Dont Say No To Your Dog?

[angelsun]

Huski and a few others:

You are misunderstanding what I am saying.

Firstly I am not against food rewards, as I have said multiple times that during the beginning process I do in fact use food. I also use toys if needed, so claiming that I am against dogs that are food trained, or feel that they will not succeed overall is not true.

I also brought up the mention of low versus high food rewards in response to another posters comment. This was not my experience with the belgian but anothers and yes, it does happen all the time, specially with a dog that has a low food drive. (try a great dane for example)

Handlers with bad timing are in fact responsible for mucking up a dogs effort, however not all handlers are inept with a clicker, in fact many work it very well. The key again is to work the dog to the shape/behaviour desired and then wean the dog off the cliker (food) which I was told by a trainer in QLD that it was impossible to do. In their opinion, when clicker training, it is forever. There was nothing I could do to explain to this person that clicker, like any method is a tool that works if done properly but you MUST move beyond the actual clicker as a reinforcement because as mentioned by Longcoat, it as well as food and toys are not permitted in a trialing situation and my experience watching overly rewarded dogs (not little babies) is that they are not able to work without having rewards stuffed in their faces constantly.

Does this mean that the instructors are wrong or the method is wrong? I beleive the instructors aren't as smart or knowledgeable as they would claim to be. I've said MANY times before, I do not have any issues with TRUE positive reinforcement training. But like so many methods out there, this one left to some, has turned into basically a joke. A true positive trainer SEES results and the level of food lowers as the training moves along.

The reality though, which escapes some here in the is thread, is that you do not always have food in your pockets....how do you reward then?

As for the comment made by me about distractions....it was taken to beleive that these were placed with young and inexperienced dogs, which is not true nor was intended to read that way, as I stated that during the sit/down/stay exercises the distractions were littered across the floor. It's called 'proofing' and isn't done with beginner dogs. However my beginner dogs are challenged with distractions and dogs are not pushed aside because they might be one to the rest of the class which was one of the statements made earlier in this piece.

Going back to the main poster and the observations they had at the 'feed it til it drops' class, this discussion was based on that method versus anything else, and what people thought about it. Like so many positive threads to educate, this is beginning to turn into a heated debate on 'youre wrong and I'm write" sort of thread.

I can not stress enough....I am not against positive training, however based on behavioural aspects of dogs, and years of experience with a great many breeds, I can not be convinced that the methods currently being used by Delta are in fact in the best interest of the dogs or their humans.

[Zug Zug]

All I can say is this - I tried working with purely no-food training with my first dog with limited (almost no) success, then changed to food rewards (after reading the Kintala Club book 20 years ago) and voila she improved dramatically almost overnight.

Unfortunately that dog died young, then 15 years later I found myself doing formal training again with another dog (after having kids in the interim). I used food rewards but had trouble, as you say, being precise and making the transition to the ring. I was introduced to clicker training and voila - we improved dramatically almost overnight.

I had been told by many people that our issues were because I used food. But that wasn't correct. It was because I was using the food incorrectly. Moving to the use of the clicker has made our communication very precise. Her motivation to work is now very high and more than enough to get through a ring pattern.

Do I always have food on me? No. But with such a long and strong history of reinforcement, she will work for me anyway these days. Dogs working only for the food is a stage you go through while they're learning, but they generalise their behaviour over time and you end up with a dog that loves to work for you.

[ness]

Bedazzledx2 - you know its about time you stopped taking that robotic version of that Aussie of yours that you have stashed away in the cupboard and actually started taking Brooklyn to trials .

<Just stirring mate - Brooklyn would be one of Australia's best and most reliable trialling dogs and yep as dedazzledx2 said trained with food rewards>

[Kavik]

Simple question: Can you use food/toy rewards in official obedience or agility trials???.

You can't use food or toy rewards in the actual ring. However, in agility, you can have your reward outside of the ring and reward after your run. (I haven't competed in obedience). Most people put their reward outside of the ring after the last obstacle. Smart people also do this in training (took me a while to work out as this is my first competing dog )

Agility is trained with no physical corrections at all. Many people achieve high levels of reliability.

