# British Labs / No Force????



## Jonronamo

Below is an article I found in Gun Dog magazine. I would like everyones thoughts on British Labs and British training methods that apparently "do not use force"? 

Gun Dog Article:

There’s a new movement making British Style Field Trials popular again, along with the British strain of Labrador retriever. These Labs are largely born with the behavior of delivering retrieved objects to hand, making it unnecessary to force-fetch them. They are also bred to be calm companions as well as peak performers in the field, according to Robert Milner, who breeds British Labs at Duckhill Kennel. And from what I saw of his 5-week-old puppies to 5-year-old adults, it’s absolutely true.

The big attraction to these trials and British training methods, for me, was the lack of force training. No force to pile, force to water, force anything. For dogs bred to be highly trainable and good at hunting, like my golden, this philosophy says it’s not necessary to use force. It’s very believable after watching several British-trained dogs complete 175-yard blind retrieves through walls of 5-foot tall brush and woods, guided by whistle and hand signals, then stand at heel, steady as a rock, while they watch another dog work.


----------



## yellow machine

Oh oh another deviation from the norm. "HAPPY" will not like this.


----------



## Scum Frog

Hate it if you want, but from what I have seen and read the British Labs and British training methods movement is gaining steam and not going away.
I'm interested!


----------



## Jonronamo

Don't get me wrong, I am interested as well. I have seen some british labs at HRC events, but I wasn't overly impressed, (in the labs defense, it was more of a handler issue with me).
I do know a Trainer that has breed american and british labs, and the result is amazing! As far as the "No Force" thing, well I will never be sold on that idea.


----------



## rbr

To each his own


----------



## moscowitz

So what are British Labs? And all our field dogs here in the US are breed to retrieve without force aren't they? This topic is redicules and I got sucked in.


----------



## Dooley

Sorry,I disagree with you.....this post is NOT ridiculous, too much force is used on the dogs in U.S. and Canada.
Take a good look at the history of field trials and the origin of same.
Not a deviation from the norm either.....it IS the norm not use force, but not eliminating sensible punishment.


----------



## yellow machine

Jonronamo said:


> it was more of a handler issue with me).
> 
> I noticed a handler issue also. The British trainers have such bad teeth the dogs are having a hard time understanding them.


----------



## Evan

Dooley said:


> Sorry,I disagree with you.....this post is NOT ridiculous, too much force is used on the dogs in U.S. and Canada.
> Take a good look at the history of field trials and the origin of same.
> Not a deviation from the norm either.....it IS the norm not use force, but not eliminating sensible punishment.


Yawning widely and waiting for another protracted flogging of a dead horse. How many pages this time?

Evan


----------



## Dooley

Good one Evan,gets lonesome at the top doesn't it?.....another typical British bashing party.


----------



## yellow machine

I really hope this is not a continuing thread for weeks on end. Save your typing for something else.PLEASE


----------



## Swampbilly

Evan said:


> Yawning widely and waiting for another protracted flogging of a dead horse. How many pages this time?
> 
> Evan


LoL!^^^ 
Think I'll never understand why there's _always_ an affiliation of dawgs trained Pos. Re- with our British friends across the pond.
Just _know_ I'm not the only American, (and Americans before me, and Americans before them), that's never completely forced a dog to do anything. 
That said-

Know that after having trained my first Collar dog several years ago there's no going back...

Lots of Ways to Train a Dog


----------



## Bill Billups

British training and no force training are not the same thing. In Britain aversives are used in training,just not collars or FF.


----------



## WRL

Force fetching is just a tool. 

Yes, American labs are bred to deliver the hand. ANY Lab, is bred to deliver to hand. Some are better at it then others but with reinforcement and working with on it its easy peasy.

I think people get confused about the REASON for force fetching.

Force fetching is the tool that is used to change retrieving from the dog's game to OUR game. It changes the dynamics of the "retrieve". It makes it a command vs "asking".

To me, its the single most important tool in training. When I am out hunting, I don't want the dog to have a CHOICE to refuse. Get the bird, go when I tell you and go where I tell you.

Upon the process of force fetch, its extended to teach and reinforce "non-natural" hunting tasks (ie handling).

People get "sold" on the whole "non-force" program because it SOUNDS kindler and gentler. Its easier to "stomach" for most average trainers until....until....well until the "non-force fetched" dog quits. If it quits, you have NO TOOLS in place to compel it to do what you want it to do (retrieve).

Also, please keep in mind, that the British do not hunt like we do. They do not sit in marshes and decoy ducks. They do not sit in pit blinds and call for geese.

If I was going to go 4x4ing I would get a truck, I would NOT buy a mini cooper.

WRL


----------



## Lonnie Spann

yellow machine said:


> I noticed a handler issue also. The British trainers have such bad teeth the dogs are having a hard time understanding them.


That right there is FUNNY!!! 

The most interesting post in the entire thread.

Lonster


----------



## Steve Shaver

I think most dont understand force training and it is mainly because of the word force. Just because the word force is used doesnt mean the dog is being forced to do something it doesnt want to. It is simply a method of training.


----------



## leemac

Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?

British or American or Chinese is of no consequence.


----------



## achiro

British labs are born completly trained, I thought everyone knew that.


----------



## Swampbilly

leemac said:


> Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?
> 
> British or American or Chinese is of no consequence.


Know what you're saying, (I think). And very much agree.

Do have to answer yes to your question however...my own dog...however, it didn't come easy.
And if you had the same set up in a HT, on land my dog back then would have handled well, but more than likely I'd have left the Test losing an entry fee.


----------



## fishduck

I have witnessed very nice British dogs. No arguments here that they can and will perform the task. 

My point is more on the no force required. All Labs need training to be usefull hunting companions. I have never met a person who trained with a current modern e collar program that returned to their old program.


----------



## kennel maiden

leemac said:


> Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?
> 
> British or American or Chinese is of no consequence.


Yup. I'm British, with 'British' labs, in Brit-land!!! Plenty of us competing at the very highest levels over here, who do not use any type of 'force' programme, and manage to be 'quite successful' ;-) .

I've been off the board for a while, doing rather than typing, but am happy to answer any questions if it is helpful on the different methods we use. We still 'correct' dogs if they go wrong, vocally or by putting them back on the spot, but we don't go through any of the FF programmes, heeling sticks, tables/benches etc, etc.... I think our 'programme' is a lot less structured than yours, more organic if you like, but somehow we muddle along in our own 'brit-fashion' and get a half-decent end result...


----------



## RetrieverNation

Do these no force british labs hunt woodcock? Not too many dogs will pick them up without forcing. Would be interesting experiment to see if a woodcock would be delivered to hand. 

I liked all the british labs I have met. 

Not sure why force is getting a bad wrap. Maybe too much ignorance and misinformation is playing on peoples emotions, especially from influences outside of retriever training. Or maybe some just get sick of the negative stereotype and the defense of the most popular methods. Heck, I even get sick of my neighbors overly concerned questions about my dogs staying outside in dog runs during the day. "OOOHHH Those Poor Dogs, Dont They Get Cold?" LOL


----------



## rbr

Like politics, the perpetuation of myths becomes an important marketing tool. 

Bert


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

British labs make great pets, companion dogs, floor cleaners, cab labs, etc. I've only seen a couple I'd ever want to hunt with...just my preference in dogs...

/Paul


----------



## hotel4dogs

I'm really new to this, but I don't recall seeing the British Labs in Brit-land doing some of the water work that we do here? Or am I wrong?


----------



## BonMallari

my brother Clint went to medical school in England, and on the rare times that he had to himself he spent the time watching British field trials and retriever training methods...you are comparing apples to oranges...just like the United States and Great Britain are two nations separated by a common language


----------



## Evan

achiro said:


> British labs are born completly trained, I thought everyone knew that.


Now THAT is funny right there!! 

Evan


----------



## Happy Gilmore

yellow machine said:


> Oh oh another deviation from the norm. "HAPPY" will not like this.


Obviously you haven't read Jennifer's thread on positive training.


----------



## rmilner

In British Field Trials the dogs are required to retrieve whatever is shot. That will typically include pheasants, ducks, woodcock, partridge, snipe, grouse, rabbits, hares, the occasional pigeon. 


Additionally
The dog is required to retrieve the particular bird indicated by the judge. That will nearly always be the crippled bird first, and it does not matter whether the dog saw it or not. The dog on the way to the cripple fall area often flushes fresh birds. If he chases them he is out. When he get to the area of the fall and takes up the trail of the cripple he must follow it and ignore freshly flushed birds. Frequently the trail on a strong runner will take the dog out of sight and into heavy cover for long time periods (see link at bottom for photos of typical cover). If he fails to find and fetch that cripple, he is out. Then another dog is tried on the same bird.
Additionally the dog will be required to sit quietly through a pheasant drive where dozens of pheasants are shot as great numbers are driven over pre-stationed guns. The drive might continue for 20 minutes and several hundred birds be driven over with 40 or 50 shot. After the drive the dogs must continue to sit and honor the other working dogs until their turn comes. See photo on link below. It shows 5 dogs on line for a drive. Two of them are with one handler. This was taken at the IGL Retriever Championship in 1987 at Sandringham.
Here is a longer look at British Field Trials: http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/

On Training:
British retriever trainers and training culture is far more gentle than the American model. There are some hard trainers in the UK, but they are few in number. Much of the training is based on compulsion, but the application is much softer. 

Positive training is a different model in which nearly no compulsion is used. 
Here is a synopsis of Positive training for retriever gundogs: http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/positivegundogs.php


----------



## Chris Videtto

I think Eug posted this video a while back.....pretty interesting, nothing to do with force, American vs British just a very cool video with some excellent dog work!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBBiL3ixsFY


----------



## GulfCoast

fishduck said:


> I have witnessed very nice British dogs. No arguments here that they can and will perform the task. .


I hope one of 'em was mine! 



fishduck said:


> I have never met a person who trained with a current modern e collar program that returned to their old program


I did it both ways, and I can say that there are PLENTY of adversives in "British" training, and I would not hang up my ecollar and go back, either. 

Have a good day.


----------



## fishduck

GulfCoast said:


> I hope one of 'em was mine!
> 
> 
> 
> I did it both ways, and I can say that there are PLENTY of adversives in "British" training, and I would not hang up my ecollar and go back, either.
> 
> Have a good day.


Ellie Mae is always the dog I think about when the British stereotype is presented. She is simply a very nice lab that anyone would be happy to have in the blind.


----------



## Colonel Blimp

> Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?


Yupp. Mine. And lots of others. If you pick up on driven shoots, it's a basic tool of the trade. Very often you'll send your dog for a pricked bird that's still in the air and planing on for hundreds of yards and he'll have to pass a lot of dead ones on the way. On other occasions there will be a few dead birds lying in the open with a runner amongst them. 



> Do these no force british labs hunt woodcock? Not too many dogs will pick them up without forcing.


Again, mine do. So do the others I see around. 



> The British trainers have such bad teeth the dogs are having a hard time understanding them.


And the appallingly bad manners of the dogs in the US are all too clearly reflected in their handlers who themselves are easily distinguished by their wobbly fat arses and waddling gait.

Eug


----------



## Renee P.

Colonel Blimp said:


> Yupp. Mine. And lots of others. If you pick up on driven shoots, it's a basic tool of the trade. Very often you'll send your dog for a pricked bird that's still in the air and planing on for hundreds of yards and he'll have to pass a lot of dead ones on the way. On other occasions there will be a few dead birds lying in the open with a runner amongst them.
> 
> Eug


The poison bird scenarios I've seen in AKC events involve sending the dog on a blind retrieve, after it has seen shot bird. It has to ignore the shot bird and get the bird it didn't see fall. I think the scenario you have described involves a dog ignoring fallen birds as it is going to a shot bird that it has marked?


----------



## Colonel Blimp

Renee,

Either or both. On a driven shoot the dog won't see a bird fall he'll see dozens, and still be expected to take whatever line he's given; if you fluff it up in a Trial that's you on the bus home just as Robert described. On the first drive last Monday five dogs picked 120 birds, so one falling out of the sky is hardly a novelty. 

Eug


----------



## Renee P.

Colonel Blimp said:


> Renee,
> 
> Either or both. On a driven shoot the dog won't see a bird fall he'll see dozens, and still be expected to take whatever line he's given; if you fluff it up in a Trial that's you on the bus home just as Robert described. On the first drive last Monday five dogs picked 120 birds, so one falling out of the sky is hardly a novelty.
> 
> Eug


Thanks, as another poster wrote it does indeed seem that comparing the trials is "apples and oranges."


----------



## Renee P.

leemac said:


> Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?
> 
> British or American or Chinese is of no consequence.


I am not using force to train my dog to leave poison birds. She doesn't get to hunt much, and we are not real advanced, so I can't (yet) answer the part about "hunting" and "consistently." This is the way I learned to teach it from the Lardy TRT program.


----------



## shawninthesticks

Colonel Blimp;
And the appallingly bad manners of the dogs in the US are all too clearly reflected in their handlers who themselves are easily distinguished by their wobbly fat arses and waddling gait.
Eug[/QUOTE said:


> .
> 
> We have wobbly fat arses cause we still have our teeth at age 20..


----------



## Dooley

Yellow machine and Shawn White, grow up a little and keep the insults to yourselves, if you have nothing decent to write then don't bother.
This forum doesn't need that crap, looks bad for the forum.


----------



## Renee P.

Dooley said:


> Yellow machine and Shawn White, grow up a little and keep the insults to yourselves, if you have nothing decent to write then don't bother.
> This forum doesn't need that crap, looks bad for the forum.


They're called jokes, not insults. 

Maybe not good jokes but jokes none the less.;-)


----------



## Colonel Blimp

I took them as insults and replied in kind.

There are those internet heroes who hide venom behind a "joke", which is just as I saw it. The remark about bad manners still stands.

Ive expanded the discussion a little in a new thread which I hope will generate more light than heat from people with an informed opinion.

Eug


----------



## Good Dogs

"Also, please keep in mind, that the British do not hunt like we do."
WRL[/QUOTE]

Exactly. And they do not test or trial like we do. So yes the training methods and expectations are different. Not better. Different.


----------



## Dooley

Really? I would hate to read their worst jokes, to a lot of people reading these posts it comes across as insults.
Anyhow, let's get on with the topic at hand


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Dooley said:


> Yellow machine and Shawn White, grow up a little and keep the insults to yourselves, if you have nothing decent to write then don't bother.
> This forum doesn't need that crap, looks bad for the forum.


I think we all going to get bent out of shape over this.  Can't folks realize and recognize there is more than one way to train a dog????? I am not familiar, other than what Eug and Milner have posted, which looks pretty cool, how the Brits train to those hunting conditions, but each one of us and they too have a way or program to train by right or wrong to each one of us. We should all learn to respect that! IMHO You too Dooley!!!!

Thanks to Milner for posting all that information.


----------



## shawninthesticks

Colonel Blimp;
And the appallingly bad manners of the dogs in the US are all too clearly reflected in their handlers who themselves are easily distinguished by their wobbly fat arses and waddling gait.
Eug[/QUOTE said:


> Doodley ,you do not see this as insulting?


----------



## John Robinson

Shawn White said:


> Doodley ,you do not see this as insulting?


But Yellow Machine started it. I think Eug already admitted he was replying in anger.


----------



## hotel4dogs

ahem....I'll try this again....
does anyone know what kind of water retrieves you would see at a British field trial?


----------



## john fallon

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> I think we all going to get bent out of shape over this.  *Can't folks realize and recognize there is more than one way to train a dog????? *I am not familiar, other than what Eug and Milner have posted, which looks pretty cool, how the Brits train to those hunting conditions, but each one of us and they too have a way or program to train by right or wrong to each one of us. We should all learn to respect that! IMHO You too Dooley!!!!
> 
> Thanks to Milner for posting all that information.


Yes, of course there is more than one way to train a dog......... but, to train a dog to successfully compete at the upper level of the AKC FT spectrum the* logical *choices are very limited

john


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

john fallon said:


> Yes, of course there is more than one way to train a dog......... but, to train a dog to successfully compete at the upper level of the AKC FT spectrum the* logical *choices are very limited
> 
> john


Yes John and I understand but my point is we all need to learn to respect that others train there dogs different ways. Our way is not the only way!!!IMHO


----------



## john fallon

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Yes John and I understand but my point is we all need to learn to respect that others train there dogs different ways. Our way is not the only way!!!IMHO



If these threads are not including the training for the upper levels of AKC FT's I stand corrected.

If they are,.....there are logically few ways to train, and to do other wise is pure folly .

john


----------



## mlp

The way I look at it is, if you want to train your dog with a collar then go for it , If you want to train your dog without a collar then go for it. Just train your dog because an untrained dog ain't much count for hunting in my opinion


----------



## steve schreiner

john fallon said:


> Yes, of course there is more than one way to train a dog......... but, to train a dog to successfully compete at the upper level of the AKC FT spectrum the* logical *choices are very limited
> 
> john


I agree John ...To be the top dog or dogs in the US it takes a lot ...but ..not all want to be any where near the top...for many reasons...time, expense , family matters, ect....To just make it as a so called good meat dog for the so called average hunter , the dog does not have to be able to jump through all the hoops a competition dog has to....As Mary said " there are many ways to train a retriever" ...The work requirement is far different...even a master HT dog is far over trained for some hunters and their needs...Steve S


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

john fallon said:


> If these threads are not including the training for the upper levels of AKC FT's I stand corrected.
> 
> If they are,.....there are logically few ways to train, and to do other wise is pure folly .
> 
> john


But John even though you think that way to others there are other ways to train folly or not!!!IMO

John please clear some space so I can PM you. Thanks


----------



## leemac

steve schreiner said:


> I agree John ...To be the top dog or dogs in the US it takes a lot ...but ..not all want to be any where near the top...for many reasons...time, expense , family matters, ect....To just make it as a so called good meat dog for the so called average hunter , the dog does not have to be able to jump through all the hoops a competition dog has to....As Mary said " there are many ways to train a retriever" ...The work requirement is far different...even a master HT dog is far over trained for some hunters and their needs...Steve S


I would have liked to have replied earlier but here goes.

First off steve schreiner, this isn't a bash to you but more of a response from a former "meat dog" man who now wants to have the best retriever possible. 

Here's the scene.

Flooded rice as far as the eye can see. 100 acre zero grade field in front of the pit blind. 100 acre zero grade behind the blind, but there is a wide (for north east Arkansas) levee directly behind the blind. If 100 acres zero grade has a couple to three inches of water on it, it looks like a 100 acre pond.

Two ducks come in straight from in front of the blind at Mach 2. Both are easily in range before they are seen but because of there speed they are both passed the blind before they are shot. They are so close together when shot so the land only about five feet apart. The dog see's the birds shot but the actual fall is well beyond the last place either of us can see the birds. We have to get out of the blind and onto the levee to pick up these birds as blind retrieves. 

The left duck is stone dead with one wing standing straight up on the wind like a flag. The right bird is only a few feet away, with its head up slightly. My dog locks on the birds and I cue her up and let her go. She leaves the levee and launches into the field that has a deep ditch before you reach the inches deep expanse of running water beyond. As she crosses the ditch, the right bird drops its head and begins to scuttle off, trying to hide straight away from me and my dog. I quickly realize that we will have to pick up the cripple first if we will ever find it. I stop my dog short of the dead, flagging bird and give her a big verbal back away from it. She complies by taking the cast for three steps and then heading again for the left. A battle ensues. I get her within a few feet of the cripple but she is unsure because the obvious dead bird is behind her and the wind isn't in our favor. If I could go out and simplify I would. I lose her and we get only the dead bird.

To make a long story short, I've since starting training on poison birds for this reason. The pro that helped me showed me how to train on this without pressure, except for lack of effort in doing the task at hand which is taking the cast given, no matter the distraction. I asked earlier if dogs can be trained to do this at distance on a regular basis, with out force fetching, pressure, aversive, or even purely positive training methods I would be interested in these methods that sound a lot like how I trained before I learned of our modern Rex Carr based methods. I wasn't as successful before I was enlightened.


