# Food Reward vs Toy Reward



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

Does anyone have any written material that they could share or direct me to any websites that discusses the pros and cons of food reward vs. toy rewards for scent detection K9s?
Thanks.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Contact Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) they prefer their dogs be trained food reward. If I'm not mistaken, food reward is too the exclusion of other reinforcments. They are pretty biased, so I don't know how factual the information will be. Personally, I don't see a difference. When the proper dog is selected, and food reinforcement is used correctly, the outcome is the same. 

DFrost


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

My SAR rescue group told me they prefer toy over food drive. I can't remember asking why, but I believe it was because the food gets removed eventually from the track in training practice, yet the toy will always be there as a reward, even at the conclusion of a live search. I'm not entirely sure, but food could be and end-reward too, I suppose.

I never used food in schutzhund training, just never had the dog for it, and when I finally did, the drive was higher for toy and praise. In herding/tending I never used food or toy, just my praise and the reward of bossing livestock around.

Now, with my 3 month old and three 9 month olds, the food drive is as high as I'd ever seen in any person's dogs, and it just makes sense to utilize what motivates them the most. But, I think a tug toy is a helluva lot more convenient.


----------



## Khoi Pham (Apr 17, 2006)

Food reward is to teach a new exercise, because for most working dog the drive is lower so they have a clear head and think, toy reward is to train and condidition the dog into doing the exercise fast and correct, sort of brain wash the dog into doing it because the drive is higher, since the dog already learned what to expect of him on a specific command, now you train in drive for fast and precise command but sometime you might need correction to proof it a exercise, but if a dog has more food drive than toy drive then you want to do this in reverse but most dog I think has more toy drive than food drive.


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Do any of you find that a dogs food drive diminishes as they mature? Both of my dogs started out over the top for food, but perfer a toy now.

Sorry to go off track.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Yes. My 2&half yr. male's drive was much stronger before, but diminished perhaps because I didn't utilize that drive much beyond 3 months age. But then, his three offspring are much higher in food drive than he ever was and still going strong, though their mother lacked any significant drive for food at all.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

A dog that is selected because of it's "food drive" is no more apt to lose that drive, than a dog will lose it's ball drive. It's all in the selection of the dog.

DFrost


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I, too, believe the toy drive is much easier to work with for detection [at least cadaver training] but I have a female with over the top food drive. She also has good toy drive and is possessive of the toy, but she is obsessed with food. It is hard to describe - - she was a very good little worker [the one who is retired due to bad hips]


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

Would really like to hear some imput from some of the folks selling K9s commercially to depts and training depts., on their experience with the pros and cons of food reward dogs vs toy rewarded dogs. I know there was some written material from hard science studies out there, which is why I posted the question. I want to "re-find" the info. <pun intended....


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I would love to see what you come up with ... sounds like good fodder for a paper.

There is a school of thought that a food driven dog is "inferior" and works for food because it does not have "drive".


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> A dog that is selected because of it's "food drive" is no more apt to lose that drive, than a dog will lose it's ball drive. It's all in the selection of the dog.
> 
> DFrost


I agree with that! I've had dogs that could eat them selves sick and still do anything for another treat.
To many today see the toy driven dog as the do all, end all.


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

I would like to know if toy rewarded dogs in the long run, are more reliable and less apt to false alert than food reward dogs. And/or how the food rewarded dogs' training differ to manage the dogs' alert in the field. 

It is not uncommon for a food rewarded dog to cut the behavior short and provide the trained alert to receive the treat, thus the dog can intuitively learn the trained-physical behavior(barking, refind, sit, down) gets rewarded and cuts the scent from the picture; I have seen this. Perfect in training boxes, blocks etc. but when doing negatives in the real world, the dog begins to cut corners. 

The details of how each service varies their training to create reliability would be appreciated.

How does USDA and the other prof services create reliability in the food reward dogs? 

It would also be interesting to see some written study statistics that compares the two reward systems. What percentage of realiability is given to narc dogs, bomb dogs, USDA dogs, etc. I'm pretty sure that it differs. but haven't found the info yet. It is in the back of my mind that USDA is around 80-90% but its been a few years....


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"I would like to know if toy rewarded dogs in the long run, are more reliable and less apt to false alert than food reward dogs."

Training is done to a single set of standards. The standard does not fluctuate because of the type of reinforcement used.

"It is not uncommon for a food rewarded dog to cut the behavior short and provide the trained alert to receive the treat,"

Trained properly, this should happen no more often than with a tug or a ball. 

"I have seen this. Perfect in training boxes, blocks etc. but when doing negatives in the real world, the dog begins to cut corners."

I think what you are seeing is the same you'd see with a tug rewarded dog, in this situation. The handler and dog both are going to a "known target location" to an unknown target location. The dog will learn to cut corners when the handler is unsure of what to do next. Like I tell my handlers. The dog is going to do something. It's the handler's job to either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. A good handler knows when to do each of those things. 

In short, when the dog is properly selected, there really is no difference in proficience or work ethic. It's all part of the conditioning process. Regardless of what we may think as handlers and trainers, it is the "no decision" process of conditioning that makes it so valuable. If the reward controls the behavior, regardless of what that reward is, the dog can be trained/condtioned to perform.

DFrost


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

David

What is reward system that you use in odor detection?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

US Dept. of Agriculture? The only dogs they have I know of, is at the US Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois Idaho.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> US Dept. of Agriculture? The only dogs they have I know of, is at the US Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois Idaho.


There's the beagle brigade.......

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/APHIS_News_4States/2009/April/index.html#beagle

http://www-mirror.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/usdabbb.pdf


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

Correct, the dogs indicate meats, fruits and veg coming in from out of the country; so we don't get any nonandiginous things where they don't belong. 

We had a USDA K9 boarded with us for a few years and he was a food rewarded K9. 
I sent this former handler a note earlier today. As well as some other notable individuals in research and so forth.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Melody Greba said:


> David
> 
> What is reward system that you use in odor detection?


By reward system, do you mean type of reward? Or how a dog is rewarded?

If you mean type, I generally go for ball/tug/toy etc. I do have or have had food reward dogs. Although the vast majority of our dogs are ball/tug etc, I personally I prefer food reinforcement. That probably comes as a shock to those that really don't know me. It's not generally accepted in law enforcement and military circles. I did train the first food reward dog for the military back in 1972. It was an explosives detector that was ultimately given to MD State Police as part of the FAA EDD program. I trained the dog with food reward, just to demonstrate it can be just as effective as any other type of reward. I also helped establish the USDA program. Yeah I know, sounds a bit odd since it's mentioned in this thread, but true none-the-less. All the dogs we initially trained for USDA were food reward. ATF, prefers food reward. While I do not speak highly of ATF or their program, it has nothing to do with their use of food reward. Most research programs that use dogs, or other animals, use food as the reinforcement. It's easy to use, quick and can be very positive. I was fortunate in my career to work in a research unit under the tutelege of some pretty decent animal behaviorists. They preached one constant; you find a reward that will control behavior; when you control that reward, you control the behavior. I believe it to this day. 

If by system you mean frequency of reward. I start all dogs with a fixed ratio of 1:1. As training progresses, a variable reward system is used. 

Regardless of the type of reward used, ball/tug etc or food it's still boils down to the selection of the dog. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Boarding dogs that are trained in the ATF method is the only pain in the ass. 

It makes sure you train everyday though.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Boarding dogs that are trained in the ATF method is the only pain in the ass.
> 
> It makes sure you train everyday though.


If you want to call walking a circle of paint cans training, then, yep, training every day.

DFrost


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

I like a dog that will work for either one but the actual reward decided on is the one that will not push the dog over the edge. I like to shape the behavior with that high value reward. That the dog will doing anything for.
Then I scale back to the lesser one during the actual search or test. 
So during training I change up from high value to moderate. When actually doing a search I use the moderate value reward.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Patrick Cheatham said:


> I like a dog that will work for either one but the actual reward decided on is the one that will not push the dog over the edge. I like to shape the behavior with that high value reward. That the dog will doing anything for.
> Then I scale back to the lesser one during the actual search or test.
> So during training I change up from high value to moderate. When actually doing a search I use the moderate value reward.


