# treats for training



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I have been reviewing general-obedience videos recently. All of them that were updated or produced since, say, 1996, use treats for beginning training. 

I know I sure do. 

I'm curious about whether there are people on this board who do not start their training with treats. And I'm wondering how they do it.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I use treats. The only way to go with a pup or young dog. After prey drive kicks in I use a tug toy.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> I use treats. The only way to go with a pup or young dog. After prey drive kicks in I use a tug toy.


I also use treats with an untrained adult (which is mainly what I have to work with), for the start of any training.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

To me I guess it depends on the purpose of the dog. If it's a house pet then sure, treat it all you like. If it's a working dog then I think you have to take other things into consideration, such as, obviously, what type of work the dog is doing. Training and work should be rewarding and, if and when possible, fun. Treats should be only a part of a training program and not the crutch of the training program, aka Petsmart, etc. 

One thing I have seen is that many working dogs have drive out the wazoo and are plenty happy to work with or without treats, etc. If the dog NEEDS a treat to be motivated then perhaps that dog is better at being a pet than a serious working dog. I think some people make the mistake of believing their dog needs a treat when in fact it does not. 

The bottom line is getting the dog to do what you want it to do. If it works and doesn't create a detriment for your purpose then I see no harm in it.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Patrick Murray said:


> ......The bottom line is getting the dog to do what you want it to do. If it works and doesn't create a detriment for your purpose then I see no harm in it.


That says it all; excellent point.

And yes, treats are PART of the program. (For me, an important part :lol: .)


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> I love treats, I think the people who don't like training with treats either lack the patience to train motivationally so want to shortcut to compulsion, or they don't quite understand how using treats works in a dogs mind. A dog doesn't work for praise, they like praise, but they won't work for it. I dare you to take a dog and train them without a prong collar and without a reward, just praise. I compare it to going to work and your paycheck at the end of the month being a big hug from your boss.


 There is no intelligent response to this remark.If you believe this then you just dont know dogs.

Greg


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> Mike Schoonbrood said:
> 
> 
> > I love treats, I think the people who don't like training with treats either lack the patience to train motivationally so want to shortcut to compulsion, or they don't quite understand how using treats works in a dogs mind. A dog doesn't work for praise, they like praise, but they won't work for it. I dare you to take a dog and train them without a prong collar and without a reward, just praise. I compare it to going to work and your paycheck at the end of the month being a big hug from your boss.
> ...


while i wouldn't quite put it that way.....there are many dogs that will work only for praise mike. perhaps not in the beginning during the instruction phase, but certainly once the desired behavior is learned, some dogs will do it for nothing but praise. i think maybe you were talking about the instruction phase mike?

the perfect example is the assistance dog. what motivates the dog to turn on the light, open the door, pick up the phone, etc.? do you think the person gives the dog a treat or plays ball with the dog EVERY time the dog does one of those tasks? either the dog would get grossly overweight very quickly or the disabled person would be tired of throwing a ball all day. for 90% of the tasks, a "good boy" and a pat on the head is all the dog gets and wants....


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> ......And yes, treats are PART of the program. (For me, an important part :lol: .)


For me, treats are for the instructional phase.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Sit, stay, come, etc. are basic manners that every dog needs to learn. I don't think I need to treat my dog for those things just as I wouldn't hand my kid a Hershey bar for sitting when asked. However, I don't think it is wrong to use some when first trying to teach a command in order to keep it positive. In fact I used little bits of hot dog in getting my puppies to learn the "come" command off leash (whereas before they were never off leash). It worked great. Eventually I think you need to wean out the hot dogs because, if it is a working dog, the dog should be obedient and come to you because it knows you are the boss. If that sounds harsh then so be it. Should I give my son, when he's 10, a candy bar every time I ask him to get up and come over and see me? Exactly. 

But you can't argue with success. All of us may have a different approach with a different dog. The bottom line is, does the dog work and work well? If the anwer is "yes" then it's hard to find fault with the dog's training. But if the answer is "no" then the handler should re-examine some of the philosophies they have followed, as I did. 

What works best will probably vary from dog to dog and from task to task. But if my dog is a working machine that follows my commands with the proverbial smile on its face then you will have a difficult time convincing me that I should have been treating my dog all along. 