----------



## Rick Vaughan

_*Paul...it's very unfortunate that you'll never get to hunt with my two girls, I'm sure it would be an experience you would talk about even on your death bed. My take is, "Life is too short to hunt with an ugly dog"....both of my girls were force fetch trained at about 9 months old, and there were hours and days of force to the pile and it paid off... they are more that floor cleaners, lab cabs, pets, they climb in the bed with me every night...and they are gorgous...just real gorgous....*_


----------



## paul young

leemac said:


> Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?
> 
> British or American or Chinese is of no consequence.


I have owned 4, 2 of which I own, test and hunt with currently. Using force to teach poison bird skills is a bad idea, in my opinion. It should be broken down and trained in a drill format until it is thoroughly taught, then reinforced in a less controlled setting, which generalizes the behavior.-Paul


----------



## BenHuntin

I recently had the chance to hunt with a Brithish trained lab. The dog was trained at one of the top Kennels in the US that specialize in this type dog and system. All I can say is that I love the good ole USA training and breeding methods. When I am looking for a puppy and see "British or English" I keep looking.


----------



## Bartona500

*Mine does*



leemac said:


> Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?
> 
> British or American or Chinese is of no consequence.


My girl does. I'll try to video this setup tomorrow and post it on this thread, if it doesn't wind up getting locked by the time I can upload the link.

Mine would also handle the water situation mentioned. We train for this, and yes... We will walk out into the field and pick up the dog and put it back where it was before it refused a cast. Doesn't take them long to "get it."


----------



## Bob Barnett

There is a big difference in traditional British training and the positive reinforcement that Milner does.


----------



## Swack

Colonel Blimp said:


> And the appallingly bad manners of the dogs in the US are all too clearly reflected in their handlers who themselves are easily distinguished by their wobbly fat arses and waddling gait.
> 
> Eug


Eug,

I too was appalled at the bad manners of my fellow Americans. Many of the early posts on this thread were slamming the subject and wondering how many pages would be "wasted" on the topic. If they hadn't jumbled up the thread with their moaning we wouldn't have had so many pages half filled with worthless commentary. 

We should be able to discuss differences in our training methods and breeding selection criteria without resorting to insults. I think many American Lab lovers lack an understanding of the history of the breed and are unable to appreciate the ways in which our trials (and therefore our dogs and training methods) differ from one another. It is sad that ignorance is so pervasive in our country, but it appears to be a fact based on the recent elections.

Regarding the subject of humor, your jab was the only one at which I laughed out loud! It wouldn't be funny if it weren't TRUE! I value good canine manners and my own fitness. Maybe I'm just skinny enough to see the truth in your humor.

Regards and Support from across the pond.

Swack


----------



## steve schreiner

leemac said:


> I would have liked to have replied earlier but here goes.
> 
> First off steve schreiner, this isn't a bash to you but more of a response from a former "meat dog" man who now wants to have the best retriever possible.
> 
> Here's the scene.
> 
> Flooded rice as far as the eye can see. 100 acre zero grade field in front of the pit blind. 100 acre zero grade behind the blind, but there is a wide (for north east Arkansas) levee directly behind the blind. If 100 acres zero grade has a couple to three inches of water on it, it looks like a 100 acre pond.
> 
> Two ducks come in straight from in front of the blind at Mach 2. Both are easily in range before they are seen but because of there speed they are both passed the blind before they are shot. They are so close together when shot so the land only about five feet apart. The dog see's the birds shot but the actual fall is well beyond the last place either of us can see the birds. We have to get out of the blind and onto the levee to pick up these birds as blind retrieves.
> 
> The left duck is stone dead with one wing standing straight up on the wind like a flag. The right bird is only a few feet away, with its head up slightly. My dog locks on the birds and I cue her up and let her go. She leaves the levee and launches into the field that has a deep ditch before you reach the inches deep expanse of running water beyond. As she crosses the ditch, the right bird drops its head and begins to scuttle off, trying to hide straight away from me and my dog. I quickly realize that we will have to pick up the cripple first if we will ever find it. I stop my dog short of the dead, flagging bird and give her a big verbal back away from it. She complies by taking the cast for three steps and then heading again for the left. A battle ensues. I get her within a few feet of the cripple but she is unsure because the obvious dead bird is behind her and the wind isn't in our favor. If I could go out and simplify I would. I lose her and we get only the dead bird.
> 
> To make a long story short, I've since starting training on poison birds for this reason. The pro that helped me showed me how to train on this without pressure, except for lack of effort in doing the task at hand which is taking the cast given, no matter the distraction. I asked earlier if dogs can be trained to do this at distance on a regular basis, with out force fetching, pressure, aversive, or even purely positive training methods I would be interested in these methods that sound a lot like how I trained before I learned of our modern Rex Carr based methods. I wasn't as successful before I was enlightened.


If you want more out of your dog, go for it ...You must admit that hunting is different in the rice fields than in the flooded timber with a pool of only 50 yards across...I'm just saying hunters have different requirements of their dogs...and ht'ers vs ft'ers ....A timber hunter doesn't need 200 or 300 yard blind work ...What difference does it make if a dog does a 100 yard blind with 8 whistles or 2 ? Only in playing games does it matter...Robert Milner's book for the duck hunter has put out many dogs that worked just fine for hunters that didn't require extremely long or complicated work .... Just as John mentioned if you are going to be competitive at the FT game in this country you better use the best ( proven ) method of training dogs to that level ...A non force system ( reward only, no compulsion) will take longer and need more frequent reminders over the long haul to get the same or very similar results.. The Brits have different needs as mentioned earlier too...Their methods work for them and that is all that matters over there...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner

Swack said:


> Eug,
> 
> I too was appalled at the bad manners of my fellow Americans. Many of the early posts on this thread were slamming the subject and wondering how many pages would be "wasted" on the topic. If they hadn't jumbled up the thread with their moaning we wouldn't have had so many pages half filled with worthless commentary.
> 
> We should be able to discuss differences in our training methods and breeding selection criteria without resorting to insults. I think many American Lab lovers lack an understanding of the history of the breed and are unable to appreciate the ways in which our trials (and therefore our dogs and training methods) differ from one another. It is sad that ignorance is so pervasive in our country, but it appears to be a fact based on the recent elections.
> 
> *Regarding the subject of humor, your jab was the only one at which I laughed out loud! It wouldn't be funny if it weren't TRUE! I value good canine manners and my own fitness. Maybe I'm just skinny enough to see the truth in your humor.*
> 
> Regards and Support from across the pond.
> 
> Swack



Swack ...I guess I'm cut from very similar cloth as you ...I laughed too .....Steve S


----------



## BonMallari

leemac said:


> Has anyone out there seen a dog that would consistently handle a poison bird in a hunting situation that was trained without being force fetched, or without force to get the dog pasted the poison bird and on the the cripple that would be lost if it was not retrieved first?
> 
> British or American or Chinese is of no consequence.



Yes, got a trio of them in Idaho......

Here is a little exercise taught to me by the late Roy McFall...He would have me put a squawking banty rooster in a round cylindrical pen/cage...I would then walk/heel the dog past the banty on the way to setting a sight blind...the dog would inevitably take a look or even wind the bird, at which time I would tap the dog with a heeling stick and tell them "leave it"

Now I set the sight blind a good 75-100 yds past the rooster but to where the dog has to "shave the nose " of the rooster on the intended line...as we walk back to the line on the same exact line, I again remind the dog that the rooster is "off limits"

I will then run the sight blind...if the dog hangs up or sucks to the rooster we make a correction..sometimes the sequence will have to be repeated or even variations where a banty is thrown right off the line...the dog is told to leave it, and sent for the blind

and FTR ..We train without a collar and no FF..we do however teach a type of force hold, I do not use a stock prod, rat shot,or a slingshot...I do not use M&M's or treats (except for little parlor tricks)..I do not beat my dogs nor brutalize or abuse them..I will use a heeling stick, a short rope..I do not use force to make the dog go...I use the attraction of the bird/prize to pull the dog to its desired location...


----------



## crackerd

hotel4dogs said:


> ahem....I'll try this again....
> does anyone know what kind of water retrieves you would see at a British field trial?


A number between none and one. The one - "the" water retrieve - is a requirement at the IGL championships, the UK national held last month.

Weekend trials generally devoid of water work - sort of like (sorry, Eug) Aston Villa's goal differential this season...

From the KC "J" regs


> 10. Water Retrieves
> a. In Open and All Aged Stakes, *the water retrieve* is a blind retrieve from across water. If a dog returns by land, it should not be penalised for this unless it wastes time thereby.


MG


----------



## Colonel Blimp

> does anyone know what kind of water retrieves you would see at a British field trial?


As crackerd posted, very few. Even on ordinary shoot days there won't be many; just in the way that a lot of US sportsmen have developed their interest in duck hunting over decoys, so in UK the driven scene looms large. So the specialist retrievers in the US work in a lot of water, but in UK we have a heavy exposure to heavy numbers on land, and of course you can expect ground game. What you term upland and we call "rough shooting" are pretty much the same.

Two Fridays back I actually had six water retrieves on the bounce; all pheasants that had landed in a lake. By your standards they were pretty simple, nothing over 50 yards and only one blind. The following Wednesday I had to have the dog in question put down which was a real punch in the face. But still, as a Villa supporter you get used to disappointment.

MG ....it was "Eddie"one of the pair I had from Jeff, I've told him about it. As you know he had a really cruel trot with his dogs a couple of years back, but he's doing well with them now. Given up Trialling, and judging too, and seemingly happier for it.

Eug


----------



## kennel maiden

crackerd said:


> A number between none and one. The one - "the" water retrieve - is a requirement at the IGL championships, the UK national held last month.
> 
> Weekend trials generally devoid of water work - sort of like (sorry, Eug) Aston Villa's goal differential this season...
> 
> From the KC "J" regs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MG


No, the above is not true. UK retriever field trials may have water retrieves or they may not. The majority probably don't as we do a lot of walked up trialling here (particularly in the North and Midlands). And a water retrieve is NOT a requirement at the IGL Retriever Championships. We have a lot less water over here!!! Where the Championships were held last year for example, there was no water. This year we were lucky to have the fast flowing River Findhorn in Inverness to contend with, to provide some interesting retrieves crossing it.

Not sure what J Regs you have got now Crackered, but there is no stipulation that FTs have a blind retrieve across water at all for retrievers, although dogs are required to gain a water certificate to gain their FT Champion status...

So, in this respect, water work is not our major focus.

Summer working tests are much more likely to have water elements, across rivers, ponds etc, but nothing like the technical retrieves you see in your sport. However, dogs also have to cross many different types of obstacles (such as multiple fences, stone walls, gates, ditches, *****, going through hedge lines, woods, cover crops etc) and this requires just as much discipline from our dogs in holding their course and not deviating from the line. Dogs requiring a lot of handling and re-casting in the face of these obstacles would be penalised.


----------



## crackerd

km, ta for clarifying - my J regs may be outdated (couple years old). But "making the" or "making their" water retrieve (singular) has been a staple of all the IGL champs I've been attuned to, at least the last decade or so.

Eug, sorry to hear about Eddie - you did a'right by them two, bless you for it. Hope the squire of Chatston Gundogs resurfaces in the FT game with his sangfroid still "Always Look(ing) on the Bright Side of Life" - a gem, he is.

MG


----------



## kennel maiden

I think the water retrieve at the IGL sometimes is more a 'crowd pleaser' than anything else, if it happens!! Certainly didn't happen at Blankney 2009 and Nevill Holt 2011 among the recent ones. Let's face it, all our dogs can swim, so that is not really what we are 'testing'. There is more focus on game finding ability, marking, scenting, style and then working in-tune with the handler to seemingly pick the birds with ease...


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B

When I think of British Labs only one comes to mind for me. HRCH Ellie MH owned by Gulfcoast. A very nice a dog indeed regardless of her breeding.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Thanks for the replies about the water. Appreciate the info!


----------



## Mark Sehon

HRCH TTF Sehon's Renigade Zeke MH QAA. Not bad for British, Irish "FIELD" bred dog! USA training.


----------



## gdluck

john fallon said:


> Yes, of course there is more than one way to train a dog......... but, to train a dog to successfully compete at the upper level of the AKC FT spectrum the* logical *choices are very limited
> 
> john


And it will stay that way as long as people keep crushing anyone that wants to try to do differently. In order to improve you MUST try new things and sometimes revisit old ones. These attempts may fail 9 out of 10 times but the 1 success is a step forward.

The name of the site is RETRIEVERTRAINING. it is NOT CarrBasedRETRIEVERTRAINING, or ForceBasedRETRIEVERTRAINING, or ModernONLYTechniqueRETRIEVERTRAINING, or FieldTrialONLYRETRIEVERTRAINING. Maybe the name should be changed, but until then we are all here because we like training dogs, period. Who cares which way somebody wants to train their dog, it's their dog and they will have to live with the results, NOT YOU. Why don't we all just support whatever way somebody wants to train and take our collective knowledge to improve those ways. It may just increase our training toolbox and make everyone a more versatile trainer.


----------



## Rnd

Jonronamo said:


> Below is an article I found in Gun Dog magazine. I would like everyones thoughts on British Labs and British training methods that apparently "do not use force"?
> 
> Gun Dog Article:
> 
> There’s a new movement making British Style Field Trials popular again, along with the British strain of Labrador retriever. These Labs are largely born with the behavior of delivering retrieved objects to hand, making it unnecessary to force-fetch them. They are also bred to be calm companions as well as peak performers in the field, according to Robert Milner, who breeds British Labs at Duckhill Kennel. And from what I saw of his 5-week-old puppies to 5-year-old adults, it’s absolutely true.
> 
> The big attraction to these trials and British training methods, for me, was the lack of force training. No force to pile, force to water, force anything. For dogs bred to be highly trainable and good at hunting, like my golden, this philosophy says it’s not necessary to use force. It’s very believable after watching several British-trained dogs complete 175-yard blind retrieves through walls of 5-foot tall brush and woods, guided by whistle and hand signals, then stand at heel, steady as a rock, while they watch another dog work.



Is just me or did anybody else find it odd that someone would post a quote from a magazine and not credit the author??

Credit where credit is due 

RTF's own Jenifer Henion: http://www.gundogmag.com/2012/04/27/having-a-bash-british-style-fields-trials/


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Rnd said:


> Is just me or did anybody else find it odd that someone would post a quote from a magazine and not credit the author??
> 
> Credit where credit is due
> 
> RTF's own Jenifer Henion: http://www.gundogmag.com/2012/04/27/having-a-bash-british-style-fields-trials/


RND Thanks for sharing.
Jennifer good for you and going over and seeing first hand. Very interesting.


----------



## Becky Mills

Excellent writing, Jennifer. Very interesting.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Thanks for the compliments. That made my day!

Will say however, that I wrote that a year ago, though it wasn't published til much later. Since then I've purchase and raised an American bred field dog who has proven to be born with the same traits I spoke of in the article. Natural delivery to hand at 7 weeks (even pigeons) and extremely trainable. 

Also have learned a lot about force training in the last year and know that it is not what I first thought it to be when I wrote that article. 

This thread has been a neat discussion. So glad to see the openness and civil back and forth!

Jen


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Civil? Interesting. Guess is just depends on who posts the insults...

/Paul


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> ....Jennifer good for you and going over and seeing first hand. Very interesting.


Over? 
Tennessee is a foreign country?


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Civil? Interesting. Guess is just depends on who posts the insults...
> 
> /Paul


Right, I forgot parts weren't so civil. But it seemed to end well.

And yes, Tennessee may be considered a foreign country compared to California!

But I can say that cause I grew up there - TN that is, swimmin pools, but no movie stars.


----------



## Renee P.

gdluck said:


> And it will stay that way as long as people keep crushing *anyone* that wants to try to do differently. In order to improve you MUST try new things and sometimes revisit old ones. These attempts may fail 9 out of 10 times but the 1 success is a step forward.
> 
> The name of the site is RETRIEVERTRAINING. it is NOT CarrBasedRETRIEVERTRAINING, or ForceBasedRETRIEVERTRAINING, or ModernONLYTechniqueRETRIEVERTRAINING, or FieldTrialONLYRETRIEVERTRAINING. Maybe the name should be changed, but until then we are all here because we like training dogs, period. Who cares which way somebody wants to train their dog, it's their dog and they will have to live with the results, NOT YOU. Why don't we all just support whatever way somebody wants to train and take our collective knowledge to improve those ways. It may just increase our training toolbox and make everyone a more versatile trainer.


I think you hit the nail on the head when with the word "anyone."

The pom poms over the R+ stuff and clickers is coming mostly from RTF newbs about newbs. It just seems naive to me. And at what point does clicker training quit being new? Here I am being naive, I just assumed that everyone taught basic stuff using marker training. Again, color me naive, but my lab from FT lines delivered to hand (not sure what this means though), was tractable and bidable...I assume most are. The people I train with rarely press the buttons on their ecollars. 

I am also highly skeptical that anyone can develop a "new" training program to build a competitive field trial retrievers by training a single dog or patting each other on the back on the internet for trying. The successful trainers who have developed programs for the masses have experience training many dogs to be competitive in all age stakes. Should the lone trainer be so lucky and talented to produce a FC using the "new" method we will need to try it on several more retrievers to see if it generalizable, so we are talking about not knowing the results for many years. 

What we need is someone who already knows what the end product is supposed to look like doing the experiments. Otherwise it is like my husband in the kitchen, wondering why the first cake he ever baked didn't turn out after he undermixed the batter.


----------



## Becky Mills

Ken Bora said:


> Over?
> Tennessee is a foreign country?


Ken, TN is a llooooonnnnnggggg over from CA. As opposed to a back.


----------



## Erik Vigeland

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> British labs make great pets, companion dogs, floor cleaners, cab labs, etc. I've only seen a couple I'd ever want to hunt with...just my preference in dogs...
> 
> /Paul



Why? Just curious...


----------



## Dave Flint

mitty said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head when with the word "anyone."
> 
> The pom poms over the R+ stuff and clickers is coming mostly from RTF newbs about newbs. It just seems naive to me. And at what point does clicker training quit being new? Here I am being naive, I just assumed that everyone taught basic stuff using marker training. Again, color me naive, but my lab from FT lines delivered to hand (not sure what this means though), was tractable and bidable...I assume most are. The people I train with rarely press the buttons on their ecollars.
> 
> I am also highly skeptical that anyone can develop a "new" training program to build a competitive field trial retrievers by training a single dog or patting each other on the back on the internet for trying. The successful trainers who have developed programs for the masses have experience training many dogs to be competitive in all age stakes. Should the lone trainer be so lucky and talented to produce a FC using the "new" method we will need to try it on several more retrievers to see if it generalizable, so we are talking about not knowing the results for many years.
> 
> What we need is someone who already knows what the end product is supposed to look like doing the experiments. Otherwise it is like my husband in the kitchen, wondering why the first cake he ever baked didn't turn out after he undermixed the batter.


Great points. I am bemused when I hear Operant Conditioning described as “new” & “innovative”. 
Marcus Terentius Varro (116 BC – 27 BC), also known as Varro Reatinus, wrote about sheepdogs, “Whoever wishes to be followed by a dog should throw him a cooked frog.'"


----------



## sixpacklabs

mitty said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head when with the word "anyone."
> 
> The pom poms over the R+ stuff and clickers is coming mostly from RTF newbs about newbs. It just seems naive to me. And at what point does clicker training quit being new? Here I am being naive, I just assumed that everyone taught basic stuff using marker training. Again, color me naive, but my lab from FT lines delivered to hand (not sure what this means though), was tractable and bidable...I assume most are. The people I train with rarely press the buttons on their ecollars.
> 
> I am also highly skeptical that anyone can develop a "new" training program to build a competitive field trial retrievers by training a single dog or patting each other on the back on the internet for trying. The successful trainers who have developed programs for the masses have experience training many dogs to be competitive in all age stakes. Should the lone trainer be so lucky and talented to produce a FC using the "new" method we will need to try it on several more retrievers to see if it generalizable, so we are talking about not knowing the results for many years.
> 
> What we need is someone who already knows what the end product is supposed to look like doing the experiments. Otherwise it is like my husband in the kitchen, wondering why the first cake he ever baked didn't turn out after he undermixed the batter.


