# Using Food in Obedience - An Open Discussion



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Didn't want to hijack the Bridget Carlson DVD thread, but the comment on not wanting to use food got me thinking:

IMO, bottom line is this:

A dog is only going to work for one of two reasons - 1. To make something good happen or 2. To avoid something bad. 

Personally, I don't really "get" the not wanting to use food philosophy. Primary reinforcers can be so valuable and there are so few things that are truly primary reinforcers: food, water, rest, sex. Play, affection, etc. is a secondary reinforcer. I go to great lengths to condition my secondary reinforcers to make them even more valuable, but I know the absolute bottom line is that my dog will die w/o food. He won't die w/o my attention.

Here recently, I've been working on fixing a forging problem. I've used a lot of food for a couple reasons - I need something that trumps his desire to move forward for a better view of my face, and also, I want to get lots of reinforced trials under out belt during each session. Interaction with me would not have accomplished either of those things. And it's certainly not b/c I don't have a solid working relationship with my dog.

For most well-adjusted dogs, if you drop a cookie on the floor and give the dog the choice of coming to you or eating the cookie, they'll choose the cookie. Knowing that, why should I deny my dog one of his most powerful reinforcers?

What's wrong with a dog working to get something out of it? Why should we expect him to not only be willing to play our game, but also be willing to be satisfied with what WE think a good reward should be?

Not trying to ruffle feathers - just opening up a conversation. And I certainly acknowledge that there are lots of ways in which you can use food incorrectly. But when used with skillful, judicious application, I have a very hard time understanding why some are so against it.

JMO


----------



## GoldenOwner12 (Jun 18, 2008)

Hi i'm one of those people that train without using food. I want my dog to focus on me without looking for the food. Eg if i use food as a rteward with Shelley she expects the food all the time. She will also sit straight away without being told and want the food. To me and my dog Shelley she works better without food even the trainers at the obedience club has noticed it too. 
Every dog is different some you can't use food others won't work unless food is involved and some are completely uncontrollable cause they want the food. I went and watched anyother obedience in another town, I was telling them how well my dogs listen without using food. This club was like you and loved using food rewards, Well the trainer said look my dog will listen without using food she told the dog to sit the dog wouldn't sit then she reached in her pocket and said sit again the dog sat that time cause it knew it was getting food. I do not want my dogs to be like that so that is why i choose to not use food as a reward. My dogs reward is told good girl/boy and a pat.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

I'm a food user too. Unless you have a dog who is insanely motivated for a toy, OR praise (which is pretty rare) and are the type of trainer to be able to set up everything to use that as the reward, food is generally the best bet and the easiest to work with. 

My old border collie that I trialed with quite a bit was very much a 'let's work' kinda guy and food was a bonus. But at the same time he'd play with anything too - often in agility he'd take a loose jump bar at the end of his run as his reward, and a few times grabbed a cone mid course. Bender is food food food motivated. Ticket is ball then food motivated. Storee as well but we are working away from balls for the simple fact that she's soo focused on them she gets too silly. All three will also work for praise but it's a step down most of the time if I don't also use food or toys - not right away but eventually the work ethic goes down slowly. Then they're a bit more tempted to do things like see if that distrating person does have food they can have and so on. 

Now I suppose I could up the corrections in that case but to me, not worth it. Just like I don't proof for every single possible strange thing in the world that may happen once in ten years so the dogs get stressed about things too much. Proofing the usual distractions and a few odd ones but that's about it. I want it to be more fun.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

My second golden was extremely motivated by toys... we trained with toys to reinforce her, but I was also a "reinforcer"(we trained her to jump on people as a reinforcement) since you can't use toys in the ring. She ultimately got a UD(I also used food, but toys really were her thing). For my first golden, it was primarily praise. Now, goldens. 3-6 have all been clicker trained and with food. The ones I have spent a lot of time with are very pretty heelers. To make it work, you have to use variable reinforcement. I have to say after attending a non AKC sanctioned match today where prong collars and "pops" are the norm, I am not unhappy with how I train my dogs today.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Golden # 2 was trained to heel with the Terry Arnold method of attention training... micro prong collar and "pops". The current dogs i own only have a choke collar on for conformation and never obedience.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

GoldenOwner12 said:


> This club was like you and loved using food rewards, Well the trainer said look my dog will listen without using food she told the dog to sit the dog wouldn't sit then she reached in her pocket and said sit again the dog sat that time cause it knew it was getting food. I do not want my dogs to be like that so that is why i choose to not use food as a reward. My dogs reward is told good girl/boy and a pat.


OK, but in that example, I'd argue that it's using food incorrectly if you pull it out to bribe the dog. That's certainly one of the potential problems with using food - you have to make sure it's a reward, not a bribe and that the dog isn't dependent on the food.

I can go into the ring and get a very high score with my dog, never once producing food throughout the performance. And I don't use food for every response in training. I just don't see the point of never (or very infrequently) using food as a reward when it's such a powerful reinforcer.

Yes, it's a problem if the dog will ONLY work for food. But again, I'll ask, what's wrong with using something so powerful? Are people against it b/c of the possible fall out when used incorrectly? Are too many food-reward trainers not teaching people how to prevent food dependence, so a growing segment of the population now believes that's what happens any time you use food in training?


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

What FQ said, you have to use food correctly and vary the reinforcement.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

I have heard a lot of things as far as 'why no food'
- the dog will only ever work for food if you start using it 
- you should not bribe your dog with food, listening should be expected regardless
- if you have to use food, then the dog loves the food and not you
- food will teach your dog that humans are a food source and they will start to become aggressive and snappy and someday eat your children (as seen on TV - my favorite quote, as if dogs are so dense they'd never realize humans have food at times and they will not know any better than to eat the child because the child has food....)

Like I said, my guys will work for food or for toys, praise, but food is usually the easier one to hide in the mouth or pocket. I move past the 'one treat for one thing' mindset and start asking for more and the food becomes random and not the focus (here's the food, now sit - instead it's sit, now here's the food).

I do expect them to listen but food is a stronger motivator and when you are teaching sometimes 'silly' things to a dog it helps to have them extra motivated. Do they really care if they have a crooked front? Food helps get them past our silly expectations of them. 

And dogs are smart enough to know we provide the food, and they can also be taught to take it politely from hands - something that you need food to teach. Bender may be a rude dog with the kids at times, and steal food out of their hands (usually it's if they get off the table with something so she's actually helping me remind them to stay at the table) but she never hurts the fingers in the process.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Yes, it's a problem if the dog will ONLY work for food. But again, I'll ask, what's wrong with using something so powerful? Are people against it b/c of the possible fall out when used incorrectly? Are too many food-reward trainers not teaching people how to prevent food dependence, so a growing segment of the population now believes that's what happens any time you use food in training?


My own question got me thinking... If there's any truth to my hypothesis - that incorrect use of food producing food-dependent dogs is making people not want to use food ---- that it has similarities to the e-collar issue. IMO, so many people use them incorrectly (w/o proper training or conditioning; just zapping away in search of a remote controlled dog) that they may have an unnecessarily bad rap. I'm definitely not in favor of them, but I do acknowledge that in some cases, and in some trainers' hands, they aren't entirely evil. But I still am of the opinion that the "humane" skilled users are FAR fewer than the John Q Publics who buy one at Target and head home to light up the dog.

Is food-reward training suffering the same fate? Are the people who skillfully and judiciously use food FAR outnumbered by those who lure/bribe and who can't successfully wean off the "need" for food?


----------



## GoldenOwner12 (Jun 18, 2008)

i know what your saying but i just choose not to use food here is a video clip of my Shelley doing a sit/stay come. SAM_0004.mp4 video by GoldenOwner12 - Photobucket
She did that without food. My Shelley is well behaved most of the time i can walk her offlead and have a dog walk past a few feet away and she will not go runing to that dog unless i say so.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Bender said:


> I have heard a lot of things as far as 'why no food'
> - the dog will only ever work for food if you start using it
> - you should not bribe your dog with food, listening should be expected regardless
> - if you have to use food, then the dog loves the food and not you
> - food will teach your dog that humans are a food source and they will start to become aggressive and snappy *and someday eat your children *(as seen on TV - my favorite quote, as if dogs are so dense they'd never realize humans have food at times and they will not know any better than to eat the child because the child has food....)


