Two training questions

[Root Beer]

Interesting that the topic of 'training treats' has so many opinions. We, as BC owners, are incredibly lucky when participating in agility since we do have a dog that 'wants to please'. I view it as BCs having a 'built-in engine', whereas many other breeds need work on 'building their engine', or desire, for agility. To build that desire to play at agility for non-BCs, the high-value treats, etc. are very useful.

 

That's not a given, though. That is actually one of the biggest misconceptions I run into among non-Border Collie people. They tend to think Border Collies are just point and shoot and they will have all the drive and desire they need for anything we want.

 

It doesn't always work that way.

 

I've had to work pretty hard with Dean to build his motivation for Agility. He never hated it or anything, but for a long time he really could take it or leave it. High value treats help, environmental rewards help - especially the opportunity to visit his human friends before a run, and toy play helps. Over time he has developed some drive for the game itself, but he is far from the point and shoot Border Collie stereotype.

 

And then you have the Border Collies who have too much "built in engine". In those cases, the high value treats, toys, environmental rewards, etc. can be used very nicely to build self control and the dog's ability to think through that constantly revving "engine".

[gcv-border]

That's not a given, though. That is actually one of the biggest misconceptions I run into among non-Border Collie people. They tend to think Border Collies are just point and shoot and they will have all the drive and desire they need for anything we want.

 

It doesn't always work that way.

 

I've had to work pretty hard with Dean to build his motivation for Agility. He never hated it or anything, but for a long time he really could take it or leave it. High value treats help, environmental rewards help - especially the opportunity to visit his human friends before a run, and toy play helps. Over time he has developed some drive for the game itself, but he is far from the point and shoot Border Collie stereotype.

 

And then you have the Border Collies who have too much "built in engine". In those cases, the high value treats, toys, environmental rewards, etc. can be used very nicely to build self control and the dog's ability to think through that constantly revving "engine".

 

You are correct. I was just speaking in generalities - which frequently always brings up the exceptions. My BC tends to have too much engine on the agility field and we are working on focus. And I have also experienced a non-motivated dog - my 11 year old Sheltie mix that I adopted as a 3 year old. I never was able to get her to play agility (despite treats (steak and such), toys, or praise), but that is another long story.

 

Jovi

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms Jovi writes: "We, as BC owners, are incredibly lucky when participating in agility since we do have a dog that 'wants to please'."

 

I think this is generally correct but I've seen sheepdogs whose work was much more important than their coworker and some who viewed the coworker as an obstacle to the work (Generally too much freelancing.) We sheepdoggers have an advantage because our work is coded with the desire to please whereas those interested in agility and obedience have work most of which makes no initial sense to the dog. I often hear farmers say, "Oh we never did 'train' Shep. He just figured it out for himself."

 

You won't hear that at an agility seminar.

 

Donald McCaig

[Eileen Stein]

Sigh.

 

I love my job at the Humane Society, but do you think I'm going to do it for free?

 

Volunteers do, don't they?

 

But no matter what, I don't feel that any dog should learn new behaviors just for the joy of being with us and wanting to please us. They are their own beings with their own thoughts & motivations. It is our job to tap into those motivations to shape the behaviors we desire.

 

Yeah, don't let them work for the joy of being with us and wanting to please us! Stop that at once! Nip it in the bud! It's our job to make sure they're motivated for the right reasons, and not for the reasons they might think, in their ignorance, are sufficient.

 

The idea that you [owe, ought, must] give a dog a higher value treat than the one he is happily working for, even if he would work well for no treat at all, takes treat-training to a level that I had never imagined. And the notion that you should do that because it gives another trainer pleasure to do that when she is training ("I'm quite certain I could go an entire weekend without giving Luke one single morsel of food and he would run as fast in run twelve as he did in run one. But personally, I get a great amount of joy from the simple act of jackpotting after a run.") -- well, I guess somebody would need to explain the learning theory behind that for me to get it.

[juliepoudrier]

So I ask. You have a dog who is new to Agility and is not willing to go through a tunnel. The tunnel is new and strange and the dog doesn't know what he is supposed to do with it. How do you get him to do it by really tapping into his "desire to please?"

Well at the risk of being told I've misinterpreted the meaning of "not willing," in my case, with the dogs we had here playing at agility, we put a person at either end of the tunnel. The person at the dog's end pointed the dog's nose toward the opening. The person at the other end--the dog's owner--called the dog through. Yes, at first the dog was more inclined to go around, but the helper at that end of the tunnel prevented that. After a few repetitions, all of the dogs started going through the tunnel willingly, even though they clearly didn't understand what we wanted at the beginning (and this include a great dane, for whom going through a tunnel couldn't have been as physically easy as for the border collies). The dane, in fact, kept spitting out the treats she was offered--treats that she'd normally turn herself inside out for. So obviously the value of the treat wasn't the issue.

