I think treat training is cruel. - Page 4

Duke,
Using food isn't a bribe, it is a reinforcer. A bribe is offered before the behavior is displayed and a reinforcer is offered after the behavior is displayed. There is a big difference. The dog working for food is working for the handler because the handler is the source of the food. With detection dogs, handlers used to reinforce with a toy by having it look like the toy just fell from the sky. Now, the better trainers know that the dog should know the toy is coming from the handler.
Prager,
How do you know a dog wants the treats rather than performing the motion? Operant learning isn't concerned with what is in an organism's head because with animals, you can never know and with people, they can lie or not be very self aware. Also, with food, it is not like the handler is just giving a food reward and not providing praise and petting. As the behaviors are learned, the reinforcement shifts to an intermittent schedule or might be completely faded away, and the dog will still perform the behavior. Most people won't work for free. You present yourself as a psychic dog whisperer claiming you know what is in a dog's head and vice versa. Reading a dog is one thing, but to claim you know the intricacies of the emotions and motivations of a dog displaying a certain behavior is presumptuous and has an air of superiority.

Apple for a few seconds you had me fooled and I have mistakenly thought that you are serious and actually want an answer to my question and I was going to answer your question. That is until I got to your insults. Please do not waste my time.  

Please alow me to one more time get to the purpose of OP>
As far as the concerns about what OP is saying goes it would be hard to answer all of them and not write a book. However, the biggest point here is an underestimating and lack of understanding why petting and voice work. Pet is not just a pet. In order to understand why pet works, we need to understand the way hormone oxytocin works. Besides oxytocin's functions during birth and lactation, oxytocin is an important player in social behavior which can easily be induced by a trainer via petting. If one pet the dog the "pettor" and the "pettee" secretes oxytocin which is a "feel-good" love and bonding hormone which then produces a cascade of other" feel-good" hormones it is a cocktail of brain chemicals: dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphin. Oxytocin in one way or another stimulates all of these happy chemicals at once. The secretion of the hormone oxytocin during petting has a powerful bonding effect and subsequent secretion of endorphin is also extremally powerful and effective. As a matter of fact, oxytocin is a reason why we can "bond" in the first place. This effect then, if used correctly, can be used by the trainer as a reward same as any other reward. That is because oxytocin and a subsequent hormonal cascade of "happy hormones" feels good and the dog wants to feel good. g
Animal studies on voles
have found that voles who were separated from other voles were stressed. However, when they were given doses of oxytocin, their levels of anxiety, cardiac stress, and depression fell, suggesting that stress increases internal production of the hormone and while externally supplied doses it can help reduce stress and thus feel good. It is thus obvious that oxytocin is a hormone creating comfort and is desired by the dog and it is thus effective if used in dog training as a reward and motivator.
How powerful this hormone is, is obvious to anyone who has seen "petoholic" dog which is a dog addicted to petting so much that it will relentlessly bother you in any opportune moment by nudging your hand demanding petting. This should give you an idea of how powerful the release of oxytocin and endorphin is during the petting. That is why dog trainer and dog owner must not go too far and must nip the demand for unsolicited petting from the dog at the butt as soon as the dog starts to demand "free" pets.But that is another story.
However skillful dog trainer can harness this powerful pet-oxytocin + endorphins action to the benefit of the relationship between man and dog and as a motivator and reward for desirable behavior which we solicit from the dog during obedience training.
One may argue that the endorphin ( and other happy "feel-good hormones) effect is also present during use of treat rewards as it is done during obedience training based on food.
That is true. Treats induce feel-good endorphin and that is why treat training works. At the same time that is why it is not a good argument to say that treats work and petting and voice praising, does not work. They both exploit endorphin feel-good hormone induced emotion.
  On top of it, the pet and voice  is always handy the pet and voice which is directly related to action from the trainer and handler without the necessity of putting anything ( food, toy) between the trainer and the dog.
I would like to emphasize that I am not saying that food training does not work. However, during training of obedience for everyday life, I am trying to achieve two things.
1) A reliable performance of commands
2) and not less importantly building of a proper relationship between me and the dog.
For the building of the relationship the oxytocin is obviously extremely important and does it by primary purpose of the hormone. Food training lacks oxytocin and that means to me that using pet and voice is actually better for what I want from a dog.
On top of all this, the training with food treats is based on avoiding of the negative feeling of hunger induced by insulin. Where this negative feeling does not exist if we use higher then for the handler/ trainer pitched voice and petting.
As far as higher than the normal pitch of the voice goes I will just say that dogs are genetically predisposed to instinctually feel happy when they hear higher then normal pitched, Mickey mouse-like voice, which is used during voice reward. This is a powerful instinctual response which is in contrast to the deep voice which is instinctually programmed to be a warning or threatening type of voice. This could be easily tested by using high pitched and low pitched voice and observing a response of even untrained dog. High pitched voice leads the dog to be instinctually happy and low pitched voice - the dog instinctually "unhappy" since low pitch voice simulates warning growl.
Thus the pet and voice used correctly are very powerful tools based on hormonal response and inherited instincts

