# Training a dog without FF



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

If someone decides to train a dog solely for hunting and doesn't FF the dog, what are the things they will have to worry about and what are some tips for making sure that they can still have a well trained dog?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

torrey said:


> If someone decides to train a dog solely for hunting and doesn't FF the dog, what are the things they will have to worry about and what are some tips for making sure that they can still have a well trained dog?


Of all the things that I might not do force fetch would not be one of them.

Force fetch makes retrieving obligatory rather than voluntary.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Force fetch makes the dog retrieve because you want it to, not because the dog wants to. Most retrievers will pick up a duck in the decoys without much difficulty on a warm calm day. Take that same un FFd dog and put a patch of briars between it and the duck, or skim ice on the pond or deep belly sucking marsh mud, or make the duck a cripple instead of graveyard dead, and there are plenty of dogs who will tell you to get it yourself.


----------



## i_willie12 (Apr 11, 2008)

Depends on the dog. I didnt FF my last HUNTING dog. But he was a retrieving animal!!!!! Didn't care about anything but getting that bumper or bird. Could have killed him in July/August by running him in the ground and he would have kept going. But my new dog is not this driven and I plan to run him in trails so he will be FF.


----------



## tkpaul (Aug 13, 2008)

The only thing I would recommend is to make sure your "hold" command is firm.


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

My pup is going through FF right now but my dad isn't FFing his dog (litter mate to mine). His last dog he didn't FF and was excellent but ended up having a very short hunting career due to a back problem and was retired to the couch (but she was a great couch dog). 

Now that my dad is retired he will be doing a lot more bird hunting but he's pretty much going to be pheasant hunting only...maybe some geese but no waterfowl. He's going through the OB work now and my dad's pup has hold down pat.

Guess I'm just getting ideas for him.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Not FFing will probably not make any difference at all to your dads dog. The thing is, if the dog ever refuses to rertieve something you have no tool to enfocre the fetch command with. Besides fetching, FF adds a lot to a retrievers training. That said, there are probably more birds retrieved each year by dogs that are not FF'd then are FF'd.

Ultimately, it is your dads dog and he should train him the way he wants.

Tom


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Force fetching does a LOT more than just ensure reliable retrieving and good mouth habits. It is the basis for all the training that follows. It sets the tone for the trainer/pupil relationship.

Force Fetch to a dog is like boot camp to a soldier; he could probably be a soldier without it but ..... ;-)

JS


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> Of all the things that I might not do force fetch would not be one of them.
> 
> Force fetch makes retrieving obligatory rather than voluntary.


I thought we had established that you didn't know squat about performance labs?

Consider the source regards

Bubba


----------



## brian lewis (Jun 6, 2005)

in my opinion 


training a dog without going through force fetch is like installing a light without a switch.


----------



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

I agree the FF lays a lot of the ground work and set the tone for the handler-dog relationship as well as a strong foundation in basic obedience. Bedies what has already been said about FF giving you a command the dog knows and obeys when it comes to retrieving anything, I think it also sets up a more reliable delivery to hand and also is teh foundation for teaching casting. 

I had a good buddy in South Dakota that had the backyard bred yellow lab pheasant "dawg." He really did little training other than on the job training and after 3-4 years of pushing birds around every weekend of the season she had become a pretty nice flushing retriever. I said to him one day as he and I were blocking at the end of the field as the drivers were making their way to us that Ginger was sure turning out nice for him and what he wanted, but that if she were FF'ed she would really be reliable. He kind of dismissed and said "Aw shucks, I don't need to have that, she is not a test/trial dog or anything like that." No sooner did he say that, but a bird got up down the field and was knocked down in the discing between the two strips of corn the guys were working towards us. Ginger lept into action and made a sweet retrieve on that "not able to fly, but plenty of leg" rooster. Enroute back to us the guys flush another bird right at the end of the field. Ginger seeing this forgets anything she ever knew ( or didn't know) about delivery to hand and drops the cripple and dashes into the corn for the stone cold dead bird mere feet from my buddy and myself. The cripple escaped us that day and was never found...coyote food. I said to my buddy, a solid understanding of FF and delivery to hand and that probably wouldn't have happened. 

And when I start teaching my dogs casting, I use the "fetch" command to get them moving before I introduce "over" or "back." If the dog doesn't know what "fetch" means, what do you do. Keep tossing that bumper out there and hope they figure out what "over" means? 

Seems like FF is one of those things I would never leave out of the retriever basic vocabulary.


----------



## KBcoltcompany (May 28, 2008)

What most of these guys said is true. FF'ing doesn't necessarily make him retrieve, but to do it in any condition, without reservation. But more importantly, it teaches your dog how to handle pressure as well as lay the foundation for future training should you decide to take him/her further... i.e. collar conditioning, handling training, etc.....It will also show you what temperament you are dealing with at a deeper level and how your dog handles pressure. In short, it's just too valuable a step to skip. Hope this helps.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

tkpaul said:


> The only thing I would recommend is to make sure your "hold" command is firm.


That was a pun, right?

Just Checking Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

HoHum's Retrievers said:


> I agree the FF lays a lot of the ground work and set the tone for the handler-dog relationship as well as a strong foundation in basic obedience. Bedies what has already been said about FF giving you a command the dog knows and obeys when it comes to retrieving anything, I think it also sets up a more reliable delivery to hand and also is teh foundation for teaching casting.
> 
> I had a good buddy in South Dakota that had the backyard bred yellow lab pheasant "dawg." He really did little training other than on the job training and after 3-4 years of pushing birds around every weekend of the season she had become a pretty nice flushing retriever. I said to him one day as he and I were blocking at the end of the field as the drivers were making their way to us that Ginger was sure turning out nice for him and what he wanted, but that if she were FF'ed she would really be reliable. He kind of dismissed and said "Aw shucks, I don't need to have that, she is not a test/trial dog or anything like that." No sooner did he say that, but a bird got up down the field and was knocked down in the discing between the two strips of corn the guys were working towards us. Ginger lept into action and made a sweet retrieve on that "not able to fly, but plenty of leg" rooster. Enroute back to us the guys flush another bird right at the end of the field. Ginger seeing this forgets anything she ever knew ( or didn't know) about delivery to hand and drops the cripple and dashes into the corn for the stone cold dead bird mere feet from my buddy and myself. The cripple escaped us that day and was never found...coyote food. I said to my buddy, a solid understanding of FF and delivery to hand and that probably wouldn't have happened.
> 
> ...


I will 2nd this opinion/situation this is a BASIC hunting dog skill. 
Guiding Pheasant hunters at a SD lodge with the occasional client who's dog is not FF'd REALLY makes you appreciate this tool.

John


----------



## Terry Britton (Jul 3, 2003)

torrey said:


> If someone decides to train a dog solely for hunting and doesn't FF the dog, what are the things they will have to worry about and what are some tips for making sure that they can still have a well trained dog?


It is like building a house without a foundation.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> If someone decides to train a dog solely for hunting and doesn't FF the dog, what are the things they will have to worry about


Nothing. Absolutely nothing. 

British and Irish Field Trials are run as close to a real shooting day as can be and the standard is very high; you don't win one with a sloppy retriever; non of those dogs is FF'd. I've trained six dogs (ESS and Labs) from such stock thus far without it and can truthfully say, hand on heart, I've never had a trained dog refuse a retrieve.



> and what are some tips for making sure that they can still have a well trained dog?


Decide beforehand just exactly what your aims and desires will be. Have a clear view of the sort of dog you want, and plan your training to that end. Don't "butterfly train", have a steady progression of building blocks in mind, and don't be in a rush. Train regularly with a group, and train every day if at all possible; better for you and the dog if it's in short lessons. Learn the theory and keep your cool.

If a dog is bred right, from known and dependable working stock, FF is entirely redundant.

Eug


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Many replies to the original question seem to me to conflate FF with a structured training regime (which it may well be) but fail to recognise that structured training can and does exist without it, and to advanced levels. 

*kbcoltcompany* posted


> as well as lay the foundation for future training should you decide to take him/her further... i.e. collar conditioning, handling training, etc.....


All mine handle at distance; non is FF'd or CC'd. FF may well fit into your training program but it isn't a neccessary or vital part of training a sound retriever.

*HoHumsretrievers* posted


> And when I start teaching my dogs casting, I use the "fetch" command to get them moving before I introduce "over" or "back." If the dog doesn't know what "fetch" means, what do you do?


 As above. I think you may be equating the lack of FF with "no training at all." So the answer is .. train the dog.

*Bob* posted


> Take that same un FFd dog and put a patch of briars between it and the duck, or skim ice on the pond or deep belly sucking marsh mud, or make the duck a cripple instead of graveyard dead, and there are plenty of dogs who will tell you to get it yourself.


 Perhaps there are; but like I said I've never had a refusal and never FF'd. You may be assured there is the odd bramble thicket round here, and patches of damp ground are said to exist on the Solway. 

Get the right stuff, know the theory, train intelligently with clear aims and objectives, and there is no reason to FF. 

Eug


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Torrey,
Try sending a PM to Snicklefritz, as he is working his CBR without FF, and he may have some useful insights. He's in Florida, so he may be battened down with the weather right now. Interesting posts by Colonel Blimp too.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

torrey said:


> If someone decides to train a dog solely for hunting and doesn't FF the dog, what are the things they will have to worry about and what are some tips for making sure that they can still have a well trained dog?


My first trained retriever was a black Lab female - a grand daughter of High Point Derby dog Mac Gene's Fall Guy (I still love that name!). She was never force fetched, nor e-collar conditioned. She had a Qualifying win and several other placements. There were no hunt tests at the time, but a win in the Q was exciting for a first time trainer!

Experience can be a wonderful teacher. That girl was a tremendous marker, and a strong lining dog. Given better training - including force fetch and e-collar conditioning - she _should_ have been a field champion. There is no doubt, nor going back.

Live and learn regards,

Evan


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

Larkin said:


> Torrey,
> Try sending a PM to Snicklefritz, as he is working his CBR without FF, and he may have some useful insights. He's in Florida, so he may be battened down with the weather right now. Interesting posts by Colonel Blimp too.



Larkin,
That sure is a handsome 'peake in your avatar! What training method did you use with him/her F-F or not?
Thanks,
Peake
________
Bondage amateur


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Since hunting is what your training for and you are not on a time table,,it is certainly possible to train your dog without FF.

The European dogs have taken a slightly different breeding path than the US dogs. There temperament base is often quite different so I would agree with Cornel Blimp,,,because over seas they do it all the time.

But if you have a randomly bred US dog you weather field or pet you'll probably be better served FF.

Force is one of the best operant conditioning method to use on most dogs for a variety of problems and or training for desired results. So I certainly would look into learning how.
But its possible you may not need to in order to have a nice hunting dog.

After a while you will realize weather you need it or not. If this is the first dog you have trained then get with a knowledable person for FF , But there is an outside chance you may not need it.

There are alot of ways of going about getting your desired results

Pete


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

I couldn't resist this thread so here are 
some thoughts on force fetch training for retriever gundogs:
Note the operative word gundogs (not field trial dogs)

1. I have found that the lighter the pressure (pinch), the faster the overall process proceeds. You want to use just enough pressure to make the dog uneasy so that he wants to escape. Then you provide the escape path which is the dummy in mouth.

2. When the dummy is in the dogs mouth: lots of reward with petting and praise. You are defining the behavior you want. It is very simple. 
-Dummy not in mouth - feel bad
-Dummy in mouth- feel good

3. As I look over all the past dogs I have force fetched I am fairly sure that the biggest problems and the longest overall training times usually were the result of too much pressure (pinch). There is a human tendency to try to make a dog’s response faster by increasing the pressure. With many dogs this is counter productive. A slow response to pressure is generally attributable to fear and higher pressure simply produces higher fear level with limited learning. The way to increase response speed is with reward. This is somewhat counterintuitive for humans. The petting and praise when dummy is in mouth generally provides the speed up of response.

4. I have found that if I use extremely light pressure, just enough that the dog is uncomfortable, and do not worry about speed of response (apply the light pinch and let him find the escape route at his own speed) then I can force fetch a dog generally in 10 to 15 sessions of 3 to 5 minutes. Many dogs can get it in 5 or 6 sessions, especially when an element of play is incorporated.