I agree with most of what you say except the part about assuming everyone teaches basic stuff using marker training. Can you give a specific example of where Hillmann or Lardy uses a marker in their basics program? I have their DVDs and Lardy's articles, and I've not seen one word about markers. Marking yes, markers no. ;-) I will say that in Hillmann's fetch DVD, he says "good" at the moment the dog gets the bumper in its mouth. That could be construed as a marker, if he's properly conditioned it as a marker beforehand. However, in his soft collar DVD, he says something to the effect that you pop a bit of food in the dog's mouth and say "good" while it's eating it. That's not how you condition a marker. The marker comes first, then the food. It's classical conditioning. The marker has to precede the reinforcement. If you say "good" after you feed the dog, that's backwards conditioning, and there's plenty of published research that shows that backwards conditioning doesn't work. 

You're right that marker training isn't new, when all dog sports are considered, but the people that employ it seem to be in the minority in the retriever training community. At least that's been my experience. There's also a big difference between just using a marker and using a marker really effectively. Also, even if you use a marker, it's hardly the only tool in the toolbox...at least in mine. Markers are great tools for some behaviors at some points in the training of those behaviors. I love using markers with young pups because it clarifies communication and accelerates learning. But once the basics are in place, I find little use for markers unless it's teaching stupid pet tricks to give my pups a mental workout during the long nights of winter. We are all easily amused...


----------



## Evan

mitty said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head when with the word "anyone."
> 
> The people I train with rarely press the buttons on their ecollars.


You make a great point, one too often missed in these all too frequent discussions. After Basics and a bit of transition many of us back way off e-collar usage. I think many also falsely assume that so-called "collar trainers" use them on routinely high settings. It still seems there are more false notions about them than correct ones. 

Evan


----------



## RetrieversONLINE

mitty said:


> The pom poms over the R+ stuff and clickers is coming mostly from RTF newbs about newbs. It just seems naive to me. And at what point does clicker training quit being new? Here I am being naive, I just assumed that everyone taught basic stuff using marker training. Again, color me naive, but my lab from FT lines delivered to hand (not sure what this means though), was tractable and bidable...I assume most are. The people I train with rarely press the buttons on their ecollars.
> I am also highly skeptical that anyone can develop a "new" training program to build a competitive field trial retrievers by training a single dog or patting each other on the back on the internet for trying. The successful trainers who have developed programs for the masses have experience training many dogs to be competitive in all age stakes. Should the lone trainer be so lucky and talented to produce a FC using the "new" method we will need to try it on several more retrievers to see if it generalizable, so we are talking about not knowing the results for many years.
> 
> What we need is someone who already knows what the end product is supposed to look like doing the experiments. Otherwise it is like my husband in the kitchen, wondering why the first cake he ever baked didn't turn out after he undermixed the batter.



Nice Post!!

Some pretty perceptive statements ( and you call yourself a "newbie"! ).

I especially like the sentences I under-lined above.

Cheers,


----------



## Keith Stroyan

Dave Flint said:


> “Whoever wishes to be followed by a dog should throw him a cooked frog.'"


Oh great. Bumpers, stickmen, bumper boys, wingers, eCollars, dog boxes, land, clickers. Now I have to get frogs and cook them? Where do I buy them this time of year... ;-)


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Becky Mills said:


> Ken, TN is a llooooonnnnnggggg over from CA. As opposed to a back.


Both are a long ways from me but I meant good for her for checking things out over in Tennessee


----------



## firehouselabs

Keith Stroyan said:


> Oh great. Bumpers, stickmen, bumper boys, wingers, eCollars, dog boxes, land, clickers. Now I have to get frogs and cook them? Where do I buy them this time of year... ;-)



Tennessee?


----------



## KNorman

If you've been around long enough, you will have seen countless individuals (newbs) come onto these forums and proclaim they're going to do it "their way" inspite of advice from the old-timers who have already been there / done that.

If someone wants to beat their head against the wall while telling the old-timers they're going to build a better moustrap, it makes no difference to me. 

Make no mistake, I applaud the effort...but lots of us have tried that already and watched a hundred others try, so hopefully the skepticism can be understood.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Erik Vigeland said:


> Why? Just curious...


Labs are great dogs. Never really met one I couldn't or wouldn't live with. Hunting is another story. Upland hunting for me is a a dog working out and away from me, comes from my love of pointers. I like big ranging, hard running dogs. Most British or show labs i've been with just don't hunt hard enough for me. When it comes to duck hunting same thing. They're great sitting in the blind eating my lunch, but when it comes to charging water and getting the bird fast, not so much. Just a preference on the type of style I like.

/Paul


----------



## Erik Vigeland

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Labs are great dogs. Never really met one I couldn't or wouldn't live with. Hunting is another story. Upland hunting for me is a a dog working out and away from me, comes from my love of pointers. I like big ranging, hard running dogs. Most British or show labs i've been with just don't hunt hard enough for me. When it comes to duck hunting same thing. They're great sitting in the blind eating my lunch, but when it comes to charging water and getting the bird fast, not so much. Just a preference on the type of style I like.
> 
> /Paul


I think there's a difference between show labs and British labs. Or at least a misconception. If you have time, check out www.oldoakretrievers.com. This is where I got my pup from, and they definitely are not show labs, but they are British labs. I could brag all day about my pup, but I won't. I'll just say he does everything you mentioned above.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Erik Vigeland said:


> I think there's a difference between show labs and British labs. Or at least a misconception. If you have time, check out www.oldoakretrievers.com. This is where I got my pup from, and they definitely are not show labs, but they are British labs. I could brag all day about my pup, but I won't. I'll just say he does everything you mentioned above.


I fully agree there is a difference, however in the 20 or 30 that i've trained of those two particular line of dogs i've seen a lot of similarities. the difference being perhaps bird drive stronger in the british lines. While some of them turned out to be good gundogs for their owners they just don't have the fire I personally like in my dogs. All comes down to personal preference perhaps...

/Paul


----------



## Erik Vigeland

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I fully agree there is a difference, however in the 20 or 30 that i've trained of those two particular line of dogs i've seen a lot of similarities. the difference being perhaps bird drive stronger in the british lines. While some of them turned out to be good gundogs for their owners they just don't have the fire I personally like in my dogs. All comes down to personal preference perhaps...
> 
> /Paul


Fair enough!


----------



## Renee P.

sixpacklabs said:


> I agree with most of what you say except the part about assuming everyone teaches basic stuff using marker training. Can you give a specific example of where Hillmann or Lardy uses a marker in their basics program? I have their DVDs and Lardy's articles, and I've not seen one word about markers. Marking yes, markers no. ;-) I will say that in Hillmann's fetch DVD, he says "good" at the moment the dog gets the bumper in its mouth. That could be construed as a marker, if he's properly conditioned it as a marker beforehand. However, in his soft collar DVD, he says something to the effect that you pop a bit of food in the dog's mouth and say "good" while it's eating it. That's not how you condition a marker. The marker comes first, then the food. It's classical conditioning. The marker has to precede the reinforcement. If you say "good" after you feed the dog, that's backwards conditioning, and there's plenty of published research that shows that backwards conditioning doesn't work.
> 
> You're right that marker training isn't new, when all dog sports are considered, but the people that employ it seem to be in the minority in the retriever training community. At least that's been my experience. There's also a big difference between just using a marker and using a marker really effectively. Also, even if you use a marker, it's hardly the only tool in the toolbox...at least in mine. Markers are great tools for some behaviors at some points in the training of those behaviors. I love using markers with young pups because it clarifies communication and accelerates learning. But once the basics are in place, I find little use for markers unless it's teaching stupid pet tricks to give my pups a mental workout during the long nights of winter. We are all easily amused...


Not basic_s_, sixpack, basic stuff like sit, here, kennel, down---the baby puppy stuff you teach well before pup even starts basic_s_, as well as pet citizenship. But I see that there are books about using it in gundog training that were published in 2006 and George Hickox I think was using it by then as well so a few have embraced the concept for many years now. I only started learning about retriever training less than 2 years ago so I haven't seen a lot, but I saw the clicker stuff at Petsmart nearly 10 years ago, learned more about it through Leerburg Kennels materials beginning maybe 5 years ago. And yes I taught my older pet dog some cute parlor tricks using marker training learned from Petsmart but that's about as good as we got at it!


----------



## sick lids

And now the brits want to come dump our tea? I'll have no part of it thank you.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

mitty said:


> Not basic_s_, sixpack, basic stuff like sit, here, kennel, down---the baby puppy stuff you teach well before pup even starts basic_s_, as well as pet citizenship. But I see that there are books about using it in gundog training that were published in 2006 and George Hickox I think was using it by then as well so a few have embraced the concept for many years now. I only started learning about retriever training less than 2 years ago so I haven't seen a lot, but I saw the clicker stuff at Petsmart nearly 10 years ago, learned more about it through Leerburg Kennels materials beginning maybe 5 years ago. And yes I taught my older pet dog some cute parlor tricks using marker training learned from Petsmart but that's about as good as we got at it!


It's a little bit more than baby puppy stuff and parlor tricks. Petsmart clicker training 10 years ago is not something to base an opinion on about current clicker training methods for retriever training. That would be like me basing my opinion on current ladies fashions on Kmart's latest offerings. 

It's the same with ecollar training. You can buy one at Bass Pro Shop and read the brochure that comes with it and strap it on a dog and start training - that's not going to amount to much, either. That's not ecollar training ala Lardy or Dennis. 

If you want to have a good discussion about clicker training or ecollar training, come to the table with a little more than parlor tricks and Petsmart, or Bass Pro and burn.

One reason I posted the thread on Lindsay getting 5 Qual Jams in one year is that it helps show that clicker training and R+ can achieve more than baby puppy training and parlor tricks. Not sure if you've competed at a Qualifying stake - I haven't - but I have an understanding of how challenging they are for any first time Am trainer of any training method. By the way, Lindsay wrote and said his dog Laddie got his first Qual Jam at age 3. Lindsay's life is not all about Field Trials, so it took until this year to get the other competitions under his belt. 

I'm not trying to convince all newbies of anything as you intimated earlier. The tried and true methods are great! That's why I'm a giant fan of the Lardy DVDs and articles and am following them - with my own clicker and R+ twists and minus the compulsion force to pile stuff. It just is what is right for my hobby and my dog. 

The cool thing is if I can come on RTF when things get complicated and say "how are you guys doing this and can you help me problem solve". I don't think we all need to be doing the exact same things the exact same way to do that - or to learn from each other. 

Your posts seem to indicate that all of the knowledge about Retriever training is already known and tried and nothing new or different can possibly pan out, cause it hasn't been proved yet. I don't think that's true about any field. If innovation stops happening in anything worthwhile, we're in trouble.


----------



## Renee P.

Jennifer Henion said:


> It's a little bit more than baby puppy stuff and parlor tricks. Petsmart clicker training 10 years ago is not something to base an opinion on about current clicker training methods for retriever training. That would be like me basing my opinion on current ladies fashions on Kmart's latest offerings.
> 
> It's the same with ecollar training. You can buy one at Bass Pro Shop and read the brochure that comes with it and strap it on a dog and start training - that's not going to amount to much, either. That's not ecollar training ala Lardy or Dennis.
> 
> If you want to have a good discussion about clicker training or ecollar training, come to the table with a little more than parlor tricks and Petsmart, or Bass Pro and burn.
> 
> One reason I posted the thread on Lindsay getting 5 Qual Jams in one year is that it helps show that clicker training and R+ can achieve more than baby puppy training and parlor tricks. Not sure if you've competed at a Qualifying stake - I haven't - but I have an understanding of how challenging they are for any first time Am trainer of any training method. By the way, Lindsay wrote and said his dog Laddie got his first Qual Jam at age 3. Lindsay's life is not all about Field Trials, so it took until this year to get the other competitions under his belt.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince all newbies of anything as you intimated earlier. The tried and true methods are great! That's why I'm a giant fan of the Lardy DVDs and articles and am following them - with my own clicker and R+ twists and minus the compulsion force to pile stuff. It just is what is right for my hobby and my dog.
> 
> The cool thing is if I can come on RTF when things get complicated and say "how are you guys doing this and can you help me problem solve". I don't think we all need to be doing the exact same things the exact same way to do that - or to learn from each other.
> 
> Your posts seem to indicate that all of the knowledge about Retriever training is already known and tried and nothing new or different can possibly pan out, cause it hasn't been proved yet. I don't think that's true about any field. If innovation stops happening in anything worthwhile, we're in trouble.


Wow Jennifer, My comment about Petsmart was about my unsatisfactory Petsmart experience, not you. I did not even mention you in the post! I was responding to someone else!!!


----------



## Jennifer Henion

I have respect for you, Renee, I just felt the need to respond to the statements you made in your earlier post, number 82.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

mitty said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head when with the word "anyone."
> 
> The pom poms over the R+ stuff and clickers is coming mostly from RTF newbs about newbs. It just seems naive to me. And at what point does clicker training quit being new? Here I am being naive, I just assumed that everyone taught basic stuff using marker training. Again, color me naive, but my lab from FT lines delivered to hand (not sure what this means though), was tractable and bidable...I assume most are. The people I train with rarely press the buttons on their ecollars.
> 
> I am also highly skeptical that anyone can develop a "new" training program to build a competitive field trial retrievers by training a single dog or patting each other on the back on the internet for trying. The successful trainers who have developed programs for the masses have experience training many dogs to be competitive in all age stakes. Should the lone trainer be so lucky and talented to produce a FC using the "new" method we will need to try it on several more retrievers to see if it generalizable, so we are talking about not knowing the results for many years.
> 
> *What we need is someone who already knows what the end product is supposed to look like doing the experiments. * Otherwise it is like my husband in the kitchen, wondering why the first cake he ever baked didn't turn out after he undermixed the batter.


I bolded the sentence to say:
What we would need is a M. Lardy, Hillman or Stawski testing it out!! 
And the chance of this happening is...


----------



## john fallon

Jennifer Henion said:


> It's a little bit more than baby puppy stuff and parlor tricks. Petsmart clicker training 10 years ago is not something to base an opinion on about current clicker training methods for retriever training. That would be like me basing my opinion on current ladies fashions on Kmart's latest offerings.
> 
> It's the same with ecollar training. You can buy one at Bass Pro Shop and read the brochure that comes with it and strap it on a dog and start training - that's not going to amount to much, either. That's not ecollar training ala Lardy or Dennis.
> 
> If you want to have a good discussion about clicker training or ecollar training, come to the table with a little more than parlor tricks and Petsmart, or Bass Pro and burn.
> 
> One reason I posted the thread on Lindsay getting 5 Qual Jams in one year is that it helps show that clicker training and R+ can achieve more than baby puppy training and parlor tricks. Not sure if you've competed at a Qualifying stake - I haven't - but I have an understanding of how challenging they are for any first time Am trainer of any training method. By the way, Lindsay wrote and said his dog Laddie got his first Qual Jam at age 3. Lindsay's life is not all about Field Trials, so it took until this year to get the other competitions under his belt.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince all newbies of anything as you intimated earlier. The tried and true methods are great! That's why I'm a giant fan of the Lardy DVDs and articles and am following them - with my own clicker and R+ twists and minus the compulsion force to pile stuff. It just is what is right for my hobby and my dog.
> 
> The cool thing is if I can come on RTF when things get complicated and say "how are you guys doing this and can you help me problem solve". I don't think we all need to be doing the exact same things the exact same way to do that - or to learn from each other.
> 
> Your posts seem to indicate that all of the knowledge about Retriever training is already known and tried and nothing new or different can possibly pan out, cause it hasn't been proved yet. I don't think that's true about any field. If innovation stops happening in anything worthwhile, we're in trouble.


We corresponded about this dog a while back.........don't you remember ?

BTW Did it ever occur to you that the dog may have gotten the JAMs in spite of this type of training and not *because* of it ?

john


----------



## hotel4dogs

There is also a huge difference between an amateur with one (or two or three) dogs, and a pro who must produce certain results within a certain time frame or risk losing his reputation and means of making a living.
While I don't dispute that dogs can be trained by various means, sometimes for people who make a living training dogs they are under tremendous pressure to get the dog ready for (fill in the blank....hunting pheasants by the time he's 12 months old, hunt tests at 1 year old, field trials while he's young enough for derby, whatever) and some means are just faster than others are. An amateur has the luxury of taking all the time they need to accomplish their goals, with just one or two dogs typically.


----------



## yellow machine

Yes yes yes



hotel4dogs said:


> there is also a huge difference between an amateur with one (or two or three) dogs, and a pro who must produce certain results within a certain time frame or risk losing his reputation and means of making a living.
> While i don't dispute that dogs can be trained by various means, sometimes for people who make a living training dogs they are under tremendous pressure to get the dog ready for (fill in the blank....hunting pheasants by the time he's 12 months old, hunt tests at 1 year old, field trials while he's young enough for derby, whatever) and some means are just faster than others are. An amateur has the luxury of taking all the time they need to accomplish their goals, with just one or two dogs typically.


----------



## gdgnyc

I think that many trainers are guilty of being underinformed. People criticize the ecollar without knowing anything about it. Others criticize marker training without knowing anything about it. And others criticize Amish style training without even knowing many of the techniques that have vanished from the scene.

Examples of the above:

1) No, I don't follow a system, I just kind of use my own system of using the ecollar.
2) I just say yes. The dog knows what it means, no need to condition it.
3) That dog did ............... (fill in the blank). When he gets back to you, pick him up off all fours and shake him up. Teach that SOB a lesson.
4) Well the dog did it right yesterday when I taught him. I'm sure he knows how to do it right.


----------



## Renee P.

Ok here's a video of a guy teaching a baby puppy using a clicker. It was uploaded 3 years ago. With all the advances in clicker training, how should we be doing it differently? Better yet, show us:


----------



## DarrinGreene

rmilner said:


> Much of the (British) training is based on compulsion, but the application is much softer.


I hate pulling out only one line of a post but this is VERY relevant to any real discussion of the topic.


----------



## WRL

Jennifer Henion said:


> It's a little bit more than baby puppy stuff and parlor tricks. Petsmart clicker training 10 years ago is not something to base an opinion on about current clicker training methods for retriever training. That would be like me basing my opinion on current ladies fashions on Kmart's latest offerings.
> 
> It's the same with ecollar training. You can buy one at Bass Pro Shop and read the brochure that comes with it and strap it on a dog and start training - that's not going to amount to much, either. That's not ecollar training ala Lardy or Dennis.
> 
> If you want to have a good discussion about clicker training or ecollar training, come to the table with a little more than parlor tricks and Petsmart, or Bass Pro and burn.
> 
> One reason I posted the thread on Lindsay getting 5 Qual Jams in one year is that it helps show that clicker training and R+ can achieve more than baby puppy training and parlor tricks. Not sure if you've competed at a Qualifying stake - I haven't - but I have an understanding of how challenging they are for any first time Am trainer of any training method. By the way, Lindsay wrote and said his dog Laddie got his first Qual Jam at age 3. Lindsay's life is not all about Field Trials, so it took until this year to get the other competitions under his belt.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince all newbies of anything as you intimated earlier. The tried and true methods are great! That's why I'm a giant fan of the Lardy DVDs and articles and am following them - with my own clicker and R+ twists and minus the compulsion force to pile stuff. It just is what is right for my hobby and my dog.
> 
> The cool thing is if I can come on RTF when things get complicated and say "how are you guys doing this and can you help me problem solve". I don't think we all need to be doing the exact same things the exact same way to do that - or to learn from each other.
> 
> Your posts seem to indicate that all of the knowledge about Retriever training is already known and tried and nothing new or different can possibly pan out, cause it hasn't been proved yet. I don't think that's true about any field. If innovation stops happening in anything worthwhile, we're in trouble.


And the Amish still get to the grocery store in the horse and buggy......while I choose to drive my truck. 

Do you want to drive cross country to the east coast with me in my truck or with the Amish guy in his horse and buggy?

Because the Amish guy wants to use his horse and buggy should he get "extra" points? Or is that his choice and should he be compared to anyone who chooses to drive their truck because that is their choice?

