Training treats considered as detrimental

[Diana A]

 

The whole point of a dog park is to allow a dog to socialize with others.

 

Wrong. Do not assume that is why everyone is there. Some, like me a few years ago, have no yard and the dog park is the only way to legally give their dogs some off leash time and some room to run.

[Laurelin]

But you were complaining about the little dog who bit yours.

 

And if you can't keep your own dog from approaching others without permission I would suggest that you are in the wrong place.

 

When my dogs are off lead anywhere amongst others I have no expectation that they should be forced to interact if they don't want to.

 

Sadly I believe this is a difference in dog culture in the US vs the culture in Europe. Over here the only 'off leash dog parks' seem to be the kind where the dogs are fenced in a tiny area (usually only a couple acres) and could be filled with dozens of dogs. The idea is for dogs to play with each other and every time I've been it is just plain out of control.

 

I would absolutely love more places to walk peacefully off leash with other people not expecting the dogs to interact. I find off leash time to be the most beneficial exercise possible for my dogs. I think it is very good for the dogs mentally. But sadly there is a leash law everywhere or else you must use the 'thunderdome' style dog parks. My dogs aren't interested in other dogs and can be snarky so the only areas we have are if we either go places in off hours or unleash illegally. Or drive out to my dad's acreage, which we are free to do but is too far for after work exercise. The place we go is technically illegal but has enough open area and people are respectful enough that they keep their dogs to themselves.

[Ooky]

Confession: I let Odin off leash frequently, even in places where he is not 100% safe. It was one of my big goals in early training - i wanted a dog that could be off lead anywhere, especially in urban settings. We exercise off lead in a landscaped strip near a busy road by my office pretty much every day for the past 5 years. He also is allowed in the parking lot off leash, though he has boundary training to never enter the road without me (has not failed in 5 years despite squirrels, lost balls, whatever), and not to enter specific high traffic areas of the lot without a specific release. I walk him off leash in neighborhoods, parks, wherever. He doesn't approach other dogs without permission ever, and can hold a down stay like a champ. His one weakness is when another person invites him over, I've never figured out how to train him to be as totally friendly to strangers as i need him to be yet never react to their invitation when approaching us on the trail or whatever.

 

I am not saying this to say i am better than anyone here who is more cautious with their dog - most assuredly i do not think i am. I'm not trying to prove anything as was insinuated above. But i just prefer to be off leash, it feels more natural and i trust him very much. I love that he is so trustworthy, after all these years in so many different situations although no dog is a robot he has truly earned the trust i have. As a kid, my parents and most other parents we knew let their kids ramble, explore, and be away from direct supervision much more than most parents would ever allow today. In fact we were "latchkey kids", which i think might be considered neglect today. Was it 100% safe? No. As a mom i understand the allure of control and maximized safety, i really do. Yet i also just feel that there is something lost in the overly supervised childhoods i see playing out around me in the bay area. There are tradeoffs, and my personality type is such that i do value the freedom, ability to develop personality and trust, etc. And i guess this mindset also affects how i prefer to be with my dog.

 

Treats or no? I have nothing against them and use them occasionally. I trained a nice heel, complete with in and out tight spins glued to my leg and looking at me etc, with treats mostly. I don't think i really use them correctly though, as Odin has been known to get a bit too excited and unfocused around treats. Mainly I'm too lazy and disorganized to have them on me. I mostly use other methods, including toys, reward-based releases, praise, and mild verbal corrections, and am quite happy with my results (except where i notice MY failings as a trainer, that's nothing to do with Odin though). So i definitely get where JLJ is coming from in the OP.

[JohnLloydJones]

Wrong. Do not assume that is why everyone is there. Some, like me a few years ago, have no yard and the dog park is the only way to legally give their dogs some off leash time and some room to run.

I have a tiny back yard, so the dog park is the place where my dogs can run off-leash. However, the size of dog parks around us is such that dogs must interact with each other because there is simply not enough space for each dog+owner to have a corner to themselves. At least in the two dog parks that are close enough to use regularly, people bring their dogs to socialize (oh yes, and their owners get to socialize too). By interacting with other dogs in this way, they learn to meet and greet nicely.