My high prey drive dog can easily be trained around a field of people playing football and he pays no attention to them, more interested in my toy (they train on the field I walk my dog on all the time).

ETA: International agility instructors have said that Australians do not reward their dogs often enough. I practice individual obstacle skills at home to improve them with a high rate of reinforcement, and while I leave my reward bag with my toy and the majority of treats at the end of a run in training, I put some treats in my pocket for rewarding start line stays and contact performances. What I really like about agility is that you can break down obstacles and to some extent handling skills into small pieces and practice them separately to improve performance. I also like that trials can be seen as 'ring experiences' for your dog, and that it is important to have a positive ring experience. My more experienced friends have shown me that it is more important to have the dog running fluidly and keen around the course than to do all the obstacles, and missing a jump in your first couple of trials is no big deal.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Kavik

[Prydenjoy]

My little brag for the weekend....my positively trained (with food...gasp!) boy won both Utility trials in today's double header 192/200 and 198/200. No food or toys allowed in the ring. Wonder how that happened?

How can anyone argue with that? WELL DONE!!! Considering that many of the top scoring dogs around the world are trained positively I'm not sure how anyone can argue with any of it, clearly it can be done, there's no question! Perhaps it's self justification to make them feel better about punishing their own dogs (that's the only logicla explaination I can come to, honestly...)

Do I always have food on me? No. But with such a long and strong history of reinforcement, she will work for me anyway these days. Dogs working only for the food is a stage you go through while they're learning, but they generalise their behaviour over time and you end up with a dog that loves to work for you.

EXACTLY! Whether there is food or not, if the reinforcement history is good enough the dog will simply love to work for all of the positive associations it holds.

Simple question: Are you allowed to use physical corrections in the ring? I don't see how this is any different to being allowed to carry food in the ring... (a dog on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement will not need you to carry food with you anyway).

And a dog that works for "praise" only is generally working to avoid an aversive (as Jean Donaldson reminds us in her excellent book "The Culture Clash"). The praise is simply a signal that they are doing the right thing and not about to be punished, so yes, they'll work for praise, doesn't mean they'll work with the same drive and joy that they would be working for if they had something they actually ENJOYED to motivate them.

[huski]

Yes we do train in prey drive for bitework, not obedience though.........infact many world level Schutzhund dogs are trained with E Collars also

What a load of crap! I know schutzhund trainers who work their dogs in prey drive when doing obedience. It would hardly be uncommon!

I have no problem with e-collar training, btw

Handlers with bad timing are in fact responsible for mucking up a dogs effort, however not all handlers are inept with a clicker, in fact many work it very well. The key again is to work the dog to the shape/behaviour desired and then wean the dog off the cliker (food) which I was told by a trainer in QLD that it was impossible to do. In their opinion, when clicker training, it is forever. There was nothing I could do to explain to this person that clicker, like any method is a tool that works if done properly but you MUST move beyond the actual clicker as a reinforcement because as mentioned by Longcoat, it as well as food and toys are not permitted in a trialing situation and my experience watching overly rewarded dogs (not little babies) is that they are not able to work without having rewards stuffed in their faces constantly.

Why not use a clicker forever? If you've trained your dog to trial you won't need it in the ring because your dog can work for that amount of time without needing food or reinforcement with the clicker. Most people use clicker training to teach behaviours, unless you stop teaching your dog new things of course clicker trainers will always use clickers.

How many dogs who trial today do you think have been trained purely on praise? We all know you can't use food or toys in the ring, yet many trialling dogs are trained successfully with them. Of all the people I know who train in drive, there are many who trial successfully with their dogs and they maintain their drive the entire time they are in the ring without the handler needing food or the prey item on them, because they increase the amount of time the dog can sustain that drive. There is no need to wean your dog off food or prey rewards just because you are trialling. I wouldn't work for no pay, why should my dog? I still don't see the difference between using praise and using food or toy rewards. All are rewarding the dog. If we follow your logic, your dog should be able to work without any praise, too.

