Food Rewards - For and against..

DPU

I know you said you did not read all the post, so this will be a repeat.  I do take words such as "paycheck", "pay", 'work for", and even "jackpot" very literally because some people do define their relationship that way.  And, when the dog has used up its usefullness, then off to another home or a shelter and then that is where my volunteer work comes in.  So I have a big stake in how the dog owner defines their relationship with their dog. 

With reference to your words "pack leader", I look at the "pack" as dog to dog while my relationship is human to dog, which is very much a different relationship.  With respect to your use of the word "boss", to me that has the meaning of exerting one's will, applying dominance, and maybe by force applied physically or mentally.  I certainly feel the authority I have over my dogs comes from respect that is derived from caring I give my dog. 

I'm not sure what kind of relationship you have with your Boss, but I've never had force applied physically or mentally by mine.  I'm there to do a job... i do my job, I get paid.  My dog has a job, does his/her job... gets paid. And a good boss will be respected and should care about their employees.  So... to me it's 6 to some 1/2 dozen to another.
 

Sera_J

I'm not sure what kind of relationship you have with your Boss, but I've never had force applied physically or mentally by mine.  I'm there to do a job... i do my job, I get paid.  My dog has a job, does his/her job... gets paid. And a good boss will be respected and should care about their employees.  So... to me it's 6 to some 1/2 dozen to another.
 

Any boss in the employer/employee always has the option to FIRE and send their employee packing.  When that type of arrangement is with the dog, then the dog ends up elsewhere or in a shelter.  Its just not a good analogy in describe the human to do relationship, but some dog owners do have that arrangement.

Yet oddly, those of us you seem to think have "that" kind of relationship with our dogs are the ones who are completely committed to making a "lifetime commitment" to our dogs.

DPU

Sera_J

I'm not sure what kind of relationship you have with your Boss, but I've never had force applied physically or mentally by mine.  I'm there to do a job... i do my job, I get paid.  My dog has a job, does his/her job... gets paid. And a good boss will be respected and should care about their employees.  So... to me it's 6 to some 1/2 dozen to another.
 

Any boss in the employer/employee always has the option to FIRE and send their employee packing.  When that type of arrangement is with the dog, then the dog ends up elsewhere or in a shelter.  Its just not a good analogy in describe the human to do relationship, but some dog owners do have that arrangement.

Oye - I doubt many people advocate "firing" their dogs.  That's a little extreme.  And usually if a dog isn't doing their "job" ... it just means the owner failed the dog.

But just to back up here, you're the one that said "paying" a dog is like having a boss/employee relationship, not I. I'm paying my dog for doing what I've asked it to do... i think it's not fair to the dog to do it any other way. My dogs get lots of love and affection, but should I offer it a hug or a chicken.... i'm fairly certain 99.9% of the dogs out there will take the chicken. 

Sera_J

Oye - I doubt many people advocate "firing" their dogs.  That's a little extreme.  And usually if a dog isn't doing their "job" ... it just means the owner failed the dog.

But just to back up here, you're the one that said "paying" a dog is like having a boss/employee relationship, not I. I'm paying my dog for doing what I've asked it to do... i think it's not fair to the dog to do it any other way. My dogs get lots of love and affection, but should I offer it a hug or a chicken.... i'm fairly certain 99.9% of the dogs out there will take the chicken. 

Unfortunately some dog owners do just that and that is why I object to the use of words that imply an employer/employee relationship.  Why use the words if that is not how you define your relationship. 

I would wager and I believe the odds would be somewhat in my favor, if after my dogs had their structured meal, I would get a hug over a chicken.  What am I talking about, my dogs would always accept a hug, they do.  I tell you, its a whole different kind of relationship when you eliminate food as a driver for the dog to do things and replace food with affection.   

... pardon my doubt.  I've just met a lot of dogs and their entire existence (and thousands of years of genetic makeup) is all about their next meal.  I have trained my dogs to ignore chicken (or other distractions) to come to me or listen to my command... sounds like you've done a good job training your dog to hug.  Nice trick... i think i may work on that one tonight!

DPU

if after my dogs had their structured meal, I would get a hug over a chicken. 

You must have quite the exceptional dogs then.

DPU

I tell you, its a whole different kind of relationship when you eliminate food as a driver for the dog to do things and replace food with affection.   

Uh -huh.  I'm sure it is quite different. 

Sera_J

... pardon my doubt.  I've just met a lot of dogs and their entire existence (and thousands of years of genetic makeup) is all about their next meal.  I have trained my dogs to ignore chicken (or other distractions) to come to me or listen to my command... sounds like you've done a good job training your dog to hug.  Nice trick... i think i may work on that one tonight!

For my dogs there are no worries about where their next meal will come.  That lower need is satisfied and they can then work on a higher social needs.  No trick to hugging at all so there is nothing to teach.  Its all natural once you tap into and use affection as the rewards.

DPU

That lower need is satisfied and they can then work on a higher social needs.

You speak about your dogs as if they were mathematical equations.  "Once I multiply to the lowest common denominator I can begin to combine..." 

When one has tasty items, no matter how much the dog has previously eaten, the intrinsic desire for that tasty item kicks in.  So unless you are purposefully withholding social time for them, there is no reason for them to deny that piece of chicken.  Unless, of course, it's not particularly tasty.   