 

Interestingly, even the dogs who like treats (Phoebe is one of those who will take your hand off for a treat) were not particularly interested in treats as rewards during this process or when introduced to jumps.

 

But then again, at least with my own dogs, we had a working partnership to start with before we ever tried any agility, and I think that partnership helped in the "desire to please" department.

 

Frankly, I think it makes sense to use treats when teaching stuff that doesn't come naturally, but I don't get the "it must be THIS type of treat or you're somehow doing a disservice to the dog" attitude that was presented here.

 

 

As for working for pay, I have to say that as I've aged I've come to the realization that I can be perfectly happy earning *a lot* less if I'm doing something I'm *passionate* about, and especially if what I'm doing makes a big difference to others--perhaps makes them happy? And I think volunteerism falls into that category as well, though obviously dogs don't have a sense of volunteerism that humans do. I won't put human emtions and motivations on to dogs, but I do think that at least some individual dogs do want to please their humans more than anything, and one can tap into that desire if one so chooses. Does that mean treats/rewards shouldn't be used for training? Of course not. But it also doesn't mean that treats/rewards HAVE to be used for training.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

So I ask. You have a dog who is new to Agility and is not willing to go through a tunnel. The tunnel is new and strange and the dog doesn't know what he is supposed to do with it. How do you get him to do it by really tapping into his "desire to please?"

 

I've often told the story of training my first border collie to go through an agility tunnel. Boiled down, I gave her the command "Tunnel!" (which she had never heard before, but knew from my tone of voice and context was a command) and pointed at it. It was just the two of us, so there was no one to hold her at the opposite end, which would have made it easy. She tried all different things (running around it, jumping over it, etc.), looking at me after each with her "Is it this?" look, and me saying "No, tunnel!" and trying to make my gestures clearer, until she happened on running through it, whereupon I said, "Yes! Good dog." After that she joyfully ran through the tunnel on command. When I finally went to an agility class, the instructors told me I had to put a handkerchief at the far end of the tunnel, and put a treat on it, and then stay there looking at her through the tunnel while they held her, and call her through. I did, and she came through, but she showed no interest in the treat. The instructors insisted I not let her go on until she'd eaten the treat (which she didn't want to do because she saw it as a distraction, but eventually did, looking eagerly at me to see what we would do next while she was eating it). I'm sure other border collies are harder to train than she was, but if she wanted to do it for the pleasure of working with me, what the heck is wrong with that?

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

My dogs' agility experience was similar to Julie's. There's an agility intro/demo at Rural Hill so after June had run, I went over. A very nice lady asked it I wanted to try and suggested leashing June and offering a treat so she'd jump through the life preserver. I thought June probably just needed to understand what was wanted and indeed, that's all she needed. At the tunnel I got at one end and corrected ("Ahh!") June's several attempts to avoid it. She came through. The ramp and dog walk were easy. I didn't try the teeter-tooter because the sudden bump would have been, I thought, a betrayal of June's confidence.

 

June was not and is not a competitive agility dog and we already had a strong working bond before our experiment.

 

Could a Border Collie be trained to do well at agility sans treats is unknown and for practical reasons probably unknowable.

 

Donald McCaig

[Maralynn]

Reading the past few agility experiences made me think on my intro to agility with Kenzi. At a park filled with people and dogs. I took her to equipment and directed her as to what I wanted her to do. She had a few pieces of kibble and a couple of quick tug rewards as rewards over the whole course. She did all obstacles but the weave poles. The instructor asked me if I'd done agility with her before. Nope, just worked with her.

[Root Beer]

Well at the risk of being told I've misinterpreted the meaning of "not willing," in my case, with the dogs we had here playing at agility, we put a person at either end of the tunnel. The person at the dog's end pointed the dog's nose toward the opening. The person at the other end--the dog's owner--called the dog through. Yes, at first the dog was more inclined to go around, but the helper at that end of the tunnel prevented that. After a few repetitions, all of the dogs started going through the tunnel willingly, even though they clearly didn't understand what we wanted at the beginning (and this include a great dane, for whom going through a tunnel couldn't have been as physically easy as for the border collies). The dane, in fact, kept spitting out the treats she was offered--treats that she'd normally turn herself inside out for. So obviously the value of the treat wasn't the issue.

 

Correct - by "not willing" I mean "no way, no how, you can stand there and call me all day, you can coax, you can clap, you can run your hand along the top of that tunnel until doomsday, I'm not going".