5. Level of pressure is determined entirely by the dog, the human’s opinion is not relevant.

6. I am training gundogs and thus am only concerned with delivery to hand. I am not concerned with advanced Field Trial lining behaviors, thus I am not concerned with forcing to go

7. My current practice is to get as much of fetch done with play as possible. Some dogs get it simply from kicking the dummy with your foot and saying “fetch it up” playfully. Many more will get it from using a tennis ball. Roll the ball. When dog fetches and brings the ball to you, immediately reward dog with a short toss. We have all seen house dogs that learn on their own that bringing the ball to a human produces a toss. All you need to do is associate a signal (command) with that behavior.
I have found that I can get probably 80% of dogs to fetch from ground and deliver to hand with play training. The other 20% go through the “force fetch – Light” program.

8. All the above being said, I use canvas dummies exclusively in training because they are comfortable for a dog to carry and lead to minimum mouth and delivery problems. This tends to minimize the time I have to spend on force fetch issues and maximize the time I can spend on the more important behaviors of whistle stopping, directional casts and blind retrieves.

Best Regards,
Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

The majority of people I hunt with don't FF their dogs. This is only pheasant or sharptail hunting. 

Some are excellent and some I try to avoid. It puts more on the dog's genetic disposition than a FF dog. Hopefully, the dog has a natural good mouth and good retrieving instinct. 

Most pure hunting dogs probably don't need it. There are always situations such as the dog dropping the cripple described above. Working on hold / OB also could've avoided it. 

I've seen too many dogs that were a joy to hunt over that aren't FF to say it is the end all be all.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

rmilner said:


> I couldn't resist this thread so here are
> some thoughts on force fetch training for retriever gundogs:
> Note the operative word gundogs (not field trial dogs)
> 
> ...


Robert,

Thank you !!! Great post !! 
There can be quite a difference in the training of a gun dog and a trial dog.


Torrey,

I'm sure if your father would spend a day or 2 with Matt they could get going down the road to a FF' dog with no big hassle's. 

John


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

brian breuer said:


> I've seen too many dogs that were a joy to hunt over that aren't FF to say it is the end all be all.


To say "...it is the end all be all" misses the point, and exposes a lack of understanding of it. Force fetch is a pressure conditioning process with several significant advantages and co-benefits.

Can a dog become a competent gundog without doing it? Certainly. Can a hunter's goals be met by a dog that is not force fetched? Sure. It depends on the standards the dog's owner desires to live with...or without.

I believe most of us, at least most on this continent, have come to recognize and desire all the advantages it offers. To be sure, the process offers far more than a reliable hand delievery.

Evan


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

I have FF my dogs and will continue to do so. BUT, I think it depends on your dog. I can teach a dog to deliver to hand without FF, I can teach a dog the command fetch without FF. IF your dog has the drive and desire, it can be taught hold, fetch, and deliver to hand without the FF program. IMO, and I've done it. I teach my dogs deliver to hand before FF. 

I have a 4yr old yellow lab that was bought from a pet store. This dog has NEVER been FF. We had to reverse the order and pinch his ear to get him to drop until he reliably learned the drop command. He knows leave it and will move his head away from the bumper if you tell him to leave it then put it near him, but as soon as you tell him to fetch, he fetches. He learned very rough casting from watching my first dog and training with him. He will turn and sit and take a rough cast. 

IF we had put the time and effort into this dog, he would have been a tremendous hunting dog and probably could have competed. We did not because, being bought from a pet store, he had kennel cough that turned into bronchitis and left him with scar tissue in his lungs (from a vet saying put him on Robitussin and who was more worried about neutering him than anything else...needless to say, don't go to him anymore). He sounds like he has asthma. But he loves to work. Since we never trained him formally, we never put him on birds so he has no interest. He loves his bumpers and tennis balls, which is fine because he's just a pet now. 

Either way, I agree with everyone else that FF is more than just delivery to hand, BUT I also think that, in certain situations, with certain dogs, dependant upon certain goals, that it can be done without. It's completely up to your dad how he wants to train his dog. If at a later date, he wants FF, he can go back. It will hold him up and he might wish he had done it earlier, but it's not like you can't do it later. There will be more complications and more to be retuaght, but again, it's all up to him. 

Good luck.

Kourtney


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I trained my first hunting dog without FF. Straight out of Water Dog. Didn't use an e-collar either. The dog was a decent hunting dog and had lots of drive. If that is what you want. The problems I ran into were dropping ducks at the waters edge and a tendency to switch. A better Amish trainer could have fixed these problems.

Now that I have trained a dog with FF and an e-collar my perspective has changed. It can be done but is infinitely more difficult. Some people like to kill deer with spears and pheasant hunt with bows: to each his own. Your dog will progress quicker with FF than without it. 

Mark L.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Robert,
> 
> Thank you !!! Great post !!
> *There can be quite a difference in the training of a gun dog and a trial dog.*
> ...


But _should_ there be? Other than fine points and degree, what diffences make sense in the development in a trial dog and a top notch gundog?

Evan


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Peake said:


> Larkin,
> That sure is a handsome 'peake in your avatar! What training method did you use with him/her F-F or not?
> Thanks,
> Peake


LOL. He wasn't force-fetched, because I tried to do it by myself from Evan Graham's book and we didn't get very far with it. (No reflection on Evan's book, though.) My heart wasn't in it, particularly as I had no idea what I was doing and I was never sure I was doing the right thing. 

I did train him to "Hold" (Bill Burks has a great photo of teaching "hold") and he has basic OB. He will retrieve ducks, whether in training or from a blind during duck season and he has drive and passion to spare. The only reason we go out is because he loves it so much. (He absolutely hated showing btw, and is long-retired from the show ring.) 

I think he could do well at HT, and I can see where FF might be essential there. I hope that since we're not living in such an isolated place anymore that I can get someone to help me. 

Two absolutely beautiful girls in your avatar, Dave.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Evan said:


> But _should_ there be? Other than fine points and degree, what diffences make sense in the development in a trial dog and a top notch gundog?
> 
> Evan


Evan,

Should there be ?? Depends on who you ask. Ask the person who owns the dog what in their mind the end result of any training will look like. Chances are that is not what is in your/my mind. I'm thinking dogs should be trained with the owners end result in mind ?

Top notch gun dog or gun dog ? I stated gun dog. Guess it again depends on your version of a gun dog. Some people's version of acceptable dog work may be world's apart from my/your own.
Kinda like their version of a good looking woman !!! 

The guy is gonna hunt Pheasants, not trial, not hunt test, not waterfowl from what I read. The foundation in MY OPINION would be the same but the end result would not be. Why ? Because what happens after that foundation becomes very specific for that's dogs intended use. Pheasant hunting is just a little different than a trial. In theory the same BUT in reality ?? Would you not agree ? How do you train a dog to deal with a group of 12 guys unloading at 400 or 500 Roosters in the time it takes get thru a 1/4 section of land.
In a situation like that, everything becomes a "HUNT EM UP" 

John


----------



## gdluck (May 27, 2005)

twall said:


> Not FFing will probably not make any difference at all to your dads dog. The thing is, if the dog ever refuses to rertieve something you have no tool to enfocre the fetch command with. Besides fetching, FF adds a lot to a retrievers training. That said, there are probably more birds retrieved each year by dogs that are not FF'd then are FF'd.
> 
> Ultimately, it is your dads dog and he should train him the way he wants.
> 
> Tom


why is that? you TEACH the dog what fetch means just like you did SIT. enforce it the same way.

The best part about this thread and all other FF threads is the guy is looking for info on training WITHOUT FF and the only replies he gets are ones telling him to FF!

BTW my 1st and only dog is not FF. He delivers to hand, handles and will go through anything to get the bumper/bird.


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

The foundation work on retrievers should be the same, there shouldn't be any shortcuts. When I worked for a pro and did the basics on his gun dogs, I did not change the program except of course adapt the pace and the pressure to the individual. (I never trained any FT dogs except my own.)

This takes them through high school.

At college level, the dogs now have majors, so would be trained according to their specialty - FT, HT, gun dogs, SAR, bomb detection, cadaver, etc.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

rmilner said:


> I couldn't resist this thread so here are
> some thoughts on force fetch training for retriever gundogs:
> Note the operative word gundogs (not field trial dogs)
> 
> ...


Sorry for intruding this thread but for me it is very interesting. I read your book "Retriever Training" and it really helped me. And as far as I remember you gave some arguments for not FF.
OK concerning my person. I live in Europe, own Curly Coated Retriever and this year my young female bred and trained by me passed the basic working test. So now we are qualified for the beginner class.
My experiences concerning Fetching are: I did not do FF but I did F!!!
That means I practised "Fetching". I just need some space where the dog can´t escape and than I give him the bumper in his mouth. If he holds I praise. If he doesn´t I put it back in his mouth. So at one time the dog will find out if I want him to fetch and hold it has to. 
After a while she really got it. Now she will grab bumpers and she will pick them up whenever I tell her.
Than I started to do retrieves in my yard. In the beginning we had some rough times because she wanted to escape with the bumper but I chased after her and she found out there was no way to get away.

And now she is really reliable concerning her retrieving. Of course we couldn´t enter Field Trials, but she will retrieve everything I want. We practised with crows, rabbits and different kinds of birds. And IMO she retrieves for me and not because she is afraid of pressure By the way now we are starting with double marks and I start to handle her in different directions and she responds really well. So I´m very confident for our future
For me this system worked really well. I didn´t do any ear or toe pinches but I tried to be very consistant with my commands. And believe me a Curly is not as easy to train as a lab


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Evan said:


> To say "...it is the end all be all" misses the point, and exposes a lack of understanding of it. Force fetch is a pressure conditioning process with several significant advantages and co-benefits.
> 
> Can a dog become a competent gundog without doing it? Certainly. Can a hunter's goals be met by a dog that is not force fetched? Sure. It depends on the standards the dog's owner desires to live with...or without.
> 
> ...



Thanks for exposing my lack of understanding. The condescension is appreciated. 

It was simply a phrase I used based on the lauding on of praise for FF and repeated expressions of its necessity by the previous posters.

Oh, if the "us" you refer to above is hunt testers & trialers, then yes I would agree. If it is broadened to the general dog owning hunters then I would say the FF'ers are in the small minority.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

brian breuer said:


> It was simply a phrase I used based on the lauding on of praise for FF and repeated expressions of its *necessity* by the previous posters.


Brian,

I missed the espoused _necessity_ claim, but I do agree with those who have decided, through experience, not to develop a dog without it. It's hard to enjoy the benefits of pressure conditioning without pressure being involved.


brian breuer said:


> Oh, if the "us" you refer to above is hunt testers & trialers, then yes I would agree. If it is broadened to the general dog owning hunters then I would say the FF'ers are in the small minority.


The "us" refers to retriever trainers. If you don't think hunt testers and field trialers hunt, you're mistaken. If you think they are forced to do it with unworthy dogs, that is also an error. Not only do they hunt, but the majority of HT/FT folks hunt a lot, and are discriminating about the dogs they hunt over. Force fetching is one important component of development, not the only one. Am I being clearer?

Evan


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Evan said:


> Brian,
> 
> I missed the espoused _necessity_ claim,
> Evan


Well since you missed the espoused necessity here are just two posts that I got it from:

Terry Britton: It is like building a house without a foundation. 

EDA: Of all the things that I might not do force fetch would not be one of them.

Quote:
If you don't think hunt testers and field trialers hunt, you're mistaken. If you think they are forced to do it with unworthy dogs, that is also an error.

Where did I say anything about certain people not hunting? Where did I say anything about unworthy dogs? Thanks again for pointing out my errors especially when you had to make them up to point them out. 

My claim was only the NUMBER of dogs in the HT / FT community is very small when compared to the NUMBER of dogs in the field in the fall. Your claim of a majority believing in FF is only valid when looking at that narrow slice of retrievers afield.


----------



## etfremd (Feb 11, 2008)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Most retrievers will pick up a duck in the decoys without much difficulty on a warm calm day. Take that same un FFd dog and put a patch of briars between it and the duck, or skim ice on the pond or deep belly sucking marsh mud, or make the duck a cripple instead of graveyard dead, and there are plenty of dogs who will tell you to get it yourself.