There is also research that shows the longer a dog gazes/looks at his owner, the more oxytocin is released. Food is often used to train a focused heel, which is the dog looking into the owner's eyes. So the argument could be made that using food actually increases oxytocin. You can also use food to build engagement exercises which increase eye contact. I don't downplay the importance of petting, praise or even compulsion. I just think it is inaccurate to believe dog's are not working for their handler when food is used. In sport, you need food to get the precision, which is part of the challenge. For everyday life training, I can see and practice praising and petting without food.

Page 4 already...
So much stuff here...it’s kind of all over the place. But interesting.

Ok, so upon reading everything...we have 2 camps....some people on this thread have not studied in depth„classic reinforcement training“ and others that have.

Because of this, our language, our use of certain words, is not universally understood the same way.

I say this VERY RESPECTFULLY (!), as we all can‘t learn everything,  and this way of teaching is relatively newish (in dog world...maybe 20 years or so...in LE, maybe even SchH...much much later, if at all).

And, I am not saying other ways are wrong, bad or not Effective in their own way. Please acknowledge this before moving forward.

In Apples post, on the top of pg 4, I read excellent understanding of reinforment training.

Rewards and bribes are NOT the same as reinforcements.

Reinforcements are immediate consequenses after an action preformed by the dog (in this case...but you can do it with any animal). It is immediate feedback for the dogs brain, that, hey, this is a good thing to do! A type of operant conditioning. A reward is given for something well done...but is not effective to learn a new behavior. There is a difference in the dogs mind.

The reinforcement needs to be administered within milliseconds of the behavior. Which is why sometimes a clicker is used as it is a fast and neutral sound to mark a behavior and that a good consequence will come. This is why in order to learn NEW behaviors, it is an invaluable tool. It simply reinforces behaviors which become conditioned to happen without the reinforcement at a later time.

You can use your voice with a quick YES, or whatever marker you want. You don‘t need a clicker. But that is the idea behind the clicker. If using your voice, you need to mark within 1 second of that behavior. Personally for my own training, I don‘t use a clicker. If find it cumbersome. But it has its uses.

With Reinforcment, You are PAIRING a behavior and a consequence...in the dog‘s mind and muscle memory. Then you will start to pair that consequence (what ever it is) with a cue and your verbal praise...so that the reinforcement and the praise eventually become the SAMETHING. So that more reinformcements once a new behavior is learned and solidified, is no longer needed.

All of this has NOTHING to do with the emotional bond to your dog. It is part of your bond to the dog, but not in the context as many are writing about the dog only manipulating one for a reward.

A consequence can be anything the dog desires. Each dog will TELL YOU what a good consequence is for that day, that excersise, that minute...or that stage of training.

With puppies, food often works great.

An older dog in drive will blow you off if you come with a piece of food. Of course! Because the food is not an adequately desired consequence relating to his drive. But a consequence for an action will still be needed, it will just be different....it can be that extra bite on the sleeve. The possesion of the sleeve...or, if the dog will not comply the way we want...it can be a negative reinforcer too. Dog thinks „Hey...I don‘t want that to happen  again!“  I‘ll  try something different next  time . 

So to say that Treat training is cruel is just absurd. (Sorry Prager..no disrespect at all.but maybe you were just purposely inciting a discussion with that radical title)

Now, I will say that sometimes in our world...like in some big box pet stores that offer training..or trainers that deal mostly with small pet dogs...there has been the movement for only positive treat rewarding for every single behavior issue. This works sometime, but to say it is the cure for everything is balony...but I think we are at a level here where we all know that is nonsense, especially when used on the GSD and other big breeds.

Oxytocin- pat on the head- high voice...and all that stuff:

Oxytocin is a buzz word.
Yes, it is a hormone poured out by mothers/dams that have just given birth to facilitate bonding with the pups. And is ASSUMED to bond between owners and dogs. But, it doesnt work the same with all dogs.

And, in some testing done...it makes dogs more docile and look for help from owners more often...instead of tying to solve their own problems. (Hmmm, do we want that in a GSD?)

As a matter of fact, I have had several male dogs that absolutes DID NOT like to be pet on the head...or anyplace else. They did not like too much physical contact in form of petting, and could care less about my high exciting voice.

