# Clicker / Treat / Exclusively Praise



## LizShort (May 19, 2009)

I want some input on which you use and what you find is best. When I trained Quincy a million years ago, I strictly used chain pops for correction and abundant praise for desired behavior. I was turned off to treat training for things other than silly tricks (whisper, roll over, "kill" -- Quincy would trot over to the person labeled as victim, tug on his/her sleeve, and ask them politely to come back over to me-- high five, etc.). This happened when I was in the show ring one time with a Gordon Setter who had been exclusively treat trained. After the first "halt" was issued, the dog sat, looked for his treat, and then refused to go any further until he was given a treat. 

any help with this would be greatly appreciated


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Well, I'll tell ya... this has bee discussed several times, so no doubt you can search and find LOTS of previously-posted opinions.

I am a dog trainer. I also compete in obedience and agility with my own dogs. I an a reward-based trainer. I use treats, toys, praise, petting, etc. I try to keep as much of my training as possible w/in the realm of pos. reinforcement (adding somehing the animal wants to increase behavior). Sometimes I train with negative punishment (taking away something the animal wants - like attention, or a toy) to minimize unwanted behavior. A smaller portion of my tranining might sometimes include negative reinforcement (introducing an aversive that stops the instance the dog does what I want, to increase future compliance. Using a pinch collar and letting the animal self-correct w/o the handler popping the leash is an exampe of neg. reinforcement). I try very hard to keep punishment out of my training, 'tho I do sometimes use it.

I think you can pretty much get anything you want from an animal by using mostly R+ and P-. People who jump to neg. reinforcement and pos. punishment generally, IMO, haven't spent enough time working the behavior to begin with.

As an example - my Golden -- we went into the Nov. Obed. ring and killed it with a title in three straight shows in one weekend and scores of 195+, 196.5 and 199! We're hitting the Open ring in two weeks and I'm just thrilled with how well he's working. There's video of him linked to my signature. My fave. this is that he's SUCH a HAPPY WORKER thanks to the relationship we built in training -- my keeping it fun and him learning to trust me b/c I wasn't going around unfairly correcting him.

Anyone who uses treats and then says the behavior falls apart when the treats aren't there is not using treats effectively. Goal = to get off a lure as soon as possible and then completely randomize when and how treats are given. My dogs NEVER know where my treats are, what they'll be, or when they come. Sometimes it's kibble and sometimes it's steak. Sometimes it comes out of my pocket and sometimes I run to the nearby tree and pull a baggie down from a branch. Sometimes they heel and get a treat on the very first halt and other times I don't feed until 1/2 way through the entire ring performance.

I congratulate you for your willingness to explore the introduction of treats into your training... or at the very least, minimizing the leash popping. Please let us know if you have any questions!


----------



## Romeo1 (Apr 19, 2008)

LizShort said:


> After the first "halt" was issued, the dog sat, looked for his treat, and then refused to go any further until he was given a treat.


Oh dear, that must have been an unexpected surprise! :roflmao:

I don't have much advice but a lot of people here do. Whatever you do, I think consistency is the key to making it stick.....


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

LizShort said:


> This happened when I was in the show ring one time with a Gordon Setter who had been exclusively treat trained. After the first "halt" was issued, the dog sat, looked for his treat, and then refused to go any further until he was given a treat.
> 
> any help with this would be greatly appreciated


There's more to it - without knowing the dog you have no idea why he wouldn't heel further. It could have been a training issue - absolutely - but it could also have been stress, something physical going on, his handler didn't cue him, etc...To blame that particular instance on reward based training is wrong.

To be fair, I've seen more "correction"/collar pop dogs offer this kind of behavior than the "clicker" dogs. Correction based dogs figure out that there are places you aren't going to correct them - and then they choose not to - knowing that there isn't going to be an immediate repercussion in the ring - now some of those handlers take the dogs out behind the barn so to speak and the point is made - though does it translate? I don't think so.

Using positive methods the dog that makes the above mistake probably hasn't proofed enough - the dog holding a sit while the handler heeled because he was waiting on a treat? We just don't see it happen...Going off looking for something more interesting sure...but in the case you used my money is that something else was going on with the dog, the judge or the handler.

Erica


----------



## LizShort (May 19, 2009)

True, there was definitely much more to it than I could have surmised in such a short period of time  For that matter, it has also been more than 20 years since I have trained a pup and been in the show ring LOL It is also a 20 year memory. So... I'm just looking for some information on all of the schools of thought. 

