# Obedience isn't the key to a great retriever?



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I have been educated more or less on the premise that 

"retrieving is secondary to obedience".

To me that means if you have a talented dog and you want to maximize his/her potential, having nothing short of the highest possible standard for obedieince is how that's accomplished.

I have made that general statement a couple of times since it makes very good common sense to me that you can't get a dog to sit still and concentrate on a mark, nor can you run a decent blind without very solid obedience. Our dogs need to do both these things, along with making some correct decisions in order to be successful. 

I have come to believe over about 3 years of training/observing that this applies to dogs of all temperments but even more so for some of the high powered dogs we all enjoy so much.

It seems some here don't necessarily believe this, and I am curious as to why?


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Huh????????????
I don't get it.
Sue


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

A retriever is supposed to RETRIEVE, you have to have a dog with the desire to retrieve. Obedience is the building blocks for making a great retriever, but the desire to retrieve has to be there 1st. If you have a retriever that does not want to go out and pick anything up, then all the obedience in the world isn't going to make it a great retriever. I agree that a retriever should be obedient, just like building a house, if the ground floor is unstable the whole house can come down, but you can't build a house without the materials 1st (desire to retrieve). This is my opinion, after training dogs for about 20 years and I believe you will find it pretty similar to others here. Retrieving is not secondary to obedience, they have to be complimentary. IMO


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

For FT's I feel that too much OB can limit a dogs ability.
I want them to have some independence and to be loose and relaxed: within reason.
A relaxed dog is a more confident better marking dog IMHO


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Let's make the assumption that your dog has the requisite desire and talent to be successful for the purposes of discussion.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> If you're going to compete in Field Trials, I don't think you can make your dog into a robot and have any success.
> That, to me, is the hardest part of this sport. A dog, under control, but confident enough in his own abilities to be able to do extreme marking set ups without popping or looking to his handler for instructions.
> 
> Walt


as I believe you know  I agree... he has to be able to make good decisions once sent on a mark... 

but can you teach him what those decisions are, if he is not obedient? 

walt, how many SH dogs did we see this year that could easily do the double but were a risk for breaking and couldn't do a blind to save thier lives? (I am assuming you're the walt I think you are).

I vowed nto to get into a debate due to not being terribly qualified to do so, but I am curios what others were talking about in another thread.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Sue Kiefer said:


> Huh????????????
> I don't get it.
> Sue



comes from another thread sue, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

A great retriever can mark, and constant nicking isn't going to make one into a superior marker, and he also has to be able to make smart decisions and sensible hunts. Micromanaging and tightly controlling is usually not part of how you want to train an outstanding retriever.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I think there is an element of truth in belief that obedience is essential for effective performance. However, I think it is also easy to go too far. 

If I watch dogs in a Masters test, the best are almost invariably calm, quiet and steady at the line. If not, they get dropped. In a field trial, the same is not true. 

Line manners range from atrocious to outstanding, but almost none of the dogs I see in trials meet the level of steadiness of an accomplished MH in a hunt test. Even among the quiet ones, bodies quiver and there is movement of feet and body as the birds fall. Some degree of creeping is common. With the less disciplined, dogs may leap forwards a few steps as birds fall and then jump back to the handler's side. Some amount of vocalization may occur. 

I suspect that if field trials required the same standards for line manners as Master tests, that a high percentage of FC's would be dropped regularly and that retrieving performance would become less stylish and less effective. The issue is not that the field trial dogs are out of control. It is that the field trial dogs have a level of desire that is harder to balance with some idealized notion of steadiness. That desire also takes them closer to the edge on issues of control and increases the likelihood that control will occasionally break. The best sign of this is the difficulty that handlers routinely have in picking dogs up before they have gotten their birds. 

However 4/92 of the dogs entered in the 2009 NRC had MH titles while only 4 out of 376 entrants at the 2009 Master Nation had FC/AFC/CFC titles. Only one dog, Dusty, ran in both.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

There is a difference between obedience and control. Obedience implies the dog is performing simply because I commanded. Control, on the other hand ,has the dog doing what it wants to do but by my method.
Controlling the dog can help them become a "better" retriever and this is what we spend most of our time doing. 
It is easy to recognize control on blinds but marking also involves controll. Marking involves vision, memory and commitment. Control will enhance the performance of all three. It allows the dog to focus on each bird before and during the throw, it gives the dog recall time between birds,and it is that picture in their heads while in route that carries the dog to the area.

JMO

Tim


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Who was it that said "field trials are won within five feet of the handler"? Was it Rorem? From what I've seen, I believe this to be true. Sure, there are exceptions, but to be successful in all-age stakes given the complexity of the marks and concepts, solid obedience is essential.


----------



## DKR (May 9, 2003)

OB is *a* corner stone not *the* corner stone.

Our family pet poodle OB is the corner stone.

We have a guy here in our office who has been the number one salesman for about 3 years, that being said almost everything about him is on or over the edge. Our admin folks cringe when he calls because he has something goofy cooked up for the latest sale, his demo inventory is always screwed up so is his paperwork. He and management don’t really care because he brings home the bacon so to speak time and time again. 

If we were to put him in accounting or admin he’d die in a few weeks because he lives for the deal, on the other hand our CPA would die in a few days if we put him in the field because of the kayos. People and dogs are all different and all will thrive given the right circumstances. The problem is we try to pigeon hole people and animals. What makes this guy a great salesman is his focus is singular it’s the deal and he will always be right on the edge. By the same token what makes our admin so great is the attention to detail and accuracy.

Not everybody wants or needs what would be called an obedient dog but for some it’s paramount.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Goldenboy said:


> Who was it that said "field trials are won within five feet of the handler"? Was it Rorem? From what I've seen, I believe this to be true. Sure, there are exceptions, but to be successful in all-age stakes given the complexity of the marks and concepts, solid obedience is essential.


I agree with this. But the standard for obedience at the AA level seems to be a little more complex and different from the standard used in hunt tests and nothing like the standard used in obedience.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

This years national field champion is not only an outstandng marker, but she watches her birds all the way down. They aren't able to do that by jumping around or you can't influence them if they are five feet in front of you.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Nancy,

I was wondering about that and went back to my photos from the 9th series. None of what I call the yo-yo dogs (run out while the bird is in the air, run back in between) made it to the 9th. However, about half the dogs in the 9th had crept out several feet in front of the handler while watching the birds fall. Most, but not all, re-heeled easily if asked. A few were sent with a VERY long stretch by the handler.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> This years national field champion is not only an outstandng marker, but she watches her birds all the way down. They aren't able to do that by jumping around or you can't influence them if they are five feet in front of you.


The intent of the quote isn't to imply that there's five feet of leeway, but that what happens nearest to the handler is of paramount importance to the dogs success out in the field.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

If you believe in training to a standard, shouldn't that standard be keeping the dog close and working with you, as a team, on the line?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

In one hand you have drive and ambition. In the other the ability to take it away. How much you take away is what seperates the Joe's from the pro's IMO.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

PackLeader said:


> In one hand you have drive and ambition. In the other the ability to take it away. How much you take away is what seperates the Joe's from the pro's IMO.


On the other hand, there are plenty of dogs out there with ample drive and ambition but who have never been given adequate structure and direction to focus those qualities. Lesser dogs with solid obedience training regularly kick their asses. 

Seen too many handlers cop-out on the OB for fear of taking away drive. They (both dog and handler) seldom amount to anything.


----------



## jgdavis123 (Jan 5, 2009)

For those of you who use their dogs for what they are intended and trained to do, hunt and retrieve game birds, then you should have a great understanding of this... Obedience is always paramount. Hunt with a "good hunting dog with lots of drive" then with an obedient, well mannered dog and then tell me which was the better experience. A well mannered dog can be taught just about anything by those competent and serious enough to teach it. A wild, high drive dog will always be limited in its learning if it is not well controlled.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> And I think it was Lardy who talked about the dichotomy of the sport, that it was this* dichotomy - CONTROL vs INDEPENDENCE that made training a retriever an art form*.
> And since I'm no Dave Rorem, I'm going for crazy and having some fun.
> Walt


While I think I want more control than Walt does (I don't know as I don't know Walt and I've never seen his dogs). I think whoever said control vs independence made retriever training an art form had it dead on. We need a certain amount or obedience and control but it's still up to the dog to dig out that hard punch bird without our help. A dog concerned about being disobedient probably isn't going to dig it out. But, he might look at us with perfect attention heeling on the way to the line.

I believe we train our dogs to make right decisions rather than micromanage them.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I've only spent one full day watching Rorem train, but was struck by two things. 

First, Dave was very demanding in terms of line manners but also handled each dog differently at the line. One dog might get more lattitude than another. His reasoning was that each dog had its own need and tolerance for structure and that balance was needed to get the most out of the dog. He never used a collar at the line, only a heeling stick. 

Second, corrections in the field were few and far between. Before he would correct for a bad decisions, he allowed the dog to commit fully to the mistake. Part of this was hoping the dog would initiate a better decision on its own, learning more in the process. The rest was so that the dog would immediately understand the difference between the mistake and the correct decision. When corrections were made, they were very firm and memorable for the dog (obviously the level of correction varied based on each dog's sensitivity and reaction to pressure). The dog would then be put in a position to make the correct decision either with a resend, a repeat, or a simplified version of the situation that resulted in the problem. Dave's comment was that you cannot teach a dog to make good decisions without allowing it to make a whole bunch of bad ones along the way and teaching the dogs to understand the difference.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

smillerdvm said:


> For FT's I feel that too much OB can limit a dogs ability.
> I want them to have some independence and to be loose and relaxed: within reason.
> A relaxed dog is a more confident better marking dog IMHO


its funny that you bring that up, got into a lengthy discussion with my brother about that very premise. we both came to the conclusion that his dogs run better when they are more toward the edge (loose and relaxed) but I also think its directly related to his personality and style..i cant tell you the amount of trials my brother has blown up on because he went for jugular, but I have also seen when his dogs were running fast and loose and lining blinds and winning trials

I agree completely that a relaxed dog is much more confident, a worried dog will pop,or gawk (a new term I was introduced to last week)


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> I've only spent one full day watching Rorem train, but was struck by two things.
> 
> First, Dave was very demanding in terms of line manners but also handled each dog differently at the line. One dog might get more lattitude than another. His reasoning was that each dog had its own need and tolerance for structure and that balance was needed to get the most out of the dog. He never used a collar at the line, only a heeling stick.
> 
> Second, corrections in the field were few and far between. Before he would correct for a bad decisions, he allowed the dog to commit fully to the mistake. Part of this was hoping the dog would initiate a better decision on its own, learning more in the process. The rest was so that the dog would immediately understand the difference between the mistake and the correct decision. When corrections were made, they were very firm and memorable for the dog (obviously the level of correction varied based on each dog's sensitivity and reaction to pressure). The dog would then be put in a position to make the correct decision either with a resend, a repeat, or a simplified version of the situation that resulted in the problem. Dave's comment was that you cannot teach a dog to make good decisions without allowing it to make a whole bunch of bad ones along the way and teaching the dogs to understand the difference.



Note the very high standard on line and the allowance for some independant thought once the dog is sent


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Year's ago I raised a golden pup for Guide Dog's for the Blind. One of the tests that washed out these dogs was a test of wilfull disobedience. They would put the dog in a situation where it had two conflicting bits of training. The usual situation was to give the command to go when a car was coming toward them. This puts a lot of pressure on a dog. The great ones learn to make judgement decisions, the others will cower, pee, and cry or bolt.


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

DarrinGreene said:


> I have been educated more or less on the premise that
> 
> "retrieving is secondary to obedience".


You need to have control and respect from your dog in order to compete at the FT or MH level. However the dog at that level is hopeless if he does not have the instinct that usually comes from a high level of breeding dogs who compete for a living. Bud


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

I guess it is all a matter of goals. If the goal is to run FT's, I believe there isn't much accent putted on the obedience. MHO, the line between "control" and "obedience" is huge. If the work is on controling something, this requires full time attention. It the work has been done on obedience, ther is no need for that amount of attention to control.

