Training treats considered as detrimental

[Shetlander]

Fear is a great motivator. Here in Minnesota I see many hunting dogs that are sent off to a "trainer" where they promptly slap a shock collar on the dog. It works great to get the desired behavior, but it also creates unthinking dogs. Who wants to try something new when you don't know when or for what you might get zapped.

 

30 years ago I went to a pet obedience class that used what I later realized were often brutal tactics. I clearly remember the instructor telling us that the dog needed to think of sitting at your side in heel position as the only truly safe place in the world. Anywhere other than right next to you and bad things could happen to him because you became a crazy and unpredictable person. It was not an approach that encouraged a thinking dog or one who would like to try new things. And for all the punishment and lack of treats (we were yelled at if we even praised too much), the dogs weren’t flawlessly obedient. They were still dogs and their owners were still humans who weren’t 100% consistent.

[Maralynn]

I wonder if it's more that way in your region, Kristine? I don't seem to get that vibe from a majority of OB people that I come across. Those who have been doing OB for 30+ years maybe but other than that people really seem to be embracing the use of rewards in training.

[Root Beer]

I'm always amazed that the US has produced so many innovative and compassionate thinkers in the field of training and yet the other extreme is so widely accepted. Maybe that's the reason - the bad side acted as a catalyst to come up with something better and more humane.

 

I have seen welcome progress at Obedience shows here over the last few years but even those who compete seriously will admit that their fellow competitors are resistant to change. The sport is seriously declining in popularity for that reason.

 

Unfortunately, the opposite is also true. The growing success of positive reinforcement based trainers/handlers in the sport of competitive Obedience seems to have created a very distinct reactionary push in the other direction. Some accuse +R trainers of being "divisive" just by existing for that reason, but I would say these are necessary growing pains that are simply going to happen as positive reinforcement based techniques continue to improve and develop and become reasonably accessible to more new handlers.

 

The reality is, though, that, with a few notable exceptions, the best of the best positive reinforcement based trainers in this country gravitate away from competitive Obedience in favor of other sports - Agility, Freestyle, even some forms of Rally - where the culture is welcoming of such innovation and progress.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens in the long run. I predict that the culture of competitive Obedience in the US is going to have to change drastically or the sport will eventually become a mere shadow of what it used to be in popularity. And while it might seem like this is really a tangent to the original discussion, I believe that some measure of acceptance of the contingency who have embraced and are off and running with food based training in that sport will eventually be necessary if it is to survive, much less thrive.

[Root Beer]

I wonder if it's more that way in your region, Kristine? I don't seem to get that vibe from a majority of OB people that I come across. Those who have been doing OB for 30+ years maybe but other than that people really seem to be embracing the use of rewards in training.

 

Actually, I would say that my own region isn't too bad with this, and I count myself extremely fortunate.

 

But I do know, based on the experience of friends around the country (people I actually know - I'm not talking online buzz here), that the anti-food in training attitude is very much alive and well out there.

[geonni banner]

Shetlander, on 20 Dec 2013 - 03:48, said:

Not in your experience but it works for lots of us very well. Year's ago, I attended a wonderful obedience seminar by Connie Cleveland who uses a wide variety of techniques to train dogs. While I would not use some of her methods myself, I was extremely impressed with her. At the start of the seminar, she commented that dogs obey for three reasons:

-They want to get a reward

-They want to avoid a punishment

-They do so out of habit

 

Of these three reasons, Connie believed that habit was the most important in the long run. I totally agree. So if we train our dogs to obey out of long standing habit (that immediate response we all love to see), and we don't abuse our dogs in the process, isn't that a good thing? I have seen both fabulous and abysmal trainers across the spectrum of approaches. We should all do what works for our dogs and us.

I think there's a danger in assuming that when a dog does something out of habit, it will do it reliably.

 

If you have a dog that, say, sits when you tell it to because there is often a payoff for doing so (treat, praise, toy) you may come to assume that the dog has a solid sit. But if something comes along that's a bigger payoff than a treat or tug, or vigorous chest scratch, I guarantee that dog will eventually break its sit - and often at the worst possible time. The dog sitting calmly while you move a package off of a car seat before inviting it to get in may see a squirrel scolding him from the other side of the street. Or a tennis ball may roll out of the car, down the driveway and into the street.