I have not even finished reading the thread yet but I have to disagree- I had a yellow lab that did all this with very little training- Yes he would pound into a briar patch to flush a sticky rooster or chase a hen mallard right to the middle of another briar patch- he would come out bloody and tore up but he would never give up on a bird! One of the best dam dogs that I ever owned. He did not like one of my buddies or maybe it was he did not like to hunt with my buddies dog- on a pheasant hunt he lifted his leg and pissed on his leg- funniest thing I'd ever seen...He was soft mouth but hard charging- never "forced fetched", he was all fire and desire...Maybe we need to get back to breeding labs the way they used to be bred- his mother was a daughter of an NFC that would be in the late 70's, his father was a yellow I got from a stray bitch who left a litter at the local pound. He was just taught basic obedience and we took him hunting- I did not start doing any other training until he was 6. I taught him to fetch beer out the mini-fridge and go back and close the door...

Back in my grand-dads day if a dog did not fetch...that dog did not make it back from the hunt! What kind of breeding are we doing that requires "retrievers" to be "forced fetched"?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

brian breuer said:


> Well since you missed the espoused necessity here are just two posts that I got it from:
> 
> Terry Britton: It is like building a house without a foundation.
> 
> EDA: Of all the things that I might not do force fetch would not be one of them.


Yes, those are their opinions, and I agree with them. But none of us in so stating have defined FF as a necessity. In fact, in my original post I thought I made it pretty clear that it wasn't. You seem to be straining pretty hard to create an argument.


brian breuer said:


> My claim was only the NUMBER of dogs in the HT / FT community is very small when compared to the NUMBER of dogs in the field in the fall. Your claim of a majority believing in FF is only valid when looking at that narrow slice of retrievers afield.


I agree with the first part. The numbers of dogs in these events represent a small percentage of working retrievers overall.

In my reference to dogs that are force fetched, I refer not only to those dogs, but to retrievers used for hunting, testing, and trialing. I believe far more are FF'd in some degree or form than are not, and that more are being trained that way every day. I base that on the sale of pro-FF material sold nationwide every day. The numbers indicate to me that the volume is too great for all of that material to be going only toward tester/trialers. Most trainers who attend my seminars are testers, who also avidly hunt.

Evan


----------



## etfremd (Feb 11, 2008)

Okay here is the "gentle FF" method I used for my dog- I taught all the commands first- "Hold" first by placing something in his mouth, then once he would do that almost automatically I extended his reaction with a "fetch" command slowly moving the bumper further away- at the same time he only could release the object with an "drop" command- so this was part of basic obedience. Instead of using an ear pitch or toe pitch, I simply used a correction from the choke chain- a quick snap "hold" or a quick snap "fetch"...I used lots of praise...later once he was solid on all the commands I taught "leave it"...I used lots of praise...I just think it is such BS that you have to "Force" a dog- I don't want to have to "Force" a dog to do anything- I want a relationship with the dog so that the dog wants to do anything for me- wants to please me...only this type of relationship will come with reward and positive training and minimum correction when required.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Evan said:


> Yes, those are their opinions, and I agree with them. But none of us in so stating have defined FF as a necessity. In fact, in my original post I thought I made it pretty clear that it wasn't. You seem to be straining pretty hard to create an argument.I agree with the first part. The numbers of dogs in these events represent a small percentage of working retrievers overall.
> 
> Evan


Can you build a house without a foundation? No. Therefore it is a necessity. 

As far as straining to have an arguement, you were the one who called out my lack of understanding. Also, you said I was wrong in statements that YOU made. I never said those things.

Let me make some extrapolated statements, put your name on them, and then say you were mistaken. I'm sure you won't mind.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

brian breuer said:


> Can you build a house without a foundation? No. Therefore it is a necessity.
> 
> As far as straining to have an arguement, you were the one who called out my lack of understanding. Also, you said I was wrong in statements that YOU made. I never said those things.
> 
> Let me make some extrapolated statements, put your name on them, and then say you were mistaken. I'm sure you won't mind.


Okay, Brian. In your world there is only one way to build a foundation...yes? Is that _really_ what you set out to say?

I'm sure there is no reason to continue. Best of luck.

Evan


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Light force fetch, or not force fetch ? and:

"All mine handle at distance; non is FF'd or CC'd. FF may well fit into your training program but it isn't a neccessary or vital part of training a sound retriever."

????

On and off scented points?
In and out of scented areas?
Past old or poison falls?
Through or across MORE than lessor "factors"?

I haven't seen the unforced dog that does it. My first retrievers were not force fetched and were retrieving and "fetching" machines. What they lacked was adequate pressure response, and consequently what I lacked were the tools necessary to truly teach these animals to complete retrieving and handling tasks that were above the average standard.

You can do a "trained" retrieve by following the same process as force fetching, except by using positive reinforcement instead of negative. What you won't develop is any ability to compel, motivate, or otherwise move your retriever to retrieves and concepts that you otherwise could.

I use a clicker here and there, and understand operant conditioning, and applied secondary reinforcement very well. When your highly motivated retriever establishes a mistaken/incorrect hunt, or refuses a cast due to reinforcing or competing factors in the field that are "outside of your pocket" - your ability to teach will be limited at best, and in most cases nulified without the FF foundation and basics.

It's very easy to promote the non FF concept to owners and handlers who don't intend, need, or who have never seen the abilities and talent of top performing competitive retrievers.

Comparing British and Irish competition and dogs to North American competition and dogs is comparing apples and cabbages...? Don't get me wrong, it's about the standard, talent and ability you hope to instill in your animal. The British/Irish standard is alien to the North American standard, expectation and purpose. I think there are pros and cons for both, however believe that dogs trained in North American methods can compete in British/Irish types of events well, but don't know the same to be true in reverse. ?

Retrieving regards,

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

brian breuer said:


> My claim was only the NUMBER of dogs in the HT / FT community is very small when compared to the NUMBER of dogs in the field in the fall. Your claim of a majority believing in FF is only valid when looking at that narrow slice of retrievers afield.



Brian, where are you garnering these statistics? Long before I applied FF to my dogs, I guided waterfowl and upland hunters, competed in waterfowl competitions and met and shot over countless "gun dogs" in the field and marshes.

At that time I was a zealous R+'r, who refused to FF my dogs. I can tell you that I WAS clearly in the minority during those years, and while my dogs tended to be very good gun dogs - they got more than average numbers of birds, and I trained relentlessly. However I have come to understand the shortcomings those dogs had afield, and to wonder what talent and ability I may have coached them to if I had been more open minded and clinical about their training.

You can teach any dog to "fetch", you can't necessarily use any method of teaching fetch to progress your dog through even moderate to advanced retriever work. I had a Dogo Argentino that would fetch as well as some of the local gun dogs - it doesn't suggest that he could have, might have or ever would have performed at any standard above going out and picking up an object and delivering it to hand. Certainly not where any competing factors would have been in place.

There are some who are re-inventing the wheel and attempting to turn out competitive performances without the use of force. I am all for using as little force as necessary in training, however I have yet to see the new wheel turning out truly high calibre retrievers.

In fact recently I've become aware of some of the stronges proponents for R+ only retriever and gun dog training - starting their own competitions in order to be able to reward these dogs and trainers, where they would otherwise not be competitive.

There is nothing wrong with simply saying I don't require that "kind of performance" and therefore am using a method to accomplish suitable and sufficient behavior. It's quite another to suggest that the same approach could accomplish consistent more challenging retriever responses.

Respectfully,

Wayne


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Wayne,

It is only my experience hunting / talking / training with others. My old club (2 yrs ago) would put on a booth at a sports show. I usually worked a couple of shifts and would talk to 3 times as many people with dogs (basically untrained) as we had members in the club in just one shift.

I've hunted with probably 20 different people the each of the last 2 years I've been in ND (so maybe 40 total) in large pheasant parties. I was the only one with a FF dog. (Yes, I do ff)

It is only my personal experience. I also had one pro tell me that 95% of dogs in the field couldn't do an intermediate level (pick your org) test. 

Absolutely nothing scientific. 

I never once suggested these methods would get you to higher level of performance even a SH.
I was only saying that than a good hunting can be had without FF. I've been around alot of them. I think there are many more dogs in the fields in November that aren't FF than those that are. Maybe its just where I lived (WI, Eastern WA, and now ND)

The people posting here take their dogs WAY more seriously than the ave Joe hunter. 

Did in your experience as a guide encounter a lot of trained (capable of delivery to hand, whistle sit, FF, simple blinds - SH level) dogs? 

Brian


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

torrey said:


> If someone decides to train a dog solely for hunting and doesn't FF the dog, what are the things they will have to worry about and what are some tips for making sure that they can still have a well trained dog?


I'm in the process of bringing on my 10th gun dog without FF, and about to throw in the towel - on discussing the subject with FF True Believers. But since you're not that, I'll take a shot at your questions.

First and foremost to have a top-self gun dog that does what you're apt to require of it, you'll have to do for yourself much of what the process of FF does for its practitioners: provide clarity with regard to what is expected (through a building block process) and consistency with regard to that expectation through either conspiring to achieve your will or at least not letting Pup realize that you have not and get in the habit of testing, much less disregarding your authority. 

And you'll have to learn do those things without much of the US mainstream retriever training blueprint to follow, because FF has become its lynchpin: whether it's puppy training that lets things slide that will later be "cleaned up" with FF or advanced work that depends on the dog's understanding that it can turn off pressure with correct action. When I watched Jackie Mertens' highly acclaimed puppy training DVD, I found myself cringing over things a FF practitioner might not give a second thought, like working pups on bumpers with long throw ropes that could trip them and interrupt the type of prompt delivery I'm anxious to condition from retrieve one. And if a momentum issue or some-such pokes its head up on down the more advanced training road, the mainstream yeoman "force-to" won't be available to combat it.

In any event, I'd think it much easier for most just to go with the mainstream flow and FF simply because there's a more complete blueprint to follow. Though I can't help but think that those capable of training and maintaining a competent gun dog without FF are also going to be the ones best able to maintain the foundation FF provides. The country is absolutely chock-a-block with FFed dogs that aren't worth feeding, from a hunting standpoint - and it seldom appears the dogs' fault.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Evan said:


> Okay, Brian. In your world there is only one way to build a foundation...yes? Is that _really_ what you set out to say?
> 
> I'm sure there is no reason to continue. Best of luck.
> 
> Evan


FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, where did I say anything about only one way to build a foundation? Only that one is necessary.

There wouldn't be need to continue if you would quit making things up and attributing them to me to make your point.

Nice ego.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Shoot, Brian, until Evan sprung that one, I thought you were getting pounded for suggesting there could be _more than one way_ to build a foundation.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

I shouldn't post to this, but...

...a good dog who wants his/her birds can absolutely be trained w/out ff or cc. Interesting that Col. Blimp's thoughts seem to be blissfully overlooked.

Some folks prefer to build a working retriever based upon relationship & desire as opposed to force. My first dog (I'm on my 2nd dog & he has been cc'd & ff'd) was nothing in terms of pedigree and was a Golden to boot. I was told over and over that w/out ff and cc upper level titles were out of our reach-especially since she never saw a bird until she was almost 6 years old. When she was 12 years old she passed a club Master, 2 NFRA Masters & 5 HRC Finished tests. What titles she has are in my signature line. Huge accomplishments? Absolutely not, but she did it all because she wanted to and because she wanted to work for me. She was an absolute joy to hunt with-& I have witnesses!

Programs are wonderful, but dogs don't read the manuals and if they have birdiness and desire and respect for the person who they work with -that can trump the need for force.

M


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Rick Hall said:


> ..... The country is absolutely chock-a-block with FFed dogs that aren't worth feeding, from a hunting standpoint - and it seldom appears the dogs' fault.


Great work Rick. I am sincerely interested if you compete with your dogs if and if not, what level of trainability do you feel you've achieved with them using competitive levels as a guide?

Regarding the chock-a-block's I would argue that both the US and Canada are chock-a-block with non FF'ed dogs "that aren't worth feeding" from any peformance standpoint and that also seldom appears to be the dogs faults.

I've met countless folks who "love" the ability right out of their dogs.

Brian you asked about the dogs I met years ago and their capabilities...yes many of the dogs were probably senior level, seasoned level performers, again these were ff dogs. It wasn't until I went to some UKC hunt tests, and some field trials that I began to really see some very impressive dogs, and owners/handlers who care for them equally as much as non FF practitioners.

