Unfortunately being 'reputable' doesn't mean you only use positive reward based methods based upon science. There is a recent study comparing training schools using harsh methods (choke/prong collars, leash jerks etc) and one using positive reward based training. No prizes for guessing which school had the best results and happiest dogs . Interestingly the findings also showed that positive reward trained dogs had a better relationship with their handler than the 'harsh' method dogs.
I am still amazed at how many people still do not seem to understand that most dogs want to please their people. I write quite a bit about Murphy and how we typically do not "train" him to do much of anything. We did not use a "treat" method. I am not against using treats at all and sort of feel it works best for people who need results faster than we did or need the dog to do things that they normally just do not do. Our only goals were a dog what would sit/lie when asked and walk nicely on a lead and get along with people and other dogs. Well, he turned out way better than that actually. Walking him on a lead is a dream. When we come to a corner where a decision needs to be made he looks around and all we have to say is "this way" and sort of gesture where we want to go. If we stop to talk to people he will say hello and if we keep talking for a bit he just lays down. It is so obvious that he just wants to do what we want to do. Oh sure, he can be stubborn as all get out at times. But, we are retired so it is never a big deal. I just do not understand how someone can jerk a happy go lucky dog around on a choke collar. Nope, do not get it at all.
It's a simple thing for me. I don't hurt my friends. I don't abuse my position of power over another living creature.
It took me months and months to get my girl to walk without pulling on a lead. Not once did I ever think or consider a prong or choke collar. The way I see it is that she is my baby, and I would never use this kind of methods on a human child so why on a dog! To teach a child to walk by you, you hold their hand or use a harness with a lead attached. Why not do the same with a dog - they are family too.
I cannot accept any argument that relies on a dog being hurt as a method of training/teaching it to respond in a certain way. Just because shock/prong collars are not universally banned is not an argument that they are therefore acceptable. There are many many things in life that are harmful and dangerous; to animals, humans, the environment, that are not banned, it doesn't make them right. My friend has a dog which pulled so hard on its flat collar and lead that it passed out. Supposing my friend's dog was wearing a prong collar, what would have happened? If I decide that my toddler son will learn best through me smacking him rather than use methods that show patience, explanation, reward etc. is that OK because smacking is not banned in the U.K.? Should I pinch him gently as a warning or twist his arm slightly hoping I won't have to pinch him hard if he doesn't understand the warning or is too 'hyper' to understand? I say unequivocally, try what doesn't potentially harm your dog's neck and not "try what works for you" because there is just not an acceptable argument for potential harm.
The treat is a dog's reward for performing a requested task well in much the same way as you get paid for your work by your employer. When learning something new the reards are higher and more frequent and gradually scale down to a schedule of reinforcement to maintain the behaviour/work. Rewarding a dog in training just helps the process along, after all we all like to be paid.
Like I said, I am not against the method and there are certainly reasons to employ it. But, my point is/was that depending on the circumstances it is not the only way to get results. Another thing that motivates dogs and humans is praise. Dogs lap it up (pardon the pun). An interesting thing that you wrote was "gradually scale down to a schedule of reinforcement to maintain the behaviour/work". If the learning was not done with the use of treats then there are no treats required to reinforce the behavior. The reason I occasionally write about this is because someone who is new to the dog world can very quickly begin to think that the only way to get a dog to do something is via treating. If they are just looking for a companion with some manners and have the time and patience treats may not be a requirement at all. Oh, btw, you can bet that Murphy gets his treats. It is enjoyable discussing different methods that various folks and their dogs use.
Yes it is possible to train a dog without treats, in the same way as it us possible to train using aversuve methods. Studies show us that the reward 'treat' based training encourages learning faster. And in all honesty would you prefer to work for someone who offers you a pat on the back or a big fat juicy piece of chicken . My girl is happy to work for praise and a fuss but works even better for a tasty treat . Of course the reward doesn't have to be purely food based but can be play based with a ball or a tug toy which is the way 'sniffer' dogs for example are trained.
Jojo, in my first comment I wrote: "I am not against using treats at all and sort of feel it works best for people who need results faster than we did or need the dog to do things that they normally just do not do." So, I do not understand your continuing comments. Murphy does not work for me, he is a companion. I suppose if your dog is working for you then you feel a need to pay him some sort of tangible reward. Could be wrong about that.