The bottom line is if the dog is working then keep it up. If it ain't then take another look at what you're doing, find what works and go with it.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

This
QUOTE I don't think it is wrong to use some when first trying to teach a command in order to keep it positive. In fact I used little bits of hot dog in getting my puppies to learn the "come" command off leash (whereas before they were never off leash). It worked great. Eventually I think you need to wean out the hot dogs because, if it is a working dog, the dog should be obedient and come to you because it knows you are the boss. END QUOTE
is *exactly* how I use treats.

I use treats to set/solidify markers. (I look at it like this: I can't be instantaneous with a treat, but I *can* be with "yes." The treat makes the marker a very good thing in the beginner dog's mind.)

And yes, I do wean the dog off the treats, working or not. For me, the instruction phase is the phase where I use treats. This might come up again with a dog, long after, say, his Ob training is solid and proofed and treats are no longer involved, if I start a new kind of training, because I'm then back to the instruction phase.

An example (for me) is that I'm teaching my dogs formal retrieves and "out". We're past the instruction phase for general obedience and treats for the basic command are over, but now the treats are back for this new instruction phase. Same thing when I taught the "step behind me and stay until released" command.

So I guess I was aking if anyone has success in the beginning phase of training with no treats (or other reward, like toys).


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Patrick Murray said:


> Sit, stay, come, etc. are basic manners that every dog needs to learn. I don't think I need to treat my dog for those things just as I wouldn't hand my kid a Hershey bar for sitting when asked. However, I don't think it is wrong to use some when first trying to teach a command in order to keep it positive. In fact I used little bits of hot dog in getting my puppies to learn the "come" command off leash (whereas before they were never off leash). It worked great. Eventually I think you need to wean out the hot dogs because, if it is a working dog, the dog should be obedient and come to you because it knows you are the boss. If that sounds harsh then so be it. Should I give my son, when he's 10, a candy bar every time I ask him to get up and come over and see me? Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> ........Treating a dog and using the prong until the dog follows a command are both forms of reinforcement; it's just that one is positive and the other negative. Both will work...the problem is the spirit of the dog in question. I think we all agree that during initial training punishment is a bad thing (just as with small children). .......


Boy, you clarified my own thinking very well!


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

[quote="Stacia Porter Most puppies have a high food drive[/quote]

Stacia, I think it's accurate to say that all living beings have the so-called "food drive". A dog needs to eat regardless of whether it is being trained or not being trained. Eating is less a desire than it is a _need_.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> You don't have to hand your kid a candy bar to treat him/her. The comparison also falls apart because the minds of dogs and children operate differently.


You have a point, dogs are not people or wolves, they are DOGS. You don't think the analogy is good but I think it has merit. However, we may agree to disagree.

But on to another point. The analogy has been made in this thread that dogs need to be rewarded (paid) for their work. The reward is play and treats. And why must this be? Because humans would most certainly expect some sort of formal compensation for their loyalty and efforts and therefore dogs must think in exactly the manner. That logic is mistaken. 

For example, I trust my dog does not stay awake at night wondering why he's only getting 3 cups of food a day and not 4 or wondering why he doesn't get chicken on the grill 3 times a week instead of 2 times. He is absolutely content to do my bidding without any qualm or issues. When I tell him to come he comes and as far as he knows that's just the way it is and he has no problem with it. Do you question why the sun rises in the east? No. Why? Because _that's_ just the way it is. I didn't use treats as a crutch for establishing a bond and relationship with him. While I would do some things differently (wouldn't we all) I don't regret the limited us of treats I used with him as a puppy, and they were limited for sure. 

It's only in our heads, not the dogs' heads, that they must be formally compensated. It's a myth that we have created and fostered. Dogs are dogs, not people.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Patrick Murray said:


> ...... I didn't use treats as a crutch for establishing a bond and relationship with him. .......


I didn't/don't either, I'm pretty sure. I did/do use them for strengthening the marker (again, in the instruction phase).

I love it that my dogs love training. I want them to be eager to train. For me, I think that positive reinforcement of this type works great toward that end. But again, I'm sure that using treats in the first phase of training isn't the only effective way to train (as Stacia points out), just as no method is the one-and-only for every dog and every trainer.

This kind of feedback* is exactly what I hoped to get. Thank you, everyone.

*I tried to come up with a no-pun version here..... but it was between "food for thought" and "feedback." :lol: :lol:


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

> walk into your house one day n just stand there in front of your dog n say nothing... what does your dog do? Mine will jump around a bit n walk away.
> 
> Now walk into the house again n hold up a piece of food, my dog will sit, shake paw, bark, n run thru his routine of commands till he gets the food.


Scenario 1: My dog will sit nicely and look at me, wagging her tail. 

