet, etc, or when the pup is unaware that they are capable of doing something - like going down stairs - they often just don't realise that they CAN, and putting a treat a few stairs down gives them incentive, and then confidence in their ability. We also occasionally use them in hide-and-seek games, to develop her natural tracking tendencies. So I am not opposed to all treats, ever - as long as they are given sparingly, and are healthy and included in calorie requirements, they are a useful tool. 
I DO NOT train using physical intimidation or punishment, although I do correct, depending on the situation. "Correction" here is usually a re-direct, distraction, short verbal command (not a shout or yell) or occasionally a "time out". 
I DO train throughout the day, as well as having little "re-cap" sessions every few days. Throughout the day, commands are used when they will be used in later life - sitting at street corners, sitting when we put the leash on for walks, leave-it for chewing in the house, recall around the house, drop-it during play, etc. Then re-cap sessions are like traditional "training sessions", where we practice commands for a praise reward. 

I have never had an issue, and our new pup is coming along wonderfully - she is already better trained and behaved than most of the neighborhood dogs, and we are constantly complimented on her calm temperament and attention to us. (In fact, as a little example, on our walk this morning, we watched a guy who had the worst recall I had ever seen - running all over the park as his dog scampered around greeting everyone and he called his name. This was a full-grown dog, and he only eventually got him when I took pity on him, and enticed the dog to run over to Dita to chase, and then put Dita (the 3month old puppy!) into a down/stay, so that the other dog waited by her until the owner caught up!). I have never had a problem training with praise, but everyone here seems so into the treat training that I really want to understand it!! 

Please help me out - am I missing something? Why is it about the food, or the clicker - why is praise not enough? Is it just that it is faster and easier to start with? Is it more convenient - dogs already love food, so you don't have work so much on bonding (why would you want a dog that you are not strongly bonded with)? Or is it just because many people seem to think that the only options are clicker, treat, or intimidation/punishment, and being a forum, you would rather steer people toward the method that doesn't involve a lot of damaging behavior?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Here's my take. Food is easy to begin with. Not all dogs like praise. I have had several that don't even like to be touched. Puppies are easily captivated by food, setting the stage for great attention spans.

I literally use tiny pieces, almost crumbs. I don't treat at every command, training is done randomly, it isn't set into sessions. Dogs learn they get random rewards and try even harder tor earn them. Almost all dogs I work with are switched over to tug rewards, sometimes balls. Whatever is highest value.

With the young pups, virtually nothing beats good stinky treats. I don't keep many of the dogs I work with, and sometimes they change handlers later in life. So creating an ultimate reward, that the dog will work for, with even a green I.experienced handler is vital.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Very short and simple answer? Because I like my dogs to be rewarded for good behavior and want to offer good behavior because only good things happen to them when they do. I want my dogs to know that nothing but good things come from me. I also have dogs that already had all the positiveness sucked out of the world for them in general and I want to bring them back. 

Rewards vary as well. It doesn't ALWAYS have to be food and you can treat train and be responsible for health. There are healthy treats and you feed your dog appropriately, factoring in the treats so you're not OVER feeding. Not a hard concept. There is also phasing out, so dogs are not stuffed with treats every time they sit.


----------



## eeloheel (Dec 28, 2010)

"Help me understand why everyone is so pro-treat training"

Because it works and I don't have to hurt my dog to make it work.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

When I'm phasing treats out I will randomly give praise or give a treat. My dog likes treats better but she likes being told she's a good dog too. She isn't killing herself to get a treat. Jumping? Yes. Sitting when I tell her to stop that and sit? Sure. But killing herself over it? No way! Also, the treats I use are dry treats and super tiny--Wet Noses Training Stars (I believe they are called) and Sojos Good Dog training treats which I break in half. I quit using soft treats because they just weren't working for my dog/my training style and I didn't want her to get fat. I also highly doubt she gets over 100 treats in a training session--our sessions are longer than "recommended" and I can often start phasing out treats in one session for a simple command.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

I could choke, smack, and kick my dog and she will behave out of fear.
OR
I could use treats (which get phased out), praise, or toys and my dog will behave because she wants to.​


The question is, do I want my dog to fear me or to want to please me?
I prefer the second and it's been working quite well for me.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Lol, my dogs go much crazier over a tug reward than any food item.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

eeloheel said:


> "Help me understand why everyone is so pro-treat training"
> 
> Because it works and I don't have to hurt my dog to make it work.


You don't have to hurt a dog to train it with praise! In fact, I specifically said that I don't agree with physical intimidation to train, AT ALL!



PatchworkRobot said:


> I could use treats (which get phased out) and my dog will behave because she wants to.
> OR
> I could choke, smack, and kick my dog and she will behave out of fear.​
> 
> ...


OR - you could use praise, a non-food reward! There is a THIRD OPTION here - that is what I am having the biggest issue understanding - it's not a case of beat-or-treat....


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

juliemule said:


> Lol, my dogs go much crazier over a tug reward than any food item.


Which is absolutely awesome!! : ) Maybe it makes it easier on me that Dita much prefers praise to food-rewards, or maybe she has just taken very well to my methods....


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

It's a case of praise AND treat randomly in my instance, as I explained earlier.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

ManyRoses said:


> OR - you could use praise, a non-food reward! There is a THIRD OPTION here - that is what I am having the biggest issue understanding - it's not a case of beat-or-treat....


Please requote me as there were a few things I had to fix (including the first option that I said I preferred being hitting my dog).

I know many "pro-treat" trainers who also use praise and toys. Treats are not the end-all-be-all but if my dog is SUPER food motivated than why not use that?
My doberman could care less about toys but he will do just about anything for a marshmallow. So, if I want to train a new behavior should I really try toys or praise or should I start with the marshmallow/other treat and phase that out for something else once it clicks for him?


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

1. The sheer volume of treats given is staggering!! In a 30 sec clip from a video, I watch as 10+ treats are given.....this just can't be healthy! This is my primary issue with treat training - the treats are free-flowing at all times....even if you just gave treats during a 15 min training session once a day, if you followed these videos exactly, you would be giving the dog a whole bag! Some people may say "break the treat into pieces" but giving 100 quarter biscuits is still 25 biscuits! The treat-giving was just...constant. And if you train constantly throughout the day (sitting at street corners on walks, teaching leave it around the house, etc etc)....


_First off, the number of treats seems like a lot, but in reality the treats are usually TINY. I get 100 treats from one hot dog for example - there's not much left to them. Usually I use healthier stuff and I don't use treats all the time, mainly for targeting the things I'm working on with a dog. I don't use them for walks or potty training myself._


2. Related to that is the next issue. As I see it, either you are just giving treats during "training sessions", which I have seen usually result in a dog that performs excellently during these sessions, but completely randomly outside of them. Most people get into a bit of a training session "routine", and the dog picks up on changes in body language, picking up the treat bag, collecting toys, etc etc, and starts to associate the commands ONLY with these sessions. This isn't just a theory, I have seen it more times than I can count! Or, you are giving treats as you train throughout the day, at which point the treat-toll rises to a ridiculous level.

_As I said I give for a set few things I'm working on, and then throughout the day. I'm not training finishes all day, so I don't use food for that. Household manners are only the first month or so then it's more formal stuff we're focused on. I usually end up with treats in a pocket most days, so it's not hard to pop one out for random treating. _

3. Treat training works largely on creating something that is often referred to in human psychology as the "gambler mentality". Studies throughout behaviorism and cognitive psychology have been very consistent - when animals are presented with a lever/button that dispenses treats, two things will happen. If the treat is consistently given when the lever is pressed, the animal will learn the behavior, and carry on with their life. This continues if the treat is dispensed every 5, 10, 20 presses - the animal learns. But if the treat is dispensed randomly, the animals become almost deranged, continuing to push the lever to the exclusion of food or rest - studies have shown rats pressing a lever obsessively until passing out with exhaustion or birds pecking a button until they actual damage their beaks, some rats even starved to death attempting to get a treat! This behavior is often used to explain gambling in humans, and usually is referred to as a serious mental issue. SO - if you start off giving the dog a treat "sometimes", or start using treats and then stop, you are creating this mentality, that many psychologists would consider a mental instability. I just can't get past the picture of animals literally damaging and killing themselves to get the treat - I can't think that that is a happy animal!! Only if you train absolutely consistently with treats, giving them every single time, can you be certain of avoiding this...which circles us back around to health issues. Some animals are more prone to this behavior than others, which goes a long way to explain why some dogs take to treat training very well, and others really don't - it is always possible that this mentality will not develop. And theoretically, if you were able to treat every 20th behavior EXACTLY, you wouldn't have an issue, or every behavior without over-feeding. But I would rather not take the chance!

_I have yet to see a dog get to that extreme when weaned off treats though. And usually what happens when most people train is they go from giving a treat every time the dog sits, and every step the dog takes, to giving a treat after the dog's worked 60 seconds or so of nice heelwork, or run a nice agility course. They're not lab rats so they do have other things to do with their time too, so I'd take the studies with a grain of salt._

4. Here is the real crux - why is a FOOD treat so important? I basically use the principles of "treat training" - the same exercises, games, commands, etc, the same build up in difficulty - but using praise and affection rather than food. If you have a strong bond with your dog, pleasing you should be a huge reward on it's own - dogs LOVE to make their people happy! And this is something that can be given in unlimited amounts, anywhere, anytime, with zero impact on health, and that never has to be weaned away as the animal learns. It's also FREE, and I have yet to meet a dog with an intolerance to praise, although I have seen more than one dog brought to the vet after a training day with a new brand led to explosive diarrhea! I may reinforce the commands learned using praise AND a toy (continuing to train during playtime) or praise AND something else the dog loves (being let away to play with another dog after sitting quietly first), but praise is the number one motivator at all times.

_Food works. You can train any dog without it, but the results with food are generally much better, the dog works to a higher level than just praise. For some dogs yes, praise is their thing, but that's about 5% or so of dogs. Dogs aren't going to work for five bucks, but they'll take a bit of liver for their troubles. If it's misused by the owner, because they give it too often and make a point of luring the dog with the food, then it's not the liver's fault. The liver's just there smelling good, not telling the dog to do something or not do something. _


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> You don't have to hurt a dog to train it with praise! In fact, I specifically said that I don't agree with physical intimidation to train, AT ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> OR - you could use praise, a non-food reward! There is a THIRD OPTION here - that is what I am having the biggest issue understanding - it's not a case of beat-or-treat....


Then what's the point of questioning treats vs. just praise? It's all reward base training. Pick your reward.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> Which is absolutely awesome!! : ) Maybe it makes it easier on me that Dita much prefers praise to food-rewards, or maybe she has just taken very well to my methods....


 Yes, whatever works well for your dog.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Exactly! Every dog is an individual, and why on Earth would I use exclusively praise for a dog that sometimes shies away when I go to pet her? It doesn't even make sense to me to use one thing all the time honestly, whether it's treats or anything else.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Kayota said:


> When I'm phasing treats out I will randomly give praise or give a treat. My dog likes treats better but she likes being told she's a good dog too. She isn't killing herself to get a treat. Jumping? Yes. Sitting when I tell her to stop that and sit? Sure. But killing herself over it? No way! Also, the treats I use are dry treats and super tiny--Wet Noses Training Stars (I believe they are called) and Sojos Good Dog training treats which I break in half. I quit using soft treats because they just weren't working for my dog/my training style and I didn't want her to get fat. I also highly doubt she gets over 100 treats in a training session--our sessions are longer than "recommended" and I can often start phasing out treats in one session for a simple command.


To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that a dog would start actually starving herself over trying to get a treat! My point was more about the mentality, and the issue that I have with risking creating a "gambling mentality" in my dog. The studies I mentioned took this to the absolute extreme (studies usually do), but the underlying implication is still a little disturbing to me. Treat-training and seeing a dog with that pleading "do I get a treat now?" look always makes me think of animals hurting themselves, or of compulsive gamblers with that disturbing, desperate look in their eye as they think "just one more roll and I'll get it!". It is definitely something that has become an association for me....gee, thanks psychology diploma!

I think it was wonderfully summed up by an uncle of mine who is a farmer, and has working herding dogs who were trained this way (with praise, not treats) - he told me "you want the dog to learn that it WANTS to do the behavior for the sake of the behavior, not because there is a slim chance that it might get a piece of food at the end of it".


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Then what's the point of questioning treats vs. just praise? It's all reward base training. Pick your reward.


Did you read my opening post at all? I gave the reasons that I think that praise is a better "reward" than treats - in great detail! Most importantly, health, consistency, and removing the risk of a disturbing mentality.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Kayota said:


> Exactly! Every dog is an individual, and why on Earth would I use exclusively praise for a dog that sometimes shies away when I go to pet her? It doesn't even make sense to me to use one thing all the time honestly, whether it's treats or anything else.


I absolutely agree on mixing up different techniques to suit individual situations - there is never one cure-all. 

However, I think that situations involving a dog that is being rehabilitated - maybe after abuse - and so is very touch-shy is a specific and different situation. I am talking about your average dog - I would actually be a little concerned at a dog that was very touch-shy of their owner (rather than strangers), and working on that would be my first priority.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that a dog would start actually starving herself over trying to get a treat! My point was more about the mentality, and the issue that I have with risking creating a "gambling mentality" in my dog. The studies I mentioned took this to the absolute extreme (studies usually do), but the underlying implication is still a little disturbing to me. Treat-training and seeing a dog with that pleading "do I get a treat now?" look always makes me think of animals hurting themselves, or of compulsive gamblers with that disturbing, desperate look in their eye as they think "just one more roll and I'll get it!". It is definitely something that has become an association for me....gee, thanks psychology diploma!
> 
> I think it was wonderfully summed up by an uncle of mine who is a farmer, and has working herding dogs who were trained this way (with praise, not treats) - he told me "you want the dog to learn that it WANTS to do the behavior for the sake of the behavior, not because there is a slim chance that it might get a piece of food at the end of it".


One of my cadaver dogs will not take a reward unless she is right on top of a find. She will obsess with being inches from the source, and if its in a place she can't get right beside (underwater, buried, or up in a tree or ceiling) she will alert, I throw her tug and she dodges it. Won't touch food. Not sure why. Malinois tend to be OCD anyway, but usually for.the reward. Dogs, lol


----------



## Tolak (Sep 11, 2008)

Treats, praise, whatever, it's resource control. BTW dogs hate when you anthropomorphize them.


----------



## eeloheel (Dec 28, 2010)

My dogs hates being pet, and since most of his training was to phase out aggression when he first came to me and any excited behavior resulted in aggression, we went with treats.

My beagle is a puppy mill dog, terrified of people, hated everything in the world, and the only thing that she would even consider coming close to me for was treats. So we went with treats.

Big black dog isn't toy motivated and has absolutely no attention span. She's not timid, but couldn't give two acorns if you're happy with her or not and had no interest in pleasing. But she loves kibble. So we trained with food.

Our brittany was another aggressive dog, who was scared of anyone standing above her level, possessive of toys, and would respond with growling and defense behaviors if anyone in the room got too excited. We had to feed her kibble by hand anyhow as part of working with her possessive tendencies, so we went with treats.

Chow/sheltie mix wasn't food or toy motivated, enjoyed pets but not enough to work for them. We went with over-exuberant praise because it's what she responded to.

You use what works, and as far as non-violent training techniques work, treats work best most of the time. If praise works best for your dogs, cool beans. If toys motivate your dog, cool beans. If treats do, well, cool beans.

It's all the exact same training method with different rewards. I don't understand the confusion or lack of understanding here.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> Did you read my opening post at all? I gave the reasons that I think that praise is a better "reward" than treats - in great detail! Most importantly, health, consistency, and removing the risk of a disturbing mentality.


No, I didn't read at all, which is exactly why I've responded exactly as every one else has. Perhaps you should read the responses.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

What about a dog that doesn't respond to praise? My Siberian could care less for praise but you throw that ball for her to chase, give her the rope to tug, squeak her squeaker or give her a treat and she is all for it.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

> Please help me out - am I missing something? Why is it about the food, or the clicker - why is praise not enough? Is it just that it is faster and easier to start with? Is it more convenient - dogs already love food, so you don't have work so much on bonding (why would you want a dog that you are not strongly bonded with)? Or is it just because many people seem to think that the only options are clicker, treat, or intimidation/punishment, and being a forum, you would rather steer people toward the method that doesn't involve a lot of damaging behavior?


Food treats allow you to get a large number of repetitions in a short amount of time. So much of dog training is just straight practice, and in the beginning stages of behavior acquisition food is an exceptionally easy way to get the practice in and keep the dog interested in the training. You have to feed the dog anyway. I have never had a problem with my dogs putting on weight from treat training. My dogs are cheap dates and will work for kibble in the house; if we're working in more exciting environments I'll step it up to better treats (I use Zukes Minis or Bill-Jac most often), but the training sessions are shorter. If you're giving your dog twenty Milkbones, maybe, but it's really just not been a problem for me.

I have two dogs. One is a Miniature Schnauzer, one is a Duck Tolling Retriever. I often say the Schnauzer has too strong a self image to be motivated by praise. He likes being told how smart and clever he is, but he already knows it. The Toller isn't sure how clever he is unless someone tells him, repeatedly. Many clicker videos may seem light on praise, but they often focus on how to get behavior to reinforce in the first place, usually by shaping. When you're shaping, you DON'T talk to the dog because it's distracting. The clicker and reward placement gives him the feedback he needs to progress. Think of it like solving a math problem - if someone is cheerleading you along over your shoulder, that might be nice but it's not going to help you solve the problem any better and it might actually make your progress slower.

Most people suck at dog training. It's not their fault, it's not something they have knowledge or practice about. I do consider it at the least irresponsible to advise aversive training solutions over the internet. You can't see the dog, so you can't know if the poster is reporting what is actually going on (because they lack the observation skills to know what to look for or how to interpret it) or count on their ability to fairly or effectively implement the advice.

Getting the dog to respond to commands in the absence of treats is fundamentally no different than getting the dog to respond in the absence of leashes and training collars.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Bordermom said:


> _First off, the number of treats seems like a lot, but in reality the treats are usually TINY. I get 100 treats from one hot dog for example - there's not much left to them. Usually I use healthier stuff and I don't use treats all the time, mainly for targeting the things I'm working on with a dog. I don't use them for walks or potty training myself._
> 
> 
> 2.
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to really read my post and answer so coherently!

With this explanation, it definitely makes more sense - especially in terms of volume! I was just sitting and counting the number of times something was put down in one video, and couldn't get over it! 

I don't think that I will ever switch to treat-training - I've spent too much time on behavioural and cognitive psychology to be able to wipe those images from my mind, or be able to set aside the idea that I am creating or bringing out a mental issue, but I am starting to see that people who train like you seem to are using this very sparingly, and without as much risk of driving the dog quite literally slightly crazy by being completely random with treat giving. 

I guess that I have always been lucky, and bonded so strongly with dogs that love praise, and seen others work with dogs that have such a strong bond with their handler that no food could ever be as rewarding as praise is. 

So here is a bit of a follow-up question: I feel like I am getting a little contradictory info - it seems that treat-training is seen as being much "easier" than training with just praise, but at the same time, it seems like it would be so easy to get it WRONG - luring rather than rewarding, giving whole treats or not factoring in caloric requirement and creating a chubby puppy, not weaning off treats slowly and consistently so that the dog becomes distrustful of the command (one day I got lots, now I got none. Maybe there is something ELSE that got me the treats...etc etc) or just stops obeying, forgetting to take treats out on walks (I tend to go out in my workout gear, because it doesn't matter when it gets muddy, so my phone is strapped to my arm with my keys and ID, and the poo bags are on the leash -I think I would forget to bring them, where I can never forget to bring my approval!)....the list of ways to screw it up seems endless!! It seems like a contradiction to use something that is both easier to do AND easier to mess up....thoughts?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Niraya said:


> What about a dog that doesn't respond to praise? My Siberian could care less for praise but you throw that ball for her to chase, give her the rope to tug, squeak her squeaker or give her a treat and she is all for it.


Exactly. Like others have said (which is apparently not the point even though it is) different dogs respond to different things. TREATS aren't the problem. I have hounds. Hounds could give a care if you're praising them. Shambles could also give a care. Elsa didn't understand what praise was and when I brought her home talking was scary. Humans were scary. Toys were scary. Food was yummy.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> I absolutely agree on mixing up different techniques to suit individual situations - there is never one cure-all.
> 
> However, I think that situations involving a dog that is being rehabilitated - maybe after abuse - and so is very touch-shy is a specific and different situation. I am talking about your average dog - I would actually be a little concerned at a dog that was very touch-shy of their owner (rather than strangers), and working on that would be my first priority.


Oh gosh my dog isn't being rehabbed lol! She just likes to be pet on her own terms usually--not really the same as touch-shy, she's just not cool with a hand coming at her face. The "come" command was taught with the requirement that I lay a hand on her back BEFORE she get a treat.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Tolak said:


> Treats, praise, whatever, it's resource control. BTW dogs hate when you anthropomorphize them.