While I applaud anyone with their first dog getting the guts to run FTs and to finish is great in any stake....truly an accomplishment. But their methods and their goals are not the methods and goals of others. 

Nobody with a truck is going to willing go back to the horse and buggy.

WRL


----------



## Happy Gilmore

Saw an ad for a new tv program. Amish Mafia. Made me think of the the chocolate dog guys without e-collars.


----------



## Renee P.

Here's another video that has a lot of footage of teaching retrieve/hold/fetch etc. Kinda cool but 3 years old. How would you do teach this differently with the newer methods?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

mitty said:


> Ok here's a video of a guy teaching a baby puppy using a clicker. It was uploaded 3 years ago. With all the advances in clicker training, how should we be doing it differently? Better yet, show us:


Renee

I would also use the word "good" and "yes" with the clicker because the clicker is not heard that far out when you start to work in the field with the dog. And food may detract the dog from his up close teaching and work. Good while he is a pup but you don't want him dropping the bird for food. IMHO 
I do target teach on my dogs as pups because in agility there are contact points the dog must touch (seesaw, walkit and A frame). 

I am just not sure clicker's value for long blinds etc in Ft unless you do mega association work up close work with the clicker and the pager on your collar then???Just thinking out loud! Maybe I shouldn't!!!! Any body else have ideas how that would work.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

mitty said:


> Ok here's a video of a guy teaching a baby puppy using a clicker. It was uploaded 3 years ago. With all the advances in clicker training, how should we be doing it differently? Better yet, show us:
> 
> Renee, we are not communicating on the same wavelength. In clicker training a baby puppy, not much is new. Clicker training itself is not new. How you apply clicker training to teach skills in field dog work are a bit new. Using the platform is not new. Using it in clicker training (magnetizing dog to platform with clicker training) to teach precise positions and go-outs is kinda new (2-4 yrs) Using a platform to teach the concept of go out and sit facing me when I blow the whistle (whistle sit) is kinda new - at least to me, just came up with it in the last 2 months. Building on that and using the platform Pairing the whistle sit with casting is a little new, at least to me.
> 
> Pat Nolan has done an amazing job of melding both clicker/marker training with force training, from the few videos I've seen and word from others. His stuff is new, cause he invented the ways of applying the techniques for teaching certain skills and concepts.
> 
> Same for ecollars. You started a thread about history of the ecollar and how it evolved and how trainers have used it in new and improved ways. Same thing in my view.


----------



## gdgnyc

mitty said:


> Ok here's a video of a guy teaching a baby puppy using a clicker. It was uploaded 3 years ago. With all the advances in clicker training, how should we be doing it differently? Better yet, show us:


First of all, I like this video. Those not familiar with the technique: the trainer is using hand targeting (useful for clicker trainers), and is conditioning the clicker to mean "reward" i.e you have earned a reward (not necesarily a treat but that is for another discussion), not exactly the same thing as "you did it right" in my opinion.

OK, mitty I think your comment is for me. I will be taking some heat from clicker trainers for my point of view but I still "power up" the clicker each time before I use it. I very clearly heard the trainer in the video say "probably after 30 or 50 of those". As you notice, he does not power up the clicker before use, he goes right into training and the secondary reinforcer (clicker) is conditioned on the go. Someone watching this never gets the idea that the clicker needs to be powered up (Pavlovian conditioning). Almost none of the clicker training videos on Youtube that I have looked at start with powering up the clicker. I like to start off with powering up. After that the click becomes useful as a marker immediately. Also, I power up my clicker in a slightly different way than I have seen most people do. Maybe on the video, my videos only go to certain people. I have to add that clicker training is new for me (about three years in use) but learning theory is not. In college we called operant conditioning "instrumental learning". 

I might add that I do not exclude other methods of training.


----------



## DarrinGreene

There hasn't been anything "new" about clicker training since Pavlov proved the theory. The "new" things are techniques for inducing the dog to perform the target behavior. Advancement's in "clicker training" could just as easily be applied to -r training. They are advances in training technique, not advances in learning theory.

Sorry folks but Karen Pryor and company didn't invent it. Pavlov and Skinner did. Well actually, mother nature did. Pavlov and Skinner just figured out the puzzle.


----------



## O.clarki

no force??

I am to lazy to read through and see if this was brought up.. I say no such thing as no force. When you push your puppies butt down and say sit - that is force. When you tell him to stay, heel or here and are using a lead to get compliance you are applying force. Force is more then FF and cc. it is incorporated into the most basic OB at a young age.


----------



## jeff evans

What do you all suppose was the original intent of the "atta boy tone" on the tri-tronics collars?


----------



## gdgnyc

jeff evans said:


> What do you all suppose was the original intent of the "atta boy tone" on the tri-tronics collars?


Unfamiliar to me. What is it?


----------



## sixpacklabs

mitty said:


> Ok here's a video of a guy teaching a baby puppy using a clicker. It was uploaded 3 years ago. With all the advances in clicker training, how should we be doing it differently? Better yet, show us:


I think we've already established that marker training is neither new nor revolutionary, so I think you're kinda flogging a dead horse here.

That said, the fellow in your video could be doing a lot of things differently. Not because there has been a revolution in clicker training, but because he's doing so many things so poorly.

Just a few examples:
1. He's picked a really poor training environment to introduce the clicker. The dog is distracted and not really engaged with him. 
2. If I'm training a dog with food, I would never teach it that seeing food in my hand means it will get it. Quite the opposite. 
3. His timing is all wrong. When you condition the clicker, you click and then feed. It's classical conditioning. The click must precede the reinforcement. The point is that the click predicts reinforcement. He shows the food before he clicks. That is backwards conditioning. In at least some of the reps, the puppy appears to be eating the food as he is clicking. That is simultaneous conditioning. Neither backwards or simultaneous conditioning is effective for classical conditioning. You want the dog to learn that the click predicts reinforcement, and that it is being reinforced for the behavior it was doing at the instant it heard the click. But the click must come before the reinforcement!
4. He appears to be lumping behaviors, a recall with a hand touch. Good marker training involves splitting a behavior into simpler elements making it easier for the dog to learn. As Bob Bailey says, "Be a splitter, not a lumper." 

My guess is what the puppy really learned in this session, if it learned anything, is about luring. It learned to come to a hand with food in it. I seriously doubt it learned anything about the clicker. I certainly see no evidence that the sound means anything to the pup. Typically, when a pup has learned that the click predicts reinforcement, you will see some sort of reaction when the pup hears the click...it might tip its head or turn toward you in anticipation of the reinforcement, for example. 

I imagine that all of us who've ever trained with a marker have done things wrong. Some of us get better because we study and practice. Some give up. They fail not because it's a poor method, but because their application of the method is poor. You could say similar things about the e-collar. Some people create problems through the use of the collar. Not because the collar is a poor tool, but because their application of the tool is poor. 

If folks want to learn how to use a marker properly, there are lots of great resources....Karen Pryor, Michael Ellis, Kathy Sdao, Ken Ramirez, Bob Bailey, Morten Egtvedt and Cecilie Koeste, just to name a few.


----------



## RedDog

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Renee
> 
> I would also use the word "good" and "yes" with the clicker because the clicker is not heard that far out when you start to work in the field with the dog. And food may detract the dog from his up close teaching and work. Good while he is a pup but you don't want him dropping the bird for food. IMHO
> I do target teach on my dogs as pups because in agility there are contact points the dog must touch (seesaw, walkit and A frame).
> 
> I am just not sure clicker's value for long blinds etc in Ft unless you do mega association work up close work with the clicker and the pager on your collar then???Just thinking out loud! Maybe I shouldn't!!!! Any body else have ideas how that would work.



Lots of ideas. Some things I've tried with my own dog, some things I've done with a number of dogs. (and to get it over with, yes I'm a beginner, no we haven't competed yet)

My dogs learn to retrieve with food. They learn to retrieve while I'm offering food and while others are. They learn to retrieve and hold while I tempt them with food or toss food. They learn to retrieve a dumbbell/bumper/bird that is surrounded by food. If I thought using food would make my retrieve weaker or cause problems.... all the more reason to practice in those scenarios. 

Long blinds: Clickers/markers may not provide more help or information there, depending on how the behavior is taught. I don't use a marker for this, not because of the distances involved, but because it doesn't add anything. My dog is reinforced in training with a well placed toy or bumper or with a toy tossed by a hidden training buddy or a ball from a remote ball launcher. If I can make my reward appear ahead of my dog, a marker doesn't add much. When DO I use a marker on blinds? If we're working on the concept of "stay on the line despite X factor". When my dog makes the right move at that point, mark and toss ahead. Dog was making a choice to do the hard thing or go the easier/unconscious route....and that is a moment where I specifically want to relay it's the right choice.

Pager/noise/something from collar as a marker: I've considered it but probably won't go that route. I don't think it would add much to what I'm doing now. Over the last few years I've grown to love the idea of different markers for different types of reinforcers. Short version: At a distance I'd want a marker for "that's right, the reward is straight ahead of you" and one for "that's right, come back for your reward". 

Am I crazy? Maybe. Am I telling anyone else to do this? No. Just sharing what's worked for us.


----------



## yellow machine

I wish this thread would go away soon.


----------



## Evan

yellow machine said:


> I wish this thread would go away soon.


That is _inevitably_ how everyone ends up feeling about these threads.

Evan


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Evan said:


> That is _inevitably_ how everyone ends up feeling about these threads.
> 
> Evan


So lets quit posting so it doesn't keep showing up at the top of the list!


----------



## cakaiser

Can someone answer one, simple question?
What are you going to do? If and when a dog disobeys any command? 

So far, all I have seen is...dog won't if properly taught. For me, that is no answer. After 30 some years of seeing differently.


----------



## Renee P.

Evan said:


> That is _inevitably_ how everyone ends up feeling about these threads.
> 
> Evan


I for one appreciated your dead horse remark on page one. But you forgot the emoticon:


----------



## shawninthesticks

What did I miss??:twisted:


----------



## Jennifer Henion

For Mitty and Evan,


----------



## Renee P.

Jennifer, I think you are taking stuff personally that is not directed at you. Those two earlier posts of mine that annoyed you were not directed at you. This topic comes up over and over again, it has for years. I doubt anyone has said anything in this thread that wasn't said in RTF threads like it 5 years ago. I have never disparged you or your training methods, you sound like you know a lot more about dogs than I do. I think you will be successful. But google something like "site:retrievertraining.net clicker " and you will find links to page after page of RTF threads on the topic, hence the dead horse feeling. 
(Edit: I am new at this, I have hardly any opinions on anything about dog training, except that I do not want to hurt my dog!)

Here is a great video on the topic, maybe you remember it, I believe Milner brought it to our attention last year (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?78538-Clicker-Training):


----------



## Pals

I don't believe anyone wants to hurt their dogs and Renee you are more astute then you think. 

These threads always go this way, because most folks on here that have trained to upper levels themselves, evolved over the years and continue to play the American Field Games are skeptical when a "newbie" for lack of a better term comes along without ever having trained a dog to those upper levels and says that there is a "new" way, without any proven consistant successes in those Tests/Trials. When in reality most people who really know how to train dogs, know that you train the dog at the end of your leash-there is no cookie cutter approach. A well balanced approach to dog training is just that~~well balanced. The insinuation of some that their dog is "happier" because you don't use a collar or do any force is just asking for a 'fight'. Don't know why we insist on having these American vs British threads. 

I always hear people say they are "training for Hunt Tests and Field Trials". When in reality they may have had one dog run a few juniors~~so the "old timers" are skeptical and ask tough questions. Well we used to have the old timers ask tough questions, now-a-days that bluntness if frowned upon, because it might be "mean". It is easy to say you are training for something, the hard (AND HUMBLING) part is doing it, really doing it to where your dog can compete. You find out really quickly to surround yourself with people who are successful in your chosen game. 

It seems lately that there is a lot of "last word-itis" and its not even winter yet!!!


----------



## Erik Vigeland

Puppies are cute. Smile. 

Have a good weekend!


----------



## WRL

Pals said:


> I don't believe anyone wants to hurt their dogs and Renee you are more astute then you think.
> 
> These threads always go this way, because most folks on here that have trained to upper levels themselves, evolved over the years and continue to play the American Field Games are skeptical when a "newbie" for lack of a better term comes along without ever having trained a dog to those upper levels and says that there is a "new" way, without any proven consistant successes in those Tests/Trials. When in reality most people who really know how to train dogs, know that you train the dog at the end of your leash-there is no cookie cutter approach. A well balanced approach to dog training is just that~~well balanced. The insinuation of some that their dog is "happier" because you don't use a collar or do any force is just asking for a 'fight'. Don't know why we insist on having these American vs British threads.
> 
> I always hear people say they are "training for Hunt Tests and Field Trials". When in reality they may have had one dog run a few juniors~~so the "old timers" are skeptical and ask tough questions. Well we used to have the old timers ask tough questions, now-a-days that bluntness if frowned upon, because it might be "mean". It is easy to say you are training for something, the hard (AND HUMBLING) part is doing it, really doing it to where your dog can compete. You find out really quickly to surround yourself with people who are successful in your chosen game.
> 
> It seems lately that there is a lot of "last word-itis" and its not even winter yet!!!


Exactly. And instead of "training for hunt tests and field trials" it would be better put, "training AND COMPETING in hunt tests and field trials"......

I can train for the Olympics but its unlikely I will get much farther than buying the souvenir T-Shirt.

WRL


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

WRL said:


> I can train for the Olympics but its unlikely I will get much farther than buying the souvenir T-Shirt.
> 
> WRL


When you win or buy that T-shirt can you please Put it on you Avatar, I've been hypnotized into watching it for too long


----------



## Bartona500

I didn't get around to this yesterday, except for filming it. Only had 30 min of daylight after work so we got straight out of the truck and ran these two poison birds. She has a controlled break on the first - my fault for not warming her up and giving her a cold right off the bat. This was our first time in the field since duck season started.

If I can be my own critic, I am obviously in a big hurry bc of the light situation. I didn't have a good place to do this on water, so I had to run it down the shore. It is not ideal, and you can tell she really didn't want to be handled back toward the shore. 

Anyway, never been FF... Don't use a collar... Both sire and dam are imported from Ireland. I realize this thread went to clicker training, but this is referring back to top of the thread. I'm not trying to convince anyone the pup is amazing and can do absolutely everything, just that at a young age she can do what was questioned earlier in post # 17


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


----------



## shawninthesticks

Hunt'EmUp said:


> When you win or buy that T-shirt can you please Put it on you Avatar, I've been hypnotized into watching it for too long


You and me both... I left a page on RTF up one night and I think it over took my screen saver,the image is now burnt into my screen (when I put up a smiley face it means my statement is made to be a funny )


----------



## WRL

Shawn White said:


> You and me both... I left a page on RTF up one night and I think it over took my screen saver,the image is now burnt into my screen (when I put up a smiley face it means my statement is made to be a funny )


Y'all are just jealous (as Angie B puts it) of the BIG BLUE BANANA HAMMOCK!!

Come on....admit it!

That avatar is a MEMBER of RTF its been here so long!

WRL


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Yep, I know this against the women's code to say in mixed company, but it's true I'm a little hormonal this week. And hubby has a cold, which means snoring which means no sleep for me.

Anyway, I posted the Dave Mason song to lighten the mood. Now I see WRL and Hunt em up have done that better than me!

Pom Pom Kum ba yah regards,
Jen


----------



## Evan

mitty said:


> I for one appreciated your dead horse remark on page one. But you forgot the emoticon:


Thanks. I looked, but could not find the emoticon. It's one of my favorites! In spite of philosophical disagreements that permeate these threads, the only thing I actively dislike about them is that eventually people get so personal and disrespectful toward our British friends. It's not helpful at all, and usually is not connected to any real issues. Some of the most enjoyable dialogue I've had over the years has been with my British and Australian friends. There are many good things we can all take from good trainers wherever they're from. And I'm confident that the dogs don't really know or care what country they're from. It just always gets this way, sadly.

Evan


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Evan said:


> Thanks. I looked, but could not find the emoticon. It's one of my favorites! In spite of philosophical disagreements that permeate these threads, the only thing I actively dislike about them is that eventually people get so personal and disrespectful toward our British friends. It's not helpful at all, and usually is not connected to any real issues. Some of the most enjoyable dialogue I've had over the years has been with my British and Australian friends. There are many good things we can all take from good trainers wherever they're from. And I'm confident that the dogs don't really know or care what country they're from. It just always gets this way, sadly.
> 
> Evan


Evan you are correct. It is lack of respect for the other person's opinion or way they do things.

Positive training I would do in flash with my 3 yo. But is not the route to go with my pup or my 10 yo, who is much like the pup, noisy fire breathing dragons, no focus, food mongers and on their own planet not going anywhere. but are having fun!!!!!!!!!! 

Bottom line: You are your dog's advocate so you be the judge of what program will suit them best and you feel comfortable with. Read your dog!And you can learn best by listening as well.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Bartona500 said:


> I didn't get around to this yesterday, except for filming it. Only had 30 min of daylight after work so we got straight out of the truck and ran these two poison birds. She has a controlled break on the first - my fault for not warming her up and giving her a cold right off the bat. This was our first time in the field since duck season started.
> 
> If I can be my own critic, I am obviously in a big hurry bc of the light situation. I didn't have a good place to do this on water, so I had to run it down the shore. It is not ideal, and you can tell she really didn't want to be handled back toward the shore.
> 
> Anyway, never been FF... Don't use a collar... Both sire and dam are imported from Ireland. I realize this thread went to clicker training, but this is referring back to top of the thread. I'm not trying to convince anyone the pup is amazing and can do absolutely everything, just that at a young age she can do what was questioned earlier in post # 17
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDyqSKZCbPg


I could not open your link.


----------



## Bartona500

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> I could not open your link.


Not sure why? I just clicked it and it worked fine... Sorry it isn't working!


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Bartona500 said:


> Not sure why? I just clicked it and it worked fine... Sorry it isn't working!


It says the video is private?


----------



## T-Pines

Bartona500 said:


> Not sure why? I just clicked it and it worked fine... Sorry it isn't working!


Bartona,

You need to edit the privacy setting for this video. You currently have it set as Private. That setting requires that you specify up to 50 users that you allow viewing access. Those users must login so that they are recognized as being on your list.

The other two options, either Public or Unlisted, would allow us to view it from the link you posted.

http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=157177

Jim


----------



## Bartona500

Sorry, everyone. I swapped it to "public" before uploading yesterday, but the upload failed. I guess it reverted back to private when I successfully uploaded it today. It is public now, so the link should work!


----------



## WRL

Jennifer Henion said:


> Yep, I know this against the women's code to say in mixed company, but it's true I'm a little hormonal this week. And hubby has a cold, which means snoring which means no sleep for me.
> 
> Jen


WHAT???!! You just single handedly set the women's movement back 100 years!

Do like the rest of us and put the phone down, move away from the computer keyboard and EAT A SNICKERS BAR!

Now repeat after me....."There's no crying in baseball!"

WRL


----------



## Bartona500

FinnLandR said:


> Darrin, see my quoted post above. I asked the same question in post 55 and no one has bothered to respond yet.... Perhaps it's more fun to take shots at each other than to have a real discussion...


There is certainly compulsion in my training and most every trainer I've seen who uses a "British" method. I think calling it "Positive Reinforcement Only" isn't necessarily truthful. Perhaps "much more +R than -R plus no collar/FF" would be more fair.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

WRL said:


> WHAT???!! You just single handedly set the women's movement back 100 years!
> 
> Do like the rest of us and put the phone down, move away from the computer keyboard and EAT A SNICKERS BAR!
> 
> Now repeat after me....."There's no crying in baseball!"
> 
> WRL


It was a dang chocolate shake from McDonalds instead of the snickers. Stupid McDonalds!



Bartona500: Neat videos! Love hearing that ACME whistle again.


----------



## DarrinGreene

Bartona500 said:


> There is certainly compulsion in my training and most every trainer I've seen who uses a "British" method. I think calling it "Positive Reinforcement Only" isn't necessarily truthful. Perhaps "much more +R than -R plus no collar/FF" would be more fair.