Thank you all for your input so far. I look forward to hearing more about this topic.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm a bit more old school I think. 
I believe very much in positive training DURING THE LEARNING PHASE. Lots of treats, toys, praise, etc. but as Stephanie said, quickly wean it from a lure to a random reward. I think most of the problems you see are when food is constantly used as a lure. 
But I also believe (flame proof suit going on here) that if you are 100% certain your dog knew what you wanted, and he did NOT do it, a correction is in order.
The correction depends on the dog. My oldest golden you probably could have smacked over the head with a 2 x 4 and she wouldn't have flinched. My youngest guy a slight collar pop with a buckle collar on, or a stern word, is all it takes. You have to know your dog.
There's always a lot of debate over this, but my personal opinion is that if your dog knows what you want, and just plain "flicks you off", they deserve consequences, especially during the adolescent phase. Again, those consequences depend on you, and on the dog. 
For example....if I tell my 2 year old boy to SIT, I know he heard me, and he doesn't sit, what should I do?? For pete's sake, he's known that word for 2 years. So should I lure him into a sit with food? NOT!!!! Sweet talk him, "come on honey, please sit for mommy??" NOT!!!!!! He will get a collar pop, but no second command. He knew what I wanted, and he needs to do it. 
JMO of course.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm a bit more old school I think.
> I believe very much in positive training DURING THE LEARNING PHASE. Lots of treats, toys, praise, etc. but as Stephanie said, quickly wean it from a lure to a random reward. I think most of the problems you see are when food is constantly used as a lure.
> But I also believe (flame proof suit going on here) that if you are 100% certain your dog knew what you wanted, and he did NOT do it, a correction is in order.
> The correction depends on the dog. My oldest golden you probably could have smacked over the head with a 2 x 4 and she wouldn't have flinched. My youngest guy a slight collar pop with a buckle collar on, or a stern word, is all it takes. You have to know your dog.
> ...


I really like this comment. I too think that training should be fun and positive for the most part, but when it comes down to it you should enforce it. As far as leash pops and clicks, honestly, I think a lot of that is dependent on the handler as far as results go. If you have a treat dependent dog, you usually did something wrong. And if you have a dog that is fearful of being popped, again, something wrong.:no:


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm a bit more old school I think.
> I believe very much in positive training DURING THE LEARNING PHASE. Lots of treats, toys, praise, etc. but as Stephanie said, quickly wean it from a lure to a random reward. I think most of the problems you see are when food is constantly used as a lure.
> But I also believe (flame proof suit going on here) that if you are 100% certain your dog knew what you wanted, and he did NOT do it, a correction is in order.
> The correction depends on the dog. My oldest golden you probably could have smacked over the head with a 2 x 4 and she wouldn't have flinched. My youngest guy a slight collar pop with a buckle collar on, or a stern word, is all it takes. You have to know your dog.
> ...


Here's my only concern/question with your methodology:

Let's say a person has a dog who sits at home on the first cue, everytime w/o fail. And maybe that dog is equally reliable while on neighborhood walks about the block.

Then, that person takes the dog to a busy street fair, asks the dog to sit, and the dog is non-compliant. Is a collar pop in order?

How do you define when your dog "knows" something? In my example, it appears that the dog "knows" sit based by his high rate of compliance while at home and on daily walks, yet he failed when out in public in a distracting environment.

To me, that means he doesn't really "know" sit in the sense of having generalized the behavior and become fluent.... so IMO, he really doesn't "know" sit and a collar pop correction is unfair. Not that I'd baby the dog, or suddenly sure -- but I wouldn't add an aversive (the def. of punishment). Rather, I might get my dog's attention, repeat my cue, and if needed, add a little social pressure (leaning over) to help prompt the sit. Then I'd set out to purposely train sits in distracting environments.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I'd probably smack him upside the head to get his attention.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> I'd probably smack him upside the head to get his attention.


Well, yup. That would get his attention for sure! 

Um, I'm not positive, but I'm feeling a bit of annoyed sarcasm in your post? :curtain: To clarify, I wasn't critisizing your idea of correcting a dog who "knows" something but doesn't do it. I'm really interested in your answer of how do you define "knows it?" :gotme:

I do stand by my opinion that I think people _*in general*_ tend to say their dog "knows" something long before they've trained in enough different contexts for it to be true...