I had to lol at this a little - suggesting that a dog hates being anthropomorphized is actually, in itself, anthropomorphizing the dog! However, I can see what you are saying, and I would like to just say that for the most part, I am not the type to think that dogs think the way that humans do - in fact, I have done a lot of research into exactly how we believe dogs DO think - how different senses contribute to their picture of the world, and why they respond the way they do. However, I tend to post with a "I am the dog talking" addition because I feel that it is just an easier way to get the point across.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> So here is a bit of a follow-up question: I feel like I am getting a little contradictory info - it seems that treat-training is seen as being much "easier" than training with just praise, but at the same time, it seems like it would be so easy to get it WRONG - luring rather than rewarding, giving whole treats or not factoring in caloric requirement and creating a chubby puppy, not weaning off treats slowly and consistently so that the dog becomes distrustful of the command (one day I got lots, now I got none. Maybe there is something ELSE that got me the treats...etc etc) or just stops obeying, forgetting to take treats out on walks (I tend to go out in my workout gear, because it doesn't matter when it gets muddy, so my phone is strapped to my arm with my keys and ID, and the poo bags are on the leash -I think I would forget to bring them, where I can never forget to bring my approval!)....the list of ways to screw it up seems endless!! It seems like a contradiction to use something that is both easier to do AND easier to mess up....thoughts?


I have a fair amount of experience training (both teaching and as a student) at the club level. People SUCK at training. Bad positive reinforcement training is ineffective and may create bad habits, but it is extraordinarily hard to ruin a dog with treats. Bad positive punishment/negative reinforcement training is abuse.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> You don't have to hurt a dog to train it with praise! In fact, I specifically said that I don't agree with physical intimidation to train, AT ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> OR - you could use praise, a non-food reward! There is a THIRD OPTION here - that is what I am having the biggest issue understanding - it's not a case of beat-or-treat....


Praise can be a strong rewarder for some dogs, but most dogs find it pretty boring. My dogs LIKE praise, but don't necessarily see WHY they should perform complex behaviors (heeling, a retrieve, a direct send or go-out, a complicated agility sequence, etc) if all they get is "good dog" and some pats. I tell them they're good and pet them when they're doing nothing, so maybe that's my fault. One thing I *have* done is load the word "good" like a click. It's something I can take with me into the agility ring or the obedience ring and use between exercises. They know that "good" means "you did that perfect and you will get a REAL reward...later". It's a handy tool to have.
I've seen treat training hacked to bits by people who don't understand how to GET RID OF THE LURE (pet peeve) and people who never really understand how to phase out that food so their dog listens no matter what. Then all you hear is how treat training doesn't work because "he doesn't listen unless I have a treat in my hand". Your fault, 100%. Bad training is bad training no matter what the method. It's frustrating and annoying to me, mainly because I've used treat training AND I've used compulsion training, and I know which has worked better for me and my dogs. Treats allowed my 9 week old puppy to begin to understand signal exercises and be working in a busy class off leash at 6 months old. Praise did not. I use a clicker, and it's an extremely powerful tool when used to shape or capture or chain new behaviors. (Another annoyance; people who don't use clickers because they think they'll have to follow their dogs around for the rest of their lives clicking at them. If your goal is to totally botch clicker training, then yes--you'll be spending your life clicking at your dog and getting no reliability and no compliance unless you "air cookie" 24/7, and honestly who wants to do that...)
The compulsion I used (along with plenty of "good boys") with my first dog shows through, because to him, I believe a "good boy" was simply me saying "You successfully escaped a collar pop. I'd do that again if I were you". Both dogs knew all about heeling, auto-sits, recalls, find heel, etc. But the clicker dog is entertaining to watch and is lightning fast, where my non-clicker dog moved quickly and paranoid that he was going to make a mistake and get a collar pop. For some dogs, collar pops are taken and then forgotten. For some dogs they're not. I love sitting aside the obedience ring and watching the dogs--anyone with an iota of sense can see which dogs were actually TRAINED step by step and rewarded for it, and which dogs were basically forced through the whole career and punished when they made a mistake (or "blew the trainer off", as so many people like to say). It's glaringly obvious with a dog who is prancing along, maintaining eye contact, whole body quivering with excitement setting up for the recall, flinging themselves over the jump because they can't get to the DB fast enough vs. dogs who just...walk their way through the exercises. A lot of times I look away, not because I'm a big softie about this kinda thing but it's a DOG SHOW. It's supposed to be FUN. And if the dog isn't having fun, and the handler has this air about them like "don't you dare do XY or Z", why are you there?? It's much more fun to watch dogs who are obviously enjoying themselves vs. dogs who are doing it because they pretty much have to. 
Anyone can train any way they wish, but IMO a GOOD trainer explores ALL avenues and ALL methods they can find and uses as many tools in their toolbox as possible to make the dog at the other end of their leash at that very moment understand exactly what is expected of them. My GSD has sound nerves and isn't very handler sensitive; he would probably do just fine with someone who used non-treat methods because he "gets over" stuff. A lot of softer breeds or dogs do not, and dogs who don't usually shut down. And, IME, trainers who have little in their toolbox get frustrated with dogs who shut down and those dogs get labeled stupid when it's just not true.


----------



## eeloheel (Dec 28, 2010)

Touch shy and not responding to touch are different. I don't like people touching me either. The boy starts playing with my hair or trying to rub my shoulders I'm all like "Dude, I'm trying to argue on the internet, GO AWAY."

My dog things I am all that and a bag of chips and wants to sleep on my feet and lick my knees. He does not want to be pet. If I pet him he turns around, walked a foot away, and goes back to paying attention to me where I can't pet him. It's not his thing. At this point he is a normal dog, but excited praise just gets him over stimulated and he can't focus. Give him a toy and he's done learning, he's doing zoomies around the house and throwing it down stairs. Treats work. 

And if toys kept his focus, I'd use that.

And if pets kept his focus, I'd use that.

If spraying him in the eye with vinigar made him full of wiggles and tail wags, sure, why not I guess. Though I'd probably wonder what sick and twisted thing was wrong with me dog, it'd still be the same thing.

It's the same thing. IT'S ALL THE SAME THING.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

eeloheel said:


> My dogs hates being pet, and since most of his training was to phase out aggression when he first came to me and any excited behavior resulted in aggression, we went with treats.
> 
> My beagle is a puppy mill dog, terrified of people, hated everything in the world, and the only thing that she would even consider coming close to me for was treats. So we went with treats.
> 
> ...


I guess that the confusion comes from the fact that in several other threads, as well as IRL, when I have said that I don't treat-train, I have got some really strong responses, and many people telling me that I "have" to treat train, or acting like I am doing the dog a disservice if I don't. I've never really understood the need to use treats, because I guess the dogs I have worked with have all happened to be very praise-motivated, and the psychology research that I have done has suggested that most dogs are. (with the exception of dogs being rehabilitated after abuse, etc). My confusion has been as to WHY this is such a big deal for people - I'm not beating my dog, my dog is well trained and behaved, and I don't really care if you use treats (as long as you are not overfeeding), so why should anyone care if I don't use treats? I am trying to figure out why this is often touted as the be-all and end-all of the dog training world, because if there honestly WAS something that I was missing, then I don't actually want my dog to be missing out on some vital training aspect. However, from most of the responses, I think that I was initially pretty correct - done the right way, treat training works, done the wrong way, it doesn't (same as any training method, really), and that most people do it because it is easier. Honestly, I have found most of the responses pretty reassuring!


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I don't care if you don't use treats. You started the discussion...


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Kayota said:


> Oh gosh my dog isn't being rehabbed lol! She just likes to be pet on her own terms usually--not really the same as touch-shy, she's just not cool with a hand coming at her face. The "come" command was taught with the requirement that I lay a hand on her back BEFORE she get a treat.


 Ah - fair enough, I must have misunderstood the initial post.....I rescind!


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

I have an extraordinary bond with my dog regardless of what reward I use with my method. I had to lol at that part a bit. 
Our bond is so strong because of the time that I spend with her doing things with her.

Some dogs just respond to different things.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

RaeganW said:


> I have a fair amount of experience training (both teaching and as a student) at the club level. People SUCK at training. Bad positive reinforcement training is ineffective and may create bad habits, but it is extraordinarily hard to ruin a dog with treats. Bad positive punishment/negative reinforcement training is abuse.



Agreed - especially that people suck at training! LOL

And it IS preferable to screw up treat training than to use physical punishment training....better to have an untrained but happy dog, than a miserable dog that obeys out of fear.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> I guess that the confusion comes from the fact that in several other threads, as well as IRL, when I have said that I don't treat-train, I have got some really strong responses, and many people telling me that I "have" to treat train, or acting like I am doing the dog a disservice if I don't. I've never really understood the need to use treats, because I guess the dogs I have worked with have all happened to be very praise-motivated, and the psychology research that I have done has suggested that most dogs are. (with the exception of dogs being rehabilitated after abuse, etc). My confusion has been as to WHY this is such a big deal for people - I'm not beating my dog, my dog is well trained and behaved, and I don't really care if you use treats (as long as you are not overfeeding), so why should anyone care if I don't use treats? I am trying to figure out why this is often touted as the be-all and end-all of the dog training world, because if there honestly WAS something that I was missing, then I don't actually want my dog to be missing out on some vital training aspect. However, from most of the responses, I think that I was initially pretty correct - done the right way, treat training works, done the wrong way, it doesn't (same as any training method, really), and that most people do it because it is easier. Honestly, I have found most of the responses pretty reassuring!


Have you actually used treats to train your dog to do something? Do you have any basis for comparison on your methods vs. using food?
ETA: I think a lot of dogs get overwhelmed by our incessant babbling at them and the need to touch-touch-touch them all the time. I would imagine a "good boy" or "good girl" is probably spoken in a soothing happy tone, so at least the dogs understand you're not pissed or upset. Less confusion makes a lot of dogs appear "happy"


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

One: rewards can be anything the dog finds rewarding. Food is just easier to get many reps in. My dog is fully treat trained and is not overweight, nor a gambler. You do realize that that "mentality" is actually more of an OCD type behaviour and reflects an already messed up individual with addictive qualities, right? Not everyone gets hooked on one arm bandits, it's an ANALOGY. 

Two: in learning something rewards are individual, the dog gets to choose what they find rewarding. 80 percent of the dogs I see could give a rat's bum about "praise", though it is included in the training. I use premack, toys, food, breaks from training..whatever the dog needs or wants to enable them to learn. The fact that you think dogs work to PLEASE is quite ridic. They work because they want to..for whatever intrinsic reason that is. But it surely is very often not about us. What your father (grandfather?) said was in fact true of herding dogs...the chance to HERD is the reward...again, not working for the human. They are selfish creatures for the most part.

Also, to echo something Raegan said, most of us here know better than recommend harsh or P+ based techniques because the potential fallout for someone unskilled to do great damage is too high. R+/P- based work is much safer and has reduced risk of fallout.

Food does not create aggression or excessive stress. You've been reading/watching too much BP. 

"The dog is **already reliant on food**. Like all animals, he will die without it. And like all animals, he will not do arbitrary (i.e. non self-reinforcing) behaviors for free. No properly functioning living animal does stuff for free. You either motivate them with something such as food or you motivate them with something such as pain. There is no magic here."
~ Jean Donaldson


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Kayota said:


> I don't care if you don't use treats. You started the discussion...



Thanks - I am glad that you don't care if I don't use treats. I started the discussion because I couldn't understand why so many people DID care that I don't use treats, and I wanted to figure out if there was something that I was missing, or if these people were just eejits who thought that their method was the only way to go. From the responses, it sounds like eejits is the correct answer! 

When I don't understand something, I like to discuss it until I DO understand it, rather than blow it off. And for the record, I have now learned a few things about treat-training that I didn't know - first off, that it can be done without giving a million treats a day (something that doesn't really come through in most videos...), and that I have apparently only ever met dogs that really want to be praised and petted - honestly, I am blown away by how many people are saying that their dogs don't care about praise - not in a bad way, just in a "wow - I have been learning about and dealing with dogs for this long and have basically never met a dog that isn't all about the praise - except rehabilitation dogs. That is fascinating - and so statistically odd! I have met so many dogs that are motivated more or less by food, toys, sounds, sights, etc etc, but I have yet to meet a well-trained pup that doesn't love the praise!". 

Trust me - I LIKE learning this stuff - this just shows that sometimes, you can have a wealth of experience, and still have missed something like this. Reminds me to keep on asking questions!


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Niraya said:


> I have an extraordinary bond with my dog regardless of what reward I use with my method. I had to lol at that part a bit.
> Our bond is so strong because of the time that I spend with her doing things with her.
> 
> Some dogs just respond to different things.


Ok - whoops - I think that I may have worded something badly and caused some unintentional offense - I am SO SORRY! I didn't mean to suggest that a dog who doesn't respond to praise doesn't have a good bond with you! However, it is pretty impossible to motivate with praise without a good bond with your dog. For obvious reasons, if your dog doesn't give a fig about you, it's not going to give a fig about whether it is making you proud! You can absolutely have a strong bond with a dog that isn't the petting type. 

Note to self - must take more time to read over responses. I am just so overwhelmed with how many people are mentioning useful and interesting things that I am replying very quickly!! I really appreciate the time taken to read and respond to this question, so I am trying not to ignore responses.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Wow, you're calling people "eejits" now? Really? Kind of uncalled for IMHO... Unless you don't mean people here? The rest of your post is good so I'm hoping you don't mean people here! Cause otherwise we could be friends


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> Thanks - I am glad that you don't care if I don't use treats. I started the discussion because I couldn't understand why so many people DID care that I don't use treats, and I wanted to figure out if there was something that I was missing, or if these people were just eejits who thought that their method was the only way to go. From the responses, it sounds like eejits is the correct answer!
> 
> When I don't understand something, I like to discuss it until I DO understand it, rather than blow it off. And for the record, I have now learned a few things about treat-training that I didn't know - first off, that it can be done without giving a million treats a day (something that doesn't really come through in most videos...), and that I have apparently only ever met dogs that really want to be praised and petted - honestly, I am blown away by how many people are saying that their dogs don't care about praise - not in a bad way, just in a "wow - I have been learning about and dealing with dogs for this long and have basically never met a dog that isn't all about the praise - except rehabilitation dogs. That is fascinating - and so statistically odd! I have met so many dogs that are motivated more or less by food, toys, sounds, sights, etc etc, but I have yet to meet a well-trained pup that doesn't love the praise!".
> 
> Trust me - I LIKE learning this stuff - this just shows that sometimes, you can have a wealth of experience, and still have missed something like this. Reminds me to keep on asking questions!


I can't speak for everyone, but my dogs do like praise. I like it when my boss pulls me aside and says "that thing you did last week, that was awesome. Well done". My dogs learn "sit" the second they come home. When my 11 year old dog sits when he's asked, he doesn't get a treat. It's conditioned already. Same with my 7 year old and my 3 year old. "Sit" is "butt on floor, front legs straight". They don't need a treat every single time. But a dog who is just learning sit gets many TINY treats as long as they hold position (and when I say tiny, I mean TINY. I'm stingy. Treats are basically flavor buds, not whole pieces of chicken or whole pieces out of the bag). A good mother will use LOTS of praise and LOTS of encouragement, and maybe even a cookie or something their toddler really likes once that toddler begins to use the potty chair. But when the toddler is 35...mother isn't standing there clapping her hands saying "What a big boy!" every time he takes a leak. (Oh God, at least I hope not....) xD Same with dogs. Baby steps...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The real thing here is that you have to use what motivates your dog. I've seen people use food, yes. Also praise. Or their reward is to play a bit of tug or a round of fetch or frisbee. Or to get to go sniff for a bit (hounds). All of these things are the same principal - and you have to phase out ALL of those rewards to get really good, consistent, results. A lot of people just don't have the skill to phase out the reward. My (b)Rat Terrier isn't motivated by much of anything at this point (including food and praise). He learns fast when he gets it, but the reward the 'you got that!" marker with him is hard to get to - because not a lot registers as anything OMG JOYFUL to him. I think once he's been here longer that will change. 

(As for the health aspect: Tiny treats or regular kibble as treats (fed out of their daily ration of food) totally eliminates that one.)


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Have you actually used treats to train your dog to do something? Do you have any basis for comparison on your methods vs. using food?
> ETA: I think a lot of dogs get overwhelmed by our incessant babbling at them and the need to touch-touch-touch them all the time. I would imagine a "good boy" or "good girl" is probably spoken in a soothing happy tone, so at least the dogs understand you're not pissed or upset. Less confusion makes a lot of dogs appear "happy"



I have not actually used treats on one of my dogs, no. Basically, they haven't needed it! If I have an emotional resistance to treats, and I can train my dog without them, why would I try something else? If it ain't broke, and all that. 

I HAVE tried to use treats at times for specific behaviors, but never had a lot of success - I don't think that they suit me, and as I have never really had a dog that had difficulty with the praise method, I'm not too concerned about changing it. If this thread had led me to have a lightbulb "oh, I didn't think of that, I should start using treats" moment, then I would have made the effort to change. 

I HAVE worked with other people's dogs that have been treat-trained (or, badly attempted to treat train) and seen how much more they struggle - now I realize that they are clearly doing it wrong, but again, it seems much more complicated to me than what I do now, and there is still that emotional distaste for doing it. 

Also - I agree about the incessant babbling - and I think that a lot of dogs start to tune it out if you keep up a steady stream of "good girl" etc etc. I am very careful to keep my words to a minimum during training (although I do tend to chat to Dita when we are just hanging out....bad, but not really damaging habit, as the tone and words bear no resemblence to those that I use for praise) so that the praise carries more weight when it is given. And sometimes all I need is a touch, sometimes just a word, and sometimes, just my body language conveys pride and praise! When walking especially, she can tell from my body language exactly how pleased I am with her...or not. I am certainly not an advocate of stopping to smother your dog with hugs and kisses every time it does something appropriate!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think you're focusing on 'treat' too much. Really, all it comes down to is having a motivator for that specific dog. Pretty simple.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I think you're focusing on 'treat' too much. Really, all it comes down to is having a motivator for that specific dog. Pretty simple.


Exactly. 

Treat or praise, you're still asking the dog to get something it wants from you. Or to get something it wants as a way to indicate that they did it right. I fail to see the difference between a piece of kibble, a ball, or a 'good boy'.

But I'm rattled today, so who knows.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ManyRoses said:


> it seems much more complicated to me than what I do now, and there is still that emotional distaste for doing it.


What you are doing now is not different than what treat trainers are doing. You are passing out praise instead of food - but the principals, psychology, training and conditioning are *exactly* the same. You are giving the dog a reward for doing what you want.

It's not more complicated. You are complicating it.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Cracker said:


> One: rewards can be anything the dog finds rewarding. Food is just easier to get many reps in. My dog is fully treat trained and is not overweight, nor a gambler. You do realize that that "mentality" is actually more of an OCD type behaviour and reflects an already messed up individual with addictive qualities, right? Not everyone gets hooked on one arm bandits, it's an ANALOGY.
> 
> Two: in learning something rewards are individual, the dog gets to choose what they find rewarding. 80 percent of the dogs I see could give a rat's bum about "praise", though it is included in the training. I use premack, toys, food, breaks from training..whatever the dog needs or wants to enable them to learn. The fact that you think dogs work to PLEASE is quite ridic. They work because they want to..for whatever intrinsic reason that is. But it surely is very often not about us. What your father (grandfather?) said was in fact true of herding dogs...the chance to HERD is the reward...again, not working for the human. They are selfish creatures for the most part.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how I gave you the impression that I think that food causes aggression or stress? Unless you are meaning the studies, and in those cases, it isn't the food, so much as the randomness and inconsistency that is the issue, and I was struggling with the concept of giving a whole treat every single time that a dog does something "right". The food itself will undoubtedly make the dog happy in the short term! 

And I may have not been clear enough when I say that dogs work to please (although I don't, in fact, think that I said that - I think I said that they LOVE to please, which is a very different thing!) It's not the primary motivator in life, but my dogs have always been really stoked about making me happy....I have also said that I am learning that apparently I have had a bit of a statistical anomaly in my life, in that I have basically only met very praise-oriented dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

My dogs like praise and will work for just praise. But they will work harder for treats. Again, pretty simple. Treats work better, especially for certain behaviors and especially when they are first learning a behavior.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I think you're focusing on 'treat' too much. Really, all it comes down to is having a motivator for that specific dog. Pretty simple.


