I think treat training is cruel. - Page 7

That's is correct apple I like your way of thinking 👌

Apple

I'd rather use Toys. Like mentioned before, food is much more work. You gotta buy it, cook it, cut it , store it, replenish it, etc. I like the convenience of always having toys with me. I think food is great when they are young, but I'm too lazy to go through all that for obedience and tracking.

Plus, to me, I can work on almost anything with a toy. I don't mind the break in training after it is marked, released and rewarded. I don't think it hurts the dog to get a breather and blow off some steam between tasks. I also think I get more speed in the sit, down in motion, recalls, etc. But maybe that's me.

I use both. I believe that using food first is the best route to go. With toys, the dog needs to have enough drive for the toy to be of value. That is about selecting the right dog. The other thing with toys is that the dog has to learn the game first, which is fine. By the game I mean things like striking, gripping, retrieving, outing, etc. If you have a high drive dog that is also possessive, you have to teach the dog to want to bring the toy back to you. IMO, both are very useful tools and have nothing to do with cruelty. Just the opposite.

@Apple Hunger pangs as I have explained in the OP are not a matter of starving but they are a matter of secretion of insulin and ghrelin hormones which happens when the dog is being conditioned with food or expects the food or sees the food. That is not a matter of anthropomorphizing but that is a matter of physiological reactions which in this case are the same in all animals.
To say that "hunger pangs has any relevance" is totally misunderstanding why the dog works for food. Again I suggest reading my OP where I deal with this exact topic. Otherwise, we are beating a dead horse.
Personally, I am not against food reward as long as we do not use it to condition the dog with it to perform in the drive. The reason for intermittent use ( not conditioning with it) me is that I want the dog to work for me and not for food.

The whole point of using food is to motivate the dog so that he is in drive, therefore, when using food, you want him to be hungry and releasing ghrelin hormones. If the dog is satiated, food is not a reinforcer. Once a dog has learned a behavior via food, intermittent reinforcement is actually best for increasing and maintaining behaviors. Using food as a reward (positive reinforcer) is the use of a primary reinforcer. Food is a primary reinforcer because it is required for survival. It is not conditioned reinforcement. Praise is actually an example of conditioned reinforcement.

Marker training =

1.) Marking that split second of a behavior that you want from the dog (with clicker or your voice like a ‚yes‘)

A marker is simply a perfect and un-misunderstandable communication to your dog that EXACTLY THAT is the behavior you want.

2.) Reinforce that behavior with something of value that the dog likes. Could be food...could be anything...Combine with secondary reinforcer=Praise

3.) Start adding a cue for that behavior.

Eventually you get this ⬇️ by combining long strings of behavior.

No matter what you want to train - and no matter what kind of dog it is.

So saying food reinforcement is cruel - is pretty way out there in crazy-land...but was good for discussion.

 

https://www.facebook.com/FVI09/videos/2211446262222765/

Apple so Pavlov did not condition dogs with food?

@ Jesse - yeah, but Aussies and collies are still s-o-o-o much better at it !

@ Prager - like I said, no respect !

Mutti-
Yeah, those aussies and collies are unbeatable for dog dancing!

I saw a few Shepherds too, but because of size and the longer backs...they dont have that spunk and panache! But do a very nice, job too.

(Some of our sport-pp guys on the forum might not like this, 😂)