Jump to content
BC Boards

Training treats considered as detrimental


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nothing wrong with "crutches " in general...

 

No, there really isn't. I use tons of them, especially to get behavior started: treats, lures, the click/treat, toys, targets, barriers, peanut butter on a spoon, platforms, mats, stuffed Kongs . . .

 

As long as steps are taken to fade and/or move beyond them when the dog is ready, "crutches" can be extremely helpful. They can often jump start the dog's understanding of new behaviors or concepts. They can help build value into behaviors that the dog has no natural enthusiasm for. They can aid very effectively in generalization and fluency. Also, when one is training for multiple sports, these types of "crutches", "props", or whatever one wishes to call them, can make the task of teaching seemingly countless distinct and high precision behaviors - behaviors that the dog really needs to know inside and out - transform from daunting to do-able.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am coming in pretty late to this thread, but sure have enjoyed reading all of it.

 

My first dog, a collie-of-some-kind mixed with a spaniel-of-some-kind, I trained to do everything I could think of training a dog to do, and never used a treat, only praise. I had no idea how to train a dog. I was 13 years old. At that time the only dog training I could find out about was choke-collar obedience training, and I did that.

 

But I also, just for fun, trained the dog to do every trick I could dream up in my mind using only praise. I never said "no", or did anything as a punishment if he got it wrong, but praised if he got it right. It never occurred to me to use a treat. That little dog learned everything lightning-fast and was utterly reliable. I always just figured that he was a great dog, not that I was a good trainer, and I still think that.

 

I never used treats to train a dog until many years later when I encountered clicker training. Now I use treats and a clicker. I think that I could do the same thing I did as a kid, just using praise, and lack of adversives. But I think that the +reward method is faster, and is also faster at creating a "language" with which you can communicate with the dog. I don't know that it is any better. But I do think it is faster.

My training, like yours, is based on an honest relationship with the dog. I have a deal with my dogs that I'll be fair and show them what's wanted and they won't get corrected or scared for making a mistake if they're honestly making an effort, and I make the learning experience itself fun for the dog. And once they learn a skill, we perform it as a team, together, based on our relationship with each other, not because the dog just thinks he'll get a treat.

^ this.

I think this is really the crux of doing good training with a dog whether you use treats or not.

 

.... I started doing a bit of clicker work (with food rewards) with Missy. Not because she needed it to learn, but because she LOVED it. She was still happy just doing stuff for the sake of doing it but her exuberance and "yay! I'm getting it right!" attitude I saw from her reached a whole new level.

^ this, too. I have seen this kind of enthusiasm light up a dog when the clicker is used for the first time. I think that the clicker may make it more fun for the dog. I have heard of human athletes being trained with a clicker. Getting a click when, for example, the dive position is just right, seems to be exciting even for people. It makes it fun. Fun is the best reward of all, no matter what species you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you're not remembering his method for dealing with chewing . . . to duct tape the dog's mouth shut with some of the chewed material and leave the dog like that for hours.

 

Or for soiling in the house. To tie the dog at the site of the mess and beat it soundly for 20 minutes (OK, I don't remember exactly how many minutes but it wasn't one or 2 quick swats. It was to beat the dog repeatedly for an extended period of time, over and over again).

 

There's no context and no time where this is a humane way to deal with unwanted behaviors, in my not-so-humble opinion.

I just got a used copy of "The Koehler Method of Dog Training." I wanted to clear up this business about both chewing and housebreaking. There is a two-page section about housebreaking that spends 1 1/2 pages on the responsibility of the owner to get the dog out regularly and the use of a crate in housebreaking. The treatment you remember was for dealing with dogs that have been clean in the house for a very long time and then stop. The word he used was "spank", not "beat," and for me there is quite a bit of difference between the two. However, I personally would not do either in connection with housebreaking. Koehler also fails to mention that a dog suddenly becoming "dirty" in the house could have a medical cause. That would be my first concern.

 

As for chewing, your memory is essentially correct - except that it is recommended that the treatment be repeated daily for six days. He does spend a lot of time before outlining this program in an attempt to connect a lot of chewing with a dietary mineral deficiency, saying that many destructive chewers can be cured by the addition of a mineral supplement to their rations. Oddly, he says nothing about the teething puppy, which naturally is motivated to chew to assuage the pains or discomfort of erupting teeth. Nor does he say anything about offering "legal" objects for chewing or praising for "appropriate" chewing.

 

These are two good reasons that I have long identified myself as a modified Koehler trainer. I believe that his basic training techniques, properly applied, are fine for the average dog. But his solutions for problem behaviors are often draconian and unnecessary - and sometime cruel. For that reason I do not employ them.