I say this and it means I didn't read the thread.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Kayota said:


> Wow, you're calling people "eejits" now? Really? Kind of uncalled for IMHO... Unless you don't mean people here? The rest of your post is good so I'm hoping you don't mean people here! Cause otherwise we could be friends



Well, no-one that has posted a reply so far!! LOL - no, in general I mean people that I have met outside, like the mother who sent her small child running over with a treat when I was putting Dita in a "walking time out" (putting her in a sit, and then keeping her there while she gets no eye-contact or attention) because she was getting over-excited and starting to nip at my legs. (I have discussed this in another thread). The kid was TOLD to offer me a treat "to get my dog to sit" (thanks, but she sits just fine on a verbal command when she ISN'T super excited, and I'm not about to treat her for behavior that I am trying to STOP!) and then the mother got all offended when I said that "I'm not treat training her" and started muttering her kid about me being a bad person!!! Ignoring the fact that you just sent your kid HURTLING toward a dog that is clearly over excited and starting to play bite ME (great way to get a bitten kid with a fear of dogs there, lady), that you expect me to feed my pup and her sensitive stomach some random cheap-ass pedigree biscuit, how dare you start telling your kid that I am a bad person when you have NO IDEA what I am doing? This person deserves to be called worse than just an eejit, in my mind!

Oh - and I would love to be friends!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ManyRoses said:


> .I have also said that I am learning that apparently I have had a bit of a statistical anomaly in my life, in that I have basically only met very praise-oriented dogs.


The thing you're missing, I think, is that you don't necessarily have the anomaly - Yeah, all dogs don't care about praise or pleasing (breed matters a lot, here), but there's also a communication issue. A rescue, or any dog who has not had a lot of time around people and learning them, is not always going to put together the fact that verbal praise even MEANS that their owner is happy.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I'd rather do something that makes my dog happy (give them a treat) than do something that may hurt them (physical correction). Boone is hard headed, a physical correction wouldn't do anything to phase him. Ginger, on the other hand, is very sensitive.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> Ok - whoops - I think that I may have worded something badly and caused some unintentional offense - I am SO SORRY! I didn't mean to suggest that a dog who doesn't respond to praise doesn't have a good bond with you! However, it is pretty impossible to motivate with praise without a good bond with your dog. For obvious reasons, if your dog doesn't give a fig about you, it's not going to give a fig about whether it is making you proud! You can absolutely have a strong bond with a dog that isn't the petting type.


No offense taken here  I just found the wording pretty funny is all and thought I would clarify on my end. 

Like I said - Bella doesn't care for praise. It is MUCH harder to try and train her solely with praise. Again - dogs are individuals and as such they prefer different things. I've noticed in Siberians MOST of the breed will not respond to praise but MOST are food driven - which makes them much easier to work with especially since they are so stubborn and independent. Bella is also very prey driven so I use that instinct as a reward for training as well. 

Now - when she knows the cue/action and I have phased out the reward - I will praise her, though I know very well that it has little bearing on her overall - as praise isn't something that motivates her. Siberians are very much a "What's in it for me" breed and praise often just isn't enough even for cues they know very well. I still reinforce all of her training through our play which helps to strengthen the bond we have.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

CptJack said:


> What you are doing now is not different than what treat trainers are doing. You are passing out praise instead of food - but the principals, psychology, training and conditioning are *exactly* the same. You are giving the dog a reward for doing what you want.
> 
> It's not more complicated. You are complicating it.



Ok - it is the same on the basic level, but it seems more complicated in terms of weaning off the treats, counting calories, etc etc. It also seems easier to mess up, but that may just be that it would be easier for ME to mess up, because I don't do it. 

I am well aware that it is the same principle - that is why I was so confused about people never considering praise alone, or acting like I am a crazy person for not using treats and clickers. In fact, this is why I started the discussion, because in my head I was thinking "wait a minute - I am doing this exact thing, but by not using food, I don't have to worry about calories, food sensitivities, not being consistent because I forgot the treats (or ran out), the difference between luring and rewarding...gee, my way seems much simpler, I wonder why people are so determined that the food part makes such a big difference!"


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I say this and it means I didn't read the thread.


Actually, I thought that you hadn't read it because you asked me why I was questioning it, and I think that I explained pretty fully WHY I was questioning it - to understand why people were so treat-heavy and seemed to have a bit of an issue with not using treats at all. That's all.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ManyRoses said:


> I am well aware that it is the same principle - that is why I was so confused about people never considering praise alone, or acting like I am a crazy person for not using treats and clickers. In fact, this is why I started the discussion, because in my head I was thinking "wait a minute - I am doing this exact thing, but by not using food, I don't have to worry about calories, food sensitivities, not being consistent because I forgot the treats (or ran out), the difference between luring and rewarding...gee, my way seems much simpler, I wonder why people are so determined that the food part makes such a big difference!"


I think I'm getting you now. 

The truth is, it's not any harder. A handful of kibble from the dog's daily ration and you're good. Counting calories? Just watch the dog's body condition. Cut back if they're tubby, increase if they're not - it's not like calories and food recommendation on the back of the bag (or raw feeding websites) work for every dog, anyway. Food sensitivities? Surely you know what your dog can eat, right? Feed them some of that. Don't feed them things they can't. Running out? ...I don't know any treat-trainer who doesn't phase out the treats. I've never in my life seen anyone not actively training carrying baggies full of treats because it's the only way the dog will perform. If nothing else the dog will perform under pressure because there MIGHT be a treat. Usually, though, it's developing the communication link to the dog: "Yes, that's what sit means." I mean. Do you praise your dog exuberantly every time they do what you want? Or is it sometimes just a subdued, absent, good dog, and moving on. Or even just plain old NOTHING until the end?


That said, for me the reason is simple: I can start treat training a 4-5 week old puppy, or a scared new dog who just came home. I can start communicating from minute ONE. It doesn't take a translation, or time for the dog to understand what this praise thing is about or means. It means I can communicate "YES! THAT!" to them without having to wait for it to trust me, never mind care about it. Heck, it allows me to BUILD trust and care.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

CptJack said:


> The thing you're missing, I think, is that you don't necessarily have the anomaly - Yeah, all dogs don't care about praise or pleasing (breed matters a lot, here), but there's also a communication issue. A rescue, or any dog who has not had a lot of time around people and learning them, is not always going to put together the fact that verbal praise even MEANS that their owner is happy.


Very good point - most of my experience comes with working dogs that aren't rescues, and so have learned from day one that praise = happy owner, and the rescues that I have dealt with have still spent a lot of time around people and make this connection. 

Again - I would always say that if they don't understand it, for whatever reason, then you have to work to help them understand that. Ironically enough, this is a situation where using treats would probably be my recommendation - because giving the treat and praise would help create the association!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> I wonder why people are so determined that the food part makes such a big difference!


Because it can and DOES. 

You keep arguing your way is simpler. It's not. If you know what you're doing and have found your dogs hot button, it's about that. You're not some exemption that proves that using treats is the hard way of going about things because not using them works for _your_ dogs. You're more than welcome to attempt to work with my Shambles in that manner and I will enjoy the show.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ManyRoses said:


> Very good point - most of my experience comes with working dogs that aren't rescues, and so have learned from day one that praise = happy owner, and the rescues that I have dealt with have still spent a lot of time around people and make this connection.
> 
> Again - I would always say that if they don't understand it, for whatever reason, then you have to work to help them understand that. Ironically enough, this is a situation where using treats would probably be my recommendation - because giving the treat and praise would help create the association!


Yep, exactly, and ultimately? Those treat trainers do transition from 'here's some high value chicken babyfood that's in my pocket in a jar' to 'good dog' to - nothing. It's just developing the association. But the treat in there makes that 'YES! THIS! THIS IS WHAT SIT MEANS!" association work faster. It's like loading the clicker, only you're loading your 'good dog' - and then phasing out the reward, and just giving the marker for behaviour you want.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I gave the reasons that I think that praise is a better "reward" than treats


Hoping somebody brought it up already, but even if they did, I'm going to say it myself.

It doesn't matter what reward YOU think is best. If I have a dog that is not interested in praise, why would I give them praise? The reward has no value to anybody but me, and it's not me that needs to be trained. I use rewards that my dogs are interested, whether that is food, praise, or toys. I build drive and desire to work with me by using something the dog really wants (which is usually food or a toy).

Let's be realistic here. If I had to go to a job every day and got nothing but "Good work!" and no money, I would not be enthused about my job. Quite frankly, I'd either quit, or eventually be fired due to poor work performance, because the reward my boss thinks is good enough is not a big enough reinforcer to get me to continue working.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Because it can and DOES.
> 
> You keep arguing your way is simpler. It's not. If you know what you're doing and have found your dogs hot button, it's about that. You're not some exemption that proves that using treats is the hard way of going about things because not using them works for _your_ dogs. You're more than welcome to attempt to work with my Shambles in that manner and I will enjoy the show.


I will allow that it CAN make a difference, but not that it always DOES. 

And I am "arguing" that my way is simpler FOR ME - I have, in fact, even said that it may seem so much simpler to me because I have so much practice with it, while treat training would be a pretty new endeavor. I'm not suggesting that "I am right" or "this is how everyone should do it". I am saying "this is why I do this, am I wrong about something, or not getting something". I'm actually saying that one of the reasons that I think people go to treats as a default is that they ARE easier (even if I personally find the concept a little more complex). I am saying that "I" would prefer not to use them because I have seen them used so badly, and so ineffectively, but that I was trying to figure out if there actually was some big reason that I wasn't seeing - turns out no, there isn't. I think that everyone agrees that if praise works just as well, there is no reason not to use it instead. I am reassured that I wasn't somehow missing the point. 

How about this - I'll try to convince your dog to care about praise, and then I'll watch you attempt to convince my dog to realllllly care about a treat as much as she cares about being praised.....we'd probably both have a bit of a laugh! Or, you could concede, as I have, that different things work for different dogs, and I was initially correct in not thinking that there was really any big difference, and my personal reasons for choosing not to use it with my dog are perfectly valid.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Hoping somebody brought it up already, but even if they did, I'm going to say it myself.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reward YOU think is best. If I have a dog that is not interested in praise, why would I give them praise? The reward has no value to anybody but me, and it's not me that needs to be trained. I use rewards that my dogs are interested, whether that is food, praise, or toys. I build drive and desire to work with me by using something the dog really wants (which is usually food or a toy).
> 
> Let's be realistic here. If I had to go to a job every day and got nothing but "Good work!" and no money, I would not be enthused about my job. Quite frankly, I'd either quit, or eventually be fired due to poor work performance, because the reward my boss thinks is good enough is not a big enough reinforcer to get me to continue working.


Yay Xeph! <3


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I work for a pay check. That buys my groceries. Praise from my boss is nice, but I wouldn't do my job for just that.

My dogs work. I ask them to do tasks most dogs will never encounter. In extremely stressful situations. Dogs have no natural desire to find a person buried in an 80,000 sq ft rubble pile. They get no natural reward of finding an old dried bone on 140 acres. 

So I pay them with what motivates them. I work with breeds that have intense prey and bite drive. So toys, biting, and tugs are their pay. 

Simple tasks, as sit, heel, down, etc praise is enough for some. For others, they don't liked to be touched. They are serious, and don't want a pat on the head. They want to work and get to bite the perp, or chase the ball, or tug like maniacs.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Hoping somebody brought it up already, but even if they did, I'm going to say it myself.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reward YOU think is best. If I have a dog that is not interested in praise, why would I give them praise? The reward has no value to anybody but me, and it's not me that needs to be trained. I use rewards that my dogs are interested, whether that is food, praise, or toys. I build drive and desire to work with me by using something the dog really wants (which is usually food or a toy).
> 
> Let's be realistic here. If I had to go to a job every day and got nothing but "Good work!" and no money, I would not be enthused about my job. Quite frankly, I'd either quit, or eventually be fired due to poor work performance, because the reward my boss thinks is good enough is not a big enough reinforcer to get me to continue working.


Would it be better if I said that "I think that praise is a better reward for my dog because my specific dog FREAKING LOVES PRAISE, and has a really sensitive stomach, and I would rather not be scooping diarreah off the ground every day because I attempt to treat train her with something that doesn't agree with her." Or maybe "My dog has conveyed to me through her behaviour that she thinks that praise is a good reward, and there are also some reasons that I have apart from that."? I am not saying that I think praise is "better" SOLELY because of my own personal feelings on the matter, although they do play a part. (And I do think that it really matters what your personal feelings are, because dogs are pretty sensitive to how you feel. It would be like deciding to use a head collar if you had decided that you thought they were cruel - the dog would probably pick up on your sadness and unhappiness every time you put it on, and develop a negative association.) I think praise is better for my dog, and I'm pretty sure that she thinks praise is a darn good reward too - otherwise she wouldn't be responding to it, would she?

I think that you are arguing semantics here, I'm not suggesting that how I feel should outweigh the effectiveness of the reward, or that I would choose a reward that my dog thought was a punishment!


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

ManyRoses said:


> Thank you for taking the time to really read my post and answer so coherently!
> 
> With this explanation, it definitely makes more sense - especially in terms of volume! I was just sitting and counting the number of times something was put down in one video, and couldn't get over it!
> 
> ...


I find dog training to be more common sense in most cases than big words or degrees. Some of the hardest people to work with are the ones with big educations who think too much about details like screwing up the dog's training. Just a thought for you.

I don't use a clicker because I always forget it or it gets lost. But I don't bash those that do and certainly do use it when I can find it, to work on specific skills with the dogs. Sometimes they get treats, sometimes they get toys, sometimes just praise, but food works much better ALL the time. So I don't mess with it.

You can screw up anything, trust me. I've seen it!


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

juliemule said:


> I work for a pay check. That buys my groceries. Praise from my boss is nice, but I wouldn't do my job for just that.
> 
> My dogs work. I ask them to do tasks most dogs will never encounter. In extremely stressful situations. Dogs have no natural desire to find a person buried in an 80,000 sq ft rubble pile. They get no natural reward of finding an old dried bone on 140 acres.
> 
> ...


I shall refer you to the reply I just posted - and repeat, I wouldn't use it if it wasn't a motivator for the dog that I was using it on!


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> I am saying "this is why I do this, am I wrong about something, or not getting something". I'm actually saying that one of the reasons that I think people go to treats as a default is that they ARE easier (even if I personally find the concept a little more complex). I am saying that "I" would prefer not to use them because I have seen them used so badly, and so ineffectively


I think just because you've seen other people use it ineffectively or poorly is a poor reason to say "this just doesn't seem like it would work or be better than this method" - especially if you've in fact never actually tried the method yourself and are only basing it off of observation- if I'm understanding correctly? 



> How about this - I'll try to convince your dog to care about praise, and then I'll watch you attempt to convince my dog to realllllly care about a treat as much as she cares about being praised.....


You could go through a training session with Bella if you'd really like and try to get her to do the things you ask and only offer her praise. She -might- listen (you'd be incredibly lucky to get one cue done with her) the first time but after that she'll look at you like you're crazy and walk off. Guaranteed. I think you'd find TWAB easily convincing your dog to care about a treat xD


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Well I'm glad that I apparently have a bad relationship with my dog because praise doesn't cut it for her. I'm sorry I even started reading this thread.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I train with food. And toys. And praise. I live with 3 dogs and I mix all of the reinforcers up quite a bit depending on the dog and the skill. When I'm doing normal day to day skills, I'm not handing out treats. When I am working on performance stuff, sure, I use food. Sometimes a lot. 

I can hike for 2 hours with 3 dogs without a treat, but I do praise. However, if I am teaching complicated skills on an agility course, I may use sausage or cheese because the dogs love it. I do not have a dog that is one ounce fat. If they are willing to work a skill over and over again, I am willing to pay them to do it. We both get exactly what we want. Once the skill is learned, the food is delayed, faded, or given after a new skill. Whatever makes sense. The dogs just roll with it.

When people tell me that they exclusively train with praise, I wonder what breed they are handling and what level they are training to. I can train almost any dog to pet-level obedience with praise. But to compete in 3 venues, I use food.

We all have to train for the dog we own and we all have to adjust our strategy to fit the level we are training for. If it was all just sit-stay-down-come-heel, it might not be necessary to break out the snack jar. I run 2 terriers and a hound in obedience, rally, and agility. Please hand me the cookies.

As long as it's working and the dogs aren't cringing or quitting, I don't really care what method or reinforcer is being used. I just think that the higher you go in training complexity, the more likely you are to be aided by using food.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Bordermom said:


> I find dog training to be more common sense in most cases than big words or degrees. Some of the hardest people to work with are the ones with big educations who think too much about details like screwing up the dog's training. Just a thought for you.
> 
> I don't use a clicker because I always forget it or it gets lost. But I don't bash those that do and certainly do use it when I can find it, to work on specific skills with the dogs. Sometimes they get treats, sometimes they get toys, sometimes just praise, but food works much better ALL the time. So I don't mess with it.
> 
> You can screw up anything, trust me. I've seen it!



For the record - I don't have a degree, I have a diploma (trust me, those people that DO have degrees LOVE to point out the difference...) Just pointing out the difference for the sake of total disclosure! I don't want anyone to think that I am something that I am not...

And my post was actually lamenting the fact that I DO overthink things courtesy of psychology (hence the next one where I said "gee, thanks psychology diploma"...sarcasm and all...). There are times where I really think "Darn, I wish that I could just stop my mind whirring and do the thing that someone else shows me without feeling the need to cross-examine it seventy times", especially when it comes to the dog! But that's just the way my mind works...especially as most of the cognitive studies involving animals were absolutely brutal - it's hard to forget about them. 

And I absolutely agree that you can screw anything up!! In fact, I'm betting that if I took someone who had no sense and tried to teach them my "method" they would find a way to mess it up! I actually find that Dita doesn't respond consistently to anything BUT praise - there have been times where we have wanted to use a treat (for whatever reason) and she has been completely uninterested. But praise? That'll have her perky, tail whipping around, super happy every single time!


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> I shall refer you to the reply I just posted - and repeat, I wouldn't use it if it wasn't a motivator for the dog that I was using it on!


 Has anyone here said anything against praise as a reward, or that you aren't doing it right if you aren't giving treats? You asked for explanations why people use treats, and have been given many examples. I think most agree as long as your reward is adequate, then by all means use it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I think that you are arguing semantics here


But, it's not semantics.

Of course, what it really seems to come down to for you (this is an admitted assumption) is that you only seem to care that the dog complies, where as many of us are more likely looking at it from the point of view of the picture of a performance.

This is Mirada at just over a year old learning heel work. As you can see, I still have the frisbee in hand. Mirada has learned focal point, but what I am asking for and rewarding here is position near my body and duration of work. This is the kind of performance I get when I have a reward worth something to my dog.

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

If I offered the SAME dog nothing but praise in the beginning stages, she quit on me pretty quickly, because praise did not have the same value as throwing the toy. She would perform the action, but I got a TON of lagging and flat heeling. Basically, she just started to follow me around, because she was tethered to me.

Mirada is now over 2 years old, and will perform relatively long heeling patterns for a variable reward at various levels of duration. I do not have to keep a toy on my person or even nearby. She'll perform the actions I ask of her because it has now been engrained as a permanent behavior in her. The work itself has become more rewarding because of the way I paired her desire for the reward with her desire to work.

It is important to remember that drive is also a necessary thing in a dog, as work itself ends up becoming it's own motivator and reward in the end. It is foolish to think that all dogs can be conditioned to work for us out of love/desire to please us It's silliness. They will work for what motivates them.

I am not after animals that simply obey what I tell them, but do so with great gusto, in drive, and create a beautiful picture in performance.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Dog training isn't rocket science. Dogs are simple. Thank God, lol.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Niraya said:


> You could go through a training session with Bella if you'd really like and try to get her to do the things you ask and only offer her praise. She -might- listen (you'd be incredibly lucky to get one cue done with her) the first time but after that she'll look at you like you're crazy and walk off. Guaranteed. I think you'd find TWAB easily convincing your dog to care about a treat xD



Erm - I meant this as a bit of a joke - I thought that I had made it pretty clear that I have agreed that this wouldn't work if your dog doesn't care about praise! Oh, and for the record, you would be surprised how little Dita actually cares for treats...offer her a nice juicy treat in one hand, an ice cube in the other, and she'll take the ice cube! Dogs can be funny that way....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

If praise works for that dog, then great. But you can't get my dogs to work as well for praise as you can for food. If toys work for a specific dog, that's great too. But again, my dogs work best for food. That's why I use treats when I train.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

kafkabeetle said:


> Well I'm glad that I apparently have a bad relationship with my dog because praise doesn't cut it for her. I'm sorry I even started reading this thread.



I'm sorry if you feel this way - I have repeatedly said (as the thread has developed) that apparently I have just never met a dog that isn't very praise motivated, and that it is perfectly possible to have a great bond with a dog that doesn't like it, or to use whatever method works for you. In fact, I went back and CLARIFIED this position more than once. Don't just start reading it - read it all the way through!


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> Erm - I meant this as a bit of a joke - I thought that I had made it pretty clear that I have agreed that this wouldn't work if your dog doesn't care about praise! Oh, and for the record, you would be surprised how little Dita actually cares for treats...offer her a nice juicy treat in one hand, an ice cube in the other, and she'll take the ice cube! Dogs can be funny that way....