 

With these dogs there really are two choices. Find a motivator to help the dog make the choice to go through, or make the dog do it. This is where I don't see "desire to please" coming into play in any way. How would one tap into that in this case?

 

The motivator does not have to be food. Obviously, a dog that is spitting out food is not being motivated by food in that instance. I worked with a dog one time who was motivated by her owner waving kleenex tissues in her face. The dog refused to have anything to do with Agility equipment - not for food, not for praise, not for anything until the second the kleenex came out. Then she would do anything.

 

When I introduce Tessa to tunnels, her motivator will be Maddie. She will follow Maddie anywhere. I am going to scrunch up a tunnel so it is very short and let her watch Maddie go through it. She is very likely to follow since she pretty much wants to be Maddie, no matter what she does! That is what is going to work for her.

 

Interestingly, even the dogs who like treats (Phoebe is one of those who will take your hand off for a treat) were not particularly interested in treats as rewards during this process or when introduced to jumps.

 

That happens, sure. I've seen plenty of dogs who are motivated by treats, though. Speedy, Dean, and Maddie certainly were food motivated when they were being introduced to the equipment. It comes down to what motivates the individual dog.

 

But then again, at least with my own dogs, we had a working partnership to start with before we ever tried any agility, and I think that partnership helped in the "desire to please" department.

 

I know you realize, thought, that most people who are starting foundation Agility don't have an established working partnership with their dog when they start. If I were to introduce Dean to a new piece of Agility equipment now, say a crawl under tunnel like they have in UKC Agility, I could point to it, and use hand gestures to show Dean that I want him to crawl under it and he would probably do it. We now have a long history of working together and, from his experience with other pieces of Agility equipment, he has enough knowledge to get the gist. Back when we first started, our relationship wasn't nearly at that point. I would have confused the heck out of him had I not done a lot of step by step shaping or luring to teach him what was expected.

 

I'm not saying that "desire to please" can never come into play. Of course it can. But in practice I see most people using the phrase to really mean "I'm going to make the dog do it". Again, whether or not that is good a good Agility teaching practice is debatable, but pushing or dragging an unwilling dog through a tunnel is not the dog doing it to please the handler. And that really is usually how I see the concept used in practice most of the time. Obviously, there are exceptions. If the dog really is going to do something to please the handler, no pushing, pulling, or dragging is going to be necessary.

 

Frankly, I think it makes sense to use treats when teaching stuff that doesn't come naturally, but I don't get the "it must be THIS type of treat or you're somehow doing a disservice to the dog" attitude that was presented here.

 

I'd agree with you there. Again, the kleenex example is a good illustration of this. A reinforcer/motivator is what the dog wants. If the dog wants kibble, that can work. If the dog is going to spit the kibble out, it's time to find a far better reinforcer/motivator in that situation.

 

I do see a lot of people who insist on using treats that their dog does not care about at class - the dog is literally spitting the treat out or moving away from it to avoid it - and I say, "you need to get something of higher value". The most common response - "He LOVES this!" It is hard for many beginners to learn to look to the dog to see what is high value and what is of little or no value. If the dog is spitting the treat out, it's not a reinforcer in that circumstance. So, if the dog is spitting out roast beef, but eating kibble (and Dean has done this!) in that instance, the kibble is high value and the roast beef is of no value.

[Root Beer]

Could a Border Collie be trained to do well at agility sans treats is unknown and for practical reasons probably unknowable.

 

Could it be done? In theory, possibly - if you have a Border Collie who has a lot of natural drive, natural self control, no fear, good natural body awareness, and who is really willing to do just about anything for sake of doing those things!! From a practical standpoint, I doubt it.

 

If you literally mean "no treats", as in just no food, then there is an even better chance it could be done if the dog is toy motivated, play motivated, or motivated by something else. But if by "treats", you mean no motivators like toys, environmental rewards, etc., then it would be an extreme challenge.

 

You could probably introduce a very willing Border Collie, who is naturally interested in interacting with new things, to all of the equipment without any kind of motivator. But when it comes to teaching the more technical skills - contacts, difficult weave entries, rear crosses, obstacle discrimination at a distance, etc. it would be a lot more difficult.

 

And that is taking into account that you have a Border Collie that has the correct balance of drive, desire, and self control. Most of them really do need some help in one area or another. I have met exactly one Border Collie thus far who could just kind of "get it" without any kind of reinforcer/motivator, and her owner was only interested in the most basic of basics. I don't know how she would have done, had she gotten into anything but the most basic handling. Based on what I saw, I think they would have had some difficulty.

 

I agree that for practical reasons it probably is unknowable.

