[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

I do things a little different.

my dog's name is a cue. it means to pay attention.

say dog's name, click/treat when dog looks at you.

phase out treats when name gets an instant look everytime.

then I train directional cues. go left, go right, go forward and go back.

I train these on walks simply by click/treat when dog follows into a turn.


so instead of recall, I direct my dog to go to me, to go to the door, to go wherever I ask...because having the dog come diectly to you may not always be feasable. I may have my child in my arms and want her to go to say...my sister ten feet from me..

 

[K9companions]

This isn't a valid reason. Using your dog's daily ration of food or balancing your dog daily caloric intake DOES NOT make dogs fat. What some people do does not an excuse make.

Well, I haven't had my had scanned recently, but my eyes don't decieve me when I see owners overfeed their pets on treats, I've specially seen this problem with hard to train dogs that aren't getting what their owners want, yet the owners persist on throwing treats in their mouth. It's very valid and something I have seen first hand in many cases.

You aren't differentiating one methodology from another. Your differentiating what criteria you're willing to work through. Some of us want a thinking dog - a dog who will work through frustration to figure out what his guardian wants. Absent of this skill, and presented with a frustrating moment, a dog will choose instinct over instruction. Recall is not a behavior we want a dog to have a choice in.

I don't quite get what your trying to say here...I'm not sure if your trying to say my dog has no intellegence and can't think through a problem because I don't feed him treats, or if you are trying to give me an example; so I'll do the best I can. As to my dog working through problems, he does so without treats...so I don't know where that argument is. And your correct, recall shouldn't be a choice...which it isn't, with or without treats. I don't think I'm understanding your statement.

 

[Curbside Prophet]

I've specially seen this problem with hard to train dogs that aren't getting what their owners want, yet the owners persist on throwing treats in their mouth. It's very valid and something I have seen first hand in many cases.

So observing bad trainers and bad training practices gives you reason to exclude primary reinforcers? I would recommend observing good trainers and good training practices before excluding the use of primary reinforcers.

I don't quite get what your trying to say here...I'm not sure if your trying to say my dog has no intellegence

To the contrary.

and can't think through a problem because I don't feed him treats, or if you are trying to give me an example;

I'm trying to impress upon you that there is a difference between a "trained" dog and a "thinking" dog. Here's an example of a "thinking" dog.

Watch how the dog works to be one step ahead of the trainer. Much of his behavior is voluntary.

A "trained" dog doesn't do that. A "trained" dog has to be taught to respond to verbal or physical cues.

A "thinking"-dog guardian doesn't have to ask for a sit by the door when he or she grabs the leash. The dog is already sitting by the door. Some dogs naturally do this, many have to be conditioned to do this. A "trained"-dog guarding has to cue a sit by the door.

The difference is in your criteria. The difference is the value of your reinforcer at acquisition. The difference is teaching the dog that voluntary behavior is highly reinforcing.

You accept only calm behavior for training. You will get a dog that behaves when calm. I don't question that. Guess what? Dogs aren't always calm when we want them to behave. If your dog has a history of working through frustration and gaining a high payoff when working through frustration, that dog is more likely to work with you when the distraction dictates he must.

I've trained "trained" dogs, and I've trained "thinking" dogs, and I can tell you without exception "thinking" companion dogs meet our expectations more than "trained" companion dogs. And unless you've trained a "thinking" dog, you're not likely to know the advantage.

 

[K9companions]

So observing bad trainers and bad training practices gives you reason to exclude primary reinforcers? I would recommend observing good trainers and good training practices before excluding the use of primary reinforcers.

I don't understand what your point is here. You argument was that overfeeding isn't valid because it doesn't really exist. Not your exact words but that's what I got out of it. I never said it was good training to overfeed your dog, as I said, it's one of the side effects of treat training that I like to stay away from. Is it rare, yes of course. But my point is, is that I HAVE seen it happen, and on more than one occasion. There for I have a valid point in wanting to praise my dog, instead of treating him. Both have the same effect.

I'm trying to impress upon you that there is a difference between a "trained" dog and a "thinking" dog. Here's an example of a "thinking" dog.

I don't really understand the difference. In order for the dog to think in the first place, a stimulus would have to be in place, aka training. I believe the two go together, not seperately. In my training instances, there is levels perhaps, but every dog has the thinking ability and must use it to be trained. If not, the dog would either not pay attention, or just wouldn't get it, even a simple command of 'sit' or 'down'. There is a point when a dog can be one step ahead of the owner, but I see that as a higher level of training, not because the dog is thinking more. Every dog must think to get a command.

