Mama Dogs Don’t Use Treats…..

Many people seem enamoured with the idea that we should emulate what dogs do in the wild.  “Mama dogs don’t give treats in the wild,” is one of the more common expressions.  This one carries quite a punch.  People have a natural affinity for natural.

Expressions, analogies, metaphors and idioms can serve various purposes.  They can help explain, illustrate and educate.  At their best, they simplify a complex topic.  They are also used to influence and to persuade.  The “mama dog” line usually falls into the persuade category.  It’s used to convince owners that they should stop using treats and start using corrections – because “that’s what mama dogs do.”

An expression is only valid if it holds up under scrutiny.  Look for holes.  This one is as holey as Swiss cheese.

Truth is, mama dogs don’t use shock collars, choke collars, say “tsssk” or “eh eh eh” either.  Switching from “unnatural” food to leash corrections and shock collars is moving from one unnatural thing to another unnatural thing.

No training technique is “natural” because obedience is not natural.  Nature is cruel.  Emulating nature is to aspire to a system of survive or die.  Find food or die.  Avoid predators or die.  Find shelter or die.  Be fearful enough to avoid moving cars or die.  Nature is more than cruel, it’s damn cruel.  Emulating nature is emulating a life of peril.

Female dogs birth, feed and wean puppies.  Male dogs offer little to no paternal care.  They’re promiscuous, breeding with multiple females.  If they were human, we would call them cheating deadbeat dads.  Pups quickly mature and become pregnant as early as five months of age.   Emulating natural dog care would be called neglect in most modern human cultures.  Let me repeat, nature is cruel.

natural is abuse

Dogs might not use food to teach obedience, but all animals learn with food, even in the wild.  Let’s look at a couple examples.

Imagine it’s garbage day.  After much pawing and fussing, the dog manages to open the latch on a garbage bin.  After opening the container, the dog finds food inside.  Obtaining food reinforces the dog’s biting and pawing behaviours.  With repetition the dog becomes proficient at latch opening behaviour.  Food continues to reinforce latch opening behaviour.  It’s a behaviour that my Kip has taught himself with significant proficiency.

Let’s say that the dog hears people as they drag the bins to the curb.  The banging and clanging scares the dog.  As the street becomes quiet, the dog notices streets lined with food refuse filled bins.  With repetition, the dog learns that the noise predicts a boatload of food.  An association forms between the noise and the food in the garbage bins.  The banging and clanging is no longer scary.  It’s straight forward classical counterconditioning.

The ability to find, obtain and retain food is a necessary skill.  Learning that certain people, places and things predict food – lead us to more food.  Reinforcement with food and classical conditioning are the ways all animals learn whether in the wild or in a home.  Food is as real world as it gets.  Food is really darn functional.

There is no segregation or difference between food and real life reinforcements.  Food is a real life reinforcement.  We are born with a need, desire and love of food.  It keeps us alive.  Food is nourishing, good and pleasurable – or at least it should be.  We’re not feeding cupcakes to dogs.  It’s a bit of meat or cheese – a yummy part of a balanced diet if offered with a dose of common sense.

Despite a dog’s need and love of food, people become worried.  “When can we wean off the food?”  Technically, dogs wean off food when they’re dead.  That is also natural.  Perhaps we should ask instead, “When will you wean off that toy?  When will you wean off massage?  When will you wean your dog off that warning signal that says a correction is possible?  When are you going to wean off that prong collar?”  No one seems too concerned about weaning away from anything BUT food.  It’s an interesting commentary on how we view food.

wean from treats

If “natural” is important to you when choosing a training technique, food is very much a natural way of learning.  It’s one things that lends itself exceptionally well toward positive reinforcement and classical counterconditioning.  Food is a renewable reinforcement.  By that I mean that tomorrow the dog will want to eat again, and the next day and the next day.  Dogs are scavengers.  They’ll eat even when they have just eaten.  There is no need to starve dogs in order to use food.  They’ll eat garbage.  Although I’d suggest using the less natural, “dog treat” instead of rotting compost for training.  Be sure to balance their caloric intake with other unnatural things – on leash walks, agility sessions, dog sports and activities for exercise.

The takeaway for owners is that this industry is full of little expressions and idioms.  They’re designed to persuade and influence you one way or another.  It’s not necessarily the most honest way of presenting information.  A long-winded narrative that illustrates the ugly of living in the wild might not be pleasant to read.  It is bluntly honest about what natural, function and “in the wild” means.

It’s one thing to seek out elements of an animal’s natural habitat that bring it joy or increase welfare.  Give dogs bones.  They love to chew.  Let them stop and sniff some pee mail occasionally.  It’s an entirely different thing to look for harsh live or die examples to justify adding more adversity into a dog’s life so we can call it training under the guise of it being natural.

6 thoughts on “Mama Dogs Don’t Use Treats…..

  1. One could add, yes they do! A newborn puppy that is rewarded with milk will learn to return to its mother and associate her with good things; an older puppy following its mother will be rewarded by food and learn to scavenge. . . It seems to me that repeating behavior that is rewarded is the most natural thing!

  2. great post 🙂 I definitely felt like a failure when i continued using food to reinforce good behaviour when my dog got out of the puppy phase. Thankfully I got over the idea that a properly trained dog stops needing any kind of reward (and the idea that you can just stop training, that dogs arrive at ‘done’ state and stay that way for the rest of their lives). he’ll do his trained behaviours without my having a treat on me or near me – and sometimes there’s a treat involved, because reinforcement beyond excitement that he came when called is always good.
    Favourite line – “dogs wean off food when they’re dead” 🙂

  3. I suggest the really interesting thing is that your article is a very good demonstration of a fundamental problem in teaching people how to train and relate to dogs. That most people are eager to accept the idioms, cute sound bites of advice, looking no further. Yet to adequately explain what is wrong with each may need a well written article the length of yours.

    As you briefly mentioned it, I’ll suggest that it is rare to find two people who agree on what is a “leash correction”, perhaps one of the poorest terms in common use. Instead, I teach and use “minimally aversive” leash corrections where the dog is never pulled. I gently jiggle the leash or he reaches the end and responds, and the leash has corrected his behavior, so that’s a leash correction. The damage here is that many people never learn to distinguish good from bad, and most authors (except Overall) refuse to discuss or define the term.

  4. Sounds good! I always found that loving and telling the animal is just as important than treating. I raised many dogs and horses and never found it necessary to treat them! They always did what I wanted so they would be congratulated, hugged and loved! But then I’m very tuned into the animal, not many are!

    • One of the things about behaviour is that it’s always subject to change. We need to be able to take in new information and adapt, re-evaluate. Whether we like to see it in that light I suppose is up to us. Something is always reinforcing, punishing or creating associations. The question is “what?” Praise rarely is the active “ingredient”. It’s something we do. Nothing wrong with it. Good idea to break down with a quadrant analysis to look for the consequence that is active.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s