[juliepoudrier]

Correct - by "not willing" I mean "no way, no how, you can stand there and call me all day, you can coax, I know you realize, thought, that most people who are starting foundation Agility don't have an established working partnership with their dog when they start.

This is *exactly* why I pointed out that I do have a good working relationship with my dogs--because I recognize that this is not necessarily the norm for people starting out in agility with their dogs and so my experience might not mirror the rest of the world's. But my personal example does serve to point out (as Eileen's, Donald's, and Maralynn's posts also attest to) that a good working partnership can enhance the "desire to please effect" and allow some dogs to learn to do agility equipment without treats or toys. Not one of us is arguing that *everyone* should tap into that pre-existing partnership (especially if it doesn't exist), but simply pointing out to those who think agility can't or shouldn't be trained without high-value treats/rewards that it can be done. The larger point, of course, being that if someone is doing something that works for them and their dog (and isn't harming the dog mentally or physically), then it really doesn't make sense for others to proclaim that their way is the only way, IYKWIM.

 

FWIW, on the not willing part, none of my dogs *wanted* to go through the tunnel at first. They all squirmed this way and that and did what they could to *not* enter the tunnel. But with encouragement from the far end and clear "instruction" (for lack of a better term--more like no, don't go left, no, don't go right) from the near end, they realized what I wanted and went through.

 

I guess I just view the discussion of treats/rewards vs. not (or even high-value vs. low-value) as the old chestnut about a hammer. If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you strongly believe in using treats for training, then every training situation might require a treat. All some of us are trying to say (and as I'm sure you know, your comments aren't the ones that prompted my initial response) is that there is no *one* right way. I'm sure you and I agree on that.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Correct - by "not willing" I mean "no way, no how, you can stand there and call me all day, you can coax, you can clap, you can run your hand along the top of that tunnel until doomsday, I'm not going".

 

With these dogs there really are two choices. Find a motivator to help the dog make the choice to go through, or make the dog do it. This is where I don't see "desire to please" coming into play in any way. How would one tap into that in this case?

 

Desire to please doesn't come into this scenario as you describe it. Either the dog has no desire to please, or the dog is so fearful (or whatever) re the tunnel that it overrides his desire to please. Fine, use a treat. I'd probably back off, do some other stuff the dog liked more, and try again another day for 30 seconds or so. Try and figure out what the problem was (why he was afraid, for example) and address it another way. Let him get used to being around the tunnel without drawing attention to it; let him see other dogs go through it. But that's if he normally does show a desire to work with me. If he doesn't show a desire to work with me in other contexts -- IOW if he never shows a desire to please -- then if I still wanted him to go through the tunnel I'd use treats.

 

I'm not saying that "desire to please" can never come into play. Of course it can. But in practice I see most people using the phrase to really mean "I'm going to make the dog do it". Again, whether or not that is good a good Agility teaching practice is debatable, but pushing or dragging an unwilling dog through a tunnel is not the dog doing it to please the handler. And that really is usually how I see the concept used in practice most of the time. Obviously, there are exceptions. If the dog really is going to do something to please the handler, no pushing, pulling, or dragging is going to be necessary.

 

Well, obviously. It would literally have never occurred to me to push or drag the dog through the tunnel, and if I did, of course I wouldn't have said he went through the tunnel out of a desire to please. He would be doing it because I pushed him or dragged him. A person who would say that pushing or dragging an unwilling dog through a tunnel is the dog doing it to please the handler is so out of touch with reality that I'm surprised you've ever encountered even one person making such a claim. But if clarification is needed -- that is not what I mean when I speak of "desire to please."

[Root Beer]

I guess I just view the discussion of treats/rewards vs. not (or even high-value vs. low-value) as the old chestnut about a hammer. If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you strongly believe in using treats for training, then every training situation might require a treat. All some of us are trying to say (and as I'm sure you know, your comments aren't the ones that prompted my initial response) is that there is no *one* right way. I'm sure you and I agree on that.

 

Yes, we do agree on that.

 

The more I train and work with dogs, the more I am learning that very unexpected things can be highly reinforcing to the dog, and that those things can be incorporated into training in very surprising ways. And I am learning more and more that a big part of my job as handler is to find what motivates the dog instead of trying to get the dog to be motivated by something that he or she is not actually motivated by.

 

That is one of the biggest mistakes I made with Dean. I kept trying to convince him that he loved Agility and kept trying to find the treat, the toy, the thing that was going to show him that it was a great game. The more I tried to make it fun, the more he got stressed out by it. Know what he needed? He need a chance to interact with the equipment on his own terms. He needed to consider what he was doing out there and take it at his own pace. He needed to think about it. When I started to allow him to do that, his desire to play started to kick in. It was reinforcing for him to be allowed to run around a jump if he wasn't sure about taking it. It was reinforcing for him to go through some courses slowly - yes, slowly! I still use treats and toys in his training, but I have also learned to be attuned to what he needs in a given situation and choose the reinforcer on a situation by situation basis and sometimes it is something completely unexpected.

