[cookieface]

I'm curious as to what you mean by "punish"?

Punishment is any consequence that reduces the probability of a behavior recurring. So, if saying "no" actually prevents your dog from getting into the trash or counter-surfing, it's punishment. If saying "no" doesn't change the dog's behavior, it's just a waste of breath and likely annoying for you and the dog.

An aversive stimulus is the opposite of a reinforcing stimulus, something we might find unpleasant or painful.
A behavior followed by an aversive stimulus results in a decreased probability of the behavior occurring in the future.
This both defines an aversive stimulus and describes the form of conditioning known as punishment. If you shock a rat for doing x, it’ll do a lot less of x. If you spank Johnny for throwing his toys he will throw his toys less and less (maybe).

from B. F. SKINNER by Dr. C. George Boeree

Here's a summary of Dunbar's perspective on punishment.

And it does seem that treats are some peoples life lines...

I don't need to carry treats with me, but I do for several reasons:
- I like to find opportunities to reinforce desirable behavior

- Some cues are still being proofed. Katie can sit or down just about anywhere, but we're still working on front and with me (sloppy heel). So, I use our walks to proof newer behaviors

- Katie can be reactive, so I use treats for both classical conditioning (barking dogs mean good things!) and operant conditioning (if I pay attention to "mom" instead of the barking dogs, good things happen).

- Katie has incredible food drive and food is easy to carry and use on walks. She loves to chase things, but it's impractical to play fetch in the street.

- She needs to eat, she might as well learn something while she's getting a meal.

Based on your comments, it sounds as though you don't have a complete grasp on operant conditioning and learning theory (they're huge topics!) and have some common misunderstandings of how they work in practice. This collection of posts has good information: Common Misconceptions. The training and behavior stickies are another excellent source of information.

 

[cookieface]

This will be my final comment on this subject because we aren't getting anywhere....what I'm saying is I know that treat training works, I use treat training with my shi tzu, I also use treat training during command training with my bulldog however she is not very "food driven" in certain situations. I don't think that treat training works with ALL dogs in ALL situations. Being assertive does NOT mean that I hit or alpha roll my dog, which I have NEVER done! It means that I can give firm commands and can be confident that my dog will respond without treats, that's all. I do know people who use treats as bribes and have to have them on hand at ALL times to "control" their dogs, so I may have been a tad unfamiliar with some of you alls treat training methods.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles underlying positive reinforcement-based training. It's not "treat training" as you like to call it. By definition, positive reinforcement is the addition of something that causes an increase in the immediately prior behavior. So, if my dog sits and I give her a treat (and she likes the treat), odds are she'll sit more often. The key is that the something being added must be something the organism (in this case a dog) likes and will want more of. It can be treats, it could be a game of tug or fetch, or it could be an opportunity to chase a squirrel, jump a bar, or take a walk.

It sounds as though you've seen plenty of people implement a positive reinforcement training protocol incorrectly. I urge you to read the links provided.

Others have addressed the issue of reliability. Also, I believe one of the links I shared addressed the misconception that positive reinforcement-based training methods are permissive or lack reliability. If not, I can find sources for you.

Not on this particular thread, but on another forum I have been called an abuser and a few other names, none of which I am.

You can't blame folks here for things that have happened elsewhere.

 

[cookieface]

It seems like you think that treat training is the "cure all" magic training trick. Do you think that there are dogs who are too dangerous and too much of a liability to be rehabbed? I'm just asking this question out of curiosity.

Absolutely there are some dogs that cannot be rehabilitated. Some dogs may have incurable medical conditions that makes them aggressive or unpredictable, some may have unstable temperaments, and some may have been subject to abusive treatment; in the end, the result is the same: a dog who cannot be trusted. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the correct implementation of operant conditioning.

If you are suggesting that dogs who cannot be rehabilitated are a case for positive punishment, "dominance" strategies, or other methods based in either aversive or rank reduction techniques, they have the potential to make matters far, far worse.