However, these same males also never left my side. They were all extremely loyal Velcro dogs in a positive way. They looked to me for guidance, listened, worked with me....but if I tried to reach out to pet or stroke them and saying good boy...they would instantly back off, sometimes very subtly - an inexperienced dog person would not perceive it , but showing uncomfortable signs. They always laid at my feet, always watched me...but never came on the couch next to me...or on top of me. Always respectfully reserved.

Try this test with your dog...call him/her to you from a distance into in a front sit. As they come running and plop into the sit, instantly reach out to pet them and watch their reaction...more often than not you might see a slight backing up of the head, eyeballs swiveling  to one side...or tongue to nose flicking. That speaks for itself.

I have written WAY TO MUCH!








 

hmmmmmm Very interesting stuff.

Apple thank you for alerting me to Oxytocine and food relationship. I have done some research on the topic and this is what I have found:  The empirical evidence that food-sharing events in chimpanzees are associated with significantly higher urinary oxytocin levels than non-sharing social feeding events.  .Now I am quite sure that treats are food sharing. The definition of food sharing says that food sharing has been defined as the owner of a food resource allowing others to access it, despite the fact that it could be monopolized. From all this, it seems obvious that yes oxytocin is secreted when a treat is given which facilitates bonding. And food sharing facilitates bonding. In this one chimpanzee study food was actively shared, such that the possessor extended the food towards the receiver and released it in the absence of aggression. Food-sharing events could thus be single momentary events, multiple momentary events or protracted events. Food-sharing events could occur with begging behaviour . Begging was either (i) sitting and staring at the food item (or possessor), (ii) reaching towards but not touching the food item or possessor (with or without whimpering), (iii) touching the food item or possessor, or (iv) placing a hand directly over the possessor's mouth. Begging behaviours (iii) and (iv) were considered to be low and high harassment, respectively. Here is a link to a study from which I have borrowed the quotes above. :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3906952/

So yes I stand corrected. Food sharing leads to secretion of oxytocin and thus we can say that food treats will help to bond.

However, the point of the original post was that food is inducing insulin hunger hormone ghrelin which makes dog feel pangs which the dog is trying to avoid by performing tricks for us which we call obedience. 

 In my view, this obedience is fake because the dog and the human have a different reason for the performance of the exercise.   What I mean is that when I say "down!" I want the dog to lay down where the dog wants the treat which he knows he will get when he performs the trick of laying down even so he does not want to lay down - but he actually wants the treat instead.

 On top, if it,  he wants the treat because insulin shot is making him hungry. That is my main point 

 The other issue is that the dog is thus not working for me and with me the trainer and handler but it is working for himself - in this case to satisfy its hunger or innate potential to feel hunger pangs if he does not eat and eats now.  And that leads me back to the OP premise that treats may be considered to be "cruel". 

 :)

 

JJ said:"So to say that Treat training is cruel is just absurd. (Sorry Prager..no disrespect at all.but maybe you were just purposely inciting a discussion with that radical title)"

Prager Hans: So you think that causing a dog extremally unpleasant feeling of hunger pangs is not cruel ( training)? I guess it would depend on your definition of cruel ( training). In my opinion, cruel training is the action which causes an unpleasant feeling of varying intensity in order to get some kind of a response. where such can be achieved in different way where no unpleasant feeling is induced.

I will say this about my O P. I am sick and tired of positive only trainers telling me that + only food training in comparison to +/_ is somehow humanely superior and +/_ is cruel.
IMO it is not so.

 besides that I was interested in generating some interesting discussion. 

Prager:

I will say this about my O P. I am sick and tired of positive only trainers telling me that + only food training in comparison to +/_ is somehow humanely superior and +/_ is cruel. IMO it is not so.

That may be...as I just wrote in my last email about the type of training done in big box pet stores...etc.... Yes, there are those „pet type“ all positive trainers out there, which doesnt work for everything...and for many dogs, including the gsd can be baloney....if used exclusively.

But, and I say it again...don’t put all food training into one basket.

I believe you need +/- in your tool belt as well.

Hey, I will out myself here and say I am a proponent of prong collars and ecollars...IF USED CORRECTLY AND IN THE CORRECT SITUATION. Which means, not to inflict pain...which they don‘t if used correctly, I had to add.

 

Hunger pangs? Eh...meh....interesting thought...but I don‘t think that is a thing with food training.

So if oxytocine is a buzzword for hormone which is ASSUMED to generate a bond between owners and dogs, then according to you what causes the bond between man and dog?
Also your argument that bonding "doesnt work with all dogs." can be easily explained by the physiological inability of the dog to produce oxytocin