I understood it was a joke  I was just kind of playing with it a bit. lol


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

juliemule said:


> Has anyone here said anything against praise as a reward, or that you aren't doing it right if you aren't giving treats? You asked for explanations why people use treats, and have been given many examples. I think most agree as long as your reward is adequate, then by all means use it.



I've had a few queries as to why I don't use treats, but on this forum I was commenting more that people are very treat-focused, and few people seem to use other methods, or at least mention it. I have, however, had many other people seem very offended by my not using treats. 

I would also agree that if it works, to keep using it - I was trying to make sure that I understood the treat thing before I confirmed my decision not to.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ManyRoses said:


> I've had a few queries as to why I don't use treats, but on this forum I was commenting more that people are very treat-focused, and few people seem to use other methods, or at least mention it. I have, however, had many other people seem very offended by my not using treats.
> 
> I would also agree that if it works, to keep using it - I was trying to make sure that I understood the treat thing before I confirmed my decision not to.



People in this forum are treat focused, I think, because most are offering help and advice to the frustrated owner of a pet dog, not someone who wants to compete -or even go beyond 'don't jump up, don't eat my couch, and don't pee in the house, don't rip my arm out on walks and, well, maybe sit would be nice'. They're just trying to offer the most likely, universal, and fastest way to get the dog to perform the desired behaviour - or to stop performing one that isn't. Treats work for most dogs. Praise works for some. It's also a lot harder to miscommunicate, via body language, tone, or other things, getting a piece of chicken or turkey than it is trying to use words and physical contact. Especially with a new dog and/or a frustrated, teeved off, novice owner.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Thanks for all the replies....I am glad that I wasn't, in fact, missing some vital reason behind the use of treats, and that it seems like everyone is in agreement that it is just easier or more effective for their dog, and that if praise works for me, there is no reason not to. 

One more clarification - if treats work for you, and you are not overfeeding, I have absolutely no issues with that! I am not trying to say "hey everyone - this is waaaay better! You should do this, like me!". I was just trying to say "so, I don't use treats, here's my reason, can anyone see a problem with not using them?". And happily, I got a pretty unanimous answer - if it's working, it's not a problem! 

Thanks for all the interesting discussion, and the generally polite and friendly tone, too!! 

No doubt this thread will get a lot more replies, but I wanted to post a little update-y bit here, because I have just looked at the clock and gone "oh crap! Look how much time I have spent on this forum!". Better go do some actual training, rather than just talking about it (and work...work is good....lol. Forums are so distracting when you work from home!).....So if I post no more replies today, it doesn't mean I am out of the discussion, or have been stymied by a response!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> I will allow that it CAN make a difference, but not that it always DOES.
> 
> And I am "arguing" that my way is simpler FOR ME - I have, in fact, even said that it may seem so much simpler to me because I have so much practice with it, while treat training would be a pretty new endeavor. I'm not suggesting that "I am right" or "this is how everyone should do it". I am saying "this is why I do this, am I wrong about something, or not getting something". I'm actually saying that one of the reasons that I think people go to treats as a default is that they ARE easier (even if I personally find the concept a little more complex). I am saying that "I" would prefer not to use them because I have seen them used so badly, and so ineffectively, but that I was trying to figure out if there actually was some big reason that I wasn't seeing - turns out no, there isn't. I think that everyone agrees that if praise works just as well, there is no reason not to use it instead. I am reassured that I wasn't somehow missing the point.
> 
> How about this - I'll try to convince your dog to care about praise, and then I'll watch you attempt to convince my dog to realllllly care about a treat as much as she cares about being praised.....we'd probably both have a bit of a laugh! Or, you could concede, as I have, that different things work for different dogs, and I was initially correct in not thinking that there was really any big difference, and my personal reasons for choosing not to use it with my dog are perfectly valid.


Then again I will ask you what your point is. You're talking in circles when it comes down to the same thing I (and many others have said) Different dogs, different rewards. If you agree it all comes down to that then I have no idea what you're looking for in regards to why people use treats.


ETA because I'm on my phone, I'm not sure how I'M the one not conceding here..


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> I'm sorry if you feel this way - I have repeatedly said (as the thread has developed) that apparently I have just never met a dog that isn't very praise motivated, and that it is perfectly possible to have a great bond with a dog that doesn't like it, or to use whatever method works for you. In fact, I went back and CLARIFIED this position more than once. Don't just start reading it - read it all the way through!


I read the whole thing and I find it all ridiculous. No one here thinks you are doing something wrong by training your dog with praise, and yet you seem to think only abused dogs can benefit from treats during training. And btw, my dog likes praise perfectly well but it's not enough to motivate her to do things she finds frustrating, confusing, distracting or scary. That's when I use treats. 

It's pretty cool how you've accused at least two people now of not reading just because they didn't agree with you.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Xeph said:


> But, it's not semantics.
> 
> Of course, what it really seems to come down to for you (this is an admitted assumption) is that you only seem to care that the dog complies, where as many of us are more likely looking at it from the point of view of the picture of a performance.
> 
> ...



Whoops - I missed seeing this one. We are after the SAME THING - trust me!! I care very much about my dog being fulfilled and happy, and loving what she is doing. You sound like you are working from exactly the same point as I am - I absolutely do NOT want a robot dog that just complies instantly and mindlessly - I love working WITH my dog, reading her body language as she reads mine, puzzling out why she is picking up one thing faster than another, or what is going to be a big motivator for her today. There is nothing more satisfying than watching her truly enjoying herself, and knowing that every day I can understand her personality a little bit more. 

In fact, I would think that my initial post, and my (to me) obvious concern about not changing her mindset to be desperate for the chance of a treat would show this - I don't want to bring anything out that changes her mentality to the point that she is a drone, repeating a behavior that has been ingrained. I want to bring out the absolute best in her - work as much as possible within that perfect circle of: Dog does something it wants to:dog is rewarded: dog continues doing things that it enjoys. The focus is on rewarding those behaviors that fall into the area of BOTH of us find them rewarding - things that she enjoys doing that I want to encourage. 

I really think that my point is being lost somewhere, and that you think that my aim is to create a dog that will "do as its told" just for the joy of pleasing me - no no NO! My aim is to teach her to be safe, obviously, and to create a harmonious living situation, but is mostly going beyond that to make HER happy and fulfilled. 

I'm really not sure why you think that just because I would prefer not to use treats, and have been using a different reward that she responds well to, that I don't care about her enjoying what she does? It is EXACTLY the same as you using a toy during training - she just responds best to praise, and I just so happen to be happiest giving her praise - what a perfect match! If she was totally toy-focused, I might use toys!


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ManyRoses said:


> You don't have to hurt a dog to train it with praise! In fact, I specifically said that I don't agree with physical intimidation to train, AT ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> OR - you could use praise, a non-food reward! There is a THIRD OPTION here - that is what I am having the biggest issue understanding - it's not a case of beat-or-treat....


Praise doesn't always work, at times you need to find what motivates the dog, use it, then FADE IT OUT. 



ManyRoses said:


> Which is absolutely awesome!! : ) Maybe it makes it easier on me that Dita much prefers praise to food-rewards, or maybe she has just taken very well to my methods....


If the dog is more motivated by play, you use play. If the dog is more food motivated (like mine) you use food. No matter what you use, you'll still 'fade the lure' when the time comes to proof the behavior.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I have to admit, I don't really understand the whole point of the thread if you agree that you use what works with a dog.

I'd wager that if your dogs are food or toy motivated, I could get more of a performance out of the dogs, rather than the dogs just following directions.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I've seen treat training hacked to bits by people who don't understand how to GET RID OF THE LURE (pet peeve) .........


OK ... I read this and my initial reaction was like ... who, ME ??? foodie of all foodies ???

My confusion was only momentary. 

LOL


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Then again I will ask you what your point is. You're talking in circles when it comes down to the same thing I (and many others have said) Different dogs, different rewards. If you agree it all comes down to that then I have no idea what you're looking for in regards to why people use treats.
> 
> 
> ETA because I'm on my phone, I'm not sure how I'M the one not conceding here..


Yeep - I was not saying "you are not conceding" - I was being lighthearted, and saying that I AM CONCEDING - I am agreeing that different rewards work. 

I am THRILLED that I was not, apparently, wrong or confused - I am so very glad that we are basically all agreeing at this point. I was making sure that I was NOT missing something - I wanted to discuss it further because I didn't fully understand - is that so very wrong? Just wanting more information?


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

I will admit I didn't wade through the million and a half responses. I tried, but some of your responses became so convoluted that my eyes started to cross, so I will just tell you why I personally use treats when I train and why I plan suggesting that future clients to use treats. Because positive reinforcement works. Period. When you start off training a puppy, you treat every time the puppy does what you ask in terms of sit, down, come, etc. You then gradually reduce the number of treats (so maybe only 8/10 times...and then 5/10 and then maybe 1/10). 

I had a dog in class that was not food motivated, so her owner used praise and attention. Some others use toys b/c that works. Gracie is food motivated. So is Gizmo. So are most of the dogs that I have worked with.

Does that mean my dog will not perform without a treat? Nope. She will. So will Gizmo. Gracie gets treats after performing a series of commands. And I use treats when on walks to re-direct her when she sees another dog. 

Is food the only motivator? Nope. But, in the long run, it is the one that has the highest success rate IMO. I will continue to suggest it. Will I force someone to do it? Nope. Your dog, your choice.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ManyRoses said:


> You don't have to hurt a dog to train it with praise! In fact, I specifically said that I don't agree with physical intimidation to train, AT ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> OR - you could use praise, a non-food reward! There is a THIRD OPTION here - that is what I am having the biggest issue understanding - it's not a case of beat-or-treat....





ManyRoses said:


> Which is absolutely awesome!! : ) Maybe it makes it easier on me that Dita much prefers praise to food-rewards, or maybe she has just taken very well to my methods....


I think this may be the part you're missing about reward based training, Fading the Lure


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm not reading this whole thread because I'm late to the party, but if you are using praise as a reward, you ARE treat training. Your "treat" is just praise instead of food.


----------



## Nev Allen (Feb 17, 2010)

In telling my students why we use a treat reward program, I use the analogy of a worker who does a good job and gets a pat on the head versus a worker who does a good job and earns a bonus - who would the worker rather work for?

We do tell people that sometimes their dog may not be food motivated and in that case they would be encouraged to use praise whilst working on the food drive.

Treats are limited to the size of a small finger nail and students are instructed to guage the amount of treats that are fed in a day and to adjust the dogs food intake accordingly.

The number of treats are reduced as the dogs learns the behaviour until treats are randomised with tug games or hearty cuddles interspersed. 

I have seen dogs that will only work if the person has a treat in their hand and in talking to them I find that they have usually failed to tail off the treats and have usually never taught themselves to just let go and have fun with their dog.

I do believe that giving animals food treats as a reward speeds up the learning process but they must be tied to a well prepared and consistent training program. After all it works with killer whales and you would have a hard time giving one of them a cuddle 

At the end of the day it does just boil down to personal preference and there is a place for your methods. I guess its just the majority view that treat training is a better way.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> and my (to me) obvious concern about not *changing her mindset to be desperate for the chance of a treat* would show this


But this here is your issue. It's not about my dogs being "desperate for a treat". That's just silly. Desperation shouldn't even enter into it, as that is a stressor that can cause a dog to lose clear headedness. A dog that is not clear in the head is useless, as it is not thinking.

The object is not just to get the dog to work harder, but work smarter.

You are attaching a psychological bias against treats because you saw/heard of animals starving themselves to death on GAMBLING behavior. Gambling behavior is NOT the same as what we are doing when we are teaching a behavior.

When I am teaching heeling, I start out by rewarding focus. There is no real "gamble" in it for the dog. You give me focus, I give you food (or toy, or whatever the hell it is you want). I have had dogs become obsessive in throwing various behaviors at me to get a reward (and it is not always food or toys), at which point I end the training session and put the dog away to allow the fog in it's head to clear, and we start at a lower level of training to keep the dog under threshold.

Hectic, manic dogs are no fun to work with. They're like robots with a short in their wiring. Damn flashy, but there is no cohesiveness in their behavior, they're just flying all over the damn place hoping that at some point their computation will be correct.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> I have not actually used treats on one of my dogs, no. Basically, they haven't needed it! If I have an emotional resistance to treats, and I can train my dog without them, why would I try something else? If it ain't broke, and all that.


Well...I've used many methods, and I stick with this because it works for the dog(s) I'm currently training for certain sports and fun stuff, so...if it ain't broke and all that  

If you're really interested, I would suggest taking a good look at the Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson and The Other End of the Leash by Patricia McConnell...


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Well...I've used many methods, and I stick with this because it works for the dog(s) I'm currently training for certain sports and fun stuff, so...if it ain't broke and all that
> 
> If you're really interested, I would suggest taking a good look at the Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson and The Other End of the Leash by Patricia McConnell...


Quoted for truth. And those two books are awesome.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> But this here is your issue. It's not about my dogs being "desperate for a treat". That's just silly. Desperation shouldn't even enter into it, as that is a stressor that can cause a dog to lose clear headedness. A dog that is not clear in the head is useless, as it is not thinking.
> 
> The object is not just to get the dog to work harder, but work smarter.
> 
> ...


Once again, Xeph nails it. "Offering behavior" can be cute, and funny, and can really be rewarding to a trainer new to these kinds of methods, but in reality it's a loss of focus and can easily become a behavior chain. My oldest dog learned quickly that I would LOL and toss him something...a toy, food, anything...by sitting, lying down, sitting back up, waving his paws, spinning to his left, then to his right, lying back down and rolling over. It wasn't several behaviors to him, it was all one long chain that had a good history of reward. It worked for him, so why not? I actually find myself getting slightly annoyed when my dogs do this now, because they have the zooms or whatever, because I like a dog who is in whatever drive they need to be WHILE maintaining focus and being clear-headed. If my dog would break his start line stay and do an impressive line of 4 jumps, turn into the tunnel, do the dog walk then do a massive fly off the A-frame, it might look funny and even impressive to someone who doesn't know what we're after. But it's not impressive. It's a dog who's lost self control and is going insane...


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

petpeeve said:


> OK ... I read this and my initial reaction was like ... who, ME ??? foodie of all foodies ???
> 
> My confusion was only momentary.
> 
> LOL


xD Sorry about that!!!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Xeph said:


> You are attaching a psychological bias against treats because you saw/heard of animals starving themselves to death on GAMBLING behavior. Gambling behavior is NOT the same as what we are doing when we are teaching a behavior.


This is such a good point, I think it needed to be seen again.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I have a couple of questions. 
How long did it take you to get a consistent, repeat performance of a new behaviour using praise only. How long before it was under stimulus control?

Why do you have an "emotional bias" against food training? 

How old is the dog you have now and how often do you have to do walking time outs to calm her down?

What breed is she and does she have a job?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> It's a dog who's lost self control and is going insane...


Absolutely Excellent analogy, all of it! When training with any sort of reward, you always want to the dog to maintain self control!

While I do clicker train, I use lures, as I don't find offered behaviors funny, amusing, or rewarding. I want what I want in the shortest amount of time possible. That said, I fade lures as quickly as possible. Puppies remain on a variable reward schedule for a longer period of time when I'm building duration of behavior (this is more for ME than the dog).

I'm currently training my second service dog. He will have to do HOURS worth of work as an adult for no reward beyond "Good boy!" once he is fully in service. That is all I will have to offer him, as feeding him when he is officially working is unprofessional and impolite.

But you can sure bet that I'm using food rewards and the like for him now. If I give him verbal praise at this stage, he turns his brain off and gets this blank look on his face, which means I no longer have his attention, and he's not listening.

I can rub him up, hug him, etc, but he gives me no response. He thinks praise has no value. As he grows and has a higher success rate with following commands, praise will be paired with work that is rewarding for him, and the duration of behavior will become hours and hours long, with a very low rate of failure in completing tasks.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I think the bottom line here is that the people you feel push "treat training" are really advocates of _reward_ based training, and it so happens that food is a great motivator/reward for a large number of dogs. Nobody is saying DON'T use praise, but your original question was "help me understand why everyone is so pro-treat training" so... that's what people are discussing. 

I think everyone here has pretty much acknowledged that what each dog considers a reward is different. And context matters, too - for example, I do some urban mushing. It is pretty much impossible for me to reward my dogs with treats when they correctly execute directional commands (left/right) in the middle of a run. But running IS the reward... if they go the right way, we keep running. If they go the wrong way, they have to stop and turn around. 

But working with those same dogs on tasks like heeling or tricks, I use food because the tricks and tasks are not rewards in and of themselves. When I first started Rally with Squash, I had to reward after pretty much every station. Now, maybe a couple of times on a course after a challenging skill or one we're working particularly hard on then a few at the end of the course, otherwise he's just getting positive verbal markers like "good!" or "nice!" He understands what those mean NOW because we've trained towards that... but I guarantee you he wouldn't have responded to them on the first night. It makes me LOL just thinking about trying that with him. 

So the suggestion that it is either food or praise, or that there is ONE way to use food, is as head-scratching to me as your objection to people early in the thread who were presenting this as a "treats or correction" discussion. Whatever you use as your reward, there's more than one way to use it. You can start out using it one way, and work towards a different goal. 

And on a practical basis, I've never, ever seen or even heard someone who used treats as rewards in training who ended up with a dog who was desperate for treats as you fear. I would chalk that one up to "hypothetically possible, but just doesn't happen in the real world."


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I love offered behaviors. It really shows a dog is thinking. Putting it together with a command, and it works well. Greta will try new stuff for attention. She constantly brim.hw a toy, drops it in my lap, and if I don't throw it, she goes through the whole sit-down-bark-spin routine. 
While sitting on the couch having finished lunch, she does her ordeal. She gets frustrated and lays her head on the coffee table. It was pretty cute, so I said "that's cute" and tossed her tug. Mistake! Lol

Now she does "cute" things anywhere she can lay her head. It's quite funny to watch her go to different fixtures and attempt to lay her head down, even if it means standing on her hind legs to reach something to plant her head down. She actually bowed last night, because nothing was available except the ground haha.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Cracker said:


> You've been reading/watching too much BP.


I think this just about sums things up, nice and neat and tidy.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I love offered behaviors.


I'm a fuddy duddy


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

petpeeve said:


> I think this just about sums things up, nice and neat and tidy.


Yep. I have to agree.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Treats work because they are a primary reinforcer. Maybe you (OP) should do some research on primary reinforcers.

Another trick to training without the use of punishment is to control every source of reinforcement. So you really wouldn't be training "leave it" around the house all day every day. (At least you wouldn't have to do that for more than couple of days, then the dog should know what things are off limits. Also, if you trained "leave it" using positive reinforcement, every time you say it you are reinforcing the behaviour, so rather than constantly tell your dog to leave it and thus reinforce him every time he goes for it, you need to come up with some effective management strategies). I would remove every forbidden source of reinforcement from around the house, and then work on general impulse control. Check out "its yer choice" by Susan Garrett on youtube. Instead of constantly telling the dog to leave stuff alone, make it the default to leave everything alone unless he's told he can have it.

I certainly don't dole out treats all day long. When Obi was a puppy I removed things I didn't want him to steal and closed doors to rooms I didn't want him going into and kept him on leash when we went out to pee in the yard so he couldnt' chase cats, then worked on establishing good habits, e.g. only playing with his own toys, not chewing furniture, making where I want him to hang out a rewarding place to be, rewarding for not trying to go after the cats etc.

I do carry treats on walks, but after they understood what the expectation was for how to behave on walks, I now use a lot less. On our 30 minute walk this morning I think I used 3 treats per dog.

It's not that I love using treats so much, it's that I love making training fun for my dogs, and to do that you have to use primary reinforcers. Sure you can train a dog without treats and using only pats and praise. But you're not gonna get that spunky enthusiasm that I love, and you're not gonna get a dog that falls over himself with excitement every time you ask if he wants to do some training.


----------



## Hambonez (Mar 17, 2012)

1. The sheer volume of treats given is staggering!!

A quarter biscuit would be a HUGE treat around here. I cut zukes training treats into 4 pieces each. They're smaller than a piece of kibble. Much of the time, I train with Hamilton's meals. For example, this morning I measured out his breakfast, and we ran through his different commands and worked on things he's learning in class. He usually got one kibble at a time, with occasional "jackpot" three kibble portions. The trainer we work with uses a Nothing In Life Is Free method and recommends having dogs earn or work for their meals via eating out of toys or doing commands with them. I also feed less than he needs at meal times, and use the extra calorie portions for training. He usually just gets a single kibble at a time. 

2. Related to that is the next issue. As I see it, either you are just giving treats during "training sessions", which I have seen usually result in a dog that performs excellently during these sessions, but completely randomly outside of them. Most people get into a bit of a training session "routine", and the dog picks up on changes in body language, picking up the treat bag, collecting toys, etc etc, and starts to associate the commands ONLY with these sessions. This isn't just a theory, I have seen it more times than I can count! Or, you are giving treats as you train throughout the day, at which point the treat-toll rises to a ridiculous level. 