[Root Beer]

A person who would say that pushing or dragging an unwilling dog through a tunnel is the dog doing it to please the handler is so out of touch with reality that I'm surprised you've ever encountered even one person making such a claim. But if clarification is needed -- that is not what I mean when I speak of "desire to please."

 

It happens. When the person is working under the premise that "I'm not using treats because the dog should work to please me", what conclusion is the person going to come to when the dog is unwilling to do something? The dog should do it "to please" and "it pleases me to have the dog go through the tunnel". Dog is dragged through, handler is pleased. Dog learns to go through because he will be dragged. Handler is pleased. The dog is not choosing to do it to please the handler, but that detail is lost because the handler is pleased.

 

I watched a woman put a dog through an entire beginning level Agility class that way once (not one that I was teaching). The dog was dragged through the tunnel, led over the contact equipment, held at the contact point, pulled over jumps with a leash. Not a single external reinforcer (food, play, etc) was used. The handler was very pleased. The dog could do nothing independently by the end of the session. But the handler was very pleased.

 

That was the most extreme example I've witnessed, but I see it in a lot of little things. The dog should walk on a loose leash to please the handler, so the dog is fitted with a corrective collar of some sort. And that collar equals desire to please exactly how? The fact that the handler is now pleased because the dog is not pulling does not equal "desire to please" on the dog's part. The problem isn't really that the handler wants tap into the dog's desire to please. If that were the case, the handler would go work on relationship building before asking the dog to learn more complex tasks and that would be great.

 

So I agree - the term "desire to please" does need some clarification. Especially in the context of training Agility or other sports. I guess I am saying that "desire to please" may not be understood in the same way that you are using the term by those who are training mostly in the context of sport and pet training, largely for the reason I've described. When I hear that term from a student in a class, a big red flag goes up. It usually means, "I am not going to reinforce this dog in any way in this circumstance."

[airbear]

So I ask. You have a dog who is new to Agility and is not willing to go through a tunnel. The tunnel is new and strange and the dog doesn't know what he is supposed to do with it. How do you get him to do it by really tapping into his "desire to please?"

OK, I'll bite.

 

Here's the background: I'm training Rex, my three year-old border collie. He is the third dog I've trained for agility, the previous two (Bear and Wick) have 40+ titles between them, competed at multiple nationals, etc. That is, they're more than backyard agility dogs. I guess I've been competing in agility for about 10 years now.

 

Rex spent the first 2.5 years of his life on ranches, being a sheep dog. He competed at both the CBCA and USBCHA Nursery Finals, making the short go in both events. That is all he knew until he came to live with me a year ago. Rex has learned what a clicker is, and is a shaping fiend. He is food motivated and has some toy drive (although my arm seems to be more fun than a fleece tug and I'm not down with that). But what he really likes, what really amps him up, is when I say "yay!". That's right, his strongest motivator is being told "yay!". He absolutely lights up, in a way that no piece of liver or tennis ball can achieve. And if I'm really happy or he seems to need a bit of a pick-me-up, I will give him a little hug and a pat on the head. This, too, fires him up.

 

I bought a tunnel a couple of weeks ago. I rolled it out, and had Wick and Lou run through it, so that Rex could see it wasn't a collie-eating worm. Then I put the other two away and Rex and I went to the tunnel. When he looked at it, I gave him a very happy "YES!" (which is not quite as high-value as YAY, apparently). After a few reps, I upped the criteria - I wanted to see him making contact with the tunnel, in any manner. He offered a high-five, I said "YES!". Did that a few times, then upped the criteria to wanting to see him put his head in the opening. He offered a bunch of things and I said "nope" (our no-reward marker, which he knows means "no, not that, try something else"). When his head went in, he got a YAY!!!, which of course pulled him out of the tunnel. Again, just rewarded the head in tunnel for a few reps, then upped the criteria to some of the body in the tunnel, and so on, and so on. And finally, he was through the tunnel. No luring, no pulling, no bribing, just the dog trying to figure out what will earn him praise. By the end of the first session, he was barreling through the tunnel in all of its different shapes (macaroni, straight, s-shaped).

 

I think it took less time to accomplish the above than it took to type it! And in the interest of full disclosure, I *do* use food/treats for some things (recall to heel work, manners minder for running DW work). But the question was how do you teach a tunnel by using desire to please, so there ya go!