 

That sitting dog may or may not break, and may or may not run into the street and die. But in my opinion, a dog that has been taught that there are negative consequences for breaking a sit as, well as positive ones for holding it, will be much more trustworthy that the dog that hasn't. Negative consequences needn't be draconian, but they do play a valuable role.

 

There is a big difference between a dog that is by its nature well-behaved, and a dog that is, as a result of thorough, proofed training, well trained. Both will be pleasant company. The one will be reliable much of the time because he's used to it, and it has become habit. The other will be reliable all the time because he is used to it and because he knows that it is expected of him all the time.

 

If you have truly read the Koehler book(s), you will note that the really harsh methods are recommended for only the most intransigent "offenders," - for dogs that are in danger of losing their homes or their lives as a result of a problem behavior. And that other, not-so-harsh methods are offered to teach the dog right from wrong, and that corrections are forbidden until the dog demonstrates that it understands what is expected of him.

 

I have trained many dogs of many breeds, and I've used cookies with some of them. But every one of them, from the independent Lurcher to the slavishly soft and eager-to-please Collie were able to learn "tails-up" happily and without a never-ending stream of treats or toys. They were trained relatively quickly and their obedience was durable and consistent. They were happier dogs for it because they could be taken anywhere, and be a pleasure to be around and they were welcome and safe.

 

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.

[airbear]

I disagree with this completely. Praise can be placed anywhere you want it if you understand how it works; most people don't BTW. I wonder if the dog doesn't pull out of the poles more often because he smells the bag of treats running in the other direction.

Thank goodness I was travelling in the same direction as my dog, else he would have pulled out of the poles (approximately 35' away from me) to chase my treat tote.

 

 

Do you have any video showing how you use praise only to train distance on your poles?

 

BTW, this is my working sheepdog, who trials in Open at USBCHA trials, as well as runs in Masters in USDAA and AAC. I've used treats, toys, praise, and even the odd correction to train him up in agility. For herding, obviously, there was no need for treats or toys.

[Laurelin]

Misconception: If you use treats then you never give your dog a negative consequence ever. This is blatantly not true.

[Shetlander]

There is a big difference between a dog that is by its nature well-behaved, and a dog that is, as a result of thorough, proofed training, well trained. Both will be pleasant company. The one will be reliable much of the time because he's used to it, and it has become habit. The other will be reliable all the time because he is used to it and because he knows that it is expected of him all the time.

 

I think that is what we would intuitively expect but dogs and kids (and adults) will still go ahead and do things they have been punished for in the past. I’ve seen many dogs “break” their training, regardless of the approach used. Just like kids who are spanked acting out just as much or more so than kids whose parents use other forms of discipline.

 

If you have truly read the Koehler book(s), you will note that the really harsh methods are recommended for only the most intransigent "offenders," - for dogs that are in danger of losing their homes or their lives as a result of a problem behavior.

 

I haven’t read Koehler in many years, but I imagine much of what he wrote is misintepreted and misused. Like people who misuse the forced retrieve ear pinch for reasons other than communicating “pick that up.” I know obedience used to use punishment right from the start. For instance, jerking the dog back into position (“collar pops”) when heeling before the dog knows what heel means. So that isn’t Koehler then? How does he initially train heel?

 

I had an intransigent chewer years ago and actually was going to do that tie the dog’s mouth around the chewed object approach. Fortunately, I looked into my dog’s trusting eyes and didn’t have the heart to go ahead with the punishment. Years later, a coworker told me she used that particular method to cure her bad chewer and he never chewed again. However, at the time of that negative consequence, she found him cowering and shaking in a closet hours later, his mouth still tied shut over the object. I was sickened by her story and could tell the experience still really bothered her. Some things may be “effective” in ending a behavior, but they come with too large a price tag for my taste.

 

They were trained relatively quickly and their obedience was durable and consistent. They were happier dogs for it because they could be taken anywhere, and be a pleasure to be around and they were welcome and safe.

 

Same with my dogs. I find with dogs (and life), there are often different roads to the same destination.