[rushdoggie]

Well, I wasn't complaining, for the first. However, if you bring a dog to an off-leash dog park, the expectation is that they will socialize and if your dog can't or won't then you and your dog are in the wrong place.

 

Well, actually, no. The point of an off lead area is to exercise your dog off lead. Many people like myself just want to play and walk with out own dogs and would prefer to be left alone. I don't think its unreasonable that the dog or human ask you to go away and leave them alone, assuming the area is fairly large and theres room to keep to yourself.

[JohnLloydJones]

... assuming the area is fairly large and theres room to keep to yourself.

... and there's the problem. I would love to take my dogs somewhere like that, but our local dog parks are fairly small.

[Kian's Mom]

Guess I'm one of the lucky ones on here. I live in the country where yes we also have a leash law but it's not enforced. My dogs also go with me to our lake so there is plenty of room for off leash. If I'm hiking in the state park on the horse trails they are off lead. I have a Border Collie and a GSD. They both will run ahead but come back to touch my hand and check in then off again. A whistle is all it takes to bring them running back to me. I have also trained with treats but do not carry any with me. They are only used for training. At work my Border Collie knows her boundaries. She is off lead when we go out to potty and will not cross the curb. There have been cats and dogs on the other side but she will not cross. Playing Frisbee she is the same way at work. If I have a bad throw and it lands in the road she will stop at the curb and wait for me to get it.

We are on lead when we go to the store because it's mandatory. Our AKC agility trials are also mandatory all dogs on lead.

She only just turned 2 and we started our training at 8 wks. Even on vacation when we stop at rest stops, we get out on lead then move to where the dog area is and if no other dogs are around I remove the leash.

As far as I know we don't even have any dog parks where I live. I wouldn't go anyway as I have no need to.

[Hooper]

.... The degree of safety depends on the degree of control you have over the dog, which in turn depends on training. If you do have optimal control of your dog off-lead, there are very few places where you would get into trouble walking your dog off-lead. There are leash laws in my county, for example, but nobody has ever objected to my walking dogs off-lead so long as I keep them close to me and can reliably call them back to me as needed. (And clean up after them, of course.) You can't proof off-lead control in an urban/suburban setting, and therefore you can't know whether you have it or not, unless you practice it in a situation like that, and it's something I want to have, so I have practiced it. ....

 

I have had animal control officers approach me and my illegally off-lead but clearly well controlled and mannerly dog, and do nothing more than wish me a nice day, or perhaps warn me that there is a cluster of less well controlled and mannerly children or dogs nearby, and that I might want to leash my dog for his safety. On the other hand, I have twice been ticketed ( $50 each time) for practicing off lead heeling in an otherwise completely unoccupied public area. Once was at a county park in a rural area that was mainly maintained as a pleasant swimming hole in the summer. Since it was November at the time, no one was there. No cars in the parking lot. Patches of ice on the bike paths. Just me with my brightly colored poop bag conspicuously tied to my belt loop, a leash draped around my neck, and my dog and I practicing heeling and a couple short distance recalls and retrieves. At some point I became aware of the law enforcement vehicle parked at the far end of the lot, but naively assumed that the occupant was merely admiring and appreciating a citizen taking the time to train her dog. Nope. He was writing out the ticket. He did compliment me on what a well trained animal I had as he walked away after handing me the ticket though. The other time was in an unoccupied school yard that was surrounded by a chain link fence except for two openings for ingress/egress. A friend has been ticketed for practicing obedience off lead in a fence-in tennis court during the middle of winter (again poop bag in full view). Like you, I am a firm believer in the many benefits of off lead exercise for dogs, and so I still risk the occasional fine and chalk it up to cost of owning a healthy well behaved dog. But I don't assume that just because others are more strictly law abiding, that it is because their dogs are necessarily ill-mannered or poorly trained.

 

Edited to change off lead healing to off lead heeling. There is a difference.