The comparaison with HT dogs and FT dogs was probably a nice way of seing this (the importance of obedience vs on the edge, etc.). In both worlds, I really think everyone does a beautiful job so I won't compare those 2 worlds as the goals are not the same. So is for the training.

On a more personal base, all the dogs I worked with had that birdiness. So, the first step that has always been done was obedience and communication development. This has provided all the steadiness and consistance in their work. In HT or at hunt (we don't run FT), we feel much more comfortable and have much more joy to work with dogs that we don't need to spend most of our attention trying to "control" them.

The training adjustements vs the dog's needs is also something we do. Each one has it's personality, strenghts and limits so the way they are worked has to be adapted to that.



DarrinGreene said:


> I have been educated more or less on the premise that
> 
> "retrieving is secondary to obedience".
> 
> ...


I do agree that obedience is very important. So, to the question "Why is it not the same for everyone ?" I cannot give you any answer except that we don't have all the same goals.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

The best dogs I have seen, and it is by far not as many as some, have one thing in common. In each case, the dog and handler are in sinc with each other, working together, not fighting each other and the OB is solid as a rock. No sign of being afraid to do his thing or cowering, just waiting to have the boss tell him when. Those teams are fun to watch.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> It seems like a lot of people are hoping that if they have absolute control over their dog, all their problems will be solved. When control overcomes the dogs ability to be independent minded enough to do the really tough marks, you're done. Balance between the two ..Control/independence.. is the only way to succeed. The more you concentrate on one, the more the other suffers. That's not my thinking, I stole it from Mike Lardy.
> Walt



Walt, 

My question is, without control/obedience, how do we teach advanced concepts? It would seem to me that if we couldn't stop and cast a dog on his marks, we couldn't teach him to make the right decisions (take the cover, take the water etc.).

Excercising that control judiciously in order to maintain independance is the art, I believe, but without the control we are lost. The dog is born with the independant spirit and desire to make the retrieve, we train the rest of the behavior (run straight) by leveraging his obedience. 

Make sense?

Always has to me.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

There's no "never" and no "always". No absolutes. Train the dog you're training.

When Rorem sez success starts on the mat, he's not necessarily talking about absolute robotic control over the dog. He's also talking about _listening_ to what the dog is telling you. That's what makes the great handlers great.

Dogs don't lie regards,

JS


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

JS said:


> There's no "never" and no "always". No absolutes. Train the dog you're training.
> 
> When Rorem sez success starts on the mat, he's not necessarily talking about absolute robotic control over the dog. He's also talking about _listening_ to what the dog is telling you. That's what makes the great handlers great.
> 
> ...


I salute that !


----------



## Chad Clagg (Jul 8, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> I have been educated more or less on the premise that
> 
> "retrieving is secondary to obedience".
> 
> ...


You haven't been to Wildrose School have you?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

CC said:


> You haven't been to Wildrose School have you?


Um nope and doubt you'll see me going to that one LOL!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

JS said:


> There's no "never" and no "always". No absolutes. Train the dog you're training.
> 
> When Rorem sez success starts on the mat, he's not necessarily talking about absolute robotic control over the dog. He's also talking about _listening_ to what the dog is telling you. That's what makes the great handlers great.
> 
> ...


You're correct, in training if we read he wants to go right, we make him go left. If he wants to go long, we make him check down. If he wants the flier so bad he headswings, he's not gettin one. 

But all that requires one thing...

Obedience.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I think I took it for granted that people would know, that I know, it takes a lot of control to train a retriever. It's getting the dog to the point that it can't pee without looking at you for permission, that I'm talking about in all these posts.
> Walt



That's clearly not what I'm sayign when I say "obedience before retrieving". 

Which BTW isn't MY mantra nor something I am preaching, but rather a viewpoint given to me by some people I have a lot of respect for.

So far, no one has said anything to change my mind.

It has been a very good discussion though and that's why I started the thread.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Redgolden said:


> I guess it is all a matter of goals. If the goal is to run FT's, I believe there isn't much accent putted on the obedience.


I think you are mistaken. I believe that the FT is won - or lost - on the mat.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Goldenboy said:


> Who was it that said "field trials are won within five feet of the handler"? Was it Rorem?


Mark,
That is a Betsy-ism, 
(Betsy Bernhard for you all not in our club)
but she may have heard it along the way.
and you may have heard it from her.
she says it a lot.

.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I think you are mistaken. I believe that the FT is won - or lost - on the mat.


I agree and I HATE front seating from a dog....


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

As a recent recipient of a very nice blue lanyard, I find this thread very interesting. 

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> As a recent recipient of a very nice blue lanyard, I find this thread very interesting.
> 
> /Paul


So what did you learn from the Rorem Seminar?


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I think you are mistaken. I believe that the FT is won - or lost - on the mat.


May be, I won't argue on that point in perticular. But, you must admit that all what is said here doesn't show the importance of obedience. If it is for you, fine but if we take a look back on replies, we'll find that tendancy, don't you think ? So, at the end, I may not be that much mistaken...

As what I wrote doesn't seem to verify itself in your experience, let's just make an adjustment in the speach : "The emphasys on obedience is not the same according to the FT goals than other practices."


----------



## Hunchaser (Jun 15, 2009)

I had a dog that was steady once but I sold him. 

Good discussion. Generally I believe that there is too much concentration on OB and it seems to get in the way of a good retriever. You can't have the dog run around like an idiot and you have to have standards but you can temper the OB training with kindness. If the dog is taught that he/she takes responsiblity for their actions then the dog is eager to please. I just think it's good training.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Redgolden said:


> May be, I won't argue on that point in perticular. But, you must admit that all what is said here doesn't show the importance of obedience. If it is for you, fine but if we take a look back on replies, we'll find that tendancy, don't you think ? So, at the end, I may not be that much mistaken...
> 
> As what I wrote doesn't seem to verify itself in your experience, let's just make an adjustment in the speach : "The emphasys on obedience is not the same according to the FT goals than other practices."


I don't have enough exposure to "other practices" to comment on what they do or do not do.

I am not sure you do, either.

I think you - and others - are making generalizations based on the comments of people who may or may not have much exposure to a given practice.

Nor do I think anyone has really defined what "obedience" is or is not.

Is obedience 
- sitting on the mat?
- responding to the handler's cues on the mat?
- moving on the mat in increments to get a good initial line on a blind?
- stopping on the whistle?
- casting precisely?

Or is it
- heeling in perfect harmony?
- sitting for several minutes before recall?

I suspect it depends on the practice.

I make it a point not to try to make definitive statements on matters about which I know little.

I know something about FT, which is why I can say that the majority of successful All Age competitors have well trained and obedient dogs - depending of course on how you define "obedience."

For FT purposes, I define obedience as follows

- sitting on the mat
- responding to the handler's cues on the mat
- moving on the mat in increments to get a good initial line on a blind
- stopping on the whistle
- casting precisely


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Redgolden said:


> May be, I won't argue on that point in perticular. But, you must admit that all what is said here doesn't show the importance of obedience. If it is for you, fine but if we take a look back on replies, we'll find that tendancy, don't you think ? So, at the end, I may not be that much mistaken...
> 
> As what I wrote doesn't seem to verify itself in your experience, let's just make an adjustment in the speach : "The emphasys on obedience is not the same according to the FT goals than other practices."



yes, but it is, in it's own way. There may be a bit more allowance for poor line manners in FT... BUT the standard in the field is so much higher than in other sports that you MUST have solid obedience from you dog in order to be competitive. 

Remember that obedience goes well beyond line manners into taking a cast at 300 yards into the wind and big water. 

A bit of creeping you can get away with, but miss that cast and go out of sight and well... you'll be out of sight!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There is a difference between what matters to me as a judge, and what matters to me as a competitor

As a judge, I am pretty tolerant as to issues of creeping, standing, etc. because:
1) I am more concerned with the dog's performance in the field; and
2) I think those issues detrimentally impact the dog's work in the field (that is, poor line manners more often than not negatively affect a dog's work in the field)

As a competitor, I have found if my dogs are loose on the line, they are loose in the field, so poor line manners are always an issue to me when I run my dogs

I have an 11 year old male in the house, soon to be 12 FC/AFC Freeridin Wowie Zowie. Despite serious health issues which impacted his career, Zowie accumulated 70 AA points. If I had been a better handler and if I had placed more importance on obedience, I am confident that Zowie could have doubled that total.

At the 2007 National Am in Evanston, Wyoming, I got up at 4:30 every morning and was doing obedience drills by street light with Zowie, Buffy, and Mootsie by 5. We spent an hour each morning doing a series of drills. That year, Buffy was a finalist.

Every Field Trial I go to, I get up early and do obedience drills with all of the dogs.


I think obedience is critical to the success of the Field Trial.

There are some wild and crazy maniacs, who manage to crush the marks in the first series ... but they are rarely around by the fourth series.

Look at the results, week in, week out, you will see the same handlers, and dogs in the last series of the All Age stakes - that is not coincidence.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Nor do I think anyone has really defined what "obedience" is or is not.
> 
> Is obedience
> - sitting on the mat?
> ...


Ted, I think that the latter promotes the former in this case.


----------



## short retired (Jul 7, 2008)

I would have to side with Darrin and some others that dogs that sit still (and I mean still) mark better. They just do. At a HT I always like the series that have blinds before the marks because that gives me a chance to get the dog under control. They have to be still at the line if you want to get their best day in and day out. At least for my dogs, the better they are at the line that weekend, the longer they stick around. There is a reason that handlers (AMs and pros alike) that have dogs that are steadier are more consistantly in the final series of whatever game they are playing. Sure the wild ones win from time to time, but there several days they are in the truck and done on day one. 

Walt in reading your post I certainly respect and understand what you are saying and I dont know you but I am sure you do a lot of obed with your dogs. But my question is why do you assume if a dog is stitting still like a statue or a "robot" that he is not relaxed and freely thinking and being "independant". I think you can have major control on their obed and still have a realaxed dog.

Kevin


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> There is a difference between what matters to me as a judge, and what matters to me as a competitor
> 
> As a judge, I am pretty tolerant as to issues of creeping, standing, etc. because:
> 1) I am more concerned with the dog's performance in the field; and
> ...



'bout time you and I straight up agreed on something Ted! 

THIS is what I have been taught!

happy holidays to you and yours!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

short retired said:


> There is a reason that handlers (AMs and pros alike) that have dogs that are steadier are more consistantly in the final series of whatever game they are playing.
> 
> Kevin


The challenge is... how do you get that ELECTRIC dog.. the one who just gives off the juice... to sit still... WITHOUT CRUSHING HIM! 

I never realized until recently what that dog is all about, and I only realized it after heeling a friends dog about 20 yards one day and feeling that "feeling" you only get from a dog like that. In that 20 yards I realized that as good as my current dog is, he's not THAT dog. You can watch a dog run all you like and get excited about it, but you have no idea what it's about until he's right there on your leg giving off that energy! WOW was all I could say.

My friend has a constant challenge on his hands with his dog but in getting him under control on line he's on his way to success with a VERY talented dog. He hasn't lost an OUNCE of desire in the process of raising the bar on obedience. 

I think we've all seen some dogs who have lost thier style as a result of a heavy handed, or misguided trainer. Making one highly obedient and controllable doesn't mean that's a given.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I'm curious why people think that a well trained highly obediant dog will not be a good marker, nor be comfortable enough to handle the work with style? If you're OB training is that harsh as to take the spirit out of a dog for the work, might be time to revaluate training methods.

/Paul


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I have done my best to resist this thread for 6 pages, but in fact it is totally irresistible to me!

I don't believe a good dog with normal drive requires harsh training to become obedient. I do believe that a super charged one like mine would require a much heavier hand than I am willing to use to learn to sit still.