The problem is, Ted, that when you write this way, you do come over of being very dismissive of two things; treating and training. The reason we keep challenging it is because of the potential harm for other owners and dogs from reading this sort of comment. You're very lucky you have such a laid-back dog as Murphy, who is very responsive to attention as a reward. My youngest, Luna, is also highly motivated by praise; it's her number one reinforcer, which is brilliant. Sure, I still use treats because they're convenient as information when we're learning new behaviours. For luring to learn new positions. But, when she "gets" something, throwing her a party and telling her she's clever is by far the biggest way to get her to repeat that. It's great for giving her confidence (which she doesn't really need, since she has it in spades, but hey) and for building our bond (again, it's super strong already, but who doesn't love being told they're amazing?). So, yes, she would likely do what I want for praise alone. But she's one dog. My other two - not a chance. If I read your comment and took it as gospel that treats aren't necessary and then tried to get my dogs to behave in a manner that fits in with my life (I'm trying to avoid the word "training" at this point, can you tell?), not pulling on the lead for example, then, without treats, I wouldn't have a chance and I would end up having to resort to aversives. This is the problem with your assertion that treats aren't necessary because, for all dogs, the right motivator is necessary. You have found that, for Murphy, praise works well. That's great and I don't want to take that away from you. But you have to understand that it just doesn't cut it for all dogs and, again, if you are not motivating your dog properly, you will have to resort to punishment in order to get the behaviour you want. That is undeniable. The second thing I have issue with is the point about not "working"/training. All dogs are essentially working when we ask them to do something that goes against their nature. Walking on a loose leash, not running over to other dogs or people, not taking food off our plates. Many of these things (and the multitude of other things we may or may not request of our dogs to get them to fit into our lives) can be trained through negative punishment, but here we like to try to work out solutions that, where possible, use positive reinforcement instead. It's faster, which is good for us as humans and the dogs, too, because it's less frustrating. And, for positive reinforcement, you need a reinforcer. Food treats are convenient. No, they're not the only way but, as above, you have to use what works for your dog. To be dismissive of treats as you come across, Ted, means that, for the dogs who aren't as motivated by praise as Murphy or my Luna, you're really pushing people down the route to one of the other three quadrants (negative punishment, negative reinforcement, positive punishment), none of which are anything like as humane or effective as positive reinforcement (note: we all use negative punishment to some extent, but those of us who are interested will try to reduce its use as much as possible). But, "training"/"working", whatever you like to call it is really enriching for dogs. I'm not talking about expecting the dog to be a robot. I'm talking about training games, which the dog finds rewarding in their own right. I'm talking about training "middle", spins, leg weaves, tug, whipit, retrieving games, doggy parkour... games that the dogs adore, but that have rules that have to be learned. Yes, I also do more "formal" training, for gundog work and for agility, but it's all stuff that the dogs adore doing. Simply being a companion is all good and well, but I like to make life as fun, rich, diverse and exciting as I can for my lot. Learning things for them is fun. Not only that, but not all dogs are as laid-back as Murphy and actually need this sort of thing in their lives in order that they not become bored. Boredom can lead to destructiveness, but also to depression, which none of us want for any dog. So, yes, I know you have your point of view and what works for you and Murphy. But that's a study of one and, I'm sorry, but you can be expected to have your comments picked up on pretty much every time you assert that dogs will work for praise alone, and when you appear dismissive of training. Your cross to bear is making your assertions. Ours is countering them in the interest of full disclosure and balance. for more information on this topicThe Forum Recommendshttps://www.thelabradorsite.com/training-treats-should-you-use-them/
I don't see the link with that. Aversive methods that are at the very least unkind is not the same as training a dog to live companionably along side us with out the use of rewards. I think positive reinforcement training is truly wonderful, and I find engaging with Cassie in that way very rewarding for me. I must admit that I don't regard it as "payment" for her behaviour but us sharing the time/experience together, more and more I find that my enjoyment of performing the training is enhancing our life together. @T Reischl , I understand what you are saying and it's clear that you and Murphy have a wonderful life, being retired he will have a very different life to a puppy who, say, is required to fit in to a busy family life -- who will have an equally good but very different life. So it shouldn't be forgotten that every dog is different, and so to is our requirement of them.
Well, sadly, there is a link. Aversive methods don't have to be unkind, for a start, we shouldn't forget that. As discussed in another thread, simply stepping into your dog's space to make them move backwards is aversive. Is it unkind? Probably not, depending on the dog. But it's undeniably aversive, if your dog moves backwards. People that train their dogs (and making your dog fit into your life as a "companion" still constitutes training) without any sorts of rewards will be using aversives of one sort or another, probably without realising. It doesn't mean they're unkind or should be vilified, but from the point of view of someone who tries to avoid them entirely (and fails constantly, don't get me wrong), I think it's worth pointing out that that's what's happening. It helps our understanding of why our dogs do things. They don't just "happen", because animals will change their behaviour for one of two reasons; they are being rewarded or they are being punished, in the scientific sense. If a pat on the head and a kind word is enough for your dog to feel rewarded, then that's great (it normally isn't, even for dogs that are rewarded by praise, "praise" has to be more dynamic than that, unless they are kept in isolation when they're not working - a technique used by some trainers that means the dog is far more willing to do what is asked for even the most basic forms of praise because he is starved of attention the rest of the day), but it is normally the flip side of a coin that involves aversives, even if the handler is unaware of the fact they're using them.
