Food Rewards - For and against..

Truley

But, and this is a big but....I find it really hard to believe that you would let it rest and accept a pet that did not allow you to have that kind of bond. So in a sense, I feel your failing the dog, because you refuse to accept it as it is. And this I just don't understand.

There are many kinds of bonds, and not all of them are about touching or being touched.

Now how can you come to that conclusion when I gave you my Barnum story.  Did you forget that just to make a point.  I also stated in a previous post that in a dog to dog relationship it may be true that dogs hate hugs from each other but in a human to dog relationship, its different and the bonding is also defined differently.  Benedict said something about Leadership and dominance and its meanng is that the human has a higher status that the dog (something like that).  But that is true if you put yourself in the midst of the pack, in other word measuring your status in a dog to dog relationship.  I don't do that because I am in a human to dog relationship and I don't ever view that relationship as a parent/child, bro/sis, or unc/nephew.  Its a relationship that deserves its own definition.   I have said the relationship in time does become co-dependent emotionally.

I understand why people use food but I don't agree with its forever lifetime continued use.

Well, then you really don't understand operant conditioning.  No one is saying that you use food all the time for every behavior forever and ever.  I don't know any knowledgeable trainer who is dumb enough to do that.  If they did, all the arguments about "you can't take food into the ring", or "I don't want to always have to carry food with me" would be true, and they are not.  But, failure to reinforce a behavior causes it to extinguish, so the dog must receive periodic, or intermittent, reinforcement or he will stop the behavior, since it doesn't get him anything.  If you remember that reinforcement is anything the dog wants, then you also will understand that periodic reinforcement can mean other things beside food, or self reinforcement, but it has to be something the DOG wants, not what the human wants the dog to want.

spiritdogs

 

I understand why people use food but I don't agree with its forever lifetime continued use.

Well, then you really don't understand operant conditioning.  No one is saying that you use food all the time for every behavior forever and ever.  I don't know any knowledgeable trainer who is dumb enough to do that.  If they did, all the arguments about "you can't take food into the ring", or "I don't want to always have to carry food with me" would be true, and they are not.  But, failure to reinforce a behavior causes it to extinguish, so the dog must receive periodic, or intermittent, reinforcement or he will stop the behavior, since it doesn't get him anything.  If you remember that reinforcement is anything the dog wants, then you also will understand that periodic reinforcement can mean other things beside food, or self reinforcement, but it has to be something the DOG wants, not what the human wants the dog to want.

corvus

 I thought the scientific side of the creating hunger debate was certain.

Oh no and by you asking the question within your post about possibly creating hunger, that proof.

Now, most of Corvus's post is along the lines of my thinking and experience.  Except, my house, the environment I setup, the activities I promote are all designed for social interaction and learning.  The dogs do define the terms of affections and their most highly prize rewards, but I kid you not, over time I influence that by my involvement.  You can not help but do it.  The human can make food the highest prize or not.  Why is that so hard to believe. 

spiritdogs

But, failure to reinforce a behavior causes it to extinguish, so the dog must receive periodic, or intermittent, reinforcement or he will stop the behavior, since it doesn't get him anything.  If you remember that reinforcement is anything the dog wants, then you also will understand that periodic reinforcement can mean other things beside food, or self reinforcement, but it has to be something the DOG wants, not what the human wants the dog to want.

Thank you Spiritdogs for coming along with that statement.

KMac, here is an example of where you and Spiritdog are saying something different.  I say once learned, behaviors never get extinguished and if I remember your statement was along those lines.  Now don't look at it as choosing sides but look at it as an educational opportunity. 

Jewlieee

Just as a side note, I do look for what motivates the dog and use that for training. For example, some dogs just aren't food motivated as much as they are toy motivated or affection motivated.

I believe this is how Misty is motivated.  By affection!  When I was trying to get her to walk on the leash without pulling, following information I picked up here and elsewhere (everywhere, I was really desparate!  lol), a lot of the information was when she did what I want...give her a treat.  My problem was, I'd try to give her a treat, and more than half the time, we left it on the side of the road.  She just wasn't that interested.  Then, believe it or not, my DH found a training video (not sure what the guys name is, but he was English...I loved watching it, 'cause, frankly, I loved his accent!  lol) at the dollar store.  Was very good.  He should doing basic training w/ 3 different types of dogs.  The large, medium and small.  He didn't believe in the food rewards, but rather the attention/affection type.  After viewing, I found this to be a great resource when it came to training Misty.  She definitely, loves the attention/affection reward over food!  Thank goodness, because frankly, I had a hard time, carrying the treats during walks (don't know why, just did).  Needless to say, I had to resort to the Gentle Leader for our walks, which I am truly in love with, because it has done wonders!  But, I do usually just use the "Good Girl!" method and lots of pats, and attention/affection for training and it has worked very well for us.

So, with that said, obviously, all dogs are different.  As are children.  See the similarity???  LOL

**content removed, refers to edited content, please take to PM**

DPU

KMac, here is an example of where you and Spiritdog are saying something different.  I say once learned, behaviors never get extinguished and if I remember your statement was along those lines.  Now don't look at it as choosing sides but look at it as an educational opportunity. 

What I said was the exact same thing Anne said.