Hahahaha! That's fantastic! I'd better sleep with one eye open. Quiz might devour ME in my sleep! doG knows I'm certainly meaty enough!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I see a lot of people who do not know how to reinforce correctly and therefore not get reliable results. I had a client in the other night who (against what I would've told her) adopted 2 silver lab pups. Since one had temperament issues from the start, i sent them to my OTCH trainer friend from the get go. Anyway, she was in with the sweeter pup who she told me was harder to train than the shyer pup. Not thinking, I asked the pup to sit and he did. Then asked him to down and he did. His owner was astounded... I just think in training, she does not know how to reliably reinforce him. I have gotten titles on multiple dogs using food and so have my friends!!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Well dangit, I was in for the night when you had to bring up a good training topic for discussion, so I had to rush back out to McDonald's, cause I'm not going to try to type a post in my Kindle. Why oh why neighbors did you have to go and add a password to your wireless connection? I think I'm finally going to have to break down and pay for my own. :

Alright, let me make it clear first of all that I absolutely do use food in training. The thought of not using any food in training has never entered my mind. I was using food in my figure 8 video, and after watching it realized that all my food had come while doing the outside and none on the inside, so we went outside today (yay, no more ice!) and I did lots of reinforcement for inside circles.

What I am trying to change is the way I use food and my dog's attitude towards the food. I don't want my dog's work to be dependent on the food or the expectation of food. 

Since this discussion is the result of the comment I made about Bridget's DVD, let me first explain a little about the DVD for those who haven't seen it. It is about teaching the dog a cue word (like "hungry" or "cookie") to associate with receiving a reward. Handler gives the cue word, and dog amps up effort to earn food. 

Now I have no problem with dogs working for food in itself. I'm not on some ego trip trying to make myself more important to my dog than food. For dogs and trainers that can successfully use this method then that's great, I have nothing against it. But I'm looking at the big picture. I'm not training for a few shows here and there. I'm looking for a way to get my dog to stay motivated weekend after weekend, year after year. And even Bridget said that she absolutely could not show Hemi more than two days in a row. After two days in a row she had to go back and instill that belief in him that the food could come at anytime. She also said that there was no other way she could have gotten an OTCH on him. So yeah, if you can't get the dog to work consistently without constant promise of food, then use it! But I want to try to create a dog that can be happy working in the ring even if he doesn't think there's food coming at any time. I figure it's a lot easier to go back and get the dog to work for food later f what I'm doing doesn't work out than to do the opposite.

I mentioned that Conner was trained on jackpots. And he really did go through the first three years of his competition career with frequent showing thinking that food might appear at any time. But while Conner's not the brightest of dogs, even he began to realize after showing a hundred times or so that the food would never come in a real trial until the end of his run. Which resulted in a dog that started out flat and got higher and higher as the run progressed. When you're in utility and looking for a good score you can't afford to have a dog start out flat. 

So for those of you who decided this post was too long and skipped ahead, let me summarize  I do use food in training. And I have nothing against the idea in itself of the idea of getting the dog to work because it's expecting a reward, but I've seen it fall apart with enough dogs to want to try something different and see how it goes. So I am tryig to use food to let the dog know he was right in order to get the precision I am looking for, but not be his primary motivation for performing.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

Oh and another 'excuse' I've heard for not using food is that wild dogs don't reward each other with food, so humans shouldn't do it either. But as one of the videos we watched this morning said so well, we don't sniff our dog's butts when we greet them, so we can certainly be the human and they can be the dog and food is a good 'middle ground' communication tool to bridge the language gap.


----------



## BayBeams (Jan 3, 2010)

I am just curious as to what level of precision in competition are you able to achieve without the use of food and a precise marker?
Using a "good dog" to assist the dog in everyday household training is very different from developing the accuracy needed for competition. My dogs are all trained using food regardless of the level of skill needed but I have found that in order to develop the precision necessary for competition well timed and variably used food is essential.
One of my dogs, Beau, was very toy involved and I could use the reward of a toy or food interchangably. Frankly he worked and competed because he wanted to please but it was the accuracy that developed with the use of rewards, whether it was food or release of a toy.

All too often I see food given like a pez dispenser without regard for timing and variability. I agree that because of the failure when food is used incorrectly it is sometimes seen as a crutch instead of a valuable tool.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I have achieved a UD using food in training and everything else in between. I am not a UDX or OTCH kind of person, but my friends who are, have succeeded with food as well. And in another thread, my UD girl got placements(First thru Second) for her CDX and UD legs every time.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

And I can tell you from lots of experience that Cheese flavored Charley Bears are the best tasting treats for putting in your mouth. Cat treats not so much. They kind of burn... :bowl:


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

I still don't know how to do the multi quote thingy, so I'll just cut and paste and put your stuff (Jodie) in bold!

*Since this discussion is the result of the comment I made about Bridget's DVD, let me first explain a little about the DVD for those who haven't seen it. It is about teaching the dog a cue word (like "hungry" or "cookie") to associate with receiving a reward. Handler gives the cue word, and dog amps up effort to earn food.*

Hmmmm... the dog purposely amps up effort to earn food, or the dog experiences a conditioned emotional response? That sounds more to me like a CER. The dog isn't thinking, "Boy! If I work HARDER I'll get a cookie." Rather, at a much deeper level, the dog perks up b/c of the classically conditioned association between the phrase and the food that followed when the association was trained.

*But I want to try to create a dog that can be happy working in the ring even if he doesn't think there's food coming at any time.*

I wonder if that's possible if you ever train with food? Does your dog think it's *never* coming, or are you just expecting more behavior between food reinforcements?

*I mentioned that Conner was trained on jackpots. And he really did go through the first three years of his competition career with frequent showing thinking that food might appear at any time. But while Conner's not the brightest of dogs, even he began to realize after showing a hundred times or so that the food would never come in a real trial until the end of his run. Which resulted in a dog that started out flat and got higher and higher as the run progressed. When you're in utility and looking for a good score you can't afford to have a dog start out flat.*

I've never really used the jackpot principle in this way. I'll sometimes dole out several reinforcements for a particularly good response, but I've never done the "work 'til the end for a mega payoff" thing.

*I do use food in training. And I have nothing against the idea in itself of the idea of getting the dog to work because it's expecting a reward, but I've seen it fall apart with enough dogs to want to try something different and see how it goes.*

Why do you think it falls apart? You said Conor was on a jackpot system. Had you not used jackpots, do you think you'd have still had food-related issues? Do you think there are do-able changes people can make to prevent the breakdown you've seen? Or no, and that's why you're trying something else from the get-go?


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

BayBeams said:


> All too often I see food given like a pez dispenser without regard for timing and variability. I agree that because of the failure when food is used incorrectly it is sometimes seen as a crutch instead of a valuable tool.


Yes! Or, with total disregard for building and maintaining a relationship with the animal they're feeding. I try to make sure that petting, praise, etc. always accompanies food and as often as I can, I make sure I'm really making a big deal of getting my hands on my dog in ways he likes while delivering the treat.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

*I've never really used the jackpot principle in this way. I'll sometimes dole out several reinforcements for a particularly good response, but I've never done the "work 'til the end for a mega payoff" thing*.

Well I never do in training, in training everything is broken down and effort is rewarded, but there isn't that option in a trial. 

*Hmmmm... the dog purposely amps up effort to earn food, or the dog experiences a conditioned emotional response? That sounds more to me like a CER. The dog isn't thinking, "Boy! If I work HARDER I'll get a cookie." Rather, at a much deeper level, the dog perks up b/c of the classically conditioned association between the phrase and the food that followed when the association was trained.*

The way Bridget explains in the DVD is that she is specifically looking for an increase in effort when she is teaching the cue word. And yes over time that word will become conditioned to have a good response, but still she isn't just looking for a look of joy to appear on the dog's face,she wants to see an actual increase in the effort the dog gives. Something she can pick out and say "there! that's the effort I was looking for!" But even if it's just a conditioned response, if the food isn't repeatedly delivered I'm sure that response would diminish quickly. Which goes back to why she says she can't show Hemi more than two days in a row. 

*Why do you think it falls apart? You said Conor was on a jackpot system. Had you not used jackpots, do you think you'd have still had food-related issues? Do you think there are do-able changes people can make to prevent the breakdown you've seen? Or no, and that's why you're trying something else from the get-go? *

I would never answer no to that, there probably is a magic answer out there somewhere that prevent the breakdown. But I don't know what that magical answer is. So I could continue to fiddle around with the same system that I've been using for years and hope to find that answer, but since I finally have a dog that doesn't need as much external reinforcement I am seeing what I can get by going about a different way.

*I wonder if that's possible if you ever train with food? Does your dog think it's *never* coming, or are you just expecting more behavior between food reinforcements?*

I'm sure hope springs eternal for all dogs that enjoy food. But what I'm trying to build is a dog that would be able to work many sessions in a row without any food and not see a significant decrease in attitude.