I can tell you I have not yet met a high performing retriever that wowed me - that also was not FF'd.

All the best

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Miriam Wade said:


> I shouldn't post to this, but...
> 
> ...a good dog who wants his/her birds can absolutely be trained w/out ff or cc. Interesting that Col. Blimp's thoughts seem to be blissfully overlooked.
> 
> ...


Miriam that is pretty impressive for any 12 year old retriever. 

I guided with a couple non FF labs that were impressive "gun dogs" but the lack of that training limited their potential, and it's only obvious to me in hindsight. 

Is it possible that your 12 year old would have achieved the same or greater results sooner with the conventional blue print? Have you cc'd and ff'd your second dog because of his type, or because it suits him where it didn't the earlier dog?

I'm not suggesting I believe there is only one way, and certainly not that none of us should be able to successfully teach our individual dogs in an individual manner, to our individual standard and preference - I do just firmly believe that the truly gifted performance retrievers aren't achieving truly high level performances much if at all, outside of the ff'd "blue print".

As you say dogs don't read the manuals. 

Regardless of the program, it takes a very talented animal to achieve any of the top shelf titles/competitive requirements in retriever games - regardless of the training methodology.

Best Regards,

Wayne


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Personally I think that everyone has what they consider on any given hunting day their own type of retrieve and what is expected from their own personal dogs. Like what type of shot they would take or not take etc.........I can say with much experience from working with many "gundog" owners that without a forced fetch program "what will compel your dog to pick something up IF he/she doesn't what to?" If it's shot to bits, sitting in some Looncrap,nasty mud,if another bird is shot on route to coming back with the first retrieve.
Is it for everyone?? Again a matter of your own personal choice.To each his/her own.
For me and my clients it's a done deal.
Happy Hunting


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> Personally I think that everyone has what they consider on any given hunting day their own type of retrieve and what is expected from their own personal dogs. Like what type of shot they would take or not take etc.........I can say with much experience from working with many "gundog" owners that without a forced fetch program "what will compel your dog to pick something up IF he/she doesn't what to?" If it's shot to bits, sitting in some Looncrap,nasty mud,if another bird is shot on route to coming back with the first retrieve.
> Is it for everyone?? Again a matter of your own personal choice.To each his/her own.
> For me and my clients it's a done deal.
> Happy Hunting



With all due respect-there are plenty of non ff'd dogs that have never refused a retrieve. If it takes ff to have a dog go the distance, than maybe you should look at a different dog for the job.

M


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Like I said to each his/her own standards. I've hunted allot and have guided as well. Have seen all kinds of standards.(lots of dogs) It's a taught-forced idea Not a cookie treat. Not for everyone I'm sure. My first Golden wasn't either. She was a great dog No doubt for me at that time.(80's) For me now? Never hunt without one that's not ff. My own personal choice. That's all.
Not for everyone. Never said that. Not looking to step on toes. It's all in what we all expect on any given day ,weekend trip etc..........
I want a for sure thing,like dry socks,M &M's in my hunting bag,
Sue


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> Like I said to each his/her own standards. I've hunted allot and have guided as well. Have seen all kinds of standards.(lots of dogs) It's a taught-forced idea Not a cookie treat. Not for everyone I'm sure. My first Golden wasn't either. She was a great dog No doubt for me at that time.(80's) For me now? Never hunt without one that's not ff. My own personal choice. That's all.
> Not for everyone. Never said that. Not looking to step on toes. It's all in what we all expect on any given day ,weekend trip etc..........
> I want a for sure thing,like dry socks,M &M's in my hunting bag,
> Sue



My point is that desire is a sure thing and that a good dog w/ all the right stuff will rise to meet the standard. I do know exactly what you're trying to say. My point is that there's more than one way to train a dog and end up w/ a very high standard. Or you can go cookie cutter approach. Whatever works and brings home the birds!



M


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Wayne Dibbley said:


> Great work Rick. I am sincerely interested if you compete with your dogs if and if not, what level of trainability do you feel you've achieved with them using competitive levels as a guide?


No, Wayne, I don't compete (which I presume to mean "trial") with my dogs. And I wouldn't have responded to torrey's question if it were about competition. I've zip experience to share on that count, but would _guess_ force-to of greater requisite to achieving competitive geometry than to achieving the hunting expediencies I'm more concerned with. 

By the same token, the retriever competitor's (presumably "trialer's") goals have enough differences to counter their similarities with my own that there's no comparison to be drawn "using competitive levels as a guide". 

I have, however, used the HRC as a training aid (to help keep my feet to the fire and find holes) for each of the four retriever pups I've started since the mid '80s: testing them until they're doing Finished work, which I find provides much of the training foundation we'll want to build on with field experience. But while there was a time I could follow every brace of a pointing dog trial, retrieving games never tripped my trigger and make for a much longer day than I can call fun. I may well be the only person in HRC history to stop testing a two-year-old dog one pass shy of his HRCH, 'cause retriever games bore pee outta me. "Different strokes..." and all that.



> Regarding the chock-a-block's I would argue that both the US and Canada are chock-a-block with non FF'ed dogs "that aren't worth feeding" from any performance standpoint and that also seldom appears to be the dogs faults.


I'm sure you're correct, but it's been decades since I've had the opportunity to see many of them. At least in my area, FF has been so routine since the '80s that even those who've done next to nothing else but hunt their retrievers have almost surely "sent them out" to be FFed. And the great, great majority of our lodge's guest dogs have enjoyed the benefit of professional training.



> I can tell you I have not yet met a high performing retriever that wowed me - that also was not FF'd.


I've been much more fortunate, and with all the high-powered work of high-powered pros that have come through my blinds and fields in the past 20-some years, my all-time favorite guest dog was a young fellow's un-FFed, un-CCed first effort. (A "British" Lab, at that.) And their relationship was even more impressive than the dog's work.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Wayne, that is interesting. Fair enough. You must have a higher class of friends. 

Rick, 

Is a good "natural" mouth near the top of your list for selecting a pup? I seem to recall the search for your last pup took a while and was from some "different" CBR lines. 

What qualities were in that breeding that made you think it would mesh with your training methods?

Brian


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Truth be told, Brian, I've never found "mouth" enough of a problem to give it much thought beyond care to foster good mouth habits and prevent bad. Might just be that my sampling's been so limited, but I've found no reason to buy into British fears that the prevalence of FF masks and therefore begets inherent mouth problems in our trial dogs. (Or that CC begets inherent biddability issues, for that matter.) Or at least to no appreciably greater degree than sound training methodologies other than FF (or CC) are capable. 

But I've had occasion to give a great deal of thought to the difference between inherent "retrieve" and "prey drive". I've found it appreciably easier to foster retrieve (and biddability) to the performance level I desire than prey drive, and, so, have given priority in recent puppy searches to evidence, however tenuously extrapolated, of the later. As well as temperament and health, of course.

(I say "tenuously extrapolated" because I usually have to depend more on pedigree and references than personal experience with the lines involved and would very much like to think that the perseverance a dog shows handling the training required by successful trialing speaks to high inherent prey drive. Though I don't believe that always the case, I like to think I'm playing the odds as best I can with the information available.)


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Well, shot that hypothesis right in the butt. 

Nurture wins out over nature, or maybe there is enough nature spread around that you just need to add nurture. 

Thanks Rick.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> Personally I think that everyone has what they consider on any given hunting day their own type of retrieve and what is expected from their own personal dogs. Like what type of shot they would take or not take etc.........I can say with much experience from working with many "gundog" owners that without a forced fetch program "what will compel your dog to pick something up IF he/she doesn't what to?" If it's shot to bits, sitting in some Looncrap,nasty mud,if another bird is shot on route to coming back with the first retrieve.
> Is it for everyone?? Again a matter of your own personal choice.To each his/her own.
> For me and my clients it's a done deal.
> Happy Hunting



Just as a point of reference, this photo was taken in my duck pond in the floating marsh:










And a broader view, in which nothing short of the tree line is solid:










If FF were requisit to getting our birds to the blind ASAP with as little of my own attention diverted from the business of filling straps as possible, I'd be a FFing son of a gun.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Hey, Larkin. I never got your PM. But, I read your post asking about my 'Chessie' who hasn't been FF and how he's doing. So, here it is, and everyone can make of it what they will (which they will anyway  )

'Buddy' comes from a line of show dogs, bred in particular for temperament as well as looks. Never-the-less, he has never refused to go, to drive hard, and to hunt. He delivers to hand reliably, including overcoming a small glitch with dropping to shake on water retrieves. He is learning to handle very well. He's very intelligent and loves to train as much as any other dog I see and train with.

'Buddy' was trained to 'hold' and 'fetch' on a table, but without restraints and without physical force of any kind. I followed the routine from start to finish, but didn't use physical force, opting instead for postivie rewards. After he had learned what was required, I did, in fact, occasionally have to use psychological pressure (verbal corrections) from time to time to teach him that compliance was not an option.

I believe 'Buddy' has always done what I have asked because of his breeding, and because of the relationship I have with my dog, not because I forced him to. A recent bench mark includes the following in training:

The 'go-bird' started with 30 yards out through shoulder high grass, down a 40 yard angled slope, across 70 yards of shoulder deep running water, 30 yards up an angled slope of shoulder high grass, to come up within 6 feet of the bird. Then he ran the whole way back, remembered the 'memory bird', and took off again straight down the same slope, across 25 yards of running/swimming water, up the far slope and on another 30 yards to step on the bird. And, he did it all with style and enthusiasm. It wasn't cold. In fact, it was about 88 degrees and 100 % humidity. There was no 'quit' in him.

'Buddy' hasn't tested in 'Seasoned' yet, but I'm guessing he's ready for it in terms of double marks. The 'blinds' are coming in due time, but I don't see any problems that are related to FF on the horizon.

Mini-brag - over. My point is, I agree with those who say breeding and overall training can make FF irrelevant.

For those who argue that all FT winners are FF, I would point out that if _all FT prospects are FF_ (and that's a pretty sure bet), then _you would expect_ all winners to be FF. Duh? How many of the dogs that didn't win, didn't win because of an issue directly attributable to FF? I would guess very few. In other words, FF does not guarantee anything in and of itself. FF can be a part of an overall training program. But, it's only a part of the program.

People speak of what I call the vicarious benefits of FF, beyond 'fetch' and 'hold'. Well, I agree with those that believe those same vicarious benefits can be achieved without physical force, with excellent training, and good breeding.

But, then again, I've only partially trained one dog. But, I'm batting 1000 so far.

My 2cents.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Final attempt

Analogy for Force Fetching

I know just enough about tennis to understand that as a sport, it follows a familiar pattern in terms of its participants. I believe it’s similar to the classes of participants in retriever training in the following ways.

*Hobbyists*: They have little or no interest in or participation in competition of any kind. They play for fun.

*Club players*: They’re hobbyists at of a more serious nature because they are competitors at heart. They play far more and at a higher level than the classic Hobbyist. They tend to belong to clubs, and buy better equipment, for example. They occasionally play in club level tournaments, and cultivate the biggest serve they can.

*Pro players*: They play at the top, even though many aren’t the big winners who become household names. Still, they can give the A-list players a good challenge, and sometimes have the same type of monster serve and mobility. All use the best equipment and techniques currently in existence.

Retriever Trainers at large

*Hobbyists*: They're primarily hunters, and have little or no interest in or participation in competition in the field sports of Hunt Tests or Field Trials, but may dabble in them. Some Force Fetch, some don’t.

*Club players*: They are hobbyists of a more serious nature because they, too, have a competitive streak that drives them to a higher level of participation in training. Most hunt avidly, and many run Hunt Tests. Some also dabble in Field Trials. Virtually all Force Fetch as a component of a drive for more thorough, higher quality training.

*Pro Players*: While many are not professionals, these trainer/handlers are driven to the highest levels of both that they can attain. They usually spend more time and resources than anyone, and use the best equipment and techniques in order to gain and maintain a competitive edge. Virtually all Force Fetch thoroughly as a _component_ of top-level preparation.

Many other components go into playing at the top of either game. But there are identifiable common threads that are clearly woven into the fabric of winners. Force Fetch is such a high profile topic, not because it’s all you need to do to have a well trained dog, but because it is a core component of a thoroughly and highly trained retriever, just as a monster serve is a key part of the top level tennis player’s game.