Do you find it a problem when the search is prolonged, without any positives, to maintain drive in the search?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't and I feel it's because we use a variable reward. You can vary the time just as much as you can vary the number of targets. working 3 targets in 10 minutes is not the same as working 1 target in 10 minutes. The dog will learn a pattern, if you have one. 

DFrost


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

David Frost said:


> By reward system, do you mean type of reward? Or how a dog is rewarded?
> 
> If you mean type, I generally go for ball/tug/toy etc. I do have or have had food reward dogs. Although the vast majority of our dogs are ball/tug etc, I personally I prefer food reinforcement. That probably comes as a shock to those that really don't know me. It's not generally accepted in law enforcement and military circles. I did train the first food reward dog for the military back in 1972. It was an explosives detector that was ultimately given to MD State Police as part of the FAA EDD program. I trained the dog with food reward, just to demonstrate it can be just as effective as any other type of reward. I also helped establish the USDA program. Yeah I know, sounds a bit odd since it's mentioned in this thread, but true none-the-less. All the dogs we initially trained for USDA were food reward. ATF, prefers food reward. While I do not speak highly of ATF or their program, it has nothing to do with their use of food reward. Most research programs that use dogs, or other animals, use food as the reinforcement. It's easy to use, quick and can be very positive. I was fortunate in my career to work in a research unit under the tutelege of some pretty decent animal behaviorists. They preached one constant; you find a reward that will control behavior; when you control that reward, you control the behavior. I believe it to this day.
> 
> DFrost


This is the type of experience that I was looking for. Do you find any difference in training the food reinforced dogs vs the toy reinforced dogs? By training, I am referring to having to do more reps at.....? or one getting to the finished product any quicker in one or the other?

Have you seen any dogs that are so overdriven for food that they have a tendency to elicit an alert out of frustration for the food? Or perhaps since the food reward dogs with ATF only eat when they work, that this isn't the case. 

The USDA dog that was boarded with us, ate a regular meal out of a bowl and was not a work only for supper type of dog. 

I do understand that ATF dogs are food reward dogs for two reasons.
1. going to new handlers that must keep up the regular training, it assures the handlers are training daily.
2. tradition

Additionally, I do realize that behavioralist use the food reward system in their lab studies. 

My vet friend on this list and who called me this evening, has started reading a very heavy read about working dog studies that points out in the book that there is a lack of hard science that there is a lack of statistical information of the reliablity between the two reward systems in real life application.

David, what percentage does ATF, USDA, Customs, etc. consider acceptable results of their K9s in practical service application?


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

I never have found it a problem. But then I don't reward on neagative searches either. To me a prolonged search without positive reinforcement. Requires me to know my dogs nose time. 

How long will they typically work without a reward before they want to false alert or self reward. If I think I'm reaching that nose time I stop and start the dog again after a short time.

For my older dog she will do a live find search until "you" quite. But doing detection work and knowing the reward is near. She has false alerted trying to get that reward after a long period.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"Do you find any difference in training the food reinforced dogs vs the toy reinforced dogs? By training, I am referring to having to do more reps at.....? or one getting to the finished product any quicker in one or the other?"

With food you can generally run more reps in a shorter amount of time. I don't however see it as any savings in training time. You still have to do the "time". What I mean by that; in my training as the dog learns odor, there will be less targets, but longer searches. You still have to go through that process regardless of the type of reinforcement. 

"Have you seen any dogs that are so overdriven for food that they have a tendency to elicit an alert out of frustration for the food?"

No more so than dogs that were so overdriven for the toy that they would have the same behavior. I've seen it, but it's very rare. I have on EDD that was so driven for the ball, he was trained on food. 

"since the food reward dogs with ATF only eat when they work, that this isn't the case."

As terrible as this sounds, except for generalities, I'm going to recuse myself from discussing the ATF program. As much as I try, I can't remain impartial. 

"I do understand that ATF dogs are food reward dogs for two reasons.

1. going to new handlers that must keep up the regular training, it assures the handlers are training daily.
2. tradition"

In general terms. It's my understanding that the handlers are required to train on a daily basis. No where has it been shown there is an increase in proficiency because of the way the training is conducted. The tradition is ATF's. They got their start through the military and the Secret Service. Both those units trained with a retrieve. 

" what percentage does ATF, USDA, Customs, etc. consider acceptable results of their K9s in practical service application?"

Most subscribe to 90% proficient with less than 10% false response. 
US Customs for some time, said all their dogs were always 100%. Even though they knew that was unrealistic. ha ha. No one is 100% IF they are truly training and if they are documenting their actual work. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I was asking more about the value of your reward...and how it influences drive. I understand your point of using the moderate.

I do not reward negatives..either


----------



## Dan Reiter (May 12, 2006)

Food dogs work fine for when handler and dog will always be in close. However when the requirement of the dog is to range away from handler (independently hunt) the toy dog is much more efficient and easier to train. Assumming the dog is a first class predator to begin with.

The ATF started training dogs in new program last year (limited) and still in early stages but the results have been good so far. So they are no longer a food only operation.

I might also add I found the ATF to be very efficient for a government agency. I have to deal with them with my own licensing and inspections
it aint like dealing with the DMV.

times they are a changing......


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dan Reiter said:


> Food dogs work fine for when handler and dog will always be in close. However when the requirement of the dog is to range away from handler (independently hunt) the toy dog is much more efficient and easier to train. Assumming the dog is a first class predator to begin with.


If the reward controls behavior, why would it make a difference whether the dog is close or trained to range away from the handler. A behavior is learned by being reinforced. As long as that behavior is reinforced, in my experience the type of reward is immaterial. 

DFrost


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

DFrost

For the food rewarded dogs that you train, do you start training earlier during their steeper learning curves? and find this an advantage?


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Melody Greba said:


> Would really like to hear some imput from some of the folks selling K9s commercially to depts and training depts., on their experience with the pros and cons of food reward dogs vs toy rewarded dogs. I know there was some written material from hard science studies out there, which is why I posted the question. I want to "re-find" the info. <pun intended....


The only agency that I sell to that uses food reward dogs is ATF in Front Royal, VA. When I am there delivering dogs to US Customs I always show ATF any Labs that I have who fail the Customs selection test. I have pretty much stopped showing Customs Labs because almost no Lab will pass there new selection tests. So far I am 100% with ATF, meaning that every single dog I have showed them has passed their selectin tests. All of the dogs I have shown them were US Customs "rejects". The quality of dogs that ATF takes is less than 1/2 of the same quality that US Customs and Border Patrol takes. Of course they pay 1/2 as much so I guess it makes sense. They dont even look for Labs with high food drive....they just look for labs who will take food from your hand and have normal environmental nerves. I have no idea what their success rate is, but I do know that they have much lesser quality dogs, so maybe they are just way better trainers to make up for that????


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Melody Greba said:


> DFrost
> 
> For the food rewarded dogs that you train, do you start training earlier during their steeper learning curves? and find this an advantage?


I'm sorry I don't think I understand the question. There really isn't much difference in the training relative the type of reward used. By earlier are you referring to age?

DFrost


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

David Frost said:


> By earlier are you referring to age?
> 
> DFrost


I am referring to age of the dog.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ahhh, easy answer. I don't buy anything less than a year. I really prefer 18 months. I don't deal with puppies at all. 

dFrost


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

David...I appreciate you sharing your experience in all of this.

Mike Suttle and Dan Reiter, if you want to share your opinions of the pros and cons of food reward vs toy reward in the scent detection K9; I would love to hear. PM, me if you want.

This has been a productive thread. I appreciate it.


----------



## Janet Merrill (May 19, 2009)

For those of you unfamiliar with it I have to HIGHLY recommend the book "Canine Ergonomics The Science of Working Dogs" by William Helton it is dense, scientific, expensive but an absolutely intriquing slow read for anyone seriously interested in canine learning and with lots of stuff for those with a special interest in scent detection dogs. From chapters on Social Learning ( will a dog learn a task more readily by watching another dog perform the task) , the science of Olfaction and Explosive Detector Dogs and a chapter on Evaluating Learning Tasks Commonly Applied in Detection Dog Training by Dr. Lisa Litt of Cognitive Canine 11 fame, if you are looking for the scientific answer to a question such as food vs toy reward this book is a great place to start.