We do training sessions and we use his commands in practical situations with no treats. Things like "sit" he has down so solid that he'll do it without a reward. He still sometimes gets a reward for it, but he doesn't look for one when he's sitting. Commands like "Come" he rarely gets treats for unless we're specifically spending time training it. Today we were at the park and he was at the end of his 15 ft lead laying in the grass and I called him to come, and he did, and I just loved on him and praised him. It's still a "treat" but I didn't have food accessible at the time and I wanted him to hang closer. 

3. Treat training works largely on creating something that is often referred to in human psychology as the "gambler mentality". 

Lab situations aren't real life situations. My dog doesn't have a relationship with a lever, and he's not only being trained to do one thing. His solid commands get rewarded randomly and he doesn't seem at all crazed by it. Our trainer says specifically NOT to give treats at X frequency because dogs are so good at learning patterns. Random rewards make it so it's always worth doing the command because maybe this is the time that I'll get some food. It's not always or never. Think about toddlers for a minute - a toddler throws a temper tantrum to get a toy whenever you go to the store. You typically don't give in, but there's that one day that you're not feeling well, you're tired, you just can't take the stares from the other customers, so you buy the damn toy. Well now you've done it, now that the possibility that the toddler can get a treat exists, he will continue throwing the tantrums every time because it worked ONCE, why can't it work again if I keep trying? I think the same goes for dogs, if I did what you wanted and I got a treat before, the possibility exists that I will get a treat now? Hmm not that time huh? Guess I'll keep trying! 

4. Here is the real crux - why is a FOOD treat so important? 

My dog could care less about your toy. He doesn't want to go on a walk. He wags his tail for praise, but I don't think it's enough to reinforce a new behavior. We do "real life" rewards - when he wants to go outside, we "wait" by the door until it's open and I step out, and his "ok!" reward is that he gets to come out too. But break out some food and you have his undivided attention. 

I would argue that MOST people train with treats, and MOST appropriately trained dogs are not obese or demented because of it.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I'm a fuddy duddy


Lol, I agree with you though on the commands, once learned and asked they should perform.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

[deleted one and two because other people already said this stuff, and I want to OP to read 3 and 4]

3. I don’t know what you’re talking about with the gambler mentality thing. There are different reinforcement schedules besides a treat for every single behavior. There’s fixed ratio and variable ratio, plus fixed interval and variable interval (and others). The one that works best is a variable ratio schedule. Once the dog has learned the behavior, you stop treating for each behavior and start building up to a treat after a sequence of behaviors. You always keep it random, though, so that any behavior could be the one that leads to a treat.

Maybe slot machines work on the same principle. But who cares? Somehow I don’t think treat-training is going to lead your dog down a dark, depraved path into financial ruin and the loss of everyone he loves. 

I’ve certainly never read anywhere that a variable reinforcement schedule is dangerous, or leads to mental instability. They are commonly used in Applied Behavior Analysis with autistic kids, for instance, and work well.

4. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people should only use food rewards. Usually there are tons of other rewards taking place simultaneously or in turn. Rewards include attention, praise, physical affection if the dog likes that, games and toys, and the intrinsic self-reward that comes with accomplishment and learning. Animals (us included) _like _learning. Treats are just one part of that, and for many dogs they speed up the learning process because they make it 100% clear that an action has good consequences. They also have the benefit of being INSTANTLY gratifying, which as clicker trainers know, helps learning.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

ManyRoses said:


> ...I was trying to make sure that I understood the treat thing before I confirmed my decision not to.


I think your decision was confirmed long before you opened this thread. And after reading all the responses here and your replies to them, I think you still don't understand "the treat thing."


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm a bit late to this party. I think the OP has some misunderstandings about training.

- It's not about "treat-training", it's about reward based training. Risks associated with aversive training include fear, aggression, shutdown. The risk associated with reward training is increased weight, which can be easily managed with diet and exercise. Praise falls into reward training, but praise won't do jack if you've got a dog with a behavioral issue and doesn't find praise rewarding.

- OP mentions she does not use physical intimidation or pain, but uses corrections. They are essentially the same thing. They are uncomfortable stimulus used to alter the dog's behavior. If a correction does not work, what do you do? Correct harder. The line between correction and pain becomes blurred or non-existent if you rely on this method.

- OP says pup is coming along well. Puppies will seem "eager to please", but will grow out of that phase. Get back to us in 6-12 months and let us know how eager to please the dog still is. Who knows, you may have gotten lucky with a naturally well behaved dog. That happens occasionally, and it says nothing about your own training prowess or methods. A lot of people think they've got the dog thing figured out until they finally encounter a dog who's a real challenge.

If professional trainers and behaviorists like Karen Pryor, Jean Donaldson, Pat Miller, Ian Dunbar (list goes on) haven't figured out how to train without treats and OP has, then OP is really onto something here.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

To add on to my last post,


ManyRoses said:


> I have an emotional resistance to treats,


What, exactly, does this mean?  Why emotional?



RaeganW said:


> Food treats allow you to get a large number of repetitions in a short amount of time. So much of dog training is just straight practice, and in the beginning stages of behavior acquisition food is an exceptionally easy way to get the practice in and keep the dog interested in the training.


This. My dog loves praise, but it's slower and it loses its value pretty quickly when you're laying it on super thick. Food is different, on a physiological level. Animals (which includes us) are hardwired to find good-tasting food deeply and instantly rewarding. We are hardwired to be motivated by food and to learn using food because it keeps us alive and healthy.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I don't even understand how the OP can even comment on the subject at all, since they have apparently not used food rewards with their dog.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Xeph said:


> I don't even understand how the OP can even comment on the subject at all, since they have apparently not used food rewards with their dog.


bingo.

(msg too short)


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Xeph said:


> I don't even understand how the OP can even comment on the subject at all, since they have apparently not used food rewards with their dog.


And boom goes the dynamite!


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Actually, OP, your dog may not be as praise motivated as you think. S/he doesn't sit when excited? Mine does. My rescue, who didn't even know what praise was and finds it not at all motivating, will sit while in high prey drive. Why? Because for the vast majority of dogs, food is king, praise is a learned response. 

Try treats. Maybe they'll work.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

I would like to see the dog that can do higher obedience with nothing but praise and pets. Those dogs work hard to please and follow weird instructions (not necessarily things they have an instinct, and therefore natural will, to do) and need to know when they are right. To me it doesn't matter if the reinforcer is a food or a toy, I almost wish my dog had the same drive for a ball on a string as she has for food ... it would be so much easier to bring into the ring at a match, but I didn't know I needed to work on it when she was little. lol. 
I sometimes train with some people who train with punishment and negative reinforcers, they get to the same place I get with treats ... the difference is that both I ... AND my dog are having fun getting there. I have, however, never seen or even heard of a dog that can get there with praise only.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> Yeep -* I was not saying "you are not conceding"* - I was being lighthearted, and saying that I AM CONCEDING - I am agreeing that different rewards work.





> Or, *you could concede*, as I have


..Oh. 



> I am THRILLED that I was not, apparently, wrong or confused - I am so very glad that we are basically all agreeing at this point. I was making sure that I was NOT missing something - I wanted to discuss it further because I didn't fully understand - is that so very wrong? Just wanting more information?


It is if you aren't wanting more information. What you are saying now, exactly word for word, is exactly what I was saying and there was no lack of clarity. When I first stated this exactly you told me I should try reading your thread.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> One of my cadaver dogs will not take a reward unless she is right on top of a find. She will obsess with being inches from the source, and if its in a place she can't get right beside (underwater, buried, or up in a tree or ceiling) she will alert, I throw her tug and she dodges it. Won't touch food. Not sure why. Malinois tend to be OCD anyway, but usually for.the reward. Dogs, lol


My dogs who love working livestock are very food motivated in training other things. But if I called them over and offered them a cookie while they were working, they would think I had gone insane. The opportunity to move stock is a much greater reward. Smart trainers let their dog tell them what is important.


----------



## Elliebell (Mar 13, 2011)

I don't really get how fading a treat and fading praise is any different. Do you still praise your dog the same for a sit as you did the first time they ever sat for you on command? No. As dog owners with good bonds with our dogs we get to know how much our dogs need in order to stay motivated. Fading a treat is not rocket science, it's just doing what feels natural and seeing what a dog will do. 

My dogs definitely love praise. I think the problem with using it as a reward for them is that they get praise A LOT. They get praise for existing. It's like kibble- it's always in the bowl. Sure, they'll do a command or two for kibble or praise, but after the 5th rep, they look at me like "is this all you got?". Treats are special for them. They ONLY get cheese/beef heart/liver when they do something that's worth really rewarding. I don't want to have to restrict praising them because I need it to be a hot commodity, like I do with SiSi's favorite ball or cheese. I love them and I like to show it by scratching their ears and telling them they're the greatest dogs ever, even if all they did was come over and rub their faces on my legs.

I don't think you're any less likely to get a dog that works desperately for praise and who's attitude is "PLEASE LOVE ME! PLEASE I JUST WANT YOU TO PRAISE ME!" if that dog finds praise very rewarding that you are to get desperation for food in a food-motivated dog. Why would a dog be immune to desperation when it's one reinforcer and not another?

Also, I know we've already covered that treats are very small, but I give my dogs thawed beef heart as treats and use kibble to suck up the extra juices. So they get 'fresh' meat, which is actually healthy for them along with what they're already eating. No detrimental health effects. No diarrhea. One of my dogs has a grain allergy, so giving her normal milkbones (or whatever) would cause problems, but it isn't a problem any more than finding any dog food that doesn't give your dog problems.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> So here is a bit of a follow-up question: I feel like I am getting a little contradictory info - it seems that treat-training is seen as being much "easier" than training with just praise, but at the same time, it seems like it would be so easy to get it WRONG - luring rather than rewarding, giving whole treats or not factoring in caloric requirement and creating a chubby puppy, not weaning off treats slowly and consistently so that the dog becomes distrustful of the command (one day I got lots, now I got none. Maybe there is something ELSE that got me the treats...etc etc) or just stops obeying, forgetting to take treats out on walks (I tend to go out in my workout gear, because it doesn't matter when it gets muddy, so my phone is strapped to my arm with my keys and ID, and the poo bags are on the leash -I think I would forget to bring them, where I can never forget to bring my approval!)....the list of ways to screw it up seems endless!! It seems like a contradiction to use something that is both easier to do AND easier to mess up....thoughts?


It's really not that easy to mess up if you take the time to learn to do it correctly. And much easier to fix than compulsion training gone wrong..


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

I guess what I think is that while praise and food are both rewards, with praise there is an extra step of conditioning (i.e. the dog has to learn what "praise" means before it understands that it's a reward in the first place), whereas food is instinctively a reward. You don't have to teach a dog that food is good. Even if the praise-reward conditioning happens quickly and becomes a very strong reward, I just think it's likely to never be quite as strong as food would be with a food-motivated dog, for example. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I just can't picture "click-praise" being as strong a reinforcement chain as "click-treat" is for my dog. I think she would get bored of that really quickly. Of course I say "good girl" sometimes when I don't have treats handy, and Biscuit knows what that means. But it's just not enough to be the primary reward. If it is for the OP, then bravo, I guess, although since you've never tried food rewards I'm not sure how you can really know which one woud work better for your dogs.

You know what my dog does not get bored of? Tiny pieces of hot dogs and cheese. She will work for those. And philosophically, I'm fine with using that as our currency of approval, rather than praise. Either way, praise or food, is just a way of showing the dog that you approve.

There's something sticking in my brain about asking my dog to work for free, which I guess is what I think praise is. I don't think praise is all that valuable to her. I feel like if I want my dog to "work," I should "pay" her in the currency she prefers.

Also, I have never in my life heard of a dog becoming behaviorally damaged from fading a food reward, possibly because most dogs don't live in Skinner boxes. 

And also, what would you do if you wanted your dog to, say, roll over? Something that is easiest to teach with luring? Just curious!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> I had to lol at this a little - suggesting that a dog hates being anthropomorphized is actually, in itself, anthropomorphizing the dog! .


A clue. I think that was a joke.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> Thanks - I am glad that you don't care if I don't use treats. I started the discussion because I couldn't understand why so many people DID care that I don't use treats, and I wanted to figure out if there was something that I was missing, or if these people were just eejits who thought that their method was the only way to go. From the responses, it sounds like eejits is the correct answer!
> !


Calling people who use other methods "eejits" isn't very open minded, nor friendly. I haven't seen anyone on this forum tell you that you had to use food. I think a few were surprised at you being such an apologist for Brad Pattison. That would make it appear that you really don't think there is anything wrong with yanking dogs around and smacking them in the chops. But, whatever.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> Ok - whoops - I think that I may have worded something badly and caused some unintentional offense - I am SO SORRY! I didn't mean to suggest that a dog who doesn't respond to praise doesn't have a good bond with you! However, it is pretty impossible to motivate with praise without a good bond with your dog. For obvious reasons, if your dog doesn't give a fig about you, it's not going to give a fig about whether it is making you proud! You can absolutely have a strong bond with a dog that isn't the petting type.
> .


The thing is, when you are trying to teach a dog complex behaviors (which you may have no need of, I have no idea) praise and petting is not very effective or timely information. Even simple things, which you can eventually get with praise and petting, are quicker taught with more precise communication. In the olden days praise was very effective because it was a predictor that "if you do that, I won't pop your collar" When the behavior is effectively on cue, it's quite easy to phase out the click and phase in praise, which is then quite effective. But, any time I am teaching something new, I'm going back to the more effective communication. If you are actually interested in how it works, I'd suggest Karen Pryor's "Reaching the Animal Mind" but if you aren't interested, go with short answers on an internet forum.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> - she just responds best to praise, and I just so happen to be happiest giving her praise - what a perfect match! If she was totally toy-focused, I might use toys!


I don't know how you know she responds "best" to praise if that's the only option you've ever used.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Whew! So many replies....that I think I am going to group a whole bunch of answers in one. On a semi-related note, does anyone know how to disable the e-mail alerts from the forum? My inbox is weeping right now! 

Hokay...

1. I feel the need to address those who seem to think that I have a completely closed mind on this subject - why on earth would I start the thread if that was the case???? No, I have not changed my opinions on training totally within the span of an evening, I prefer to discuss, consider, chew some things over, and then possibly integrate some things into what I do. And I'm very proud of it! If I was the type to do a 180 and flip to whatever training method sounds ok the instant I start to learn more about it, I would be switching up methods every week, bombarding my pup with conflicting techniques all the time, giving her no consistency, and totally de-railing her training! I honestly was wondering if there was something that I didn't grasp about the concept - I would rather discuss and make sure, rather than miss out on something that could be potentially important! This also relates to the seeming confusion over the fact that I "haven't tried treat training" so how could I possibly know if it would work better, faster, etc etc- well, if I HAD tried at this point, I would know, and there would be no point to the discussion! I'm not going to change what I usually do, or randomly try stuff BEFORE I start discussing it - that is totally backwards! And as for knowing what motivates her, well, we have done a few treat-training experiments, and they have failed, where praise has started to succeed. That may be partially because of my attitude, but if treats have failed and praise has suceeded, and if praise gets a big tail wagging response, and treats don't, I'm going to extrapolate that maybe she responds better to treats. Make sense?

2. I understand know about how to portion properly when treat training - so we can stop answering that part! Often, watching and reading can only do so much, and when most literature talks about giving "a treat" and most videos seem to show whole treats being given repeatedly (or you can't really see what is being given). On top of that, the only people that I see treat training always seem to be giving big ol' treats, so I think that this is an understandable confusion. Look! I understand it a little better know! Thread working! (No need to keep going on about it now, ok?)

3. There seems to be a LOT of misunderstanding about the term "gambling mindset". It is NOT the colloquial term, and when you randomize treat giving to enforce a behavior, this is exactly what you are doing, minus the lever and the box. I am not about to go into psychology 101 - suffice to say, although it has had a big impact on why I do or do not use treats, I probably shouldn't have included it, because it seems to be causing so much confusion. To those who got it, but just said that they doubted that it would ever really play out like that because there is so much else going on in a normal dog's life, you do have a point! All I can say is that when something makes a big, negative impression on you, it can be very difficult to get past it, especially if there is no great pressing need. Having also had the misfortune to watch a dog descend into a serious neurological disease, and eventually have to be put down, any risk of creating a mental behavior that could be damaging...well...it is a much bigger deal to me. Having seen it happen, the thought of watching my pup go through that is utterly terrifying - in the same way as an owner who has seen as past dog be hit by a car is going to be much more aware of traffic, I am much more aware of ANYTHING that I have heard, ever, that may negatively affect her neurology. (For the record that also answers those who seemed to scoff at why I might have an emotional response. Nosy - surely the fact that I HAVE one, and can recognize it, should be enough. I'm not a major fan of spilling my guts all over the internet, especially when I haven't yet really felt like I have built strong relationships here.)

4. A note about "corrections" - I thought that I had covered this one, but here goes again. To my mind, a "correction" is usually very mild - stopping play, "being a tree" while walking and correcting pulling, taking a time out, etc. With all the positive will in the world, I fail to see how it is possible to train a dog without ANY correction - even if you kept it crated at all times except when you were actively walking or training, you may need to correct pulling on the leash (by stopping!) or take the time to sit and calm it down when you notice that it is getting over-excited. A small, related LOL to the person that suggested that I prevent having to repeat a lot of "leave it" in the house by removing everything that I would have to do that for - I have a mental image of sitting in my bare living room, on the floor, watching the wall!! Even keeping her on umbilical, she starts to chew the couch, or sitting waiting to go out, might start chewing the baseboards - she is a teething puppy!! Short of keeping her crated at all times, a whole lot of "leave it" and redirection is to be expected. (I think that "leave it" and "get your ball/bone/whatever toy seems to have her affection today are the most used phrases in our house right now!)

And finally - I am not writing treat training off forever - if I was, again, I wouldn't want to discuss it! Should she start appearing to be more food motivated, or toy motivated, my training will change to reflect that - but you better believe that I will do a thesis worth of research into the psychology of treat training first - I can't help it! Her mental health is probably my biggest priority, and I can't feel comfortable entering into the world of treat training, which has associations of cognitive experiments and seriously mentally damaged animals, without it. I don't think its a bad thing to make sure that I am uber informed before the possibility of needing it comes up. I have also done a heckuva lot of work learning about dog first aid, but I hope I never get a chance to use it! The idea was never an I'm right or you are, and either way we are going to agree totally by the end of this thread - sometimes, I like to discuss things that I DON'T do, because I just like to know, and understand other viewpoints.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Calling people who use other methods "eejits" isn't very open minded, nor friendly. I haven't seen anyone on this forum tell you that you had to use food. I think a few were surprised at you being such an apologist for Brad Pattison. That would make it appear that you really don't think there is anything wrong with yanking dogs around and smacking them in the chops. But, whatever.


This one needs a special reply. 

First - as I have already said, I was not calling people on this forum eejits, per se. As I said to someone else, I was referring mostly to people who I have met IRL that have been so shocked that I don't use treats, and have become somewhat belligerent about it. Seeing as people here are so pro-treat, I thought it would be a useful way to discuss it, seeing as it is a forum for discussion, and all. I also NEVER said that people who use different methods are eejits, I said that people who think that their method is the one right and only way are eejits. And I stand by that! If you tell me that there is one, only one, and only ever will be one right method for training a dog, I am going to think that you are a bit of an eejit - at least, when it comes to training dogs. 

And really? We REALLY feel the need to drag another thread into this one? SIGH. This is incredibly frustrating. As I repeated over and over and over again in that thread, I do not think that it is ok to hit dogs. I don't know how many times I can say this - maybe I should put it in my signature? I was not apologizing for him, I was pointing out that watching a video on youtube made by people that don't like someone, that is saying or showing terrible things about that person, may not be a 100% accurate representation of that person. It was more about not trusting hate videos spread all over the internet, and pointing out that reality shows are incredibly skewed than anything else. Once more - I do not think it is ok to hit dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> Whew! So many replies....that I think I am going to group a whole bunch of answers in one. On a semi-related note, does anyone know how to disable the e-mail alerts from the forum? My inbox is weeping right now!
> 3. There seems to be a LOT of misunderstanding about the term "gambling mindset". It is NOT the colloquial term, and when you randomize treat giving to enforce a behavior, this is exactly what you are doing, minus the lever and the box. I am not about to go into psychology 101 - suffice to say, although it has had a big impact on why I do or do not use treats, I probably shouldn't have included it, because it seems to be causing so much confusion. To those who got it, but just said that they doubted that it would ever really play out like that because there is so much else going on in a normal dog's life, you do have a point! All I can say is that when something makes a big, negative impression on you, it can be very difficult to get past it, especially if there is no great pressing need. Having also had the misfortune to watch a dog descend into a serious neurological disease, and eventually have to be put down, any risk of creating a mental behavior that could be damaging...well...it is a much bigger deal to me. Having seen it happen, the thought of watching my pup go through that is utterly terrifying - in the same way as an owner who has seen as past dog be hit by a car is going to be much more aware of traffic, I am much more aware of ANYTHING that I have heard, ever, that may negatively affect her neurology. (For the record that also answers those who seemed to scoff at why I might have an emotional response. Nosy - surely the fact that I HAVE one, and can recognize it, should be enough. I'm not a major fan of spilling my guts all over the internet, especially when I haven't yet really felt like I have built strong relationships here.)
> .