Evan


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

have not been on this forum for long but this is another Hot button issue so to speak, you either are or not into FF...I for one am not but I learned long ago its like me trying to change your mind to vote conservative like me if you are a liberal, its just not in your nature, even if my arguments are sound with facts to back it up.as long as I respect your position on FF and you respect mine we can all play this game

I rank FF along with these other topics which will ALWAYS get a spirited response

1.black vs yellow vs golden vs chocolate vs chessie vs (insert breed here)

2. collar vs non collar

3. pro vs amateur vs non pro vs amateur only

4.and the MOTHER OF ALL HOT BUTTON TOPICS........Field Trials vs Hunt Tests

5. almost forgot AKC vs UKC.............

6. and for later in the year ...BIG 12 vs SEC vs Pac 10 vs Big Ten

7. But while I have your attention for a micro second lets talk about politics...j/k


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

bonbonjovi said:


> have not been on this forum for long but this is another Hot button issue so to speak, you either are or not into FF...I for one am not but I learned long ago its like me trying to change your mind to vote conservative like me if you are a liberal, its just not in your nature, even if my arguments are sound with facts to back it up.as long as I respect your position on FF and you respect mine we can all play this game
> 
> I rank FF along with these other topics which will ALWAYS get a spirited response
> 
> ...


Great point but you forgot 
8. Everything concerning EIC


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

.... from my own experience; I could not knowledgeably comment on, nor appreciate, nor estimate the abilities of truly talented and trained retrievers prior to attending top level hunt tests AND all age field trials. I didn't meet truly excellent retrievers at dog shows, game farms, or down at the public marsh - though I'm sure on rare occasions they are there.

Picking up countless teal in normal gun range, and approximating seasoned level hunt test performances are nice appreciable hunting dog feats, and take training and hard work - but don't closely represent the advanced capabilities of excellent retrievers. My first personal retriever regularly completed 100 +/- mallard and 50 +/- geese retrieve hunts while guiding - he was a great dog, I loved him, he made me happy and my hunts more enjoyable. He was positively trained without FF or CC, and he was naturally talented. What he could have been performance wise, I'll never know, but looking back am certain that his ability and performance would have been significantly more advanced had I been open to and made good use of FF, CC, sound basics and transition techniques.

Nearly every hunter I've ever known estimates he/she has the most phenomenal gun dog in the area, regardless of the true performance or ability of that particular dog.

Many times the notions of "my dog's" retriever achievements, regardless of how personally rewarding, tend to be a great underestimation of truly talented retriever potential, ability and skill.

Best Retrieving Regards,

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

> Final attempt
> 
> Analogy for Force Fetching
> 
> ...


That’s a well written analogy, Evan – very clear and understandable. As a former club tennis player, I don’t disagree with the analogy itself. But, I can’t help but notice that it’s all about the players, and virtually nothing about the unmentioned players – the dogs.

You say force fetch is a high profile topic because _‘…it is core component of a thoroughly and highly trained retriever,…_’. Again, I agree that it can be a component. There are many, many posts here, and elsewhere, that discuss the correct application of the techniques and methods used during force fetch. But, there are also many posts that question the whole notion of using physical discomfort to convince a dog he has to do something he is already willing to do – to ‘prove a point’ – you might say. I believe this is an ethical question, and a valid one, for the dog’s owner. For some, it is a question that demands an answer before force fetch can begin. 

Does this mean that people who support and use force fetch are unethical. *Absolutely not!* But, it does mean these people (hopefully) have already addressed the question in some fashion and have answered it for themselves. 

So, force fetch is also a high profile topic because new people are coming into the sport and are asking for input for making a decision that is very important to them, and for the sake of the dog, as they see it. I hope people, ‘newbies’ and veterans alike, will always stop and ask questions like these. And, I hope people will be patient and continue to help other people arrive at their own answers even though it’s _‘… another FF thread, Oh Gawd!_’


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Snicklefritz said:


> That’s a well written analogy, Evan – very clear and understandable. As a former club tennis player, I don’t disagree with the analogy itself. But, I can’t help but notice that it’s all about the players, and virtually nothing about the unmentioned players – the dogs.



because, just like somebody once said "It is all just dogs picking up stuff, or not." In that tennis game it is just a fuzzy ball going over a net, or not. The difference in great vs. not great is not the tennis ball, but how they chose to and prepare to hit it.
Ken Bora


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Well, I knew dogs love to chase tennis balls. But, until now I didn't know they _were_ tennis balls - metaphorically speaking ;-)


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

Miriam Wade said:


> Some folks prefer to build a working retriever based upon relationship & desire as opposed to force.


Miriam -
I think this gets to the heart of the issue. My dad has had some great dogs in the past, non of which went through FF, non of which used a e-collar etc. And I think it's because of the relationship that my dad has built with his dogs and his EXPECTATIONS of the dogs.

A good friend of mine who I got my pup from is the same way...he wants his dogs to be good in the field because they want to and because they want to please him. He doesn't want a dog to listen to him out of 'fear'. I don't see FF as teaching a dog to be afraid and while while I may not agree with his reasons, I can't condemn his way of thinking. Both my father and my friend are avid hunters but that's it...they will never expect anything else out of their dogs except getting some birds and being good companions.

I liked what Evan said "Virtually all Force Fetch thoroughly as a component of top-level preparation". I want to get my dog into Hunt Tests so she's going to need more 'components' than my dad's dog. But ultimately, Raven is part of my family. I didn't get her to be a FT prospect or get rid of her. My dad didn't get Lily to be the best hunting dog or get rid of her. We both got them because of our love for the breed.

But there have been some good ideas that have come out of this thread that I can pass on and that was what I was looking for!



bonbonjovi said:


> 6. and for later in the year ...BIG 12 vs SEC vs Pac 10 vs Big Ten


BONBONJOVI - That would be BIG 10!



Torrey


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> And, I hope people will be patient and continue to help other people arrive at their own answers even though it’s _‘… another FF thread, Oh Gawd!_’


You know Snickle...one of the great things about the forum is that there are so many people here willing to help. I can't say enough about the people that have answered all my 'dumb questions'

I've seen other post saying they can only take so many post on FF. That it gets old seeing the same posts of which gun to pick, or what's the best training DVD, etc. I think these people forget what it was like when they had their first question...someone must have answered it.

There will always be someone new to HTs, FTs, etc like me and guess what...they will almost always have the same questions. The same topics come up over and over and over...but that means more people are playing the game...and that a good thing for retrievers sports, right?


----------



## RRalph (Dec 22, 2007)

I have enjoyed following this thread because I have a five month old Chessie pup - Scout - who I plan to force fetch in the near future. Scout is very enthusiastic and has lots of drive, but he also likes to think about things. He reliably retrieves singles out to 100 yards + and delivers to hand most of the time. Scout is learning simple doubles, and the beginnings of handling. He is also very affectionate friend who likes to sit on the porch with me and drink beer. He can also be a rebellious SOB. Dogs need a leader, and most will occasionally test the leader. In a pack, the leader will growl and nip, and even knock to the ground and sit on challengers to assert leadership. I know that force fetch is much more than just confirming the pecking order but I do think it goes a long way towards cementing the relationship between handler and retriever. I also think that teaching a dog to relieve pressure can make learning complex behaviors much less stressful on the dog.

Force fetch is often referred to as a single process that is set in stone. If a trainer goes into the process with an adversarial attitude fur and blood will fly and the neighbors may well call the ASPCA. Apply the amount of force necessary to create the desired responses, no more and no less. If force fetch is simply a progression of the training a dog has received from day one - a young pup is "forced" not to bite, and to stay off the furniture. At some point he is "forced" to sit on command (these behaviors are encouraged with praise and treats in the beginning, but at some point "forced" with a snap on the lead...
A dog may well deliver to hand and hold and fetch on command before "force fetch". The actual formal force fetch may be almost a non event, but even then, it prepares the way for the complex concepts to come.

This post is probably worth about what you paid for it, but it has helped me organize my thoughts on the subject. By the way, I have only forced fetched one dog - Scout will be my second.

Ralph


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Here is a little different slant on the subject:

I view force fetching as an unnecessary complication of the dog training process, and we need to be working toward making the dog training process simpler. Here is the reason why:

I had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman from Canada a few weeks ago. He is an expert in the area of conservation and a quite well known and recognized executive
in that sector. He is also a Duck Hunter.

Looking down the road, he sees the anti-hunters coming after duck hunting. If you look at the recent experience with fox hunting in England, it may give pause for thought. 

One of the things that the antis will be specifically attacking will be losses of crippled ducks and whole concept of an uncollected crippled duck dying a lingering death, etc. etc.

It would appear to me that we as leaders in the retriever world should be paying attention to the threat. We should be interested in promoting the concept of every hunter having a dog to collect the crippled birds. We should be trying to make it easy for every hunter to get a tractable, manageable dog, and we should be trying to make it easy for him to train that dog to be a competent hunting dog.

An important part of that would be promoting the selective breeding of dogs that are easy to train. 

An equally important part would be developing training programs that are easy for an inexperienced owner to apply. I would go so far as to say that professional trainers have a responsibility to help develop easy training programs that the average hunter can follow and apply. The professionals are where the average guy looks for a model for dog training. If the professionals value the long term survival of their business, they had better start trying to simplify the training.

If we don’t start focusing on the real enemy and working together, we will wake up some morning and find duck hunting banned. If you don't think it can happen, just look at the British model on fox hunting. I am sure that many British didn’t expect the ban on fox hunting to really happen.

Best Regards,
Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

bonbonjovi,

You forgot the HOT topic - American vs. British bred dogs  Or what about FT bred dogs are too much dog.....ummmm, QAA title or not......I'm sure there are others.....

BTW my dog is better than your dog.....and my Dad can beat your Dad up  :lol:

FOM


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

rmilner said:


> I view force fetching as an unnecessary complication of the dog training process, and we need to be working toward making the dog training process simpler.
> [/url]


Robert -
I looked at your website and you have instructional videos of force fetching yet your post says that force fetching is "and unnecessay complication".

Am I missing something?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> bonbonjovi,
> 
> You forgot the HOT topic - American vs. British bred dogs  Or what about FT bred dogs are too much dog.....ummmm, QAA title or not......I'm sure there are others.....
> 
> ...


Lainee, you and Bon have forgotten the in shape, good looking, muscled up, field trial lab compared to that out of shape, keg with legs anda Rotweiler head, show lab.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

torrey said:


> Robert -
> I looked at your website and you have instructional videos of force fetching yet your post says that force fetching is "and unnecessay complication".
> 
> Am I missing something?


No, just got to know what to look for and read (proper "British") into:



rmilner said:


> Here is a little different slant on the subject:
> ... An important part of that would be promoting the selective breeding of dogs that are easy to train.


MG


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Wayne asked if my non FF dogs can handle 


> On and off scented points?
> In and out of scented areas?
> Past old or poison falls?
> Through or across MORE than lessor "factors"?


I'm not exactly sure what a "scented point" is so I'm struggling to answer. "In and out of scented areas" is their stock in trade, so is "past old or poisoned falls". "Factors" are just what we meet every day, bramble thickets, woodlands, streams rivers, scree slopes, stone walls, fences, sheep, cattle, flushing birds, flushing rabbits, other dogs, falling birds. For the main part they manage it all pretty well; the biggest fault they have is "shopping" towards the end of a busy season. 

I have to retrain and re-educate in the off season ... and then it all comes unstuck again!! It's the result of working on big shoots where they retrieve during the drive and birds are falling all round them. I'm aiming to avoid those situations this coming season. It may be of interest that they probably mark only 1/3 of the birds they bring to hand; the rest are by necessity blinds.



> Comparing British and Irish competition and dogs to North American competition and dogs is comparing apples and cabbages...?


 I agree, which is why I was so careful not to do so. 



> The British/Irish standard is alien to the North American standard, expectation and purpose. I think there are pros and cons for both, however believe that dogs trained in North American methods can compete in British/Irish types of events well, but don't know the same to be true in reverse.


You may be right, but I'd be interested to see the record of US trained dogs in UK Trials ... because to the best of my knowledge there aren't any! 

But the original poster didn't want a discussion on competition dogs did he? Just hunters. 

love in haste,

Eug.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Eug; in American field trial major stakes, oepn and amateur, some judges will scent a point with feathers and or by dragging dead ducks around to leave an area of scent. They will then run a waterblind where the dog has to get out on or pass closely by the point. Its a trick test in my book as training for it can cause a dog to ignore its nose.


