Bribery or Paycheck: Should We Use Food In Training?

It's an old argument. The carrot or the stick? Is using food to train our dogs "cheating" or is it the most effective way to teach our dogs? There's an easy way to find out for yourself.

“All of the best dog trainers work without food.” That’s what I had always been told. Dogs are supposed to be naturally disposed to want to please us. That seems to be the common lore in traditional dog training.  But I’m a modern trainer, I use food all the time to train my dogs. I get excellent results. So what gives? Should we be using food or not when training dogs?

For some interesting takes on this, I checked out the Internet. One website I visited characterizes the use of food in dog training as the “Biggest Scam in Dog Training Today.” The author, Kevin Salem, goes on to make additional claims, such as, “Relying heavily on treats to teach a dog isn’t healthy or natural” and “using food as a bribe rarely teaches your dog the respect factor. Sure, it builds trust, love and affection, but never respect!”

Kevin Salem is not alone. Hundreds of dog trainers still believe in concepts such as “pack hierarchies” and the idea that your dog must “respect” his handler. Even television dog trainers like Cesar Millan preach a version of this with his “calm, assertive” approaches, being your dog’s “leader”, and generally dealing harshly with dogs that do not cooperate.

My own success with using food as part of a program of reinforcement and science-based training with my dogs stands in stark contrast to the claims of these “traditional” trainers. Their assertions that using food is a “scam” or “cheating” when we train simply don’t hold up given my actual experience with six of my own dogs over the past 20 years.

A Question of Technique?

Traditional trainers who object to the use of food often cite the many problems with using food that could create issues with a dog.  The most common arguments against using food are:

• Your dog will only listen to you when you are actually holding a treat.

• You will spoil your dog. Spoiled dogs are prone to turn on dogs and people.

• You will have to have treats with you 24/7 to get your dog to do anything.

• You are unknowingly making your dog more dominant and aggressive.

• Your dog could get sick, fat or have diarrhea from so many treats.

• Dogs cannot be successfully trained for competition or durable behaviours using food.

• Your dog may not care for treats or become overly excited around food.

• Dogs trained using food are unreliable and don’t really learn to respond to the handler.

• Your dog will obey based on what type of treats you are offering.

• Your dog will learn to beg for food or get into a habit of counter surfing.

• You’ll make your dog demanding, and he will bark/jump/whine or poke at your hands for treats

Most, if not all, of these objections speak more to an incorrect use of food in a good training program rather than the food itself being a problem. To my knowledge, there are no studies of dogs that back up any of these claims with actual evidence.

Using food in a training program is meant to be a motivator and not a distracting influence with the dog. There are many excellent books available that describe methods to use food successfully to motivate dogs to learn and perform. These methods often include techniques to reduce the use of the food over time so that behaviour is reliable even without food rewards present.

Most remarkable to me are the claims that behaviours trained using food are not durable or cannot be trained to a high enough level to be competitive in dog sports. We have trained two dogs who have reached the level of Canadian Agility Champion. We have trained dogs to track, perform in Rally Obedience, herding, and other dog sports using food in our training.

There are now thousands of dogs worldwide that were trained with food using positive methods, and these dogs who have earned the highest levels of excellence in dogs sports of all kinds, from agility to obedience, tracking to draft dog (pulling sleds and wagons), schutzhund, nose work, and many others.

And it’s not just sports and recreation that these dogs excel in. Dogs have been successfully trained using food and positive reinforcement to be search and rescue dogs, drug and law enforcement dogs, service dogs for the blind and physically disabled, therapy dogs, and more. These are jobs on which lives may depend and they are entrusted to dogs trained using food and science-based training methods.

So perhaps it’s not the food that is the problem but the manner in which it is being used by trainers. Like all training, reinforcement training with food can be done badly. Poorly executed training that is ineffective and can even be detrimental to the dog’s health and relationship with the handler. Given that such positive and negative examples can be offered, clearly the food itself can’t can’t be considered to be the problem.

A Question of Culture?

So what is the disconnect here? Why do so many dog trainers and dog fanciers so strongly resist the use of food in working with their dogs? Perhaps it’s a question of culture. I often hear the claim by traditional and balanced trainers that dogs should respond to your training because they love you, respect you, or want to please you. The claim here seems to be that it is natural for dogs to want to perform for us just for the occasional pat on the head or some internal instinctive drive to please us. But is that really true?

To date, science and research has uncovered nothing resembling some instinctive drive in dogs to please their human. What we do know is that dogs have evolved and have been selectively bred by humans. We have selected for the most cooperative and tame dogs in our breeding. Consequently, they are much more dependent on us than wolves or free-ranging dogs. Raymond Coppinger, in his book Dogs, refers to this as Neoteny, a retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. So when they become adults, our dogs seem to retain a need for a family setting and attention from some guiding person or dog. But this is not a “desire to please” nor is it simple genetics.

Consider something for a moment: From the first minute they arrive in our homes, our dogs learn that everything they need to stay alive comes from us. Food, water, exercise, companionship, security, these are all under our control as their trainers and handlers. The one thing not available to our dogs is the freedom to leave. They don’t have that choice. Is it any wonder that they will eventually comply with our wishes? I’m sure we all see the implications here and they need not be dark or menacing.

The simple fact is that we can get dogs to do almost anything without giving them treats because their next meal may actually depend on it. It may take a while, but if we’re clear about it, our dogs will do what we want eventually. Without being able to have a conversation with them, how do we distinguish between them having a “desire to please us” and knowing that not cooperating will bring unwanted and potentially severe consequences? The answer is, we can’t.

Bribery or Payment?

It seems entirely possible that our predisposition to denying our dogs food in return for their cooperation reflects our own human need to have our dog’s prove their “love” and “respect” for us. Our insistence that a well-trained dog is one that performs only for intangible rewards seems both unrealistic and idealistic. Considering that we humans place material value on our own efforts. For example, we expect to be paid for our efforts at our workplaces.

Viewed another way, training a dog to work without food seems like we are withholding payment from them; like we are getting something for nothing. Does that make us “clever” or “better trainers”? We could probably feel good about that if we didn’t consider that something else we see in our human relationships — exploitation. Are we taking advantage of our dog’s good nature when we train without food?

Do we have to use food in training to be a good trainer? No. Does using food make you a bad trainer or a “cheater”? No.  Food can be a tremendous motivator and create both strong performance and strong bonds between a handler and a dog. But it must be used properly to achieve these things as part of an overall training approach that focuses on reward for performance and not leading or bribery with the food.

There is a lot of great information on reward-based training and using food to reinforce your dog for the behaviors you would like to see. Your local bookstore or pet store will have several titles to choose from and you can also find many books on the Internet at sites like Amazon or Dogwise.

The use of compulsive methods (denial of food, corrections, etc.) in training dogs has been shown to cause aggression problems in dogs, create relationship problems, and unmotivated dogs. The worst problem with proper food training is that your dog might gain weight.  And if that happens, well, just cut back on dinner!

The rewards of a happy and motivated training partnership with your dog make learning more about this worth the effort.  Using food as a motivator and reward for correct behaviours can create strong, trusting relationships in addition to strong, enthusiastic behaviours. It can give you a happier life with your dogs and even win you championships in canine competitions. At least that’s what it did for us.

Until next time, have fun with your dogs!