Almost a year after giving up on hunt tests, because his line manners will never be acceptable for tests, we are making good progress on more advanced concepts. I do not go for that "if your dog won't sit, how can you run a blind". My dog is running some very nice blinds now, and is quite responsive at long distances. He WANTS to get it right. What I do have to accept is his creeping on marks. I can do ob drills all day every day, and he is excellent. He will move right with me in very small adjustments. But, when we get to the field, he locks onto the guns and becomes oblivious to anything else. He seldom makes a mistake unless I make a big deal of his creeping. Then he does lose focus.

So I am not saying there is anything "good" about his issues, just that I have decided to accept the lesser of several evils. Sadly I can not go back to the beginning and unteach him all the habits I allowed due to inexperience. All I can do now is know not to repeat the mistakes with future dogs, and to do my best to work with the dog I have in front of me now.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

"It really doesn't matter how well your dog heels if it can't pick up the chickens now does it?."

Said to me over a beer  by a well known/big name amateur judge.


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

It's all about marking?


----------



## short retired (Jul 7, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> The challenge is... how do you get that ELECTRIC dog.. the one who just gives off the juice... to sit still... WITHOUT CRUSHING HIM!



That is a big challenge, but one that has to be fought and WON! There are many ways to do it, and all are different depending on the dog. I have run client dogs that would have been better suited for the FT game. Really talented and really hot, but they wanted their dogs to run HTs. Plus the dogs went home each winter to hunt. So steadiness was a monster challange. But it is one that can be won without being too harsh.






Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I'm curious why people think that a well trained highly obediant dog will not be a good marker, nor be comfortable enough to handle the work with style? If you're OB training is that harsh as to take the spirit out of a dog for the work, might be time to revaluate training methods.
> 
> /Paul



I couldnt agree more! You can be pretty tough on a hot dog and if you do it right, you will not take the spirit out of the dog. ANd just because you screwed them down tight at the line, does not mean they are not comfortable and are not relaxed.



Kevin


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Alec Sparks said:


> "It really doesn't matter how well your dog heels if it can't pick up the chickens now does it?."
> 
> Said to me over a beer  by a well known/big name amateur judge.





Yup heard the same type of thing from many an old timer



Mark Sehon said:


> It's all about marking?


Not really..but to paraphrase a golf term

You mark for show but you run blinds for dough ( trophies/hardware/ribbons)


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I personally feel a field trial is nothing more that an a large scale obedience trial where birds are shot and picked up.


----------



## short retired (Jul 7, 2008)

2tall said:


> What I do have to accept is his creeping on marks. He seldom makes a mistake unless I make a big deal of his creeping. Then he does lose focus.
> 
> :


First off it sounds like you have a really nice dog and if creeping is your only issue you are in great shape! I do not know your dog so it would not be right to say I totally disagree with your statement, but I will say this. I have never had a dog that wasnt better for being more steady. One example is a client bought a dog that was a really well bred dog and a pretty talented dog. The previous owner was a FT guy. His dog creeped and he had no issue with it. Infact he had no issue with it as a judge. Its one thing to creep in a trial or test, its another to creep in training. If you let them creeping in training it will be worse on the weekend and eventually lead to a break. Especally with a young dog or a dog that is hunted. But I eventually got her to quit creeping, which was tought because she was 3. She did creep a bit in the first two HT that she was run in. But we did get it smoothed out. But when I started the process her marking, as expected, fell off quite a bit. But we stuck with it and did not run her in any events until we got her steadied up and her marking did bounce back. So, maybe with your dog, it would bounce back after a bit. Maybe not, your dog, you know them better. Just saying maybe you dont have to accept it.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

greg magee said:


> I personally feel a field trial is nothing more that an a large scale obedience trial where birds are shot and picked up.



hmmmm must be something in the water in this area?


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't have enough exposure to "other practices" to comment on what they do or do not do.
> 
> I am not sure you do, either.


This is the point where wisdom has to be present in my mind because crossing this kind of argument can be a bit annoying as your knowledge about me is limited.

I am humble enough to say that I am not a FT trainer. I also admit that what I know, think and do aren't the only ways of doing in this world neither are the only good ways to do, think or know.

Where your argument reaches its limit is not knowing that I give courses in Animal Health De partment in a College and what I teach is about professional breeding, canine education, obedience and other stuffs like that.

Dogs I have trained (ours and others borned here) are used as hunting dogs, HT, obedience trials, tracking, S&R and/or assistants (with autistic children and old people). None of our dogs do all that but they all do more than one thing...

So, between gentlement, I would ask you please not to carry on this kind of argument.



Ted Shih said:


> I think you - and others - are making generalizations based on the comments of people who may or may not have much exposure to a given practice.


You are probably right... but what is written here is duscussed. As for yourself, bringing a judgement about me with only a few lines to read to make your mind, my arguments may head in the wrong direction but again, we discuss about aht is written here.



Ted Shih said:


> Is obedience
> - sitting on the mat?
> - responding to the handler's cues on the mat?
> - moving on the mat in increments to get a good initial line on a blind?
> ...


Well, you have some good elements of obedience there. But does more elements exist ? Yes ! If we look at some titles earned by dogs, we can easily imagine that there are. As you said, according to the practice, it depends !

So, on a general point of view, some titles require more elements of obedience, some are the basis for the work to be done, some are for a more general purpose and some are the last touch needed. So, what I want to point here is that some specialize their dogs on something and their achievement and success makes them say that they know what is obedience but have only one specific and specialized practice.

An obedient dog doesn't mean that it has no drive but a very obedient dog will behave itself and will have self control when needed. Obedience, in the canine world, goes from all what you have pointed and extands to other practices.

Some very simple titles require general obedience with behavior. CGN for instance is something interesting and where dogs have to go thru a serie of exercises that show if they are basically obedient AND know how to behave.

I applaud all the good work done by anyone with a dog when results are met (according the that person's goals) and I admire the specialization done in the world of working dog's but in that specialization, I won't agree that it is the only summit.

To bring a little more information on obedience :

- heeling perfectly beside and adjusting speed in a fraction of a second to keep up with the handler's pace ;
- sitting for minutes with or without the handler in sight and releases when told so ;
- Sitting still even if there are attractive stuffs going around ;
- following directions (not only casting in blind retrieves, all agility work and S&R too) close to the handler or at a distance ;

Simply take a rule book for obedience trials. We can all observe that there is more...

And, something that wasn't braught yet has also a great influence. It is the general behavior (which shares elements of obedience and are elements of education) :

- dog allowing to be handled by someone else that its owner or usual handler ;
- passing thru the door step after its owner ;
- won't jump on people ;
- won't show agressivity toward others ;
- and much more...

The FT world is very competitive and I know there is no room for error if someone wants to get a title. So, doing the necessary to reach that goal is perfect and earns respect from all. At the same time, it isn't all that exists. How many FT people in Northern America ? How many HT people ? How many hunters with retrievers ? How many in different Obedience trials ? How many dog owners (all breed) ?

When making a count, we quickly realize that this world is large. That's why I totally love this world as there is room for many schools of thinking !!! As I have done some work in most dog's fields (not FT's, obviously), I have been recognized to have a pretty good idea about obedience.

WHAT IS OBEDIENCE ? In everyone's life, it is simply to have a dog do what we want it to do. For OT, HT, FT, it is to meet a standard established by the kennel clubs. Even with standards, there is always an influence, one way or an other, from individual appreciation and subjectivity.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

What makes a great retriever? The book says marking is of primary importance. So lets focus on marking and OB. How can a dog mark anything jumping around on the line, creeping, breaking, sniffing the bird rack, humping the judge, pissing on the honor dog? Marking takes great focus. To get focus the dog has to be under control. He can't sit and Stevie Wonder all the gun stations, he can't lock in on the flyer station and not watch all the falls, he can't come back and look at the wrong station in a retired setup. He also can't run around out of control in the field, running between stations, going to old falls, switching etc. There is a huge amount of trained aspects to a "great marking" dog that people want to overlook. You don't believe me, take one of the "great marking" low obediance dogs, do a tight triple with two long outside birds and a retired short middle bird thrown towards one of those outside birds and then pickup the short retired bird last. Good luck.

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Redgolden said:


> As what I wrote doesn't seem to verify itself in your experience, let's just make an adjustment in the speach : "The emphasys on obedience is not the same according to the FT goals than other practices."


Nothing in your long winded post has persuaded me that your experential background permits such generalizations as you seem prone to make.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Redgolden said:


> I am humble enough to say that I am not a FT trainer. I also admit that what I know, think and do aren't the only ways of doing in this world neither are the only good ways to do, think or know.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...


I suggest you return to the original post which specifically addressed Field Trials.

I make no comment about other arenas because they have little interest to me.

You are arguing with me about points that I have never made.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

2tall said:


> I don't believe a good dog with normal drive requires harsh training to become obedient. I do believe that a super charged one like mine would require a much heavier hand than I am willing to use to learn to sit still.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sadly I can not go back to the beginning and unteach him all the habits I allowed due to inexperience. All I can do now is know not to repeat the mistakes with future dogs, and to do my best to work with the dog I have in front of me now.


I have seen a number of wild dogs come and go in Field Trials. 

In my opinion, much of these control issues could have be avoided with a more thorough obedience program earlier in the dogs' life.

Once the behavior has become a habit, it is a bugger to eliminate

Ben Franklin had it right: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> .....
> do a tight triple with two long outside birds and a retired short middle bird thrown towards one of those outside birds *and then pickup the short retired bird last*. Good luck.
> 
> /Paul


I agree with the rest of your post /Paul, but I'm just wonderin' why a guy would want to do that? 

JS


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Exactly so! That's why I say I can't unteach what was allowed in my early days. I am learning to cope with what I have, and will not miss the same steps again.

(Sorry, I was replying to Ted's post, 2 more hopped in there before I could send)


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

2tall said:


> Exactly so! That's why I say I can't unteach what was allowed in my early days. I am learning to cope with what I have, and will not miss the same steps again.


I bet somebody could unteach it.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

JS, that is the same question I had for Paul. I was afraid it was one of those things that I should know, so I didn't.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I bet somebody could unteach it.


Depends on how ingrained the behavior is ...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> > Originally Posted by *Redgolden*
> > _
> > As what I wrote doesn't seem to verify itself in your experience, let's just make an adjustment in the speach : "The emphasys on obedience is not the same according to the FT goals than other practices."_
> 
> ...


I believe he means that what we call good obedience is far less precise than what is considered "good" in the Obedience Trial ring, for example.
I think he is right in that respect.

JS


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JS said:


> I believe he means that what we call good obedience is far less precise than what is considered "good" in the Obedience Trial ring, for example.
> I think he is right in that respect.
> 
> JS


I would say

1) The original post queried as to whether FT people truly ignored obedience
2) A bunch of people posted - few of whom are competitive at the All Age Level
3) A poster made a generalization based on those comments without knowing the basis for those comments
4) Then the poster compared apples to oranges. So obedience people insist on longer, more precise sit ... FT people insist on precise sit on whistle and sharp cast ... is one kind of dog more obedient than another?

I am not prepared to make such generalizations

But, I am always amazed at others who feel no need to base their conclusions on reliable data

But, hey this is the internet where anyone can post whatever they want

Ted


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

JS said:


> I agree with the rest of your post /Paul, but I'm just wonderin' why a guy would want to do that?
> 
> JS


Ah, nicely spotted. Common belief of primary/secondary selection advocates say that the proper way to pick this up is short bird second. Yet this setup would promote a return to an old fall in most circumstances. Allowing that area to "cool off" so to speak will allow for greater success. The argument of course is "i can't get my dog to check down for a short bird once he's gone long twice." This is true, mostly because dogs are not comfortable with short check down birds. A great dog will be comfortable with check down birds such as this regardless of pickup order and have a higher sucess rate, allowing for more options in various test setups and ultimatly greater overall sucess in competition. Rex Carr called it "Ideal Selection." A dog that can do this comfortably is ultimatly going to have better sucess.