We used to get really nice sized bonuses once or twice a year at work. Wow I really liked those bonuses. Then several years ago with hurricanes and then the downturn of the economy reducing sales tax income, those taxes went away. Sure I'll always have that faint glimmer of hope inside that one of those bonuses will return, however unlikely and no matter how long we go without one. But my desire to do my job hasn't diminished any because that's not really what I was working for in the first place. That's the idea I'm trying to build in my dog. Now take my actual paycheck away and heck yeah you'll see a decrease in my performance because that was my motivation to work. I don't work because I enjoy it, I work because I want money. That's the idea I'm trying to avoid in my dog. I want to make this my dog's hobby that he enjoys doing because it's fun, not his job that he does because he expects a paycheck.

Now as far as comparing human thoughts and canine thoughts and can dogs really think like that, I don't know, but I'm willing to try.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Loisiana said:


> And I can tell you from lots of experience that Cheese flavored Charley Bears are the best tasting treats for putting in your mouth. Cat treats not so much. They kind of burn... :bowl:


I find their cracker-like texture causes them to stick to my lips!

I give high marks to cut string cheese and hot dog for ease-of-spitability!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> For most well-adjusted dogs, if you drop a cookie on the floor and give the dog the choice of coming to you or eating the cookie, they'll choose the cookie. Knowing that, why should I deny my dog one of his most powerful reinforcers?
> 
> What's wrong with a dog working to get something out of it? Why should we expect him to not only be willing to play our game, but also be willing to be satisfied with what WE think a good reward should be?


I didn't read the other comments yet, but....

My first show obedience instructor did not want people to be using treats to "lure" the dogs or bribe them through the exercises. She wanted there to be no difference in the excitement level of the dog training whether the person had treats on their person or not. If they used treats, it was a jackpot reward in addition to the praise party. 

This was IDEAL for my dog that I was training at the time, because he refused to eat in public. I always like to mention that when I briefly trained at a different place where the instructor earnestly told me that my dog was not going to do the obedience stuff just for me and that it was absolutely necessary to use food to get him interested in training. And she gave me some hot dogs and liver treats to use with him, and was astounded when he spit them all up and refused to even look at them. And he did a pretty nice off leash heel and superfast front for a dog who had to do it just for me. <- it's pretty sad I'm still gloating about something that happened 10 years ago, I know, but that's about the first thing I think about when anyone tries saying that there is no other way of teaching something without opening a bag of treats. 

All that said, I do use treats in training with my current golden. Not to the extent that I could be accused of being a treat dispensing machine (though I probably was back when still teaching everything), but I believe in rewards and jackpots. 

Some of what I learned from my first instructor kinda stuck with me. I do think that before you hand treats out, you have to use other tools (leash, voice, body language) to help the dog understand what you want so you can reward it. And you also have parties and playtime as rewards. 

Case in point, I trained my guy last night. We did not use any treats. I had a grin on my face and would "tag" Jacks and take off running the instant he looked away and or moved out of heel position. The reward for him was I was "playing" with him, and of course he was anticipating me sending him to go find one of his toys. We do a few fun retrieves after training and just like when he was a puppy, he gets to eat my hair when he does a quick grab and return.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Megora said:


> And he did a pretty nice off leash heel and superfast front for a dog who had to do it just for me. <- it's pretty sad I'm still gloating about something that happened 10 years ago, I know, but that's about the first thing I think about when anyone tries saying that there is no other way of teaching something without opening a bag of treats.
> 
> All that said, I do use treats in training with my current golden. Not to the extent that I could be accused of being a treat dispensing machine (though I probably was back when still teaching everything), but I believe in rewards and jackpots.


I definitely agree that food is not always the answer for every dog. Some just aren't that food motivated. 

For clarity, I'm referring to dogs who *are* food motivated, but owners prefer not to use it. I'm trying to get into those people's heads as to why. I get what Jodi is saying - and now I'm wondering about the general perception of using food in training; like I said earlier... do people automatically think of the things that happen when you use food incorrectly as soon as you mention training with food...?

And above all else - no matter what reinforcers you use, you have to have a RELATIONSHIP with your dog. One of my favorite training quotes about food is from John Rogerson: "Don't confuse hunger for love!" 

I have no doubt that I could go out tomorrow and run a session w/o any food. I know my dog isn't working just BECAUSE I use treats. Now - what will happen after x years of showing in Open and Utility? I have no idea. I guess I hope I've made the work fun enough (through a long history of food, praise, petting, relationship-building, etc.) that the repeated lack of food while showing doesn't become a problem. I can't say for sure - we aren't there yet. But like I mentioned earlier, I specifically condition secondary reinforcers (usually by using food) to build them up to hopefully be powerful enough in the ring to withstand the stress of repeated showing.

Interesting topic indeed. Thanks to all for the input. Keep it coming!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I think food is like any other training tool, when it's used correctly, it's a good tool to add to your "tool box" but it shouldn't be the only one in it. 
I've probably seen food misused more than used correctly. Too many novice trainers use it as a lure rather than a reward, and then don't understand why their dog hasn't learned the behavior they were seeking. It becomes very difficult to wean a dog off the food when it's been a lure, and like Steph said with the e-collars I suspect people who are opposed to the use of food haven't seen it used correctly. 
I think the best of all worlds is when you use food, praise, and toys so that the dog doesn't know which is coming.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm not exactly sure what the original question was...so I'll give a few comments:

Using food 'correctly' definitely is a big piece of why it's hard to use food. 
---Variety. Various high level reinforcers. Colors that stand out on different surfaces. Different textures for renforcing in place, throwing in various conditions, rolling in specific scenarios. things that can be eaten quickly. Cutting treats small enough. Things that can be eaten quickly. Variety! 
---Placement of reinforcer. This is one of my nit-picky areas. I've become slightly obsessive about this and it's something we emphasize with all of my students, basic manners to various competition things. Sure....you can get good results without worrying about this... but it's an extra piec.e
---Rate of reinforcement: Especially early on. Getting lots of reinforcing repetitions and moving efficiently is really hard. And again....do you have to do this for success? no.
--- Using food to develop secondary reinforcers/toy play. And to increase the value of other food. 
--- Good 'mechanics'. Pulling out food only after the marker (or desired behavior has appeared... but then the twitching to the food is the marker...and I do. not. like. that.) Delivering the food efficiently. Not indicating the food is present before this. not luring/prompting.

But some of it comes back to "Good Training Practices" that could be done with any types of reinforcer. 
--- Have a training plan and advance gradually. By the time someone is interested in competition obedience, they do typically have a good plan for how to progress... but actually using it for training sessions rather than running through what the dog knows...seems to not be done as much.
--- Fluency: Developing fluency is an important part to long-term reliability. Some people enjoy working on this. Others (like me....) don't. But the stronger the behaviors, the greater the history of reinforcement, the more likely the behavior will maintain over time.
--- Appreciating the value ( beauty? Amazingness?) of behavior chains: But we need that fluency before putting together the chains. 

I do a lot of training with food (my dogs and student dogs), it's far more efficient than other reinforcers. But we also develop the ability to use lots of different food as well as play (with several toys!). And we condition secondaries. And a lot of them. We also use a specific marker. That said, we haven't done a lot yet and so in a lot of circles this probably doesn't mean much. 

The errors I most often make with food:
--Not using high enough value food. I often use kibble because I can. Using higher value reinforcers will help to get stronger behaviors. 
-- Not enough work with secondaries.
-- Not enough work on fluency.
-- Working with a stash of food in my hand rather than pulling each piece out of a pocket. I have not-so-great abilities to pick up only one piece and this is my very bad habit to compensate. And I have a slightly-obsessive wanting to get the food to the dog as soon after the marker as possible to decrease the amount and types of behavior happening from the click to the feeding, esp in early training or shaping sessions.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Which is why I favor hot dogs and string cheese, and look like I have chipmunk cheeks when training :



RedDogs said:


> -- Working with a stash of food in my hand rather than pulling each piece out of a pocket. I have not-so-great abilities to pick up only one piece and this is my very bad habit to compensate. .


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Eww... I could not touch the food with my dirty hands and put it in my mouth...and I really dislike most of the stuff I use for training.... and I just do NOT feed from my mouth. The exception being if I'm eating a meal. But not in a training context. Ewww. 

But I also don't want my dog watching my face because food might appear...for whatever reason that bothers me (too much like luring? Who knows. I know it's silly.).


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Red Dogs - I can't put food in my mouth because of a hyperactive gag reflex. X_X

My instructor in 09 wanted me to put the treats in my mouth for the watch exercises (we'd start class with 15 minutes of watch work), but I ABSOLUTELY couldn't. Our teacher wanted us to get the treats out of our hands, because the dogs otherwise learn to watch the hands instead of our faces. And I kinda agree that when you are rewarding a "good watch" the problem is that if you are rewarding from your hands, the dog gets rewarded when he's looking away from you. If you are rewarding from your mouth, the reward happens when your dog is still maintaining a watch. 