What do you mean when you say -r?


----------



## Bartona500

DarrinGreene said:


> What do you mean when you say -r?


Any form of correction, effectively communicating "no" when a dog does something undesired. In my video, I whistle & say "no" two times (when she breaks & when she refused a cast in water). Both are -r


----------



## Colonel Blimp

> Darrin, see my quoted post above. I asked the same question in post 55 and no one has bothered to respond yet.... Perhaps it's more fun to take shots at each other than to have a real discussion... :sad:


I dropped out of this thread thinking it had not only gone on far too long, but it had strayed off what was already a pretty well worn path anyway. However since you ask ..

I can't and don't speak for Bob Milner or anyone else, this is just my own experience. 

Within UK there is a continuing drift towards more reward based training and away from some of the old aversive methods. I grew up in an era when giving a Spaniel a bloody good hiding before even before taking it out was quite unremarkable; several people who were considered to be good dog men (and IMO were) published works which included advice on the best way to use a fan belt and /or administer a thrashing. One of these was Peter Moxon whose book has gone past nineteen editions. The move away from such stuff obviously proceeds at different speeds and in varying ways. 

You may have seen the video of the working dog display at Crufts ... that trainer is a big advocate of wholly positive training. I've posted a few videos with Edward Martin in action ... wholly reward based trainer and very successful. Most of the well known retriever trainers don't go that far but their has been a revolution in both thinking and training. As Bartona says the only thing a N American trainer might view as force, punishment, whatever, is in administering a rebuke for an infraction of known standards, force as used in the the sense of Force Fetch or Carr based training is quite unknown and was never in vogue anyway. 

Again, for me, I don't believe dogs deliberately choose to disobey a known and understood command, so I rarely if ever punish. When I do the maximum I go to is a scruff shake. 

I'm off out picking right now, so must close. 

Eug


----------



## kennel maiden

I've also stayed away from this, as there didn't seem much point, when many on here don't want to look at how so-called 'British' training methods may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.

Anyway, to answer the question about aversives, for those that are interested, as Eug says, yes British trainers use aversives, some more so than others. And these come in the form of vocally correcting the dog "no!" or "oy!" (some times followed by the odd expletive!), and also by taking the dog back out to the spot of infringement and restarting or giving it a bit of a shake.

But as Eugene has said, there does seem to be much more of a move by some of the newer/more modern trainers (in line with other canine disciplines) to use positive methods of reinforcement (such as using a clicker in early stages of obedience training, and markers for good work). I would count myself in this group of kinder/modern/positive trainers...

I guess we teach positively, and then if something does go wrong we either 'correct' or use attrition or back track and try and get it engrained again.

So, at this point I would comment on the video posted by Barton (hope he doesn't mind). In that exercise, which to us is a straight forward blind retrieve with a marked distraction at an angle. I would line the dog for the blind and send it on that line with my cue word for a blind, rather than a mark, giving the dog a clue it is going for a blind rather than the mark it has just seen. I expect the dog to take my line that I am giving it. Other trainers here would indicate the 'poison bird' and command 'leave that' and then turn the dog onto the blind. I don't like doing this as I just simply want the dog to go where I am sending it - horses for courses. If the dog takes, and holds, my line it is going to fall over the bird on the stubble. And, to me, this excercise is about taking and holding a line (not whether a dog will handle/re-cast - I would practise that separately). So, in Barton's case the dog went only so far, and then was off line and required not one but 2-3 stops and re-casts.... To me, that wouldn't be acceptable (but to many handlers over here it is, if they are just picking up with their dogs, or doing the odd test). As, I say, I want the dog to take the line and hold that line until told otherwise (fairly simple on a flat field, but later will have to do this over fences, through cover, across ditches etc). So, I send the dog off and if it doesn't hold the line I will either (depending on the sensitivity of the dog) give it a vocal correction 'ah ah' once it has come way off line, recall and start again, or simply recall it and start again without a correction.

With a young dog, if it didn't manage this within a couple of go's I would then either simplify (walk out and show it the dummy and walk back) or walk further forwards to the dummy, shortening the distance of outrun (but keeping the exercise the same 'take my line and hold my line and you will find a dummy').

Until I had got this concept of blinds with distraction totally right, with the dog not sucking towards the 'poison bird', or as we would say 'challenging my line' then I certainly would not be setting the same exercise up on water!!! From the clip you see the dog challenged 3 times on land, and then on water this was a whole lot worse, around 8-9 commands to get the dummy. So, I would get rock solid on land, before going onto water.

Also, I would not always send for the 'poison bird' but sometimes go and hand pick it.

Not saying any of this is right or wrong. More than one way to skin a cat... but just giving an example on how I would train for something like this, here, with 'Brit methods'. For those that are interested. And for those that aren't, I can't believe they are still dipping into this thread?!!!....


----------



## rmilner

Eug, you and I are on the same page. I do not think that dogs disobey. It is not in their nature. They have spent the last 15,000 years evolving from a wild wolf in the forest to a valued companion living in the house. That move from forest to the fringe of the village fire to the yard and then into the house came about through breeding selection as dogs became more useful and more pleasing to humans.
Dogs do not disobey. They do fail to grasp the task to be performed when it is not adequately communicated, and they do fail to perform a task for which they have not been adequately prepared. Both of those instances are the trainer’s responsibility.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Devil's advocate here....
My dog, an intact male, is very well trained in obedience. He knows what "leave it" means. I am 100% certain that he knows what that command means. 
Now suppose we are quite near a bitch in standing heat. He is whining and chattering. He attempts to mount the bitch, and I tell him "leave it". He looks at me, then ignores me and continues to try to mount her.
Has he just disobeyed a command which I am certain he understands? I believe he has.


----------



## DarrinGreene

Bartona500 said:


> Any form of correction, effectively communicating "no" when a dog does something undesired. In my video, I whistle & say "no" two times (when she breaks & when she refused a cast in water). Both are -r


Hate to be technical but neither of those is -r. NO is either a cue for positive or negative punishment in either of those cases. You have either taught her that NO means a consequence is coming, or that her reward is being withheld. 

If we're going to discuss the topic it helps if the correct terms are used. I see this incorrect definition of -r constantly from the +r only zealots out there. It gets a bit tiresome listening to people preach who don't even know the science well enough to use the correct terms. 

Not saying that's you Bart, not at all, just clarifying for the purpose of productive discussion.

This from wikipedia: 

Here the terms _positive_ and _negative_ are not used in their popular sense, but rather: _positive_ refers to addition, and _negative_ refers to subtraction.
What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence _positive punishment_ is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:


*Positive reinforcement* (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In theSkinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or a sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.
*Negative reinforcement* (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.
*Positive punishment* (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
*Negative punishment* (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.


----------



## DarrinGreene

rmilner said:


> Eug, you and I are on the same page. I do not think that dogs disobey. It is not in their nature. They have spent the last 15,000 years evolving from a wild wolf in the forest to a valued companion living in the house. That move from forest to the fringe of the village fire to the yard and then into the house came about through breeding selection as dogs became more useful and more pleasing to humans.
> Dogs do not disobey. They do fail to grasp the task to be performed when it is not adequately communicated, and they do fail to perform a task for which they have not been adequately prepared. Both of those instances are the trainer’s responsibility.


I agree with you guys here and preach this to pet dog clients on an almost daily basis. I tend to say that if a dog isn't performing a known task reliably, they aren't fully conditioned yet, which is pretty much the same as Robert saying they "haven't been adequately prepared". I happens that I have no issue whatsoever with using aversives to condition certain behaviors, especially at a distance, when the e-collar vastly improves my timing. Even in heeling, the pinch collar and lead approach in conjunction with rewards produces a reliable result much quicker and easier than using rewards alone, particularly when the dog is a lower drive critter.

I have definitely learned to balance back in the direction of rewards, adding more and more of them as I go along in my evolution as a trainer. I doubt I'll ever exclude the use of aversives in my training though and believe pretty strongly that those who claim to be +r only are simply ignoring the punishments they do employ. I think you'd have to never even put a collar on a dog to be purely +r, and I don't see that happening very often.

I've asked many people to allow me to put a harness or collar and leash on them to see how they liked it. Haven't had a taker yet.


----------



## kennel maiden

Hotel4dogs - or is it merely about one 'reward' outweighing another? ie. the 'reward' (positive reinforcement? forgive me if my tech terms aren't completely right) of having sex with the bitch is outweighing your reward of "good boy" or here's a treat, or I withhold punishment... So, the dog is doing the more rewarding behaviour, and you need to find a way of motivating him to do what you want instead, with a greater reward!!! LOL


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora

thinking the poor fluffly feller ever heard the command is like thinking a guy hears the bartender say "wife on phone" while he is getting a lap dance! Get the bandana on the floor!


----------



## hotel4dogs

So Cory, you're saying that if strong instinct is involved, it's not disobedience because he's become temporarily insane?
Hmmm.....I've seen a couple of dogs become temporarily insane when there's a bird involved due to very strong instinct. Especially if the shot was missed and the bird is flying away.
Really I was just playing devil's advocate and saying that there are, in my humble and often wrong opinion, some instances in which a dog does deliberately disobey you. His desires override his training.

Kennel Maiden, I had to laugh because there is absolutely no "positive reinforcement" that I could offer him that would override that urge, which I think was your point! I have, however, found that fear of being killed (exaggerating) if he doesn't knock it off will, in fact, cause him to stop.



FinnLandR said:


> Or, has his hard-wired drive to procreate over-ridden any possible training and understanding he has, and has he ala irresistible impulse, become temporarily insane?
> 
> (Similar to the mother whose drive to protect her child causes her to kill another person, when she can't normally even bring herself to kill the spider in the kitchen; extreme example, I know, but one of the few where irresistible impulse has actually been found to be "true".)


----------



## hotel4dogs

You crack me up!
But that is why I did specify that, in my hypothetical ($5 word?) example, he looked right at me and went back to trying to mount her. 



Ken Bora said:


> thinking the poor fluffly feller ever heard the command is like thinking a guy hears the bartender say "wife on phone" while he is getting a lap dance! Get the bandana on the floor!


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

kennel maiden said:


> I've also stayed away from this, as there didn't seem much point, when many on here don't want to look at how so-called 'British' training methods may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.
> 
> Anyway, to answer the question about aversives, for those that are interested, as Eug says, yes British trainers use aversives, some more so than others. And these come in the form of vocally correcting the dog "no!" or "oy!" (some times followed by the odd expletive!), and also by taking the dog back out to the spot of infringement and restarting or giving it a bit of a shake.
> 
> But as Eugene has said, there does seem to be much more of a move by some of the newer/more modern trainers (in line with other canine disciplines) to use positive methods of reinforcement (such as using a clicker in early stages of obedience training, and markers for good work). I would count myself in this group of kinder/modern/positive trainers...
> 
> I guess we teach positively, and then if something does go wrong we either 'correct' or use attrition or back track and try and get it engrained again.
> 
> So, at this point I would comment on the video posted by Barton (hope he doesn't mind). In that exercise, which to us is a straight forward blind retrieve with a marked distraction at an angle. I would line the dog for the blind and send it on that line with my cue word for a blind, rather than a mark, giving the dog a clue it is going for a blind rather than the mark it has just seen. I expect the dog to take my line that I am giving it. Other trainers here would indicate the 'poison bird' and command 'leave that' and then turn the dog onto the blind. I don't like doing this as I just simply want the dog to go where I am sending it - horses for courses. If the dog takes, and holds, my line it is going to fall over the bird on the stubble. And, to me, this excercise is about taking and holding a line (not whether a dog will handle/re-cast - I would practise that separately). So, in Barton's case the dog went only so far, and then was off line and required not one but 2-3 stops and re-casts.... To me, that wouldn't be acceptable (but to many handlers over here it is, if they are just picking up with their dogs, or doing the odd test). As, I say, I want the dog to take the line and hold that line until told otherwise (fairly simple on a flat field, but later will have to do this over fences, through cover, across ditches etc). So, I send the dog off and if it doesn't hold the line I will either (depending on the sensitivity of the dog) give it a vocal correction 'ah ah' once it has come way off line, recall and start again, or simply recall it and start again without a correction.
> 
> With a young dog, if it didn't manage this within a couple of go's I would then either simplify (walk out and show it the dummy and walk back) or walk further forwards to the dummy, shortening the distance of outrun (but keeping the exercise the same 'take my line and hold my line and you will find a dummy').
> 
> Until I had got this concept of blinds with distraction totally right, with the dog not sucking towards the 'poison bird', or as we would say 'challenging my line' then I certainly would not be setting the same exercise up on water!!! From the clip you see the dog challenged 3 times on land, and then on water this was a whole lot worse, around 8-9 commands to get the dummy. So, I would get rock solid on land, before going onto water.
> 
> Also, I would not always send for the 'poison bird' but sometimes go and hand pick it.
> 
> Not saying any of this is right or wrong. More than one way to skin a cat... but just giving an example on how I would train for something like this, here, with 'Brit methods'. For those that are interested. And for those that aren't, I can't believe they are still dipping into this thread?!!!.... : may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.)



Not sure why folks are not open to other people’s training methods!or ideas or suggestions?? 

KM Yes I use words to convey what I am expecting and use “good” “yes” for praise.

Attrition is probably the way I would go to correct first or simplify. If we have an issue (loopy sit) I return to pile work no force! And practice whistle sits on the way out to the pile to decrease the momentum and get the quick sits. Just my way of doing things IMHO. I am really looking to make sure he understands what I am asking. May have to reteach. Again use positive comments for praise.

You are correct KM to have the dog well versed on land before attempting water. I practice lining drills and through attrition and simplifying get the dog to look out himself , then I put my hand down tweak and say "dead bird" "good" or "yes that is it" to cue him. 

I am guilty of saying "no leave it". I run the mark on one side and it is a poison bird I say "leave it" and heel him to the other side and run the blind. Works well for me IMHO

And again like you I would stress doing land work first. Not saying any of this the only way but it works for me IMHO

KM really enjoyed your response. Hope you continue to comment We could all learn something. Thank you.


----------



## sixpacklabs

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> KM really enjoyed your response. Hope you continue to comment We could all learn something. Thank you.


Kennel Maiden,
I enjoyed it as well. Thank you for taking the time to post. If you're still following this thread, I'd be very interested in learning a little bit more about the methods you use to train for blind retrieves, in particular how you begin training young dogs. Thank you!


----------



## RetrieverNation

DarrinGreene said:


> Hate to be technical but neither of those is -r. NO is either a cue for positive or negative punishment in either of those cases. You have either taught her that NO means a consequence is coming, or that her reward is being withheld.
> 
> If we're going to discuss the topic it helps if the correct terms are used. I see this incorrect definition of -r constantly from the +r only zealots out there. It gets a bit tiresome listening to people preach who don't even know the science well enough to use the correct terms.
> 
> Not saying that's you Bart, not at all, just clarifying for the purpose of productive discussion.
> 
> This from wikipedia:
> 
> Here the terms _positive_ and _negative_ are not used in their popular sense, but rather: _positive_ refers to addition, and _negative_ refers to subtraction.
> What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence _positive punishment_ is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:
> 
> 
> *Positive reinforcement* (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In theSkinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or a sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.
> *Negative reinforcement* (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.
> *Positive punishment* (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
> *Negative punishment* (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.


Sometimes all these positive and negative discussions get so confusing that it leads me to wonder if it is even worth worrying about for the amateur trainer or possibly any retriever trainer. I try to follow the Lardy system and the following is right out of his TRT video:
"An animal behaviorist came out to watch us train and we were working on a simple lining to the pile drill and in the process of lining to the pile, we used positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, punishment and to distinguish which part of the training was which type of training would require a whole days discussion. Our training involves punishment, R+, R-, all of those. We are not hung up on those terms and will not dissect our training as to what is occurring at that moment. We are not in a laboratory and within a one minute span of training, we will have used all three of those and these dogs are smart enough to adapt to different kinds of timing and different types of correction all within that minute. I will avoid those terms because I will use them incorrectly if I do. I also will not use the terms avoidance training and escape training. If you're training laboratory rats to push a lever, you can distinguish when those terms apply to what types of training. But when you're training retrievers to perform the tasks we're doing, you go in and out of all of those types of training."

Is the goal to have a well trained retriever or prove a theory through the scientific process? At the end of the day I think this stuff is cool to read about in a good internet debate but am really starting to think it may be more worthwhile to focus on the task at hand (training) and leave the rest to the scientists. My point is that maybe these discussions do more harm than good when the majority of us try to figure out how it applies to our training instead of just training!


----------



## gdgnyc

kennel maiden said:


> Hotel4dogs - or is it merely about one 'reward' outweighing another? ie. the 'reward' (positive reinforcement? forgive me if my tech terms aren't completely right) of having sex with the bitch is outweighing your reward of "good boy" or here's a treat, or I withhold punishment... So, the dog is doing the more rewarding behaviour, and you need to find a way of motivating him to do what you want instead, with a greater reward!!! LOL


I truly understand Tito's behavior---highest value reward.

I think this is called instinctive drift.


----------



## kennel maiden

Yes, I'm wondering just how big that piece of cooked sausage would have to be???!!... LOL


----------



## kennel maiden

sixpacklabs said:


> Kennel Maiden,
> I enjoyed it as well. Thank you for taking the time to post. If you're still following this thread, I'd be very interested in learning a little bit more about the methods you use to train for blind retrieves, in particular how you begin training young dogs. Thank you!


I think there is a lot we can learn from each other.  The reason I am here is to keep learning and improving the way I train and teach things. Sharing thoughts, ideas, tips and techniques is useful for all of us. I've bought a US book (Gwaltney), but haven't got around to reading it yet, and I would love to see some of your training DVDs, but I am not sure they are available in PAL (rather than NTSC)? The US route is so much more structured and methodical (everyone seems to be on some sort of 'programme' or other, with clear steps along the way). There is just nothing comparable here - although I have thought about doing it!!! (it's a lot of work though)

My own method of training for blinds, is to build confidence and length, on Memory Marks, and then gradually phasing this to Memory Blinds and then cold blinds. We get the dogs powering out to white dummies that they can see too, and also run them either to a white pole, or to 'confidence areas' where they have picked successfully previously. So the basis of all our training for blinds is about building confidence and trust, in that when I put my arm down to line the dog, it KNOWS there is something there to go for because there is always something there....

Hard to write it down! So, with young dogs I put out a mark, walk away from it with the dog to whatever distance (as far as I know it will confidently remember and go back), then turn around and fire the dog back. But, in sending it back I rather 'over egg the cake' by taking my time and giving a very definite line out (even though it can possibly see or def remember the mark), so that it gets into a 'habit' of when I line like that there is something there. This eventually translates onto full blinds, and is the same sendaway.


----------



## BonMallari

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Not sure why folks are not open to other people’s training methods!or ideas or suggestions??
> 
> .


for the same reason people bristle when your challenge their practice of their chosen religion...You are challenging the very core of what they believe and what they are taught, any deviation from that is thought to be blasphemy, and when people get challenged they get very defensive, its just human nature


and as for the use of the command "leave it"...there may come a time where "leave it' as opposed to "No" might come in handy...even though it may not used anymore, there used to be a time when one might see a pair of marks being thrown and then the dog is asked to run a blind, and then pick up the marks....If you told the dog NO instead of "leave it", how could you then tell the dog to retrieve something you had previously said no to....


----------



## DarrinGreene

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Not sure why folks are not open to other people’s training methods!or ideas or suggestions??


I think some people are closed minded or don't have time or interest in alternate methods when they have one that works. They are quite happy with thier dogs and training and just can't be bothered. However, for those with an interest in learning new things, it's still pretty easy to get closed off to a new method when the person presenting it is clearly satisfying their own emotional needs, vs. the training of the dog, with the method they choose. The main thing I'm talking about there is that it sure seems like the +r crowd, by and large anthropomorphize their dogs in such a way as to be closed off to any method which includes aversive stimuli.

You hear a lot of "to each their own", but that seems to be their way (usually) of avoiding an argument they can't win because their choice of training method is neither practical or scientific, but rather emotional. 

