Suja wrote:
"pfoley" wrote in message:


I would never reward the dog with a treat when you give a command of
obedience.


Whyever not?

Because St. Cesar told him not to.

*After* he's learned the command, sure. However, a variable reward schedule
can be a good thing, and since 'reward' tends to be defined by the dog, you
don't have to give treats to make listening to you a rewarding experience
for the dog.

Exactly. I can see absolutely no harm in rewarding a dog for
something she already knows how to do. As far as Harriet is
concerned, if it happened once (e.g. a tasty treat as reward for X
behavior), it *could* happen again.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

In article ,
shelly wrote:
In The Pfoley's worldview, learning is evil, just like white space.

I can't figure out what the heck he was talking about. The
poster was asking about treating to distract a rowdy puppy.
Pfoley responded with something about not treating a dog for
executing a command. There are obvious legitimate concerns
about not rewarding the wrong stuff, but that wasn't what he
was talking about. Or at least it's not what he wrote.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

The Free Enterprise Action Fund, a GOP mutual fund, is
underperforming the S&P 500 by about 40%.

I would never reward the dog with a treat when you give a command of
obedience. The command is something that the dog should do because it is
expected of him and because you told him to do it. He should do it out of
respect for you; not for a treat. I give my dog treats, but not after I
give the dog a command. Keep us informed how you make out with your new
Rottie.

The simple fact is that dogs repeat behaviors that are rewarding.
Rewarding with a treat does not mean the dog won't respect you, it
doesn't mean you are bribing the dog (which be showing the dog the
treat first to get him to obey). Respect comes through good and
consistent training, not because of the type of reward you use or don't
use. Nothing wrong with using what is most rewarding for that to teach
him what you want. That does not mean you need to carry treats or have
to have a treat on you forever either.

Lauralyn

Melinda Shore wrote:

I can't figure out what the heck he was talking about. The
poster was asking about treating to distract a rowdy puppy.

I have to admit to not having read the beginning of this thread,
because what I know realize was an unfortunate typo lead me to
believe it was one of the garbage threads that has been popping up
here lately. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out what "asser"
was supposed to mean, and to be honest, I really didn't want to find
out.

Pfoley responded with something about not treating a dog for
executing a command. There are obvious legitimate concerns
about not rewarding the wrong stuff, but that wasn't what he
was talking about. Or at least it's not what he wrote.

Also, in The Pfoley's worldview, reading the post to which you reply
is verboten.

--
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

"pfoley" wrote in message:

I would never reward the dog with a treat when you give a command of
obedience.

Whyever not?

The command is something that the dog should do because it is
expected of him and because you told him to do it.

*After* he's learned the command, sure. However, a variable reward schedule
can be a good thing, and since 'reward' tends to be defined by the dog, you
don't have to give treats to make listening to you a rewarding experience
for the dog.

I give my dog treats, but not after I
give the dog a command.

And for my dogs, getting treats is usually conditional. Don't normally hear
anything but compliments about their behavior.

Suja