A "thinking"-dog guardian doesn't have to ask for a sit by the door when he or she grabs the leash. The dog is already sitting by the door. Some dogs naturally do this, many have to be conditioned to do this. A "trained"-dog guarding has to cue a sit by the door.

I look at this as difference of levels in training. The 'thinking' dog must have first been 'trained' to sit by the door without a cue, otherwise he wouldn't care if he sat by the door if the owner had not praised or commanded this in the first place. After repetitions, the dog can enter 'habit training' or what you call 'thinking'. The 'cue dog' can and probably will eventually reach this point. Yes, some dogs will sit by the door without you ever cueing it, but I don't think it would do it much more without praise or an 'ok' referring to what he did as special. If it pleases you, he will do it again, if not, he won't sit every time or may just sit because it's comfortable. But the pleasing part is another type of 'training', leading to an invisible cue.

 

[JustTess]

I had trouble training my stubborn husky a good reliable recall early last year. I hear it's sometimes very difficult for huskies anyway. I read the advice of another poster here who said something about being a positive influence on your animals and they will follow you everywhere by choice. IT WORKS! Ilya is a little skittish anyway and doesn't like to be too far from me, however, he always comes to me whenever I call because it is always positive and rewarding. If I overdo the training and it becomes boring, the less reliable Ilya will be.

 

[Curbside Prophet]

You argument was that overfeeding isn't valid because it doesn't really exist...as I said, it's one of the side effects of treat training that I like to stay away from...But my point is, is that I HAVE seen it happen, and on more than one occasion. There for I have a valid point in wanting to praise my dog, instead of treating him.

The side effects you speak of are the result of bad practice. You're basing your argument on bad practice. How valid can your argument be? That would be akin to me saying I don't walk on sidewalks because I saw a few people trip on the sidewalk. It makes no sense at all.

Both have the same effect.

You're contradicting yourself. A minute ago you said your dog wouldn't concentrate with treats. What effect would elicit that response if it's not the value of the reinforcer? Wouldn't the prudent trainer harness that value to effect his training?

I believe the two go together, not seperately.

Stimuli and training do go together except you're overlooking one very important point...a point we can't overlook when teaching recall. How a dog wants to behave and how we want the dog to behave are two different things. A "thinking" dog behaves because he finds behaving rewarding. A "trained" dog behaves because of a consequence (either appetitive or aversive). Once again because as subtle as it is in words, the behavior is vastly different. A "thinking" dog behaves because the act of behaving (trying behavior) is rewarding. A "trained" dog behaves because of the conditions for the behavior.

Praise, being a secondary reinforcer, sets a very low condition for behavior. Recall is so important that we need to either condition the behavior to a primary reinforcer, one the dog prefers or, (and I maintain we need both) teach the dog that working with us (behvaing and trying behavior) is very rewarding. How do you get a dog to try an alternate behavior when chasing a squirrel if he hasn't been taught that trying an alternate behavior can be as rewarding as chasing a squirrel?

In my training instances, there is levels perhaps, but every dog has the thinking ability and must use it to be trained. If not, the dog would either not pay attention, or just wouldn't get it, even a simple command of 'sit' or 'down'. There is a point when a dog can be one step ahead of the owner, but I see that as a higher level of training, not because the dog is thinking more. Every dog must think to get a command.

And I maintain there is a difference between a dog who thinks when told to do something and one who thinks to figure it out without being told. You call that a higher level of training...I call it the natural way dogs learn. Dogs want to maximize reinforcers, not maintain a neutral level of reinforcement.

The 'thinking' dog must have first been 'trained' to sit by the door without a cue, otherwise he wouldn't care if he sat by the door if the owner had not praised or commanded this in the first place.

The dog offers the behavior voluntarily. If the dog is not rewarded he can not pair the behavior with the consequence. But you do not have to cue anything to get behavior from a dog, especially one who's been rewarded for volunteering it.

After repetitions, the dog can enter 'habit training' or what you call 'thinking'.

Nope. "Habit training" as you call it is when your criteria doesn't change. If your criteria doesn't change neither will the dog's behavior. You can forever change your criteria for a "thinking" dog and he will continue to approximate behavior for you, and it's the trainer's skill that decreases fluency.