That's about where I used "secondary" rewards (parise + "good watch" + Yes word) to mark the good behavior before treating. He does have a solid watch, so it didn't hurt anything......


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Food in the mouth makes for really really nice fronts. They come in right between your toes, not looking at either hand, looking right up at your face. Also good on retrieves like dumbell, gloves, and articles.
I can spit food at him pretty reliably!
But remember, I said food is a sometimes reward. Just as often he gets praise, and if I have a toy tucked into the back of my pants waistband or the pocket of my hoodie, sometimes a toy.


----------



## boomers_dawn (Sep 20, 2009)

I use food. Not really the expert but I think since all dogs are different I would tailor the training to the dog. Some need to get pumped up with toys and games, some (like mine) need to calm down. I would never use tug toys or encourage them to jump on me like I see other people use as rewards.

I was thinling about work too. I wouldn't go there anymore if they didn't pay me. But they don't have to put $$ in my hand every time I do something. As long as I know its coming every 2 weeks I do my job. I guess this would be the ideal mindset for my dogs to achieve. 

I have been made fun of for using too much food, then on the other hand, been told by others to get better treats. Hopefully we're having fun, to me that's the most important motivator.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I like to eat hotdogs and I like to eat string cheese, but having either of them just sitting in my mouth grosses me out and I start gagging. I don't mind the Charley Bears sitting in my mouth.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I also kiss his nose, and there's no telling WHERE that's been :yuck: !



RedDogs said:


> Eww... I could not touch the food with my dirty hands and put it in my mouth...and I really dislike most of the stuff I use for training.... and I just do NOT feed from my mouth. The exception being if I'm eating a meal. But not in a training context. Ewww.
> 
> But I also don't want my dog watching my face because food might appear...for whatever reason that bothers me (too much like luring? Who knows. I know it's silly.).


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Let me give some examples of how I am currently using food in training. I will use it to reinforce proper position. So I'll bring a treat down to him when he's in the correct position in heeling, or either spit or lower a treat to him in front, bring a treat down to my hip on a finish. If I want to reinforce the idea of going back instead of forward I'll toss a treat behind him. I'll also use it for attention purposes. When I leave my dog on a recall I'll sometimes toss a treat while I'm walking away and release him to the treat in order to encourage him to watch what I might do when my back is to him. On an exam I'll toss a treat and release him so that he's more preoccupied with watching me and what I might do than the cool person petting him.

What I'm trying to get away from is releasing the dog and then giving him his treat in order to keep him happy and keep him working. The food is really more about teaching what is right than about rewarding effort. That actually sounds strange even to me because that is pretty much the exact opposite of how I trained previously. Before if my dog was trying hard I wanted to reward that effort in food to motivate him to keep giving me that effort. The difference now is while I definately want to reward that effort still, I don't want to do it with food.

So it's clear in my mind that I'm using food for a different purpose than before. The question is does it make a difference to the dog? I have no idea. I'm pretty much just experimenting and seeing how it goes. I don't think the idea of jackpotting or having a dog work for food is "wrong," I'm just trying something different to see how it works.

I can tell you the exact day I decided I was done with jackpotting. It was a Saturday last July. I have mentioned many times the problems I have had with Conner and his stays, but I don't think I've ever talked about the elaborate jackpotting system I had in place to fix them. It was really very similar to what I saw in Bridget's DVD. He had cue word that was associated with a very special treat in a special container that he only could get by holding a sit stay. I would show him his reward before we went in the ring. I even started leaving it in view so he could look at it while he was in the sit. As I was setting him up I whispered his cue word to him to remind him that he needed to sit in order to earn that special reward. And it worked. He would hold his sit stay. Problem was it only worked for a trial or two, then he would start going back down if I didn't have a match that I could put him in. I knew that, and it sucked, but one or two sits were better than no sits so I continued with the program. Until that Saturday in July he went down on his sit even though we had a match the night before. That was the final straw, I said I was done with bribery, and he never received a single piece of food again for a sit stay, in trainng, matches, or trials. None. And amazingly, that dog that couldn't hold a stay for more than a trial or two suddenly went eleven trials in a row holding his sit. A few months after I stopped using any food on stays I decided to only use food in training how I explained above...to reinforce position and attention, but not as a reward for working. And I liked the results I saw in the ring. He seemed less anxious, and seemed to enjoy working more. Not because he was waiting to see what he was going to get out of it, but because we were having fun together. He soon picked up an open win. Then a utility win. And I'm sure happy with that.

Now I really haven't done a lot of showing since I've changed my methods, so I don't know how it will hold up long-term. And if it doesn't work out, I'm not going to hang my head to admit I was wrong, because I'm not saying I'm right. But it's something I'm trying out.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Sally's Mom said:


> My second golden was extremely motivated by toys... we trained with toys to reinforce her, but I was also a "reinforcer"(we trained her to jump on people as a reinforcement) since you can't use toys in the ring. She ultimately got a UD(I also used food, but toys really were her thing). For my first golden, it was primarily praise. Now, goldens. 3-6 have all been clicker trained and with food. The ones I have spent a lot of time with are very pretty heelers. To make it work, you have to use variable reinforcement. I have to say after attending a non AKC sanctioned match today where prong collars and "pops" are the norm, I am not unhappy with how I train my dogs today.


I completely agree with this post- from the crossing over experience to the pretty heeling with clicker training to being really dismayed at times to see the over-the-top corrections at matches. I also agree with Quiz as the OP in her thinking/ reasoning. The science behind operant conditioning is very sound, and plays out in real life with dogs who are very creative in offering correct behaviors. I have written about this many times, so I will resist repeating over and over the ideas i've written out before on other threads. Yet, I have to laugh when positive training gets put down as "cookie pushing" which is no more true than saying aversive training is beating your dog. Almost everyone I know in real life who uses aversives as a mainstay has lost tempers with dogs; a silver lining of positive training is that you never get in that mental space- it is clear cut. The dog should experience training as fair and rewarding whatever methods are used. However, dogs who slink to front in fear in the competition ring, and get crazy-harsh corrections while on flexi leads during practice are so common around my area that turns me off, so I am a bit biased toward methods that are less open to interpretation about how much punishment/correction is too much. A man with a border collie was so harsh that he was excused from the match. If he was like that in public, what does that dog go through at home? They were working on UD, but the dog fled from the ring twice. That dog hated what she was doing. I'd rather err on the other side. However, that is not why the science behind positive training methods persuades me- just bc a few people are too harsh with corrections. It is the pleasure so many dogs take in learning that way that convinces me these methods are one excellent approach among others.


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Very interesting thread. I use Charlie Bears only. I give him a couple before we get ready to warm up. If I use them in training I use it as reminders.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Titan1 said:


> Very interesting thread. I use Charlie Bears only. I give him a couple before we get ready to warm up. If I use them in training I use it as reminders.


 
Michelle, I'd love it if you'd stick in what you do more often in our training threads. You've had more success in the competitive obedience world than anyone else on the forum. Heck you've had more success than 99.5% of anyone who's ever tried obedience! I always like to know what's actually been proven to work rather than floundering around in theory.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@jackpots.... I think the only problem that I've encountered with them is the dog knowing that he's going to get treats outside the ring. Or back by my chair at class. 

So when I release him from the downstay or we do the finish and I snap the leash on him and start heading out of the ring, he's up and pulling me back to the training bag. 

That is a case where my dog KNOWS I do not have treats on me and I'm not feeding him from my mouth or pocket. It doesn't hurt his enthusiasm during the working part, so definitely jackpots WORK. 

But the pulling part... that's not exactly a pretty sight for an obedience dog. :doh:


----------



## wakemup (Feb 6, 2011)

I agree with FQ. Tools such as food rewards and remote trainers are just that- Traning tools. Not a substitute for training. Any of them can be used badly, but that is due to the trainer, not the tool.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

So sorry my internet has been down....

I am not opposed to food in training, but I do not want my dog's motivation to work to come from food hence I am always being careful and trying to limit. It means I do less repetition, which honestly, I think it better for my dog anyway (boredom).

I will use food if I feel like I need repetition for something, to initially teach a behavior, or for tricks. However, I enjoy having my dog work for play and interaction. It is harder but more rewarding, IMO. I may be alone in this--but there is just a different feeling having your dog heads up heeling while you are talking and playing with him/her vs one that is heads up heeling waiting for a click for food. Different mentality.

I am on an obedience list and the fallout with food is mentioned frequently and how people can spot a clicker trained dog who has had tons of cookies in the ring because of their attitude and lack of treats in the ring--it's a two-sided coin. You do see fallout for misuse of food just as you do for misuse of corrections.

Anyway, I guess I avoid food because I want to find ways to make the work and training inherently fun and because I want to have a different connection with my dog.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Also...