[Root Beer]

Now let's suppose Rex could not care less about "Yay". Suppose he had looked at it and you said "Yay" and he turned and walked away from the tunnel, wanting nothing more to do with it.

 

How would you then tap into desire to please? It would be a lot tougher. My guess from your description is that you would use another reinforcer if that desire to please were not really there.

 

I think that if one is really going to train Agility type things on the basis of "desire to please", he or she have to have in place what you actually have with Rex. You have an established reinforcement history with several different reinforcers, including the "Yay". You were willing to let the dog feel things out at his own pace. He had done shaping before, so he knows how that works and it went quickly, but some dogs would take longer. You have prepared him for this introduction by doing other training that has established that working with you is a very good thing. And you incorporated the example of your other dogs, which is quite powerful for some dogs.

 

When I think about it, I don't see that so much as "desire to please" but as a good solid training relationship on both of your parts. Desire to please is part of that and really that goes both ways. I definitely want my dogs to be pleased by the sports in which we participate. They won't be pleased every second of the training process (but neither will I), but by and large I want the dog to enjoy Agility, and training in general.

 

One thing that I think is important to consider here is that in order for a dog to work for praise, praise must be a reinforcer/motivator. For some dogs, like Rex, it is. For others it is not. Just as some dogs will spit out food when they are learning, some of them, figuratively, "spit out praise". It means nothing in that context, even if they love it at home (It happens with roast beef and it happens with praise!). They don't care about it. In that case, it is not a reinforcer and it won't motivate. And really, I wouldn't say that a dog like that does not want to please the handler in a larger sense. It really just says that the dog is not motivated by praise. If the handler were to show that he or she was pleased by offering food or a toy or permission to do something fun, the dog might prove to be very eager to please.

 

Interesting!!

[rushdoggie]

I agree that if Rover likes kibble a lot, then by all means use kibble. You might consider trying something else to see if it has a different effect as there might come a time when you want to "really reinforce" something as opposed to just "reinforcing" something else.

 

You can certainly train a dog without food rewards, especially a dog who you have a great relationship with and who likes to "do stuff with you." (or just "do stuff" in general). It is *usually* easier and more clear to the dog when he is rewarded with a high value treat when he gets it right and has the added bonus of helping instill a anticipatory and positive association with what you are doing. There are always exceptions of course.

 

That said, if food is a convenient and well liked reward I don't understand people's reluctance to use it. I am not SecretBC nor do I play her on TV, but like me, shes probably seen a lot of people who insist that their dogs should work for no rewards because they were personally bothered by the idea that they were "bribing" their dogs. Thats where we start hearing "but they should 'want' to do it" without taking into consideration that a. some stuff can seem weird or scary to any dog if they are not familiar with it and that b. while yes, you can get a behavior without a good reinforcer, you will be more likely to get a higher rate of offering that behavior and a more positive reaction from the dog. Often you will find that handler later in the class punishing the dog, or dragging it around because they are frustrated that their dog is not performing as well as the other dogs in class.

 

Once you experience this a few times you can kind of get upset when people refuse to train with treats or other high value items. I had this happen in a class I taught where a woman with 2 boxers refused to use food, and eventually I caught her dragging the female over an AFrame on a prong collar. I got upset and made her take it off but because of club politics I couldn't boot her out of class. Later, her dog went after another dog when they were working, I believe it was partly because she (the dog)was stressed out about being in class and spent all of her 'wait' time in class staring at other dogs instead of interacting with her handler. After that experience, these kind of discussions push my buttons too. Months later, she still bragged to her friends who also eshewed clickers and rewards how she had taught her dogs agility without using food.

[juliepoudrier]

I think all the responses about food were simply to illustrate that you don't necessarily have to use food and were largely in response to one poster's OMG! response about the type of food the OP chose to use as a reward. In other words, I think the "you don't need food at all" response was simply to illustrate/bolster an argument that the reward one person does choose to use doesn't have to be the reward someone else would choose to use (or you could choose no reward at all if that was suitable for you dog). In the OP's case, the reward is kibble (as reviled as that may be in some circles), for others here it's cheese, liver treats, or toys (or perhaps kleenex), and for others it's voice praise. I don't think anyone is trying to convince agility trainers that they should get by without treats or rewards but rather just trying to point out that what one person thinks is de rigeur for agility training isn't necessarily de rigeur for everyone else.