 

[K9companions]

The side effects you speak of are the result of bad practice. You're basing your argument on bad practice. How valid can your argument be? That would be akin to me saying I don't walk on sidewalks because I saw a few people trip on the sidewalk. It makes no sense at all.

No, I'm basing my result on good practice, or else I would agree with the bad practice. Your also ignoring the fact that I stated that Hunter has a more thin build than most dogs, and a little extra food can change his weight. But besides that, taking into concideration your sidewalk example. No, I would walk on the sidewalk, but wouldn't you be a little bit more careful when you saw a tree root, a rock, a large bump in the sidewalk, after seeing someone else trip on that object. Or lets say you don't like walking because your feet hurt too much. But lets say now I am driving a car, because I don't want to walk. Both walking and driving a car accomplish the same thing, yet driving the car seems to be less rational for some reason.

You're contradicting yourself. A minute ago you said your dog wouldn't concentrate with treats. What effect would elicit that response if it's not the value of the reinforcer? Wouldn't the prudent trainer harness that value to effect his training?

My dog does not concentrate with treats, no. My value, I think your talking about, is not the food, because it breaks the system by him not concentrating. The true value is the happiness from me, the owner. To be truthful, I didn't really understand this one.

Stimuli and training do go together except you're overlooking one very important point...a point we can't overlook when teaching recall. How a dog wants to behave and how we want the dog to behave are two different things. A "thinking" dog behaves because he finds behaving rewarding. A "trained" dog behaves because of a consequence (either appetitive or aversive). Once again because as subtle as it is in words, the behavior is vastly different. A "thinking" dog behaves because the act of behaving (trying behavior) is rewarding. A "trained" dog behaves because of the conditions for the behavior.

I still see the same thing. The thinking dog is doing it for the reward and the trained dog is doing it for "appetitive" consequence, aka reward? The thinking dog behaves because it likes trying the behavior, but a trained dog wouldn't do anything if it didn't like the behavior as well.

Praise, being a secondary reinforcer, sets a very low condition for behavior. Recall is so important that we need to either condition the behavior to a primary reinforcer, one the dog prefers or, (and I maintain we need both) teach the dog that working with us (behvaing and trying behavior) is very rewarding. How do you get a dog to try an alternate behavior when chasing a squirrel if he hasn't been taught that trying an alternate behavior can be as rewarding as chasing a squirrel?

What says a primary and secondary reinforcer can't change. I believe, to my dog, praise IS a primary reinforcer, because it is just that, a reinforcement. Food to Hunter is a necessity, but it is not part of my training process, so it leaves as a reinforcer. It's the same case as someone using a toy instead of treats, because a dog isn't listening to the owner through treats. The toy or kong then becomes the reinforcer, and the food just a basic necessity. To the dog, the command and praise would be more important than the squirrel, just as treats would...if not it would be apparent in the dogs behavior if it was working or not.

And I maintain there is a difference between a dog who thinks when told to do something and one who thinks to figure it out without being told. You call that a higher level of training...I call it the natural way dogs learn. Dogs want to maximize reinforcers, not maintain a neutral level of reinforcement.

If it's the natural way dogs learn, which I agree with, then I don't see how they can be seperated. Again, what if food is not the maximim reinforcer?

The dog offers the behavior voluntarily. If the dog is not rewarded he can not pair the behavior with the consequence. But you do not have to cue anything to get behavior from a dog, especially one who's been rewarded for volunteering it.

I thought that's what I said.

Nope. "Habit training" as you call it is when your criteria doesn't change. If your criteria doesn't change neither will the dog's behavior. You can forever change your criteria for a "thinking" dog and he will continue to approximate behavior for you, and it's the trainer's skill that decreases fluency.

Well...what's wrong with it? Then a criteria would be something like "sit". When you sit, you want your dog to sit, unchanged...I don't understand where that is going.

NOTE - Sorry for any spelling errors, I was studying for spanish. So that combined with late night studying, Im feeling a little tipsy.

 

[Mac'N'Roe]

I have a "trained" dog (Mac)..not a thinking dog. We are very new in the whole realm of training, but I tried my first hand at clicker training a little while back (the box game I think it was) and Mac just sat there and stared at me...waiting for me to tell him what to do. Very well behaved (stayed in a "watch me" for 10 minutes...at attention)...but I didn't know what to do with him.

Looks like I'm the one who needs the training

My point is, there is a big difference between the two.

 

[Curbside Prophet]

No, I'm basing my result on good practice, or else I would agree with the bad practice. Your also ignoring the fact that I stated that Hunter has a more thin build than most dogs, and a little extra food can change his weight.