 

My experience with my Border Collie and with the more sensitive "Lassie" Collies I have owned suggests to me that some of Koehler's regular obedience training (as opposed to his problem solving notions) techniques may be a bit too stressful for them. The extremely intelligent but soft nature of many Border Collies and some Collies make it necessary to be vigilant that the dog is not being stressed unduly, as they will be likely to become fearful, sulky or simply shut down. But if you are a good observer of canine responses, and alter your technique to address this, it should not be a problem in most cases.

 

While I have no problem with putting a hard-charging knot-headed Labrador Retriever or terrier into a flat spin at the end of a long-line, They evidence no real anguish - mental or physical - at such a correction. And it gets the message across very clearly. However, the same treatment would probably cause most Border Collies or sensitive individuals of some other breeds to regard you with deep misgivings for a long time - perhaps forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found this article online - they did a study comparing the effectiveness of petting, verbal praise, and food.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201307/do-dogs-learn-faster-food-other-types-rewards

 

 

Regarding Koehler, I trained my first dog (a german shepherd) that way. She did learn to work pretty well. I think she often didn't like me very much though . . . it got the job done good enough to go for a walk without being pulled around and get some obedience titles with halfway decent scores, but nowhere near the precision or enthusiasm of my later dogs trained with more positive methods. One problem I always had with it was that for a lot of the teaching, there was no 'showing' phase - even the most biddable compliant eager-to-please dog on the planet would still get a few corrections using Koehler. Mainly on the heeling part of it (my memory is a bit rusty on the rest). For example, instead of showing the dog a certain position to be in, they get jerked, bumped into, or tripped over any time they're out of position. Through trial and error they eventually learn the 'right' place. Once they know what is right, I saw some quite happy and reliable (if not incredibly precise) workers. But the process of getting there bothered me a lot because unless your dog was a mind reader, they were guaranteed a lot physically unpleasant failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no problem with putting a hard-charging knot-headed Labrador Retriever or terrier into a flat spin at the end of a long-line, They evidence no real anguish - mental or physical - at such a correction. And it gets the message across very clearly

 

I don't think a dog, just because he can take harsh correction, should need to be treated that way. Tough, "hard" dogs are often described as stupid or not feeling much pain. I have heard that labs were bred to be pretty impervious to pain, so maybe they don't. My Lhasa is a hard little dog, tough physically and mentally. I remember the Koehler type instructor 30 years ago "correcting" a Lhasa so harshly the dog literally did somersaults in the air, landing on his feet to bark furiously at the instructor only to be jerked off his feet again. Hard headed? You bet. Stupid, not feeling the pain? I didn't know the dog, but my own Lhasas have been clever, fast, eager learners when you offered them some positive reinforcement. They feel pain but their outrage when they feel they are being treated unfairly may mask any suffering.

 

My Lhasa, Chili, would probably be like that Lhasa of long ago, fighting a correction he couldn't understand until the pain or fear overwhelmed his fierce spirit. Many would no doubt dismiss him as stupid or ornery (alright, I'll give you ornery :lol:) and no big deal about jerking him off his feet or spinning him around. When he was a puppy, I was struck by how fast he learned commands, tricks and manners through a clicker approach. Treats and positive reinforcement are a much more effective approach for him than corrections. I can't help but think that would be true for some other tough dogs, including the big, "dumb" ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have no problem with putting a hard-charging knot-headed Labrador Retriever or terrier into a flat spin at the end of a long-line, They evidence no real anguish - mental or physical - at such a correction. And it gets the message across very clearly. However, the same treatment would probably cause most Border Collies or sensitive individuals of some other breeds to regard you with deep misgivings for a long time - perhaps forever.

 

 

And the problem is that you don't know for certain which type of dog you have until you have done it, by which time the damage is done.

 

Some of the most bomb proof appearing dogs I have known were anything but if harshly treated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shetlander, You should try this comparing your Lhasa, Sheltie, and bc! That would be a cool comparison. When I find the time I think I will try this comparing my bc vs pyr shep, BUT, I'm not going to try it with 1000 items. I think coming up with and naming this number of items would be the biggest challenge. and then coming up with toys that would last long enough to complete the testing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana. That link was interesting, and although I agree with it, I wonder how valid this sort of testing is. The value of a reward is really specific to the individual being rewarded. They compared treats vs petting and praise. It seems obvious to me that treats are usually more valuable than praise and petting since we tend to praise and pet so freely. However, I would not have strong recalls if I depended on treats with my own dogs. My own dogs prefers toys, play, and anything involving movement.