That behaviours that are not periodically reinforced will eventually extinguish. I've never, ever said any different. What I said specifically, was that the dog doesn't forget how to do it, but that if there's nothing in it for the dog eventually the dog will surely stop doing it. There's a real difference there. I apologize if you thought I ever meant otherwise, since my posting was pretty clear. *G*

Meandering back a few pages......I don't throw food, real or fictional.  My dogs, when offered a treat, sit and wait until I call THEIR name to accept a treat.

Something that hasn't come up (unless I missed it) is the fact that many rescue dogs are often (not always) denied affection from their previous owners.  The dogs are often ignored (again not in all cases).  Therefore providing them with affection will be very motivating and they will work to achive it.  But that can also change once the dog is comfortable and confident with their living situation.

Agreed, it has been stated many times in this thread that for clicker training to be completely success and for the long term that rewards have to be faded and used as a variable.

DPU, you didn't answer my question about whether refusing to give a dog a portion of your own food when they sit nicely 'asking' for it is depriving them and creating hunger.

I don't doubt that humans could conceivably make food the highest reward, especially when they routinely group it with verbal praise, affection, and just spending quality time with the dog. But my problem with the logic is that Penny is the only dog living at home at the moment that wasn't trained using food rewards, and she's the only one that is obsessed with food. Pyry and Jill were both started on food rewards. Pyry is now quite happy to continue with the food rewards, but is not a very social dog and is sometimes quite happy to forget about food and go pretend to be a fierce hunter all by himself instead. Jill has shown us she doesn't particularly care for food rewards and would far rather play fetch.

 
So. We have one food obsessive dog that has been at least 99% trained without the use of food rewards, one food motivated, but not obsessed dog that has been trained at least 95% with food rewards who will sometimes work for food, but is very unlikely to work for praise alone, and one dog started on food rewards, but later showed she was disinterested in food and will now only work for play. Affection or praise can be substituted in low key situations.

What I see in these three dogs is just three different personalities. They all have all needs met and they are thus free to pursue their favoured reward above all others. If anything, one could only conclude that using food rewards lessens interest in food. Maybe Penny would be less obsessed if I'd persisted with the food rewards and made them into an everyday occurrence. Who can say? 

The two fosters that I have right now were denied affection.  They had no idea what human affection was and it scared them.  It took several days for them to come to me for loving.

We've progressed in learning the basics to where I use treats on a much less frequent basis.  One is now more motivated by praise, the other by knowing that he's going to "earn" his stuffy.  These boys spent the first 8 months of their lives living in cages, and when I got them, they weren't so sure that humans were GOOD for anything.  With dogs like that I'm most certainly not going to shout "what a good boy" and throw my arms around them for a hug.  Using food rewards helped me to bridge the gap that other humans had caused.

In our day to day lives, food treats aren't doled out all day.  When we go for our romp in the woods sometimes I take something with me, but more often not.  I'm not trying to teach anything new, and most of the time, reinforcing the old is simply rewarded with something else...praise, affection, the rough head rub, the quick game of fetch.  In town?  Same thing, although fetch isn't quite as readily do-able.  Sometimes I take treats, sometimes I don't.

Yes, when I have fosters in the house food treats are more plentiful.  No they are not the only reinforcer that I use.  But using food isn't some evil, twisted game of maniupulating a dogs basic needs either.

DPU

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.   

HOWEVER, I think the people who get rid of their dogs tend to be people who DON'T "pay" the dog, or don't do so well enough (ie, fail to motivate him), or people who don't give the dog a "job" at all (ie. fail to train him and enrich his life through various activities).  

Where a dog LITERALLY has a "job" like showing, breeding, SAR, police work, guard duty, etc. then sometimes he is found  a new home when he reaches retirement... (often his retirement home is WITH his handler).... or sometimes he doesn't "make the grade" and then a new home must be found for him so another dog can be trained to do that job.  That DOESN'T automatically reflect badly on the person doing the re-homing, and to say it does is really HUUUUUGELY unfair to a large number of owners, breeders and trainers who do it properly.

Rewarding with food doesn't automatically equate an owner to a cold hearted fat cat Managing Director of a large co-operation who doesn't give a rodents rear about his employees.  I think it's very wrong of you to imply that.  Owners who UNDERSTAND their dog well enough to use food to help train him (if that is the best tool for he job) are far less likely to be the ones who end up with a dog they can't cope with and feel they must get rid of.
 

DPU

jjsmom06

I dont know why I even try.. or why I come to this section ever.. it is the same old BS with holier than thou attitudes, scoldings and inability to see other views.   I think I need to stay out of here again....  

I don't see the need for such an emotional outburst.  If you can't handle the discussion then maybe your are right that its best to not participate.  This is a dog forum and not a people forum.  We are not here to better people or to change their writing styles or how they express their beliefs but to better the dog's situation.  Your track record is to berate people for the way they express their passion for causes that are close to home.  I have got news for you, your desire for warm fuzzy dialogue is just plain old ineffective.  Everyone walks away with nothing, not even a re-exam of their current practices.

Au contrair, I take A LOT away from jjsmoms posts because she is polite and thoughtful in her wording.  She has credibility.  I never skip past her posts without reading them, because I never find them offensive. You attract more bees with honey than with vingear.