For those of you who use marker training, I was talking to a person yesterday who works for a dog training company that believes you shouldn't use treats for training. They say if you do, the dog looks to the food for motivation and not the owner, and that limits the authority the owner has over the dog.

What are your thoughts about that?

They don't understand the science behind forming positive associations with an activity.

Any company that doesn't use food and talks negatively about using food is thinking of the food as a bribe IME. They tend to also be the type that uses physical corrections for EVERYTHING. When the dog never choses to do something of their own volition they are very quick to find out exactly when you can and can't get to them to correct them. Plus the training process is a miserable slog for most dogs and who wants that?

Food is a great introduction to marker training because many high drive dogs can't control that drive when seeing a tug, toy, ball, etc.

One thing I REALLY like about the Ellis DVDs is that he talks about the use of correction and when they are needed.

To many look at food trainers and marker trainers as tree huggers that don't want to hurt their furbabies.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with corrections when used at the correct level for the individual dog.

For any method of training it's all about timing so think about this.

With a new trainer uses correction training and their timing is off the most that happens is the dog gets a free treat

If the timing is off with correction training the dog gets a "WTF was that for" and you set the training back if it happens to often.

Start with food, move to (my choice) a tug.

When the dog really, REALLY understands the exercise and doesn't perform with the command then corrections may be required.

Why would a dog refuse to do something if it has a high drive for a reward as opposed to doing it knowing it will be corrected for not doing it?

Never toss out any training method from you training tool box.

I trained my first dog in the 1950s and had a heavy hand that was pretty normal for the day.

Yes it was successful.

I started with marker training about 13 yrs ago and I am forever hooked.

At the same time I'll never toss out the possibility of using corrections if I find they are needed.

It's a balance that with a little experience you'll figure out for the individual dog you may have.

That balance may be totally different with the next dog but understand both methods and you'll find it.

Start with food and markers.

 Quote: Lori Hall

For those of you who use marker training, I was talking to a person yesterday who works for a dog training company that believes you shouldn't use treats for training. They say if you do, the dog looks to the food for motivation and not the owner, and that limits the authority the owner has over the dog.

What are your thoughts about that?

My thoughts?

So you get authority by what? using corrections? you can't build a relationship by causing good things to happen?

I mean, my dogs think that I'm pretty darn cool because I control all the good thing in life *and I share with them!!!* "The person who holds the food" kinda puts my on an authoritative pedestal around here

I do agree that many people passively rely on the food to do the work instead of actually learning the nuances of incorporating timing, relationship and engagement into training. And that the way they use food does cause the dog to look to that for motivation. But that doesn't make food the issue, it makes trainer skill the issue.

Ooooooh yes, I agree fully with Cathy and Bob. Also what refers to corrections. Of course corrections are only eligible, meaningful and fair onc a dog fully understands, what he should do or not do and then disobeys in spite of his ingrained knowledge.

What helps a correction, when it only confuses the dog,because he doesn't understand the meaning of it? Nothing. Worse: it harms him.

Additionally "correctio" is an interpretable word. Frr some peeople it is a murmured "No" or a gentle tug and for the next one it is a shouting or even beating. A correction should alwazs be meaningful for the individual dog, the level must be adapted to the individual, beating of course always inacceptable. IMO people should not use corrections unless they have learned marker training and within this also how corrections have to be done and under what circumstances. There is a lot to find about this in Leerburg's articles, DVDs and courses.

I've googled a lot, when I began to train my dogs, I also read and watched videos about teaching them everything without treats. This is unbearable rubbish. Imagine you want to teach your dog the basics just with playing as reward. He must be a special species with a long long lifeexpetncy!

Nothing against games,contrary, they are wonderful for dog and handler and teach a dog tugging in the correct way with the necessary rules is great fun and an adorable tool for deepening the relationship.

Have you heard of Ivan Balabanov? He is an avid advocate of tugging. He even teaches is it in a precursary way as first thing to his puppies and other games too. He is convinced, that if you have built during the early stage such a strong bound, obedience training then is no big deal. But this doesn't mean, Of course you can do this later on too it wil just be more difficult.
All this doesn't mean, that he doesn't use marker training, no food rewards and later on no corrections. He simply wants to create this great interaction between dog and handler, before he starts with obedience or more.

I'm finding that there are very few instances where my dogs don't obey when trained correctly with rewards. They can develop a level of self control that is pretty darn impressive when they're taught self control.

I mean, I'm not opposed to fair corrections. And my dogs know what no means.

But, when my mentality is rewarding what I want and setting the dog up for success, I get incredibly consistent results with rewards. And when something doesn't go right, it's most often a training error or health issue rather than the dog choosing not to comply.

I'll give an example of the differences between correction training and marker training.

In teaching the sit we used to pull up on the dogs collar then either pressing on their hips, or later, a sort of karate chop on their rear legs to buckle them down into a sit.

It worked but the dog initially had no frickin idea what you wanted or what you were doing.

With markers you can lure the dog into position then mark and reward.

Go figure huh!

It also works and you and the dog have fun doing it.

When and if the dog refuses the command after it's been doing well THEN and ONLY THEN the dog MIGHT deserve a correction.

First I want to ask myself, did i put the dog in a situation where the distraction may have been to high a level for the point in training this dog is at?

Did my timing suck by me giving the command when I wasn't observing the dog being distracted?

If so then bad on me! That isn't the dog's fault.

It's mine for rushing the training and maybe not proofing the command with gradually higher level distractions.

 Quote: Mara Jessup

I'm finding that there are very few instances where my dogs don't obey when trained correctly with rewards. They can develop a level of self control that is pretty darn impressive when they're taught self control.

I mean, I'm not opposed to fair corrections. And my dogs know what no means.

But, when my mentality is rewarding what I want and setting the dog up for success, I get incredibly consistent results with rewards. And when something doesn't go right, it's most often a training error or health issue rather than the dog choosing not to comply.

But I agree fully. Too often it is a teaching error, the dg might be overwhelmed with too high a distraction llevel etc.

Without doubt. A dog should know the "No". In case he disobeys we have always the psssibility to give him a "second chance" to do it right. After this a correction is acceptable or maybe even necessary. But we always should observe ourselves and the whole situation. As Mara says maybe the dog is overwhelmed with too high a level of distraction. And we should make sure that the desired behavior is solid. Sometimes we just think it is because of not enough proofing

Quote Bob: Did my timing suck by me giving the command when I wasn't observing the dog being distracted?

If so then bad on me! That isn't the dog's fault.

It's mine for rushing the training and maybe not proofing the command with gradually higher level distractions.


You describe exactly my experience with myself, Bob. I comitted this error quite often. Meenwhile I'm very cautios with corrections, although there are certainly situations where they are justified. In most cases we are more successful with rewarding the wanted behavior or non-rewarding an undesired behavior.
Frr me it is also a question if the behavior is just a failure performing a trick or another skill by the dog or if it is an issue of a literally misbevavior.

I don't believe in second chances.

That just re enforces to the dog that the command can be ignored the first time.

IF the dog doesn't perform on the first command I would quit with a "Nope" for 10 -20 seconds then try it again.

This is pretty much for the early training before it's really solid.

After that a correction may be due.