S0ooo . . . have you actually SEEN a dog "descend into a seriouis neurological disease" because of varying a reinforcement schedule? Personally, I kind of like it when my dog understands that no click might mean they aren't working hard enough.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> S0ooo . . . have you actually SEEN a dog "descend into a seriouis neurological disease" because of varying a reinforcement schedule? Personally, I kind of like it when my dog understands that no click might mean they aren't working hard enough.


For the record, there was no apparent cause for the issue with this dog - the assumption was unknown disease. So - hey, maybe. No vet could give a better answer than to basically just say that she went mad, for lack of a better term, or a more specific diagnosis. No tumors, no known pathogens that were causing it. 

I don't need to see this specific behavior cause a mental breakdown. The point is that seeing a dog have a breakdown like that has made me very, very concerned about possible threats to my pup's mental health. And having such a huge awareness of conditions that created similar breakdowns in lab animals is going to make me pretty reticent to do anything that might create the same scenario. 

Is that really so hard to understand? I have no problem understanding how people who have had a dog die of stomach cancer might become fanatical about food, and thoroughly research and try to find alternatives to any food that was even suggested to possibly maaaaybe cause that same cancer. After a dog has died on the table because of an anesthetic issue, would you scoff at the owner who wants to use any possible alternative, and who is wary of any anesthetic, ever, that could possibly cause a problem?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ManyRoses said:


> The point is that seeing a dog have a breakdown like that has made me very, very concerned about possible threats to my pup's mental health
> 
> ..Is that really so hard to understand? I have no problem understanding how people who have had a dog die of stomach cancer might become fanatical about food, and thoroughly research and try to find alternatives to any food that was even suggested to possibly maaaaybe cause that same cancer. After a dog has died on the table because of an anesthetic issue, would you scoff at the owner who wants to use any possible alternative, and who is wary of any anesthetic, ever, that could possibly cause a problem


I say this with no snark at all, but with a lack of tact and finesse borne of head injury.

These things are called phobias. Irrational or disproportional fears. When they happen, you need to be concerned about your own mental health and seek professional help via qualified professional.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> For the record, there was no apparent cause for the issue with this dog - the assumption was unknown disease. So - hey, maybe. No vet could give a better answer than to basically just say that she went mad, for lack of a better term, or a more specific diagnosis. No tumors, no known pathogens that were causing it.
> 
> I don't need to see this specific behavior cause a mental breakdown. The point is that seeing a dog have a breakdown like that has made me very, very concerned about possible threats to my pup's mental health. And having such a huge awareness of conditions that created similar breakdowns in lab animals is going to make me pretty reticent to do anything that might create the same scenario.
> 
> Is that really so hard to understand? I have no problem understanding how people who have had a dog die of stomach cancer might become fanatical about food, and thoroughly research and try to find alternatives to any food that was even suggested to possibly maaaaybe cause that same cancer. After a dog has died on the table because of an anesthetic issue, would you scoff at the owner who wants to use any possible alternative, and who is wary of any anesthetic, ever, that could possibly cause a problem?


Cause and effect. If you have never seen a clicker trained dog spiral into mental illness because it was put on a randomized schedule of reinforcement, it makes no logical sense that you would suggest it. If I have a dog who dies from something, or is seriously compromised by something, yes, I'll research possible causes. But I don't go around assuming or suggesting that random, unrelated stuff was the cause.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

CptJack said:


> I say this with no snark at all, but with a lack of tact and finesse borne of head injury.
> 
> These things are called phobias. Irrational or disproportional fears. When they happen, you need to be concerned about your own mental health and seek professional help via qualified professional.


Its not a phobia to develop concern about something that can be a very real problem!! And quite frankly, I am incredibly insulted that you would actually question my mental health, because I am aware that there are some things that I am going to be more concerned over than others, due to experience. For the record, a phobia is a completely irrational fear. Dealing with stomach cancer, and then becoming much more careful about what is eaten is not a phobia - it is a natural response. Honestly, if I had a dog that died of a mental health issue, and then DIDN'T start to do as much research and thinking as possible into mental health, I would consider that callous - oh well, better hope it doesn't happen again. In this particular instance, being cautious, and perhaps even a little overly cautious about mental health is not phobic - refusing to train at all for fear that ANY training would definitely cause the issue would be phobic. Considering a training method that, when duplicated in labs and taken to the extreme causes serious issues, and trying to avoid it, but being willing to consider it if other alternatives stop working - that is NOT phobic. Point blank refusing to ever do it, ever - that might be considered phobic, but simply saying "hmmm...this seems to be a possible technique too, think I'll try that first" is NOT phobic.

If it helps, not only do I have my own qualifications in psychology, and am well aware of what a phobia is and isn't, I have a sister working in the field, who would be quick to point out any issues. So you can put you "concern" to rest.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hello. 

I have a Master's Degree in psychology. 

I know what phobias are, and what appropriate fear responses are. Developing a generalized fear, to something that you have witnessed but have not experienced, and forming a cause/effect based on a cognitive distortion (I feel it, so it must be so) rather than evidence is a phobia. It's also a cognitive distortion, as I just said. In fact, you -yourself- said that you had 'emotional problems' with treat training. Based on seeing a neurotic dog that was clicker trained. You formed the cause and effect within your mind, without evidence - correlation is not causation. Feeling something to be true does not make it so. And developing 'emotional issues' (your wording) to something that you saw a *video of*, based on your own over-thinking is not healthy, either.

So, as sorry as I am that you are 'very insulted', I stand by what I said here. I do not know you, or the state of your mental health, but your reasoning here is. Off. I sincerely hope it is a matter of how you are presenting yourself. That doesn't mean what you are presenting is indicative of sound logic, or reasonable thinking.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Cause and effect. If you have never seen a clicker trained dog spiral into mental illness because it was put on a randomized schedule of reinforcement, it makes no logical sense that you would suggest it. If I have a dog who dies from something, or is seriously compromised by something, yes, I'll research possible causes. But I don't go around assuming or suggesting that random, unrelated stuff was the cause.


I am not assuming that something random or unrelated is the cause. I am not randomly deciding that walking in the rain is causing it, or that a certain type of toy is causing it. I am looking at something that is VERY related. 

Lets break this down. 

- In a lab, animals are given treats, and when the treats are randomized, the animal becomes deranged. (over simplified, but I am going for the bare bones here.)
- In dog training, animals are given treats, and the treats are slowly and properly phased out on a schedule, at some point during which, they are randomized. No adverse affects are observed. 
- I have no experience in training with treats, but I DO have experience in training with other methods. 

Should I REALLY be considered unreasonable for picking the method that I have experience in, and in the meantime, doing vast amounts of research into the other method that bears an incredible similarity to the one that drove the lab animals insane? Rather than leaping straight on in to a method that I do not have experience with, I would rather work with what I DO have experience with, and make sure that I figure out exactly WHY randomized treats caused brain damage in lab animals and don't appear to in dogs. Same treat, treat for behavior, same randomization.....gee, how unrelated. How ridiculous of me to approach something with caution if I don't fully understand it and am concerned about damaging my dog's brain. Silly me, I should have just dove in, and crossed my fingers that I don't screw it up and harm my dog.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

ManyRoses said:


> A small, related LOL to the person that suggested that I prevent having to repeat a lot of "leave it" in the house by removing everything that I would have to do that for - I have a mental image of sitting in my bare living room, on the floor, watching the wall!! Even keeping her on umbilical, she starts to chew the couch, or sitting waiting to go out, might start chewing the baseboards - she is a teething puppy!! Short of keeping her crated at all times, a whole lot of "leave it" and redirection is to be expected. (I think that "leave it" and "get your ball/bone/whatever toy seems to have her affection today are the most used phrases in our house right now!)


I believe that was me, and I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. You remove the obvious things like shoes and other things that a puppy is likely to chew. Then you replace those things with the things that you want the puppy to chew. That way, the puppy can't fail, it can only chew its own toys, and because it's supervised it won't start chewing furniture. That's why you crate or playpen a puppy when you can't supervise.

Over time, the puppy will learn to love its own toys and it will become habit, and then you can put the other things back.

And yes, any command trained using positive methods is reinforcing in itself. Think about it. If you call your dog over ("come") and you praise, play or give a treat most of the time when the dog comes, the dog will think the come command is really great. It associates the command with good things, you've conditioned an emotional response. So if the dog is walking towards something you don't want it to go near, whatever it may be, and every time the dog walks towards that thing you call the dog over, you cause that great emotional response. It won't take long before the dog associated the forbidden thing with this great emotional response, and instead of staying away, it becomes more likely to seek it out. Same thing with any other command, if you say "leave it" or "sit" and then reward the dog for leaving it or sitting, the dog will be more likely to do the preceding behaviour again. 

My dogs don't even know "leave it", their default is to not touch until I say they can. I did this by controlling the opportunity for reinforcement. So if there is food on the table and the dogs go for it, I cover the food. The dogs realise that they will never get the food = there is no opportunity for reinforcement. When they back off they are rewarded. Now they are occasionally rewarded for just staying away. So rather than repeatedly giving them a cue with a strong history of reinforcement when they do something wrong (which is a way to reward them for doing it), I teach them that there is never a reward for doing that behaviour (checking out food on the table) but that staying away altogether and completely ignoring the food is what gets rewarded.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Hello.
> 
> I have a Master's Degree in psychology.
> 
> ...


Ok - we have both studied psychology. One would assume, that this means that we both have a solid grasp on a phobia is. Do you not think that it is more likely that I am correct in assessing the fact that I have a simple negative association with treat training, that is FAR more complex than just "I read a study, and now it concerns me because I saw a dog die from a mental disorder" than I somehow totally missed noticing that I have a full blown phobia, as did my sister, the mental health professional? Yet you - stranger on the internet, managed to deduce it from a couple of posts. That's some psychology degree! For the record, I also have a negative emotional association to pekingese - one of them bit me when I was younger. I hardly have a phobia of that - I just don't warm to them particularly well. I don't have a phobia of treat training, I would just prefer not to use it. 

Also - um...where on earth did I say that this dog was clicker trained? That one came right out of your head, I think!! The training of that dog really has no impact on how I feel about treat training - the connection is that seeing him die made me very concerned about the mental health of my animals, and protecting it so that none of them would have to go through that. Also - "neurotic" is not an appropriate description - doesn't even come close to covering what happened. The connection between mental health and treat training comes from studies done on lab animals, and some of the resulting damage and behavior. 

You might also consider that I may not be expressing myself as clearly as is absolutely possible, because I am now becoming fairly angry. I attempted to start a reasonable discussion on why treat training is presented as the norm, and whether or not simple praise training was really that different. After some reasonable answers, I now find myself defending the state of my mental health, and having to argue to a stranger that no, I do not need "professional help". I'll bet that you would be starting to see red a little too, and it may start to come across in your writing.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I believe that was me, and I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. You remove the obvious things like shoes and other things that a puppy is likely to chew. Then you replace those things with the things that you want the puppy to chew. That way, the puppy can't fail, it can only chew its own toys, and because it's supervised it won't start chewing furniture. That's why you crate or playpen a puppy when you can't supervise.
> 
> Over time, the puppy will learn to love its own toys and it will become habit, and then you can put the other things back.
> 
> ...


No no, I understood, and for the record, we are doing this. 

My point was simply that it is not possible to remove every single thing that a puppy would want to chew! Even supervised, there are moments when she can get into things...for example, she lies down and goes to sleep by the couch. She wakes up without me noticing, because I am currently on the couch, and so cannot see her face because of the angle - she starts chewing the bottom of the couch. Supervised pup - chewing the furniture. 

I was making a bit of a joke - essentially, there is only so much that you can do - puppies will be puppies!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Maybe-just maybe- living in a box with nothing better to do than wonder where your next treat is coming from is what causes lab animals to go bonkers. Just a thought. I'd like to see it replicated in a real-life situation. I'm pretty sure that pet rats who are given treats on a random schedule don't go bonkers.

Quite honestly I don't see any difference between treats and praise (except that some dogs may find one or the other more reinforcing). In which case, giving praise on a random schedule would also cause the dog to go bonkers if that's true. But I might be off there because I also think bribery and punishment are the same. . .but that's a whole different topic. I know my thinking processes are odd.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Maybe-just maybe- living in a box with nothing better to do than wonder where your next treat is coming from is what causes lab animals to go bonkers. Just a thought. I'd like to see it replicated in a real-life situation. I'm pretty sure that pet rats who are given treats on a random schedule don't go bonkers.
> 
> Quite honestly I don't see any difference between treats and praise (except that some dogs may find one or the other more reinforcing). In which case, giving praise on a random schedule would also cause the dog to go bonkers if that's true. But I might be off there because I also think bribery and punishment are the same. . .but that's a whole different topic. I know my thinking processes are odd.


Very possibly - in fact, I really hope that there was something else playing a major factor in these experiments - these guys were notoriously cruel to animals, so I wouldn't be surprised! 

As for your thinking processes - "odd" or not, I'm betting that you figured out that this forum isn't the place to discuss thought processes that deviate from the accepted one - watch out, you may be crazy! You might need serious help! *snort *eyeroll.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Willowy. What you describe is still *not the same* as what we do when we train dogs. The animals that live in a box and have to thrust a bar until they get food is COMPLETELY different from an animal that needs to work for a reward, but gets put away when it has reached its mental/physical threshold and still receives play and food throughout the day.



> Should I REALLY be considered unreasonable for picking the method that I have experience in, and in the meantime, doing vast amounts of research into the other method that bears an incredible similarity to the one that drove the lab animals insane?


Vast amounts of research have been done, and the training you are so phobic of (yes, before CptJack even mentioned it, I read you as being phobic) has shown low/no adverse affects. If it did, it wouldn't be such a successful training method for species of animals that could (and would) kill us as easily as they blink.



> I'm betting that you figured out that this forum isn't the place to discuss thought processes that deviate from the accepted one


Always love it when this happens. "People disagree with me, so I must reason that they are all one gigantic cult and differing opinions are not welcome!"

*snort eyeroll*


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> The connection between mental health and treat training comes from studies done on lab animals, and some of the resulting damage and behavior.


It's hard to really call it training if the only thing that is done is putting animals on a randomized schedule, and not teaching it anything beyond "You push bar, you get food". Training implies an ongoing process. Once the animal has fully figured out that pushing the bar gets it food, the behavior is trained, and a new behavior needs to be taught in order for it to be training (at least in my book).

I think that's where your premise is really falling flat for me.

I mean, come on, if the rat was taught to push a bar for food, and NOTHING beyond that, why WOULDN'T it keep pushing the bar in hopes that a morsel will finally drop? Hell, if the reward has completely stopped, and the animal isn't being fed through any other source, I wouldn't find it unreasonable for it to forego sleep in the hopes of food, since it's freaking starving (which is damn cruel, and I'm not a fan of animal testing).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Maybe-just maybe- living in a box with nothing better to do than wonder where your next treat is coming from is what causes lab animals to go bonkers. Just a thought. I'd like to see it replicated in a real-life situation. I'm pretty sure that pet rats who are given treats on a random schedule don't go bonkers.


Bingo. 

I see my rats several times a day. Every time I walk into the room the pair of them jump into their hammock in hopes of a treat. Sometimes they get one. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get out time. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get spoken to. Sometimes they don't. They're not bonkers. Just - hopeful that I'm going to dispense a yogurt drop. 

If not, they don't sit there desperately hoping and repeating the same behavior over and over again. They're not isolated or under stimulated or hungry. They go play with each other, eat some of their regular food, or climb a rope. Big difference, there. 

And, MR, I never said 'serious help'. I said professional help. Though given your degree, your defensiveness is more worrying than your apparent phobia. Really, who in the mental health field associates it with so much stigma? And how good is that for anyone you will ever work with? (OMG seeking professional help and having mental help is an INSULT. That's just about the saddest attitude I have ever heard from someone claiming to be educated, or working, in the field. And one of the most damaging to others. In fact, it's downright disgusting, if you're working with the public in any capacity (and that *is* an insult, unlike suggesting you may have a phobia).


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

So I have read this entire thread, though I must admit to some skimming. 

Treats are easiest and often more rewarding than anything else, so that's why I use them, however, Oliver is motivated by his ball, so I will use that, and Mouse is motivated by giving kisses, yes, I said that right, she LOVES to lick, so I use it . None of my dogs work for praise, alone, though, I do use it when I start chaining behaviours, and such. But I always start using treats.

You are just defending your position without actually considering that something might work better... ( I see that alot with P+ trainers) You SAY you are considering it if something changes your mind, but will you actually keep enough of an open mind to actually consider it? 90% of the time treats work better than praise or toys for the pet dog (I am excluding working dogs here, because they're apples to oranges, work they're designed to do is their motivator, for the most part) I can pretty much guarantee that if a treat trainer came over to your house, your dog would be working just as hard, or harder for the food, than it does for praise. Unless your dog is one of very, VERY few dogs that actually WILL work hard for praise more than treats (and I highly doubt that).

I'll tell you a secret. I used to feel the same way you do. that dogs shouldn't be given treats, they should work because I told them to, and not because I give them food. I used to train using praise only, and very gentle corrections, very like you said... I decided to try something with a St. Poodle I was training. Instead of just praise, I tried using treats to train a behaviour... the behaviour was the ONLY one that she did with enthusiasm, even after I quit giving her treats for it. 

I am now a clicker trainer, because I can SEE that it works better, and I use food, because I can SEE that it works better than anything else.



Xeph said:


> Always love it when this happens. "People disagree with me, so I must reason that they are all one gigantic cult and differing opinions are not welcome!"
> 
> *snort eyeroll*


I've really noticed that on this forum


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> - In a lab, animals are given treats, and when the treats are randomized, the animal becomes deranged. (over simplified, but I am going for the bare bones here.)


Where are you getting this information? Did you read my post on page 6 about variable reinforcement schedules? Variable reinforcement schedules aren't some evil genius lab concoction. They are happen literally EVERYWHERE in real life, both intentionally by people to motivate learning, and unintentionally when we get rewarded by things in our environment to reinforce behavior. Where are you getting this information about it being dangerous, or making animals mentally unstable?

I mean, literally, where? Can you reference?

Here is my last post. It seems like you didn't read it (which I don't blame you for, this thread blew up fast), but I responded to a lot of the things you brought up. It seems like you haven't heard those responses.



begemot said:


> 3. I don’t know what you’re talking about with the gambler mentality thing. There are different reinforcement schedules besides a treat for every single behavior. There’s fixed ratio and variable ratio, plus fixed interval and variable interval (and others). The one that works best is a variable ratio schedule. Once the dog has learned the behavior, you stop treating for each behavior and start building up to a treat after a sequence of behaviors. You always keep it random, though, so that any behavior could be the one that leads to a treat.
> 
> Maybe slot machines work on the same principle. But who cares? Somehow I don’t think treat-training is going to lead your dog down a dark, depraved path into financial ruin and the loss of everyone he loves.
> 
> ...


Unless you praise exactly the same way every time you get a cued behavior, *you are probably already using a variable reinforcement schedule*. So I think it's time to stop being scared, and find a way to live with that.


----------



## Tupples (Apr 27, 2012)

I think Manyroses is correct! So much of treats will only spoil your pets. In the training procedure it is important to praise but when you see your pet improving then reduce the number of treats. It will avoid your pet from becoming stubborn. Otherwise your pet will only do what you expect him to do when you treat him.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Tupples said:


> I think Manyroses is correct! So much of treats will only spoil your pets. In the training procedure it is important to praise but when you see your pet improving then reduce the number of treats. It will avoid your pet from becoming stubborn. Otherwise your pet will only do what you expect him to do when you treat him.


Please read the rest of this thread. She is not speaking of not reducing treats, she is afraid that using them at all makes dogs insane.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ManyRoses said:


> Very possibly - in fact, I really hope that there was something else playing a major factor in these experiments - these guys were notoriously cruel to animals, so I wouldn't be surprised!


If they were cruel during these experiments perhaps that had much more to do with the results than the positive reenforcement.



Tupples said:


> I think Manyroses is correct! So much of treats will only spoil your pets. In the training procedure it is important to praise but when you see your pet improving then reduce the number of treats. It will avoid your pet from becoming stubborn. Otherwise your pet will only do what you expect him to do when you treat him.


No, it's important to fade the lure and proof the command. I use praise for a marker (the way many use the sound of the clicker) not only is the food (or toy) reward faded, the marker (praise or clicker) is also faded.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Tupples said:


> I think Manyroses is correct! So much of treats will only spoil your pets. In the training procedure it is important to praise but when you see your pet improving then reduce the number of treats. It will avoid your pet from becoming stubborn. Otherwise your pet will only do what you expect him to do when you treat him.