Scenario 2: My dog will sit nicely and look at me, wagging her tail. Then she will smell the food and sniff up into the air, while still sitting. 

Meanwhile, Jak is outside in his kennel barking his fool head off and bouncing off the sides of it because he wants to be let out NOW and I'm not fast enough for him. :lol: :lol: 


The reason for using praise/food/play/whatever is so the dog will want to do what we want him to do, and not just do it because he's afraid of getting a correction.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> .............I don't see a problem with food, you can proof a dog that is weened off food and still use food during training, everything I do with my dogs should be fun or it's pointless for me to do. ......


That's my own goal: I want the dogs to love training and have fun. Treats, for me, enhance the marker at the beginning. (But for me, there's nothing wrong with treats, period. It's just that in the instruction phase, they're just solidly a part of that phase when I train.) 

I do carry treats around ...... I like it when my dog is happy and pleased at pleasing me, and a treat just makes it more so.

When I say "treats are for the instruction phase," and "I then wean the dog off treats," I mean I *always* use treats for the instruction period, then I phase them out. I don't mean that I never give treats again after that. :lol: 

Mike, your example of kind of re-doing ob. work is very interesting to me. It sounds like a positive/therapeutic way to change the whole experience for the better after a not-so-hot experience at first. It's a new idea to me, and my gut reaction is quite positive. I would like to hear more as it progresses, if you feel like it.

We all say (and have experienced) that dogs live in the moment, unlike us. What you're doing sounds like a nifty way to redo the whole ob thing.

When you say "bribe," that's not quite how I look at it. For me, bribe and reward are not synonyms.

Again, I really appreciate these thoughtful responses.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

the thing is mike, that is just ONE dog. it's great that you've found that food will give him that "pep" or enthusiastic energy, but there are dogs that will have that same pep from praise alone...


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Country logic- "You can catch more flies with honey"  
I use treats for puppies, toys later for young dogs and for the finished dogs I use praise and a good old banging in the ribs GOOD BOY
My question is, is any dog a finished dog? :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Country logic- "You can catch more flies with honey"
> I use treats for puppies, toys later for young dogs and for the finished dogs I use praise and a good old banging in the ribs GOOD BOY
> My question is, is any dog a finished dog? :wink:


Excellent point! 8) Just like my hope and expectation that I have some "finishing" left to do on me! (OK, maybe "a lot of" instead of "some" :lol: :lol: .)


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> .......it's great that you've found that food will give him that "pep" or enthusiastic energy, but there are dogs that will have that same pep from praise alone...


Can I have your opinions on this: 

Wouldn't "pep" and enthusiastic energy be much easier to come by when the dog is in, say, prey drive, than when the dog is learning the basic manners commands?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

City boy here, but I have to go with Jerry's "country logic".
While some pups/dogs will work for praise alone, I use food to guide them into position. That eliminates ALL compulsion. 
My own dog was almost off the charts with his ball drive. Food kept him calm until he completely understood the exercise. THEN the toy became his goal. 
Will he work for praise alone? Absolutely, but I'll never stop randomly rewarding with food and tug toys. I think those occasional suprises help keep the dogs attitude up.
As far as bite dogs go, Once they start the actual bite work, wether it be a rag, sleeve of suit, the satisfaction of that bite is as much or more reward then we can give them. 
To answer Jerry's question: Is any dog a finished dog? NEVER!


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I have been reviewing general-obedience videos recently. All of them that were updated or produced since, say, 1996, use treats for beginning training.
> 
> I know I sure do.
> 
> I'm curious about whether there are people on this board who do not start their training with treats. And I'm wondering how they do it.


The New Skete monks don't. Or, at least, they prefer praise to any kinds of object rewards. And nylon chokes. And rulers across the knuckles (just kidding!). Damn humorless monks.  

Brian Kilcommons, another influential "normal dog" trainer, teaches through praise and "noise" corrections he maintains he generates off of a metal choke. (Do with that what you will, he basically uses what looks like a big fur saver choke but will use a metal choke if necessary). I actually like his writing style and take on animals but it's definitely pet-centered and I see a lot more content value in the other stuff...Jack and Wendy Volhard in particular...for n00bs like me.

I didn't get the impression from Cesar Milan's stuff that he's a big fan of treats, but that may be unfair as he's not a dog trainer (in his words).

I want to say that Jack and Wendy Volhard say praise/object are fine alternatives but recommend food treats.

Just what I've read relevant to your original post.  