If you can tell me how using his daily ration of food, or balancing his caloric intake (if you use treats) will cause him to gain weight...I might listen. Otherwise, you're just talking about something that has nothing to do with how primary reinforcers are used in training.

But besides that, taking into concideration your sidewalk example. No, I would walk on the sidewalk, but wouldn't you be a little bit more careful when you saw a tree root, a rock, a large bump in the sidewalk, after seeing someone else trip on that object.

An example of being more careful would be, using the dog's daily ration of food or balancing his daily caloric intake, so yes. But that's not how you decided it for yourself...you stopped walking altogether after seeing other trip.

The true value is the happiness from me, the owner.

Oh, so dogs behave because they just like their people? No wonder shelters are full of dogs...people don't have a clue what a dog is.

I still see the same thing. The thinking dog is doing it for the reward and the trained dog is doing it for "appetitive" consequence, aka reward? The thinking dog behaves because it likes trying the behavior, but a trained dog wouldn't do anything if it didn't like the behavior as well.

ABC's of learning: Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence.

Trained dog's ABC's: cue ("sit") - dog moves but towards ground - food reward.

Thinking dog's ABC's: voluntary behavior by the dog - dog moves but towards ground - food reward.

A thinking dog works for the consequence, a trained dog must be prompted for an appetitive consequence or else. Both dogs end up doing the behavior, yes; how they got there is totally different, and if you don't see the value in a dog working for his consequence, versus being prompted for behavior and/or threatened for trying an alternate behavior, you're not going to get what I'm talking about. I would recommend learn by doing.

What says a primary and secondary reinforcer can't change. I believe, to my dog, praise IS a primary reinforcer, because it is just that, a reinforcement.

You can believe whatever you want, praise is and always will be a secondary reinforcer. Primary reinforcers are things the dog needs to pass on his genes. A dog doesn't need praise to pass on his genes. And no, primary reinforcers are not as valuable to the dog as secondary reinforcers. Try clicking (secondary reinforcer) for behavior and see what happens with your behavior if you newer follow a click with a primary rienforcer. Bye bye behavior. A click has just as much meaning to the dog as you saying "good dog". Except a click is likely more informative since it's clear and consistent.

Food to Hunter is a necessity, but it is not part of my training process, so it leaves as a reinforcer. It's the same case as someone using a toy instead of treats, because a dog isn't listening to the owner through treats.

Toys are secondary reinforcers too. Dogs don't need toys to pass on their genes.

Again, what if food is not the maximim reinforcer?

I don't know any dog that doesn't eat...who lives. So, at some point in time food is a maximum reinforcer to the dog...that time is perfect for training. Now what if the dog doesn't like praise?

Well...what's wrong with it? Then a criteria would be something like "sit". When you sit, you want your dog to sit, unchanged...I don't understand where that is going.

What's wrong with stagnant training? What's wrong with a dog never learning to use his ability to adapt? What's wrong with the dog needing to be told to follow direction instead of volunteering it on his own? Geez, I don't know, you tell me.

NOTE - Sorry for any spelling errors, I was studying for spanish. So that combined with late night studying, Im feeling a little tipsy.

No worries, I don't pay attention to that stuff. I can approximate my behavior to figure it out.

 

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

I guess by curb's definition I have a 'thinking' dog.

its kind of like...she picks the behavios to try and I just use rewards(both primary and secondary reinforcers) to tell her which ones I like...

I got an itch today to try to teach Bolo how to walk on her hind legs because I saw this thing about this dog with no forelegs who does it all the time..

so..

she already knows 'up'. which is to stand on her hind legs. so I say.."up!"..she stands. as long as she held the up I was click treating as fast as I could...yet inching backwards. if she dropped to try and come get the treat...the rewards stopped...telling her that's not what I wanted. so she had to make the connection herself..from yes being up is good but dropping down to move forward was not to what I wanted which was for her to move forward without dropping down again.

during this.. she involuntarily took a step. I clicked, I gave her a mountain of treats, pulled out the tug gave her a good wrassle and lots of praise..abetter reward. then returned to the treating for up and inching back. and since I had given her another piece of the puzzle she did it. walked three steps on her hind legs...this time an even better reward.

now she can walk on her hind legs and followed me around doing this new behavior in little spurts for at least an hour, me clicking and treating all the while.