[Shetlander]

Thank goodness I was travelling in the same direction as my dog, else he would have pulled out of the poles (approximately 35' away from me) to chase my treat tote.

 

Yes, pure luck you got such an awesome performance!!!

[gcv-border]

Years later, a coworker told me she used that particular method to cure her bad chewer and he never chewed again. However, at the time of that negative consequence, she found him cowering and shaking in a closet hours later, his mouth still tied shut over the object. I was sickened by her story and could tell the experience still really bothered her.

I am sickened by that story too. Did that woman have no sense? - imagine leaving a dog's mouth taped shut for HOURS. (if I am reading your comment correctly)

[terrecar]

ETA: Edited for rudeness (even though it appears later LOL!). Don't know what I was thinking with the snark. Sorry mum24dog.

 

Winifred Strickland and Blanche Saunders, both of whom had a significant impact on me and others, were my resources back then (in addition to classes). Here is a quotation I found from doing a quick web search, illustrating that I am not the only one who had that sort of experience.

"I started taking dog training seriously -- back in the dark ages of the 1960's - when people like William Koehler and Winifred Strickland were considered experts in the field. Using food to train dogs back then was almost unheard of.

The argument was "If you train with food, at some point you're going to have to stop and then what will you do?" (Frawley, Using Treats in Your Dog Training. Web. http://leerburg.com/usingtreats.htm)

You surprise me. I trained my first dog in a competitive obedience environment 50 + years ago and we were encouraged to use treats.

 

When I got back into dog owning around 15 years ago after raising my children it was rather like a time warp. The class I went to still used choke chains and jerking (maybe not quite so much though), which were the norm first time around, and still used treats.

 

I didn't stay long and went to a class that had progressed over the decades instead.

Edited January 1, 2014 by terrecar

[Shetlander]

I am sickened by that story too. Did that woman have no sense? - imagine leaving a dog's mouth taped shut for HOURS. (if I am reading your comment correctly)

 

I don't remember how long you were supposed to keep the dog's mouth tied shut. I imagine she was following the directions, so to speak. She did love her dog.

[Eileen Stein]

JohnLloydJones, I used to post sometimes practically begging people just to try training without treats. Okay, if you say it can't be done for agility, fine, but just try doing it for manners or useful tricks (finding something, bringing something, barking an alert, etc.) or useless tricks. Just try it. Just don't assume that treat-training is the only way or the best way, because "everybody has progressed to that now that we're out of the dark ages and understand behavioral theory." See if you can relate to your dog and get him to do what you want without the extraneous distraction of treats. Just see what happens, see if you and the dog find that kind of training more satisfying, see if it brings an extra dimension to your communication. Sure, you can make X = cookie, but you may miss some subtle stuff of value if you do.

 

I don't post that sort of thing anymore, because I came to see it was an exercise in futility at best, and often an invitation to being called a jerk-and-punish trainer (as if those were the only two alternatives). But I'm happy to see your OP, and your subsequent posts tell me that you too have seen what I'm talking about. (BTW, I assumed you were talking about border collies because this is a border collie board. I'm talking about border collies too.)

 

I don't feel any disdain for people who use treats. I'll give treats to a little puppy, and I often give treats to my adult dogs for no reason. I just think making treats your normal, default vocabulary in training bypasses the possibility of subtler, more intrinsic ways of relating between person and dog.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you went to work every day and never got paid you would have a pretty bad attitude.

 

Y'know, I spend many, many hours moderating these Boards and working out problems that arise with them. Nobody pays me, even though there are employers that will pay people for doing work like that. Y'all spend many, many hours giving training advice and helping people solve dog-related problems on the Boards. Nobody pays you, even though there are employers that will pay people for doing work like that. What motivates you? What motivates me? There's more to motivation than a paycheck or a treat.

[Smalahundur]

Y'know, I spend many, many hours moderating these Boards and working out problems that arise with them. Nobody pays me, even though there are employers that will pay people for doing work like that. Y'all spend many, many hours giving training advice and helping people solve dog-related problems on the Boards. Nobody pays you, even though there are employers that will pay people for doing work like that. What motivates you? What motivates me? There's more to motivation than a paycheck or a treat.

I really like this example, I disliked the "paycheck argumentation" also.