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Ah, nicely spotted. Common belief of primary/secondary selection advocates say that the proper way to pick this up is short bird second. Yet this setup would promote a return to an old fall in most circumstances. Allowing that area to "cool off" so to speak will allow for greater success. The argument of course is "i can't get my dog to check down for a short bird once he's gone long twice." This is true, mostly because dogs are not comfortable with short check down birds. A great dog will be comfortable with check down birds such as this regardless of pickup order and have a higher sucess rate, allowing for more options in various test setups and ultimatly greater overall sucess in competition. Rex Carr called it "Ideal Selection." A dog that can do this comfortably is ultimatly going to have better sucess.
> 
> /Paul


That is the theory

I am not yet certain that it is the truth


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

JS said:


> I believe he means that what we call good obedience is far less precise than what is considered "good" in the Obedience Trial ring, for example.
> I think he is right in that respect.
> 
> JS


Thanks !

Trying to explain something when the language used isn't ours makes things a little difficult (some terms don't mean quite the same, sentences turned a different way will mean something different than what was intended, etc.).

At the end, if I don't try and try again, I'll never manage to explain something clearly as I won't go pass the language barrier. So thanks again for trying to understand what I sometime hardly manage to explain. My writings may sound time to time " generalists" but I assure you that's not my intention.

In conclusion, would I be better not to say anything ?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Ah, nicely spotted. Common belief of primary/secondary selection advocates say that the proper way to pick this up is short bird second. Yet this setup would promote a return to an old fall in most circumstances. Allowing that area to "cool off" so to speak will allow for greater success. The argument of course is "i can't get my dog to check down for a short bird once he's gone long twice." This is true, mostly because dogs are not comfortable with short check down birds. A great dog will be comfortable with check down birds such as this regardless of pickup order and have a higher sucess rate, allowing for more options in various test setups and ultimatly greater overall sucess in competition. Rex Carr called it "Ideal Selection." A dog that can do this comfortably is ultimatly going to have better sucess.
> 
> /Paul



ah OK so in training, what is the procedure if the dog blows through the check down headed for one of the long guns? does this procedure require the dog to be OBEDIENT in order for him to be taught the lesson?

I know you agree that obedience is of primary importance Paul but maybe sharing the training technique here would demonstrate that to the nah sayers.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Redgolden said:


> Thanks !
> 
> Trying to explain something when the language used isn't ours makes things a little difficult (some terms don't mean quite the same, sentences turned a different way will mean something different than what was intended, etc.).
> 
> ...


I did not realize that English was not your native tongue.

As for not saying anything, I would not encourage that.

As for generalizations, I think - in any language - that they lead to complications

I feel similarly about making conclusions on venues in which I have little to no experience

I don't spend time in the obedience ring, so I don't make conclusions on what happens there
I no longer participate in hunt tests, so I don't make conclusions on what happens there
I do spend a considerable part of my life - my wife would say too much - training for, competing in, and judging field trials. So, I do feel qualified to make conclusions about that venue.

For the top competitors, I think obedience is important. Do they work to obtain the same refinement in heeling, sitting, recall as obedience competitors? No. Does that mean obedience is unimportant? I think not.

In making your assumptions concerning obedience in Field Trials, do you consider the effort that is required to get a dog to heel with you in tiny increments in order to get his/her spine propertly aligned on a blind, or the communication necessary to get a dog to focus in the distance for a destination on a blind? Is this not obedience? If not, what shall we call it?

My objections to your generalizations have to do with their scope, their breadth, and their lack of basis in fact - and nothing to do with you personally.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

DarrinGreene said:


> ah OK so in training, what is the procedure if the dog blows through the check down headed for one of the long guns? does this procedure require the dog to be OBEDIENT in order for him to be taught the lesson?
> .


It depends.
Once watched a well known trainer, with a well known dog on this set up.
Most dogs were stopped, helped out. Then, they would repeat with a hand thrown from line, then get check down. Dog did not get the long bird, put up for another day. They were judged uneducated, confused...

However, this well known dog was stopped, immediate big time correction. He had a *habit* of blowing through check downs, especially if long bird a flyer. The trainer felt very confident in his judgement that the dog knew that bird was there, and was simply "disobedient". Correction necessary.

However one defines the term, disobedience usually = correction, for most we have trained with.
A few dogs are so talented, they can succeed with bad behavior. The great majority can not.....


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Usually requires gunners helping the dog back to the area of fall. Do you handle every time your dog blows a mark?
> Walt


no, but what do you do if the short gun tries to help and the dog keeps going?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I would probably walk out myself, get the dog back to the area and reconsider how I did this set up. What did I do that made it too difficult for my dog to succeed. Then I would probably do that mark over as a single.
> Walt



How did you stop the dog? I assume you're not letting him get the long bird...


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> no, but what do you do if the short gun tries to help and the dog keeps going?


If it were me...call the dog in, put him/her up...cool off literally and figureatively ...and the try the same sort of concept but not necessarily the same mark...

if its a trial you pick the dog up, turn and thank the judges, wish good luck to the next competitor and put the dog up and head on down the road..


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Watch this video then ask that question again..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

PackLeader said:


> Watch this video then ask that question again..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0


What do you think this video demonstrates?


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

PackLeader said:


> Watch this video then ask that question again..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0


That wasn't thedogs fault, bad handling and bad instruction all at the same time.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Sorry.What question is that video the answer to?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I agree with all the above. I still don't see how the dog being less steady would have helped the situation.

I have seen dog crumble under less pressure. You need to have both...great drive and solid obedience IMO.


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I did not realize that English was not your native tongue.
> 
> For the top competitors, I think obedience is important. Do they work to obtain the same refinement in heeling, sitting, recall as obedience competitors? No. Does that mean obedience is unimportant? I think not.
> 
> In making your assumptions concerning obedience in Field Trials, do you consider the effort that is required to get a dog to heel with you in tiny increments in order to get his/her spine propertly aligned on a blind, or the communication necessary to get a dog to focus in the distance for a destination on a blind? Is this not obedience? If not, what shall we call it?


First, thanks for your understanding, I appreciate !

It seems we say almost the same thing... just that I may have not explained myself properly.

All work done with a dog has to relie on obedience. It is all a matter of goals and needs. For a certain type of work, you need a certain amount of obedience. I my experience, the least obedience needed for a particular work is S&R (only few basics are needed and a few commands to a distance). With the hunting dog (FT, HT, proper hunting, etc.) asks for another degree of obedience. We we get into obedience trials, the obedience has to be to a very refined level. This doesn't mean that obedience isn't important nor that in FT, the emphasys isn't putted on obedience. I simply say that the "amount" of obedience work isn't the same.

I sincerally didn't mean any generalities. I was trying to express another point of view that supported the importance of obedience training as being a great part in building retrievers.

As for the facts, I'll figure how to explain some stuffs before writing anything, just to make sure I write the right "terms" for that demonstration.


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> I think I need to be able to post what I'm thinking better. Somehow i've managed to give everyone the idea that I don't think obedience is important. If that's true, it was not my intention to belittle the importance of an obedient dog.
> Walt


Is English your native language ? ahahahah ! What a relief to see that happens too to an english speaking person ! 

I'll try to translate something we work with in Communications (have a Ba. degree in that field) :

"What I think, what I mean to say, what I say, what I think I have said, what has been heard, what is the other's perception and what is the other's understanding : the initial idea was processed 7 times thru intierly different mechanism. This means that we can get several results from what was initially in mind."


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Ted's five standards,and Sehon's marking,memory is the recipe for blue ribbons in Field Trials.Nothing more....nothing less.But it is the most interesting thread in a while.Still dont know what the video was about.I thought walt had some good points.
Merry Christmas !!!!


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

PackLeader said:


> Watch this video then ask that question again..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0




why would you burn as you were calling the dog in and it was coming?????

This video is opposite what was said earlier about few corrections with purpose.

Not a good example of much that I can see other then poor handling and a dog that is getting burned when it is doing what she is being told to do instead of getting a nick when she is making the mistake...

Put the collar on the handler or the voice.....


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Or start closer to the logs and work away from them....


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> why would you burn as you were calling the dog in and it was coming?????
> 
> 
> Put the collar on the handler or the voice.....


I was thinking that it must have been a taught blind and/or some bizarre extension of a "no-no" drill. Otherwise, I sure felt bad for the dog.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

I have had plenty of OB issues with my dog, most of which caused by a rookie handler with more dog than know-how. But I still say give me the choice between a dog on the edge of out-of-control but that will swim 300 yards after a sailing duck in cold water, or take a back cast cast though a skim of ice without thinking twice about it vs a dog that has perfect OB but no drive or ability I know which I would choose. We go down in a glorious (or horrific depending on the vantage point) ball of flames from time to time but we have fun doing it!

OB to a certain point is a must depending on which game you are playing, but talent is a must no matter which game you are playing.


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

limiman12 said:


> I have had plenty of OB issues with my dog, most of which caused by a rookie handler with more dog than know-how. But I still say give me the choice between a dog on the edge of out-of-control but that will swim 300 yards after a sailing duck in cold water, or take a back cast cast though a skim of ice without thinking twice about it vs a dog that has perfect OB but no drive or ability I know which I would choose. We go down in a glorious (or horrific depending on the vantage point) ball of flames from time to time but we have fun doing it!
> 
> OB to a certain point is a must depending on which game you are playing, but talent is a must no matter which game you are playing.


If we put the choise another way, what would be your choice : a loose cannon on which you don't have control on and a steady, consistant, well behaved, brave and obedient retriever ?

Thru all what I read, I don't think any of us train untalented dogs. So, to what you're saying and on a more semantical question, would it be reasonable to think that what is first seen as an untalented dog can simply be the wrong dog in the wrong hands or the wrong application according to the dog's potential (may perform elsewhere) ? In the same range, is talent and drive the same ?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Redgolden said:


> If we put the choise another way, what would be your choice : a loose cannon on which you don't have control on and a steady, consistant, well behaved, brave and obedient retriever ?
> 
> Thru all what I read, I don't think any of us train untalented dogs. So, to what you're saying and on a more semantical question, would it be reasonable to think that what is first seen as an untalented dog can simply be the wrong dog in the wrong hands or the wrong application according to the dog's potential (may perform elsewhere) ? In the same range, is talent and drive the same ?


 
First, the choice you pose is nothing more than an argumentative device. There is no choice. It is like saying would you rather have a one dollar bill or a hundred dollar bill.

Second, I think that there a more than a few untalented dogs - if by that one means a dog with the talent to obtain a FC/AFC with the right training and good handling. This happens sometimes by choice, sometimes by ignorance.

Third, I think the reality is that many people learn that their standards have been insufficiently high too late, and find themselves with a dog that is trial wise and generally incorrigible. Can it be fixed? Sometimes, with a tremendous amount of patience. Sometimes, not at all. 

Fourth, I think if you know what you are looking for, and you spend enough time with a dog, you can see whether there is any underlying talent in a dog, sometimes there is, sometimes there is not.

Ultimately, it is difficult to discuss these issues without a specific animal, handler, and trainer to observe over time.


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> First, the choice you pose is nothing more than an argumentative device. There is no choice. It is like saying would you rather have a one dollar bill or a hundred dollar bill.
> 
> Second, I think that there a more than a few untalented dogs - if by that one means a dog with the talent to obtain a FC/AFC with the right training and good handling. This happens sometimes by choice, sometimes by ignorance.
> 
> ...


Mr. Shih,

This reply was to the previous, not an argument to be started. If I wrote that, it was to illustrate that the initial statement wasn't holding the road. Take a moment to read the previous, then read mine and understand that there was no need to "carry on" punctuate on my case and try to tell me wrong. What you just have written is exactly the general idea I was bringing by being "spiritual ?".

By the way, thank you very much for all your replies. Even If it feels annoying when someone is always seeking to have me wrong on something, it allows me some good practice in English. Now, I think I had enough practicing for today... sorry to leave you with nothing ot pick on for the rest of the evening. (nothing personal, I assure you)


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

forgot this one !