My dog is trained in food drive and I don't need to stuff food in her face constantly. Still wondering if you think she looks like a dog who is unable to think or work because she's trained with food??

Does this mean that the instructors are wrong or the method is wrong? I beleive the instructors aren't as smart or knowledgeable as they would claim to be. I've said MANY times before, I do not have any issues with TRUE positive reinforcement training. But like so many methods out there, this one left to some, has turned into basically a joke. A true positive trainer SEES results and the level of food lowers as the training moves along.

Of course they lessen the time between food rewards... or you'd never get in the trial ring. Doesn't mean you have to eliminate them entirely, though.

The reality though, which escapes some here in the is thread, is that you do not always have food in your pockets....how do you reward then?

The reality does not escape me, and if you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd see I addressed this several times already. You're assuming that a dog trained with food rewards never complies to the handler without food being present. As I said earlier, my dog happily complies to commands in every day situations without me needing food. But when we go to training I want her to work in drive, and I expect 110% focus, fast, snappy responses to commands, I want her full of beans and jumping off the walls excited to work. I don't always want her in that high energy state at home.

Going back to the main poster and the observations they had at the 'feed it til it drops' class, this discussion was based on that method versus anything else, and what people thought about it. Like so many positive threads to educate, this is beginning to turn into a heated debate on 'youre wrong and I'm write" sort of thread.

Because you ARE wrong that dogs trained with food are unable to work well in trials, or that they have less reliability, or that they can't think or work - or that ALL dogs can be trained just as successfully, to the same standard as they are with food/toy rewards, with praise. That assumes all dogs are the same and motivated by the same things. You are welcome when you come up to QLD next to get the same work I get out of my dog just with praise

I can not stress enough....I am not against positive training, however based on behavioural aspects of dogs, and years of experience with a great many breeds, I can not be convinced that the methods currently being used by Delta are in fact in the best interest of the dogs or their humans.

I am more than happy to use e-collars or prongs. I have no problem with corrections or punishment. I'm not and never have been a fan of DELTA training, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[Prydenjoy]

I haven't actually done the DELTA course so don't actually know what they teach, but I do know that a lot of learning is subject to interpratation. Perhaps the course itself appeals to overly permissive people, who fail to pass on alternative ways to give consequences to the dog? Therefore the instructors are overly permissive and the dogs get away with murder. Doesn't say ANYTHING about positive methods, POSITIVE IS NOT PERMISSIVE (or it doesn't HAVE to be anyway). There can be more consequences than simply witholding treats. Time outs can be used, stop moving on a walk when the dog is pulling, not letting the dog out of its crate when it is barking etc. Berri doesn't get away with much that I don't WANT him to do, however I never yell at him and he is certainly not on a check chain or an E Collar or anything like that. There are consequences to his actions and he falls into line pretty quickly when he realises what is expected of him. Same goes for children (for those who have brought children into the discussion). I never smack my child, but that doesn't mean I am permissive! She knows if she wants another toy out she has to pack up the first one, if she wants to go outside she has to have a hat and sunscreen on. She doesn't argue with any of this (she's only 21 months old) and her carers that have had her have always been amazed that she packs up their toys etc without even being asked. It is because she knows what is expected of her, she knows if she wants B to happen she has to do A first. Gee if I'd started smacking her and started that power struggle I'd be onto the belt already because she's so strong willed it just wouldn't work for her. I'm working WITH her, not against her. Same goes for my dogs, and they all love me for it!

So if there is an issue with a certian Delta instructor, or instructors, I can't vouch for them because I haven't met them. Just don't use them as an example to rubbish the method altogether. Have you considered contacting Delta with your concerns? Perhaps they need to focus more in their course as to alternate consequences, and natural consequences. Also how to motivate without food, because it is true - We wont always have food in our hands, but even then we have control to their access to a car, a toy, being let off leash, back/belly scratches, playing with the cat (big reinforcer for my dogs), playing with other dogs etc etc etc etc etc etc the list is endless! If you utilise all of these things and the dog learns to earn anything it wants you will most certainly not always need food in your hand, because there is always something to fall back on (even if it is JUST PRAISE once in a while, using food does not affect how much it enjoys verbal praise, in fact if you're pairing it with food enough in the training stage and thereafter it will become a secondary reinforcer - SO THERE!)