Because of this intense emotional motivation, I think people tend to tune out the constant noise. Beyond that, the emotional nature of it leads people to criticize the practices of others, which again leads to a division in the ranks.

If you've chosen +r exclusively as your method, I know it's either an emotional marketing ploy (newest thing in pet dog training) or a personal emotional choice on your part. I know this because I routinely shape behaviors quickly and efficiently using a combination of +r and -r in dogs that have been through a +r program and are now completely out of the owner's control. The only good news for me then is that person has now learned that those treats have a value, but only so much, so when I solve the problem, they are happy and don't care how I did it (which isn't an excuse for me to be inhumane or unfair to the dog, BTW).


----------



## hotel4dogs

and while I'm chuckling at my own hypothetical example, it does still make me raise the question....is a dog capable of willfull disobedience if his instinct level is high enough?
I believe yes. I believe there are times when a dog's instincts or desires will over-ride all training, he will look right at you, and disobey a command. The expected reward is greater than the expected "other reward" that you are offering (or punishment if that's the training method). 
I know my dog is certainly not unique in that he will refuse all food in the presence of an attractive female...or a bird. That piece of sausage could be as big as he is and he wouldn't even contemplate it.
edit to add...I am being deliberately obtuse just because I don't think you can say a dog will "NEVER" deliberately disobey. I do think that _almost all of the time_ they disobey because they didn't understand something, or didn't truly know the command. But I also think that there are times when they just get that look in their eye and flip you the middle toe.


----------



## kennel maiden

BonMallari said:


> for the same reason people bristle when your challenge their practice of their chosen religion...You are challenging the very core of what they believe and what they are taught, any deviation from that is thought to be blasphemy, and when people get challenged they get very defensive, its just human nature
> 
> 
> and as for the use of the command "leave it"...there may come a time where "leave it' as opposed to "No" might come in handy...even though it may not used anymore, there used to be a time when one might see a pair of marks being thrown and then the dog is asked to run a blind, and then pick up the marks....If you told the dog NO instead of "leave it", how could you then tell the dog to retrieve something you had previously said no to....


Yes, that philosophy is why many here don't use either 'leave it' or 'no' when taking the blind over the distraction(s), because you might later be asking the dog to fetch that, so is thought to cause confusion for the dog. I'm not sure whether it does or doesn't, I just prefer to keep it simple and not do it. Also, if you have a 'hot' dog and you go to line it to the 'poison bird' and cue 'leave it' in so doing, some trigger-happy dogs will think you are sending them for it just as the word 'leave...' escapes your mouth!

Personally, I think it looks neater to just line the dog for what you want, but each to their own, and most judges here wouldn't penalise for using 'leave it', although it does sound a bit novicey.


----------



## DarrinGreene

hotel4dogs said:


> and while I'm chuckling at my own hypothetical example, it does still make me raise the question....is a dog capable of willfull disobedience if his instinct level is high enough?
> I believe yes. I believe there are times when a dog's instincts or desires will over-ride all training, he will look right at you, and disobey a command. The expected reward is greater than the expected "other reward" that you are offering (or punishment if that's the training method).
> I know my dog is certainly not unique in that he will refuse all food in the presence of an attractive female...or a bird. That piece of sausage could be as big as he is and he wouldn't even contemplate it.


They'll run right through a very hot underground fence in that case as well, but then many a man has made a dumb decision in the face of similar value rewards.


----------



## Renee P.

kennel maiden said:


> Yes, that philosophy is why many here don't use either 'leave it' or 'no' when taking the blind over the distraction(s), because you might later be asking the dog to fetch that, so is thought to cause confusion for the dog. I'm not sure whether it does or doesn't, I just prefer to keep it simple and not do it. Also, if you have a 'hot' dog and you go to line it to the 'poison bird' and cue 'leave it' in so doing, some trigger-happy dogs will think you are sending them for it just as the word 'leave...' escapes your mouth!
> 
> *Personally, I think it looks neater to just line the dog for what you want, but each to their own, and most judges here wouldn't penalise for using 'leave it', although it does sound a bit novicey*.


But if the poison bird is on/near the line to the blind you need to cue the dog that it is to ignore the mark. The dog needs to learn exactly what "dead bird" means, I am telling my young dog "leave it" for now as I (try) to teach her to run poison bird blinds in which she is practically stepping on the poison bird on the way to the blind.


----------



## WRL

kennel maiden said:


> Personally, I think it looks neater to just line the dog for what you want, but each to their own, and most judges here wouldn't penalise for using 'leave it', although it does sound a bit novicey.


It does look neater for a dog to line the blind but its very very unlikely a dog is going to line an AA blind here in the US. 

Your game doesn't really even resemble our game. 

The way you guys hunt, doesn't resemble the majority of hunting here.

Its two different games.

WRL


----------



## moscowitz

Willful disobedience is required of dogs that lead a blind individual. I believe they look for that in the dog to disobey a command.


----------



## jeff evans

As far as the leave it command, if the poison birds were as far off line as in the video there's not much need for a leave it command and I too would train the dog without that command. However in American AA stakes the line to the blind is down wind and only off line a few yards. I hear the command used often in the field trial world. I like to teach the leave it command while I'm force fetching/hold. I use "leave it" when I take the dummy. This does translate over to the poison bird blind or secondary selection over time if done properly. So Bon, rest assured the command is still alive and well! 

On a second note, the water portion of that video, if the handler were to use NO VERBAL BACKS, just silent angle backs, do you all think he would get better direction change and possibly do that blind with half the whistles? Or not?


----------



## Renee P.

jeff evans said:


> As far as the leave it command, if the poison birds were as far off line as in the video there's not much need for a leave it command and I too would train the dog without that command. However in American AA stakes the line to the blind is down wind and only off line a few yards. I hear the command used often in the field trial world. I like to teach the leave it command while I'm force fetching/hold. I use "leave it" when I take the dummy. This does translate over to the poison bird blind or secondary selection over time if done properly. So Bon, rest assured the command is still alive and well!
> 
> On a second note, the water portion of that video, if the handler were to use NO VERBAL BACKS, just silent angle backs, do you all think he would get better direction change and possibly do that blind with half the whistles? Or not?


My answer: Use "voice" to drive back, silent cast to get change in direction. 

Do they have water blinds like that in AKC tests and field trials? On the one hand you have the suction to land, on the other you have the suction to the poisson bird in the water. The dog is swimming under the arc, between the land and poison bird. Do the two factors cancel each other? I "heard" that, in a water blind, the poison bird is usually placed on land.


----------



## Colonel Blimp

*Hotel4dogs* posted


> and while I'm chuckling at my own hypothetical example, it does still make me raise the question....is a dog capable of willful disobedience if his instinct level is high enough?


When we train (all of us, of no matter what religion!) we train according to the rules of Operant Conditioning. I've made the point in the past that no matter how good we are Ole Man Pavlov is sitting on our shoulder. If a dogs basic animal instincts come into collision with our wonderful efforts ... he wins. It's not IMO a matter of disobedience, just the real world biting us in the bum. We can attach as many labels to the behaviour as we want, but it won't stop Fido chasing after Fidoette is she's "in an interesting condition".

So whilst your post was indeed a bit of fun, it nevertheless made a very acute and valid point. 

Eug


----------



## kennel maiden

WRL said:


> It does look neater for a dog to line the blind but its very very unlikely a dog is going to line an AA blind here in the US.
> 
> Your game doesn't really even resemble our game.
> 
> The way you guys hunt, doesn't resemble the majority of hunting here.
> 
> Its two different games.
> 
> WRL


I don't think I ever did say the two games were 'the same'? All I was saying, is in that video example, which is a very common novice test type scenario here, that is how we would tackle it.


----------



## kennel maiden

mitty said:


> But if the poison bird is on/near the line to the blind you need to cue the dog that it is to ignore the mark. The dog needs to learn exactly what "dead bird" means, I am telling my young dog "leave it" for now as I (try) to teach her to run poison bird blinds in which she is practically stepping on the poison bird on the way to the blind.


And Renee, that is the difference between our two games. Here, we would NEVER expect a dog to pass over game without picking it. That would be a huge faux pas. So, if the game was on a direct line to the other bird, then that would be picked first, and the dog sent back for the longer bird. We do not want our dogs ignoring game here.

However, if the line was different, as per the video example, then we would expect the dog to take the correct line without pulling to where he wants to go, or thinking he knows better.


----------



## Bartona500

DarrinGreene said:


> Hate to be technical but neither of those is -r. NO is either a cue for positive or negative punishment in either of those cases. You have either taught her that NO means a consequence is coming, or that her reward is being withheld.
> 
> If we're going to discuss the topic it helps if the correct terms are used. I see this incorrect definition of -r constantly from the +r only zealots out there. It gets a bit tiresome listening to people preach who don't even know the science well enough to use the correct terms.
> 
> Not saying that's you Bart, not at all, just clarifying for the purpose of productive discussion.
> 
> This from wikipedia:
> 
> Here the terms _positive_ and _negative_ are not used in their popular sense, but rather: _positive_ refers to addition, and _negative_ refers to subtraction.
> What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence _positive punishment_ is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:
> 
> 
> *Positive reinforcement* (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In theSkinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or a sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.
> *Negative reinforcement* (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.
> *Positive punishment* (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
> *Negative punishment* (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.


I understand the terms, they just aren't how they are being used in this thread. Terms have usages, not meanings (although a correct usage can be measured by how close it corresponds to an agreed upon definition). 

With the technical definitions you provided, we are talking mainly about whether one uses positive punishment (e-collar) or negative reinforcement (FF). I apologize for using the terms as they were being used instead of taking the technical definitions.

I would say that the British methods being discussed attempt to use more positive reinforcement and negative punishment, while avoiding -r and +p. When talking technically, the word compulsion could be used for any of these methods. In my personal training, I occasionally do resort to some +P with a loud "no" etc. I just avoid excessive use of +p or -r

I realize the video isn't a great example of any sort of training method. The video was simply to show a dog with no FF or E-collar running a poison bird (land and water). I am enjoying the conversation, though!


----------



## DarrinGreene

terrible pet peeve of mine Bart, using those terms incorrectly. I think I just get confused too easily LoL


----------



## AmiableLabs

To say a dog is incapable of disobeying is to advocate they possess no will of their own;

To say a dog is capable of disobeying but will _always_ choose not to, is naive to the point of absurdity.


----------



## sixpacklabs

kennel maiden said:


> I think there is a lot we can learn from each other.  The reason I am here is to keep learning and improving the way I train and teach things. Sharing thoughts, ideas, tips and techniques is useful for all of us.


Kennel Maiden,
Thanks for your reply to my question on your general approach to training blinds. I came to retriever training from other dog sports where physical aversives of the type typically employed in North American retriever training aren't used, so I'm always interested in learning more about other approaches to training. Like you, I'm keen to keep learning and keep improving. The only thing I can say with certainty about dog training is that the more I learn, the more I learn there is to learn. But that's what makes it so interesting!


----------



## hotel4dogs

Whew. I was starting to feel like my dog is the ONLY one that will occasionally choose to disobey. 



AmiableLabs said:


> To say a dog is incapable of disobeying is to advocate they possess no will of their own;
> 
> To say a dog is capable of disobeying but will _always_ choose not to, is naive to the point of absurdity.


----------



## Dave Flint

AmiableLabs said:


> To say a dog is incapable of disobeying is to advocate they possess no will of their own;
> 
> To say a dog is capable of disobeying but will _always_ choose not to, is naive to the point of absurdity.


I agree w/ AmiableLabs here.

I must say that this thread has take a very interesting turn for the better with some deeply insightful thoughts. 

I always follow posts by both Eug & Colonel Milner as I find them to be very well thought out & interesting. I also happen to appreciate the traits the British gun dogs are evaluated for and wish that our Hunt Test programs reflected some of them more. Since I agree w/ them on so many issues, I'm intrigued by their statements on this one. 

If the dog does not have the capability to _disobey_ a known command, doesn’t he also lack the ability to _obey_ one? Do you ascribe to the theory that all organisms (us included) are merely responding to a stimulus and therefore aren't responsible for our actions? 

I’ve considered B.F. Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism theory but it simply does not match up with my own experiences with dogs (or humans). I know that I see dogs make decisions very often in training. Of course, training sessions should be designed to utilize the tools of Operant Conditioning to thoroughly teach a concept before you can hold them accountable, but I just don’t believe it’s all there is to it. I think the conditioned response to a "whistle sit" for example accounts for a large percentage of the reason the dog's butt moves toward the ground, but it is clear to me that there is often a "decision process" going on that keeps him there. (or not;-))


If I believed my dogs were merely predictable responders to stimuli, and all I need to do is build a big enough “Skinner box” to train in, I wouldn’t have pissed away all the time & money I have over the last 30+ years being fascinated by them.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I have very little experience, but I feel that I see the same thing. For example, a cast away from something very attractive. He will pause very slightly, maybe even flinch in the direction that HE wants to head in, pause slightly again, and then head in the direction I cast him in. I am certain he made a decision to do what he was told to do....(or not! ;-) )



Dave Flint said:


> .... I know that I see dogs make decisions very often in training.... but it is clear to me that there is often a "decision process" going on...
> 
> 
> If I believed my dogs were merely predictable responders to stimuli, and all I need to do is build a big enough “Skinner box” to train in, I wouldn’t have pissed away all the time & money I have over the last 30+ years being fascinated by them.


----------



## Bartona500

DarrinGreene said:


> terrible pet peeve of mine Bart, using those terms incorrectly. I think I just get confused too easily LoL


my bad! Really though, it would be interesting to have someone who is really quick at recognize which of the four you are using (+r -r +p -p) watch a few training sessions and do a data chart on which ones were used how often in a full training session.


----------



## Bartona500

kennel maiden said:


> I've also stayed away from this, as there didn't seem much point, when many on here don't want to look at how so-called 'British' training methods may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.
> 
> Anyway, to answer the question about aversives, for those that are interested, as Eug says, yes British trainers use aversives, some more so than others. And these come in the form of vocally correcting the dog "no!" or "oy!" (some times followed by the odd expletive!), and also by taking the dog back out to the spot of infringement and restarting or giving it a bit of a shake.
> 
> But as Eugene has said, there does seem to be much more of a move by some of the newer/more modern trainers (in line with other canine disciplines) to use positive methods of reinforcement (such as using a clicker in early stages of obedience training, and markers for good work). I would count myself in this group of kinder/modern/positive trainers...
> 
> I guess we teach positively, and then if something does go wrong we either 'correct' or use attrition or back track and try and get it engrained again.
> 
> So, at this point I would comment on the video posted by Barton (hope he doesn't mind). In that exercise, which to us is a straight forward blind retrieve with a marked distraction at an angle. I would line the dog for the blind and send it on that line with my cue word for a blind, rather than a mark, giving the dog a clue it is going for a blind rather than the mark it has just seen. I expect the dog to take my line that I am giving it. Other trainers here would indicate the 'poison bird' and command 'leave that' and then turn the dog onto the blind. I don't like doing this as I just simply want the dog to go where I am sending it - horses for courses. If the dog takes, and holds, my line it is going to fall over the bird on the stubble. And, to me, this excercise is about taking and holding a line (not whether a dog will handle/re-cast - I would practise that separately). So, in Barton's case the dog went only so far, and then was off line and required not one but 2-3 stops and re-casts.... To me, that wouldn't be acceptable (but to many handlers over here it is, if they are just picking up with their dogs, or doing the odd test). As, I say, I want the dog to take the line and hold that line until told otherwise (fairly simple on a flat field, but later will have to do this over fences, through cover, across ditches etc). So, I send the dog off and if it doesn't hold the line I will either (depending on the sensitivity of the dog) give it a vocal correction 'ah ah' once it has come way off line, recall and start again, or simply recall it and start again without a correction.
> 
> With a young dog, if it didn't manage this within a couple of go's I would then either simplify (walk out and show it the dummy and walk back) or walk further forwards to the dummy, shortening the distance of outrun (but keeping the exercise the same 'take my line and hold my line and you will find a dummy').
> 
> Until I had got this concept of blinds with distraction totally right, with the dog not sucking towards the 'poison bird', or as we would say 'challenging my line' then I certainly would not be setting the same exercise up on water!!! From the clip you see the dog challenged 3 times on land, and then on water this was a whole lot worse, around 8-9 commands to get the dummy. So, I would get rock solid on land, before going onto water.
> 
> Also, I would not always send for the 'poison bird' but sometimes go and hand pick it.
> 
> Not saying any of this is right or wrong. More than one way to skin a cat... but just giving an example on how I would train for something like this, here, with 'Brit methods'. For those that are interested. And for those that aren't, I can't believe they are still dipping into this thread?!!!....


I appreciate your comments on the video! I will say, her/my job on water was the worst we have done in a while. We having worked on poison birds in several weeks, and obviously she was struggling with me pushing her back toward the bank. 

As for your method of working this out on land, I did give her the cue for a blind retrieve rather than a mark. I'm not very sure you can hear it in the video, but I said "heel... dead bird... back" on the blind and then "heel... where's your mark.... good.... maggie" on the mark. These are the cue words we use to distinguish the two.

I ran the same land test after we did the water test, and I have uploaded it as well. Since we jumped straight off the trailer to do these drills, we didn't have any time for warming up, airing, etc. I didn't post this one yesterday because she decided to relieve herself on the way back. Normally this would be the most unacceptable part of the whole ordeal, but it was my fault for not airing her after work. As you can see, she runs the line much better this time. The bumper was placed about 10 yards to the left on the previous bumper, and a short bit closer. She nearly over runs the blind, so I stopped her to put her on it. It was muggy and wet, and scenting appeared to be terrible. That being said, I ran poison birds the next two days, including today, and she had zero issues with suction toward the mark. I think it just takes a reminder or two on drills such as these. 

http://youtu.be/5D8lvcjB-P4

*** I was tempted to post this one the first time and just remove the part where she takes a dump 10 feet from me.... but I thought that giving and honest showing of her first run would be the right thing to do


----------



## Howard N

> On a second note, the water portion of that video, if the handler were to use NO VERBAL BACKS, just silent angle backs, do you all think he would get better direction change and possibly do that blind with half the whistles? Or not?


I thought so. Often vocals will tend to send the dog where it wanted to go.


----------



## gdgnyc

Barton, thanks for the video.


----------



## gdgnyc

Howard N said:


> I thought so. Often vocals will tend to send the dog where it wanted to go.



I'm curious, do you use vocals?


----------



## Rnd

FinnLandR said:


> I'd never heard this before. Can you (or someone else who understands this) explain. I'm interested....


Well I don't know the difference between R+, R- or R2D2. 

But it would seem to me that those of us that use Carr based methods, "force"our dogs back.

In doing so a Loud vocal "back" is used in conjunction with electrical stimulus.

This is done over and over until the dog understands to go/dig back. Go back now and go hard.

So when we give a cast (any cast )with a vocal it tends to "drive" the dog back. (we do not "force" the dogs on overs) 



So having said that it would only seem logical that a dog that was NOT "forced" on back would not be so inclined to dig back. (never conditioned to do so)

The dog would be inclined to follow the body language of the handler without any overriding pressure to dig back.

JMHO.

May the force be with you regards.









Randy


----------



## MooseGooser

I dont want to hyjack a very interesting thread... So,,,please dont respond to what I have to say..

I am very confused.

I didnt realise that there was this P+ P- R+R- stuff. 
It intrigued me.

I took my Transmitter apart this morning to look to see what battery I had in mine... Its just +annd -

I will keep reading and reserching to figger out where Ya get the Alph designated batteties,, R and P

Very interesting thread.

Gooser


----------



## Bartona500

MooseGooser said:


> I dont want to hyjack a very interesting thread... So,,,please dont respond to what I have to say..
> 
> I am very confused.
> 
> I didnt realise that there was this P+ P- R+R- stuff.
> It intrigued me.
> 
> I took my Transmitter apart this morning to look to see what battery I had in mine... Its just +annd -
> 
> I will keep reading and reserching to figger out where Ya get the Alph designated batteties,, R and P
> 
> Very interesting thread.
> 
> Gooser


HAHA! That is hilarious.