and you know what I use for treats mostly? her food. her regular ol' everyday food. course she gets less at dinnertime but she also had waaaay more fun eating....dinner she just kind goes 'ho hum' and eats, periodically looking at me and doing some of her behaviors to try to get me to come 'treat' her with it. sometimes I skip dinner altogether and just feed her her entire daily ration during her training sessions throughout the day, which in a weird sort of way seems to be a reinforcer in of itself..getting her food for being a good girl instead of just getting her food.

curb..could training sessions using meals be considered secondary reinforcers in of themselves? reinforcing the interest in food?

she was such a finicky eater before I started doing that.
(sorry for the rambling semi hijack)

 

[Curbside Prophet]

sometimes I skip dinner altogether and just feed her her entire daily ration during her training sessions throughout the day, which in a weird sort of way seems to be a reinforcer in of itself..getting her food for being a good girl instead of just getting her food.

You have a dog that contrafreeloads. I love dogs that contrafreeload.

curb..could training sessions using meals be considered secondary reinforcers in of themselves? reinforcing the interest in food?

Food is always a primary reinforcer. Some dogs, like yours, need to work for it. Some dogs, the non-food-motivated dog, need to be reminded that they need food and will have to work for it. You most certainly can reinforce interest in food. It can be as easy as upping the novelty of the food or using a clicker (secondary reinforcer) and pairing the click with a food, or it can be as difficult as withholding a few meals from the dog and working when he's hungry.

 

[Marsh Muppet]

I love dogs that contrafreeload.

Then you would go nuts for my guy (thinking that I understood the material in the link). My dog will work for food rewards that he won't eat. He pretty much refuses to eat anything green, but will enthusiastically perform for zucchini slices, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and whathaveyou. He immediately spits them out (with extreme prejudice) and eagerly awaits his next command/reward sequence. I have my own half baked theory as to what it all means to him.

BTW, I had to work to motivate him to food and praise. As a very young pup, he didn't care what you offered if it meant pulling himself away from what he found interesting.

 

[jesirose]

I think there are some people who are like that. People who for example have a trust fund or wealthy parents or whatever, yet choose to work. Or women (not being sexist, just an example) who have a husband who can support them, but choose to work for their own career. If lots of people prefer earning something to having it handed to them, why not dogs?

 

[jiml]

Im not a big free shaper. I fail to see how a dog that is reinforced gradually in the process of free shaping is any more of a "thinker" than one guided or lured. To me one just takes longer for the dog to figure out what the desied end result is. I can see how a behaviorthat a dog naturaly gives can be used.

 

[jesirose]

You're right, luring does take longer. I spent weeks trying to lure Sadie to bow, when I finally got around to capturing it she got it in 5 reps.

 

[K9companions]

If you can tell me how using his daily ration of food, or balancing his caloric intake (if you use treats) will cause him to gain weight...I might listen. Otherwise, you're just talking about something that has nothing to do with how primary reinforcers are used in training.

I did tell you. I just said that if I feed him the treats, he easily gains weight.
Hence why I do not use the "primary reinforcer".

An example of being more careful would be, using the dog's daily ration of food or balancing his daily caloric intake, so yes. But that's not how you decided it for yourself...you stopped walking altogether after seeing other trip.

Multiple people "tripped", INCLUDING myself (aka my dog), so I decided to drive a car.

Oh, so dogs behave because they just like their people? No wonder shelters are full of dogs...people don't have a clue what a dog is.

I said Hunter, not every dog. Yes, Hunter does it to please ME.

ABC's of learning: Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence.

Trained dog's ABC's: cue ("sit") - dog moves but towards ground - food reward.

Thinking dog's ABC's: voluntary behavior by the dog - dog moves but towards ground - food reward.

One in the same.

You can believe whatever you want, praise is and always will be a secondary reinforcer.

Yes, in your opinion. You can believe whatever you like as well.

Toys are secondary reinforcers too. Dogs don't need toys to pass on their genes.

But the point is, is that it doesn't mean it can not be used just as effectively in training.

What's wrong with stagnant training? What's wrong with a dog never learning to use his ability to adapt? What's wrong with the dog needing to be told to follow direction instead of volunteering it on his own? Geez, I don't know, you tell me.

These are all different circumstances that can't be clumped together. A dog can learn to adapt without a command changing.

No worries, I don't pay attention to that stuff. I can approximate my behavior to figure it out.

Good, because I am STILL tired.

 

[Curbside Prophet]

I did tell you. I just said that if I feed him the treats, he easily gains weight.
Hence why I do not use the "primary reinforcer".