[alligande]

I am another that breaks leash laws almost everyday. What you won't see me doing is walking down the road, going to one of the city parks that you find play grounds, or scenic paths favored by tourits nor will you see me walking through parking lots. There are a number of parks that are more rural in nature and that is where you will find us. The local dog community is pretty good about communicating the habits of the three local animal control officers. My dogs have always had a good recall and they are called back when we see people with or with out dogs and I don't let them go out of sight. I don't leash them just have them walk or sit with me until we pass. If the humans or dogs want to greet then I release them.

You will not see us at the dog park, a nasty dirt patch about 1/2 acre I would not inflict that on my dogs.

[rushdoggie]

I am another that breaks leash laws almost everyday. What you won't see me doing is walking down the road, going to one of the city parks that you find play grounds, or scenic paths favored by tourits nor will you see me walking through parking lots. There are a number of parks that are more rural in nature and that is where you will find us. The local dog community is pretty good about communicating the habits of the three local animal control officers. My dogs have always had a good recall and they are called back when we see people with or with out dogs and I don't let them go out of sight. I don't leash them just have them walk or sit with me until we pass. If the humans or dogs want to greet then I release them.

You will not see us at the dog park, a nasty dirt patch about 1/2 acre I would not inflict that on my dogs.

 

Yep! Luckily I when I moved here I found friends who showed me a lot of empty fields, state parks with very few rangers and a few local "parks" that are marked as parks but have no amenities (no parking, no playground, no walking trails, no trash cans, and they only get mowed a few times a year) where I can break the law and let my dogs have an off lead run. Its a calculated risk knowing I can risk a ticket but I prefer these open areas to the overly crowded dog parks. When I first moved here I tried a dog park or two but found them to be places where there are a lot of untrained dogs whose owners see a dog park as a place to let their dog run amok and "socialize" by pouncing on and pestering other dogs. I saw a few fights and a lot of dogs who looked stressed trying to avoid being "it" with clueless owners who either couldn't see their dogs were bullying or being bullied, or just were not paying attention. My dogs are not real interested in playing with dogs they don't know. I meet other dog people in these places but 99% of them have well mannered dogs who are happy to stay with their owners and if I say "no thanks!" to them when they ask if my dogs want to play they smile, wave and go on their way. We do run with/socialize with dogs who we know who belong to friends or neighbors.

[mum24dog]

I have a tiny back yard, so the dog park is the place where my dogs can run off-leash. However, the size of dog parks around us is such that dogs must interact with each other because there is simply not enough space for each dog+owner to have a corner to themselves.

Lack of space still doesn't necessarily mean enforced contact.

 

I'm lucky to have extensive areas to choose from but I also walk my dogs along the towpath of the canal that runs by my house. The busiest sections have a path that is no more than 6 feet wide - no room for dogs to arc round each other in a polite way - but still it is the norm for dogs to pass each other off lead with little or no interest.

 

We all know that we are likely to meet off lead dogs many places we go and the majority of people have a socially acceptable level of control.

[mum24dog]

I have heard Jack Knox say that when traveling he lets his dogs out on a strip by the side of the interstate, all of them off-lead, without fear for their welfare because their training is so thorough.

 

 

I consider that to be highly irresponsible. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is telling the truth about the level of his own dogs' training but what about Joe Public driving by with his dog that barely knows its name? Hey, that guy did it with a bunch of dogs so it must be OK, right? Result - one dead dog or even dead people. Some people really are that stupid.

 

There is a very good reason for some laws and they apply to everybody. Just because I could walk along the road with my dog at heel off lead doesn't mean that I will - I most certainly won't because once a few people start flouting the law it's a slippery slope. Sensible laws should be respected.

 

I am very conscious of setting a good example when out with my dogs as there will probably be people watching whether I am aware of it or not. It isn't about me, it's about encouraging those in society not to have dogs that behave antisocially. If public perception of badly behaved dogs leads to more draconian laws restricting what dog owners may do or where they may go I will suffer as an innocent bystander.

 

Maybe coming from a small densely populated country it's more ingrained in me to look beyond my own bubble and consider the effects of my actions on others. It's probably because of that attitude that many people have that we have a lot more places we can take our dogs for exercise and we don't run the risk of being fined to the extent you do.