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

I have started my HRD puppy with food since that is his biggest desire. At about 15 weeks he started getting better desire for balls. So now he gets his immediate reward at the source of food, but we play with a ball for a minute or 2 before moving onto a second source (when doing more than 1).

I have been told to try to keep his interest in both rewards just to have more options as he gets older. I would prefer if his final reward is the ball and it looks like that shouldnt be an issue.

My live find dog is 5 yrs old and has just as much food drive as toy drive. His training started with a tug reward for search work and food for ob.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

mike suttle said:


> All of the dogs I have shown them were US Customs "rejects". The quality of dogs that ATF takes is less than 1/2 of the same quality that US Customs and Border Patrol takes. Of course they pay 1/2 as much so I guess it makes sense. They dont even look for Labs with high food drive....they just look for labs who will take food from your hand and have normal environmental nerves. I have no idea what their success rate is, but I do know that they have much lesser quality dogs, so maybe they are just way better trainers to make up for that????


I find your post more than interesting. Not surprising, just interesting. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jennifer Michelson said:


> I have been told to try to keep his interest in both rewards just to have more options as he gets older. I would prefer if his final reward is the ball and it looks like that shouldnt be an issue..



I don't point this out to be argumentative. Earlier in the post, I believe Ms Greba asked if training on food was tradition by an agency. Your comment "I would prefer if his final reward is the ball" is often the case rather than a tradition. If the trainers preference is one over the other, then the dog should be selected based on that preference. In short; the dog chooses what rewards it, not what we as handlers/trainers would prefer. 

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

David--he was 'started' at 8 weeks and food is/was a more developed interest. I guess I could have used the rag? That would have imitated the ball better.. I did say prefer, because if he chooses food as his biggest interest, I will keep food. 

If I had gotten an older dog, I definitely would have picked a dog with high ball drive.

I dont believe that a ball driven dog is inherently better than a food driven dog though.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I find your post more than interesting. Not surprising, just interesting.
> 
> DFrost


 The first time I saw their selection test I thought for sure I was missing something. I was really surprised to see how easy their test is compared to the other Govt. agencies that we deal with. ATF is an interesting group of folks. They only take Labs, they wont even look at mali X lab crosses that look like labs but work much better. For the most part, if it is a lab and it eats from your hand, it will pass their working test. They do use the standard Govt. health testing.


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

mike suttle said:


> For the most part, if it is a lab and it eats from your hand, it will pass their working test. They do use the standard Govt. health testing.


I've heard this before too.


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

Will: I was asking more about the value of your reward...and how it influences drive.

Will in my experience by using a variable reward system. When I use a higher value reward the dog will demonstrate the desire to perform a particular task with more frequence and with more motivation to hunt and complete said task. 

However a high value reward can over stimulate some dogs. Causing them to become more fixed on the reward than accomplishing the task. So I like to find a reward for both. That could be food for training excerises and then the ball for actual work. Or ball and tug or any combination. 

My dogs are trained to start to work on the command to search. And not on simulating say a throw of the toy. So they never know which one they will receive.

As far as prolonged work- again IMO if I have to refocus the dog or do something to build its drive back up during a long search. Then I have worked the dog pass their nose time or I have selected the wrong dog from the start.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Patrick Cheatham said:


> Will: I was asking more about the value of your reward...and how it influences drive.
> 
> Will in my experience by using a variable reward system. When I use a higher value reward the dog will demonstrate the desire to perform a particular task with more frequence and with more motivation to hunt and complete said task.
> 
> ...


I understand. I have seen both the overly and under stimulated. 

I do prefer the type that will just work and keep on working even if you have left the regular reward in the car and must use keys, flashlight or dip can.


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

Patrick Cheatham said:


> Will: However a high value reward can over stimulate some dogs. Causing them to become more fixed on the reward than accomplishing the task. .


And actually, this was my reason for the original question as I've seen over fixation in food reward dogs but not toy rewarded. 

However, I am standing corrected because others have shared their experiences of toy reward dogs that are too fixated on the reward to accomplish the task. 

I've had raised alot of dogs for work and sport and never had I nor seen any from fellow sportsfriends that were so fixated on the toy, that they couldn't think. So that created my bias.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> I do prefer the type that will just work and keep on working even if you have left the regular reward in the car and must use keys, flashlight or dip can.


I'll take a hundred of them and make us both some money ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I'll take a hundred of them and make us both some money ha ha.
> 
> DFrost


Let me know where to ship them and how soon you need them.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

mike suttle said:


> Let me know where to ship them and how soon you need them.


chuckle, chuckle.

DFrost


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> I agree with that! I've had dogs that could eat them selves sick and still do anything for another treat.
> To many today see the toy driven dog as the do all, end all.


Yes, there are those who say only "ball crazy" dogs are any good but that can be an issue in certain types of searches. When working disarticulated remains - even with a variable reward system - a strictly toy reward dog can be an issue. How many times are you going to stop and leave the crime scene area to go and reward your dog when there may be so many remains/evidence yet to find? (206 bones in the human body) How long is your dog going to stay motivated without any reward? How are you going to reward your dog with a ball or tug within the crime scene...just stick it in their mouth with no whooping it up? Each time you leave the area and return there is more contamination and chance of destroying evidence as you all know.

My feelings have always been to use both - even if your dog is toy driven. However, if the dog is not toy driven then there is no point in offering them a tug or a ball. When working a major mass fatalities incident for fragmented remains, a few of the toy-driven dogs on scene would make a find or two and then want their reward before searching further. This was rather difficult for the handlers as they couldn't leave the piles or the hot zone without being decontaminated. However, giving tiny food treats on a variable system really kept the dogs motivated. The toy reward could come after decon and outside the Hot Zone. Just my opinion and experience.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

In my experience, the frequency of reward is no different regardless of type of reward. The amount of time a dog can work without being reinforced is dependant on training, not the type of reward being used. 

DFrost


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

David Frost said:


> In my experience, the frequency of reward is no different regardless of type of reward. The amount of time a dog can work without being reinforced is dependant on training, not the type of reward being used.
> 
> DFrost


David, I agree with you on the training but do you not think the search scenario, stress factors and number of source/remains found would make a difference in a dog needing reinforcement? I'm referring to a rather quiet search area where the dog can range some, with maybe three sources for the dog to find - versus - A very noisy area with heavy equipment working, dumping debris, rocks, etc.; heavily contaminated (by many components and excessive amounts of body fluids/blood and remains) and _intense_ searching through rubble and ash where the dog is finding possibly 10, 15 or 20 fragmented remains in a small designated area in a matter of maybe 30 minutes... as I said, very intense searching for the dog to detect the target odor through all the contaminants. How long would you expect a dog to work without being given some reward other than a pat? This is just a question for a training scenario that would be hard to duplicate. I'm very interested in hearing how you and others would handle this. :-k Thanks


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Vi, how do you manage that where on a real hrd search we don't reward our dogs at any source that is not 100% confirmed as human.

and then we can't take a training aid along to give the dog a known positive to reinforce, due to the Anderson thing. Thought I do know some who take a q-tip moistened with blood in a small vial and show it to LE before the search to explain what they are doing.....

....On something like the pentagon I imagine it is not likely to be deer or pig though.....but in the woods there are lots of critter bones.....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I believe that the real search scenario is much smaller/fewer then training and this would come into play with the "random" reward. 
You can reward a "find" before the actual search and also another at the finish. Not rewarding at the actual find is still a two to one reward in the plus column.
Make sense?
The length of time it spends on the search is also what the dog has (hunt drive) as much as it's training. Both are needed!
Don'tcha just love what S Anderson is STILL doing to SAR!!:evil::evil:


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Vi Shaffer said:


> Yes, there are those who say only "ball crazy" dogs are any good but that can be an issue in certain types of searches. When working disarticulated remains - even with a variable reward system - a strictly toy reward dog can be an issue. How many times are you going to stop and leave the crime scene area to go and reward your dog when there may be so many remains/evidence yet to find? (206 bones in the human body) How long is your dog going to stay motivated without any reward? How are you going to reward your dog with a ball or tug within the crime scene...just stick it in their mouth with no whooping it up? Each time you leave the area and return there is more contamination and chance of destroying evidence as you all know.