----------



## Randy Bohn (Jan 16, 2004)

Go get 'em Darrin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> > Quote: Originally Posted by *PackLeader*
> > _Watch this video then ask that question again.._
> >
> > _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0_
> ...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Darrin, what's your point? That you need obedience? Walt


I suppose so Walt.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I bet somebody could unteach it.


LOL I think I've actually seen it done.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

I think he was referring to direct pressure there and back.Do you give the transmitter to the learning student and tell them when to burn? Just asking,not condeming.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Randy Bohn said:


> Go get 'em Darrin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Happy Holidays Randy!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Watch this video then ask that question again..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0


That might be the worst example of how to drive a car i've seen yet. Course its great example of how to burn a dog for something that is not their fault. Every single whistle was late and the dog paid the price. If going over obstacles is the object, then take it back to the yard and teach it. 

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> ah OK so in training, what is the procedure if the dog blows through the check down headed for one of the long guns? does this procedure require the dog to be OBEDIENT in order for him to be taught the lesson?
> 
> I know you agree that obedience is of primary importance Paul but maybe sharing the training technique here would demonstrate that to the nah sayers.


In this scenario, the dog has a much better chance of success if the handler can work with the dog at the line. If you can't get the dog to sit with you at the line, how can you expect to get the dog to focus on the short bird and then handle appropriately in the field.....

/Paul


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Howard N said:


> > Greg, you can't leave me here. Although I'm not a pro, I've been in this pro's position (Trish Jagoda, I think) trying to coach someone through a blind. I have felt the frustration of the handler always being 3 steps slow. Of them screwing up their dog, digging a deeper and deeper hole. A slow whistle can turn what should be a fairly clean decheating lesson into who knows what the dog got out of it.
> >
> > What should have that pro done? What should she have said to make the handler understand and read the dog?
> >
> ...


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> That might be the worst example of how to drive a car i've seen yet. Course its great example of how to burn a dog for something that is not their fault. Every single whistle was late and the dog paid the price. If going over obstacles is the object, then take it back to the yard and teach it.
> 
> /Paul


Agreed. I counted at least four casts that resulted in burns, when even adding a voice "Back" cast (and slowing the handler down!) would likely have resulted in the cast they sought. Virtually every whistle was late - several _very_ late.

This dog's training doesn't appear to be up to the standards those factors required. Looks like a nice dog, though.

Evan


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

PackLeader said:


> Watch this video then ask that question again..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0


 
I think I saw a pretty obedient dog doing what an untrained dog would naturally do, and a handler too slow to stop it. I was shocked when the trainer said to burn. Why? I don't think the dog knew it was not supposed to go around the log, so why punish it? 

What was the question again?

I bet if you ran that blind again, the dog would try to run around the log.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> try to coach up front before the blind or marks and identify the hazzards. Tell them where they have to be ready and then let them rip. Then we have a post training day critique (this is where beer and scotch are consumed) and discuss what went well and where more help is needed. If the people are good and listen well, and are not there just to socialize, it will sink in eventually. But I/we try to avoid live time coaching when ever possible. The dog pays the price for the most part.
> Live time coaching is alot like learning to drive with your father in the car. He's talking so much and most likely giving good information but your so nervous that you don't retain or even hear any of it and all he does is get mad and upset


Greg is that advice for brand new people,, someone who's not quite brand new but is having difficulty,,,someone a little more seasoned,,,or someone seasoned
Pete


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Howard N said:


> > Greg, you can't leave me here. Although I'm not a pro, I've been in this pro's position (Trish Jagoda, I think) trying to coach someone through a blind. I have felt the frustration of the handler always being 3 steps slow. Of them screwing up their dog, digging a deeper and deeper hole. A slow whistle can turn what should be a fairly clean decheating lesson into who knows what the dog got out of it.
> >
> > What should have that pro done? What should she have said to make the handler understand and read the dog?
> >
> ...


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> you have to live in the now when handling.


 


> I try to coach up front before the blind or marks and identify the hazzards. Tell them where they have to be ready and then let them rip. Then we have a post training day critique (this is where beer and scotch are consumed) and discuss what went well and where more help is needed.......... The dog pays the price for the most part.


Thanks Lainee and Greg. I can communicate with the dog much better than I can with an inexperienced handler. No more enroute coaching from me. (Lord I hope I can keep my mouth shut) Before, and after, is OK. While running, the dog is in the now and doesn't need the extra difficulty encountered when someone behind the the handler telling the handler what to do.


----------



## DJSchuur (Dec 9, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> I have been educated more or less on the premise that
> 
> "retrieving is secondary to obedience".
> 
> ...


all i can say is you can take it out of them but can't put it in em.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Pete said:


> Greg is that advice for brand new people,, someone who's not quite brand new but is having difficulty,,,someone a little more seasoned,,,or someone seasoned
> Pete


Pete, John Cavanaugh used this approach when mentoring regardless of the experience level. I can only express my gratitude by paying it forward. It made me a better handler in the long run.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

In the right hands, live time coaching can be wildly productive. One of my biggest thrillls was having Lardy in my ear as we took my dog through swim-by at a basics/transition seminar and another time during one of his advanced workshops. His sense of timing was impeccable and his direction was spot-on. The experience in both cases has proven invaluable.


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

PackLeader said:


> Watch this video then ask that question again..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7skSjz2sl0


Jamie, many have asked and you haven't answered. You cost me 4 minutes of my life watching that troubling video, 
SO FOR WHAT REASON DID YOU POST IT?
If this is any example of how you think a dog should be handled, or trained, then I hope you find another line of work!!


----------



## DKR (May 9, 2003)

smillerdvm said:


> Jamie, many have asked and you haven't answered. You cost me 4 minutes of my life watching that troubling video,
> SO FOR WHAT REASON DID YOU POST IT?
> If this is any example of how you think a dog should be handled, or trained, then I hope you find another line of work!!


OMG
I only made it through 40 seconds.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I think I made myself clear already but let me waste another 4 minutes of my life to explain it once again.

What you see in the video is a dog being handed by a noob. If you train dogs for a living you would understand exactly what you are looking at. The training method is irrelevant, if your customer can't handle his dog you have a problem. 

I think that any pro who says obedience isn't a huge part of a dogs training is full of it.

Now answer my question, how would a dog that is less obedient have helped the situation? This dog knows this exercise enough to make it with the trainer handling him..

So what do you do at this point? Perfect the dog with more obedience or refuse to sell dog's with more capabilities than their handlers? 

It doesn't matter if it's the dogs fault or not you still need to stick with the training method. You don't skip a correcton for doing the wrong thing. Doesn't matter who's fault put him in the wrong, he is still wrong. It's called sticking to the training program with a nearly finished dog..

Excuse me while I go bash my head on a tree.


----------



## choch2odog (Feb 8, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> I have seen a number of wild dogs come and go in Field Trials.
> 
> In my opinion, much of these control issues could have be avoided with a more thorough obedience program earlier in the dogs' life.
> 
> ...


HAMMER HITS THE NAIL. These problems don't get better with age. They don't get better with ignoring them. They definately don't get better if you allow them to become habit. So much ephasis is placed on building desire that obedience often takes a back seat and unfortunately, its extremely difficult to ever reestablish that standard, when advanced work is required.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> This dog knows this exercise enough to make it with the trainer handling him..


I don't buy it for a minute. Yes, the handling sucks really bad. Yes, the situation would not have been helped nor hindered with more or less obedience.

But that was too much blind for that dog.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I think I made myself clear already but let me waste another 4 minutes of my life to explain it once again.
> 
> What you see in the video is a dog being handed by a noob. If you train dogs for a living you would understand exactly what you are looking at. The training method is irrelevant, if your customer can't handle his dog you have a problem.
> 
> ...


That dog does not have the proper foundation to run that blind. Period.

With adequate basics, that dog _might_ have tried to avoid the log on the first pass. On the first whistle and cast he would have immediately recognized his error.

Even after a big fight to get him over, he still didn't have a clue on the way back!

Back up and teach him about obstacles.

Ain't nobody driven' that car regards,

JS


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

This is the first time I opened up this thread and want to add a few cents worth. I was born to parents who were AKC OB instructors, trainers and competitors. That is where I got my start.

First, there seems to be false stereotypes by some here about OB, not too dissimilar to the false stereotypes about HT/FT dogs by show people. I never imagined I would see that.

When OB is done right, the dogs love it! Certainly not as much as they love to retrieve, but work is work. The secret is in these wonderful animals! All they want is to enter into a symbiotic relationship with us, where if they please us, we will please them. It's not the game. If you want them to do agility, and you are a good trainer, they will do agility and enjoy it. If you want them to do flyball, and are a good trainer, they will do flyball and enjoy it. It is not about the game, it is about pleasing you. (But yes, I acknowledge there is a hierarchy to their likes and dislikes, and retrieving birds is at the top!)

The guy who got it right is the one who posted something like "HTs/FTs are like giant OB matches that use guns and birds." Exactly! OB is not a "part," but when defined properly, OB is the "whole." OB is THE relationship between you and your dog. The whole enchilada. Think about it. Why else does the AKC classify their basic OB degrees _Companion_ Dog (CD) and _Companion_ Dog Excellent (CDX)? We all know OB starts at home, moves into the yard, and then the field. But OB is also in the car, around other dogs, around strangers, around children, in the park, on leash, off leash. When is there EVER no OB between you and your dog?? Even when we ex the dog to sniff around and explore, there is still an invisible connection between you two. It is all OB; It is all the relationship.

Secondly, one of my wife's dog got pano when he was about seven months old and couldn't be trained in the field for several months. So my wife put a CD and CDX on him before going back to the field. It did not hurt, it HELPED his field work tremendously. Line manners were impeccable and attitude was just as strong and good.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

You are assuming that by shortening the problem the dog will learn this problem better. Fact is no dog is going to go over every obstacle 100% of the time. So at some point in time you are going to find yourself in this predicament reguardless of how familure the dog is with any given problem.

So if you can't read a dog well enough to know he's going to go around, then how does making the problem easier going to help?

Eventually this problem is going to happen. Every dog and handler get into trouble at some point.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> It doesn't matter if it's the dogs fault or not you still need to stick with the training method. You don't skip a correcton for doing the wrong thing. Doesn't matter who's fault put him in the wrong, he is still wrong. *It's called sticking to the training program with a nearly finished dog*..
> 
> Excuse me while I go bash my head on a tree.


I was beginning to warm up to your rationale until this paragraph. You're surely welcome to your philosophy, but there are a couple points here that don't really sit well. One is the notion that "It doesn't matter if it's the dogs fault or not you still need to stick with the training method." If that method leads me to correct a dog for _my_ failure to handle efficiently, I won't allow a method to dictate doing so. You aren't _really_ endorsing that, are you? I just want to understand you on this. 

The other corresponds to the first issue; that of "It's called sticking to the training program with a nearly finished dog.." I don't believe any method supercedes the dog's best interests, do _you_? A consistent bit of advice I give all those who attend my seminars is to "Adapt the training to the dog, not the dog to the training." That simply means that each one trains differently, at its own pace, and has its own tolerance for stress and learning. 

I hope you believe those things as well, and I'm just misunderstanding you? Additionally, would be be willing to clarify what you mean by "nearly finished"? 

Evan


----------



## Diane Brunelle (Jun 11, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> This is the first time I opened up this thread and want to add a few cents worth. I was born to parents who were AKC OB instructors, trainers and competitors. That is where I got my start.
> 
> First, there seems to be false stereotypes by some here about OB, not too dissimilar to the false stereotypes about HT/FT dogs by show people. I never imagined I would see that.
> 
> ...


Very well said, Kevin! I could not agree more! See Below......the field and the obedience are very connected and very important.