----------



## mohaled (Oct 7, 2007)

Anytime you tell the dogs to hold or not to spit the bird you are foce fetching. I don't understand people who said I never have to FF their dogs, it's doesn't have to be the traditional or common way to do it. To the UK guy when you train I'm sure there were times when you have to make your dog however you call it to hold.


----------



## gdluck (May 27, 2005)

brian breuer said:


> Can you build a house without a foundation? No. Therefore it is a necessity.


too funny. I have a lab. when I say back he runs, picks up, brings back. Crap i thought i had a retriever. obviously not cause he wasn't FF.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

mohaled said:


> Anytime you tell the dogs to hold or not to spit the bird you are foce fetching. I don't understand people who said I never have to FF their dogs, it's doesn't have to be the traditional or common way to do it. To the UK guy when you train I'm sure there were times when you have to make your dog however you call it to hold.


That isn't the definition of FF that most are using here. Just working on what you said would be commonly referred to as working on "hold". The FF most are refering to starts with that but is an extensive process that some say goes all the way to force to pile.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

gdluck said:


> too funny. I have a lab. when I say back he runs, picks up, brings back. Crap i thought i had a retriever. obviously not cause he wasn't FF.


That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was quoting that statement which was made by Terry Britton to say that some people thought it was a necessity. I was actually making a case for many fine hunting retrievers not being FF. 

Read my first post on about page 3 or 4. That was my opinion before I got sidetracked into a somewhat different direction. 

Best regards, 

Brian


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

mohaled said:


> Anytime you tell the dogs to hold or not to spit the bird you are foce fetching.


I'm curious how many of our FF experts agree with that notion?


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Colonel Blimp said:


> ....
> 
> I have to retrain and re-educate in the off season ... and then it all comes unstuck again!! It's the result of working on big shoots where they retrieve during the drive and birds are falling all round them. I'm aiming to avoid those situations this coming season. It may be of interest that they probably mark only 1/3 of the birds they bring to hand; the rest are by necessity blinds...
> 
> .


Eug,

How do you accomplish the retraining and re-education? 

Do you do so without any kind of physical discomfort, management, or coercion of any kind?

Wayne


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> To the UK guy when you train I'm sure there were times when you have to make your dog however you call it to hold.


I guess that's me. 

Answer .... never.

My problem with the Labs I have access to hasn't been getting the dogs to "fetch" or "hold" or bring it back. It's to stop them doing so in their own time, and thus to do so under my command. 

Eug


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

I couldn't help but notice how the discussion moved from FF or no need to FF, to infer that these trained dogs are "doing it to please" or doing it because "they better or else".

FF or not force fetching fails to demonstrate that either type of trained dog is doing anything to please his/her handler, or because he feels obligated.

One dog repeates behavior that turns off discomfort. (negative reinforcement)

I assume those promoting non FF are doing something that gives the dog sufficient pleasure to make the behavior more likely to recur (positive reinforcement)

While I stated in an earlier post that I think we underestimate the performance ability of our retrievers at the same time I think we overestimate our dogs concern for our emotional state or well being (desire to please).

Where is that dog "doing it to please" as opposed to doing it to avoid strangulation or chain link karate chops to the throat, or to acquire food, massage, or the darned bird it's anxious to have in it's mouth or ad infitum...

Where is the dog that cares how any of us feel inside, except for how our expressed state communicates/cues the benefits or perils the dog might recieve?

My point is that our dogs learn and alter their behavior to effect their experience, their existence.

FF'ing works because it follows the laws of learning via applied negative reinforcement, progressively back chaining the trained retrieve process. At the end of which the dog has learned to hold, and to fetch, and how to manage and respond appropriately to pressure.

Not FF'ing is working for some trainers obviously through another mechanism, and if the dog is becoming reliable that mechanism is also following the laws of learning via a combination of, or one of the other behavior affecting consequences (positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, negative punishment, positive punishment)

I'm anxiously awaiting the FF/CC free program that successively and consistently progresses retrievers from basics through truly advanced performance work.

There is more than one way to skin a cat I agree, but do all ways produce equal results? More consistent results? 

It's my position that there at this date sufficient non FF and non CC'ing trainers to produce regular and consistent competitive results - I do want to see and hear about these results.

There is always so much more to learn and to progress, I am open to it, I just want to see that the methods discussed do something to develop the dogs in question to their given potential abilities. Further that the results are measureable via the current competitive levels which demonstrate a standard of trained ability achieved.

Best Regards,

Wayne


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Wayne asked



> How do you accomplish the retraining and re-education? Do you do so without any kind of physical discomfort, management, or coercion of any kind?


Wayne, If only I knew a definitive answer I'd be willing to give a wonderfully complete response; but it's a really tough one for me. In a previous life I was a Spaniel trainer of "the old school"; this is not something I'm terribly proud of, but it's the way I grew up and was myself taught, and a reflection of the training methods used in those days.

As a consequence I'm not what might be regarded as a "positive only" trainer, though as time goes by I tend more and more to see that as an ambition. I've done some great remediation work with clicker, and through that experience have come into the world of operant conditioning and learning theory. The latter is a growing obsession, but I don't believe that at this point in my knowledge it would be possible for me to to produce a really good field dog by P+ alone. 

Things I will do in terms of a physical N+ nature are ... 
1 A fearsome verbal "bollocking", up front in close and very personal. 
2 A scruff shake ... and I mean it. Eyes can rattle. 
3 A drag back to the scene of the crime, usually in conjunction with number 1.

What I will not do is hit a dog. Heeling stick, lead thrash, hand slap, whatever. Nor will I ever inflict a pinch collar, toe hitch, ear pinch, rat shot or other abomination. No e collar.

So for me it's an ongoing process; to be summed up by saying the more I learn the more confident I become in P+, the less physical N+ I need.

With regard to the specific problem of "shopping" I currently train (collectively) a group of four dogs, all of whom can be guilty. On bumpers at around 75-100yards we are fine, but it's a knife edge job. I'll be introducing birds this next week or so. 

Bear in mind that my two frontkampfers picked around 700 birds in the final week of last season; about 2/3 in cover where I couldn't see them. By way of illustration my BLM "Jack" picked up 18 birds from off the back of a steep wooded scree on consecutive outruns on just one drive of one day. Neither he nor I marked them initially. Did he "shop" birds? I have no idea. But what I can say is that he never blinked a "Back" command, tired and wet as he was, no matter how steep the bank, or how thorny the thickets. No amount of expert FF could have made that dog work harder, or more effectively. 

This season we have 53 days booked on formal shoots plus coastal wildfowling, pigeon shooting and night time geese and duck. They have ample opportunity to play up!

*Bob* thanks for the definition. To me this would in the real world constitute a "pitch mark" where a bird has come to earth and left a scent behind. Much would depend on circumstance as to whether my lot would investigate it or not. In a test however i agree with you; it sounds daft.

Regards
Eug


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Eug, 

You wrote:



Colonel Blimp said:


> ...
> 
> Things I will do in terms of a physical N+ nature are ...
> 1 A fearsome verbal "bollocking", up front in close and very personal.
> ...


1 A fearsome verbal.... I understand as P+ (positive punishment) - something undesireable applied/given to the subject to at least temporarily inhibit a behavior.

Ceasing the fearsome verbal at the moment a desireable behavior occurred MIGHT consitute an R- (negative reinforcement) if it's timing made the desireable behavior more likely to recur.

2 Eye rattling scruff shake (pretty physical shake ; ) )... again positive punishment as I understand it ...

etc.

Eug,

What are N+ and P+?

I understand reinforcement and punishment identified in operant conditioning as R+/- and P +/-...but don't understand N+ and P+ as you've used them.

R+, R- are positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement...
P+ and P- are positive and negative punishements....

Sort of like you I started out training dogs completely old school instructed, I behavior rehabbed MANY significantly problematic veterinary referred dogs, and became obsessed with operant conditioning, secondary reinforcement/bridging and the use of behavior markers etc., successive approximations and etc.

It would be fantastic to establish the skill set to achieve high level retriever performance with R+/P- alone. Just can't see it being achieved, or structured so that even trainers would be able to duplicate it reliably and consistently.

Now I train somewhere in the middle of positiver reinforcement focused and old school force, (a new kind of bridge lol), but always attempting to apply a clinical and operant conditioning (laws of learning abiding) approach.

I have no issue using e-collar conditioning, or leash correction, nor force fetching etc. even though like you, I would not use rat shot.

I do not believe one can sufficiently time scruff shakes and drag backs (to crime scenes) etc. without making themselves more the focus during the timing of that infliction / rather than the behavior I'm trying to change. I am more comfortable providing e-discomfort over eye rattling physical shakes, that miss the well timing and variability that could be delivered with an e-collar. Although I think you could temporarily inhibit certain behaviors at least while the dog is in your presence - with catch em and shake em's.

As you pursue the positive only goal, I'd be interested in hearing your approaches formalized, particularly if they could efficiently and as effectively replace their current holisiticly operant counterparts.

With best regards,

Wayne


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Wayne Dibbley said:


> I couldn't help but notice how the discussion moved from FF or no need to FF, to infer that these trained dogs are "doing it to please" or doing it because "they better or else".
> 
> FF or not force fetching fails to demonstrate that either type of trained dog is doing anything to please his/her handler, or because he feels obligated.
> 
> ...


Good long post. For interest Blimp do you compete with your dogs?

Lots of typing in the post, which is great. May I just add when I rode 3 days events and dressage I purchased ex race horses, who had a lot of go and natural ability (movement etc). I still used a bridle, my body (legs hands weight), and spurs, for control and go. 

All the FF in the world is not going to help marking talent. Teach teach teach, both negative and positive.

Isn't internet training fun?


----------



## KBcoltcompany (May 28, 2008)

Miriam Wade said:


> With all due respect-there are plenty of non ff'd dogs that have never refused a retrieve. If it takes ff to have a dog go the distance, than maybe you should look at a different dog for the job.
> 
> M


pretty ridiculous generalization...........you've missed the point.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*KBcoltcompany said:*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Miriam Wade
> With all due respect-there are plenty of non ff'd dogs that have never refused a retrieve. If it takes ff to have a dog go the distance, than maybe you should look at a different dog for the job.
> 
> ...


I don't think so. If the point of all this testing is to identify the best dogs to continue the breed, then a question needs to be asked. After all the dogs that have been force fetched and, perhaps, collar trained, have run, can you look at all those dogs and really tell which dog has the qualities that we want to pass on to succeeding generations. Does force fetch obscure the real innate differences between the dogs? How would the dogs compare to each other if _none_ of them were force fetched?

Wayne Dibbley has done the discussion a great service in asking for empirical evidence about why dog's behave the way they do. Along the same lines, does force fetch, or any training method I guess, obscure the natural desire of the dog to retrieve?


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> Wayne Dibbley has done the discussion a great service in asking for empirical evidence about why dog's behave the way they do. Along the same lines, does force fetch, or any training method I guess, obscure the natural desire of the dog to retrieve?


Snicklefritz, Can you explain your use of obscure? I do believe what the dog considers positive re inforcement goes a long way, certainly less negative fall out may result, if correct pressure with great timing is applied, never more so with youngsters. 

One reason why in the US (now becoming the norm in Australia), pre FF, retrievers are routinely allowed to have less than ideal line manners. 

How many dogs are washed due to poor basics?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I thought FF was more about teaching a dog about pressure, how to accept it, advantages of compliance ect. Tools you will use with each progressive step in its training.

I thought retrieving DESIRE had more to do with genetics.

As Ususal correct me if I'm wrong.

Gooser


----------



## camhuff (Apr 4, 2007)

My first dog was not forced and after having one that is. Well I'll never own another duck dog that is not forced. There just simply is no comparison.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> ..... *If the point of all this testing is to identify the best dogs to continue the breed,* .....


It's not. It's to find the dog that does the best work that day.

If you're looking for which ones to breed, you need to look a lot deeper. Many winners don't get bred, for a multitude of reasons.


JS


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Aussie said:*



> Snicklefritz, Can you explain your use of obscure? I do believe what the dog considers positive re inforcement goes a long way, certainly less negative fall out may result, if correct pressure with great timing is applied, never more so with youngsters.
> 
> One reason why in the US (now becoming the norm in Australia), pre FF, retrievers are routinely allowed to have less than ideal line manners.
> 
> How many dogs are washed due to poor basics?


