When It Comes to Positive Reinforcement Dog Training: Do You Have a Generosity Problem

Labrador Retriever Dog

I want to talk about something I see all the time: people who start off with postive reinforcement dog training and then begin to ask, when can I phase out the treats. Or others who hesitate to use treats in training, even when they can see that treats (positive reinforcement) works. Dogs do not learn on the same timeline as a human and so often well meaning folks who want to train in a positive manner, feel that treats are a crutch.

Training behaviors to the point of fluency (around distractions, distance and with duration) takes longer than most realize. And once some clients realize this is taking longer than they anticipated, the question arises, when will we be done with the treats.

I get the question, I genuinely do. And as a cross-over trainer it is a question I wrestled with myself. It wasn't until I took an honest look at how long I had been using some of the aversive tools with my dogs that I started to rephrase my perspective.

Why Positive Reinforcement Dog Training Gets Framed as the Slower Option

For some clients, the concern usually comes from a vague fear that a dog will only offer a cued behavior because food is present. Sometimes it's fueled by social media posts insisting that the only path to real freedom runs through an e-collar. It can also be fueled by pressure of unrealistic training timelines. Other times it's board-and-train marketing that promises a fully trained dog after a three to four week stay, then sends the owner home with an e-collar instead of a clicker and a treat pouch. Let that sink in, if you send your dog to a 3-4 week e-collar board and train you are being sent home with an e-collar and a transponder. In other words, the e-collar is still needed. If punishment or reinforcement is still needed, the behavior is not what a trainer would call "fluent".

There is not short cut to a well trained dog. To stay very simple, there are two main ingredients to train behaviors to fluency, Time is one of them. Consistency is another. Again - this article is for dog owners, questioning whether positive reinforcement training actually takes longer than balanced or aversive training, so for any trainers reading this I am not trying to get technical.

What that worry about the mindset that balanced or aversive training takes less time than positive reinforcement training, is that it misses the point. If you are still popping a leash or using an e-collar or prong collar on your dog after a 10 week training package or one month board and train (because you will be) then you do not have a proofed behavior around distractions or different environments. So the question, in my mind should be, if I am willing to carry a transponder for an ecollar, why am I not willing to carry a clicker and treats. In my experience, the aversive option seems easier to folks, because the unwanted behavior can be stopped, and therefore the dog owner feels that they are on a faster track to learning.

But again, in the latter example, we are only focused on the unwanted behavior not developing the desired behavior.

Forget the mental fallout the dog can experience from misapplied aversives (e-collar stim). In either scenario, you have to carry something with you. Treats to reinforce or an ecollar to punish. So the mindset that balanced training or aversives work faster, not only reveals is a gap in how we understand learning, it also reveals a mindset that lacks generosity and patience toward the dog, and leans towards punishment. I do not say this as a judgement but an observation.

It also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about learning in general. All animals learn the same basic way, humans included: through associations and consequences. We call this classical and operant learning, and it shapes every behavior your dog repeats or abandons.

Positive reinforcement leans into that reality. Instead of chasing unwanted behaviors in an exhausting game of whack-a-mole, we focus on building the behaviors we want. A dog repeats what pays off, so when we reward desirable choices, those choices grow stronger. Meanwhile, behaviors that stop earning anything tend to fade on their own.

Foundation cues make this even easier. Once your dog learns a handful of them, you and your dog share a common language. So when your dog starts doing something you'd rather they didn't, you can simply cue an incompatible behavior instead. A dog can't jump up and sit at the same time, so you ask for the sit and reinforce. You also practice the heck out it in training rather than constantly test in real life (likely setting the dog up to fail).

I am a certified positive reinforcement trainer, and that is the method we use to train at HMR. A good trainer can design training sessions to set the dog up for success. However, I would be remiss if I did not say that the flip side is just as straightforward. A behavior that's punished as it happens tends to stop. Reinforced behaviors get repeated, punished behaviors don't. It's a simplified picture, but it sits at the core of all learning.

So in the case of folks rushing to fade out reinforcement, it leaves me wondering whether the real hesitation is the treats themselves. I call this "a lack of generosity". There's a sense that needing treats for too long (what is too long btw?) is somehow a failure—proof that the dog isn't really learning. And I often worry about where that belief leads, because it tends to push people toward an approach that involves punishment, or toward a conviction that learning through positive reinforcement is simply too slow. But is that actually true?

Here's what most clients—and honestly, some trainers—underestimate: how long it takes for a behavior to become truly fluent. By fluent, I mean the dog can perform the behavior reliably, everywhere, under any circumstances—at home, at the park, with another dog barking across the street. That is the dog everyone wants. But that kind of reliability takes far longer to build than people expect—even when aversives are used. So it's worth looking at some examples of each approach and asking an honest question: does one really take longer than the other?

We Ask So Much of Them

Something to consider, dogs live in a world built entirely by and for humans. The traffic. The tight sidewalks. The children who run at them. The other dogs on leash who bark from across the street. The vacuum cleaner. The doorbell. The crowded veterinary waiting room.

None of it makes sense to them instinctively. They navigate it because we've shown them how. Because we've made it safe to try. Because we've told them, over and over, yes, that's it, you got it right.

That is the heart of a generous outlook in training.

When you train with positive reinforcement, you are not just teaching behaviors. You are building a dog who faces novelty with confidence instead of dread. A dog who looks to you for guidance because you have always been a reliable source of good things. A dog who is resilient, adaptable, and genuinely happy to work with you.

That kind of dog isn't built by punishment or suppression. It's built by patience, clarity, and yes—a whole lot of reinforcement.

After training hundreds of dogs and their guardians, and having only 5-Star reviews, I have enough thoughts on this topic that I decided to write about it. To keep each piece coherent and brief, I've broken it into a three-part series—and I'm writing it for dog owners more than for dog trainers.

The next piece will focus on how dogs learn, dive into operant & classical learning, and dig into the idea that if you are developing skills in a dog, you are going to carry something with you, an aversive tool or a reinforcing tool. So why not choose the more pleasant option?

I hope after reading this series, you will keep the treats. Keep the clicker. Keep the generous spirit. Your dog is doing their very best in a world that wasn't made for them. The least we can do is make the learning part feel like it's worth their while.