UCD HR UH Sand Dancer's Windfall CDX SH WCX CCA VC CGC
HR Ambertrail's Nothern Lights CD SH WCX CGC
SHR Firemark We Have Ignition CD(high in Trial) JH WCX CGC


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

By nearly finished I mean the drill they are working on. If he stoped the dog as soon as it looked right he could have cast him over the logs with 1 shot, same thing on the way back. So the dog is ready for the problem.

As for the corrections, I can't speak for her because I have no idea what her method entails. Looks to me like she Burns the dog back to the line each time it takes a wrong cast. If that is the method then I think sticking with the method no matter what is essential to keeping the training black and white clear to the dog. Assuming the dog doesn't show any stress.

If it were me I would have taken control after the first late whistle and finished the problem myself. Then let him try again, but that's just me..


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Great points, Kevin.










UH HRCH GMH GoldnGuns Dynamite Diva QFTR *** MH WCX earns an Open 2nd, a 3RD and three 3 cm's in 7 Open Stakes. She also hunts extensively every season. Owned, trained, and handled by Anne Everette.











UH HRCH Heads Up Running Man QFTR *** MH WCX QUAL placements, Open JAM Anne Everett. Nice balance in those dogs.

Evan


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> You are assuming that by shortening the problem the dog will learn this problem better.


Huh?

Are you saying moving closer to the log (shortening the distance to the obstacle) would not help the dog learn to got over the log?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> *You are assuming that by shortening the problem the dog will learn this problem better*. Fact is no dog is going to go over every obstacle 100% of the time. So at some point in time you are going to find yourself in this predicament reguardless of how familure the dog is with any given problem.
> 
> *So if you can't read a dog well enough to know he's going to go around, then how does making the problem easier going to help*?


It's called simplifying the task. It sure as heck beats burning the dog, until it by chance happens upon the correct response on it's own. ;-)

If the dog understands what's expected, why doesn't it comply after the 1st burn? 


PackLeader said:


> Eventually this problem is going to happen. *Every dog and handler get into trouble at some point*.


I guess it depends on how you define "trouble", but I certainly hope I *NEVER* find myself in that kind of trouble!!!


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Which is more important "talent" or "obedience"? 

It's like arguing which came 1st the chicken or the egg.

You need both. Neither is more important than the other.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Apparently if you are that guy and buy a finished dog from you it won't matter. That dog will go over and through anything because you made the problems shorter and never put any pressure on the dog.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Where is that popcorn thingy when you need it....?

/paul


----------



## Matthew Hambright (Dec 6, 2009)

So if you make the task at hand easier, without applying pressure, wouldnt that make more since? Im confused?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> You are assuming that by shortening the problem the dog will learn this problem better.


Apparently you missed it the first time --

Are you saying moving closer to the log (shortening the distance to the obstacle) would not help the dog learn to go over the log?


----------



## Dan Boerboon (May 30, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Apparently if you are that guy and buy a finished dog from you it won't matter. That dog will go over and through anything because you made the problems shorter and never put any pressure on the dog.


I think this is sarcasm, I hope it is. Making the task easier when the dog doesn’t understand is a basic training principal, I thought. Example when teaching TT if the dog is confused on the over cast from the base line we move closer to TEACH them. When a dog doesn’t understand the concept being taught you don’t pressure them into doing it right you teach them. And there is more to pressure than just a burn. A strong NO is pressure to many dogs and will work in many cases. Not that you never burn just there are other forms of pressure.

What I saw in the video was a dog not ready for what was being asked of it. The handler didn’t know what to do and the dog paid with a number of undeserved burns. I would not set an inexperienced handler up in that situation. IMO it set up the dog and the handler for failure. If I was the handler in that situation I would have left feeling rather defeated and wondering what am I doing trying to play this game


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I have no doubt moving closer would make it easier. I also have no doubt the dog was ready for the problem with the right handler. The dog did eventually get it right with a rookie at the wheel.

Only the trainer could tell you if the dog was ready or not. I don't think anyone can judge the dogs performance good enough to give training advice.

Again, how would a dog with less obedience help this Guy?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Apparently if you are that guy and buy a finished dog from you it won't matter. That dog will go over and through anything because you made the problems shorter and never put any pressure on the dog.


Oh yea, it's all cookies and treats from me.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

My question would be 
How do you know the dogs not ready to jump a log?
Could it be the dog was ready and the handler was not.

I would enjoy hearing someones critiquing of the training methods used and how it applys to what the dog did or didnt do.
keep in mind that the word Burn was used but we dont know if its just code for a certain level of stimulation,, I didnt see the dog get burned but it was behind stuff most of the time. It didnt act like it was litterally lit up. Not to me anyway

Anyway I would enjoy to hear some people critique what they saw and explain why its wrong and what they would do different

Thanks in advance 

Pete


----------



## DKR (May 9, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Where is that popcorn thingy when you need it....?
> 
> /paul


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

PackLeader said:


> By nearly finished I mean the drill they are working on.



Do you mean nearly finished on learning a particular skill, or is there some training drill that the dog would typically be doing when it is "nearly finished?"


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

I don't judge the success of a training session by the difficulty of what we did or how well we did it. I ask myself what the dog got out of this session.

Pack Leader, what do you think the dog got out of this session?

JS


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

JS said:


> I don't judge the success of a training session by how well we did.


Um Ok..

I'm not the trainer so I couldn't tell you what he learned. 

I'm willing to bet that he learned going around the tree is not the quickest or most comfortable path to the bird.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Buzz said:


> Do you mean nearly finished on learning a particular skill, or is there some training drill that the dog would typically be doing when it is "nearly finished?"


By nearly finished I mean nearly finished with the drill. The dog might go over the tree 90% of the time then is easily handled over the other 10% of the time. I would call that nearly finished. All that is left at that point is repetition.

Obviously this dog decided to go around this time for what ever reason and the no0b was late on the sit. After that the drill falls apart because the guy couldn't handle the dog properly.

Then the dog broke his sit because he's not used to sitting that long on a cast. Plus people yelling, he was clearly confused at that point. 

Even the smallest mistake's can make a good dog look bad.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I'm not the trainer so I couldn't tell you what he learned.


Are you in this video?
Do you know the handler or the coach?
Are you familiar with the dog other than what we all can see in the video?
What is your connection with this dog/video?
Might help us understand what it is you are trying to demonstrate.



> I'm willing to bet that he learned going around the tree is not the quickest or most comfortable path to the bird.


So are you saying you promote a method that primarily shows the dog what NOT to do and lets them stumble across what you want them to do?

I agree, we all come to a point where we let the dog figure out his mistake and solve the problem, but it sure appears this dog had no clue what he was supposed to do and tried everything until he randomly "stumbled" across the right answer.

Yes, there is a training technique that "heats up" all the wrong places to go and all the wrong things to do, and it _can_ be successful with some dogs. But you're taking a chance that, before your dog figures out the right way, he will shut down. Not a chance I want to take.

Every day, someone posts a question on here asking for a drill, a solution, a quick fix for popping, bugging, no-going, loss of momentum, loss of confidence, etc., etc. Easier to prevent than to fix.



> Obviously this dog decided to go around *this time* for what ever reason and the no0b was late on the sit. After that the drill falls apart because the guy couldn't handle the dog properly.


He decided to go around many, MANY times!! And it was apparent he did not know that was the wrong thing to do! Poor handling aside, after a couple tries, a well prepared dog would have spotted that obvious log and taken it.

I don't believe you let a dog slack and I don't hesitate to use pressure immediately when I think they are not trying, but if I saw a dog of mine doing this, I would move right up and show him what I wanted, then go back to the task at hand and do it. Then I'd go look for a couple more logs and repeat the concept.

I also believe that sometimes when a dog isn't 100% certain what to do, and "gives up", that a little pressure can be the KITA that gets them over the hump and willing to go ahead and try what they thought was right. (Contrary to what a lot of folks would think, that can be the greatest confidence booster!)

I don't think this dog was ready for that approach. Then again, you sound as though you are familiar with the dog's background. I wish you would share that with us, Otherwise, I'm not sure if you are presenting this clip as an example of _good_ training or _bad_ training???



> Originally Posted by *PackLeader*
> Watch this video then ask that question again..


JS


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

JS said:


> Otherwise, I'm not sure if you are presenting this clip as an example of _good_ training or _bad_ training???
> 
> 
> 
> JS


I got the sense that he didn't know what he was presenting in the first place. And I get the sense that he doesn't know what he's defending now.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Goldenboy said:


> I got the sense that he didn't know what he was presenting in the first place. And I get the sense that he doesn't know what he's defending now.


That's what I get too. A huge disconnect with teaching vs pressure


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Just to play devil's advocate here;
It's possible not enough pressure was used. 

How do we know what level that dog is ? Perhaps it is an advanced dog, that runs quite well for the trainer. 
Perhaps it doesn't run so well for the owner.
Perhaps the dog is educated, and blowing off the owner.
Perhaps the whole point of the drill was to get the dog's attention for the owner. Fair, or not...;-)

As someone who knows this first hand, running for the trainer, vs running for the owner, can be night and day. 
I think it's unfair to judge without knowing exactly what the trainer was hoping to accomplish.

And, I agree with Pete, didn't look like that dog's world was really rocked.....


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> Just to play devil's advocate here;
> It's possible not enough pressure was used.


I'll accept that premise as a possibility. But more evident is that there sure didn't look like much teaching, either.

Evan


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Goldenboy said:


> I got the sense that he didn't know what he was presenting in the first place. And I get the sense that he doesn't know what he's defending now.


Nice touch, ouch!


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Goldenboy said:


> I got the sense that he didn't know what he was presenting in the first place. And I get the sense that he doesn't know what he's defending now.


Bingo, I get the feeling packleader may be WAY WAY over his pay grade here


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

If you don't understand why the dog made so many mistakes than I can't help you understand. Just look at the guys arms! His back cast came from the hip.
.
You guys that like to pretend this is a dog training video.
Try reading the video description!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> If you don't understand why the dog made so many mistakes than I can't help you understand. Just look at the guys arms! His back cast came from the hip.


That's what you took away from that video?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> You guys that like to pretend this is a dog training video.
> Try reading the video description!


Are we still talking about *THIS* clip titled "Gun Dog Training"? Is the person doing the instruction your mentor? Perhaps I've missed that.

Evan


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

I think the description has shifted from "dog training" to "handling skills".



> If you don't understand why the dog made so many mistakes than I can't help you understand. Just look at the guys arms! His back cast came from the hip.


I give up ... I don't think we're going to get a coherent response.

JS


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I already explained what I got out of this video with my first post. I already told you the dangers of the dog shutting down before your over paid self ever mentioned it. Funny how that dog didn't shut down isn't it..

I do not know the coach, I do not know the handler and I do not know the dog.
I know I have seen all the other videos the kennel has online so I could see how they rain and what they do before I gave my under pay grade opinions.

Again, how would a dog with less obedience have helped this Guy?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

this thread is like a car wreck, you wish it didn't happen, you hope no one is hurt, but you can't help but look as you go by.....


my neck is sore regards,


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

To Pete and cakaiser,

Whatever any other factors involved, whatever the level of training of the dog, whatever the level of experience of the handler, whatever the reasons -- the dog is obviously confused! It is time to simplify.

You start over from closer to the log, removing other factors such as terrain changes and distractions. Even turn it into a mark if necessary. Build on success, and back up, increasing the distance, until you finally get to the distance we see in the video.

Let me reiterate. If they are trying to first teach the dog to go over the log at that distance, it is inexcusable. But even if they are not, even assuming the dog has been properly trained to go over obstacles, in this case, this time, the dog is confused, it is time to pick up and simplify!

I don't teach a dog to go over an obstacle in the field, much less at 50+ yards. I begin teaching the dog to go over obstacles in the yard with "No-No" drills, and then move into the field. In the field I start with flat and featureless terrain, and build from there.

After success with all that, I would finally come to a situation similar to what we have on the video. 