By obscure I mean, hide, camoflage, make difficult to discern. 



> ...retrievers are routinely allowed to have less than ideal line manners.
> 
> How many dogs are washed due to poor basics?...


I agree with your sentiments, and I have often asked myself the same question. I was started a thread that suggested that the requirements for UKC 'Started' dogs ought to, in some way, require more in the way of line manners. Got hammered 

But, I would like to know how many titled 'Started' dogs, never make it past 'Seasoned' because of poor line manners. Perhaps, it's fewer than I think. 

But, to get back closer to the FF topic I ask: 'Is it possible that a dog that is well trained in basic obedience, prior to FF, will need less force/pressure during FF, than a dog that has less basic OB? And, going further (being heretical here ;-) ) is it possible that a dog with very solid OB, prior to FF, doesn't need any physical force at all while being taught to 'hold' and 'fetch'? These are not rhetorical questions. I would like to see empirical evidence, one way or the other.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*JS said:*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Snicklefritz
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps, I've misunderstood.



> AKC Retriever Hunting Tests were designed to give the dog owner a good, basic hunting dog and provide a place to run and compete. Here the dog is not competing against the other entries, but against a "standard." This "standard" was established by AKC as a means of judging good hunting retrievers and is modified periodically as and when needed.
> 
> Dogs are judged in three divisions; Junior, Senior, and Master. The Junior dog is judged only on marked retrieves, no blinds and the dog need not be steady, but may be held. This is generally the beginning level for most people. Senior is the next step and here the dog in addition to marked retrieves must also be able to deal with relatively easy blind retrieves, honoring another dog's retrieve, and be steady. Master is the top level and here the dog is required to retrieve difficult marking situations such as three or more birds down prior to being sent to retrieve and be able to honor another dog's retrieve. The dog in general must exhibit those qualities which must be expected in a truly finished and experienced hunting retriever.
> 
> All test levels should be designed to simulate, as nearly as possible, true hunting situations and natural hazards, obstacles, numerous decoys. Hunting equipment and implements should be used to help with this effort. While at the same time the judges must keep in mind that in a hunting "test," we are testing dogs not "hunting." This is quite important as everything that happens while hunting does not necessarily make for a good Hunting Test.


 (emphasis mine)

http://www.akc.org/events/hunting_tests/retrievers/info.cfm


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

> *JS said:*
> 
> It's not. It's to find the dog that does the best work that day.


My bad. I had FTs in mind when I replied.

In HTs, the point is to identify the dogs that can perform to the standard that day.

My point remains; when looking for breeding stock, there are many things to consider beyond trial/test results.

In the context of this thread, I was addressing the suggestion that FF somehow masks a lack of retrieving desire in a dog.

JS


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*JS said:*



> My point remains; when looking for breeding stock, there are many things to consider beyond trial/test results.


Point well taken. There is more to it than the ability to mark and the desire to retrieve, with train-ability being very high also.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> *KBcoltcompany said:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I may take a stab at this one. I do generally agree that tests / trials are used to in a very large part (not absolutely) to evaluate breeding stock.

The testing and or trialing is to evaluate the abilities of a trained retriever. Let me repeat: trained retriever. Now, you are suggesting that the dogs should be compared without one aspect of training completed (FF). This would be (if I understand you correctly) in your opinion to determine the better "natural" retriever. 

That starts a slippery slope. Then how many other steps in the training process do you remove in order to show the best "natural" retriever? Taken to the extreme you have a trial with dogs that have been locked in a cage with no human contact for a year. That would show the best natural retriever without all that pesky training covering up genetic "weaknesses". 

Obviously, that is a ridiculous extreme but I hope it shows my point. 

The trials / tests of today showcase the best combination of natural and trained abilities. Both are needed for an effective retriever whatever they are used for. 

Regards,

Brian


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*brian breuer said:*



> If I may take a stab at this one. I do generally agree that tests / trials are used to in a very large part (not absolutely) to evaluate breeding stock.
> 
> The testing and or trialing is to evaluate the abilities of a trained retriever. Let me repeat: trained retriever. Now, you are suggesting that the dogs should be compared without one aspect of training completed (FF). This would be (if I understand you correctly) in your opinion to determine the better "natural" retriever.
> 
> ...


j (emphasis mine)

"...The testing and or trialing is to evaluate the abilities of a trained retriever. Let me repeat: trained retriever..."

Really? I guess I missed it again. So, you may have to repeat it again.



> AKC Retriever Hunting Tests were designed to give the dog owner a good, basic hunting dog and provide a place to run and compete. Here the dog is not competing against the other entries, but against a "standard."
> This "standard" was established by AKC as a means of judging good hunting retrievers and is modified periodically as and when needed.
> 
> Dogs are judged in three divisions; Junior, Senior, and Master. The Junior dog is judged only on marked retrieves, no blinds and the dog need not be steady, but may be held. This is generally the beginning level for most people. Senior is the next step and here the dog in addition to marked retrieves must also be able to deal with relatively easy blind retrieves, honoring another dog's retrieve, and be steady. Master is the top level and here the dog is required to retrieve difficult marking situations such as three or more birds down prior to being sent to retrieve and be able to honor another dog's retrieve. The dog in general must exhibit those qualities which must be expected in a truly finished and experienced hunting retriever.
> ...


 (emphasis mine)

Seems to me these underlined statements allows for dogs with minimal training at the Junior level. Many dogs can succeed at the Junior/Started level without the benefit of force fetch. It also seems to me you're setting a new standard. While 'trainability' may be passed on genetically, the actual training a dog has had cannot be passed on. Consequently, the actual training a dog has had is no reliable indicator of the performance of future generations of dogs being produced by the dog under judgement.

But, hey! What do I know? I've never bred a litter, and only trained one dog.


----------



## GilWlsn (Jan 18, 2008)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Force fetch makes the dog retrieve because you want it to, not because the dog wants to. Most retrievers will pick up a duck in the decoys without much difficulty on a warm calm day. Take that same un FFd dog and put a patch of briars between it and the duck, or skim ice on the pond or deep belly sucking marsh mud, or make the duck a cripple instead of graveyard dead, and there are plenty of dogs who will tell you to get it yourself.


That says it all!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Many dogs can succeed at the Junior/Started level without the benefit of force fetch


Snick, that's the biggest reason JH dogs fail, lack of force fetch. Sure sometimes a dog can't find the bird but usually they do and either won't pick it up, bring it back, or deliver to hand. I'd guess that's where 90% of the failures in JH happen.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Evan has had his final shot, this is mine. 



> Snick, that's the biggest reason JH dogs fail, lack of force fetch. Sure sometimes a dog can't find the bird but usually they do and either won't pick it up, bring it back, or deliver to hand. I'd guess that's where 90% of the failures in JH happen


Howard,

You know your games best and no doubt what you say about the tests is dead right; but your conclusion is just what I meant by pointing out that a conflation seems to exist in many posters minds that No FF = No structured training.

It ain't so. 

A dog not picking up and returning isn't lacking in FF, he's lacking in training. Use FF by all means if it obtains your training goals. Those goals can however be obtained in a well bred dog by other means, as is demonstrated every day. 

Eug


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I can't disagree with you Colonel. The JH dogs that have failed my tests would have been much better off having some type of structured retriever training. You are right. In my mind ff, is the basic part of structured retriever training. I doubt it matters how the dogs get good pick up, return, and delivery to hand. They've got to have it. FF works and so must other methods.

What I like about force fetch is that it dovetails into more advanced retriever training so well.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> *brian breuer said:*
> 
> j (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...


Sorry if that came off wrong. 

Anyway, I agree that training cannot be passed on. I guarantee if you take two pups of identical talent I can turn out a significantly less impressive finished dog than almost anyone else on this board. 

I think the trainability / natural desire being passed on is all anyone hopes for when breeding a litter. I think this would explain the differences in American and Brit bred dogs. The dogs being bred in each place have dispositions that mesh best with the respective training type used. 

Regards, 

Brian


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I can't disagree with you Colonel. The JH dogs that have failed my tests would have been much better off having some type of structured retriever training. You are right. In my mind ff, is the basic part of structured retriever training. I doubt it matters how the dogs get good pick up, return, and delivery to hand. They've got to have it. FF works and so must other methods.
> 
> What I like about force fetch is that it dovetails into more advanced retriever training so well.


I really like having you around Howard. I agree with all that you wrote 100%.

There are LOTS of variations on how folks help "train" a dog to deliver a bird and release on command "to hand". Some would fall into what folks would term as "FF" and some not.

In reality the percentage of fully natural retrievers that do it all to hand reliably without some sort of "conditioned retrieve" training is extremely low. Even in the UK...

Depending upon how you define "FF", I'd venture to say that all UK FT dogs have been trained on a "conditioned retrieve". Maybe not ear-pinched, but they've pretty much all been conditioned to retrieve somehow.

Just like most dogs are "forced" to sit when taught sit with a leash, pushing down on the rump by hand, sit stick, heeling stick, e-collar, etc.

The other day I spoke with a Carr-disciple type pro. We were on the topic of FF. He stated that :

"There's a fine line between a snappy "fetch" response and a panic response." I think he's right. I think a key for us as trainers is to not cross that line. Obviously temperament of the individual dog has quite a bit to do with this as well as training styles.

*I'd like to believe that today, I train my dog as if I'd want to be trained if I were a dog.* At least that's what I aspire to.

Chris


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Chris, when this thread has died a natural death, I think it would be a good itdea to make it a 'sticky' that new-comers can be refered to in the future. This thread has balanced point of view, and the posters have been very respectful of each other. It is, IMHO, a model thread on dog training. Also, IMHO, it's the best thread on retriever training I've ever read.

Snick


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

brian....no apology required. I wasn't offended. We pretty much agree... how rare is that LOL!


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Snicklefritz said:


> Chris, when this thread has died a natural death, I think it would be a good itdea to make it a 'sticky' that new-comers can be refered to in the future. This thread has balanced point of view, and the posters have been very respectful of each other. It is, IMHO, a model thread on dog training. Also, IMHO, it's the best thread on retriever training I've ever read.
> 
> Snick


Damn, looks I have to go back and read 11 pages. Didn't even bother to open it because I thought it was the same old same old. Looking forward to the read...


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> But, to get back closer to the FF topic I ask: 'Is it possible that a dog that is well trained in basic obedience, prior to FF, will need less force/pressure during FF, than a dog that has less basic OB? And, going further (being heretical here ;-) ) is it possible that a dog with very solid OB, prior to FF, doesn't need any physical force at all while being taught to 'hold' and 'fetch'? These are not rhetorical questions. I would like to see empirical evidence, one way or the other.


Empirical evidence.......scared now LOL. 

I think Howard and others, may have clarified that FF is simply an early required step in US basic retriever training, which includes a lot of avoidance/escape conditioning.....for various reasons. Standards, requirements in dog games. It must work otherwise other methods would have been proven. 

That being said, there apparently has not been one FF'd dog, who has NOT dropped a retrieve AFTER FF. So????????what that mean - further teaching is required. Damm training!!!! I have never forgot the line, we as humans are not 100% reliable, how can we expect dogs to be? 

Having read, many a post on non FF giving up, I do believe training is real issue. I have not attended an US obedience trial, but think, FF is highly regarded for such as well????? This I find a bit odd, as seems to be a lot of trouble, for simple "holding" requirements. That being said, I have happily corrected a dog, after teaching for poor heeling etc, so that is negative reinforcement.

We have an electric fence backup (in front of a pig and dog wired fence around our house block) as I certain dog of mine is, or rather WAS, a fence jumper. The dog only had to hit it twice. Typing this reminds me somewhat of the cattle prod thread. 

Reinforcement, whether positive or negative, causes the behavior to be more likely.

Punishment, whether positive or negative, causes the behaviour to be less likely.

I have a friend staying at the moment, with a cross bred SWF- (short white fluffy), delightful active water loving little dog, so light in my lap, compared with labs. It will retrieve and deliver a ball all day, and when friends arrive for dinner tonight, it knows to whom to go, to resume its game/fun. 