But imagine testing toys vs food? I don't see how there could be reliable results because this is really individual preferences (just like me preferring dark chocolate over milk chocolate, red wine vs white wine, etc. etc). For recall training I use tugging, and ball tossing, but one of their favorite recall games is "ready, set, go!" I call them to me,they come, and then I say 'ready set, go, go, go!" and they take off running. It's even more fun for when I do it with both dogs at the same time and they take of running together chasing each other. (such funny, silly boys!) I would like to read the specifics of how this was done: what breeds, what treats, how they were trained, etc, etc. Or did I miss some key details?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found this article online - they did a study comparing the effectiveness of petting, verbal praise, and food.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201307/do-dogs-learn-faster-food-other-types-rewards

But note this comment right down at the bottom of the page:

Although I have been training dogs for over forty years, and had a dog training facility, I have never encouraged the use of food rewards. I recently acquired a new dog (two years old), and started him at an obedience school that stresses food and clickers. He is a (conformation)show dog with strong basic obedience skills. Before we started school, I worked him with only praise, as has been my custom. Once we began classes, I incorporated food (I refuse to use the clicker). I have seen a marked reduction in the quality of his responses, and he is constantly looking for the food. His recall sits are no longer straight, as he aims for the pocket where the treats are. He is now in a hurry to complete the entire exercise so he can get the morsel. I have discontinued the food, and he is much better. Like Carol Lea Benjamin says in Mother Knows Best, look at the bitch. Her puppies obey her despite her not having food, clickers, rolled-up newspapers (heaven forbid), etc. From now on, my dog will work for me because of our mutual bond, not because I have to rely on some external motivator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reader's comment in response to the article? Yes, I think this discussion and many like it have shown that there are different opinions about how to best train dogs. Obviously that commenter falls into a more traditional school and is happy with the results it produces. He or she doesn't see a need to change after 40 years of training, refuses to use a clicker and seems to feel food interferes with the "mutual bond." The mutual bond thing is a fairly common argument against using food rewards and did make me smile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shetlander, You should try this comparing your Lhasa, Sheltie, and bc! That would be a cool comparison. When I find the time I think I will try this comparing my bc vs pyr shep, BUT, I'm not going to try it with 1000 items. I think coming up with and naming this number of items would be the biggest challenge. and then coming up with toys that would last long enough to complete the testing!

 

I have never worked specifically to teach names to different toys. That would be interesting, though the ancient, deaf Sheltie will need to sit that experiment out. Sounds like a fun winter project!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But note this comment right down at the bottom of the page:

 

Which sounds like someone who is using food in an imprecise way (the fact the he or she REFUSES to use a clicker is telling, like I will follow half the suggestions offered but only half) which will lead to mugging, the dog targeting the treat bag, etc.

 

I am training a dog for obedience competition and from day 1 have used treats and lots of them, and I learned how to mark the behavior, get the treats off my body and my (baby) dog does perfect fronts, finishes, heeling etc with his nose pointed right where it should be.

 

One can train imprecise behaviors no matter what method they use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of this: I was watching a video of Michael Ellis (ring sport trainer) describing his use of an e-collar, what I found interesting was not the use of the collar but that he was saying the dog needed a clear understanding of the behavior before you used an e collar to correct it, I believe he also uses choke collars for the same thing. He trains the behavior with food and a verbal marker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually to me, it sounds like someone who is training in the right way, but I guess it all depends on which direction you are coming from.

 

I say what I did because the commenter reports bumping and mugging him for food, and following the food. That would indicate that the dog is not being rewarded in a manner in which he understands the food is a reward for a particular behavior done well. This usually happens with luring and a lack of a marker (which is what a clicker is).

 

My point was that you can use food and not have that problem. I don't have that problem and I use food.

 

The "right way" is subjective, now isn't it?

 

And the little dig of that commenter at the end of his comment about how his dog will work for him because of a mutual bond is pretty telling as well. It implies that those of us who use food have somehow less of a bond, which is utter horseshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "right way" is subjective, now isn't it?

The right way, is the way that brings you results and works well for the dog. If "mark and reward" is what works for you, fine -- it's certainly far better than heavy handed use of aversives. Just don't disparage those who prefer to work by building a rapport with their dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just don't disparage those who prefer to work by building a rapport with their dog.

 

I wouldn't think of it. However using treats/toys as rewards and having rapport with our dogs are not mutually exclusive. You prefer not to use treats in training and feel you get better results that way. That is great and your dogs are lucky to have someone care about them so much. I use treats and clicker training as handy tools to communicate with my dogs and I like my results as well. Since I have three sleeping dogs crowding in on me as I type this and no food or toys within reach, I am comfortable with the rapport I have built over the years. Clicker training and treats are actually a pretty small percentage of our time together.

 

Not using treats and/or using corrections does not automatically (or often) = abuse of the dog.

Positive reinforcement with food/toys does not automatically (or often) = no true bond/rapport with the dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say what I did because the commenter reports bumping and mugging him for food, and following the food. That would indicate that the dog is not being rewarded in a manner in which he understands the food is a reward for a particular behavior done well. This usually happens with luring and a lack of a marker (which is what a clicker is).