What I, and I assume the others here, find the most egregious about the video is the dog is confused and the handler and the trainer continue to nick or burn it. That is borderline abuse.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Pals said:


> this thread is like a car wreck, you wish it didn't happen, you hope no one is hurt, but you can't help but look as you go by.....
> 
> 
> my neck is sore regards,


Nancy,

You've spoken to my heart. I only hope some good comes of it. I guess I still have to look!

Evan


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

How can you say its abuse when you have no idea what level the collar is on?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> How can you say its abuse when you have no idea what level the collar is on?


And you are a pro trainer? 

It doesn't matter what level the collar is on! It doesn't matter if you are hitting it with rolled up newspaper! It doesn't matter if all you are doing is yelling at it!

What makes it abusive is the _principle_ --you don't make a correction when the dog is confused! :roll:


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> What I, and I assume the others here, find the most egregious about the video is the dog is confused and the handler and the trainer continue to nick or burn it. That is *borderline abuse*.


In support of Kevin's actual assertion (with which I fully agree), this brief passage is from the script for my Puppy Program DVD in the chapter on Operant Conditioning. This is a text book definition, not something contrived for the sake of argument.

“Remember that these definitions are based on their actual effect on the behavior in question: they must reduce or strengthen the behavior to be considered a consequence and be defined as a punishment or reinforcement. Pleasures meant as rewards but that *do not strengthen a behavior* are indulgences, not reinforcement; aversives meant as a behavior weakener but *which do not weaken a behavior* are abuse, not punishment.

I hope this provides some clarity in regard to what was actually said, and the reasoning for it. Perhaps it may also illuminate the reason for so much of the concern expressed about the video clip under discussion.

Evan


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

AmiableLabs said:


> What makes it abusive is the _principle_ --you don't make a correction when the dog is confused! :roll:


So no pro trainers enforce the whistle sit with an e-collar? The dog is clearly confused if they are running in the wrong direction. When you blow the whistle you are correcting a confused dog are you not?

Define confused..


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

When you are watching the video it says "Gun Dog Training" at the top. Could that be the category of video's we're watching?

When you look off to the side it shows tjblklabs which I assume is the author of the video and under that it says, "Learning how to run a dog on a blind retrieve" which I assumed was the author's title of the video.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> So no pro trainers enforce the whistle sit with an e-collar? The dog is clearly confused if they are running in the wrong direction. When you blow the whistle you are correcting a confused dog are you not?
> 
> Define confused..


If I may, the answer to your question is "No, not necessarily." We handle dogs to change their course. If they were on the correct course they wouldn't need to be handled. But there are more reasons for dogs to be off course than mere confusion.

Referencing this specific scenario (per the video clip), this dog is falling for the influences of every factor present, and not effectively changing his course under direction by the handler. It's clearly not all the dog's fault due to poor handling. But the dog shows no signs of readiness to do this work at this distance, and does not appear to be learning.

Good behaviors are not being strengthened, errant behaviors are not being weakened, and evidence of attempts to make the work clearer for the dog is woefully lacking. I think that is the central concern. I know it is for me.

Confused:

*1 a* *:* being perplexed or disconcerted <the confused students> *b* *:* disoriented with regard to one's sense of time, place, or identity <the patient became confused>
*2* *:* indistinguishable <a zigzag, crisscross, confused trail — Harry Hervey>
*3* *:* being disordered or mixed up <a contradictory and often confused story>

Evan


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> So no pro trainers enforce the whistle sit with an e-collar? The dog is clearly confused if they are running in the wrong direction. When you blow the whistle you are correcting a confused dog are you not? Define confused..


Dude, some dogs are worth the time and effort, some aren't.

The same is true for people who post on the Internet.

Cheers.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Yes, it says learning to handle a dog!

It doesn't say dog training demo. Why would they let a nood learn how to handle with a dog that doesn't know the drill?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> To Pete and cakaiser,
> - the dog is obviously confused!
> 
> What I, and I assume the others here:


Yes, you are assuming, as you don't know the dog, the handler/trainer, or the level of the dogs training.
How do you know the dog is confused, vs lack of effort? Wouldn't you need some history to support that??? 

I can quite assure you, if any of our AA dogs ran a sloppy blind like that, they would not be "confused". And, those corrections would not be "abuse". 

Look, I don't know if that training was good, or bad, it DEPENDS....
No one stated that dog is a puppy/young dog, did they?? If so, and I missed it, my bad.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying, you don't know......

Anyway, Doug gave the right answer to the OP. Obedience AND talent are the keys....


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Yes, it says learning to handle a dog!


Well, actually the fine print says "Learning how to run a dog on a blind retrieve". The large print directly over the video clip says "Gun Dog Training".

But C, 

Originally Posted by *cakaiser*  
_Yes, you are assuming, as you don't know the dog, the handler/trainer, or the level of the dogs training._
_How do you know the dog is confused, vs lack of effort? Wouldn't you need some history to support that??? _

_I can quite assure you, if any of our AA dogs ran a sloppy blind like that, they would not be "confused". And, those corrections would not be abuse._


History would be helpful. But by definition, there is clearly an aversive being used with little evidence that a behavior was either strengthened or weakened, which is the definition of abuse. I dare say that with your experience, if you had made those corrections they would have been fairer, and more effective. That would be evidenced by strengthening desirable behaviors, and weakening undesirable ones. There was little evidence of either in that clip. Did I miss something?

Credit where it's due regards,

Evan


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Howard if you click on the persons name it brings up all the videos from that person. The video was by silverbrook kennels. They show dogs running the same drill with no handling involved.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/user/tjblklabs#p/u/113/7xysVpoOXXA

Is this the same handler?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> Yes, you are assuming,


No, I am not assuming. I am making an empirical judgement based on experience.

But your point is not lost. You are saying it could just as easily be a well-trained dog and a refusal. I see your point, but I disagree. It is my judgement the dog is confused and not a refusal. If you want to withhold your judgement until you have more information, I respect that.



> I can quite assure you, if any of our AA dogs ran a sloppy blind like that . . . .


I do not nor would not characterize that blind as "sloppy" regardless of the level of training. To me "sloppy" and you are still playing. That dog needed to be picked up and started over.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Evan, 
Honestly, I thought it was probably poor training, too.
Just trying to say, more than one way to look at things.

Most on here must be smarter than I. Could not tell if confusion, or not trying.
I would have to know the dog to say that....

And, you are correct. We don't keep applying aversives that aren't working, the very definition of insanity...
But, the dog did eventually go over the log, did it not, LOL....

I'm done....


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Kevin,
Sloppy, and you are not still playing, not in the game we play...;-)


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> That dog needed to be picked up and started over.


I wouldn't have. There was some very bad handling there which left a confused dog. I hope they repeated that blind right then and there and worked out what each should do.


----------



## Hunchaser (Jun 15, 2009)

A degree of OB is necessary and it's improtant to have a steady dog on line. I think it's the degree of OB and applying the OB to the individual dog that is the key. For example, marking is very important but if the dog misses the mark what's better an intelligent, classic hunt in the area of the fall or a nervous dog running around with his tail down worrying about getting the mark.


----------



## Eric Williams (Oct 6, 2009)

Pack,

I am fairly new to the FT/HT game (about a year) but I have no clue what your point was with this video? Your follow up comments about what the video was "supposed" to represent really has me scratching my head....

You have succeeded in confusing me as much as the dog in the video regards,

Eric W.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

After reading this entire thread I get this overwhelming feeling that PackLeader is speaking German while the rest of the posters are speaking English. I cannot think of a single response that made any sense whatsoever.

What I did learn is who I DON'T want "training" a dog of mine!


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTE
To Pete and cakaiser,

Whatever any other factors involved, whatever the level of training of the dog, whatever the level of experience of the handler, whatever the reasons -- the dog is obviously confused! It is time to simplify.

You start over from closer to the log, removing other factors such as terrain changes and distractions. Even turn it into a mark if necessary. Build on success, and back up, increasing the distance, until you finally get to the distance we see in the video.

Let me reiterate. If they are trying to first teach the dog to go over the log at that distance, it is inexcusable. But even if they are not, even assuming the dog has been properly trained to go over obstacles, in this case, this time, the dog is confused, it is time to pick up and simplify!

I don't teach a dog to go over an obstacle in the field, much less at 50+ yards. I begin teaching the dog to go over obstacles in the yard with "No-No" drills, and then move into the field. In the field I start with flat and featureless terrain, and build from there.

After success with all that, I would finally come to a situation similar to what we have on the video. 

What I, and I assume the others here, find the most egregious about the video is the dog is confused and the handler and the trainer continue to nick or burn it. That is borderline abuse. 
__________________][/QUOTE]


You could be right who knows

weather the dog is confused or weather he just doesnt want to take on that factor at that distance who can say I couldnt see it that good

The handler definitely failed to communicate what he intended for the dog to do ,,that we can all agree on.

I do know that you can teach something like that up front,,,then teach it at a little further back and when a certain point is reached a dog might just do what this dog did no matter how many years you spent teaching it.

There comes a point when you must go from teaching to now you better do it.
You can spend a dogs life or at least certain dogs lives teaching this but until you get on him for going around he will let you down at some point.
My question is what should have been done aside from better handling.

The trainer obviously thought that indirect pressure on here for going around the log would be better than indirect pressure on sit,,,I dont know why ,,,,, I'm not questioning that but other people seem to be bringing that up and I would like to hear why.
We have to set aside poor handling even though as far as we know ,,it may or may not come into direct play as why the dog flaired the logs,,,
I think it was a big part and I think the trainer probably could have gotten him over it sooner,,,,

When the dog originally looked out he quickly looked away,,,was he confused ,,was he avoiding something he was beat up on according to his mind picture,,

I certainly dont know,,,just thought it was something fun to talk about besides my dog poops and roo roo's ,,what does it mean? 


Darrine you scored a home run,,,,way to many pages:razz:
Pete


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> That dog needed to be picked up and started over.





Howard N said:


> I wouldn't have. There was some very bad handling there which left a confused dog. I hope they repeated that blind right then and there and worked out what each should do.


I agree, Howard. That is consistent what what I meant -- start the blind over (this time simplified). Sorry I was not clear.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I'd repeat it from the same place. The dog knows where the blind is and shouldn't fight going over the logs again. If he does, work on it.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

"I do know that you can teach something like that up front,,,then teach it at a little further back and when a certain point is reached a dog might just do what this dog did no matter how many years you spent teaching it."

Exactly my point, at some point in the dogs life you are going to rely on those obedience skills. No dog is 100% all of the time regardless of training styles. 

If you don't have control you dont have anything....


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I'd repeat it from the same place. The dog knows where the blind is and shouldn't fight going over the logs again. If he does, work on it.


_There's_ a decision I would prefer _not_ to make without a clear history of the dog. If this is an early to mid transition dog that tends to normally make a good effort in the field, I may continue to drill on that factor from that distance. But I'd have to know more about him. With an early transition dog, almost regardless of how well he tends to train, I would have taught this as a de-flaring drill, starting very close to the object, and backing up incrementally. 

I don't get the sense that this type of thinking is a part of that trainer's usual operations, having looked at several other videos on that site. But that's just a superficial observation, and not a blanket condemnation.

I believe in drilling for that kind of skill, rather than just running cold blinds with a factor at that distance, and essentially performing arbitrary burns for apparent failures. To me that's backwards. But that's just me, I guess.

"If you don't have control you dont have anything...." I would rephrase that to say "If you don't have _balance_ you dont have anything...."

Evan


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Some say the dog is confused, and 'corrections' are close to being abuse. Others say the dog is fine, and needs to be 'corrected'.

I, as a rank, worthless, low-life, good for nothin' dog trainer, see confusion. I could have sworn that dog was really trying hard!

I thought I heard, here or somewhere else, that a 'tie goes to the dog...'.

Snick - Late to the party again...


----------



## Matthew Hambright (Dec 6, 2009)

The dog seemed to be trying hard IMO. The lady yelling at the new guy training, or if he isnt new she acted like he was, seemed to keep saying "You know the dog is going to go left or right, not over the log."