 

OT a bit: some of this discussion reminds me of a recent discussion on a working sheepdog list I'm on. Someone without easy access to trainers asked for people to post videos of young dogs (after one person had already done this) so folks could comment on the training and the dogs. I posted a video of my youngster. I had one person tell me to never, ever call a dog off from the drive, but instead to always let them flank around and gather. Another said to never allow the dog to have its sheep if the outrun/flank isn't right (i.e., call the dog off). OPPOSITE approaches that work for those two people, both respected handlers. Good advice, but of course I have to choose what works best for me and my dog.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

That was the most extreme example I've witnessed, but I see it in a lot of little things. The dog should walk on a loose leash to please the handler, so the dog is fitted with a corrective collar of some sort. And that collar equals desire to please exactly how? The fact that the handler is now pleased because the dog is not pulling does not equal "desire to please" on the dog's part.

 

You know, I've read scores of threads over the years in which posters have praised the Gentle Leader, or the Halti, or the prong collar, or the choke chain collar (I assume at least one of those must be what you mean by a "corrective collar") as a remedy for dogs pulling on their lead, and not once do I remember anyone equating it with the dog's desire to please. Have you seen a lot of such posts here on the Boards, and it's my memory that's at fault, or do you only encounter that statement (dog not pulling while wearing corrective collar = desire to please) elsewhere?

[juliepoudrier]

I think the misunderstanding is in equating the handler *being pleased* with a definition of a *dog's* desire to please. They are clearly two different things, since one emanates from the handler and the other from the dog. Walking on a prong collar, being shoved through a tunnel or forced over an A-frame, or anything similar are clearly NOT based on a dog's desire to please but rather on the human's desire to get a particular result. I'm not understanding where the disconnect is coming from. Surely the woman pulling to dog across the A-frame, which she may claim she trained without treats, doesn't claim that the dog crossed the A-frame out of a desire to please her?

 

You might argue that Kristi's results with Rex weren't successful so much because of his desire to please as because she had trained and partnered with him to that point that he knew the drill, so to speak, about trying things till he got it right. But I would say that trying things until you get it right is indeed rooted in a desire to please, whereas being forced to do something has no element of desire to please in it at all.

 

J.

[rushdoggie]

Surely the woman pulling to dog across the A-frame, which she may claim she trained without treats, doesn't claim that the dog crossed the A-frame out of a desire to please her?

 

In my example, no, she didn't. Her point of contention was that her dogs were going to obey her because they "respected" her and that they weren't "bribed" into doing so. She was determined that her dogs would do whatever they were told when they were told with no reinforcement at all. She seldom if ever praised them (in public, anyways) and they both wore prong collars everywhere.

[Root Beer]

You know, I've read scores of threads over the years in which posters have praised the Gentle Leader, or the Halti, or the prong collar, or the choke chain collar (I assume at least one of those must be what you mean by a "corrective collar") as a remedy for dogs pulling on their lead, and not once do I remember anyone equating it with the dog's desire to please. Have you seen a lot of such posts here on the Boards, and it's my memory that's at fault, or do you only encounter that statement (dog not pulling while wearing corrective collar = desire to please) elsewhere?

 

This is not something I recall having run into here in particular. Definitely on other lists and in regular life conversations with people. "I don't want the dog to do it for food, I want him to do it to please me" tends to be a common reason why effective reinforcement is not being offered and the dog is pretty much being dragged through the motions of a given behavior, or a corrective collar is being used, or the person believes that the dog will never learn altogether!

[Root Beer]

I think the misunderstanding is in equating the handler *being pleased* with a definition of a *dog's* desire to please. They are clearly two different things, since one emanates from the handler and the other from the dog.

 

That's clear to you and it's clear to me, but it is not clear to many who really do seem to regard them as one and the same. That really is the crux of the issue with that particular phrase, as I see it, within the context of sport dog training.

 

But I would say that trying things until you get it right is indeed rooted in a desire to please, whereas being forced to do something has no element of desire to please in it at all.

 

I would agree with that. I would also say that including reinforcers such as treats, etc. where appropriate and effective, does not diminish the role of the dog's desire to please within the context of the training process. In fact, when used properly, I would say that those things actually increase both the dog and handler's "desire to please".

[juliepoudrier]

That's clear to you and it's clear to me, but it is not clear to many who really do seem to regard them as one and the same. That really is the crux of the issue with that particular phrase, as I see it, within the context of sport dog training.

Well, I assume you're at least educating your students about the difference. I honestly find it hard to believe that most people think that forcing a dog to do something somehow equates with the dog working out of a desire to please. I understand that such people might think that "desire to please" should be enough motivation for a dog (some of us have even illustrated personal experiences where that is indeed the case), but if such people truly believed in desire to please, then ISTM they would work to encourage that desire in their animal, which would require opposite handler behaviors than those associated with forcing a dog. So if someone would say to me "I'd rather not use treats but would prefer for the dog to work out of a desire to please me," my response would be, "okay, but how are you going to encourage his desire to please?" But I fear that this training discussion, like many others, has now devolved into semantics.