[D'Elle]

but what about Joe Public driving by with his dog that barely knows its name? Hey, that guy did it with a bunch of dogs so it must be OK, right? Result - one dead dog or even dead people. Some people really are that stupid.

Well, and then there is the @$$ %&** who comes by in an 18-wheeler and thinks it is funny to blast his air horn just as he is passing you. This has happened to me more than once as I am walking my dogs along a small highway on my way to the next road. Once, it resulted in such panic in my foster dog that she wrenched out of the collar and almost ran right under the wheels of the truck. I wanted to strangle the driver with my bare hands while screaming in his face. We were walking at least 6 feet off the road; no need for him to have done that. It was pure meanness.

[simba]

I've had people speed up and pull in close to me while I'm walking dogs, to scare them. Cue the 80lb on-leash dog leaping into the very very deep ditch.

[sandysfarm]

 

Actually, that isn't my experience at all. I run into plenty of big, badly mannered dogs. And if my dog is going to be accosted, I much prefer it to be a small dog rather than one who could start a bad dog fight. At least I don't need to fear for Quinn if a little guy takes him on.

 

From what I can tell, the vast majority of people do next to no training with their dogs beyond housebreaking and maybe a couple commands, if that. It isn't the training methods that are at fault for all the badly behaved dogs one see but lack of training or even much in the way of understanding what a dog needs from his owner.

 

ETA And Donald did reference mannerly off lead dogs, which is a wonderful thing but not a safe practice for many of us in our daily lives. I used to see a guy walking his well trained Golden off leash through a small but bustling downtown. The sight never filled me with admiration. Instead, I always thought he was being arrogant and careless to put his beautiful dog at risk like that. It only takes a couple seconds for the dog to be a dog responding to some stimuli, step into the wrong place before you can call him back, and get hit by a car. Then congratulations, you now own the best trained dead dog in town.

 

 

 

 

 

I was stopped at a major intersection's red light a while ago watching as a woman marched across the road chatting on her phone, clutching a coffee and being followed by her 5-month-old, unleashed, border collie pup who was trailing 20 feet behind her alternating between crouching-at-and-hard-staring the gutter pigeons, and catching up with mom. I couldn't decide whether I thought it was more stupid than arrogant or arrogant than stupid. What is the matter with some people?

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

I'm lucky to be living in a very rural area the biggest problem I have had with OL dogs on these infrequently traveled country roads is curiosity. When I hear a vehicle approach I gather my dogs to my feet so the car/pickup can squeeze by, but what often happens is that the driver stops to admire the dogs, at which point my "Down! Stay!" becomes more emphatic until the vehicle proceeds. The dogs are thinking, "What a friendly interesting guy! Let's jump up and greet him!"

 

One summer day, we were on public land, an open riverside meadow where I walked my 6 pretty often. I was watching the billowing smoke on the mountain across the river. All the VFD's had been called out. I'd started back the mile to my car when I hear this horrific roar and an enormous helicopter came down in the meadow, fifty feet away to refill its water tanks.

 

In emergencies, dogs will seek safety and I had 6 downstaying literally atop my feet. It wasn't funny at the time.

 

Donald McCaig

[Doghaven]

Agreed. Doghaven, I found your entire post to be head-scratchingly incorrect. If the only people you know who use treats by carrying them all the time and handing them out constantly, well I guess I can understand how you might feel that way.

 

With 20 years of training dogs: mine (and I have had quite a few of various breeds including Siberian Huskies, Dals and Papillons as well as BCs), foster dogs (also a bunch including all the breeds mentioned) who came to me with limited to zero training and in some cases serious behavior issues) and student dogs (I have taught pet classes, intermediate for competition bound dogs and agility) I have seen literally hundreds of dogs successfully transition from getting a treat for a behavior to getting occasional reinforcement (which includes treats but also praise, toys, people interaction and release for life reward).

With due respect, I'm not concerned whether you find my post correct or not. I have worked with hundreds upon hundreds of dogs, of every imaginable breeding, with (so far) every imaginable behavior issue, and to a dog they find it correctand understand it completely. That's all that matters to me.