I think it might be an interesting discussion to look at how different trainers define the concept of a dog knowing it.

For me, I base it on the concepts of generalization and fluency. If my dog can perform a behavior swiftly (w/in not longer than 3 seconds of my giving the cue) in a vareity of settings (min. of 6 dramatically different places) around a vareity of distractions ---- THEN I'll say he *knows* it. Oh, and by cue, to clarify, I mean a verbal or gestural cue given in the complete absence of food.


----------



## gabbys mom (Apr 23, 2008)

If you are interested in learning about both positive-only training and other training methods, I think you should get on over to dogwise.com and purchase some books  

Connie Cleveland, Terri Arnold and Diane Bauman have great books on the more "conventional" methods of today- teach the exercise, teach the correction and set up clear criteria for success/failure. I very much like Connie Cleveland's lack of effort vs. lack of understanding explanation. 

I think there are a number of pure positive books out there- and many more "mixed" books- authors that are coming to mind are Susan Garrett (agility), Patricia McConnell, Suzanne Clothier, etc. I'm sure others that do training this way can suggest more. 

One book I would suggest is Building Blocks for Performance by Bobbie Anderson- it's designed for getting the right start for performance puppies. 

Also, I think it's probably a good idea for you to hook up with a kennel club/obedience club in the area, especially if you are going to do obedience or agility. See the way they train and if you like it or are comfortable with it.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm sorry Stephanie if it came across as annoyed sarcasm, it was really just meant to be funny. But I have gently "knocked" on top of his head with my knuckles, like knocking on a door, and said "anybody in there???" more than once when I couldn't get his attention back!! 
I absolutely agree with you that people in general tend to think a dog knows something that he doesn't REALLY know. They forget that dogs are very situational, and just because they will do something in one place doesn't mean they will do everywhere (hence, proofing). 
I define "knows it" as the dog has performed the same behavior in the same situation several times. Then I know the dog knows it. And loosely, some behaviors they know so well (again, SIT) they truly should be able to perform it in virtually every situation. Just because my dog has never heard the word SIT before when we happened to be at that particular PetSmart doesn't mean he doesn't know SIT.
But also, I tend to think of training in terms of competition, and I tend to forget about general pet training. So when I say I know my dog knows it, I am normally referring to the training/showing situation. See, my knowledge is situational too and doesn't always transfer over 




FlyingQuizini said:


> Well, yup. That would get his attention for sure!
> 
> Um, I'm not positive, but I'm feeling a bit of annoyed sarcasm in your post? :curtain: To clarify, I wasn't critisizing your idea of correcting a dog who "knows" something but doesn't do it. I'm really interested in your answer of how do you define "knows it?" :gotme:
> 
> ...


----------



## Maya's Mom (Apr 13, 2009)

I have been using almost exclusively positive training techniques with my puppy, who is 14 weeks old, and I have been very happy with the results. We have been using a word rather than a clicker (yes), but in a similar way that you would use a clicker. We chose to do this only because of the convenience of not having to always worry about making sure we have the clicker with us. We have been taking a puppy kindergarten class, and at week 5 the trainer started to tell us to decrease use of treats. We still use "yes" to tell our pup that she is doing what we want and will get a reward eventually, but she doesn't know when. It might be the first time or the fourth (we just started randomizing rewards this week, so that's as far as we're going right now). Our trainer said that rewards are most effective when a puppy/dog doesn't know when they will get it. As well as rewards, we use lots of praise, ignoring her for behaviors we don't want (mostly biting), and redirecting her to a behavior we do want (providing a toy to chew when she tries to chew something inappropriate). We also try to control the environment in such a way to set her up for success (puppy proofing). 
I think the bond between person and dog is of utmost importance and it is too easy to fall back on punishing a dog without really understanding why it is your dog did what it did. There can be so much lost in translation between the way dogs communicate and the way people do that it is hard to be sure you really know why the dog didn't listen. When you punish a dog and it doesn't understand why, it damages the relationship between person and dog. If your dog doesn't listen to you because she is scared, then you collar pop her, she will be more scared. A scared dog is not an obedient dog, at least not consistently and long term. I want my dog to trust me enough to do whatever I ask, whenever I ask it. 
If I were a professional trainer who had been working with dogs my whole life and studied canine communication and behavior, maybe I could see using occassional punishment (although probably not because it's not really who I am) because I would be more confident that I really understood my dog's thought processes and actions. But I am a person who has read a few books about dog training and several threads on this forum, so I don't feel I know nearly enough to be able to understand my dog reliably enough to use punishment. I don't want to betray the trust my dog has in me by punishing her for something she doesn't understand. I want to build the bond between us in such a way that she trusts me completely. The most fun part of this so far has been teaching her to come. She is AMAZING in that she will stop whatever she is doing (digging, playing with another dog, etc.) the second I call her and will come flying towards me at top speed. She does this because she thinks that only good things will happen to her when she is with me. I can't imagine anything better while raising a dog than the sight of that excited little puppy running towards me at full speed.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I'll chime in that I generally agree about 98% with Quiz on these things, but I'll add my personal experience. I used to train with a much more even mix of reward and punishment, but I've moved over the years towards methods that emphasize positive reinforcement as much as possible. Every time I phase out a negative-based method (collar pops while training "heel," for example) in favor of a reward-based method (luring or targeting to teach heel) I've been immensely pleased with the results.