[Cosmolo]

I realise we need to wean to a point- but why do we need to wean off rewards completely? If someone weaned me off money completely, i'd probably stop working after a period of time.. Whats the problem with having a dog work for something?

Personally i think its silly that dogs can't be rewarded in the ring anyway- but then again the trialling ring is not my measure of success.

I think e collars and drive training can work rather well together and i think alot of the international schutzhund community use both.

Positive training can achieve high levels of reliability with some dogs, with others it can be limiting- (i have seen both with exceptional trainers, it wasn't that those who were limited with their dogs weren't 'doing it right') but that doesn't make it wrong!

Edited April 5, 2010 by Cosmolo

[Mas1981]

There are loads of successful people at our club who trial their dogs, they all use food when training and reward their dogs after their rounds in an obedience trial. If I show my dog his dinner bowl then leave the bowl inside and ask him to work, he works very well, same thing would apply for the obedience trail leave the food in the car etc, dog works and then gets it after.

[Kelpie-i]

I realise we need to wean to a point- but why do we need to wean off rewards completely? If someone weaned me off money completely, i'd probably stop working after a period of time.. Whats the problem with having a dog work for something?

Personally i think its silly that dogs can't be rewarded in the ring anyway- but then again the trialling ring is not my measure of success.

I think e collars and drive training can work rather well together and i think alot of the international schutzhund community use both.

Positive training can achieve high levels of reliability with some dogs, with others it can be limiting- (i have seen both with exceptional trainers, it wasn't that those who were limited with their dogs weren't 'doing it right') but that doesn't make it wrong!

I'm with you Cos, I see no benefit in removing rewards all together other than the dog now being made to work for nothing. I think it all goes back to the very old style of training and beliefs that the dog MUST obey because you are master and no other reason, stemming from human's inner need to control that which is less superior to us.

[huski]

I realise we need to wean to a point- but why do we need to wean off rewards completely? If someone weaned me off money completely, i'd probably stop working after a period of time.. Whats the problem with having a dog work for something?

Personally i think its silly that dogs can't be rewarded in the ring anyway- but then again the trialling ring is not my measure of success.

I think e collars and drive training can work rather well together and i think alot of the international schutzhund community use both.

Positive training can achieve high levels of reliability with some dogs, with others it can be limiting- (i have seen both with exceptional trainers, it wasn't that those who were limited with their dogs weren't 'doing it right') but that doesn't make it wrong!

I'm with you Cos, I see no benefit in removing rewards all together other than the dog now being made to work for nothing. I think it all goes back to the very old style of training and beliefs that the dog MUST obey because you are master and no other reason, stemming from human's inner need to control that which is less superior to us.

Agree with both of you

[Prydenjoy]

stemming from human's inner need to control that which is less superior to us.

I see a lot of that mentality everywhere I go. Why do we use forceful methods on our dogs? Because WE CAN!! Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

I would never (not these days anyway, been there, done that) apply force to a dog so that I could get the pride of an obedience title or whatever (assuming that it were impossible to trial a dog with positive methods, which clearly it isn't anyway). If it came to that I would just opt for a happy pet. If the dogs weren't having fun I simply wouldn't bother. Why some people put their dogs through all kinds of pain and punishment for their own means is beyond me

[Kavik]

I haven't actually done the DELTA course so don't actually know what they teach, but I do know that a lot of learning is subject to interpratation. Perhaps the course itself appeals to overly permissive people, who fail to pass on alternative ways to give consequences to the dog? Therefore the instructors are overly permissive and the dogs get away with murder. Doesn't say ANYTHING about positive methods, POSITIVE IS NOT PERMISSIVE (or it doesn't HAVE to be anyway). There can be more consequences than simply witholding treats.

I agree that positive is not permissive. Agility is a very positive training based sport.