 

I've met dozens of "trainers" who say I can't do what I've done with success hundreds of times. I've learned to listen to the dogs and to tune the people out. People see what they want to see with their dogs and their methods. Dogs see, and express, what is reality for them; so I listen to the dogs.

[TEC]

In all areas of endeavor I try to avoid the "all or nothing" trap. Although, I have found with my border collie that verbal/auditory praise (no clickers) has worked well for years. Like stockwork, she does agility, for the pure joy of it. My job is to mold/shape a little.

 

We practice stockwork frequently, and occasionally get short-term jobs. However, she still remembers the agility we trained at one time, which is easily brought to the surface on walks -- e.g. teeters, tables, lateral to and fro jumps over low fences, children's slides, figure-eights at goal posts, broad jumps over creeks, and more. Much of it at considerable distance. All she gets from me is a genuine hearty laugh and applause, and that seems to be ample reward. -- TEC

[mtnfrank]

Somewhat puzzled by the feeling expressed by some that using treats in training is detrimental to the relationship with the dog. Which is a somewhat different statement than 'a different method yields better and/or faster results'.

 

Going to the extreme of the argument, wouldn't feeding our dogs everyday be detrimental to the relationship? I would venture the thought that the dogs already sees us as the provider of food and other comforts and that it is the basis for a good part of their trust in us.

 

There is also the flip side to the 'achieving the results one wants with training' which is what is the 'negative potential of the training method'. I have seen lots of dogs with severe behaviour issues resulting from 'traditional training' (shutdown, reactivity-aggressivity, handling issues), lots more with issues from no training but none with severe issues resulting from 'positive' training (bundling somewhat inacurately all modern training techniques in that term). That doesn't mean 'positive' can solve issues for all dogs or train all dogs, but perhaps it means that it less likely to create new ones. And to me that is a factor to consider given the low level of training ability of the average dog owner.

 

As for the 'pet behaving off leash' discussion. I would think it is disingenous to compare the average working sheepdog with the average pet. One has had hundreds of hours of training, the other likely none at all. A better comparison would be to compare to other working dogs, police, SAR, therapy or even bungling in there agility or any other activity that requires lots of training. Then one can look at techniques used, time spent training, what works best but most of all one should look at expectations. Most dog owner expect nothing from their dog, they get nothing.

[rushdoggie]

With due respect, I'm not concerned whether you find my post correct or not. I have worked with hundreds upon hundreds of dogs, of every imaginable breeding, with (so far) every imaginable behavior issue, and to a dog they find it correctand understand it completely. That's all that matters to me.

Lets be clear what I am saying you are incorrect about. In the post that I refer to you state:

 

The most common rationale I hear for the use of treats is that it's easier to mold behavior by using them. What people seem to disregard is how long it takes to decondition the dog from needing a treat to perform the behavior reliably. No matter how much you "randomize the treat reward, if you create a behavior using treats, your dog will always expect a treat for performing that behavior. That creates two negatives, imo, 1) a dependence on always having food, and 2) a WTF moment for the dog when he doesn't get the reward. I don't understand the "random" reward model in general. I want my dog to know every time that its done the right thing.

 

As a person who has trained dogs (mine, fosters and in classes) for over 20 years, I can tell you that dogs trained with cookies do not always expect a reward once a behavior is learned nor do they have WTF moments when it is not. It also does not take a very long time to decondition a dog to expect a treat for every behavior. The very definition of randomizing a reward schedule is that the dog does not expect a food treat after every correct response to a cue.

 

Please note that I am not saying that you cannot train a dog to a high level of proficiency without treats, as you certainly can. I learned to train dogs initially using all aversives myself and trained several dogs successfully that way. This is your preferred method and you report success with it.

 

However, your comments regarding treat training are not accurate at all.

 

You also said:

I also question the "it works" rationale. My training philosophy is based on an honest realationship with my dog. You can pay your child every time you want them to do something, and they probably will, but does that really work in the context of life? I see treating in the same light. It maybe "works" to solve an immediate issue, but does it create an honest and well rounded dog that can be trusted in any situation? Not in my experience.