None of these people would be doing the advanced training you all do, though.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Are there any LEOs out there that reward their drug/cadaver/arson dog with praise only? 
Possiby a bite dog, but, as I've said, I doubt we can reward anything better then a good bite for a bite trained dog.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> .....I didn't get the impression from Cesar Milan's stuff that he's a big fan of treats, but that may be unfair as he's not a dog trainer (in his words)........


No, I definitely did not include him in my reviewing. 

I wouldn't call him a trainer, either. His "mission," I think, is to rehabilitate badly mishandled dogs.

The New Skete Monks.......... I know they have a new video, but I don't have it yet. I've heard they have backed completely off some of their older stuff (alpha rolls, i.e.), but I don't know about rewards. Anyone seen this new edition?


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Woody Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > .....I didn't get the impression from Cesar Milan's stuff that he's a big fan of treats, but that may be unfair as he's not a dog trainer (in his words)........
> ...


I didn't get the video (a new video?). I got the "best buddies" and the "puppy" books. I really, really like the way they talk about relationships with dogs (I am a sucker for good writing) and that was how I found out about Schutzhund and stuff so for that I"m happy. Their bonding techniques (crating, sleeping in same room, etc.) have, I think, made Annie a remarkably calm and cool dog. So I disagree with people that advocate separate sleeping quarters for house dogs. I do think that's great bonding time, particularly for young dogs. 

They have backed off of alpha rolls. If I remember correctly they also talk about a Volhard-type snap around collar as preferable to a nylon choke, so that's good. Or at least better. But they're still big fans of grabbing a dog's face and doing full eye contact and shaking him/her out. I think they can get away with these kinds of methods, quite frankly, because of the bonding rituals they have with their dogs. Those dogs get serious 1:1 time with their masters. Just my opinion.

I don't have Cesar's book in front of me but I do remember him stating something to the effect of treats being fine, but make sure that your dog is obeying because of you, not the reward. I have not seen anything from him that would indicate to me he'd say food-based training was a necessary component of training in general. But, like the New Skete monks, you're dealing with a different type of dog trainer with a very different lifestyle and objectives relative to his dogs.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Cesar's comment about being careful that the dog should be obeying because of you and not the the reward, should, IMHO, be changed to "Should be working for you and not the BRIBE".
That's where food training can create such a wall for some people. It's all about bribe vs reward, and that's as much about timing as Jeff's comments the other day about switching a dogs drive with something as subtle as eye contact. Timing, timing, timing! 
It's impossible to wean a dog off of bribes. That's how many, wrongly view food training.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Cesar's comment about being careful that the dog should be obeying because of you and not the the reward, should, IMHO, be changed to "Should be working for you and not the BRIBE".
> That's where food training can create such a wall for some people. It's all about bribe vs reward, and that's as much about timing as Jeff's comments the other day about switching a dogs drive with something as subtle as eye contact. Timing, timing, timing!
> It's impossible to wean a dog off of bribes. That's how many, wrongly view food training.


I agree with you 100%. It's really hard to stay disciplined about that, too. And you already know my problem--thought I was being smart mixing in ob with retrieving--and then figuring out that those nice crisps sits and down stays weren't quite the same off of the soccer field with no ball.  :lol: Bad owner.

Annie's just never had a lot of interest in food. Being around us, yes. Object drive (ball/tug), yes. Food...not so much. She makes me laugh when I do heels and whatever on walks because she'll ignore my treat hand entirely and try to "peer" around those fingers blocking her view of the world. I think she thinks she's just indulging me, sometimes she'll just take the treat and drop it out of her mouth. Sheesh. Bad owner!


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> > .......it's great that you've found that food will give him that "pep" or enthusiastic energy, but there are dogs that will have that same pep from praise alone...
> ...


that question isn't as easy to answer as it sounds. once again, i'm talking about once the dog already knows what is expected of them. once they know the proper position in the heel. once they know to down, etc. but assuming you are talking about the instructional phase, i'll go with that. the short answer is maybe. for a yes answer, you'd have to buy into the dog being able to connect the dots between desired behavior and "reward". with food, i think it's much easier for the dog to connect those dots. because it is immediate and short and the dog is not in "drive". if you have a dog that has very high prey/ball drive, the ball can actually be a distractor and work against you. with my dog, his heeling goes to hell if i try and use the old trick of keeping the ball up at my shoulder. he just bounces and tries to grab it. then i end up trying to correct that bouncing with leash corrections and it totally negates the point of "motivational" training. if i keep the ball hidden, then play after the exercize, it goes much better, but i still am not sure that he is making the connection that if "i do this exercize as....SCRATCH that. i re-read your question and have another answer...