Hi Vi - I have no experience with this type of searching, and really appreciate this discussion from an educational standpoint. If I was in this situation with a toy reward dog, I think I'd just pop a ball-on-a-rope or tug into the dog's mouth, maybe tug a tiny bit (no whooping it up) and then out that reward toy and put it in my pocket. Then again, I tend to like dogs who don't need a lot of whooping it up for their reward, and that would probably be similar to a food reward for them. Thoughts? 



> My feelings have always been to use both - even if your dog is toy driven. However, if the dog is not toy driven then there is no point in offering them a tug or a ball. When working a major mass fatalities incident for fragmented remains, a few of the toy-driven dogs on scene would make a find or two and then want their reward before searching further. This was rather difficult for the handlers as they couldn't leave the piles or the hot zone without being decontaminated. However, giving tiny food treats on a variable system really kept the dogs motivated.


I think your idea of using food is a really creative way to address the issue of disturbing the crime scene while still giving a reward. Do you intersperse food with toy rewards in training prior to doing this on a real search?



> The toy reward could come after decon and outside the Hot Zone. Just my opinion and experience.


Do you mean you reward them while they are not in odor, or do you set up a small search as Bob described?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I will also add that using both toy and food reward can add to the "randomness" of the reward. 
I look at reward compaired to behaviour the same as a slot machine. 
More times then not you win nothing. sometimes you win something and occasionally you win big. 
Even though that % of winning big is small, the promise of winning ANYTHING keeps you pulling the handle. 
Those addicted to the slot machine have.....wait for this...... "hunt drive". :grin:
It keeps them going with very little actual reward.


----------



## Andrew Rowley (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi, i played around with training a gsp as a drug search dog years ago but other than that only have gundog and schh experiennce.
For the gsp i found rewarding with food and jack potting with a ball at the end of more difficult searchs worked well.
I remeber talking to a uk police dog handler who said he would never use food as he wants a dog that has such high ball drive it will ignore any food during the search to get its toy reward. 
A little out of my depth here but finding this the most interesting discussion.


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Vi, how do you manage that where on a real hrd search we don't reward our dogs at any source that is not 100% confirmed as human.
> 
> .....


 
I tried to do a copy and paste in document form to reply to several of the comments and questions but I think it will be too long. So, I’ll reply to each individual post. 

Nancy, you bring up an excellent point I’ve been wanting to pose to a large group of handlers for some time now to get many opinions. That is: _on a real search not rewarding your dog’s alert until the source is confirmed to be human. _ So many handlers say what you are saying. However, what is the mantra of dog handlers? Is it not “Trust Your Dog”? So, why don’t these Handlers trust their dog? 

There is much discussion about false alerts - I believe that’s something that should be worked on in training by setting up scenarios to work on that problem. Now, this particular mass fatalities incident was different from flash floods, tornados, hurricanes, etc. We were in full tyvek, boots, gloves and with respirators and you weren’t supposed to take anything into the Hot Zone that couldn’t be fully decon’d or you didn’t want to throw away afterwards. A short distance away from the piles was a line of forensic specialists waiting for a dog handler to wave one of them over for identification ( the noise from heavy equipment was so loud and there was action all around…that’s why a “wave” was necessary). When our dog alerted we’d wave over to the specialists. One or two would come to the location and identify that what the dog alerted on was human. Then they would collect it to be processed. Our mission was to bring the victims – no matter how small - “home”. 

.


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> I believe that the real search scenario is much smaller/fewer then training and this would come into play with the "random" reward.
> You can reward a "find" before the actual search and also another at the finish. Not rewarding at the actual find is still a two to one reward in the plus column.
> Make sense?
> The length of time it spends on the search is also what the dog has (hunt drive) as much as it's training. Both are needed!
> Don'tcha just love what S Anderson is STILL doing to SAR!!:evil::evil:


I agree Bob, but I feel that regardless how large an area is you’d still sector it – weather it’s training or an actual search. Based on CI info, we’ve had as much as 200 acres to search for buried remains. We employ different search strategies based on the information we get at that time. I also agree with what you said about hunt-drive and training. You have to vary the length of your training problems. Working multiples and varying the reward system is important. You have to make sure your dog’s alarm clock doesn’t go off so they think the search should be over. 

The source I take with me to give my dogs a “positive” is a small concrete “brick” that has tissue inside. I show it to LE prior… no way of confusing that with an actual find. Sometimes I run a motivational mid-day before continuing the search efforts.

Yes, much damage has been done to SAR!


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Konnie Hein said:


> Hi Vi - I have no experience with this type of searching, and really appreciate this discussion from an educational standpoint. If I was in this situation with a toy reward dog, I think I'd just pop a ball-on-a-rope or tug into the dog's mouth, maybe tug a tiny bit (no whooping it up) and then out that reward toy and put it in my pocket. Then again, I tend to like dogs who don't need a lot of whooping it up for their reward, and that would probably be similar to a food reward for them. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> I think your idea of using food is a really creative way to address the issue of disturbing the crime scene while still giving a reward. Do you intersperse food with toy rewards in training prior to doing this on a real search?
> ...


 Hi Konnie, My feelings, and these are just my feelings, are that any activity on a crime scene will disturb it. When you tug with your dog their feet usually move, slide, scrape, etc. I’d rather be overly cautious and give a small, non-disturbing reward at the source and then leave the scene the way I came in. As far as whooping it up… I like to do that in training for fun. On actual searches it can create an unwanted issue. Yes, I use both food and toy during training. If I have one source out then sometimes they get a food reward and other times I throw the ball. If there are multiple sources out then each source gets a different reward. As far as rewarding them with a toy when they’re not in odor on an actual search… my answer is “yes”. They know what “ball” means so I just tell them at the source that they’ll get their ball and when we leave the scene is when we play. My K9 “Mercy” loved pig’s ears. All I had to tell her was a little, soft “yippee you’ll get a pig’s ear”! She race back to our vehicle and wait to get in her kennel and get her reward. In essence she was being reward while in odor. If, you accomplished something and at the location of that accomplishment someone told you they were going to give you $10,000, would you not feel rewarded? I hope I’m making my point. There are many right ways… I’m only describing what’s worked for me for a long time.


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> I will also add that using both toy and food reward can add to the "randomness" of the reward.
> I look at reward compaired to behaviour the same as a slot machine.
> More times then not you win nothing. sometimes you win something and occasionally you win big.
> Even though that % of winning big is small, the promise of winning ANYTHING keeps you pulling the handle.
> ...


 
Excellent analogy Bob!


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Andrew Rowley said:


> Hi, i played around with training a gsp as a drug search dog years ago but other than that only have gundog and schh experiennce.
> For the gsp i found rewarding with food and jack potting with a ball at the end of more difficult searchs worked well.
> I remeber talking to a uk police dog handler who said he would never use food as he wants a dog that has such high ball drive it will ignore any food during the search to get its toy reward.
> A little out of my depth here but finding this the most interesting discussion.


Don't you feel a dog not eating food in a search area is all a part of training? I've seen toy-driven dogs start eating food items in the aftermath of a tornado. The food reward should come only from the handler and the dog should ignore all food and non-human remains when on a search. Just my opinion.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Vi Shaffer said:


> [COLOR=black However, what is the mantra of dog handlers? Is it not “Trust Your Dog”? So, why don’t these Handlers trust their dog? [/QUOTE]
> 
> You do make a valid point. If you know your dogs reliability you should know - perhaps because of what is involved with digging up land, concrete pads, etc.....
> 
> Maybe because they have been to searches where another handler did just that and saw it turn into a fiasco and the internal gut fear of creating your own fiasco......