 

This suggests that a dog trained with treats does not have an "honest relationship" with their humans, which is patently false.

 

I've met dozens of "trainers" who say I can't do what I've done with success hundreds of times. I've learned to listen to the dogs and to tune the people out. People see what they want to see with their dogs and their methods. Dogs see, and express, what is reality for them; so I listen to the dogs.

 

I would still love to see some of the dogs you have trained to do agility or other dog sports without food performing.

[mum24dog]

I did ask Doghaven to what level he had trained people and dogs in agility many posts ago but without response.

 

If someone has either not used food or equivalent rewards in training or has but doesn't understand the fundamentals of how to do it effectively then it's not surprising if that person believes that the method is flawed and/or ineffective.

 

I don't recall anyone in this thread claiming that such rewards are always essential or that those who prefer not to use them are wrong if they get results that they are satisfied with. We all have our own criteria as to what constitutes success in whatever our training aim may be.

 

I have to admit that the woolly and rather romantic notion of an "honest relationship" that can only be achieved if such rewards are not used makes me smile. Donald McCaig is fond of suggesting that those who favour modern and scientifically backed methods are doing so out of quasi religious and magical beliefs in their methods but I have the same reaction to those who espouse the "no treats" approach as the only true way to mystical communion with their dogs. I don't like undefined or undefinable concepts. Treats, no treats - whatever. If what you do causes no harm to your dog use whatever method you wish but above all be willing to learn.

[Sue R]

I never have gotten the impression that Donald dismisses "those who favor modern and scientifically backed methods" and equates them with "quasi religious and magical beliefs in their methods" - I've rather gotten the impression (rightly or wrongly) that he feels that everyone has a "method" that they use and that people who espouse any method may take it to the level of being quasi-religious about it. I've also had the impression that he espouses that the method that produces the results you want (humanely), is a suitable method for your and your dog.

 

For people with working dogs, where the work is the ultimate reward, training treats may simply never enter the equation. And for some of us with working dogs, treats may be a part of puppy training, and even be used outside the work context.

 

What I'm trying to say, clumsily, is I've felt that he's been open to a multitude of methods, many of which seem to be dismissed out of hand by many (who do not generally work dogs on livestock) on these boards - and that most people (including many of us) are only really open to the one method or approach that they find works for them. And maybe I'm wrong.

[Grizel]

I can't speak to the training of sport dogs. I have taught dogs to navigate an agility course, and they have enjoyed it. But I never trained for competition. To motivate a dog to traverse an agility course with the speed and precision to gratify the competitive drive of its owner seemed superfluous to me. YMMV.

My competitive drive is aimed at deeper challenges than dog training. Still, I train speed and precision because it makes agility so much more fun for my dog. Border collies (at least the old-fashioned, pushy ones) love that stuff. And believe you me, the only reason we are doing this is because he likes it. I'd be cool with him slowing down, but that's not his style.

 

I trained with food, toys and the odd correction here and there. Also, pressure. The pressure I learned about while,herding was huge. I never use food anymore, and seldom use toys. It seems like you can reward correct performance with more agility, much like herding.

 

I don't understand why anyone cares how other people train. I haven't always understood my friends' choices, but I always hoped they would be successful and have some fun while they were at it. One thing I try never to do is to undermine another trainer's confidence. That's deadly.

 

I also don't think you can deny that being the provider of good things impacts a relationship. That is certainly true of my nieces... I lavish things on them and they adore me. The other aunts don't, and they are not nearly as loved. That is just the way the world turns.

[geonni banner]

 

 

I also don't think you can deny that being the provider of good things impacts a relationship. That is certainly true of my nieces... I lavish things on them and they adore me. The other aunts don't, and they are not nearly as loved. That is just the way the world turns.

 

This may be the crux of the matter. I would guess that the nieces that are frequently gifted by you are likely glad to see you coming. But I don't think that they love you more for having been given gifts. If the gifts ceased, I suspect their ardor would cool rather quickly, and fall to the level of that given to the other aunts.

 

Some may feel that a dog is that is delighted by the approach of an animated treat-dispenser, may have no other feeling about that person at all. That may or may not be true in a given instance.