of course when a dog is "in drive" it will have "pep", but you can't work a dog to do obedience in "prey drive" or you will have what i explained earlier. so the question becomes if you put your dog into drive afterwards, does he associate being put into drive as a reward for desired behavior? maybe. for some things, yes. a suspect search is an example of this. he knows that if he searches and finds the badguy, he is going to get a fight. for OB, which requires more concentration on the part of the dog, i'm not sure. i think the dots are connected much easier with food for this, plus you can continue with the exercize after one treat. with a ball, it takes more time to get the dog "out of drive" and focused on what he needs to do.

i guess the long and short of it, is some things work better for certain dogs than others. i hope that's as clear as mud for you...LOL :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Woody, nothing wrong with doing obedience in the beginning with the ball in sight. It's all in correctly weaning the dog off of the toy/treat, yet the dog still KNOWS that somewhere in the exercise, the toy/treat will appear. Random reward becomes a strong influence on training. 
Even using a bite as a reward in a random fashon will help increas drive. It also stops anticipation. When I fuss my dog towards the helper, then suddely turn away, the dog just about bores a hole in me, trying to get me to turn. He know's it's comming sometime, and his obedience increases trying to get me turned.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> .....i guess the long and short of it, is some things work better for certain dogs than others. i hope that's as clear as mud for you...LOL :lol:


It DOES give me lots to think about.

I was originally talking about the beginning of training (the instruction phase of basic ob training), not "once the dog knows what is expected of him," ......
.........but this is more and more interesting.

This part: "for a yes answer, you'd have to buy into the dog being able to connect the dots between desired behavior and "reward". with food, i think it's much easier for the dog to connect those dots. because it is immediate and short and the dog is not in "drive". " ........

.......Maybe even easier than that, if I've established a marker before the instruction even started (which I have).


This part: "for OB, which requires more concentration on the part of the dog, i'm not sure. i think the dots are connected much easier with food for this, plus you can continue with the exercize after one treat. with a ball, it takes more time to get the dog "out of drive" and focused on what he needs to do. " ........

....... is a great point, bringing up the ball's possibly distracting effect on the dog.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> Connie Sutherland said:
> 
> 
> > Tim Martens said:
> ...


Tim, ALL the dog on our club with strong prey drive have excellent obedience for their tugs. It's as simple as witholding the reward until the correct exercise is offered. Initially it may only be for a split second, but it doesn't take long for the dog to understand. We prefer to use a tug for reward. With a ball, the dog is satisfyed when he gets the ball. With a tug, the satisfaction is the interaction (tug game) with the handler
As I said earlier, my dog was, initially to high in drive to work for the tug. That's why I started with food until he COMPLETELY understood the exercise. 
Same for my earlier description of our obedience for a bite. 
They are working FOR something. NOT to avoid a correction. 
Same for his cadaver work.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I might add that the tug game also improves the out. The dog knows the game starts all over after the out.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Patrick Murray said:


> [quote="Stacia Porter Most puppies have a high food drive


Stacia, I think it's accurate to say that all living beings have the so-called "food drive". A dog needs to eat regardless of whether it is being trained or not being trained. Eating is less a desire than it is a _need_.[/quote]


This reminds me of a lot of what I see parents doing to their children. Instead of offering praise and reward for good behavior, they correct bad behavior. On the surface it ought to work, right? The kids does what he's told! The difference is how that kid FEELS. A child who is praised and rewarded for the most part will normally be a well adusted person with good self esteem, emotional control, and who is internally motivated to do the right thing. A child who is only corrected, and often, has a broken spirt and has low self esteem, is prone to outburts of anger, and only does the right thing when the person who does the corrections is in his proximity. The difference, IMO, is actual learning (which I think dogs are capable of). The praised and rewarded individual learns that good things happen when you do the right thing; while the corrected one only learns that life likes to slap you down out of the blue.

The one thing i"ve always been very careful of with the puppy was his confidence. I was warned over and over again not to do anything that would affect his confidence or break his bond with us. The trainers were worked with didn't want us to correct him PERIOD until after a year old -- treats and praise only (and around 9 months we graduated to the ball as his reward for most situations, and sometimes getting to take a bite). Now we did scruff shake for a few things when he was a puppy (dangerous things, like chewing on electrical cords, or taking food from a child's hand). We also taught him the meaning of nein and pfui with redirection, sometimes time outs in his crate when he got too rambunctious. It certainly wasn't all kisses and hot dogs. He did learn his boundaries...