I think people get too carried away with the science of it all. I think it is important to understand, but also a simplistic way of viewing things. I think the mind is far more complex than that.


----------



## wakemup (Feb 6, 2011)

GoldenSail said:


> So sorry my internet has been down....
> 
> I am not opposed to food in training, but I do not want my dog's motivation to work to come from food hence I am always being careful and trying to limit. It means I do less repetition, which honestly, I think it better for my dog anyway (boredom).
> 
> ...


I hear you there. It is always the most fun when the motivator is "me". What silly game might suddenly happen in response to a particularly brilliant behavior from the dog. We use the tools to paint the picture, but the partnership and energy of the relationship, that is what keeps me going.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Almost everyone I know in real life who uses aversives as a mainstay has lost tempers with dogs;


I was trying to make up my mind whether I should comment on this since the thread is about food use. Using so-called aversives like leash corrections or sharp voice corrections does not mean that the owner is more likely to take their anger out on the dog or lose it. 

I use leash and verbal corrections, but I would never hurt my dog and I know his limits. So that means that I know the level of correction that works with him but will not be too much for him to handle. And if he's having a "neurotic full moon day" I again adjust my handling. 

Most people that I've seen training with at least some leash corrections, or prong collars, or whatever are the same way. And their dogs are confident and enjoy training. 

About the only dog I've seen shaking and terrified at class is a papillion type dog. That would be in the line up for stays. I believe that's actually more seperation anxiety though because the owner is doing out of sight stays with him/her. 

Now I have no doubts that there are untrained people abusing the leash corrections and other "aversives" and breaking their dogs. I saw such a thing at the grocery store where somebody was yanking his terrier around while telling him heel. I just about bit my tongue off and fell over my feet getting away rather than stop and tell this guy what he was doing wrong. In retrospect, I think I should have stopped and said something.


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> Michelle, I'd love it if you'd stick in what you do more often in our training threads. You've had more success in the competitive obedience world than anyone else on the forum. Heck you've had more success than 99.5% of anyone who's ever tried obedience! I always like to know what's actually been proven to work rather than floundering around in theory.


I don't because of a couple reasons really..One is I don't know everything and only know what works for us and what I see in others and I don't want to come across as arrogant or a know it all.. and all that theory scares the heck out of me! ROFL.. I have no interest in reading all the books out there and just watch people train and see what works and doesn't and of course like I have said before I have Audrey. She has a very no nonsense approach and has worked for mutiple dogs and breeds.
I don't want to offend anyone so I just read what people say and nod my head alot....


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Titan1 said:


> . and all that theory scares the heck out of me! ROFL..


Don't let it scare you! Share!


----------



## BayBeams (Jan 3, 2010)

Titan1 said:


> I don't because of a couple reasons really..One is I don't know everything and only know what works for us and what I see in others and I don't want to come across as arrogant or a know it all.. and all that theory scares the heck out of me! ROFL.. I have no interest in reading all the books out there and just watch people train and see what works and doesn't and of course like I have said before I have Audrey. She has a very no nonsense approach and has worked for mutiple dogs and breeds.
> I don't want to offend anyone so I just read what people say and nod my head alot....


Michelle, you are very wise...!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> One is I don't know everything and only know what works for us and what I see in others and I don't want to come across as arrogant or a know it all..


But if it works for you, it might be helpful to other people... right? Especially when people ask questions about what they are doing, etc...  

Yeah, it's hard to control how you "sound" online. I hate sounding arrogant when I'm not really, and it's partly why I rewrite or revise my posts so much. If you met me in person, I'm a very soft spoken person who would not really be as direct and bossy sounding as I might online. Sorry if it comes across that way. X_x

Case in point, I was training with somebody who was asking for feedback and one thing I had to tell him was his wallet or keys in his cargo pants pocket was hitting his dog in the face and ruining the heel position. So his dog was heeling wide. 

I did tell him that I thought he needed to empty his pocket or wear different pants that don't have a pocket at the dog's head level. Er, but I hemmed and hawed quite a bit so I doubt he got the point of what I was trying to say. >.<


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

I don't believe in withholding food and jackpotting. If you can do that great. I want my dogs head on me in the ring and not worried what is outside. I see a lot of dogs heading for the opening between exercises wanting to get their food. 
I treat fronts off and on and never use anything more that a Charlie because then he is more concerned about the treats than where he is.
I do give him treats at other times during a dog show but it is for reason and timing. I do not give him a treat as soon as we get back to the crate but after a little while I will give him a couple..
We play a little tug with the leash before we go in and have from day one. The leash is always with us.


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Megora said:


> But if it works for you, it might be helpful to other people... right? Especially when people ask questions about what they are doing, etc...
> 
> Yeah, it's hard to avoid how you "sound" to avoid online. I hate sounding arrogant when I'm not really, and it's partly why I rewrite or revise my posts so much. If you met me in person, I'm a very soft spoken person who would not really be as direct and bossy sounding as I might online. Sorry if it comes across that way. X_x
> 
> ...


I hear you! I am the same way and I think the others that have met me would agree. I sure hope so anyway! LOL!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Yeah, it's hard to avoid how you "sound" to avoid online.


Ohw. I also rewrite and revise my posts a lot because my fingers apparently often get stuck in a repetitive rut while my brain is two sentences ahead. *bemused*


----------



## Mighty Casey and Samson's Mom (Jul 16, 2008)

I am preparing for my first foray into the utility ring (this coming weekend). I have really changed my use of food as reward in recent months and it has resulted in Casey's working/driving/improved attitude. I do hope that it will translate into the ring with no food...but I'm not sure at the moment. I use random reinforcement, but for his weak areas (fast pace, about turns, go outs) I reward more frequently. His last fun match (with only two treats used) was very nice. In the past I have always tried to fade the food big time close to trials, and it seemed to have the opposite effect of what I hoped...a dog who KNEW no food was forthcoming at trials and entered the ring in a rather bored state. Now I am entering the (practice) ring with a dog who forges on the forward signal and who is much more "There" for me for the whole routine. I think I am using food much more stategically than I used to and I hope that it pays off in our trials this weekend.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

BayBeams said:


> I am just curious as to what level of precision in competition are you able to achieve without the use of food and a precise marker?


I dunno, when competitive obedience first entered the playing field it seems using food was taboo. Reading Terri Arnold's books she certainly was discouraged when she started to use food at all--and yet I still think they had precision. But yes, food is easier.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't think the level of precision was as high 20 years ago as it is today (that's just what I've been told, I was in fourth grade then :uhoh.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> For clarity, I'm referring to dogs who *are* food motivated, but owners prefer not to use it. I'm trying to get into those people's heads as to why. I get what Jodi is saying - and now I'm wondering about the general perception of using food in training; like I said earlier... do people automatically think of the things that happen when you use food incorrectly as soon as you mention training with food...?


I agree with a lot Jodie has said. I am probably one of those people that confuses you--I try to avoid using food when I can. For me, it is not so much the possible fall out or misuse (which does concern me, I hear lots of accomplished trainers gripe over performances falling apart in the long run); it is the fact that I want my dog to work for enjoyment not food. And I don't need food to make my dog who is already pretty biddable like working. 

Now what boggles my mind is you guys who spend time trying to reinforce your secondary reinforcers such as praise and play with food. That I don't understand. To each his own, but I must admit I don't understand why you need food to strengthen those reinforcers. My dog lives for attention, even more so than food some days. And I feel that using food to strengthen praise/petting/play might actually decrease the value of those things because the dog learns to expect food with them, rather than learn to enjoy them as they stand alone. In fact, I have had personal experience with a dog who would physically jerk away if you reached out to pet him instead of give him a treat. Granted, food probably was misused, but I do not think you could condition the dog to like praise by associating it with food. I think you would get him to tolerate it...but not like it. He would ultimately let you pet him in hopes of food.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

what keeps coming to my mind in reading thru these posts is how different every dog is. Also want to reiterate that the thread refers specifically to competitive obedience. 
Tito likes toys/praise/food in that order for rewards. It's close between the 3 of them, but given a choice, he's a toy guy. He likes food, and I use high value treats, but if I threw a toy and threw a piece of high value food he'd go for the toy every time. If I was standing there praising him and loving him up, making a fuss over him, and threw a toy, he'd go for the toy, but if I threw a piece of food he'd ignore it and continue the love fest. 
I think it's something interesting to try with your dogs and see how they react, might influence your training.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Tito likes toys/praise/food in that order for rewards. It's close between the 3 of them, but given a choice, he's a toy guy. He likes food, and I use high value treats, but if I threw a toy and threw a piece of high value food he'd go for the toy every time. If I was standing there praising him and loving him up, making a fuss over him, and threw a toy, he'd go for the toy, but if I threw a piece of food he'd ignore it and continue the love fest.