I certainly have a lot of friends with labradors who think they have the best bird hunting retriever in the world, who have never been FF'd who deliver and work very nicely indeed - mostly on sighted birds, all the same. That said, some do teach blind work also. Generally due to hunting conditions long retrieves are not required.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

To all of you that say FF is the key, I say that the entire yard "Program" is the key. 

Our "Yard" program includes "FF" and it works. For others with other programs FF may not be an intrigal part.

We have breed a line of dogs that *with* FF do phonimal work. 

The Question that I am reluctant to want to know the answer to is , should I have said *only with ???*

john


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Ok. Since I am in the middle of all this I will share... So, since I am a fabulous dog trainer, and have incredible amounts of experience FF-ing dogs, I figured that I could do it myself. So, after a month of doing it, Spanky was reaching and everything, and took it to the yard and she was doing great. (I thought).

SO then we go to FTP. going along just great first 2 days. Then on the third day I had the sweet no-go's. We worked through that. Then on the 4th day she had a hideous breakdown at the pile and decided to lay on it. We worked through that I thought. Then the nexttime I went she did the same thing and now we have the screaming bloody murder dog at the mere mention of fetch.

To make a long boring story short, I have to revisit FF because I didn't truly teach her how to get out of the pressure, didn't apply enough, or something. I have since been recieving help and it is going much better. Tonight I simplified alot and am just starting over. 

So is FF important? Yes, if you want to go further. I know if I want to play dog games I have to get through this. It really sucks, but is the way of it......


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> So is FF important? Yes, if you want to go further. I know if I want to play dog games I have to get through this. It really sucks, but is the way of it......


It's pretty much like any other skill for a trainer. The old axiom applies; "The more we do something, the easier it becomes. Not that the nature of the thing is changed, but that our ability to do it is increased." I'd bet if you can get together with Howard he can provide a lot of help with this.

Evan


----------



## TheShadow (May 8, 2008)

brian lewis said:


> in my opinion
> 
> 
> training a dog without going through force fetch is like installing a light without a switch.


true but the sad thing is a lot of guys i know with labs do not FF, i dont know why. a lot of dogs do not deliver to hand and it doesn't bother the guys I know. The pointer guys all have their dogs FF but again I've been with pointer guys in the field and sometimes their dogs refuse to fetch it up and deliver to hand. some even have munched on a bird!!! and they see no issue with that! 

One guy told me he just doesn't have the time... well then...


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

I think a lot of the controversy over force fetch boils down to the question, "Is a behavior established with reward training as reliable as that behavior established with escape/avoidance (force) training?"

For me, the short answer is that a dog that is trained with reward and/or play to fetch from the ground, is just as reliable as one that has been trained with the force process. A habit is built with repetition and is a habit whether it originated from reward or from avoidance/escape. In other words a dog that has learned fetch positively and for whom the behavior has become well established is not going to suddenly quit doing it. At least that has been my experience.

I have trained a lot of dogs with force and a lot of dogs with mostly positive, and I find that the positively established behvior is as reliable as the force based behavior.

As for forcing to go, I don't do that either. I estabish the "go" for blinds, with sight blinds, pattern blinds, and handling patterns. Those are both positive reinforcment methods.
I have found that if I progress at the right rate, and don't apply correction at the wrong times and places, then I don't get refusals.

I think the main element for success in training a dog is to know what behaviors you want in the finished dog. Then you simply build those behvaviors and put them together. You can build them from force or you can build them from reward. You can develop a good dog either way. I find that I like the positive road better. 

Best Regards,
Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

rmilner said:


> I think a lot of the controversy over force fetch boils down to the question, "Is a behavior established with reward training as reliable as that behavior established with escape/avoidance (force) training?"
> 
> For me, the short answer is that a dog that is trained with reward and/or play to fetch from the ground, is just as reliable as one that has been trained with the force process. A habit is built with repetition and is a habit whether it originated from reward or from avoidance/escape. In other words a dog that has learned fetch positively and for whom the behavior has become well established is not going to suddenly quit doing it. At least that has been my experience.
> 
> ...


My friend Robert,

You are softening these days...

I like it! 

I have a drake spoonie on my wall that I dusted the other day. When friends come over I like to tell them about that bird. 

Quotes:
"Why in the world are you going to mount a shoveler?" RM
"Because _you_ shot it." Chris

- Chris


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

rmilner said:


> ........
> I think the main element for success in training a dog is to know what behaviors you want in the finished dog. Then you simply build those behvaviors and put them together. *You can build them from force or you can build them from reward.* You can develop a good dog *either* way. I find that I like the positive road better.
> 
> Best Regards,
> ...



Or you can use both. Each compliments the other.

In my limited experience, a well applied combination of the two is vastly more effective than either used exclusively, AND results in a HAPPIER, MORE ENTHUSIASTIC dog.

(A happy, enthusiastic dog is important to me and it baffles and offends me that people assume using force is somehow "browbeating the dog into submission." That is a very narrow and uninformed point of view, IMO.)

JS


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

JS said:


> A happy, enthusiastic dog is important to me and it baffles and offends me that people assume using force is somehow "browbeating the dog into submission." That is a very narrow and uninformed point of view, IMO.
> 
> JS


Aye, I hear ya. It also baffles and offends me that people assume that an unforced dog is somehow unable to reliably retrieve, deliver to hand, hold, take a line, go under harsh conditions, etc. That is just as narrow and uniformed point of view, IMO.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't think there are many good retrievers running that are trained via either 100% hugs and cookies, or via 100% force. Good retrievers, and good training, result from combinations of positive and adverse stimuli. There is no magic formula that indicates how much of which is needed for any particular dog or any particular training step.

I personally REALLY like some of the things that Mike Lardy says in one of his videos. He is talking about the steps of training in a drill or setup. He mentions that if an "animal behaviorist" were there, (and I'm paraphrasing as it has been many months since I saw this) that they would be able to break down segments into multiple sub-portions. These subportions would show both positive and negative reinforcement, as well as some of the other "quadrants" that behaviorists term different stimuli. 

Mike's point is that for functional dog training, it is not critical to label these different stimuli, nor is it critical to understand exactly how/why the behaviorists say that they work. They simply work because they do.

This is the art of dog training. This is part of why good dog trainers possess a certain skill that is not learned via seminar, book, video or anything else. It is learned through doing it. Some have the knack and some struggle, only really being successful with GOOD dogs, rather than by being good trainers.

The notion of FF being black, and non-FF being white, is too extreme and is not the real dog training world.

Chris


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Evan said:


> It's pretty much like any other skill for a trainer. The old axiom applies; "The more we do something, the easier it becomes. Not that the nature of the thing is changed, but that our ability to do it is increased." I'd bet if you can get together with Howard he can provide a lot of help with this.
> 
> Evan


He is.......



Chris Atkinson said:


> I don't think there are many good retrievers running that are trained via either 100% hugs and cookies, or via 100% force. Good retrievers, and good training, result from combinations of positive and adverse stimuli. There is no magic formula that indicates how much of which is needed for any particular dog or any particular training step.
> 
> I personally REALLY like some of the things that Mike Lardy says in one of his videos. He is talking about the steps of training in a drill or setup. He mentions that if an "animal behaviorist" were there, (and I'm paraphrasing as it has been many months since I saw this) that they would be able to break down segments into multiple sub-portions. These subportions would show both positive and negative reinforcement, as well as some of the other "quadrants" that behaviorists term different stimuli.
> 
> ...


I like your post. For me, I like to give lots of praise. If I can find the right balance between force and praise, I might just have a sweet breakthrough...


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I don't think there are many good retrievers running that are trained via either 100% hugs and cookies, or via 100% force. Chris


Chris -
I totally agree with you on this. Any trainer who said they haven't FF would be lying if they haven't told their dog 'NO' at some point.

Dogs are pack animals and like structure. We've read other posts here and there are other things out there that said if a pack doesn't have a leader, one animal must step up and take charge. The alpha of the pack isn't all hugs and kisses...you step wrong you get snapped at.

Positive and negative reinforcement shape humans just like dogs. If you never get any negative reinforcement you don't learn boundaries and you have no accountability. Without positive reinforcement one (human or dog) learns to be bitter.

While I know people that may not want to FF their dog, they've still given negative reinforcement in some manner and didn't ruin their dog.

This thread has given me a lot of good talking points concerning FF and I thank all who've contributed!

Torrey


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

john fallon said:


> We have breed a line of dogs that *with* FF do phonimal work.
> 
> The Question that I am reluctant to want to know the answer to is , should I have said *only with ???*
> 
> john


John, John, John No, otherwise genetics would count for nothin'.

How dogs/humans learn is the same around the world. Escape/avoidance learning blah blah blah. 

How we test well that may be more relevant?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Aussie said:


> John, John, John No, otherwise genetics would count for nothin'.
> 
> How dogs/humans learn is the same around the world. Escape/avoidance learning blah blah blah.
> 
> How we test well that may be more relevant?


We train to pass our tests, then we bump the tests up a notch, then selectively breed only to those who do well , then we start the process all over again.

In doing this, breeding for mouth issues has taken a back seat, because the regular use of FF has ,for the most part, rendered these and other such *flaws* controlable 

john


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

john fallon said:


> We train to pass our tests, then we bump the tests up a notch, then selectively breed only to those who do well , then we start the process all over again.
> 
> In doing this, breeding for mouth issues has taken a back seat, because the regular use of FF has ,for the most part, rendered these and other such *flaws* controlable
> 
> john


John, as you have focused on mouth issues, from my understanding FF was indeed introduced by pointer owners for this very reason. 

(1) Yank (IMP US) has a beautiful soft mouth, and he is a teeth chatterer, his lower jaw can quiver as he delivers.

(2) Have watched UK championships, dogs are disqualified due to hard mouth, at this high level.

(3) After observing FF and basics, abet at short weekly times in the US there is a HUGE difference regarding the amount of pressure applied between trainers and owners. Some had excellent timing, others not.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

We train to pass our tests, then we bump the tests up a notch, then selectively breed only to those who do well , then we start the process all over again.

In doing this, breeding for mouth issues has taken a back seat, because the regular use of FF has ,for the most part, rendered these and other such *flaws* controlable UNcode



I can finally follow what you say John
Great points Its one of the reasons european dogs have consistantly better mouths ,but lack in other areas.
Different game so different breding stratagy.


----------



## ICE (Jan 7, 2008)

Okay I must chime in. I have a lab that is a pretty big boy. I used the book Game Dog to Train him. Didn't force fetch him and just followed what the book said about making him want the bird or dummy more then anything. Never had an issue with my dog and you could put all the brush, ice, water, what ever in front of him and he would not stop until he had the bird......Now when my dog was 3 years old I desided to play in a hunt test. He retrieved the birds great but would not hold the sour old nasty birds. He was then FF he now holds the nasty birds where before he wouldn't. He is now almost 5 years old and I have started my new pup. (9 months old) he is force fetched all my following dogs will be also. With that being said my big boy would probably been fine if all I was doing was hunting him. Never had any issues with that in 3 seasons before he got FF. So yes you can make a hunting dog without FF.


----------



## Fall Flight (Jul 1, 2008)

I ran across the FF situation last weekend. A man bought a female puppy out of my litter, last christmas. I was out dog training and I get a call from him (out of the blue) as we were loading up and heading home. I have not seen the dog since it was 6 weeks old. He wanted to bring the dog out because he was having issues with his dog picking up dove. She would go out and retrieve a couple birds just fine and then she would quit on him and not retrieve. I told him sure, bring her out and I would look at her. 

I am currently training a male pup out of the same litter(10 months old) for a client. The man shows up with his son and dog. He wants to know why his dog is not reliable. I watched the dog retrieve which it would'nt. She would run out and smell the bird but not retrieve it and go off sniffing around. I asked him what training he had done with her. He told me she was obedience trained and doing blind work. I asked if he had FF or CC her. He immediately told me NO, that she was to nice of a dog to do THOSE things too .

I did'nt want to argue with the guy so I went to the kennel and got her littermate. I ran him on Double T, and the guy was amazed. The dog handled great and delivered to hand. He asked me how I got the dog to do that? I told him FF is the foundation and a good training program. He loaded up his son and dog and left. As he was driving out of the driveway I told him to buy Evan's book SmartFetch.


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

Well I passed this information to my dad. He's working on formal obedience right now and I think he is going to go forward with FF. 

Thanks to everyone for the info!


----------