My issue with Delta is that from what I have heard from people who have done the course, they don't actually teach the instructors how to train dogs or how to deal with problem behaviour at all. The lady I talked to said they actually had to refer a certain number of people to a veterinary behaviourist to pass the course. They are not even supposed to try to deal with problem behaviour. I guess at least they are supposed to know their limitations in that regard. They are not shown the different techniques and methods out there, only the one method, the others are not even acknowledged.

Another (different) Delta person I talked to didn't understand why I wanted lots of prey drive in my next dog, as she thought that prey drive was only a nuisance and not something you could use to your advantage to get a good performance.

[alpha bet]

Cosmolo - that was beautifully put and I agree with you whole-heartedly.

Unfortunately things we do around our dogs is becoming a "ban this and ban that". Those whom push for those decisions and the decision makers themselves don't seem to get that. Having an open mind means that we can approach every dog as an individual more freely and potentially more fairly.

Good point Erny - If we are not careful we could find ourselves banned from using anything other than our thoughts.......

I went to a conference overseas last month and spoke with people who have been forced out of associations because they advised someone to use a check collar..... Pretty scary thought...

Personally I was always concered about the use of electronic collar - however I watched a display on the use of the e-collar and found it very different to previous displays I have seen in australia. For a start the collar had a setting from 1 to 128 - he worked the dog on a setting of 6 - i tried the collar on and couldn't even feel it till a slight vibration about setting 21.

Not sure that I would actually use an e-collar but I could see the benefit. Perhaps we are too rash to ban it just because we have some idiots.

Guess its a matter of being prepared to stop and look and always being able to review.

[Kavik]

I realise we need to wean to a point- but why do we need to wean off rewards completely? If someone weaned me off money completely, i'd probably stop working after a period of time.. Whats the problem with having a dog work for something?

Personally i think its silly that dogs can't be rewarded in the ring anyway- but then again the trialling ring is not my measure of success.

I think e collars and drive training can work rather well together and i think alot of the international schutzhund community use both.

Positive training can achieve high levels of reliability with some dogs, with others it can be limiting- (i have seen both with exceptional trainers, it wasn't that those who were limited with their dogs weren't 'doing it right') but that doesn't make it wrong!

I'm with you Cos, I see no benefit in removing rewards all together other than the dog now being made to work for nothing. I think it all goes back to the very old style of training and beliefs that the dog MUST obey because you are master and no other reason, stemming from human's inner need to control that which is less superior to us.

Agree with both of you

I also agree Top competitors don't wean off rewards completely. As I said before top international competitors have said that we don't reward enough.

[huski]

Personally I was always concered about the use of electronic collar - however I watched a display on the use of the e-collar and found it very different to previous displays I have seen in australia. For a start the collar had a setting from 1 to 128 - he worked the dog on a setting of 6 - i tried the collar on and couldn't even feel it till a slight vibration about setting 21.

Not sure that I would actually use an e-collar but I could see the benefit. Perhaps we are too rash to ban it just because we have some idiots.

Guess its a matter of being prepared to stop and look and always being able to review.

That's my experience with the e-collar too. I had the same collar on and couldn't feel anything until around level 15. The dog using it was also working on around level five. When used like that, you can actually see that it is one of the less aversive training tools/methods out there because it's so subtle.

[dark angel]

I haven't actually done the DELTA course so don't actually know what they teach, but I do know that a lot of learning is subject to interpratation. Perhaps the course itself appeals to overly permissive people, who fail to pass on alternative ways to give consequences to the dog? Therefore the instructors are overly permissive and the dogs get away with murder. Doesn't say ANYTHING about positive methods, POSITIVE IS NOT PERMISSIVE (or it doesn't HAVE to be anyway). There can be more consequences than simply witholding treats. Time outs can be used, stop moving on a walk when the dog is pulling, not letting the dog out of its crate when it is barking etc. Berri doesn't get away with much that I don't WANT him to do, however I never yell at him and he is certainly not on a check chain or an E Collar or anything like that. There are consequences to his actions and he falls into line pretty quickly when he realises what is expected of him. Same goes for children (for those who have brought children into the discussion). I never smack my child, but that doesn't mean I am permissive! She knows if she wants another toy out she has to pack up the first one, if she wants to go outside she has to have a hat and sunscreen on. She doesn't argue with any of this (she's only 21 months old) and her carers that have had her have always been amazed that she packs up their toys etc without even being asked. It is because she knows what is expected of her, she knows if she wants B to happen she has to do A first. Gee if I'd started smacking her and started that power struggle I'd be onto the belt already because she's so strong willed it just wouldn't work for her. I'm working WITH her, not against her. Same goes for my dogs, and they all love me for it!