Hmmm.... well, I know that Jacks would not ignore a thrown piece of food. If it's thrown and something good (food or toy), he's off galloping. 

And even with the jump training, he's lunging for the jump even before I throw the treat because he anticipates the treat landing on the other side. <- And I guess this goes back to treat-games (aka the magic floor) we always played with him at home. 

We have a divider between our kitchen and family room, and we would toss a treat from the kitchen and into the family room. He wouldn't see where it would land so of course it taught him to use his nose. 

This worked for a while until he started anticipating us tossing the treat into the family room and he would go running into the family room and stand there watching the floor for the treat to drop. It would always look like he's waiting for the treat to sprout from the rug. 

*** I should point out though that even high value treats do not beat instinct. Even if I have a treat in my hand, there are times when Jacks will take off running after a thrown dumbbell that does not belong to him. 

That's why I definitely feel that only using treats and expecting your dog to automatically make the right decisions so you can reward them isn't enough.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Flip's first choice of reward would be the cat. I'm really sorry I ever got a cat.

I always said that my cat was the feline version of Flip. And last night I found her doing the ultimate Flip impression - on my kitchen table, chewing on a leather article!


----------



## Maxs Mom (Mar 22, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> Flip's first choice of reward would be the cat. I'm really sorry I ever got a cat.
> 
> I always said that my cat was the feline version of Flip. And last night I found her doing the ultimate Flip impression - on my kitchen table, chewing on a leather article!


I am sorry Jodie, you crack me up. :roflmao:

I like the comment about Flips first choice reward. I have these images of Flip in my head, and he just makes me laugh. I know I am sure it is very frustrating from time to time, but I love your comments, and stories. You will have a lot of successes with him.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Well Jodie - you knew there was a reason you got the cat LOL Good distraction training though!

Hopefully it was one of the articles that you mentioned were already somewhat 'worn in' and ready for replacement!



Loisiana said:


> Flip's first choice of reward would be the cat. I'm really sorry I ever got a cat.
> 
> I always said that my cat was the feline version of Flip. And last night I found her doing the ultimate Flip impression - on my kitchen table, chewing on a leather article!


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

My dogs all differ in what they work for

Casey works for the food but mostly the one on one time - and I suspect to prevent the others from having 'his' time

Faelan works to please; attention, food, play etc - as long as he is earning his smiles and time with me, he's a happy camper.

Towhee works for the food! Okay, she also enjoys working for the sake of getting things right and you can see her setting her mind to figuring things out, but basically it is to earn her tidbits and to figure out how to earn the next treat.

My King worked to work, while Rowdy would turn himself inside out to please me.

I absolutely use food with all of my dogs, but some of them have a higher priority reward than food.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sunrise, I think my guy is a combination of all of your dogs....  

I had him in a down stay at class, and he was doing fine and looking relaxed and happy until somebody brought a little springer puppy in to visit everyone. That was the best and WORST distraction proofing ever. 

Because I knew that if I bent down to touch the ADORABLE puppy, Jacks would have been up and racing in to get between me and the interloper. As it was just me standing and smiling at the puppy, I could see Jacks head going all the way up and him tensing up like he was ready to lunge out of the stay. <- And that further reminds me...

The best way to get Jacks in the mood to train was not be rattling a bag of treats or squeaking a toy. When he was a puppy, all I had to do was take my older golden for a quick heeling pattern and recall _before_ training Jacks. 

Then I didn't even need treats to get Jacks into training mode. 

And it worked the other way too for that matter.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> what keeps coming to my mind in reading thru these posts is how different every dog is.


I agree with you here. I do believe in using treats to train, but to be honest, I can't use them much with Danny because he gets so focused on the treats he can't think about anything else. So I use them to reward the behavior the first time and then I have to put them away until we have completed whatever exercise we are working on. He is also toy motivated, so I can use a toy instead of a treat with him and he's almost (but not quite) as happy.

Jasper, on the other hand, likes his treats, but he doesn't get obsessed over them the way that Danny does. Plus he's softer and a slower thinker than Danny, so he needs a lot more reinforcing than Danny does.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

GoldenSail said:


> it is the fact that I want my dog to work for enjoyment not food. And I don't need food to make my dog who is already pretty biddable like working.


I agree that's important. I don't think Quiz works just because there's often food involved. I feel confident that he's enjoying what we're doing. But I think that enjoyment comes, and is strengthened by a lot of things, including the use of food.



GoldenSail said:


> Now what boggles my mind is you guys who spend time trying to reinforce your secondary reinforcers such as praise and play with food. That I don't understand. To each his own, but I must admit I don't understand why you need food to strengthen those reinforcers. My dog lives for attention, even more so than food some days.


I guess this just comes from a strong belief in the science of learning theory. I believe the science that says that there are really only a handful of primary reinforcers - of which, praise and play are not. Now, do I worry that my praise and play are meaningless unless I make an active effort to condition them? No, not really. The nice thing about dogs is that they are social beings that do seek out companionship, etc., etc. The thing is, conditioning secondary reinforcers is second nature for me. I do it w/o thinking about it. I almost always have my hands on my dog or do something other than *just* dispense food. No mater what we're doing operantly, Pavlov is always on our shoulder!



GoldenSail said:


> And I feel that using food to strengthen praise/petting/play might actually decrease the value of those things because the dog learns to expect food with them, rather than learn to enjoy them as they stand alone. In fact, I have had personal experience with a dog who would physically jerk away if you reached out to pet him instead of give him a treat. Granted, food probably was misused, but I do not think you could condition the dog to like praise by associating it with food. I think you would get him to tolerate it...but not like it. He would ultimately let you pet him in hopes of food.


Yes! The back-away, don't touch me/feed me! dogs drive me nuts, but I absolutely believe that is the fallout from mis-use of food. That's what you get when the handler is little more than a Pez Dispenser... and in my experience, herding breeds are a bit more prone to this than other breeds, but they all can do it.

As for conditioning the jerk-away dog to like petting, I think you could totally do it. You'd get to the tolerate it point first, but if you stuck with it, you'd change the association in the dog's mind.


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

This has been a very interesting thread to read, I am with the group who uses food. I also don't understand why you would not use food with a dog who is food motivated, so it is interesting to listen to people.

As far as what motivates my dogs, it certainly varies. Mira is motivated by everything, what she likes more depends on what we are doing. Playing tug is probably the most motivating thing for Mira. When we spent short period practicing obedience for the National I learned that she really likes it when I spit food as a reward. Not sure why, but its particularly exciting for her! It is certainly a skill I have had to practice!


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

> The thing is, conditioning secondary reinforcers is second nature for me. I do it w/o thinking about it. I almost always have my hands on my dog or do something other than *just* dispense food. No mater what we're doing operantly, Pavlov is always on our shoulder!


OK, so I just realized I contradicted myself here. I'm pretty sure earlier I said I make an effort to condition my secondary reinforcers, and just now I said I do it w/o thinking... so is that really much of an effort? I dunno... 

I do make a conscious effort to condition silly reinforcers, like when you hear me say "Exxxxxxcelllenttttt" when we're training or other silly things like that. I really did pair that with food over many repetitions b/c I didn't expect him to buy into it having as much value on its own.

Bottom line, I guess, is that I *like* the science of learning theory, so I tend to follow it probably more than is necessary. One time I was at dinner sitting next to Bob Bailey. We'd spend the day training chickens, a task which requires excellent timing of reinforcers and frankly, the birds couldn't care less if you coo, "What a goooood chicken!" at them while petting them. They just want a well timed, tangible reinforcer. Anyway, I asked him why we, as trainers, were able to get away with such sloppy training (poorly timed reinforcers, not always perfectly clear cues, etc.) with dogs. His answer was that dogs have the ability to form relationships with humans.

So yes, I really do see that relationship-oriented rewards have value, and I utilize that all the time. I just can't shake the notion that judicious application of science can't help but aid in achieving the desired results.


----------



## lgnutah (Feb 26, 2007)

I can't imagine training Brooks without food. I know he loves me, but he just wouldn't get trained if I only used positive strokes, words etc as his reward


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I was thinking about this and... I guess it depends on how you look at it. Dogs are very easy to train without food. You do this with quick training rounds and repetitions... and making things fun.

It's sorta like you playing with your golden with a tennis ball. You don't need to use food to get your dog to come running back to you. His reward is you scratching his face and shoulders and praising him for being the greatest thing while he shows off his prize right in front of you. It's easy if you know what works as a non-food reward for your dog and if you are consistent. 

Furthermore, if you are training a puppy it is totally easy to teach come if you consistently drop into a playbow and give the "come and get me" signal to the puppy. Then when the puppy comes running to eat your hair you clearly tell it "good come!" 