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Depends on what you want the dog to be. For my pup he gets physical praise (petting, tummy rub, etc) when I'm training because that is what he wants, he'll also get a game of tug when he does something really good, because he isn't food-driven. On any of my competition obedience dogs (and pet dogs) or dogs with high food drives, I use food for rewards.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> if you have a dog that has very high prey/ball drive, the ball can actually be a distractor and work against you. with my dog, his heeling goes to hell if i try and use the old trick of keeping the ball up at my shoulder. he just bounces and tries to grab it.


Amen to that, if I try to heel with the ball in sight I end up with a dog that heels for about three seconds and then launches on the ball. It's too much, very frustrating. I had not started correcting her for that, she still seems kind of young for me to be correcting her for enthusiasm that doesn't involve her claws or teeth on my (or my kids') bodies.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

For the Cesar Milan supporters, do you ever see him treating dogs in his shows? He stresses, exercise, discipline and then affection. And from what I can see he has tremendous success in resolving significant issues with less workable, pet dogs. Have you ever seen him holding a liver treat in order to produce a desired result? I've seen many of his shows and I've never seen it happen. Obviously Cesar doesn't think treats or toys are needed. 

The other day I saw a segment about a Huskie sled dog team. One by one the dogs were taken to the sled and hooked up. Each dog was chomping at the bit, so to speak, to get to their position. They were PSYCHED! These dogs love what they do and no reward is greater for them than the chance to work. No food, ball, tug, etc. is needed here. 

Ultimately the idea is to have a confident, balanced, motivated working dog. I think that a lot of people have been misled into believing that to get this one must reward with food and toys. Many of these people might be surprised to learn that their dog might be better off _without _these "rewards". 

I would rather my dog be focused on me and not a ball or liver treat that I'm using to keep him captivated or motivated. That doesn't mean the dog is not being rewarded. The opportunity to "work", the opportunity to please and praise from its master is more than enough. 

Regardless of the philosophy that one follows the bottom line is does the dog work and work well? If so then it's hard to find fault in the philosophy, eh?


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Patrick Murray said:


> For the Cesar Milan supporters, do you ever see him treating dogs in his shows? He stresses, exercise, discipline and then affection. And from what I can see he has tremendous success in resolving significant issues with less workable, pet dogs. Have you ever seen him holding a liver treat in order to produce a desired result? I've seen many of his shows and I've never seen it happen. Obviously Cesar doesn't think treats or toys are needed.
> 
> The other day I saw a segment about a Huskie sled dog team. One by one the dogs were taken to the sled and hooked up. Each dog was chomping at the bit, so to speak, to get to their position. They were PSYCHED! These dogs love what they do and no reward is greater for them than the chance to work. No food, ball, tug, etc. is needed here.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, my impression is that Cesar does expect dogs to follow him regardless of the possibility of reward or the predictability of conditioning/iteration. But also keep in mind he's not asking a lot out of the dog beyond control of natural capabilities of the dog (to recognize rank, and correct mind instabilities). Cesar on the Schutzhund course might be different.

If the dog works, and the dog works well, but the dog works well because he's scared of the owner (or the owner's relationship with the dog is motivated by a need to control...I do think there are compulsive trainers out there that get off on bullying animals and people) then I would argue there is fault with the training.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Patrick Murray said:
> 
> 
> > For the Cesar Milan supporters, do you ever see him treating dogs in his shows?
> ...


You beat me to it. He is not a trainer. I have seen him use treats, though. One instance comes to mind from the last season: A dog who wouldn't walk on lead and never had, to a pretty advanced age (maybe 12? Memory fails) was treated into it (at the beginning); in fact, he carried and rattled a whole bag of treats to get her to associate walking on lead with nice rewards.

But again, he's not a trainer. In general, he is intervening in cases of very bad or nonexistent training and/or leadership........... not with motivating a green dog or a puppy in the instruction phase of training.

And I agree that if the training is working well and the dog is confident (not working out of fear), I can't fault the philosophy!  Maybe with that in mind, it's silly of me to question my own motivational training (using treats) -- but I wanted to read the other viewpoints and keep my mind open. Good thread, IMO.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Maybe the Cesar analogy is not a good one. I'm guessing a lot of trainers and behaviorists would want to use treats to get the dog to behave differently. And I don't have a problem with it. I'm just trying to illustrate that it is not always needed.


----------