So if there is an issue with a certian Delta instructor, or instructors, I can't vouch for them because I haven't met them. Just don't use them as an example to rubbish the method altogether. Have you considered contacting Delta with your concerns? Perhaps they need to focus more in their course as to alternate consequences, and natural consequences. Also how to motivate without food, because it is true - We wont always have food in our hands, but even then we have control to their access to a car, a toy, being let off leash, back/belly scratches, playing with the cat (big reinforcer for my dogs), playing with other dogs etc etc etc etc etc etc the list is endless! If you utilise all of these things and the dog learns to earn anything it wants you will most certainly not always need food in your hand, because there is always something to fall back on (even if it is JUST PRAISE once in a while, using food does not affect how much it enjoys verbal praise, in fact if you're pairing it with food enough in the training stage and thereafter it will become a secondary reinforcer - SO THERE!)

I have no issues with the instructors at all.I have issues with the training practice they deliver at this timefrom what ive seen and heard(still taking erny's point in my stride).Re my first post.

And as a few people also have said on here the Delta type of training has not been for them.I dont think there has been a person yet that has said that they fully agree with their regime or one that has said they go to a Delta class.

Yet what i find surprising the amount of people that go to them.

Yes you maybe right that they are overly permissive people.Or they feel good because the way they train their dogs is a "feel good" way.

Looking at the reward aspect this discussion has become very black and white.All rewards for a dog to me are equal.Wether it be toys,food or praise.I know that i dont praise my dog for everything he does well but he still does it.So i guess that not giving a treat always, is the same.Sooner or later they will get one either after the training has finished or after they have done something special.

As with all learning behaviour rewards should be greatest in the learning phase.But once the dog has learnt something it doesnt neccesarily need a reward each time it does it.The motivation factor.....some dogs are motivated by the anticipation of getting a reward.Put simply, drive.Albeit prey or food.Using a tug toy is prey drive not "play" as some have mentioned

Others know what is expected of them ,what is right and what is wrong.The consequences for doing a wrong thing are much a factor as for doing a right thing.

As each dog is different in its personality each dogs training regime has to be tweaked to suit it.I find nothing wrong in training in drive why should there be,as i also find nothing wrong in training out of drive.Again depends on the dog.

Yet i dont have my dog earn everything.If he comes to me rolls on his back and wants a belly scratch i give him one.He doesnt have to do something for it.But that doesnt mean that every time he rolls over he gets one.He doesnt have to earn to get into the car.Im quite happy to tell him car and he jumps in but again different things for different people and dogs

[MrsD]

Huski has pretty much summed up what I would have said but there are a couple of points I'd like to make.

1. If you have to starve your dog for 3 days for it to be food motivated then you are using the wrong reward! You use what reward your dog likes best, & yes, for a (very very) few dogs that may be the owner's praise. But for the majority of dogs it's either food or a toy.

2. There is a difference between weaning the dog completely off the food/clicker & varying the schedule of reward & being able to get your dog to work a long period of time without the reward. As Huski said, you go to work each day & work for 5 days & then get your "reward" ie pay at the end of a week, same with a dog, I can go out & work my dog for 10 minutes & then take him inside & give him a treat or play. He has been taught that if he does the work he will get a reward at the end of it. Note that playing in the case of Jarrah does NOT necessarily mean that you have to have a specific toy or article, he is happy with a reward of play where it is just playing with me. Play is his preferred reward but I find that he learns better with food, then I switch to play once the behaviour is solid. Whisper on the other hand will play, but food is far more motivating for her.