I do see lots of people who misuse treats in training, trying to use food to compete for their dog's attention or teaching their dogs to only comply when a treat is visible. They look silly and their dogs don't behave.

The kind of training Stephanie is describing, in which the dog is richly rewarded during the teaching phase and sporadically reinforced thereafter, is incredibly reliable. My guys will come and sit for me, off leash, in a crowded room full of dogs. They don't do that because they think I have a super cool treat, but rather because we've ingrained a habit over time that recall always happens (setting dogs up for success during training) and always feels good (sporadic treats, jackpots, praise, etc.).

It's the _habit_ that gets the desired results, not the individual reward. If I ask for a sit and I don't get it, I assume I haven't built the habit up strong enough to resist distractions or that I was somehow confusing the dog. I find it helpful to treat noncompliance as a mistake on my part, not the dog's. That mindset helps me train more clearly and effectively, and it keeps me from getting annoyed at my dogs when they're not doing what I want.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm sorry Stephanie if it came across as annoyed sarcasm, it was really just meant to be funny. But I have gently "knocked" on top of his head with my knuckles, like knocking on a door, and said "anybody in there???" more than once when I couldn't get his attention back!!


Thanks for clarifying! I had just happened to notice that my earlier post said here's my concern with "your" methodology rather than saying "that" methodology, so I just wanted to make sure you hadn't taken what I'd said personally.

I've done the cranial door-knock, too! "Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?" 

I love these kinds of discussions. The reality is that we never know what our dogs are thinking --- so it's really our best guess as to why things go wrong in training.

Yes... sit at one Petsmart is the same (generally) as sit at another Petsmart. If I don't get the sit, I'll make sure I do - like I said before. But even then... I really struggle with the concept of a dog choosing to be wrong on purpose. I know many here disagree, but I still tend to stick with what I've heard from the likes of Steve/Jen White, Bob Bailey, Karen Pryor, Kathy Sdao, etc. that if an animal really, really understands what you want, and you, as a trainer have really, really made it worth the animals while to play our silly game, why would they CHOOSE to be wrong? 

I think sometimes the distraction is just too great and the animal falls for it, and maybe that's "choosing to be wrong" -- and no, I can't set out to train to be better than ANY possible distraction out there. BUT, if I don't make an effort to train to be better than at least a good percentage of them, and choose to correct my dog when he becomes distracted, then I'm not being fair to my dog and I'm a lazy trainer.


----------



## FishinBuddy (Nov 20, 2008)

I always like post like these. I agree with both quiz and hotel on different aspects of training. By no way am I a professional trainer but I have trained multiple dogs. Every dog is different. A great dane that my friend owns and we both train CANNOT get any negativity at all. He will cower and go into his crate and sulk. He needs to be dealt with gently. Clicker and positive re. all the way. A simple no will correct the dog. My golden is totally the opposite...you can (as stated above) smack him in the head with a 2x4. As far as corrections, MY theory is if you praise every good behavior and time your corrections perfect the dog will learn what you want it to. A good analogy I read on here about positive ONLY training is imagine teaching your child. Never correct or punish the wrong behaviors only praise the good probably would pan out in the long run. So at the end of the day what works for my dog is a ton of positive reinforcement with timed corrections. Your dog may be totally different.


----------