Ok, I’m not writing in Spanish, so I trust you will eventually comprehend my question. You’ve avoided it thus far, but I’ll ask it just one more time. How can your dog gain weight with treats if you’ve balanced his daily caloric intake, such that it doesn’t exceed the calories you’d give him with his daily ration of food? Your dog can only gain weight if you’re offering more calories than what he needs daily to stay fit. Dog gains weight on treats = bad practice. Bad practice does NOT = give up on primary reinforcers. Bad practice = learn how to do it better.

Multiple people "tripped", INCLUDING myself (aka my dog), so I decided to drive a car.

Have you ever heard the idiom the blind leading the blind. You’re blind, and you were lead by the blind. I just hope you haven’t taken driving lessons from this person.

Yes, in your opinion. You can believe whatever you like as well.

Fact is not opinion. Constructs are.

But the point is, is that it doesn't mean it can not be used just as effectively in training.

I don’t recall this point ever being discussed. I don’t believe I’ve ever questioned that it couldn’t be used to some effect. I’ve questioned why you wouldn’t use a primary reinforcer to get behavior when decreasing latency is so important. All I’ve gathered so far is that you’re not willing to do so because of “complications”. Complications that are the result of your mechanical skill, and not the use of primary reinforcers.

A dog can learn to adapt without a command changing.

*insert loud errant buzzer sound here* It’s A * B * C, not A * sometimes B, sometime B+/-1, 2, or 3 * C(appetitive). In this example it must be A * varied B * C(aversive) – in order for the dog to learn B. Dogs don’t learn anything from indiscriminate reinforcement except maybe frustration.

If A is the dog trying behavior, B the behavior we mark, and C the food reward that goes in his mouth, the dog is never wrong - trying behavior (“thinking”) and producing the behavior we’ll mark IS our criteria. Trying behavior as a result of no reinforcement IS not “thinking”, it’s an emotional response to frustration (not what we want – outside of our criteria). It’s too late then, you’ll have to punish the dog and the dog will learn that trying behavior = no reinforcement, which = working for you is not fun. Sure, you can train a dog to follow your cues even if you’re no fun – that’s not the point. Dog guardians also want the dog to voluntarily choose to follow our cues. That’s how we pay homage to what the dog is. And the dog is a being who works to maximize primary reinforcers.

 

[K9companions]

Ok, I’m not writing in Spanish, so I trust you will eventually comprehend my question. You’ve avoided it thus far, but I’ll ask it just one more time. How can your dog gain weight with treats if you’ve balanced his daily caloric intake, such that it doesn’t exceed the calories you’d give him with his daily ration of food? Your dog can only gain weight if you’re offering more calories than what he needs daily to stay fit. Dog gains weight on treats = bad practice. Bad practice does NOT = give up on primary reinforcers. Bad practice = learn how to do it better.

I didn't think I had to explain this because I thought it was already apparant. My dog gets X amount of food for his meal, which is his quota. You add more to X and hes over fed. Could I feed him less? Sure, but why when I can give him a full meal and just praise him.

Have you ever heard the idiom the blind leading the blind. You’re blind, and you were lead by the blind.

On the contrary, I'm using my eyeballs and looking at the world around me and seeing what works and doesn't. Studies are great, but they are only right until someone else comes and proves them wrong. I SEE Hunter get fat, so I don't overfeed. I SEE him respond to praise, so I use it. Socrates was called blind in the face of difference, so if blind puts me in the same category as some of the most cherished minds, I'll take it.

What I am not seeing is why this argument is still persisting when:

1. I never said that the treat method was wrong and readily agreed that it worked. So I don't understand why your trying so hard to push it on me.

2. We obviously have different methods, different ways of finding out these methods, and it's safe to say that we are both stubborn enough that we aren't going to change.

Therefor, I'm going to let this come to a conclusin for my side. I feel as though we are running in circles and it's making my head spin.

 

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

what curb is saying is that treats dont have to be actual treats. many people, myself included use the dog's regular meal as food rewards. its a pretty common tenet when implementing nilif.

i use food rewards but my dog doesnt get any more than her regularly rationed meal..i just space her meal out into her training sessions instead of giving it to her all at once.

 

[jiml]

I use food and as Zim and curb said, If the dog is getting fat you are doing it wrong.

That said I know plenty of people that are better trainers than me, a couple w Utility Titles, that dont or rarely use food.