 

To dovetail off of this a bit, the very first thing my own dogs learn (except in one case where I had to do just about everything backwards) is that the way to earn the treat is to choose (without a cue or prompting or any kind of "correction" from me) to leave it alone. It takes a simple little clicker/treat exercise that most dogs master in minutes.

 

Unless I am working on drive games with food where it is clear that the dog is to "go for it", my dogs know that the treat will be delivered in due time and that any "mugging" for it will not result in faster treat delivery - even if I am luring.

 

Fact, is, if a dog is mugging for treats while being trained with treats, the trainer/handler has the option of learning to use the food in more effective ways that do not result in such "mugging".

 

And really, it's not that difficult. Even with a dog who is highly food driven, who will typically learn the concept even faster than a dog who is less food driven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reader's comment in response to the article? Yes, I think this discussion and many like it have shown that there are different opinions about how to best train dogs. Obviously that commenter falls into a more traditional school and is happy with the results it produces. He or she doesn't see a need to change after 40 years of training, refuses to use a clicker and seems to feel food interferes with the "mutual bond." The mutual bond thing is a fairly common argument against using food rewards and did make me smile.

 

 

My heart sinks when I read comments like "I have been training dogs for 40 years" because you can usually add to that " and I know it all and am very stuck in my ways".

 

I do wonder whether some people who believe that a "mutual bond" can only be achieved without treats and similar subconsciously fear that to use them will diminish what they would like to feel is their power over the dog. Is it an ego thing? Most people I know who have no problems with using appropriate awards are confident enough not to worry about it.

 

And as for

 

 

Like Carol Lea Benjamin says in Mother Knows Best, look at the bitch. Her puppies obey her despite her not having food, ..........

 

I've no idea who Carol Lea Benjamin is, nor to I feel inclined to find out if she talks such absolute tosh.

 

Who feeds the pups, protects them, teaches them to provide for themselves? The bitch has control of the resources that the pups need for life.

 

Take a simple example - a pup starts to bite when suckling. The bitch removes herself. Only if the pups suckle properly will she settle down. What more powerful reward can there be and yes, it involves food?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say what I did because the commenter reports bumping and mugging him for food, and following the food. That would indicate that the dog is not being rewarded in a manner in which he understands the food is a reward for a particular behavior done well. This usually happens with luring and a lack of a marker (which is what a clicker is).

 

 

It stood out a mile that the commenter was determined to make the experiment fail because s/he was convinced the her/his way was the right one and wanted to prove it.

 

The commenter clearly does not know how to time and deliver such rewards and had no intention of learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

In the holiday spirit I have read this thread and though Eileen has said everything I needed to, I had to toss in my two cents worth.

 

1 cent: I have personally seen happy, sane mannerly (you can take them anywhere off leash) dogs trained by treats, toys, ecollar, Koehler method, drive training, sheepdogging side effect and no particular method at all. Some training methods make silly theoretical claims, some require a gifted trainer to be effective, some risk harming dogs. Practitioners of every method have TRULY DREADFUL horror stories about those who prefer other methods. Lies in the service of one's dogfaith are commonplace.

 

2 cent: While every training method insists its goal is off-lead mannerliness,"As ye start, so shall ye go". For the ecollar trainer, that transmitter is the default, the Koehler dog wears his choke collar and the treat trainer has his/her leash and treat bag. In 2013 doggy travels (30 k in US & Canada) I can count the number of mannerly off lead dogs I've seen (apart from sheepdog trials) on two fingers of one hand.

 

Their absence doesn't prove our training methods are ineffectual but it suggests ordinary dog owners fear they just might be.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no idea who Carol Lea Benjamin is, nor to I feel inclined to find out if she talks such absolute tosh.

Carol Lea Benjamin is a member of these boards, so you can do a search and find out.

Regardless of what she might (or might not) say and write, the concept of taking hints from momma dog is good common sense. That's how nature teaches pups and we all can benefit from watching and learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

In the holiday spirit I have read this thread and though Eileen has said everything I needed to, I had to toss in my two cents worth.

 

In 2013 doggy travels (30 k in US & Canada) I can count the number of mannerly off lead dogs I've seen (apart from sheepdog trials) on two fingers of one hand.

 

Their absence doesn't prove our training methods are ineffectual but it suggests ordinary dog owners fear they just might be.

 

Donald McCaig

Mr McCaig, I don't think you see mannerly off leash dogs in your travels because for most people that is not their goal, there are very few places in an urban / surburban setting where one can walk a dog without a leash legally. So why spend the time teaching the dog a skill it will not use. My own dogs either ride in the car to get to a place to exercise, or they walk on a leash, if they accompany me to a local store it is on leash, it's a $75.00 fine for an unleashed dog something I am willing to risk for exercise and entertainment purposes but not going down the sidewalk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...