My puppy gets treats in basic obedience training (very "basic" we are kinda lazy there, what is needed in daily life, and later stock training, not much more). The grown ups don´t get trained with treats. They seem to like to do what I like them to do.

[Maralynn]

there is a bit of difference between "you don't need treats" and "treats are detrimental to training". FWIW, I used no treats in training my first dog. It worked really well with her. Then 3/4 of what I did with her didn't work with my second dog. He was almost 2 and used to entertaining himself. Food and toys did work well so I used them. I don't *need* treats for him now but he enjoys doing fun clicker work with them and, while it isn't necessary, it is hardly detrimental

[geonni banner]

 

 

I don't feel any disdain for people who use treats. I'll give treats to a little puppy, and I often give treats to my adult dogs for no reason. I just think making treats your normal, default vocabulary in training bypasses the possibility of subtler, more intrinsic ways of relating between person and dog.

Hear,hear.

 

And thank you, Eileen, for putting up with us all!

[GentleLake]

there is a bit of difference between "you don't need treats" and "treats are detrimental to training".

 

That's a very important distinction that hadn't previously been made.

 

I suppose for a very few dogs using treats could be detrimental if the dog was so food obsessed that it couldn't concentrate on anything other than the treats, but for the most part, food is a useful tool that used properly can make training easier, quicker and perhaps more reliable. But it doesn't mean it's the only way to train.

 

Conversely, I doubt there are many instances where it's truly an impediment to training, either.

[Freeman 101]

I hate the term treat trainer. I'm a reward based trainer, not just a treat trainer. I use whatever motivates the dogs. I use treats, toys, play, games, and many life rewards. To the original poster and the nay sayers, post videos of how you train showing the results. Maybe ill be enlightened.

[Diana A]

What I find interesting is how many "treat-trainers" are walking around with treat pouches on their belts and their 9 year old dog in tow. Usually their dog is looking for treats from anyone they happen to pass, and the dog ignores them unless the squeak "cookie".

 

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.

 

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.

 

I'd say those people are doing it wrong then, and it's not fair to judge a method based on those doing it incorrectly. I've seen just as poor results with non-food trained dogs, if the basic training is not done well.

 

As far as "if you create a behavior using treats, your dog will always expect a treat" - that has not been my experience with my own dog or with the many dogs that have come through classes. I see the opposite, that we get quite strong, resilient behaviors this way.

 

I trained one dog through to an OTCH using food-based methods, including tournament placements against some of the best in the country. The only reason there was only the one is that I moved on to other activities as I found I didn't care for the atmosphere. I have trained multiple dogs through to the top levels of agility, including nationals competitions and winning so many ribbons at local competitions that I don't even bother to pick them up anymore. All with food, toys, etc. I've never had a problem with transitioning behaviors taught with food to real competition performance with no food. Nor have I seen this to be a problem with students in our training classes.

 

For example one of the behaviors they learn is to take up the correct position at the end of a practice board (pre-training for contacts 2on2off position). It is taught with lots of food. In no time at all, those contact boards come to have very high value, to the point that the dogs go through a stage where they repeatedly want to get on even when they're not rewarded for it and even sometimes told 'no' and corrected for it by pulling them off because the trainer didn't ask for it. That behavior becomes so ingrained it can stand many many reps of no food reward and not fall apart. I've trained my last four dogs this way and never had a failure in the ring, despite the fact that the dogs learn pretty quickly they won't get food in the ring.

 

Once they learn the concept with food, there is a second part, that performing this behavior earns you the right to go on to the next thing, so that going on becomes the ultimate reward in the ring. In the beginning, trying to get understanding of all the nit-picky nuances of the behavior, using a big-movement 'going on' reward (with a dog who has also not learned that 'go on' has any value) to train a stopped behavior with a duration component would have been much less clear to the dog and taken longer. The food was quick and precise and a reward that could be repeated multiple times while the dog maintained the behavior. It's a tool to communicate and a way to increase the fun and motivation in an activity that by itself is not intrinsically fun (standing still on a board, yeah, big yawn there). I've found it to work far more quickly than toys, praise, or any other method. I've had 8 week old puppies literally pick up the complete behavior within a handful of sessions with total training time of under 10 minutes, and with a terrific attitude. And that puppy will even stand there when I drop a treat on the ground out of his reach or run away from him with a toy. You try getting an 8 week old puppy to stand stock still on a board in the face of temptation for more than a few seconds with just praise and see how long it takes. My definition of 'it works' includes the initial training and also the long term - what do I get in the ring and what do I get years after the initial training - how does it hold up? By that definition, treats have totally 100% worked for me, as I've gotten dogs that learn very quickly and are having fun learning, and behaviors that stand up for the long haul.

