"I don't want my dog to obey only because I have a treat in my hand."
Conversely, we sometimes hear that it is impossible to properly train a dog without food.
Treats are probably one of the subjects that cause the most disagreement in canine education. However, reducing the debate to "with or without treats" often prevents us from asking the most interesting question:
What actually motivates this dog, in this situation, and how can I use that motivation to teach them something?
Because rewards and food are not synonymous.
What is a reward for a dog?
We tend to decide for ourselves what should please the dog. However, a reward is only truly useful in learning if it has enough value for them.
For some dogs, it will be food. For others, a ball or a toy will be much more interesting. A reward can also be an interaction with a human, praise, a pet if the dog truly enjoys that contact, or access to something they wanted.
A dog who is impatiently waiting to run may consider being released as a reward. A dog who really wants to explore a scent may find being allowed to go smell it much more interesting than receiving a kibble.
This also means that the same reward can have a lot of value at one moment and almost none in another situation.
Why are treats used so much?
Food has several practical qualities. It is quick to distribute, consumed in a few seconds, and therefore allows an exercise to be repeated easily.
It also has high value for many dogs, which makes it an excellent way to mark and reinforce a behavior that you want to see repeated.
In some approaches, food therefore occupies an important place, particularly at the beginning of training. In others, the focus is more on developing motivation through play, the relationship, the environment, or a combination of several elements.
These approaches do not necessarily pursue opposing goals. They simply use different levers to obtain and maintain the dog's motivation.
Reward or lure: an important difference
The problem is not necessarily having a treat.
It arises in particular when the dog no longer performs the behavior unless they see the food before the request.
A treat can be used as a lure at the beginning of some training. It then helps the dog find the desired movement or position. But this aid must be able to gradually disappear.
Ultimately, the dog must be able to respond to the request without needing to check beforehand what their human is holding in their hand.
We then move from:
"I see a treat, so I perform the exercise"
to:
"I understand what is being asked of me and my response can produce an interesting consequence."
This is a fundamental difference.
Can you train without treats?
Yes.
Food is not essential for all dogs or for all learning.
Some approaches focus more on voice, play, movement, social interaction, or an object to which you give high value. Others mainly use the possibilities offered by the environment.
But saying it is possible to work without food does not mean that you should systematically deprive yourself of it.
For a dog strongly motivated by food, refusing this tool on principle can simply complicate learning unnecessarily.
Conversely, stubbornly wanting to work with food for a dog who has almost no interest in it doesn't make much more sense.
The method must be able to adapt to the dog, and not the other way around.
Should you always reward?
When a dog is discovering a behavior, frequent validation usually makes learning much clearer.
Once the behavior is truly acquired, the way of rewarding can evolve. All correct responses no longer necessarily need to be followed by a treat.
Rewards can become more variable: food at times, play at others, praise, interaction, or access to an activity.
Take a dog who wants to go sniff a tree during their walk. Their human asks them for a few meters on a loose leash, then allows them to go explore.
In this situation, access to the scent becomes the reward itself.
This way of working makes it possible to use the dog's natural motivations rather than always trying to compete with them.
Why might a dog refuse a treat they usually love?
A dog might gulp down a treat in their living room and refuse it completely a few minutes later on the street.
This does not necessarily mean they are not food-motivated.
The environment may simply be much more interesting. Their emotional state may also be too intense: excitement, anxiety, frustration, or focus on another stimulus.
This observation is particularly useful with reactive dogs. If a dog suddenly refuses something they normally enjoy when a trigger appears, it may indicate that the situation has become much more difficult for them.
Changing treats is therefore not always the answer.
Sometimes, you primarily need to change the distance or the situation.
Rewarding is not bribing
The criticism comes up regularly: "With a treat, you're buying your dog."
This can indeed become a problem if the dog must systematically see what is being offered before agreeing to respond.
But this way of functioning is not a mandatory consequence of using food.
A reward correctly integrated into learning occurs after the behavior that you wish to reinforce. It becomes a consequence of the dog's action, not a permanent negotiation before every request.
The real issue is therefore timing, progression, and the gradual phasing out of aids when they are no longer needed.
And what about coercion in all of this?
Not all educational methods rely exclusively on rewards.
Some also use a more directive framework, leash management, behavior interruptions, or various forms of coercion.
It is important not to confuse everything.
Setting a limit for a dog is not automatically being violent toward them. Preventing dangerous behavior, physically holding a dog back when safety requires it, or denying them access to something is part of many ordinary situations.
The interesting question is whether the dog can understand what is expected of them, whether the intervention is proportionate, and whether it actually allows for building appropriate behavior.
A technique can sometimes interrupt a behavior very quickly without necessarily teaching the dog what they should do instead. This is why immediate effectiveness and lasting learning should not always be confused.
Coercion and violence are not synonymous
This distinction deserves to be clear.
Education necessarily implies certain rules. A dog cannot decide on their own to cross a road, chase an animal, jump on every person they meet, or go wherever they want at every moment.
The human therefore sets a framework.
However, intentionally causing pain, fear, or distress for the purpose of obtaining the dog's obedience exceeds what Sköll & Hati considers an acceptable educational framework.
Research on highly aversive methods also reports more manifestations associated with stress in several studied populations. This does not mean that every limit or physical intervention is automatically abusive; it rather invites us to reflect on the relationship between the desired result and the means used to obtain it.
We can therefore discuss and compare methods without turning every educational disagreement into an accusation of violence, while maintaining a clear line when violence becomes intentional.
Should the dog obey just to please?
The relationship between a dog and their human can become an extremely important motivation.
Voice, attention, shared play, and the pleasure of doing an activity together can acquire enormous value.
But this value varies according to the dogs and the circumstances.
A dog absorbed by a scent trail may momentarily find that scent much more interesting than their human's praise. This does not mean they don't love them, nor that they are trying to defy them.
Several motivations are simply in competition.
Education also consists of learning to work with this reality.
With or without treats: there is no single right answer
For some dogs, food will be an extraordinary tool. For others, play will work better. In the same dog, the best reward may change depending on the exercise and the environment.
A method can also evolve over time: using many rewards during learning, then gradually diversifying them and making them less predictable as the behavior becomes solid.
The most useful question is therefore probably not:
"Should I train with or without treats?"
But rather:
"What motivates my dog, how can I use that motivation, and how can I ensure they truly understand what I expect of them?"
It is by observing the dog that we can start to answer that.