 

I have a dog who took an instant dislike to a neighbor of mine. We tried to "get to her heart through her stomach." It worked insofar as the dog would stop growling and circling the neighbor, giving him the stink-eye, and she would edge close enough to get the treat, but not allow herself to be touched. And as soon as there were no more treats forthcoming, she resumed her "on patrol" behavior.

 

Another neighbor was also initially viewed with some suspicion, but after a relatively short time she was accepted and was able to pet and fondle the dog, who was delighted to see her each time she hove into view. This second neighbor never gave her a treat.

 

So my dog never trusted the walking Milk-Bone dispenser, but became quite enamored of the other person who never gave her a morsel.

 

This story proves nothing about the effectiveness or lack thereof of training with treats. Training with treats is a different scenario. Usually, the trainer who uses treats already has a relationship with the dog which is based on more that the fact that the trainer is well supplied with tasty morsels. The fact that the dog knows that the trainer will give the dog treats when the dog responds to the trainer's requests is probably separate from how the dog feels about the trainer in general.

 

But I can see that one might wonder how much of the dog's enthusiasm for that trainer as a person is based on the fact that the person is a regular source of tasty tidbits.

 

When I owned a certain Doberman Pinscher, she kept very close tabs on me. When we went out, she spent a lot of time watching my face. Strangers would coo, "Oh!, Look at how she looks at you! You can see she really LOVES you!" In point of fact, Blaise and I had an excellent working relationship. (without treats) And yes, she liked me. But there was at least one other person who she liked a lot more. She didn't watch my face because she loved me. She watched my face to see what her instructions would be. Blaise loved to work, and I was her owner, so we worked together a lot. That work was what she was passionate about. Me, she merely liked.

 

Personally, I prefer that sort of relationship with a dog. Because in the moments that such a dog shows you an unsolicited display of affection, it somehow means more than that of a dog which is constantly deluging one with slavish displays of adoration. It's why I have, in general, no use for the Retriever and Spaniel tribes. They seem entirely too promiscuous with their affection, as do many owners of such dogs. I don't want a dog who constantly "worships" me. I want a dog that has more going for it on its own. We will have our tender moments. And they will mean more for their relative scarcity.

 

This is all only my preference. I make no claims to it being better than another way of relating to a dog.

[Grizel]

This may be the crux of the matter. I would guess that the nieces that are frequently gifted by you are likely glad to see you coming. But I don't think that they love you more for having been given gifts. If the gifts ceased, I suspect their ardor would cool rather quickly, and fall to the level of that given to the other aunts.

Absolutely! Someday, they will have their own money, they won't feel the need to report minor crises to me, and they will be too busy to come and help me make Christmas candy. And the other aunts may come into their own (I have the feeling they enjoy adults more than little kids). Relationships are mutable. My desire isn't for the girls to love me, but to be the best adults they can be. I have used time, money, whatever, to get their attention and build a relationship that is a platform for me to slide in other things (a love of reading, tolerance of math, etc.) that I think would help them later in life. I get to do all that because they love me now. If they don't remember my name in 50 years but have great lives, I will be satisfied.

It is the same with my dog. I don't know if he loves me or not. Whatever, that isn't the point. I have used topnotch care and shared good times to build a relationship that makes it easier for me to teach him what he needs to know to be successful. That is my goal; not his love. To me, that is the essence of being a trainer.

Some people (very few) have charisma that draws people and animals in. Not me - I have to work and make sacrifices to get their mental bandwidth. Whenever I want to help, teach, support someone, I start out by extending some sort of olive branch - otherwise, why would they care what I had to say? I don't have the force to compel anyone - it's just not in my DNA. Sometimes, I wish it was.

Everyone should have their own unique bag of tricks (based on their personal attributes) that they can use to form relationships - it could be presence, a flair for drama, compassion or anyone of a number of things, depending on the person. And yes, the ability to supply the perfect treat at the right time can be in the bag. These relationships can be used for instrumental purposes. Everything doesn't have to be about love, which may not last. Sometimes it is about building a foundation that will last forever.