----------



## john fallon

MooseGooser said:


> I dont want to hyjack a very interesting thread... So,,,please dont respond to what I have to say..
> 
> I am very confused.
> 
> I didnt realise that there was this P+ P- R+R- stuff.
> It intrigued me.
> 
> I took my Transmitter apart this morning to look to see what battery I had in mine... Its just +annd -
> 
> I will keep reading and reserching to figger out where Ya get the Alph designated batteties,, R and P
> 
> Very interesting thread.
> 
> Gooser


Sounds like you'll be a while before you are ready to tackle a guitar. http://www.guitarnuts.com/wiring/stockstrat.php

john


----------



## Colonel Blimp

*KM* posted


> So, if the game was on a direct line to the other bird, then that would be picked first, and the dog sent back for the longer bird. We do not want our dogs ignoring game here.


Err ... You are picking up behind the line with a dead bird or two lying in the open. Someone cripples a bird and brings it down with a dead bird(s) between you and it. I always aim to leave dead birds during the drive, and pick only runners and cripples. So I train a form of ladder drill with just that scenario in mind. Not uncommon.

It's only fair to say that now my lead dog has departed, of the two remaining one is reasonably sure to stop on the whistle by a dead bird and take a big "back" to a cripple, and one isn't!

Eug


----------



## kennel maiden

Colonel Blimp said:


> *KM* posted
> 
> Err ... You are picking up behind the line with a dead bird or two lying in the open. Someone cripples a bird and brings it down with a dead bird(s) between you and it. I always aim to leave dead birds during the drive, and pick only runners and cripples. So I train a form of ladder drill with just that scenario in mind. Not uncommon.
> 
> It's only fair to say that now my lead dog has departed, of the two remaining one is reasonably sure to stop on the whistle by a dead bird and take a big "back" to a cripple, and one isn't!
> 
> Eug


I was referring specifically to trials and tests, where a dog would not be expected to ignore a bird it came across on its path (and would probably be penalised for so doing 'passing over game'). We don't send our dogs directly over dead birds to pick runners. We try to put them on a clear line. Doesn't always work...


----------



## paul young

kennel maiden said:


> I was referring specifically to trials and tests, where a dog would not be expected to ignore a bird it came across on its path (and would probably be penalised for so doing 'passing over game'). We don't send our dogs directly over dead birds to pick runners. We try to put them on a clear line. Doesn't always work...



Good judges over here don't set up that kind of blind. They would never give up the initial line so easily. Poison bird blinds are typically 5-10 degreees off of the correct line, with factors in the field or water creating suction towards the poison bird and a "TRAP" on the other side of the correct line that will cause the dog to go out of sight of the handler and judges. The most difficult ones will have the poison bird equidistant or nearly so with the blind bird.

Your FT game has it's own set of difficulties. Some fail to grasp that. They need to try to line their dog over a sheep fence. They'd "get it" then......-Paul


----------



## Breck

at field trials over here we don't place poison birds directly on the path to a blind. We will however pluck duck feathers or dip a stinky duck in water and fling it around to Baptise the ground that is directly on the path to the blind.
I will say that a dog well trained on poison birds and understands the game can be handled off of a poison bird that is very close to the line.
I recall sitting in the field throwing a poison bird in towards the line to the blind. It fell within a few yards, way closer than you would want. Anyway, an accomplished field champion is running the blind and to my amazement as the dog approaches the poison bird, without breaking stride or even looking at the bird, she literally jumped over it and continued the blind. No lie.


----------



## john fallon

Breck said:


> at field trials over here we don't place poison birds directly on the path to a blind. We will however pluck duck feathers or dip a stinky duck in water and fling it around to Baptise the ground that is directly on the path to the blind.
> I will say that a dog well trained on poison birds and understands the game can be handled off of a poison bird that is very close to the line.
> I recall sitting in the field throwing a poison bird in towards the line to the blind. It fell within a few yards, way closer than you would want. Anyway, an accomplished field champion is running the blind and to my amazement as the dog approaches the poison bird, without breaking stride or even looking at the bird, she literally jumped over it and continued the blind. No lie.


_34. Repeated evidence of poor nose is in itself sufficient justification for elimination from the stake. Because scenting conditions are affected by so many factors, Judges should exercise extreme caution in invoking this penalty_


Perhaps she had a "poor nose" ;-)

john


----------



## Renee P.

Breck said:


> *at field trials over here we don't place poison birds directly on the path to a blind.* We will however pluck duck feathers or dip a stinky duck in water and fling it around to Baptise the ground that is directly on the path to the blind.
> I will say that a dog well trained on poison birds and understands the game can be handled off of a poison bird that is very close to the line.
> I recall sitting in the field throwing a poison bird in towards the line to the blind. It fell within a few yards, way closer than you would want. Anyway, an accomplished field champion is running the blind and to my amazement as the dog approaches the poison bird, without breaking stride or even looking at the bird, *she literally jumped over it and continued the blind*. No lie.


Breck, your opening statement is contradicted by your concluding statement.


----------



## Renee P.

paul young said:


> Good judges over here don't set up that kind of blind. They would never give up the initial line so easily. Poison bird blinds are typically 5-10 degreees off of the correct line, with factors in the field or water creating suction towards the poison bird and a "TRAP" on the other side of the correct line that will cause the dog to go out of sight of the handler and judges. The most difficult ones will have the poison bird equidistant or nearly so with the blind bird.
> 
> Your FT game has it's own set of difficulties. Some fail to grasp that. They need to try to line their dog over a sheep fence. They'd "get it" then......-Paul


According to my calculations, 5 degrees from the line to the blind means the poison bird lands about 6 yards from the line to the blind if thrown at 50 yards, and it lands about 9 yards from the line if thrown at 100 yards. 

Yikes. I got work to do!


----------



## Breck

mitty said:


> Breck, your opening statement is contradicted by your concluding statement.


 My example is from a training day not a field trial.


----------



## Renee P.

john fallon said:


> _34. Repeated evidence of poor nose is in itself sufficient justification for elimination from the stake. Because scenting conditions are affected by so many factors, Judges should exercise extreme caution in invoking this penalty_
> 
> 
> Perhaps she had a "poor nose" ;-)
> 
> john


John, Maybe you meant this as a joke but why insult someone's dog?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

FinnLandR said:


> I wish.....


Me too...:!!!!!:


----------



## Breck

You all are missing the point.
Anyway, to be clear, the PB was in plain sight lying on cut grass.


----------



## john fallon

mitty said:


> John, *Maybe you meant this as a joke *but why insult someone's dog?


I thought the emoticon would have taken most of the guess work out of it..........But on a more serious note there has been a recent rule change dealing with certain types of poision birds for just that reason.

john


----------



## LABRADORS UNLIMITED

After being a pro for forty years and sending home dogs that were only going to make good house pets because lack of talent to be a good retriever..A high majority of British labs did not make it.I have have seen some good ones but not many.Your field labs are bred for the whole package.


----------



## Renee P.

Breck said:


> You all are missing the point.
> Anyway, to be clear, the PB was in plain sight lying on cut grass.


I gathered that you were very impressed!


----------



## crackerd

LABRADORS UNLIMITED said:


> After being a pro for forty years and sending home dogs that were only going to make good house pets because lack of talent to be a good retriever. *A high majority of British labs did not make it*. I have have seen some good ones but not many.Your field labs are bred for the whole package.


Didn't make _*what*_? - all-age FT dogs or duck dogs? To get this thread back on track, maybe you used too much force, or electricity...(which, km, is not necessarily a good idea when teaching our kind of poison bird blinds).

MG


----------



## gdgnyc

LABRADORS UNLIMITED said:


> After being a pro for forty years and sending home dogs that were only going to make good house pets because lack of talent to be a good retriever..A high majority of British labs did not make it.I have have seen some good ones but not many.Your field labs are bred for the whole package.


A high majority, you mean well over 50% ? Wow, that's quite a statement. Were these field bred Labs from the States or were they Labs imported from overseas? I had the impression that in order for a Lab to get its Championship title in Britain it had to prove itself in the field. I would therefore expect higher percentage of field capable Labs. Maybe I'm way off base. Show me where I'm wrong.


----------



## paul young

mitty said:


> According to my calculations, 5 degrees from the line to the blind means the poison bird lands about 6 yards from the line to the blind if thrown at 50 yards, and it lands about 9 yards from the line if thrown at 100 yards.
> 
> Yikes. I got work to do!



At HT distances, 10 degrees works nicely. If you see a 50 foot over towards the end of a blind, rest assured that the score will be ugly. Likewise, if you have a bunch of scalloping angle backs enroute, it will be equally ugly.

5 degrees works fine for a FT blind where the poison bird is at 150-200 yards and the blind bird at 3-ish. If the line to the blind is down wind of the line to the bird and the wind is angling in towards the mat, the dog is in the scent cone a loooong time, further strengthening the mental image of the bird that was thrown.

There are poison bird blinds and then there are POISON BIRD BLINDS.....

I think I'll start a new thread. This is really outside the original discussion.-Paul


----------



## Bartona500

gdgnyc said:


> A high majority, you mean well over 50% ? Wow, that's quite a statement. Were these field bred Labs from the States or were they Labs imported from overseas? I had the impression that in order for a Lab to get its Championship title in Britain it had to prove itself in the field. I would therefore expect higher percentage of field capable Labs. Maybe I'm way off base. Show me where I'm wrong.


I agree. Now, I know of several US kennels advertising UK labs that are "the full package" who have a few FTCH's in the pedigree and the same amount of CH in there as well. No doubt several of these dogs won't "make it" to even meat dog status. But if you get into the game finding pedigrees from the UK, such as the two I showed in a recent thread on Bonnie & Clyde, I would certainly challenge that these dogs have no lesser chance of making it in the field than our AKC FC filled pedigrees. Granted they haven't been bred for the type of work required by AKC FT's, they are bred for excellent game fining abilities, drive, steadiness, bid ability, line manners, etc. 

Bottom line, the FT requirement differences between us and the UK, mixed with the high amount of breeding to FC's (here) and FTCH (there) has led to a distinguishable difference in the Labradors which requires distinct differences in training to reach the maximum potential of each dog. I know there are exceptions to these generalizations, but when talking about merely Gundog training (not the games) I certainly don't believe any more British dogs are culled than American dogs. If this is the case, the issue may be too much pressure... The same as teaching steadiness via British methods to a fire breathing FC American lab just may not be sufficient to keep her from breaking.


----------



## kennel maiden

Bartona500 said:


> I agree. Now, I know of several US kennels advertising UK labs that are "the full package" who have *a few FTCH's in the pedigree and the same amount of CH in there as well...... *
> Bottom line, the FT requirement differences between us and the UK, mixed with the high amount of breeding to FC's (here) and FTCH (there) has led to a distinguishable difference in the Labradors which requires distinct differences in training to reach the maximum potential of each dog. I know there are exceptions to these generalizations, but when talking about merely Gundog training (not the games) I certainly don't believe any more British dogs are culled than American dogs. If this is the case, the issue may be too much pressure... The same as teaching steadiness via British methods to a fire breathing FC American lab just may not be sufficient to keep her from breaking.


Okay, we are WAY off original thread now, but I do feel I must just jump on this point about "British" dogs. The hypothetical dog that you mention above with both FT CH and CH in its pedigree would likely not be a top FT dog here. Our labradors are about as divided as they can be in this country into virtually two separate breeds, show vs working. There hasn't been a dual champion since, I think, about 1952. The two camps have diverged so much that they are unlikely to ever meet again. 

There are a few here that purport to have 'dual purpose' labs, usually some show folk that dabble with 'working' their dogs in the field, but don't usually make the heights of trialling. On the whole, these dogs are "jacks of all trade,.....".

So, folk that trial here will look for pedigrees that have purely FT CHs or FTWs in them and are totally 'working bred', and likewise, show folk will not want FT CHs in theirs, but go for purely CH. We breed for our specific discipline, thus making training so much easier, as we have the right material to start with.

Sadly, I think the majority of dogs that are exported from UK to USA are dogs that haven't made the grade here! (otherwise they would be staying....) They are either not going to go 'all the way' and get made up to FT CH, or they have an eliminating fault (which may be acceptable in USA but not here), or are too hot perhaps. 


Finally, on the 'placement' of poison birds thing. In our UK Field Trials, none of our birds are 'placed' as it is all a natural, live shooting situation on a 'real' shoot or walked up shooting. So birds are taken as they come, or in the case of driven stakes, the judges may move the competitors if they want to make slightly more challenging retrieves, but the birds themselves are never moved (indeed, if one is touched by hand then it will be removed, as no bird that goes into the dogs mouth should have hand-scent on it, or have been picked by another dog).

Hope that clears a few things up.


----------



## rmilner

I have been training gundogs professionally since 1972. I have been importing and training British dogs of the field dog gene pool since the early 1980's. I have trained a large number of dogs from the American gene pool and a large number of dogs from the British gene pool. I have found that there is a conversion rate of nearly 100% of the British field bred pool into excellent gundogs. That is one of the reasons I like them. I have also found that many of the Briitsh dogs do not adapt well to some of the American training models.


----------



## Pete

> I have been training gundogs professionally since 1972. I have been importing and training British dogs of the field dog gene pool since the early 1980's. I have trained a large number of dogs from the American gene pool and a large number of dogs from the British gene pool. I have found that there is a conversion rate of nearly 100% of the British field bred pool into excellent gundogs. That is one of the reasons I like them. I have also found that many of the Briitsh dogs do not adapt well to some of the American training models.


x2
They seem to hold really well and return to handler more consistently without training. I have done only a couple handfuls of British dogs and they were this way. As nice as they were they also as a whole forced more like a chessy or a rottweiler than an american lab meaning it seemed to break down down their enthusiasm. But I can't recall if they were strictly field bred or had show in them also,,,I guess that could make a difference.
Just my experience
pete


----------



## Jonronamo

I am new to the forum and I posted this thread to get a some opinions, I would have never imagined it would go this long. However, I have read some interesting points on this topic and appreciate everyone's input..
I would like to educate myself on some of these training methods they use in Europe. Whether or not I use them is to be seen. Knowledge has been an ongoing mission in my life and I am always learning from others, I don't see why these training methods should be any different. 
Does anyone have references to these training methods? Books ,videos, websites ..............


----------



## Steve Vires

Considering I've FF'd and CC'd well over a 100 Brit dogs, including some imported and already titled in the UK, my experience may help the OP with his decision. Apples to apples, a UK FtCh can best be compared to a AKC SH. The SH in a test will get 4-6 marks, a couple of blinds, and a few diversions--resembling a actual day's hunt in the US. The FtCh will see many more birds, run a few blinds, and work a field in a group--resembling a actual day's hunt in the UK. Most would agree training to a SH level can be accomplished with little or no force. But training here or there does involve pressure, and the difference is in the application. Running out and giving a dog a good shake,imo, is intimidation with bad timing, and relies on the dog figuring out what's going on over time. To a properly collar conditioned dog, a well timed nic is no big deal, as they understand why, and how to turn it off. Using their selling points of a more intelligent, willing retriever, even helps the arguement to FF/CC, as smart/willing dogs breeze through pressure work when properly applied. Force fetch is just a game of Simon Says, with the dog learning sit,here, fetch, --and who Simon is...Brits learn to play the game quite well. Thrown into a one size fits all force program, would likely lead to bad results..


----------



## Bartona500

kennel maiden said:


> Okay, we are WAY off original thread now, but I do feel I must just jump on this point about "British" dogs. The hypothetical dog that you mention above with both FT CH and CH in its pedigree would likely not be a top FT dog here. Our labradors are about as divided as they can be in this country into virtually two separate breeds, show vs working. There hasn't been a dual champion since, I think, about 1952. The two camps have diverged so much that they are unlikely to ever meet again.
> 
> There are a few here that purport to have 'dual purpose' labs, usually some show folk that dabble with 'working' their dogs in the field, but don't usually make the heights of trialling. On the whole, these dogs are "jacks of all trade,.....".
> 
> So, folk that trial here will look for pedigrees that have purely FT CHs or FTWs in them and are totally 'working bred', and likewise, show folk will not want FT CHs in theirs, but go for purely CH. We breed for our specific discipline, thus making training so much easier, as we have the right material to start with.
> 
> Sadly, I think the majority of dogs that are exported from UK to USA are dogs that haven't made the grade here! (otherwise they would be staying....) They are either not going to go 'all the way' and get made up to FT CH, or they have an eliminating fault (which may be acceptable in USA but not here), or are too hot perhaps.
> 
> 
> Finally, on the 'placement' of poison birds thing. In our UK Field Trials, none of our birds are 'placed' as it is all a natural, live shooting situation on a 'real' shoot or walked up shooting. So birds are taken as they come, or in the case of driven stakes, the judges may move the competitors if they want to make slightly more challenging retrieves, but the birds themselves are never moved (indeed, if one is touched by hand then it will be removed, as no bird that goes into the dogs mouth should have hand-scent on it, or have been picked by another dog).
> 
> Hope that clears a few things up.


Maiden, I don't think your jumping in this time clarified anything, except maybe the poison bird scenario. You say we are way off topic - really? Here is the original post:

"Below is an article I found in Gun Dog magazine. I would like everyones thoughts on British Labs and British training methods that apparently "do not use force"? 

Gun Dog Article:

There’s a new movement making British Style Field Trials popular again, along with the British strain of Labrador retriever. These Labs are largely born with the behavior of delivering retrieved objects to hand, making it unnecessary to force-fetch them. They are also bred to be calm companions as well as peak performers in the field, according to Robert Milner, who breeds British Labs at Duckhill Kennel. And from what I saw of his 5-week-old puppies to 5-year-old adults, it’s absolutely true.

"The big attraction to these trials and British training methods, for me, was the lack of force training. No force to pile, force to water, force anything. For dogs bred to be highly trainable and good at hunting, like my golden, this philosophy says it’s not necessary to use force. It’s very believable after watching several British-trained dogs complete 175-yard blind retrieves through walls of 5-foot tall brush and woods, guided by whistle and hand signals, then stand at heel, steady as a rock, while they watch another dog work."

It is my contention that the post you quoted (mine) addresses the topic VERY specifically. Your follow up doesn't add or retract anything to that conversation. I agree, field bred and show bred lines mixed together make poor gun dogs and certainly not FTCH. I was referring to over here, USA, where folks mix these lines and advertise them as gun dogs. In addition, I agree that some of the well-known kennels over here do import dogs that just didn't quite cut it in the ft games over there. That isn't the case for all of them, however. In fact, Mr. Milner (of whom I've only spoken to just once before) has some excellent imported dogs. I recently trained (conditioning for the season) Int. FTCH Ballincanty Star "Smuggler", my pups sire. Certainly you wouldn't say he didn't make the cut, yet my mentor Mark imported him two years ago. 

The only thing I will concede is that we do tend to get more of the "hot" dogs from the UK, but this is usually what we are looking for.


----------



## crackerd

Steve Vires said:


> Using their selling points of a more intelligent, willing retriever, even helps the argument to FF/CC, as smart/willing dogs breeze through pressure work when properly applied.


Sharpest observation made throughout these many pages, and buttressed by hands'-on experience. My take on it, too - but as applies to our (US) field trials, not HTs.

MG


----------



## crackerd

kennel maiden said:


> Sadly, *I think the majority of dogs that are exported from UK to USA are dogs that haven't made the grade here! (otherwise they would be staying....) *They are either not going to go 'all the way' and get made up to FT CH, or they have an eliminating fault (which may be acceptable in USA but not here), or are too hot perhaps.


L, au contraire, the majority of dogs exported to the US are FTCh or FTW to be used as sires and - in certain precincts - pump out untold numbers of litters a year and get their new owner lots of "gentlemanly" face-time in Forbes magazine. I've always wondered why somebody (over there) would sell a FTCh after making it up - hardly ever done in N. America, just not negotiable, at any price. But again most of the dogs that come across from your side are FTChs or FTWs who have new lives as sires but no longer as competitive retrievers.