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Vi Shaffer said:


> Hi Konnie, My feelings, and these are just my feelings, are that any activity on a crime scene will disturb it. When you tug with your dog their feet usually move, slide, scrape, etc. I’d rather be overly cautious and give a small, non-disturbing reward at the source and then leave the scene the way I came in.


Thanks for your input. Minimizing disturbance is obviously a good idea, but I have to wonder how much we can do to minimize it since we're there with a dog. Do you choose a dog that is lower key (but not less persistent of course) specifically for that type of work? 

Thanks for sharing your experience. Much appreciated!


----------



## Andrew Rowley (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi Vi, your correct, i think this is a training issue, but one that i think comes up wether your training food or toy. 
The way it was explained to me was that its easier to teach the toy drive dog that all food when the harness is on is a no no (black and white rule), compared with a food drive dog that has to be taught while it is working for food it can only come from the handle rand not self reward or get distracted during the search. 
Do people who work food based search dogs really find this an issue??


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

The little female I retired due to HD was a food drive dog [she also had good toy drive but food was insance with this dog]. I had no problems with food during work. I would actually have my victim throw out hot dogs along the trail [not a lot] and she would ignore them.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Overall, I think food distractions are a temptation for any detection dog who likes to eat (especially those with high food drive), regardless of the reward you use. A lot of the dogs I've worked and use a toy/tug reward for also have high food drive.

To me, ignoring tempting distractions, whether it be food, other dogs, etc. is a matter of good training.


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Andrew Rowley said:


> Hi Vi, your correct, i think this is a training issue, but one that i think comes up wether your training food or toy.
> The way it was explained to me was that its easier to teach the toy drive dog that all food when the harness is on is a no no (black and white rule), compared with a food drive dog that has to be taught while it is working for food it can only come from the handle rand not self reward or get distracted during the search.
> Do people who work food based search dogs really find this an issue??


Yes, it can come up whether food or toy reward. Toy reward dogs can self-reward on sticks or something in the search area (old ball, etc.). However, with food reward dogs I believe it's not so much self-rewarding but it's grabbing a snack as they work. What do the rest of you think?

Using a harness, search vest, bell, or special collar to signify "work" to a dog is fine. But it depends on the type of search you're doing. In disaster searches - either live or mass fatalities - most dogs work naked. There are too many things for a dog to get hung up on. So, this issue must be corrected in training.


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Konnie Hein said:


> Overall, I think food distractions are a temptation for any detection dog who likes to eat (especially those with high food drive), regardless of the reward you use. A lot of the dogs I've worked and use a toy/tug reward for also have high food drive.
> 
> To me, ignoring tempting distractions, whether it be food, other dogs, etc. is a matter of good training.


 
You and Nancy are so right! You have to address this in training regardless of the reward you use. You never know what you might come across in the field on an actual search. It can be a matter of lfe or death for your dog.


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

In the end they are dogs, and you can train food refusal. But I would be willing to bet if this were something you could track. The percentage of dogs that snack along a trail, or while doing an area search would be high. 

Be it food or another animal's poop especially if they have searched for an extended period of time. 

I would think the likely hood of a dog snacking while working a ruble pile would be lower.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Why do you think that, Patrick?

I think it depends on the situation. The deployments I've worked varied in difficulty with regards to food distractions. The most recent one didn't have a lot of food distractions, but my first deployment was pretty difficult in that regard (residential neighborhood).


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Food distractions can be put in small cages, wire dog crates, even scent tubes (clean of course). We would also toss road kill along the trail for the advanced dogs. Live critters in cages of course. 
With a "new" dog you don't want them finding the food before you and self rewarding with it. 
As they advance you can add randon food without the cage, scent tubes etc.


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

Food reward is superior to toy rewards in detection work. I will pit USDA beagle brigade against and detection team anywhere. Those dogs are trained to generalize and detect the actual item it was taught. For instance if their trained to detect fresh peaches, and a passenger is carrying peach lotion and peach soap they will not response. A lot of toy dogs have a lot of false responses looking for that damn ball/towel.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Hi Dewon:
It sounds like you have some experience with toy reward dogs alerting on their toys? Can you describe the training method used for these dogs? What attempts were made to teach the dogs not to alert on their toys/towel? 

What you've described the Beagles doing isn't unique to them. Identifying and alerting on only the target substance (and not related substances containing similar components) is pretty much what every detection canine does, from cell phone detection dogs in prisons (alerting only on phones, and not other plastics, metals or electronics) to disaster search dogs (alerting only on live humans, and not recently worn clothing or deceased individuals).

The vast majority of FEMA USAR (disaster search) dogs are toy reward dogs. A dog properly trained for this discipline does not have issues with false alerts on their toys, just like a propertly trained food reward dog. I'm sure the USDA spends time proofing their dogs off the reward food, just like any department/team spends time proofing their dogs off any reward they use.

Here's a dog from my USAR team, in the process of training:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-zHyHxru9s

That's the end result of foundation training, teaching him that only one odor (live human scent) gives him reward. You can see his own tug toys on the ground, and being waved around in front of him. His reward is the game, not the toy itself, so he doesn't bother with the distractions because he's learned from past experience that they don't give him game. This dog was recently deployed to one of our state's largest disasters, and despite working long hours in difficult conditions, he did not false alert.

Here's another trainer who does the same thing. We actually used his methodology, adapting it to disaster SAR training, with great results:
http://randyhare.com/rewardingarticle/rtsddp1_video1.html


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Dewon , I wish I could take you up on that . I know we are forced to generalize in these types of conversations but that's one hell of a generalization . 

They are both motivators . Both have pros and cons but if you train with either correctly you can get a good product . 

We are 99% toy reward for detection work . We've had National Champions in detector work in the USPCA competitions and more importantly find alot of stuff for real . We've beaten out food and toy rewarded dogs and been beaten out by them in other competitions as well. 

We've also trained the first Mercury detecting dog in North America and I think it was only the 3rd or 4th in the world at the time using a toy reward . It went on to find mercury contaminations in many schools and buildings throughout the state of Minnesota . 

For me this discussion , LIKE MANY OTHERS , really boils down to the individual trainers limitations . Some do better using a toy others food . But unfortunately egos start getting in the way and some start downplaying other methods because they themselves have never been successful with it . Many haven't even tried it but keep regurgitating things they have heard with no real knowledge of it or base it off of a few bad examples they have seen . There are PLENTY of bad examples of every training technique and unfortunately we all battle those bad examples when a conversation like this come up . 

I've seen enough good dogs using training techniques different from mine to know you can get a good product through proper training with a technique , not just the one technique over another . 

When I see generalizations like that one I think . That guy has got to see more toy reward dogs , that's all . I'm sure you're getting good results with food rewards but just because you didn't with a toy reward only means that type of training wasn't your strong suit . As long as you get a good end product is what's most important .


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Jim Nash said:


> Dewon , I wish I could take you up on that . I know we are forced to generalize in these types of conversations but that's one hell of a generalization .
> 
> They are both motivators . Both have pros and cons but if you train with either correctly you can get a good product .
> 
> ...


I really like your post Jim. You have really covered this topic of discussion. I've been criticized for using food reward and been criticized for use both - food & toy with the same dog. But, it's worked for me and for others. As you said Jim, "we battle those bad examples when a conversation like this comes up."

The videos Konnie posted are really good showing that toys will not distract the dog from the target odor. But I'm curious... I know it's probably written somewhere... but why did USAR decide that only toys would be allowed as a reward? And, when working a precarious rubble pile and the dog makes a find do all handlers reward their dogs the same way in the same time-frame with the toy? 

Jim, do you feel that a handler basis their idea of the right reward because of bad examples they've heard about other rewards? Also, we've been discussing food vs toy reward. I'm wondering what you all think about those that don't use either and say "the search" or "the find" is the dog's reward? 

I'm really enjoying this conversation and the replies from many great Handlers and trainers! Thanks!\\/


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

I think they can base their idea on what the right reward is based on a number of things . Who they learned from , dogs they have worked in the past(one or all better suited for a certain reward system) , bad examples of certain techniques , a certain technique that the trainer / handler is better suited for, etc . . 