3. I have no problem with using an aversive if it needs to be used for whatever reason on a dog. In fact I own & use a remote e-collar, 2 anti-bark e-collars & a prong collar. But I would never use one to teach any dance moves.

4. Not having food in your pocket doesn't mean anything to the dog if it's been taught the right way, because the dog is taught that the reward could come at any time & from ANYWHERE, you don't have to have the food in your hand or your pocket or anywhere on you to reward the dog. Use of baitplates is a big part of teaching a dog this, but it's not the only way you can teach the dog that the food doesn't have to be on the handler.

5. Unlike some people who use a clicker, once the dog is learning behaviours & know exactly what the clicker is & means I teach the dog that the click does not mean the end of the exercise. I have taught him that the click means what he is doing right at that moment is correct & the reward is coming but until I deliver it he still has to do what he's been doing. I also bring in the use of a word instead of a click, so I can "click" my dog anywhere, anytime without having a clicker with me. So I have a dog who will work to a cue word but when I give that cue word will not suddenly stop & expect a reward instantly. I also have a dog who will work without the reward being anywhere on me or even close to the dog. And I have a dog that is happy to be rewarded with either food, play or a toy.

I can not stress enough....I am not against positive training, however based on behavioural aspects of dogs, and years of experience with a great many breeds, I can not be convinced that the methods currently being used by Delta are in fact in the best interest of the dogs or their humans.

And herein lies the problem I think - you seem to assume that Delta is positive training but from what I saw described in this thread it's about as far from how I train as using a check chain is. What was described in the first post IMO is not balanced positive training, it's Delta training & there is a huge difference.

FWIW, taking what was written in the first post at face value, I don't think it's really in the best interest of the dog or handler either. But used correctly positive training can & will get great results with most dogs.

[angelsun]

Because you ARE wrong that dogs trained with food are unable to work well in trials, or that they have less reliability, or that they can't think or work - or that ALL dogs can be trained just as successfully, to the same standard as they are with food/toy rewards, with praise

I have NEVER stated that dogs trained with food are unable to work in trials, so please do not imply that I have or put words into my mouth. I have never stated that they are lesser trained.

What I have stated is that based on the ORIGINAL post which asks the question, based on that sort of class or method, what to expect overall. Read my lips..I have and do use food rewards.....I do not ban them from my class, however when attending some Positive reinforcement classes, they ban actions such as the use of a correction collar or stern commands when needed.

I have seen many high in trial dogs that have a bag of hot dogs waiting outside the ring for when they are done their last exercise in obedience, and yet I have seen equally as many high in trial dogs that walk outside the ring and all they get as a reward is a high five and a good pet. Both cases....dogs have had perfect scores.....

The issue is not removing rewards but CHANGING the reward to something you never run out of. Food rewards are fine as long as you remember to fill your pockets, but for those dogs that work only for a treat, what happens when your pocket runs dry? Since they haven't been encouraged to work at the same level for food as they could for praise, suddenly they 'shut down'.

I have a dog here that is very food driven and will stand on his head if I show him a treat.....he works well and gives me the behaviours I ask. I have another dog that is not food driven, and works just as well and gives me the behaviours I ask, and yet I only have praise and a pat on the head for him. This is not an argument over 'give food or not give food' this is a discussion about the extremes that happen in training. A method where food reward is the only issue and in fact is often used to reinforce unacceptable behaviours because the trainers are not as good as they claim to be, compared to trainers that yank and pull and bully the dogs into submission.

Both in my opinion are wrong and unproductive other than the bullied dogs do tend to comply, but work out of fear motivation compared to wanting to work.

I can't stress again enough that I am not opposed to food rewards, however I AM opposed to the use of food rewards to the point where clearly the dog is not learning but simply being fed or in fact being reinforced on a negative level for behaviours or lack of them.

[angelsun]

you seem to assume that Delta is positive training

this is not MY assumption, but the statement on the Delta website as well as those that promote the society.