Avoid your pet from becoming stubborn...? How, then, do you propose training a dog that is BORN stubborn and that doesn't respond to praise?


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

Hi there,

I am not a person to stick to one form of training - you could almost call my training techniques 'hybrid' as I use whatever works for the dog by using intuition. I have used treats as a way to indicate that I aprove of a certain behavior. I use the smell for good association sometimes, by covering my hand with the smell and touching a dog's nose gently as a lick from another dog (or just as a sign of: 'hey, this is good.') 

I personally find it unhealthy to stuff a dog with treats. I have used only a few (up to five treats) in an hour just to highlight the primary good behavior moments. I usually also only use it in the beginning (puppies) and for instance now with Luna (who is now 16 weeks and knows her stuff) I have dropped the treats and generally use pressure - release, and praise by touching her gently or giving her a calm rub. I give her treats in moments where I can really see that she was challenged by something and I am truly impressed - for instance: Luna has a fascination with chasing birds. Yesterday I called her from the open front yard into the house, and instead of chasing the pigeon she surprised me by coming to me. Or in the forest, people with big packs of dogs will walk by and she will keep to my side. These moments I do tend to give her a treat - or just run a little with her which she also enjoys (off leash). 

I don't really use my voice often either - just with disapproval or the basic commands, but even then I prefer to use body language. I have found that this works well for me and my dogs, and that I've had a very affective 'training' regime so far. I see it more as a way to guide a dog through my life, and letting the dog guide me in showing how he/she prefers to be taught. 

Anyway, I do get your point. There are different techniques out there, and everyone has their own thing... my basic opinion is: whatever works best for you. If it is not my dog, then it is not my business - no matter how much I personally disagree with it.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> <snip>
> I said that people who think that their method is the one right and only way are eejits. And I stand by that! If you tell me that there is one, only one, and only ever will be one right method for training a dog, I am going to think that you are a bit of an eejit - at least, when it comes to training dogs.
> <snip>


So then you're an eejit? It seems you're the one insisting that there's only one method of training.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

ManyRoses said:


> Its not a phobia to develop concern about something that can be a very real problem!!


Your concern is irrational. You have multiple people here, some of whom have been training dogs for decades and who have experience with a wide variety of methods, telling you it doesn't happen and is NOT a very real problem. Reward-based training using treats as the reward is used for millions of dogs across the country every day and has been for years and years. And yet, I would challenge you to find a single reported case of a dog becoming "deranged" as a result of it.

And to nip this in the bud - "but maybe it wasn't diagnosed" doesn't cut it. There are and have been millions and millions of dogs trained with treats over a span of years and years. If it really caused this particular problem, there would be enough cases for someone to recognize a pattern.



Willowy said:


> Maybe-just maybe- living in a box with nothing better to do than wonder where your next treat is coming from is what causes lab animals to go bonkers. Just a thought. I'd like to see it replicated in a real-life situation. I'm pretty sure that pet rats who are given treats on a random schedule don't go bonkers.


Yes, exactly. And when I am doing "research", studies of animals in labs do not necessarily trump empirical real-world evidence. Especially if I haven't read the study design and methodology instead of just the results or discussion.



Luna'sOwner said:


> I personally find it unhealthy to stuff a dog with treats.


I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. Treat training doesn't = "stuffing a dog with treats".


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

From a 'competitive obedience' standpoint: 

We've all seen dogs in the ring who were trained with an absolute praise-only method. Occasionally, they will achieve scores in the low-end or 170 range, at best. Typically, and unfortunately, many of those dogs will merely receive an NQ or non-qualifying score.

Conversely, virtually all of the dogs who achieve the highest of scores will have had at least *some* form of reinforcement beyond praise-only. The vast majority will have a significant amount of actual food-reward training, _somewhere_ in their background.



Personally, I'll accept *real-world* results seen in the ring over and above results seen in a sterile lab environment. Furthermore, I have yet to see ANY dog competing, regardless of training methodology, who falls into the truly "insane" category. IME it just doesn't happen there, not whatsoever, and I highly suspect the same observation remains true in average households around the globe.


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

I can't believe this thread is still going on. Again, I don't see anyone pushing treat training on anyone here. The only person getting snippy is the OP...yes, many people on this forum are PR trainers. A treat is not a bribe. A treat is a way to say "hey, you did what I wanted." And remember treat can be actual treat, toy, praise...whatever works for your dog. Luring works. Once the dog gets it, fading the lure works. 

Gracie will also offer behaviors for her ball to be thrown at night, so I use that to work on obedience training. She has to sit before I throw it, or I get her to perform a series of commands. It doesn't matter WHAT the "treat" is. It is ALL positive reinforcement. 

I don't know where he OP got that this was not the place to discuss things. I think this has been discussed for 8 pages...I just don't think the OP heard what she wanted to hear--which is that treat training is stupid and unhealthy. 

No one was condescending. Yes, people pointed out some misconceptions (comparing any training to the stuff that is done to lab animals is not accurate). Pulling psychology into this is also a bit off as a dog brain works a bit differently than a human brain.

Oh, and as a side note, here is my treat trained dog. Notice that she is not chunky, unhealthy, etc. (Since that has been a part of the argument that treat training will make your dog fat)


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

theyogachick said:


> Again, I don't see anyone pushing treat training on anyone here.


Neither do I. What I see are a lot of people trying explain why they use treat training to someone who came here asking people to explain why they use treat training, then trying to refute false and irrational claims about it from someone who is afraid to use treats. 

I could not possibly care less what reward anyone else uses to train their dog. But if someone asks me about the method I use, I explain it, and they state their concerns, I am going to address those concerns. That is called a discussion, which is what I thought the point of the thread was.

If several people independently disagree with you, that is not being ganged up on or finding new ideas unwelcoming. That is simply several people independently disagreeing with you. When I find myself in that position, I take it as a cue that maybe it's time for some self-reflection about whether there is a simple difference of opinion going on or something more. For example: Xeph doesn't like offered behaviors. I love offered behaviors. That is a difference of opinion. She doesn't encourage offered behaviors in her dogs, I encourage offered behaviors in my dogs. The End. On the other hand, you are insisting that treat training on a variable schedule carries a high enough risk of making a dog mentally deranged that you have concerns over using it... and there are several people here with a lot of experience between them telling you this really isn't a risk, yet you just can't seem to let go of that belief. That is not a difference of opinion, there is something more going on there. 

IF you really do have a phobia about it, there's no reason in the world why you have to use treats in training... believe it or not, no one cares what you do. But if you would have STOPPED at "using treats scares me and I don't want to do it" this thread wouldn't have gone on for 8 pages. What people care about and are objecting to is the implication that rather than this being your personal issue, what they (and millions of people) are doing by training with treats is wrong and shouldn't be used and they are putting their dogs at risk when that just isn't anyone's experience and there isn't any documented evidence that it occurs in the real world.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

sassafras said:


> I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. Treat training doesn't = "stuffing a dog with treats".


Indeed, and I am certainly not insinuating that it is! I think the OP may just have that _idea_. Of course, too much is never good - unless it's love  ha ha ha


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Jus to clarify (because I read my last post again and it kinda sounds like I'm saying this), I don't think giving treats to a dog is bribery. If I believed that I would also have to believe my paycheck is bribery. I'm not even sure if it's actually possible to bribe a dog. . .I think the only difference between reward and bribery is in the mindset, and I don't think dogs can have that mindset. Just speaking from my own perspective from when I was a child, I found bribery and punishment equally insulting.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Honestly I would be interested in what kind of 'training' you do. Just basic manners? Just a few commands like sit and down? Sure you can do that without needing a really strong motivator. But teaching the dog more complex behaviors or something like agility where you need to tap into a dog's drive and really build enthusiasm... I just can't see that working for 99% of dogs. 

My dogs will listen to me without treats. I've trained some basic things like 'go where I point' or 'get off the furniture' without many treats (or even any treats in some cases). Just through day to day life. But I'm highly doubtful I could train something like weaves for example or a more complex sequence of behaviors without a treat or toy or some other high value motivator. Personally, I've never seen a dog have a real jackpot response to praise. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I think it is most beneficial to see how your dog responds to many things and then pick the highest value motivator for that dog.

I'm also NOT just looking for compliance. I'm looking for a dog that tries hard and really really enjoys training. Not just an 'okay i will do this'.

Xeph might think my dogs are too hectic though lol. They offer about a thousand behaviors a minute when we go to free shaping. I love it.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> I am not assuming that something random or unrelated is the cause. I am not randomly deciding that walking in the rain is causing it, or that a certain type of toy is causing it. I am looking at something that is VERY related.
> 
> Lets break this down.
> 
> - In a lab, animals are given treats, and when the treats are randomized, the animal becomes deranged. (over simplified, but I am going for the bare bones here.)


Can you cite the study? The *only* studies I've heard that come close to this is when the "treat" is an addictive substance, like cocaine. And then there's the point made by Willowy that living in a Skinner box may contribute to the mental instability observed in lab rats. Also, there are certain people (and I assume animals) predisposed to becoming addicted to certain activities. Many people gamble / use drugs / drink, but not everyone becomes an addict. Some dogs are simply mentally unstable and would develop issues no matter what training method is used.

Finally, when you phase out praise or play "treats," you are doing exactly the same thing as training with food "treats." In both instances you are using a variable ratio reinforcement schedule. If your dogs are as praise motivated as you say, you could just as easily drive them mad with your training method using your logic.



ManyRoses said:


> - In dog training, animals are given treats, and the treats are slowly and properly phased out on a schedule, at some point during which, they are randomized. No adverse affects are observed.
> - *I have no experience in training with treats*, but I DO have experience in training with other methods.
> 
> Should I REALLY be considered unreasonable for picking the method that I have experience in, and in the meantime, doing vast amounts of research into the other method that bears an incredible similarity to the one that drove the lab animals insane? Rather than leaping straight on in to a method that I do not have experience with, I would rather work with what I DO have experience with, and make sure that I figure out exactly WHY randomized treats caused brain damage in lab animals and don't appear to in dogs. Same treat, treat for behavior, same randomization.....gee, how unrelated. How ridiculous of me to approach something with caution if I don't fully understand it and am concerned about damaging my dog's brain. Silly me, I should have just dove in, and crossed my fingers that I don't screw it up and harm my dog.


I really don't understand how you can say you have no experience training with treats unless you're being unreasonably narrow in your definition of the word. Treats in this context are whatever your dog finds rewarding and will reinforce behavior. For many dogs, food is the ultimate reinforcer. For other dogs, praise, play, work, or other consequences may be the ultimate reinforcer. To train with "treats" as you say, all you need to do is replace "good dog" with a piece of kibble or smidgen of cheese. You're using the _exact same_ principles.

I think it's been mentioned or alluded to, but I'll repeat: food is a primary reinforcer. That's a big reason it's often suggested. 

My dog is trained with a combination of food (both regular kibble and special snacks), praise, and play. She's mentally stable and fit (perhaps even a bit slim). She learns new cues in controlled environments, and we slowly increase difficulty. At the same time, as she masters new cues, we decrease and randomize the rewards. We practice cues in a variety of contexts: on walks, at the park, in the pet store, at other homes. Sometimes she gets a piece of kibble, sometimes she gets to chase her squeaky ball, sometimes she simply gets to continue her walk. By the way, my dog eats about 2 cups of food a day. I haven't counted the number of individual kibbles, but it's a huge number of "treats."


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

I really am interested in an answer to my question about training "roll over" without any treats (or any similar trick involving a non-instinctive body position that is usually taught by luring). I'm curious as to how an anti-treat person would go about doing this. I have an idea that you could use targeting, but that's an extra step, right? OP, I'd still love to know how you would approach this.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

hamandeggs said:


> I really am interested in an answer to my question about training "roll over" without any treats (or any similar trick involving a non-instinctive body position that is usually taught by luring). I'm curious as to how an anti-treat person would go about doing this. I have an idea that you could use targeting, but that's an extra step, right? OP, I'd still love to know how you would approach this.


That's a good question! And without physically manipulating the dog.


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> That's a good question! And without physically manipulating the dog.


Yes. Although if the OP would physically manipulate the dog to train "roll over," I'd like to know that too. I'm genuinely curious as to how this would work. 

I also agree with a PP about complex behaviors, agility, etc. If I showed up to agility class without a bag of tiny high-value treats, I would be shown the door. Even if our agility teacher wasn't such a "cookie-pusher" (hah), I still wouldn't be able to picture effectively training agility with neither food rewards nor punishment-based methods.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Yeah, complex skills is where the whole praise based training falls apart. Imagine teaching this using nothing but praise:


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I train agility without food, but will use a tug depending on the dog. Libby loves just doing stuff, so she doesn't need any reward. Her reward is climbing, jumping etc. I don't compete in agility though. Still teaching the harder tasks, like climbing the ladder and the wobbly board I usually use a tug, only rewarding after the course. It's pretty much a visual to slow down, if its a young dog that doesn't have the "slow" command yet.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Please read the rest of this thread. She is not speaking of not reducing treats, she is afraid that using them at all makes dogs insane.


Where ON earth are you getting this stuff? First, you decide that my aversion to treats is because a dog died when it was clicker trained, when I never said anything about how it was trained. You then say I have a degree, when I specifically said that I have a diploma, not a degree, and made the distinction to avoid misleading people. Then you suggest I work in the field - I said my SISTER works in the field. now you say I disagree with using treats at all, when I have said repeatedly that I do use treats in certain situations. 

You seem to be missing the point here entirely, and taking an explanation of something and blowing it way out of proportion. As you may recall, I originally mentioned FOUR objections to treat training. The first has been explained, and I am happy with that explanation. Issues of practicality have basically been covered. It has been agreed that if praise works, there is nothing wrong with using it, but that most people find treats easier, and I have said that as I have never used them, they seem a little more complicated - mostly on a practical level of remembering to take them everywhere, and fading them off properly - but as I have repeatedly said, that that is just my inexperience. Now. As to the fourth. Which you have decided is phobic - this seems to have become a much bigger thing in your head because I have been attempting to explain it fully. I DO NOT HAVE A PHOBIA. Ok? I have a bias against using them. Does that little colloquialism help everyone? Does it make more sense than "emotional issue". It's a freaking BIAS. And being biased isn't exactly uncommon, and definitely doesn't need professional "help" - everyone has their biases for and against things. Lab studies are a small part of that bias. Other parts include apparent misinformation about the Heath effects (which came from a vet, btw), having seen it go so wrong, so often, simply feeling kinda like it's a bribe, a bit of a bias again "treating" anyone, human OR animal with food, and YES - concern over lab studies. Are you seriously so appalled that anyone may have a bias for or against anything that it SUCH a big deal? 

And I am offended by your comments. Because I am so utterly appalled that you think that ANY comment of a nature that person is acceptable. I am here to talk about my dog. My personal self is absolutely NONE of your damn business, and even if it were, I am disgusted that someone who apparently cares about being a responsible professional in the mental health field would think that it is ok to read a couple postsonline and actually attempt to armchair diagnose people. If someone is having a rough day, and comes on here to rant, would you tell them that they are depressed? Probably, actually. To me, that it utterly unacceptable - I would not dream of making such an assumption, or dare to form a judgement of a new forum member based on your misreading of a few posts at a point when the poster is obviously getting frustrated with responses.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

Deaf Dogs said:


> That's a good question! And without physically manipulating the dog.


Quite honestly, I don't know! I've never really trained my dogs to do "cute" tricks - nothing against them, it's just not been a priority! Most of my earlier life was around working dogs - who needs a collie to roll over as long as they jeep the sheep where you want them? Lol 

Off the top of my head, I would probably use a toy to try and "point" the direction - a friend who is a trainer for agility is working with a very toy-focused dog right now and guides into new trucks by pointing a chuck-it! Combine really exaggerated pointing and body language with a praise reward at every single movement toward rolling over, in order to build up to a full roll over? I have no problems praising and rewarding every tiny bit of progress until getting the desired result. 

And no, I don't physically manipulate the dog to train "cute" tricks - I guess I just don't care if she can "shake paw" - in fact, some of the really cute tricks seem so circusy and humanising that I would probably avoid them - I love my dogs to be dogs!!


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

hast said:


> So then you're an eejit? It seems you're the one insisting that there's only one method of training.


Good LORD. I have said over and over and over again that I don't care what others use, that I myself will change up methods for what works.


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> Off the top of my head, I would probably use a toy to try and "point" the direction - a friend who is a trainer for agility is working with a very toy-focused dog right now and guides into new trucks by pointing a chuck-it! Combine really exaggerated pointing and body language with a praise reward at every single movement toward rolling over, in order to build up to a full roll over? I have no problems praising and rewarding every tiny bit of progress until getting the desired result.


That is all well and good if you have a toy motivated dog. Not all dogs are toy motivated. Just like not all dogs are food motivated or praise motivated. And what do you mean by really exaggerated pointing? I can imagine what Gracie would do if I just started pointing in a direction. 



ManyRoses said:


> And no, I don't physically manipulate the dog to train "cute" tricks - I guess I just don't care if she can "shake paw" - in fact, some of the really cute tricks seem so circusy and humanising that I would probably avoid them - I love my dogs to be dogs!!


 I love my dogs to be dogs, too, but I can tell you what--those "cute tricks" really exhaust the brain and string complex behaviors together. Plus, as a therapy dog, Gracie uses them to entertain nursing home residents. Does that make her any less of a dog? Nope. 

I am having a hard time understanding and following your logic...you asked why we treat train, and we all explained (very politely, I think) and you still seem to be arguing that they aren't needed. That praise, toys, attention are good enough...and that treats may just cause more harm than good. I can respect your opinion and knowing that all dogs are different, I am able to appreciate the fact that some dogs can learn without treats. 

I am beginning to think that this thread was less about educating yourself about treat training and more about trying to convince the world that treats aren't needed.



ManyRoses said:


> Good LORD. I have said over and over and over again that I don't care what others use, that I myself will change up methods for what works.


Does that include using treats as a reinforcer?


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> Quite honestly, I don't know! I've never really trained my dogs to do "cute" tricks - nothing against them, it's just not been a priority! Most of my earlier life was around working dogs - who needs a collie to roll over as long as they jeep the sheep where you want them? Lol
> 
> Off the top of my head, I would probably use a toy to try and "point" the direction - a friend who is a trainer for agility is working with a very toy-focused dog right now and guides into new trucks by pointing a chuck-it! Combine really exaggerated pointing and body language with a praise reward at every single movement toward rolling over, in order to build up to a full roll over? I have no problems praising and rewarding every tiny bit of progress until getting the desired result.
> 
> And no, I don't physically manipulate the dog to train "cute" tricks - I guess I just don't care if she can "shake paw" - in fact, some of the really cute tricks seem so circusy and humanising that I would probably avoid them - I love my dogs to be dogs!!


Interesting. I see what you're getting at, and if that works for your dogs, then more power to you. That said, it certainly wouldn't work for every dog, and I'm certainly not convinced that you wouldn't get where you're trying to go much quicker with the use of a clicker and some tiny cheese bits, but whatever. 

But...with all due respect, I might suggest you word some of your comments differently. "Nothing against " cute tricks" - except that "some of the really cute tricks seem circusy and humanising"? I'm glad you think I'm training my dog to not be a dog. Likewise, your premise for this thread was "wanting to learn about treat training," but you actually seem to argue that treats aren't ever needed for our dogs either. Maybe all this is not what you meant to imply, but this attitude certainly rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

theyogachick said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going on. Again, I don't see anyone pushing treat training on anyone here. The only person getting snippy is the OP...yes, many people on this forum are PR trainers. A treat is not a bribe. A treat is a way to say "hey, you did what I wanted." And remember treat can be actual treat, toy, praise...whatever works for your dog. Luring works. Once the dog gets it, fading the lure works.
> 
> Gracie will also offer behaviors for her ball to be thrown at night, so I use that to work on obedience training. She has to sit before I throw it, or I get her to perform a series of commands. It doesn't matter WHAT the "treat" is. It is ALL positive reinforcement.
> 
> ...


Ok - here is why I am "getting snippy". Although many people did write respectful, open responses saying "here is what I think", many more people have been outright rude and disrespectful. In a discussion, it doesn't benefit anyone to say "you are wrong", to scoff, to make comments about my mental health, to act as though the world is black and White, and there is only one right answer. Note - not everyone did this - there were lots of great replies! 

Here is a perfect example - some people (pleasant, reasonable people) said "here are some ways to avoid over-feeding with treat training. The videos look like a lot, but here is what I do with my treats, here are some ways that you can make sure you aren't OVERfeeding". Great! Fabulous! Thanks! That helps! Whereas other people say "you ARE WRONG. Look hoe thin my dog is. It's SO easy not to OVERfeed, it's SO simple to do - if you in any way don't think that this is mind-numbingly simple, it's YOUR fault, and YOU have a problem". You don't have to swear or call names to be rude - when someone specifically says - I'm not looking for advice, i am just wanting to get some extra info, there shouldn't be ANYONE saying "this is FALSE". I honestly just expected to hear what people used fir themselves - some people obviously got that, others took this as an opportunity to create an argument and try to convince me that they are RIGHT. 