 

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. If I ended up with a dog who truly was just in it for the food and wouldn't play the game with me as soon as the food went away, then I really would have screwed up my training somewhere. I use the treats as a tool, but it is ultimately really not about treats.

[rushdoggie]

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.

 

Wow.

[geonni banner]

But the OP didn't say that treats were definitely detrimental to training - he expressed a feeling of wondering IF treats could be detrimental. To wit:

 

"I am very much a pragmatist, and avoid the black and white stricture of dogma. Yesterday, I picked up a couple of sample packets of treats at an adoption event and used them up while we practiced down stays during a brief period when the dog park was empty apart from us. Just a bonus for the dogs. In fact that little episode, plus the thread on "High value treat recipes" started me thinking. Are we gaining anything using training treats? Are they necessary at all? Can dependence on them be down right detrimental?"

Methods of training animals (and people) fall in and out of favor. Remember Phonics? Who teaches kids with Phonics anymore? How about silent dog whistles? When was the last time you saw one of those? Click & treat, halters for dogs and no-pull harnesses are touted by some as "the end of the dark ages of dog training."

But success is hard to argue with. People have been putting collars on dogs for a long time. And in all those centuries, a few things continue to work. I'm a firm believer in if it works, don't fix it. But I am able to see when a thing is not working, and change my strategy. I think the current attitudes about pet dogs stem from a rising cultural sense that "all of us are equal - including Spot."

I have worked too many dogs whose owner's were obsessed by the idea of treating the dog as an equal. They would beg, cajole, bribe and nag the dog to do what they want. They were terrified of "being mean" to the dog. But they would bring it to me to cure it of ignoring their directives, jumping up on them, pulling on a lead, or growling over food.

"He pulls me over!", they would say, handing me the leash. I would walk the dog with a steel choke and a leather leash for five minutes, executing about-faces and leaning into the lead when the dog lagged. By the time the five minutes was up, the dog would be keeping pace with me - fast or slow, and giving me his attention. His tail was up and wagging, his face was relaxed and happy.

"Wow! he really likes you!" they would say. "He would never do that for me!"

But that wasn't it. It was simply the dog was getting clear messages for the first time in his life. I am not a great dog trainer. I am consistent.

I am sure that a click & treat trainer can get a dog to learn and execute commands. Some may be able to do it quickly. I am somewhat less sanguine about the dog's reliability under heavy distraction or duress. My experience watching others has formed this notion. Perhaps I have seen the work of less gifted practitioners of the method.

I still say, "if it works, don't fix it." It should apply to others too. I don't expect everyone to train the same way, nor do I feel that everyone should train the way I do. And I don't much like it when people call me a Neanderthal for using a choke-chain. I apologize to anyone who is offended by the term "cookie-pusher." For me it's just shorthand for treat-based training.

[Sue R]

I think that like any other approach, the use of treats can be detrimental or beneficial depending on how they are used.

[JohnLloydJones]

I don't feel any disdain for people who use treats. I'll give treats to a little puppy, and I often give treats to my adult dogs for no reason. I just think making treats your normal, default vocabulary in training bypasses the possibility of subtler, more intrinsic ways of relating between person and dog.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

BTW: My experience is overwhelmingly with border collies, the OP said as much with its disclaimer.

[JohnLloydJones]

But the OP didn't say that treats were definitely detrimental to training - he expressed a feeling of wondering IF treats could be detrimental. To wit: ...

 

Thank you for actually reading what I wrote.

[Freeman 101]

I just wanted to say a big thank you to Ellen and all her years of service to this board. Your point is well taken. Im a trainer in a correctional center, I don't get paid a dime, but do find the experience rewarding.