 

To go back to the original topic, I think that if the OP's dog is thrilled with kibble as a motivator, there's no reason to denigrate the OP's choice to use kibble. I would further note that if there are folks out there forcing dogs to learn agility equipment, then perhaps our dismay should be saved for *those* people and not for the ones who seem to get it, even if their choice of motivator is different than one's own.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

This is not something I recall having run into here in particular. Definitely on other lists and in regular life conversations with people. "I don't want the dog to do it for food, I want him to do it to please me" tends to be a common reason why effective reinforcement is not being offered and the dog is pretty much being dragged through the motions of a given behavior, or a corrective collar is being used, or the person believes that the dog will never learn altogether!

 

Oh. I understood you to be saying that the person was describing their dog as doing something out of a desire to please, when in fact the dog was being forced to do it. From what you say here, I guess you're just saying that some people want a dog to do things out of a desire to please them, and that people who feel that way sometimes use force in training. Is that it? I dare say that's true.

 

Going back to this:

 

Dogs should never be expected to do anything "because they love us and want to spend time with us." They learn things and perform tricks for us because there is value in doing them -- Somewhere in the learning process they got "paid" via their favorite "currency" (toys, treats, etc). . . .

 

So NO. Dogs do not do hard work for us because they love us.

 

Surprise, everybody, I am going to say something I don't think I've ever said before in any of these threads, just because I never thought of it in this connection before. I don't suppose it'll be any more effective in conveying my meaning, but at least it's new.

 

A little over ten years ago I got a dog from Jeanne Weaver called Spot. He was at that time five years old. Jeanne was his breeder, had owned him all his life, and had trained him to be a useful farm dog and a successful trial dog at the open level. He was very attached to her, had never worked for anyone else (wouldn't even work for her husband on the farm), and Jeanne warned me that it might be quite a while before he would be willing to work for me. I got him with that understanding.

 

When I first took him to sheep and sent him to get them, he trotted up to the gate we'd come in and sat there. Pretty much every day for the next six weeks was the same story. I took him with me to the sheep, sometimes with another dog and sometimes alone. He would stay with me while I went around doing stuff, but when I offered him a chance to work he would run up to the gate and sit there. Meanwhile, he learned to live in the house (he'd been a kennel dog til then) and spent a lot of time with me. I showed him how to go up and down stairs, taught him not to countersurf or pee in the house (very easily accomplished without treats or force), and generally we just got to know each other. I didn't try to train him to do other things, as I might have with a younger dog, because I didn't have any interest in him doing other things and I judged that he didn't either. He seemed happy, he didn't seem to be pining. I liked him, and he seemed very fond of me, but when I'd encourage him to work, no matter how stimulating or inviting the situation was, he would not engage. There was no progress in this regard whatsoever.

 

One day he was the only dog I had with me, and I needed to get a group of sheep into the lower barn. I had thought I could get them in with corn, but they had good pasture and weren't interested. There is no way that one human being can get sheep into that barn if they don't want to go, so I was on the point of moving on to something else and figuring I'd bring another dog out to do it later. But then an idea occurred to me. Spot was nosing around some distance away, aware of what I was doing but not showing any interest. I began trying harder and harder to get the sheep in myself. I kept getting them close, and they kept breaking away. Gradually Spot paid more and more attention to my struggles, and finally he came trotting over and began to help me. He moved to complement my movements, and after a little bit he began to take commands. We worked together for ten minutes or so, maybe more (it wasn't an easy job even for a person and a dog), and in the end the sheep were in, and I shut the gate, and called him over and told him he was a good dog. And that's how Spot came to work for me.

 

Why did he do it? I was the same person that day as I'd been the day before, when I'd last asked him to work and he wouldn't. Our relationship had not changed. The sheep (that sovereign "reinforcer," supposedly) had been there the day before, just as accessible. I had often worked them into enclosures in his presence, with no help from him, despite my inviting him to join in. The only difference I can see is that this time he saw that I was stuck, and needed help, and he was "motivated" to help me. I wouldn't say he did it because he "loved" me in any emotional sense -- not at all. (Nor did he do it for the sheer pleasure of working with me, the way my first border collie learned things other than sheep work.) But I would say he did it for a motivation that is different in kind from a liver treat.

 

I know that in behavioral theory something like this doesn't happen. But I was there, and it did happen. Spot was the best farm dog I ever had, right up to the week he died -- he learned to read my mind to a great extent -- and he never would work for anyone else.

 

"In theory, theory is the same as practice; in practice, it's not."