Xerxes

DPU

That lower need is satisfied and they can then work on a higher social needs.

 

 

You speak about your dogs as if they were mathematical equations.  "Once I multiply to the lowest common denominator I can begin to combine..." 

When one has tasty items, no matter how much the dog has previously eaten, the intrinsic desire for that tasty item kicks in.  So unless you are purposefully withholding social time for them, there is no reason for them to deny that piece of chicken.  Unless, of course, it's not particularly tasty.   

No mathematical equation at all and Ron2 can attest to that.  When food comes between the dog and the human then what I see is robotic type motions in the dog that pleases the human.

With reference to the "desire for that tasty item", I call that snacks and that is part of the feeding that satisfies the hunger need and also could satisfy the eating for pleasure, but I don't connect the feeding with behavior.

DPU

Any boss in the employer/employee always has the option to FIRE and send their employee packing.  When that type of arrangement is with the dog, then the dog ends up elsewhere or in a shelter.  Its just not a good analogy in describe the human to do relationship, but some dog owners do have that arrangement

This is where I finally get what your disagreement is with the paycheck analogy. Yes, in the human working world, you can get fired and sent away. You are assuming a complete transference of that analogy to dog training. But guess what? Plenty of people give away their dogs without ever having heard of that analogy. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a house of fosters. Do you honestly think that anyone here who has used the paycheck analogy, even once (I'm not sure that I ever have but you could probably tell me if I have), that they would consider sending the dog to the shelter because the dog failed to sit on cue for at treat? That's a bit overreaching, imo. Any and all creatures perform some kind of work to survive. In the wild, it is hunting. With humans, it is doing what we want.

It is also, I think, natural for a dog to work, strive, or seek a treat, even if they ate a little while ago. If it wasn't for this opportunistic feature in dogs, they would not have been domesticated. That is, what became domesticated dog hung around humans because the food was easy to get, ensuring survival.

Well thank you for painting all of us that use those 'words' (paycheck/jackpots) with one brush.  I have done a reasonable amount of showing/trialing over the years (along with being a breeder and rescuing) and I have happily met a very limited number of people who treat their dogs as machines and get rid of them by rehoming when the dog doesn't work out or perform to their goals.    Actually it has been my experiences that it is those who don't train their dogs on any level, let alone compete with them that are more than willing to get rid of that dog.  The other offenders (in my experiences) have been from commerical breeders that bred for the conformation ring.  For you to state, that those of us who use those 'words' or pretain to that training theory don't give our dogs affection, don't hug them and don't value them and that we don't love them  and that those same dogs miss meals  Or have to worry about when or where their next meal is coming from in down right insulting.

Now this maybe hitting a sore spot with me, MY dog is sick, he is my soul and I couldn't careless about stepping into another ring with him.  But we do, at this time continue to compete because he enjoys it and the vets have said it will do him no harm.  But my goals are for him to live as long as possible, that his life not be shortened by ONE day and that his life be of the highest quality for as long as possible. 

Bloody hell, its just a bunch of words and just another way to train WITHOUT corrections, would you prefer that?

Oh my, I feel like food rewards and such words as paychecks and jackpots are in the same league as E collars!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Good grief

Ado

Bloody hell, its just a bunch of words and just another way to train WITHOUT corrections, would you prefer that?

Oh my, I feel like food rewards and such words as paychecks and jackpots are in the same league as E collars!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Good grief

Funny, I am describing and advocating a more gentle training method that is getting closer to pure positive.  You are going the opposite way by putting forth a comparison between food and an E collar.  You see no harm in using that analogy which does not reflect your true dog relationship but there is a possibility that the idea may be planted in others.  Why do that?  There are dog owners that see their pets as hobbies, objects, and only serve a specific purpose.  These dog owners do 'trade-in', rehome, and drop their dogs at shelters.  It happens, it is reality.  I have 4 fosters in my home right now and each has a story about such an owner. 

I always thought the paycheck analogy was just a tool to put people in their dogs' shoes. It goes something like "Would you still work if you didn't get paid? Well, your dog will be far more willing to work for you if he gets paid as well." I've never got beyond thinking "well that makes sense" to "well if I'm paying him, then I expect him to do a perfect job or he's fired", and I don't think many other people if anyone would go down that road, either. I'd never even thought of it. If anyone has the interest in their dogs to empathise with a dog enough to decide they like it better when they get paid so why shouldn't they pay their dog, then I doubt they'll be the type of person that 'fires' their dog if the dog doesn't perform to their expectations. If the analogy has achieved its ends of making the human feel more empathetic towards the dog and what life is like for him, then why would they then go on to send a dog away if it didn't perform well enough? No one likes to be fired, and in the average work place, not all that many people have the power to fire someone. I think it's more likely people will empathise with the dog as an employee because they've been there rather than take an employer role and bask in the power of having the dog's fate in their hands. Everyone has that already.  

corvus

I always thought the paycheck analogy was just a tool to put people in their dogs' shoes. It goes something like "Would you still work if you didn't get paid? Well, your dog will be far more willing to work for you if he gets paid as well." I've never got beyond thinking "well that makes sense" to "well if I'm paying him, then I expect him to do a perfect job or he's fired"