If someone has a dog or can train a dog to search and find ( I'm assuming in SAR) and have the find of the person be it's only reward and make it work , how can I argue against it . I've never seen a dog work like that (good or bad) just never seen a dog trained that way . 

I have trained more with using toy rewards . It works well for me and so that's what I prefer . Simple as that . I've seen others that use food that perform just as well . I can't argue against their success .


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Vi Shaffer said:


> The videos Konnie posted are really good showing that toys will not distract the dog from the target odor. But I'm curious... I know it's probably written somewhere... but why did USAR decide that only toys would be allowed as a reward? And, when working a precarious rubble pile and the dog makes a find do all handlers reward their dogs the same way in the same time-frame with the toy?


I've seen food used as a reward for USAR dogs. I've occasionally seen variation in the way the dog is rewarded, and the time-frame for rewarding the dog. However, the majority of USAR handlers in FEMA and SUSAR use tug toys and reward with a game of tugging at the victim (or by the helper if in training). 

It's not a written rule (by FEMA or SUSAR) that we must use a tug toy reward instead of food or a ball. There aren't really even concrete, system-wide training restrictions (although individual teams may have them). I think it boils down to personal peference and the overall training method historically used by most people in USAR (which varies, of course, but the core of which is very similar from team to team). Those methods are taught handler to handler, and I think the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality often applies. I also think a lot of handlers are not dog trainers per se. Branching out from how we've learned to effectively train a dog for USAR isn't often a concern, so long as the dog does the job we need him to do. There are folks here and there who make changes to their training programs, and if others see the changes and like the results, they'll adapt to include them in their training too.

Do you have thoughts on the benefits of using food as a reward? If so, I'd love to hear them. Love hearing new ideas and mulling them around in my head.



> I'm really enjoying this conversation and the replies from many great Handlers and trainers! Thanks!\\/


Me too!

Vi - did you see my question about the type of dog you would choose to train/work for the recovery situation you described earlier? I'd love your input on that if you have the time to respond.


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

I'm totally sold on the food reward for detection work in a passenger/ port(land/sea/air) enviroment. We train toy and food dogs daily, and keep an extensive log on our seizures. I have little experience with S&R when I work for the US Forest Service in the 90's. 

I would love to make up a scenario using your target aids on a toy dog. I guarantee you'll fail....:-\"


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Dewon , 

How would we fail ?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

I am not a detection guy....But I would have to side with Jim here. Training is training in the sense of operant conditioning. If a dog is false indicating peach lotion...that's not because of the reward being offered. It's because a flaw in the training. The dog does not truley understand what is being asked. You could have the same problem with food. Food in itself does not teach the dog the difference between peaches and peach lotion. The behavior has not been proofed enough.


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

I tried to edit my post but couldn't. I can't guarantee you all will fail, it was a joke. Several of my K9 friends refuse to let us make up scenarios for them. We will put several balls and towels on the floor, hanging out passengers pockets etc, just screw with their dogs. There are some wicked toy dogs out there. I love both rewards, just perfer food for detection. 

_*Nash"As long as you get a good end product is what's most important .*_
I couldn't agree more my friend...happy training!


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

I'll agree with you on that. There are some pretty driven dogs for a toy . 

We train in a school where one of the classes has tennis balls on the feet of every students' chair and desk . Most of our dogs don't have a problem with it but it's pretty funny when you see the reaction of a dog does . They think they have died and gone to heaven !

We do the same stuff . Toys , ball , sticks , whatever as distractions . Most don't have a problem with it . It's usual pretty easy to get most to know what's expected .


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

dewon fields said:


> I would love to make up a scenario using your target aids on a toy dog. I guarantee you'll fail....:-\"


Only if you let me set up a scenario using your target aids on your food dogs...lol


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

This was a video of my dog before I got him

http://www.k-9bsd.com/focusanddrive.htm

It is three short clips - the middle on dropping water bottles on his head while holding the alert. He does [and did when I got him] like to bite water bottles so much I had to quit allowing him to play with them because he was becoming problematic with folks drinking water out of them.


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

Why do you think that, Patrick?

Konnie: Here is what I'm thinking if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will say so. What I've seen over the years is that the harder the task the more the dog concentrates and is less likely to be distracted by food toys or what ever until they hit that target odor. Navagating a ruble pile to me would require much more concentration than say a trailing dog or an air scenting dog. 

So that dog on the pile would be less likely to do that.
Dogs doing detailed detection work or that are in "eye" sight of the handler are less likely to self reward if the training is correct.

For these reasons 1: they are on a lease, 2: they are in eye sight and therefore get the leave it or some sort of move on command. 3: they have been trained to not take the bait "when said handler is present". 

But the dog that is trucking along and often times "out" of eye sight of its handler because its doing air scenting or off lead trailing is more likely to be distracted. 

Its more likely to eat the rabbit, horse, and dear crap they come across. Now what I have not seen much of is one of these dogs stopping to grab a toy left along the way. But rather using te scent off that toy to continue on.

Dogs are like kids when it comes to food or eating something. You give that sucker enough times out of your site with temptation. He'll take the bait!


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> Food distractions can be put in small cages, wire dog crates, even scent tubes (clean of course). We would also toss road kill along the trail for the advanced dogs. Live critters in cages of course.
> With a "new" dog you don't want them finding the food before you and self rewarding with it.
> As they advance you can add randon food without the cage, scent tubes etc.


I've heard many handlers say their dogs "won't eat the source" (I'm not talking about live finds here:lol
However, they never put their dog in that position. They only work with sources in containers so the dog can't get to them. As you said Bob, gotta start with containers and then without....


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Jim Nash said:


> I think they can base their idea on what the right reward is based on a number of things . Who they learned from , dogs they have worked in the past(one or all better suited for a certain reward system) , bad examples of certain techniques , a certain technique that the trainer / handler is better suited for, etc . .
> 
> If someone has a dog or can train a dog to search and find ( I'm assuming in SAR) and have the find of the person be it's only reward and make it work , how can I argue against it . I've never seen a dog work like that (good or bad) just never seen a dog trained that way .
> 
> I have trained more with using toy rewards . It works well for me and so that's what I prefer . Simple as that . I've seen others that use food that perform just as well . I can't argue against their success .


Yep... some tainers/handlers insist on one type of reward only for SAR dogs regardless what the dog likes because of who taught them. I have seen a few handlers make the comment (in person and on discussion lists) that the "find" was the dogs only reward. Don't know about the ones on the discussion lists but the ones I've seen in person were not that excited when the victim was finally found. And, a couple of half-hearted pats on the head from the handler sure didn't do much to let the dog know he did good. Fortunately the four dogs/handlers there I experienced this are no longer in SAR.

Also at a DADDAC seminar I heard one of the instructors chew out a few LE handlers for just sticking the ball in their dogs mouth after the find and then 3 seconds later taking it back.


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Konnie Hein said:


> I've seen food used as a reward for USAR dogs. I've occasionally seen variation in the way the dog is rewarded, and the time-frame for rewarding the dog. However, the majority of USAR handlers in FEMA and SUSAR use tug toys and reward with a game of tugging at the victim (or by the helper if in training).
> 
> It's not a written rule (by FEMA or SUSAR) that we must use a tug toy reward instead of food or a ball. There aren't really even concrete, system-wide training restrictions (although individual teams may have them). I think it boils down to personal peference and the overall training method historically used by most people in USAR (which varies, of course, but the core of which is very similar from team to team). Those methods are taught handler to handler, and I think the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality often applies. I also think a lot of handlers are not dog trainers per se. Branching out from how we've learned to effectively train a dog for USAR isn't often a concern, so long as the dog does the job we need him to do. There are folks here and there who make changes to their training programs, and if others see the changes and like the results, they'll adapt to include them in their training too.
> 
> ...


 
Through the years the only reward I've heard of USAR using has been a ball or tug... thanks for straightening me out Konnie. 