Million dollar question is What do you do if you know the dog is going to balk? Shouldnt you make it shorter and easier for the dog to understand? Or do you stand back 65 yards and keep trying to make the dog do it the right way?

Too bad they didnt send em again, wed see if the dog learned anything?


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> The dog seemed to be trying hard IMO. The lady yelling at the new guy training, or if he isnt new she acted like he was, seemed to keep saying "You know the dog is going to go left or right, not over the log."
> 
> Million dollar question is What do you do if you know the dog is going to balk? Shouldnt you make it shorter and easier for the dog to understand? Or do you stand back 65 yards and keep trying to make the dog do it the right way?
> 
> Too bad they didnt send em again, wed see if the dog learned anything


 
We dont know if it was taught up close or not,,some dogs are compelled to do things a certain way until the trainer goes through his mental rolladex and pulls out a big bat

Not all dogs learn easily and some will often do what they want when they know your not or cant do somethin about it. Poor marking is not the only deficit that eliminates a dog from a trial carreer.
A well rounded dog is key. temperaments vary To many variables here for me to comment,,,, except the handling could have been why the dog did what it did.




p

pete


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Charlotte

Is correct we know nothing about this dog, its prior training, the level of "burn" used, etc. All we know is what we can see and how the dog responded. 



Pete said:


> The trainer obviously thought that indirect pressure on here for going around the log would be better than indirect pressure on sit,,,I dont know why ,,,,, I'm not questioning that but other people seem to be bringing that up and I would like to hear why.


I don't have nearly as big a problem with the 1st burn, as I do with the 2nd burn. Personally, I would not have used a collar correction at all at this point. 

However, I can justify a collar correction here because of these factors:
- the dog has obviously run this blind before 
- it is a pretty straightforward blind, nicely framed picture of where to go with logs that are pretty square to the destination.
- the dog made a sudden and abrupt change in direction to avoid going over the log. (a clear decision to cheat or deviate)
- the dog is relatively tough and forgiving 
- the amount of training that the dog has had on this issue
- whether or not the dog had a chronic problem with this
- the general nature of the dog, 
- my overall belief that the correction would be understood 

Factors that would keep me from applying a collar correction here include:
- a novice handler handling the dog
- the dog was stopped way too late
- an unfamiliar handler handling the dog

As I stated previously, I would not have applied a collar correction here. However, I don't know enough to say for sure that it was inappropriate here.

IMO That test comes with seeing how the dog responds to the correction. Here, the dog demonstrated that it did not clearly understand the correction. It did not go over the log, but instead tried to go around the other end. 

I have a *REAL* problem with this 2nd collar correction. The dog just demonstrated that it did not understand the 1st correction, and they apply another collar correction.  I really don't get it!!!! Here the dog just got a burn. It has an unfamiliar, novice handler, that is giving less than perfect instructions. It is a recipe for the disaster that they got.

Indeed, after this 2nd correction, it all went to hell! The dog clearly showed it did not know what it was supposed to do. It starts turning the wrong way on casts, autocasting, freezing on casts, etc. It was a total mess!!!! 

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!!!!!!

At least it appears they were smart enough to quit applying any further collar corrections. ;-)

JMHO


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Doug,
Had a long answer, but guess I will just say, what's obvious to you, is not to me.
Perhaps a bit more experience transitioning from trainer to pathetic, incompetent, amateur handler. ;-)

I will just add that I knew a FC who never would run a blind for the owner. Looked just like that dog, only worse momentum, and more pops......
Charlotte


----------



## Hunchaser (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm with Doug Greene. To me it is not about marking, it's about style. Too much OB destroys style. However, you have to train with a degree of discipline. The key is to do with kindness and modify your training to the attitude of the dog you're working with. That's why dog training is an art instead of paint by numbers.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Wooohoo #202 post..... 

What was this thread about again???

 

Midnight regards,


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Pals said:


> What was this thread about again???


 Phase 2 trainers.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

WTF is a phase 2 trainer?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Hunchaser said:


> Too much OB destroys style.


I call BULLSHIT!


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> I call BULLSHIT!


Darrin,

I think what is perceived as "too much obedience" is more often simply _out-of-balance_ obedience. You know as well as I do that a dog can be very obedient and still be a stylish and happy worker.

Evan


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> WTF is a phase 2 trainer?


Ask Dr Ed.


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

I believe, thru my experience (judging and running HT's), that the "style" is very subjective. That for one it is grass lifting under the dog's paws when going, big splash at the water entry and for another, it is the global look of what the dog shows like desire to work, tail wagging while walking at the line, head high, focus shown in preparation to work. In either cases, probably that "too much obedience" can lower all that... but at the same time, I've see highly obedient dogs that still had it all !


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> WTF is a phase 2 trainer?


Time to buy the Farmer video....

/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Time to buy the Farmer video....
> 
> /Paul



LOL I have real live mentors, luckily enough, so if it's on DVD it's much more interesting


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> LOL I have real live mentors, luckily enough, so if it's on DVD it's much more interesting


Its not a lady standing behind you yelling "burn" is it?

/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Its not a lady standing behind you yelling "burn" is it?
> 
> /Paul


I wouldn't refer to her as a lady exactly


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hunchaser*
> _
> Too much OB destroys style.
> ...


You can have your opinion, I'll have mine.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Howard N said:


> You can have your opinion, I'll have mine.


Having seen a whole bunch of very obedient, yet highly stylish dogs in my short time, I don't understand what you're talking about Howard. Hearing a guy like Ted who owns and handles competitive dogs talk abotu obedience drills on trial day, and having seen it done by other successful folks, your comment confuses me.

I will respect your opinion. No arguements here. In fact, this is the discussion that started the thread. 

Care to elaborate?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Have you ever seen a dog miss a mark and panic? Have you ever seen a pressure hunt out of the area of the fall?

Balance is the key.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Howard N said:


> Have you ever seen a dog miss a mark and panic? Have you ever seen a pressure hunt out of the area of the fall?
> 
> Balance is the key.



yes, yes, and I have been schooled to agree...

but how does any of that result from too much obedience?

mistimed, misapplied pressure is what I have been told causes all that, where well timed, fairly applied corrections against clearly known standards of obedience does nothing of the sort.

are my mentors wrong Howard?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Perhaps you missed Ted's line, "Perfect is the enemy of the good."

Great confidence and independence are required of the dog for great marking.

Demanding perfect control by the handler erodes that confidence and independence that is required for great marking.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Everyone does not do obedience the same. Go watch an OTCH dog and handler do some heeling drills sometime. You will never think the dogs' obedience has been overdone. Good dog training is good dog training regardless of the venue.

Tom


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

twall said:


> Everyone does not do obedience the same. Go watch an OTCH dog and handler do some heeling drills sometime. You will never think the dogs' obedience has been overdone. Good dog training is good dog training regardless of the venue.
> 
> Tom


I don't understand your point. 

I've judged and trained with several!!! 

All-age blinds and marks aren't run in an obedience ring. ;-)


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> *Balance between the two ..Control/independence.. is the only way to succeed. The more you concentrate on one, the more the other suffers. That's not my thinking, I stole it from Mike Lardy.*
> 
> I said this somewhere in the middle of this thread, and I still believe it's true...
> Walt


Me too.


Evan said:


> "If you don't have control you don’t have anything...." I would rephrase that to say "If you don't have _balance_ you don’t have anything...."


Evan


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> I don't understand your point.
> 
> I've judged and trained with several!!!
> 
> All-age blinds and marks aren't run in an obedience ring. ;-)


Doug,

You sound like my wife!

My point was obedience can be done in a way that builds a very close working relationship between dog and handler and develops style. Yes, the obedience ring is not the field. However, expecting a dog to do something in the field it will not do at the handlers side is crazy. 

There are many in the field games who equate obedience with a loss of style. Trainers and handlers of OTCH dogs get a high level of obedience and style. Balance is a big part and should be part of the regular training regime. Just as you would expect marking to fall off if you only ran blinds for six months. Obedience will fall off, assuming it was there to begin with, if it is neglected for long periods to time. I'm reminded of the Lardy tapes where he comments about a dog breaking on a flier and that being a good time to work on sit. 

Tom


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Hunchaser said:


> I'm with Doug Greene. To me it is not about marking, it's about style. *Too much OB destroys style*. However, you have to train with a degree of discipline. The key is to do with kindness and modify your training to the attitude of the dog you're working with. That's why dog training is an art instead of paint by numbers.


Obviously you never had the privilage to watch John Cavanaugh or Judy Rasmuson, The most stylish otch & fc's I've ever seen.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Perhaps you missed Ted's line, "Perfect is the enemy of the good." Great confidence and independence are required of the dog for great marking. Demanding perfect control by the handler erodes that confidence and independence that is required for great marking.


I am not disagreeing with you, but I do have a different perspective. As I said previously, I see OB as the relationship between you and your dog in its entirety, as a whole. So "perfect control" is not static, it is fluid. As long as the understanding between you and your dog is complete; As long as the dog is confident where the lines are it is not allowed to cross, it CAN work freely with great confidence and independence.

It is one of the great mysteries of life that sometimes a set of rules, or a clearly defined line "Thou shalt not cross" is in fact liberating. The key to that confidence we seek in a happy worker, is in consistently and adequately communicating that line.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Greg.. Has john Cavanaugh ever written anything about his training methods? All I can find on line are seminars he gave.
> Training with John Cavanaugh, That would be a privilege.
> Sorry to get off the thread.
> Walt


walt check your pm


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> I am not disagreeing with you, but I do have a different perspective. As I said previously, I see OB as the relationship between you and your dog in its entirety, as a whole. So "perfect control" is not static, it is fluid. As long as the understanding between you and your dog is complete; As long as the dog is confident where the lines are it is not allowed to cross, it CAN work freely with great confidence and independence.
> 
> It is one of the great mysteries of life that sometimes a set of rules, or a clearly defined line "Thou shalt not cross" is in fact liberating. The key to that confidence we seek in a happy worker, is in consistently and adequately communicating that line.


I have not yet seen the perfect retriever, one that could not be better with more training. ;-)

I was judging the Amateur, when Ranger won his double header. He was about as "on" that weekend as any dog I have ever seen. However, I know for a fact Charlie was going to train on a few things the next week that Ranger could do better. 

In all-age stakes part of the challenge is finding the balance between having enough control to run the blinds, and the confidence/independence required to do the marks. The more confidence the dog has from not needing any intervention from the handler, the less control the handler has.

In all-age stakes, we are always on the fine edge of what the dogs can do. If that dog that is too loose, he can slip a whistle or scallop a critical cast on a blind. If he doesn't have enough confidence, he just won't mark at the top of his game. The more talented the dog, the more leeway one has.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I've heard it said, a dog in perfect balance, is about one step away from total disaster.
Example- any dog loose enough to run down the shore, take a 150 yd angle entry, could be about ready to not get in, at all, next weekend. 

Extremely difficult to achieve balance, even more difficult to maintain it.
It takes a special dog.

Why, I think, those titles are so valued.....


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> I've heard it said, a dog in perfect balance, is about one step away from total disaster.
> Example- any dog loose enough to run down the shore, take a 150 yd angle entry, could be about ready to not get in, at all, next weekend.
> 
> Extremely difficult to achieve balance, even more difficult to maintain it.
> ...


Ain't that the truth! 

I got an Am 2nd and a Am 1st on consecutive weekends and tossed for a loose land blind on the 3d.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> I have not yet seen the perfect retriever, one that could not be better with more training. ;-)
> 
> I was judging the Amateur, when Ranger won his double header. He was about as "on" that weekend as any dog I have ever seen. However, I know for a fact Charlie was going to train on a few things the next week that Ranger could do better.
> 
> ...


Well said!!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

you guys have lost me completely. 

how does developing and maintaining high obedience standards interfere with the independance of a good retriever?


----------