I would never advocate the use of aversive methods and find their use abhorrent; however aversive methods do work to train a dog and the dog's reward using such methods is the removal of the aversive. The chances are you won't have a happy, companionable relationship with the dog with those methods. You can train without using treats and use praise or petting with the dog. It works, science tells us it does. We also know reward based training works well. Science also tells learning a new skill/behaviour reward based training is the best method.
What I read into Ted's notes, is him and Murphy simply want to co-exist, rub along & enjoy life & each other's company without being a nuisance to anyone else. So this requires minimum training, achievable with lots of praise and treats to enjoy as and when - when you're together all the time - enjoying the day. My dog thrives on the challenge of learning new skills all the time. He appears to love earning treats AND praise as he masters or hones a new trick/manoeuveur/task - be it loose lead walking, finding something or running around a target, and learning this mostly useless stuff together brings us closer together. I certainly wouldn't feel the bond if I were using punishment to achieve anything. I would feel wretched I think.
@Jojo83 , @snowbunny thanks for your explanation. I guess I hadn't made the connection between no rewards (well food rewards) and punishment or aversion. I agree with @edzbird that +R training brings us closer -- to the point where sometimes praise is enough for Cassie these days. One useful thing we have been doing is "magic hands" to try and divert her from poo eating in the wood, which is working quite well given that I don't know where the stuff is and she does! Sometimes though I find her walking behind me without being asked! @Vicci, to answer your question I have a wiggles wags and whiskers no-pull freedom harness which was supplied by the trainer in the force free puppy class I went too.
Well this is certainly interesting. Snowbunny wrote: "People that train their dogs (and making your dog fit into your life as a "companion" still constitutes training) without any sorts of rewards will be using aversives of one sort or another, probably without realising." Just has to be, right? I am going to use walking nicely on lead as an example. At first he hated the lead, did not want anything to do with it. We did not push it, we let it rest for several months. When we tried it again, much better, no flinging himself around tying himself up in knots. Did he walk real well? Not really. He pulled and it instantly became clear we needed to use a different harness. So we changed harnesses. Ahhh, much better. As time went by he got better and better without any real input from us. Now, he is a dream to walk with and loves going on a walk. Now, if you want to say that the aversive was us not putting him on lead, fine. However, there is the distinct possibility that he had matured and his level of trust in us had grown. But I highly doubt that he was thinking for several months of how we were being aversive so that he would walk on a leash. More importantly some folks may not understand how this works around here. Just some background first. We are both retired, it is very rare when someone is not with Murphy. About the only time that happens is when he decides he would rather nap than go outside. We have about 3/4 of an acre, most of it is backyard since our lot is pie shaped on a cul de sac. The entire back is fenced. It is an interesting place, trees, workshop, garden, several areas to sit and lots of room to play. We do not decide when Murphy should go outside and play, he does. Roughly every two hours or so. We have no problem stopping what we are doing and head out to play with him. Hey, we are retired, nothing we do is going to stop the world from spinning. If it is summer (quite hot here) and we have played a while and he decides he wants to go in where it is cool, we let him in. He decides when to go in his pool. This may sound really weird, but what has happened is that we have adjusted to Murphy and vice-versa. If we decide we are going in and he wants to stay out, we let him. We keep an eye out for when he shows up at the back door to come in. Ok, here comes an example of getting him to do something based on a "reward". Murphy loves playing "blue blanket" inside. If I really need him to come in for whatever reason and he does not want to, I just say "let's go play blue blanket". He heads for the back door at a dead run. And we ALWAYS then play "blue blanket". So, think about it, what is going on there? I have to decided that my need to get him to come in is important enough to warrant spending some time playing his favorite game with him. A bit of give and take there. Another example, going to the vets. We go once a month for a pedicure. All I have to say to him is "Let's go see the girls!" (the vet has several young ladies that just love him to pieces). He wants to go see the "girls". When he was a young pup, he was a mess at the vet's. But with patience and kind words he slowly outgrew that. BTW, there was no "making our dog fit into our lifestyle". We adjusted our lifestyle considerably and he adjusted to his new home. "Making" implies forcing Murphy to do something, we just do not do that. I do not agree that if you are not treating then you must be using some aversive methods. Nor do I think what we did will work with all dogs. There is a lot more that feeds into this mix than just "dogs do things for treats or to avoid aversive treatment". The lifestyle of the home they live in has a huge impact. Being alone most days for hour upon hour. No real regular household schedule. And lots of other things in their environment relate to their behavior.