So yes, I feel attacked by some of the responses. In fact, I feel really upset by this forum right now. I guess I'm just used to people who can give opinions and discuss other opinions without making judgements on a person or using absolute terms - just for info, not to persuade anyone. I think that it is really sad, because some people have posted great info, replies, and had a discussion, whereas others have decided to judge, tell me I am absolutely WRONG and they are RIGHT, and even tell other people what I am thinking or trying (and apparently failing) to say. I think I have a reason to get "snippy" - I've been pretty upset by some of the replies and attitudes here. Some - not all. I have yet to see a moderator on this board, but if I was one, I'd be shitting this down now. If any moderators are reading - I seriously regret ever asking for a discussion, rather than just the q&a that fills most of the rest of the forum. Please shut this thread down.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

juliemule said:


> I train agility without food, but will use a tug depending on the dog. Libby loves just doing stuff, so she doesn't need any reward. Her reward is climbing, jumping etc. I don't compete in agility though. Still teaching the harder tasks, like climbing the ladder and the wobbly board I usually use a tug, only rewarding after the course. It's pretty much a visual to slow down, if its a young dog that doesn't have the "slow" command yet.


I'm not saying you need food but you do need something really rewarding to the dog. A lof of dogs are very tug/toy driven. My dog works better for food so that's what we use. But my youngest is also the type that the action quickly becomes rewarding in itself. It's nice but my other dogs are not that way. Then again, I end up with the dog shrieking because she wants back on the obstacles when it's not her turn because the obstacles herself are just so much fun.



> Off the top of my head, I would probably use a toy to try and "point" the direction - a friend who is a trainer for agility is working with a very toy-focused dog right now and guides into new trucks by pointing a chuck-it! Combine really exaggerated pointing and body language with a praise reward at every single movement toward rolling over, in order to build up to a full roll over? I have no problems praising and rewarding every tiny bit of progress until getting the desired result.


That wouldn't work for a dog that doesn't care about toys at all (I have a dog like that. Never played with a toy in her life).



> And no, I don't physically manipulate the dog to train "cute" tricks - I guess I just don't care if she can "shake paw" - in fact, some of the really cute tricks seem so circusy and humanising that I would probably avoid them - I love my dogs to be dogs!!


Oh how nice. Now my dogs aren't dogs because they can do cute tricks?

My youngest dog is a dog that very much needs something to do every day. She needs direction, needs to use that brain of hers to figure things out. We got about this by training whether that be tricks like 'dance', roll over, etc; obstacles, or even just self control (throwing her ball and asking for a stay then releasing). In that instance though there is no treat because it's not necessary. The release and ball act as a reward.

The one thing I feel you are missing with praise is consistency and timing when you're rewarding very specific behaviors. How do you time praise to capture the exact behavior you want and how do you make it a consistent reward? To me there are too many variables and it's too sloppy for precision and complex behaviors.


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> Ok - here is why I am "getting snippy". Although many people did write respectful, open responses saying "here is what I think", many more people have been outright rude and disrespectful. In a discussion, it doesn't benefit anyone to say "you are wrong", to scoff, to make comments about my mental health, to act as though the world is black and White, and there is only one right answer. Note - not everyone did this - there were lots of great replies!
> 
> Here is a perfect example - some people (pleasant, reasonable people) said "here are some ways to avoid over-feeding with treat training. The videos look like a lot, but here is what I do with my treats, here are some ways that you can make sure you aren't OVERfeeding". Great! Fabulous! Thanks! That helps! Whereas other people say "you ARE WRONG. Look hoe thin my dog is. It's SO easy not to OVERfeed, it's SO simple to do - if you in any way don't think that this is mind-numbingly simple, it's YOUR fault, and YOU have a problem". You don't have to swear or call names to be rude - when someone specifically says - I'm not looking for advice, i am just wanting to get some extra info, there shouldn't be ANYONE saying "this is FALSE". I honestly just expected to hear what people used fir themselves - some people obviously got that, others took this as an opportunity to create an argument and try to convince me that they are RIGHT.
> 
> So yes, I feel attacked by some of the responses. In fact, I feel really upset by this forum right now. I guess I'm just used to people who can give opinions and discuss other opinions without making judgements on a person or using absolute terms - just for info, not to persuade anyone. I think that it is really sad, because some people have posted great info, replies, and had a discussion, whereas others have decided to judge, tell me I am absolutely WRONG and they are RIGHT, and even tell other people what I am thinking or trying (and apparently failing) to say. I think I have a reason to get "snippy" - I've been pretty upset by some of the replies and attitudes here. Some - not all. I have yet to see a moderator on this board, but if I was one, I'd be shitting this down now. If any moderators are reading - I seriously regret ever asking for a discussion, rather than just the q&a that fills most of the rest of the forum. Please shut this thread down.


I have to say I have been around this forum for a long time, and this thread is not at all nasty. It has actually been a relatively civil discussion. However, I feel you are talking in circles a lot of times. I will repeat what I said--no one is telling you that you are wrong to not treat train. No one. Far be it from me to tell anyone the right/wrong way to train. As long as you aren't using physical punishment, I don't care what method you use. At all. And if you don't want to trick train, etc., that is also your business (again, I used my reasoning in an above post to help explain WHY I trick train...not why you should.)

I posted the picture so that you can see that not all dogs that are treat trained are overweight. Can people go overboard with treating their dogs Sure...but people can go overboard treating themselves, too. Gracie puts on weight easily, so would it be better if she were only praise motivated? Sure. Cheaper, too, but she isn't. She will perform without treats (the CGC test and the TDinc test have to be completed without treats...that is why it is so important to fade those out over time...Gracie and I do a 10 minute training session every morning and she gets 1-2 treats total in that time frame)

If you go back to my original reply, I explained why I treat train (and why I will encourage clients to do so as well). I also explained PR training and all that...and that all dogs are different, etc. If I have a client that doesn't want to use treats as a reinforcer, that is fine. I will work it out and try something else.

In terms of this forum, we have a lot of people with a lot of dog knowledge. We have trainers, breeders, rescue folks and dog savvy individuals. We love our dogs and educate ourselves about things and we do our best to educate others when they ask. We can't control the other people's responses, though.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

theyogachick said:


> That is all well and good if you have a toy motivated dog. Not all dogs are toy motivated. Just like not all dogs are food motivated or praise motivated. And what do you mean by really exaggerated pointing? I can imagine what Gracie would do if I just started pointing in a direction.
> 
> I love my dogs to be dogs, too, but I can tell you what--those "cute tricks" really exhaust the brain and string complex behaviors together. Plus, as a therapy dog, Gracie uses them to entertain nursing home residents. Does that make her any less of a dog? Nope.
> 
> ...


Again (and again, and again - why is it so difficult to see why I am getting frustrated - everything I write now is the same answer.) yes - I AM willing to switch to using treats as a reinforcer if what I am doing now stops working. I have no interest in convincing anyone else - right now, I am caught in this ridiculous spiral, where someone posts something, I reply to their question, and others take that as me pushing my opinion. I'm screwed. Nothing I cam possibly do will make you guys listen, apparently. If I don't respond, I am asked why didn't I answer that question. If I do - I am pushing my agenda and not listening to anyone. I am repeating the same things over and over and over bur no one us listening, and any attempt to explain in another way, or go into more detail is mis-read as there being some serious, deep rooted issue, but any attempt to simply is responded to with ridicule. 

If you think that this has all been "polite", just because you aren't swearing or name calling, you are so wrong. If these were polite, I wouldn't have gone to bed in tears last night, and I would have woken up, checked my e-mails, and ended up back in tears again - crying with so much frustration!!!! (let me guess - someone will take thus as an opportunity to armchair diagnose and tell me to seek professional help?). 

People HAVE been rude, condescending and generally nasty. I came to this forum to try and have discussions, and because I am a member of other forums fit other aspects of my life, and have always found them useful. Apparently, that was a REALLY bad idea - so I am leaving now. 

Thanks to the people that actually showed respect, and not just talked about it while being articulate assholes. Oh - and maybe if I'm not the first to think that this isn't a place for diacussion, that may not just be a comment on me, you know. Take a long hard look at yourselves - I just wanted to explore something - but instead, you've reduced me to tears, and made me decide to leave completely.


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

ManyRoses said:


> Again (and again, and again - why is it so difficult to see why I am getting frustrated - everything I write now is the same answer.) yes - I AM willing to switch to using treats as a reinforcer if what I am doing now stops working. I have no interest in convincing anyone else - right now, I am caught in this ridiculous spiral, where someone posts something, I reply to their question, and others take that as me pushing my opinion. I'm screwed. Nothing I cam possibly do will make you guys listen, apparently. If I don't respond, I am asked why didn't I answer that question. If I do - I am pushing my agenda and not listening to anyone. I am repeating the same things over and over and over bur no one us listening, and any attempt to explain in another way, or go into more detail is mis-read as there being some serious, deep rooted issue, but any attempt to simply is responded to with ridicule.
> 
> If you think that this has all been "polite", just because you aren't swearing or name calling, you are so wrong. If these were polite, I wouldn't have gone to bed in tears last night, and I would have woken up, checked my e-mails, and ended up back in tears again - crying with so much frustration!!!! (let me guess - someone will take thus as an opportunity to armchair diagnose and tell me to seek professional help?).
> 
> ...


No need to be that upset about it. Like I said...this is a mild discussion, and, if your feelings are hurt that easily...well...my apologies. 

I asked if you were willing to use treats as a reinforcer b/c I have heard many different sides from you. I was just asking for clarification. That is all. No one is attacking...we are asking for clarification, etc. 

What do you mean by you wanted to explore something? We have...I thought...for nearly a day now. You have been offered ideas, and reasoning and reasons why it works for some. Why we teach tricks...I am so confused...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Take a long hard look at yourselves - I just wanted to explore something - but instead, you've reduced me to tears, and made me decide to leave completely.


Well, good on you. It's a forum. If you think this is a harsh discussion, waltz on over to the pedigree database. They'd eat you for breakfast.


----------



## ManyRoses (May 28, 2012)

theyogachick said:


> No need to be that upset about it. Like I said...this is a mild discussion, and, if your feelings are hurt that easily...well...my apologies.
> 
> I asked if you were willing to use treats as a reinforcer b/c I have heard many different sides from you. I was just asking for clarification. That is all. No one is attacking...we are asking for clarification, etc.
> 
> What do you mean by you wanted to explore something? We have...I thought...for nearly a day now. You have been offered ideas, and reasoning and reasons why it works for some. Why we teach tricks...I am so confused...


My "feeling" are NOT hurt - I am ready to SCREAM with frustration at how ridiculous this is!!! I have to repeat myself over and over and over because apparently people aren't reading, then the repetition gets the same question, then the same repetition, and it never ends. And then I get told I am "talking in circles" or attacked for calling some tricks "cute" tricks - what the heck do YOU call that particular sub-set of tricks -those that have no function but entertainment? This has been the most frustrating day I've had a all year - I must be a masochistic for even attempting to keep explaining here. Maybe iMm hoping for a glimmer of compassion, or that there may be an actual moderator on an Internet forum (shocking concept) so that I can figure our who to e-mail to ask for all posts to be deleted, rather than having to waste any more of my time here doing it all one by one. Hello? Moderator? Do you exist here?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

There's been at least one moderator in this thread already. I really am failing to see all the people being rude or failing to read what you wrote. What I do see is people that are disagreeing with you. If this is the most frustrating thing that's happened to you all year, then count yourself very lucky.


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

To be clear--I did not (nor did anyone else) attack you for calling tricks cute. They are cute--I explained why I taught cute tricks to my dog. So did Lauralin...and we explained that cute tricks did not make our dogs any less dogs.

Compassion about what, exactly? Did anyone come out and say "you are WRONG and you are hurting your dog for not treat training?" Yes, there were a few posts that may have hit below the belt, but when you look at the posts as a whole, they weren't bad. Some of your posts were hard to follow and easily misunderstood--that is most likely why people are asking questions repeatedly--trying to get understanding. I have no idea why you are getting so bent out of shape. At all. Really. I don't see anyone getting angry here except you. 

There are moderators here...and they step in when needed. Like I said--this thread is mild. Very mild.


----------



## beardiedawg (Apr 16, 2012)

I haven't read past the first page so sorry if this has been brought up. I think the big thing to the treat training is that it is training for the "average dog owner". The OP seems to have an understanding of training and dog behavior. Many people are absolutely clueless about their dogs and at least if the dog is listening to them via the treat, it is still listening to them.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

theyogachick said:


> Oh, and as a side note, here is my treat trained dog. Notice that she is not chunky, unhealthy, etc. (Since that has been a part of the argument that treat training will make your dog fat)


Your treat (food) trained dog looks like my treat trained dog!










Our treat trained dogs look quite different from my roommate's toy trained dog.


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

beardiedawg said:


> I haven't read past the first page so sorry if this has been brought up. I think the big thing to the treat training is that it is training for the "average dog owner". The OP seems to have an understanding of training and dog behavior. Many people are absolutely clueless about their dogs and at least if the dog is listening to them via the treat, it is still listening to them.


No offense, but I am not your average dog owner...treat training is a method used with both non dog savvy and dog savvy people. It is used because PR works.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

ManyRoses said:


> If someone is having a rough day, and comes on here to rant, would you tell them that they are depressed? Probably, actually.





> I would not dream of making such an assumption...


LOL you JUST DID by assuming what people's response to someone's rant was. 



ManyRoses said:


> And no, I don't physically manipulate the dog to train "cute" tricks - I guess I just don't care if she can "shake paw" - in fact, some of the really cute tricks seem so circusy and humanising that I would probably avoid them - I love my dogs to be dogs!!


And WE are the rude ones making assumptions. LOL. Take a long, hard look at your own behavior. I have a dog who enjoys training very much and he loves the process of figuring things out. For him, the process of learning "cute" tricks is a game that occupies his mind and time and strengthens our relationship. But I guess I just don't want my dog to be a dog. :/



ManyRoses said:


> I am repeating the same things over and over and over bur no one us listening, and any attempt to explain in another way, or go into more detail is mis-read as there being some serious, deep rooted issue, but any attempt to simply is responded to with ridicule.


Honestly I think you are projecting ridicule, as well as a lot of intent. I don't see anyone ridiculing you. And honestly I don't think you are really, truly listening to people's responses here. Again: I don't care if you use treats or not. But, IMO you are overblowing an imagined "risk" of doing so, and if this is truly a discussion about the merits and flaws of treat training then yes, I am going to point that out to you. Whether or not you choose to listen to that, or acknowledge it, or take it as a personal attack is all your choice.



> Take a long hard look at yourselves - I just wanted to explore something - but instead, you've reduced me to tears, and made me decide to leave completely.


I say this with no intent of ridicule whatsoever, but if this discussion has reduced you to tears, I'm not sure the internet is for you. It is too easy to ascribe tone and intent to forum posts and take things in a manner they weren't intended.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I say this with no intent of ridicule whatsoever, but if this discussion has reduced you to tears, I'm not sure the internet is for you


Quoted for truth. As everybody has said, nobody takes issue with you not using treats. It's your implication that using food rewards will result in a deranged dog (and that HAS been your implication, whether you realize it or not).

The bias, phobia, whatever you want to call it that you have is an irrational one.


----------



## beardiedawg (Apr 16, 2012)

theyogachick said:


> No offense, but I am not your average dog owner...treat training is a method used with both non dog savvy and dog savvy people. It is used because PR works.


I'm not saying the people here are average dog owners. I see you have a Shiba so I know you have experience. =) Even though there is a debate going, it has been educational information on both sides. I'm looking at the first time dog owner who looks up information of how to train their cute little puppy that they got when their neighbors dog had pups. Anything more involved than treat training will be over their head and probably inappropriate for the situations. I have a rescue collie that I am treat training so I am in no way against it. She is a reactive dog and I am using treats to get her attention in the first place because once I loose it, I am usually unable to get it back until the stimulus is gone.


----------



## monkeykeeper (Nov 9, 2009)

Just wanted to mention that zoos and aquariums around the world train very complex behaviors, in most cases hands off, to wild animals with no "connection" to humans, using "treats" every day. They use variable reinforcment schedules and those animals are not deranged or going crazy. I'm talking about training a tiger to offer his tail for a blood draw, or training a wild dog to allow you to brush his teeth (or a gorilla).

I trained two tiny, very human shy, Golden Lion Tamarins to go on a scale, pee on command (so we could collect urine) and allow me to inject a saline solution (to be replaced with insulin later) using Wax Worms (which they loved). I participated in the training of the tiger for blood draws and we could hand inject the tigers for their procedures. They could not have treats for the procedure injections and sometimes for the blood draws, but they did it all the time and were not deranged, or crazy.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> I haven't read past the first page so sorry if this has been brought up. I think the big thing to the treat training is that it is training for the "average dog owner". The OP seems to have an understanding of training and dog behavior. Many people are absolutely clueless about their dogs and at least if the dog is listening to them via the treat, it is still listening to them.


I am sure that Karen Pryor will be interested to know that you would consider her an "average dog owner". I'll need to remind the trainers at Sea World the next time I see them toss a fish to a killer whale, that they got it all wrong.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ManyRoses said:


> My "feeling" are NOT hurt - I am ready to SCREAM with frustration at how ridiculous this is!!! I have to repeat myself over and over and over because apparently people aren't reading, then the repetition gets the same question, then the same repetition, and it never ends. And then I get told I am "talking in circles" or attacked for calling some tricks "cute" tricks - what the heck do YOU call that particular sub-set of tricks -those that have no function but entertainment? This has been the most frustrating day I've had a all year - I must be a masochistic for even attempting to keep explaining here. Maybe iMm hoping for a glimmer of compassion, or that there may be an actual moderator on an Internet forum (shocking concept) so that I can figure our who to e-mail to ask for all posts to be deleted, rather than having to waste any more of my time here doing it all one by one. Hello? Moderator? Do you exist here?


I've been in the conversation from the beginning as has at least one other mod. Only one person had been rude to you and that person has been penalized. You however have repeatedly been condescending to others and now have decided to tell me and the other mods how to do our jobs. I think you need a time out.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

ManyRoses said:


> If you have read many of my other posts, you will know that *I have a bit of an...aversion* (for lack of a better word) *to "treat training"*.


Quoted for reference.

I think the OP has taken this subject just about as far as it can go, in the context of discussion. IMO it's run it's course. If there is any further interest in getting past this "aversion", I think it's best served by receiving LIVE, first-hand, one-on-one, eye-to-eye instruction / demonstration from a qualified instructor who is well versed in the proper use of food during reinforcement training, rather than via mere opinions on a public forum.

In other words .. find the right person to help you overcome your (unfounded) fears, through on-going personal experience. As they say .. stop watching from the sidelines and just get in there and get your hands dirty. 


End note: please be sure to come back and tell us how much simpler and more effective the use of food has made your training.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

ManyRoses said:


> The sheer volume of treats given is staggering!! In a 30 sec clip from a video, I watch as 10+ treats are given.....this just can't be healthy!


It's perfectly healthy and OK - dog's digestive system and metabolism can take this without any problems. Thousands of working dogs annually compete in most demanding sports with no health issues.



ManyRoses said:


> Related to that is the next issue. As I see it, either you are just giving treats during "training sessions", which I have seen usually result in a dog that performs excellently during these sessions, but completely randomly outside of them.


This is often the case but it solely depends on the trainer - it's not due to food but just simply due to really bad training.



ManyRoses said:


> Treat training works largely on creating something that is often referred to in human psychology as the "gambler mentality". Studies throughout behaviorism and cognitive psychology
> [Snipped Inapplicable Scientific Studies]


Oh... studies that resulted in "gambler mentality" were so poor that they don't even deserve my time. My personal, friendly advise for anyone out there is to not even bother reading these. Yes, if I never feed my dog he will probably die, unfortunately that's how world works. Animals have to work for food or they will die - why is this such a bad thing?



ManyRoses said:


> Here is the real crux - why is a FOOD treat so important? I basically use the principles of "treat training" - the same exercises, games, commands, etc, the same build up in difficulty - but using praise and affection rather than food. If you have a strong bond with your dog, pleasing you should be a huge reward on it's own - dogs LOVE to make their people happy!


Applies to one dog but not for another - dogs are not all the same. It really takes some more experience to realize an undeniable fact that most dogs won't work just to make us happy.



ManyRoses said:


> Please help me out - am I missing something?


What's missing is experience, observation and knowledge. You tube videos are by far not even remotely enough to really understand food motivation. I'd say, if something works for you then just stick with it! Dogs are the same, they simply keep doing whatever works.....

This whole debate is pointless and I have to admit childish, it is philosophical more than anything.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The OP has left the building and has had the doors deadbolted behind her. Time for me to lock the thread.


----------