Watch can be taught without food very early on - if you go nuts and praise a "good watch" every time the puppy looks up at you. If you are consistent, the puppy make the connection between the word and the action. <- Similar to teaching "paw" (you take the paw and say good paw, and repeat, same thing with the next step which is "the other one" cue to the dog to offer the other paw to shake). 

^ The above type repetitive and exhaustive training work needs to be done with your puppy very early if you want a dog who has a finely honed play/praise-responsive drive. If that makes sense? 

My guy's swing (another example) was taught when he was just a munchkin. I decided to teach it early because it is so hard to train an older dog to have the same over-the-top spring. I did not use treats until much later when I was training my guy to jump further back behind me and come up straight in heel position. 

I do think that treats are great for cleaning up and finishing everything. 
Especially since it is very easy to train without food at home (the whole dropping down and letting the pups eat your hair as a reward for an enthusiastic charging come) as opposed to doing the same thing in public (dropping down in a playbow? I'm not doing that in public.  ).

And the other thing that I totally believe - treats most definitely have a place in training. The bonus of the treat is that it is an excellent training aid, especially for those flighty dogs who may get overwhelmed in public. I think it goes back to dogs learning faster if they are constantly getting rewarded for good behaviors. 

If those treats make your dog present those good behaviors more often than without, _use them_. You can always wean off to a jackpot later on.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

I have several dogs who don't inherently enjoy interaction with people (one super shy and anti-social and one with brain damage and isn't really social), my one dog who does... only enjoys petting and touching games when he's slightly anxious or if we're relaxing at home. Most of the dogs I work with...it's not a high value reinforcer.

Would a dog who brings back his ball be doing so to get you to throw it again? With my two who will play fetch games, the petting would almost be punishing initially...but soon they would LOVE it because it's followed by a ball throw.

We never ever ever do " Good xbehavior"... when my dog hears the behavior cue they should then move to the action. If my dog is stting and hears "good sit" he pushes his back end further to the ground. My understanding is that cues become mroe salient if they are given just before a behavior happens?

This is great stuff and it's coming up on a billion lists this week. I'm glad its being discussed.

Any ideas of a behavior to train without food? (and with as few of my conditioned secondaries as possible!)


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> Any ideas of a behavior to train without food? (and with as few of my conditioned secondaries as possible!)


Lots, if you have the right dog or training for it. I taught Scout a reliable recall as a puppy without food by utilizing play (hide and seek, I always hid) and the fact that puppies are more attached to you. I also taught her sit. It's not as easy as using food, because you can pull it out and train whenever and you don't get repetition. I waited for moments when she wanted me--when she came up looking for attention as a puppy I would gently mold her into a sit and praise the heck out of her. Tell her she was a clever girl. She loved that!

Tug is easy because it is self-reinforcing for a lot of dogs. Scout will tug of my socks, pull a zipper on my jacket, pull of my jacket, open doors just because the task is inherently fun for her. Retrieve is the same for some dogs--Scout loves to bring me things. 

While I do use food when initially teaching a behavior I distinguish it pretty quickly. For example, I am teaching go-outs with a pvc box. At the very first stages I used food to teach her to go in the box--just to give her the idea and repetition. Once she was doing good, I stopped using food. Instead, I send her once and if it is good I run out and praise/pet her. Tell her how clever she is just to see that butt wiggle. Then we stop. I don't do things over and over again even though the behavior is not finished (still using a box and haven't worked up to ring length yet). My girl does not like repetition and I do believe less is more anyway.

I honestly would love to see this science that says pairing a primary reinforcer strengthens a secondary--I am skeptical. I think in some dogs it can make the secondary less valuable because the primary is already much better. Peer reviewed articles anyone? I also think we are at a huge advantage over other breeds because goldens are a people oriented breed, so we can get away with using more food and being sloppier than other breeds (or species) because of that.

And there are definitely dogs that are not that into people--getting praise and play. I do think that it is very easy to create that dog by using lots of food, even if you are hiding it and doing variable reinforcement. I knew I did not want that to happen to mine so since she was a puppy I always tried to find things to teach her that emphasized our relationship and fun rather than getting a cookie.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

I was having an email 'conversation' with a trainer who had paid for a six week 'how to train dogs' course that involved correction based methods and the only reward was a scratch on the chest once in a while - otherwise the dog learned by avoiding corrections and watching for cues because they also didn't use a lot of verbal commands (just haul up on the leash etc.. and the dog learns to follow or his head will fall off!).

Anyway I was saying to her that it might work to get a basic trained dog, but with those methods alone, she could not get her dog to where a competitive obedeince dog would be in the ring - she would not have the accuracy in her dog or the happy working attitude. Attitude isn't 'needed' but it's nice to see over the old old school dogs that walk beside the handler with their head down, going through the motions, pause and think before sitting....

She insisted that yes, she could, after all she was a certified obedience instructor (paid for those letters) so her dog was obedient and so could go in and win. Food wasn't needed and so on. Tried to explain that in the ring there is no food and the dogs still do work, blah blah blah, she had a 'canned' answer for it all.

Finally sent her a you tube video of a dog working with his head and tail up, strutting proudly and having a great time, exactly in place, great fronts and halts and the whole nine yards. Just said 'THIS is the type of obedience I'm talking about'. 

She never responded and I've never heard boo again. Sadly I'm sure she's still telling people to drag their dogs up and over tables and run them into trees and walls or hang them till they sit all in the name of not using food.

Personally I couldn't see NOT using something that motivated the dog and got them up and working, in some context anyway. Bender had a thing for plungers, so we often took one to work on things as a reward (clean and unused of course).


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I was having an email 'conversation' with a trainer who had paid for a six week 'how to train dogs' course that involved correction based methods and the only reward was a scratch on the chest once in a while - otherwise the dog learned by avoiding corrections and watching for cues because they also didn't use a lot of verbal commands (just haul up on the leash etc.. and the dog learns to follow or his head will fall off!).


Holy cwud.  

I'm thinking that sounds like somebody who went to my first instructor, and got it totally wrong. 

Our first instructor had us teach sits by the verbal command + 12 o clock leash tug + down touch on the butt. This was gently done and iinstantly rewarded with praise and word reinforcement (good sit). 

Working with Jacks when he was a little marshmallow, I used the above method + treats ('d have the treat tucked in the leash hand and give the treat as I gave the praise and word reinforcement). 

It taught perfectly straight sits in heel position and by the time he was in puppy class he was doing instant straight sits on command even without seeing the treat. No luring necessary. And even though I initially used the upwards tug and the left hand touch to place my guy into sits, he enjoys training. <- Actually a little too much (if somebody has advice for calming a hyped up insane dog after a training session, I'm all ears). 

The above does not mean grabbing the leash and hanging the dog into a sit and limiting rewards and communication. Yuck.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> Lots, if you have the right dog or training for it.


My dog already has a ton of behaviors... I'm having trouble coming up with something that's measurable different (as in...won't be influenced by other things he already knows).

Will look up the articles about primaries and secondaries shortly I think I have them!


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Bender said:


> I was having an email 'conversation' with a trainer who had paid for a six week 'how to train dogs' course that involved correction based methods and the only reward was a scratch on the chest once in a while - otherwise the dog learned by avoiding corrections and watching for cues because they also didn't use a lot of verbal commands (just haul up on the leash etc.. and the dog learns to follow or his head will fall off!).
> 
> Anyway I was saying to her that it might work to get a basic trained dog, but with those methods alone, she could not get her dog to where a competitive obedeince dog would be in the ring - she would not have the accuracy in her dog or the happy working attitude. Attitude isn't 'needed' but it's nice to see over the old old school dogs that walk beside the handler with their head down, going through the motions, pause and think before sitting....
> 
> ...


Yes, but you can train positively without using food or at least using very minimal food. I do it all the time  Food is just often easier...


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> My dog already has a ton of behaviors... I'm having trouble coming up with something that's measurable different (as in...won't be influenced by other things he already knows).
> 
> Will look up the articles about primaries and secondaries shortly I think I have them!


Oh gotcha--so you are wanting to try to train something your dog doesn't already know using secondary reinforcers? Does he know 'get your tail'? Scout was taught that using praise and play--very self-rewarding. I just teased her with her tail and caught it on cue. Might think of things he enjoys and how to shape them into a behavior sans food. I once got Scout to repeat shaking her leg funny just by laughing at her  I also did some go-out training with a target. No food, just the target. She was happy as could be to run out there and pick up the target and play.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Also to add since this is a topic I am very interested in--

Field training (I know the thread is really for obedience) is largely done without the use of food and toys. And yet, you still find very happy, very well trained dogs in this venue because the work is inherently fun for them. Granted, this isn't the case with all dogs (I've unfortunately seen my share of dogs kicked and shocked), but it is with biddable dogs and good trainers.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm in Judie Howards "whateverworks" camp. Whatever I think works best for us is what I want to use. I figure if I'm getting the results I want then why change what I'm doing? And if I'm not getting the results I want, I need to try something different. So far I'm quite happy with the results I've gotten from Flip by using food to initially train behaviors and occasionally reinforce precise position. If that doesn't hold up long term for me then I'll look into other ideas. If I had a dog I couldn't motivate to work without the promise of a food reward but he did work well with it, then I'd use the jackpot. Whatever works.