I don't have any preference on food or toy reward. I believe the reward should be something the dog wants. If you like steak why would I give you spinach? We praise our dogs for many things so to me just praise isn't a reward nor is giving the dog something the handler wants to give but the dog really doesn't care for. I like to give a small food reward at the source and then show the ball and do jackpot play out of the area. I don't think the dog misses the connection between finding the source and the ball reward. Can't remember if I mentioned it in a previous post or not.... but my K9 Mercy would get a small food reward at the find and then I'd tell her how good she was and say "pig's ear"! She knew that reward was coming from doing good and would race back to my vehicle and await her jackpot. It's the same with Spirit and Omega and True... except it's a jackpot ball.

We talk about high motivation/drive in a dog... absolutely necessary... but hey, we're motivated with our training and what we do. But, isn't it nice to once in a while here "good job"? It's not that we look for praise but it is nice to hear once in a while. Even after a bust or apprehension, LE gives each other high-fives.

Both rewards have pros and cons. Toy driven dogs, at times, can self reward if there is a toy in the area and the handler is out of sight. The same with food reward. Toy reward at the source can be an issue in certain situations. And, there is proofing off the scent of the toy itself in some detection scenarios. I remember an LE instructor relating the story of a drug dog alerting on a locker in a boy's high school locker room. When the locker was finally opened a hundred tennis balls fell out. The dog had been trained on scented tennis balls but not proofed against the ball. Poor thing thought he hit the Mother Lode! Food reward can be a problem if the dog or handler happens to drop some. I believe it's what the dog wants not what the handler thinks the dog should have. 

Konnie, as with all detection dogs I believe it depends on the dog itself more than the breed (although as we know some breeds just aren't suitable). I have Labs and a GSD. I've had Lab/Belgian Sheepdog and English Springer Spaniel. I have seen excellent Border Collies and other breeds. When it comes to mass fatalities search I also look at what elements my dog will have to contend with on the search. I had an English Springer but there were problems with her long hair. After a homicide search in a rural area her hair was so matted with "stick-tights" she just about had to be shaved. So as with your USAR dog, you know the difficulty of traversing the rubble and what you're up against. Hope this helps.


----------



## Vi Shaffer (Jan 25, 2010)

Patrick Cheatham said:


> Why do you think that, Patrick?
> 
> Konnie: Here is what I'm thinking if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will say so. What I've seen over the years is that the harder the task the more the dog concentrates and is less likely to be distracted by food toys or what ever until they hit that target odor. Navagating a ruble pile to me would require much more concentration than say a trailing dog or an air scenting dog.
> 
> ...


 
Patrick, I think your post is excellent! (for what that's worth...:lol


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm really enjoying this discussion. Unfortunately I find myself in a position where I can't spend a lot of time responding. Hopefully my situation will have resolved itself by Wednesday. I would really like to catch up and make a few contributions. Great discussion though.

DFrost


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I would really like to catch up and make a few contributions.


I'm gonna hold you to that! :grin:


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Patrick Cheatham said:


> Konnie: Here is what I'm thinking if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will say so. What I've seen over the years is that the harder the task the more the dog concentrates and is less likely to be distracted by food toys or what ever until they hit that target odor. Navagating a ruble pile to me would require much more concentration than say a trailing dog or an air scenting dog.
> 
> So that dog on the pile would be less likely to do that.
> Dogs doing detailed detection work or that are in "eye" sight of the handler are less likely to self reward if the training is correct.
> ...


Thanks for this explanation, Patrick! 

Generally I agree with the first part - if the dog is deeply engaged in a task, then he certainly will be less likely to notice other things in his environment. However, I think the drive and persistence of the dog, along with the style of training, have a big effect on the dog's "single-mindedness" for the task at hand too.

I agree with you as well that dogs who work closely with their handlers have less opportunity or are less likely to be distracted by temptations in the enironment. However, remember that live-find disaster SAR dogs often work independently and out of sight of their handlers. This is the foundation of their training. Part of the overall purpose of a disaster SAR dog is to be able to send them into places that we can't go. I've had to send my dog into buildings and just "trust" that he's doing his job and not eating something out of the refridgerator. In that respect, the temptation for the disaster search dog to find something else to focus on (or eat!) is pretty high - high enough that even concentration on traversing difficult agility won't negate the tempatation.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Vi Shaffer said:


> Konnie, as with all detection dogs I believe it depends on the dog itself more than the breed (although as we know some breeds just aren't suitable).
> ...
> Hope this helps.


Thanks for the explanation, Vi!


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

Vi said: We talk about high motivation/drive in a dog... absolutely necessary.

And these are the very things that cause them to get distracted, get in to trouble and so on. We want the dog that's high drive but are upset or disapointed when it looses focus for a moment on the thing that stimulates it the most.

Valuable lesson learned in my training session today. I'm not so sure when the person said it they really knew how true it is.

It's a game to the dog not a job, it's only a job to me. I have to keep it fun and interesting. That will get me the focus and response from my dog I need.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

David Frost said:


> In my experience, the frequency of reward is no different regardless of type of reward. The amount of time a dog can work without being reinforced is dependant on training, not the type of reward being used.
> 
> DFrost


Earlier in the discussion, I had posted the comment above. Unfortunately, life happens and I was unable to follow the discussion for a few days. I would like to expand on my belief that the amount of time a dog works is wholly dependant on the training that it recieves. Earlier I had commented on our (my training) training was conducted using variable reward schedules. I've also learned that when having discussions in a forum, terminology often rears it's ugly head. When people aren't speaking the same language, it's really difficult to discuss anything. This is what I teach all my handlers. This is how I get them to understand why the dog is capable of working like it does. I'm not claiming it's the only way, I'm merely saying this is the language we ( our canine unit) speak, so we all know what is being said. 

First the schedules:

Continous Reward Schedule (CRS) A reward is given immediately when the dog makes a correct or near correct response. Obviously, this is used in initial training. The handler will reward all correct and near correct responses. Shaping the correct response will require a slight delay in giving the reinforcement. An excessive delay does not help learning and may lead to frustration.

Fixed Ratio Reward Schedule (FR): A reward is given to the dog after it makes two or more responses. The two or more responses do not necessarily have to be the same reseponse. Start a dog on this schedule by reinforcing every second correct response. When the dog consistently makes two responses to get a reward, three can be required. By increasing the the number of responses, one at a time, and allowing the dog to perform at each level with 100 per cent proficiency, a high fixed ration reward schedule can be reached.

Example:

2 correct responses = 1 reward (proficiency/consistency documented)
3 correct responses = 1 reward ( " " " ) 
4 correct responses = 1 reward ( etc. )

Variable Ration Reward Schedule (VR): Once the dog has learned to perform on a high fixed ration reward schedule, the variable ratio reward schedule is used. The maximum number of rsponses requred by this schedule must have been learned on the fixed ratio schedule. Select a range of responses required (example 5 to 10) and reward the dog on a random basis within this range. 

Example:The dog has learned to respnd correctly 15 times on a fixed ration reward schedule. Reward the somewhere between five and 15, on a random basis. The dlearns it must correctly respnd at least 5 times, but not more than 15 to get the reward. This reward schedule once attained, gives you greater control of your dog's behavior than the continuous or the fixed ratio. 


Any time a variable reward is used in training, you will ALWAYS be on two schedules. when you ask a dog to "sit" and he responds by sitting, you reward the dog with vocal or petting praise. In this case you would be using the continuous reward schedule. As you successively delay the reward, the dog learns that the request to "sit" also has a time limit. I'll give our definitions of the this "time limit" and how it relates to the variable reward schedule in my next post. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

In my previous post I stated that when a variable reward is used in training, you will ALWAYS be on two schedules. the ratio of the reward was described above. I'll now discuss the interval of the reward. When I posted the ratio, I stated the dog would now learn, in addition to "sit" as an example, there is also a time limit. Not only must the dog sit, but now it must do it for a specific amount of time. 

Fixed Interval Reward Schedule (FI) A reward is given when the dog is required to respond for a fixed period of time. In initial training, a short period of time must be selected. As training progresses, the amount of time is increased. A common problem in detector dogs. Some trainers may see a dog working and properly responding, on three seperate targets, in 30 minutes as a 30 minute level of training. when in fact, it's actually a 10 minute training event, 3 times. 

Variable Interval Reward VI: Once the dog has learned to perform any task for a specified period of time on a fixed interval reward schedule ("stay" in the "Sit" position for 10 minutes) the variable interval reward schedule is used. Select a time range (1 to whatever is required for your operation) and reward the dog on a random basis within this time period. Using 5 minutes as an example, the dog has learned to respond correct for 5 minutes on a fixed interval reward schedule. Reward the dog somewhere between 1 and 5 minutes. The dog will learn that it must respnd for at least 1 minute and will not be required to respond longer than 5 minutes. 

I know it may be clear as mud to some. When understood it really answers questions such as, how long will the dog work. How often do I need to reinforce the dog. It gives the trainer and handler, behavior control. I've always said, dog training really isn't rocket science. To that end, in the end, I tell my handlers the same thing coaches have told players of teams sports for many many years; "you play like you practice". For dog training, your work will reflect your training practices.

DFrost


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

Konnie: However, remember that live-find disaster SAR dogs often work independently and out of sight of their handlers. This is the foundation of their training. Part of the overall purpose of a disaster SAR dog is to be able to send them into places that we can't go. I've had to send my dog into buildings and just "trust" that he's doing his job and not eating something out of the refridgerator

Okay, now this really points out my lack of kowledge. I never considered that you may be sending the dog into a place you could not go. So educate me more. What way does the dog alert you to a find? And how would you locate that person if you can get n the search area?


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Per Patrick: Okay, now this really points out my lack of kowledge. I never considered that you may be sending the dog into a place you could not go. So educate me more. What way does the dog alert you to a find? And how would you locate that person if you can get n the search area?

Patrick this might sound stupid on my part or maybe be a good idea. Have you ever considered a bark alert for a area where you loose visual on the dog. I mean if you can't use sight use your hearing ie dog barking to alert on a source.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

(or) You train the dog to return, respond, and take you too the place. Timmy's in the well sort of thing. There are many situations where I dog will work away from it's handler, and possibly out of sight. 

DFrost


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

Yes I use an alert refind with off lead live find dogs. And have seen it used with HRD dogs as well. 

What I was thinking is if the dog is sent into an area that the handler can't enter. I can see the dog coming back and alerting or maybe staying at the spot and barking.

But if its a collapsed building or a structure that you can't enter. I'm thinking that actually locating that person is still tricky.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Hi Patrick:
All live-find disaster search dogs in the FEMA (federal) and SUSAR (state) system are trained to perform a bark alert. The dog is required to stay at the point of the alert and bark, until such time as his handler rewards him or calls him away. 

In the case of a dog alerting out of sight in an area deemed unsafe for human searchers, decisions must be made as to how the actual location of the victim and ultimately the rescue will be conducted. Each situation presents its own unique challenges. The suspected presence of a trapped, live human being changes the risk-benefit analysis for sure.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Patrick Cheatham said:


> But if its a collapsed building or a structure that you can't enter. I'm thinking that actually locating that person is still tricky.


Absolutely. As I mentioned above, an alert from a live-find dog changes the risk-benefit analysis.

Also, even in an area where I can see my dog alerting, there are challenges in actually pinpointing the location of the victim. In a disaster search where people are buried under rubble, dogs are not necessarily people finders, they are live human scent finders. They will locate and alert on areas with the highest concentration of what we call "invisible (meaning the dog can't see the person who is the source of the scent), inaccessible, live human scent." This area can be quite a distance from the actual location of the victim due to the channeling and funneling of scent through the rubble. That's why our teams are equipped with special cameras and listening devices. The dogs might only be able to give a general area, and the tech search folks use their equipment to physically locate the victim.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I can only imagine ..... with HRD you may have buried source and it is not strongest right over a shallow grave with a lot of complicating factors such as runoff, trees pulling up scent etc,.. but even that is not as 3 dimensional as a multistory rubble pile with voids and other areas blocking scent movement.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Fixed Ratio Reward Schedule (FR): A reward is given to the dog after it makes two or more responses. The two or more responses do not necessarily have to be the same reseponse. Start a dog on this schedule by reinforcing every second correct response. When the dog consistently makes two responses to get a reward, three can be required. By increasing the the number of responses, one at a time, and allowing the dog to perform at each level with 100 per cent proficiency, a high fixed ration reward schedule can be reached.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...


David, thanks for the in-depth explanation! You should do seminars...:-D

Question: When do you decide to move from the continuous to the FR? How does the handler let the dog know he's correct (or does he?) and how do you "_manage"_ the dog to move him on to the next target?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Question: When do you decide to move from the continuous to the FR? How does the handler let the dog know he's correct (or does he?) and how do you "_manage"_ the dog to move him on to the next target?


I use a fixed criterion of 20. When a dog is able to perform a specific task using the continuous schedule, I then move to the FR. Each step along the way from 2 : 1 up to what ever number I am working toward carries a 10 consecutive, positive, unassisted 
responses. When doing detection work, in my program, the only way to measure an unassisted response is when the handler does not know the location of the target. Of course if this is being used on OB, then it's easy to observe and know when the dog has done it correctly. 

Your question relative moving the dog to the next target probably differs somewhat than many of todays detector dog trainers. I get away from the boxes as quickly as I can, because of your question. I prefer, once the dog has learned the odor, to start searching more operational type searches. Using the variable reward system, keep in mind that you are always on two schedules. Similar to teaching that sit also has a time limit, we are now teaching, searching has a time/distance limit as well. If the dog is satisfactorily searching 3 feet, we go to four, and so on. If a distance/time is difficult for a dog, we go back to the last distance/time the dog was performing correctly (remember we've been measuring this against a criterion of 10) and advance in smaller steps. This way, not only are we reinforcing odor, we are teaching and reinforcing a search pattern/meathod etc. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Question: When do you decide to move from the continuous to the FR? How does the handler let the dog know he's correct (or does he?) and how do you "_manage"_ the dog to move him on to the next target?


I use a fixed criterion of 20. When a dog is able to perform a specific task using the continuous schedule, I then move to the FR. Each step along the way from 2 : 1 up to what ever number I am working toward carries a 10 consecutive, positive, unassisted 
responses. When doing detection work, in my program, the only way to measure an unassisted response is when the handler does not know the location of the target. Of course if this is being used on OB, then it's easy to observe and know when the dog has done it correctly. 

Edited to add; The criterion of 20 is used when teaching a new behavior/odor etc. The criterion of 10 is used to increase time/distance etc. 

Your question relative moving the dog to the next target probably differs somewhat than many of todays detector dog trainers. I get away from the boxes as quickly as I can, because of your question. I prefer, once the dog has learned the odor, to start searching more operational type searches. Using the variable reward system, keep in mind that you are always on two schedules. Similar to teaching that sit also has a time limit, we are now teaching, searching has a time/distance limit as well. If the dog is satisfactorily searching 3 feet, we go to four, and so on. If a distance/time is difficult for a dog, we go back to the last distance/time the dog was performing correctly (remember we've been measuring this against a criterion of 10) and advance in smaller steps. This way, not only are we reinforcing odor, we are teaching and reinforcing a search pattern/meathod etc. 

DFrost


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> How does the handler let the dog know he's correct (or does he?) and how do you "_manage"_ the dog to move him on to the next target?


Thanks for the in-depth explanation, David. What I'm asking above is this...
The dog finds target 1. He is not rewarded because you are working with a FR. Does the handler pat the dog on the side, say "Good boy" and move on to searching for target 2, or do you just pull the dog away and move on to target 2?

Just trying to picture in my head how you go about doing this.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"pat the dog on the side, say "Good boy" and move on to searching for target 2,"

Yes ma'am, that's exactly it. You would give a short secondary reinforcement (verbal), then command the dog to begin searching again. 

During actual situations with drug and explosives dogs, the dog is never (in our program anyway) given the primary reinforcement when it responds. Tactically, it's unsafe, operationally it's distracting when distractions should be at a minimum. 

DFrost


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

Once again David, I have heard that explaination before, Ha!!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Dodson said:


> Once again David, I have heard that explaination before, Ha!!


Imagine that! ha ha.

DFrost


----------