Or like Connie Cleveland says, if you've been driving awhile and not getting any miles behind you, it's time to find a new route. But if you like the route you're on, keep driving!


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Behaviors: We already have a tug/retrieve/target/go out with food... that would impact those types of behaviors. Tail holding is something I will not be teaching him due to the higher than average probability of it becoming a compulsive behavior for this dog. I'm not trying to be difficult! I just want to keep this little test as 'clean' as possible. 

Field etc/ According to something Ken Ramirez said... it's hard to distinguish between high levels of well done R+ and R- in terms of happy/willing looking animals if you are only looking at the final behavior. So....what do we need to look at? Cortisol levels? Stress behaviors? Or does it not matter? 

Studies: Not a study, but Ken Ramirez has a paper (/Secondary Reinforcers as an Indispensable Tool: The Effectiveness of Non Food Reinforcers/) in his book (_Animal Training_)that was presented at a conference. I don't believe it's available anywhere online. The paper looks at what various sources list as the definition for secondary reinforcers and variations in how they are taught/used. At the Shedd (at the time of writing at least) in play sessions they looked at things the animal might like, then they condition those behaviors/experiences ( pet then food.... splash then food...etc). There's more to it...and then case studies about specific animals eventually seekign out the tactile. 

Do you have access to a journal database? Doing a search, I came up with quite a few things , mostly from the 60's, about secondary reinforcers. 

At Ken Ramirez's talks...he's said that 9/10 times a secondary is used...a primary should follow. He's also talked about how toy play is on a fine line between being a secondary and a primary, especially with dogs. My understanding is because those play behaviors are so closely related to the predatory sequence (that in theory ends with food/consumption), play behaviors may be biologically/physiologically so connected to play-toys with some individuals that it could be arguably considered a primary. It's been a few years since that talk, so maybe things have changed or I completely misunderstood...but it does make sense in my head.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

And not peer reviewed or journally by any means...but Susan Garrett (and many others...but hers was written very well!) has books/articles (maybe it's in Ruff Love, anyone know?) about specific exercises to teach dogs to go back and forth from toys to food. With some dogs it's more work to get them to use one, esp with the other present. It's essentially conditioning a secondary reinforcers/utilizing premack. Does anyone know of any online articles about this?


----------



## wakemup (Feb 6, 2011)

*I love this!*

[ 

Personally I couldn't see NOT using something that motivated the dog and got them up and working, in some context anyway. Bender had a thing for plungers, so we often took one to work on things as a reward (clean and unused of course).[/QUOTE]

A plunger, really? I LOVE that and I feel so much better. Ziva and Danger BOTH have a thing for the bathtub drain stopper. Ziva will steal it any chance she gets, then pounces on it, carries it around, rolls on it. I hadn't thought about bringing it into the training picture, but you have inspired me! Oh, and Tate also REALLY likes my daughter's barbie....


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Oh, and Tate also REALLY likes my daughter's barbie....


I would be most humored if somebody brought that to class as a tug toy....


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I always kept a feather duster in my bag when Annabel was still showing.


----------



## wakemup (Feb 6, 2011)

Hmmm. A feather duster... That would be some type of housecleaning untensil? I am unfamiliar with such a device.. lol


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> Also to add since this is a topic I am very interested in--
> 
> Field training (I know the thread is really for obedience) is largely done without the use of food and toys. And yet, you still find very happy, very well trained dogs in this venue because the work is inherently fun for them. Granted, this isn't the case with all dogs (I've unfortunately seen my share of dogs kicked and shocked), but it is with biddable dogs and good trainers.


True, but for many goldens the game of 'fetch' is self rewarding enough that they'll do anything to play it. My border collie was like that, AND did quite well in field training, even with the 'lack of inbred working ablility' as the lab people all brought up when I started him in the classes alongside Bender. He loved the game enough that he was more than willing to do it with a dead bird, and gunshots (he didn't like loud noises) and so on. 

You can see a difference in the drive in some dogs, I see many that are afraid to get corrected and are almost sedate. I'm thinking I need to get Storee a bit more on the 'sedate' side of the game for next year perhaps. Just kidding - love her drive for the game, just need to get it into her head to bring bird #1 to me and wait for #2 - but it's coming.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

GoldenSail said:


> Also to add since this is a topic I am very interested in--
> 
> Field training (I know the thread is really for obedience) is largely done without the use of food and toys. And yet, you still find very happy, very well trained dogs in this venue because the work is inherently fun for them. Granted, this isn't the case with all dogs (I've unfortunately seen my share of dogs kicked and shocked), but it is with biddable dogs and good trainers.


I think it's hard to compare something the dog was bred to do against something constructed by humans like heelwork and other obedience behaviors. When you get into instinctual behaviors there are issues of fixed-motor pattern behaviors that are hard-wired. You actually have to work harder to get them to STOP performing the behavior they love so much -- because you need them to do certain elements of it YOUR way. You don't see a lot of food used to reinforce the behaviors, but you do see a lot of remote collar work to control the unwanted elements of the very self-rewarding behavior.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I'm in Judie Howards "whateverworks" camp


Oh ultimately me too! And it is so dog dependent. I do personally like though having a dog that is biddable enough that I don't train much at all with food.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> Field etc/ According to something Ken Ramirez said... it's hard to distinguish between high levels of well done R+ and R- in terms of happy/willing looking animals if you are only looking at the final behavior. So....what do we need to look at? Cortisol levels? Stress behaviors? Or does it not matter?


So I am going to be difficult too, sorry  First off, ultimately, it doesn't matter to me classifying the four quadrants. Important to understand, but I think learning and the mind is much more complex as I have said in the past. So, I adopt doing what works for my dog and my motives.

I do have access to journals so send away. I can always go to the library  I do read them with a skeptical eye, as I think everyone should. One of the best things a prof ever told me was that science doesn't prove anything! It supports ideas...and sometimes those ideas are refuted at later points.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Titan1 said:


> I don't believe in withholding food and jackpotting. If you can do that great. I want my dogs head on me in the ring and not worried what is outside. I see a lot of dogs heading for the opening between exercises wanting to get their food.
> I treat fronts off and on and never use anything more that a Charlie because then he is more concerned about the treats than where he is.
> I do give him treats at other times during a dog show but it is for reason and timing. I do not give him a treat as soon as we get back to the crate but after a little while I will give him a couple..
> We play a little tug with the leash before we go in and have from day one. The leash is always with us.


Aww I wish you would share more. Sounds like you do not use a lot of treats--why? What are your motives?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I think dog training is an art, not a science, so while it's okay to understand the science behind training, the dogs haven't read the books/journals and tend to do something completely different than the articles say they will do.
What makes it an art is the ability of a trainer to look into a dog's eyes, know what they are thinking, and adjust their training "on the fly" to work for THAT dog in that situation.
While we are all saying what works for our particular dog, again, they are all so very different that until you've trained a few hundred of them, I don't think you can make general statements about what works and what doesn't. You can only say what worked for your own dog(s).
Tito's field trainer told me he's had to "really grow professionally" to work with Tito, he's so different from any dog he's ever trained. His obedience trainer told me she had to "throw out everything she's always done and start fresh" to work with Tito. And these people are professionals.
So I'm in Judie Howard's "whateverworks" camp, too. Whatever works for you, your dog, your goals, and your time frame to get there.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

GoldenSail: Do a search in the database for "Secondary reinforcer." There are a ton of results (some relevant and some not). I'll do some reading today and if I come up with anything extra interesting, I'll post specifics.

Re: "Whatever works".... but isn't that what almost every does (...and of course there are exceptions?) ? If we don't see success or what we're wanting, don't most people change what they're doing? Using food or using XYZ is very rarely "one way" of doing things. Last time I sat down with a group, we came up with 10+ different ways to teach a dog to lie down using food. And the list almost doubled if we were using toys/play as reinforcers as well.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> Re: "Whatever works".... but isn't that what almost every does (...and of course there are exceptions?) ?


Yes and no. For personal reasons not everyone will adopt methods they do not like even if they work. I.e. not everyone is willing to tell their dog 'no', use P+ even * if* it might make their dog more reliable, learn faster, etc. 

I *try* to be open-minded about my training as long as it works for my dog, although sometimes I have my bias (i.e. using lots of food, but I still use it, and even a clicker on rare occasion).


----------