MG


----------



## kennel maiden

crackerd said:


> L, au contraire, the majority of dogs exported to the US are FTCh or FTW to be used as sires and - in certain precincts - pump out untold numbers of litters a year and get their new owner lots of "gentlemanly" face-time in Forbes magazine. I've always wondered why somebody (over there) would sell a FTCh after making it up - hardly ever done in N. America, just not negotiable, at any price. But again most of the dogs that come across from your side are FTChs or FTWs who have new lives as sires but no longer as competitive retrievers.
> 
> MG


I suspect that those that are sold as FTWs (having won a novice stake) are sold because they aren't going to go all the way here. Pure and simple. It is relatively easy, in experienced hands, to win a novice stake if the dog is generally good all round and polished, but going on to make it up to FT CH is a tad more difficult!! 

The FT CHs that are sold are basically sold abroad for 'big bucks', pure and simple. Again, they may have deveoped eliminating faults with age, or the £££££s may just have been too tempting. If they were really great, they would be getting so much stud work here that selling wouldn't be an option (if it was a dog, not bitch). Or, they may have failed a DNA test (PRA or CNM) and therefore not likely to get much stud work....

Bottom line still is, that a GREAT FT CH is unlikely to be sold abroad, period.

A while ago, a lot of below-standard Scottish stock was sold to you guys (it's a deal easier to make up a FT CH in Scotland or Ireland) and probably gave some of our dogs a bad rap. I think this has been stamped on a bit now, and US folk are more wary/canny.


----------



## kennel maiden

Bartona500 said:


> Maiden, I don't think your jumping in this time clarified anything, except maybe the poison bird scenario. You say we are way off topic - really? Here is the original post:
> 
> "Below is an article I found in Gun Dog magazine. I would like everyones thoughts on British Labs and British training methods that apparently "do not use force"?
> 
> Gun Dog Article:
> 
> There’s a new movement making British Style Field Trials popular again, along with the British strain of Labrador retriever. These Labs are largely born with the behavior of delivering retrieved objects to hand, making it unnecessary to force-fetch them. They are also bred to be calm companions as well as peak performers in the field, according to Robert Milner, who breeds British Labs at Duckhill Kennel. And from what I saw of his 5-week-old puppies to 5-year-old adults, it’s absolutely true.
> 
> "The big attraction to these trials and British training methods, for me, was the lack of force training. No force to pile, force to water, force anything. For dogs bred to be highly trainable and good at hunting, like my golden, this philosophy says it’s not necessary to use force. It’s very believable after watching several British-trained dogs complete 175-yard blind retrieves through walls of 5-foot tall brush and woods, guided by whistle and hand signals, then stand at heel, steady as a rock, while they watch another dog work."
> 
> It is my contention that the post you quoted (mine) addresses the topic VERY specifically. Your follow up doesn't add or retract anything to that conversation. I agree, field bred and show bred lines mixed together make poor gun dogs and certainly not FTCH. I was referring to over here, USA, where folks mix these lines and advertise them as gun dogs. In addition, I agree that some of the well-known kennels over here do import dogs that just didn't quite cut it in the ft games over there. That isn't the case for all of them, however. In fact, Mr. Milner (of whom I've only spoken to just once before) has some excellent imported dogs. I recently trained (conditioning for the season) Int. FTCH Ballincanty Star "Smuggler", my pups sire. Certainly you wouldn't say he didn't make the cut, yet my mentor Mark imported him two years ago.
> 
> The only thing I will concede is that we do tend to get more of the "hot" dogs from the UK, but this is usually what we are looking for.


Barton, sorry, I just thought I may be straying from the very original post about FF? I was then specifically addressing the bit I had emboldened in your quote about a dog with both FTCH and CH in its pedigree....

Anyway, sorry you didn't think it helped or clarified.


----------



## crackerd

kennel maiden said:


> I suspect that those that are sold as FTWs (having won a novice stake) are sold because they aren't going to go all the way here. Pure and simple. It is relatively easy, in experienced hands, to win a novice stake if the dog is generally good all round and polished, but going on to make it up to FT CH is a tad more difficult!!
> 
> The FT CHs that are sold are basically sold abroad for 'big bucks', pure and simple. Again, they may have deveoped eliminating faults with age, or the £££££s may just have been too tempting. If they were really great, they would be getting so much stud work here that selling wouldn't be an option (if it was a dog, not bitch). Or, they may have failed a DNA test (PRA or CNM) and therefore not likely to get much stud work....


Uh-oh, L - you've just shot down our premier marketeer in flames - as withering a fusillade of words to a marketeer as a .50-caliber burst from one of those perfectly-preserved Spitfires just rediscovered in Burma...

Thinking that's the name I'll have to give my next British (American) FT Lab.

MG


----------



## Bartona500

kennel maiden said:


> Barton, sorry, I just thought I may be straying from the very original post about FF? I was then specifically addressing the bit I had emboldened in your quote about a dog with both FTCH and CH in its pedigree....
> 
> Anyway, sorry you didn't think it helped or clarified.


Not a big deal, I was only proud we were finally back on topic! I know that, for the ones I've been involved with, getting a FTCh over here is far from inexpensive. It takes a lot of stud service fees to pay that off. However, there are some wealthy folks here willing to pay top $ for an authentic UK FTCh in the blind with them. Honestly, that part is pretty ridiculous... Because it takes quite a bit of work to get a FTCh ready for our type of waterfowl hunting.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

I find the comments about dogs not being able to disobey interesting. My personal thought is it depends on how they are trained. In order for a disobedience to occur, one must understand both right and wrong, as well as understand the consequences for right and wrong. In a true all positive environment, wrong is not taught nor are they consequences for wrong. All focus is given to enhancing the desired traits. So I get that there is no "disobeying." However in a balanced training program it is possible for a dog to disobey as they are trained right and wrong and the consequences that go with them.

/Paul


----------



## mlp

kennel maiden said:


> I suspect that those that are sold as FTWs (having won a novice stake) are sold because they aren't going to go all the way here. Pure and simple. It is relatively easy, in experienced hands, to win a novice stake if the dog is generally good all round and polished, but going on to make it up to FT CH is a tad more difficult!!
> 
> The FT CHs that are sold are basically sold abroad for 'big bucks', pure and simple. Again, they may have deveoped eliminating faults with age, or the £££££s may just have been too tempting. If they were really great, they would be getting so much stud work here that selling wouldn't be an option (if it was a dog, not bitch). Or, they may have failed a DNA test (PRA or CNM) and therefore not likely to get much stud work....
> 
> Bottom line still is, that a GREAT FT CH is unlikely to be sold abroad, period.
> 
> A while ago, a lot of below-standard Scottish stock was sold to you guys (it's a deal easier to make up a FT CH in Scotland or Ireland) and probably gave some of our dogs a bad rap. I think this has been stamped on a bit now, and US folk are more wary/canny.


I agree, most of the dogs sold over here from the U.K. are below standard for U.K. trials. I have had the pleasure to see a couple FTCH's from over there that were what I call exceptional but as I was told they didn't come cheap.


----------



## polmaise

kennel maiden said:


> it's a deal easier to make up a FT CH in Scotland or Ireland) and probably gave some of *our *dogs a bad rap.


I think there is more than a few that would disagree with that?..
A FTCH, is a FTCH !! otherwise, that would make nonsense of the whole KC ethos and standing? regarding judging.
I will pass on your regards however,to some of those that have achieved such


----------



## crackerd

Ye olde rapscallion! Just riddle me this - is it true you gave the laird one of them calm and collected 'Merican Labs for his birthday?:BIG:

MG


----------



## polmaise

crackerd said:


> Ye olde rapscallion! Just riddle me this - is it true you gave the laird one of them calm and collected 'Merican Labs for his birthday?:BIG:
> 
> MG


Nah!! He couldn't handle one of them!...anyhow?...what do you get a Millionaire at the age of 80, who has everything!? 
Easy! ....I got him 'Kippers' 
http://www.thewhitbycatch.co.uk/cgi-bin/shopprod.cgi?id=68


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I find the comments about dogs not being able to disobey interesting. My personal thought is it depends on how they are trained. In order for a disobedience to occur, one must understand both right and wrong, as well as understand the consequences for right and wrong. In a true all positive environment, wrong is not taught nor are they consequences for wrong. All focus is given to enhancing the desired traits. So I get that there is no "disobeying." However in a balanced training program it is possible for a dog to disobey as they are trained right and wrong and the consequences that go with them.
> 
> /Paul


Nice post, /Paul. I would add that in a clicker training session, the dog does learn what "doesn't work" rather than what's "wrong". And as a consequence to do doing what "doesn't work" their treat or retrieve (reward) gets withheld. So if clicker training to heel: dog gets clicked and treated for walking at heel exactly correctly. If dog wanders ahead a bit, no click and no treat. Human stops to wait for right behavior, Dog learns and comes back to heel to get the human to click/treat. 

Even though dog is not taught "Wrong = punishment" dog does learn "what doesn't work = no reward"


----------



## duk4me

polmaise said:


> Nah!! He couldn't handle one of them!...anyhow?...what do you get a Millionaire at the age of 80, who has everything!?
> Easy! ....I got him 'Kippers'
> http://www.thewhitbycatch.co.uk/cgi-bin/shopprod.cgi?id=68


Two things a pack of depends and some little blue pills we have over here.


----------



## Scott Parker

Jennifer Henion said:


> Nice post, /Paul. I would add that in a clicker training session, the dog does learn what "doesn't work" rather than what's "wrong". And as a consequence to do doing what "doesn't work" their treat or retrieve (reward) gets withheld. So if clicker training to heel: dog gets clicked and treated for walking at heel exactly correctly. If dog wanders ahead a bit, no click and no treat. Human stops to wait for right behavior, Dog learns and comes back to heel to get the human to click/treat.
> 
> Even though dog is not taught "Wrong = punishment" dog does learn "what doesn't work = no reward"


But is withholding a treat enough of an incentive to make some dogs do the right thing I know my dog would forgo a treat to go sniff and pee on a tree when being asked to heel. I think if you want reliable results from your dog they need to know the consequences for the wrong behavior or more sever then not getting a treat.


----------



## crackerd

crackerd said:


> Ye olde rapscallion! Just riddle me this - is it true you gave the laird one of them calm and collected 'Merican Labs for his birthday?:BIG:





polmaise said:


> Nah!! He couldn't handle one of them!...anyhow?...what do you get a Millionaire at the age of 80, who has everything!?


Kept telling you, the laird would've loved having title to the first Scottish Boykin - 










- as for force, fugeddaboutit - they're already a force of nature.

MG


----------



## Aussie

One of my Australian friends has recently imported semen from an UK kennel. She chose the naughty boy...not the Field Champions. She liked the manic desire...which MAY not be highly regarded/selected - for top trial dogs or prospects. 

I am looking forward to FINALLY seeing UK field labradors myself next May.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Scott Parker said:


> But is withholding a treat enough of an incentive to make some dogs do the right thing I know my dog would forgo a treat to go sniff and pee on a tree when being asked to heel. I think if you want reliable results from your dog they need to know the consequences for the wrong behavior or more sever then not getting a treat.


And this is the crux of the force vs no force debate, isn't it. The answer it seems, is that it depends on the trainer's skill and the dog at hand. As well as the nature of the reward. Is it a tiny milk bone, or is it the promise of a duck to fetch?

I use the treat/reward training to teach new skills and then reinforce that learned skill when tacking on a new skill. 

Like heeling to the line for a mark. I clicker/treat trained my pup to heel and it worked great. Then we tacked on the heel to the holding blind then holding blind to line, steadiness on line til sent for mark. Never seen a dog LOVE getting in the holding blind as much as this pup. She knows that each step in the chain is getting her closer to that ultimate reward of the mark/retrieve. If she fails to do a step, no retrieve. Boring. That's enough for her. BUT, we developed the right habits and expectations VERY EARLY ON. 

Clicker training is not just: grab any ole treat and go outside and see if the dog will do what you want, instead of what HE wants. It's a process and technique that has to be followed properly in order to get the right results - just like with ecollar training or any punishment based training. I promise that once a dog knows what the clicker means, *and the trainer know what they are doing,* the dog will very focused on trying to figure out what you're trying to train him. 

As for the debate on whether a dog will purposely disobey a known command, I think it's possible, but I think it's more about the choices presented to the dog and which choice is most rewarding. Is it 1.) humping the female in standing heat right next to him or 2.) Being told to stay at heel and get a click treat while a female in heat is standing next to him?

I have stayed in several hotels with my 3 yr old golden and can easily heel him past the open breakfast area with waffle and bacon smell, children and people saying how cute he is. He was clicker trained to heel and finds it very rewarding to be with me in training mode.


----------



## Scott Parker

Jennifer I think the clicker and reward based training have their place and I'm sure it works better on some dogs then others but I think if the distraction is great enough most dogs are going to not obey immediately. If you have a dog that likes to chase cats or rabbits and it's been e collar trained when it take off to chase something and you yell NO HERE!!! he knows whats coming next if it doesn't stop. But a dog that has only done things for a reward and not because he has to might decide that chasing the cat is a better reward and keeps on running across the road right in front of a car.


----------



## polmaise

crackerd said:


> Kept telling you, the laird would've loved having title to the first Scottish Boykin -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - as for force, fugeddaboutit - they're already a force of nature.
> 
> MG


You don't have a pic of one retrieving a 'Kipper', Do You?....:evilbat:...Or 'Red Herring will do'?
This one came back with the box!..Well Kippered! I'd say?








Mind you?> this wee one don't need no force!...It's forcing itself into training on it's own?...with all the gear to 'Boot'!


----------



## polmaise

Jonronamo said:


> I would like everyones thoughts on British Labs and British training methods that apparently "do not use force"?


Each to his own Buddy!..If it works then do it!?
Never needed to 'encourage' one to do what they were bred to do though?










No matter the breed!








...
And especially if you start em right at the very beginning?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Nice pictures! Thanks for sharing those. Cute bLab.

I wasn't going to post this but I will. Interesting!! Not for everyone now! This is by the fellow who wrote Positive Gundog Training. Just FYI.

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1134


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Scott Parker said:


> Jennifer I think the clicker and reward based training have their place and I'm sure it works better on some dogs then others but I think if the distraction is great enough most dogs are going to not obey immediately. If you have a dog that likes to chase cats or rabbits and it's been e collar trained when it take off to chase something and you yell NO HERE!!! he knows whats coming next if it doesn't stop. But a dog that has only done things for a reward and not because he has to *might decide that chasing the cat is a better reward* and keeps on running across the road right in front of a car.


Or that the 4 yr old at the hotel holding a stick of bacon at breakfast and running toward the dog is a better reward. That's when I say "NO". Don't have to say it loud, just with meaning! 

I think I likely have an unfair advantage, I'm with my dogs at home, at work and while traveling, due to the nature of my business (dogs). So we have about 10,000 opportunities a day to train and learn boundaries. 

The clicker training works, but I also use No, blocking and redirection. Timing is everything!

Jen


----------



## hotel4dogs

I still think it comes down to the basic instincts in the dog.
My boy, too, has no problem heeling past breakfast (or any food), in a hotel or anywhere. He will do a down-stay or sit-stay, with me out of sight, and not touch food that's left on the floor right in front of him if he has been told to leave it alone. (He was not clicker trained, though).
But when very strong basic instincts come into play, such as breeding or, believe it or not, prey drive if feathers are involved, all bets are off. You could offer him any treat you can think of, and he would literally spit it out onto the floor. I can't train him with treats at all in field, he wants nothing to do with them if there are birds (or bitches) nearby, although he was trained with treats for competition obedience and agility, as well as the breed ring. 



Jennifer Henion said:


> And this is the crux of the force vs no force debate, isn't it. The answer it seems, is that it depends on the trainer's skill and the dog at hand. As well as the nature of the reward. Is it a tiny milk bone, or is it the promise of a duck to fetch?
> 
> I use the treat/reward training to teach new skills and then reinforce that learned skill when tacking on a new skill.
> 
> Like heeling to the line for a mark. I clicker/treat trained my pup to heel and it worked great. Then we tacked on the heel to the holding blind then holding blind to line, steadiness on line til sent for mark. Never seen a dog LOVE getting in the holding blind as much as this pup. She knows that each step in the chain is getting her closer to that ultimate reward of the mark/retrieve. If she fails to do a step, no retrieve. Boring. That's enough for her. BUT, we developed the right habits and expectations VERY EARLY ON.
> 
> Clicker training is not just: grab any ole treat and go outside and see if the dog will do what you want, instead of what HE wants. It's a process and technique that has to be followed properly in order to get the right results - just like with ecollar training or any punishment based training. I promise that once a dog knows what the clicker means, *and the trainer know what they are doing,* the dog will very focused on trying to figure out what you're trying to train him.
> 
> As for the debate on whether a dog will purposely disobey a known command, I think it's possible, but I think it's more about the choices presented to the dog and which choice is most rewarding. Is it 1.) humping the female in standing heat right next to him or 2.) Being told to stay at heel and get a click treat while a female in heat is standing next to him?
> 
> I have stayed in several hotels with my 3 yr old golden and can easily heel him past the open breakfast area with waffle and bacon smell, children and people saying how cute he is. He was clicker trained to heel and finds it very rewarding to be with me in training mode.


----------



## rmilner

hotel4dogs said:


> I still think it comes down to the basic instincts in the dog.
> My boy, too, has no problem heeling past breakfast (or any food), in a hotel or anywhere. He will do a down-stay or sit-stay, with me out of sight, and not touch food that's left on the floor right in front of him if he has been told to leave it alone. (He was not clicker trained, though).
> But when very strong basic instincts come into play, such as breeding or, believe it or not, prey drive if feathers are involved, all bets are off. You could offer him any treat you can think of, and he would literally spit it out onto the floor. I can't train him with treats at all in field, he wants nothing to do with them if there are birds (or bitches) nearby, although he was trained with treats for competition obedience and agility, as well as the breed ring.



A compulsion trainer has to have a certain level of knowldege and certain level of skills to do a good job and produce a good product.

A positive trainer has to have a certain level of knowledge and certain level of skills to do a good job and produce a good product.

Being a good compulsion trainer does not make one a good positive trainer; being a good positive trainer does not make one a good compulsion trainer.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Jennifer Henion said:


> Nice post, /Paul. I would add that in a clicker training session, the dog does learn what "doesn't work" rather than what's "wrong". And as a consequence to do doing what "doesn't work" their treat or retrieve (reward) gets withheld. So if clicker training to heel: dog gets clicked and treated for walking at heel exactly correctly. If dog wanders ahead a bit, no click and no treat. Human stops to wait for right behavior, Dog learns and comes back to heel to get the human to click/treat.
> 
> Even though dog is not taught "Wrong = punishment" dog does learn "what doesn't work = no reward"


Which is great if the dogs only drive in the world is a piece of fake bacon and the soothing sound of a piece of plastic clicking in their ear. I prefer to train high drive bird dogs which much more intense desires than that...

/Paul


----------



## WRL

Jennifer Henion said:


> And this is the crux of the force vs no force debate, isn't it. The answer it seems, is that it depends on the trainer's skill and the dog at hand. As well as the nature of the reward. Is it a tiny milk bone, or is it the promise of a duck to fetch?
> 
> I use the treat/reward training to teach new skills and then reinforce that learned skill when tacking on a new skill.
> 
> Like heeling to the line for a mark. I clicker/treat trained my pup to heel and it worked great. Then we tacked on the heel to the holding blind then holding blind to line, steadiness on line til sent for mark. Never seen a dog LOVE getting in the holding blind as much as this pup. She knows that each step in the chain is getting her closer to that ultimate reward of the mark/retrieve. If she fails to do a step, no retrieve. Boring. That's enough for her. BUT, we developed the right habits and expectations VERY EARLY ON.
> 
> Clicker training is not just: grab any ole treat and go outside and see if the dog will do what you want, instead of what HE wants. It's a process and technique that has to be followed properly in order to get the right results - just like with ecollar training or any punishment based training. I promise that once a dog knows what the clicker means, *and the trainer know what they are doing,* the dog will very focused on trying to figure out what you're trying to train him.
> 
> As for the debate on whether a dog will purposely disobey a known command, I think it's possible, but I think it's more about the choices presented to the dog and which choice is most rewarding. Is it 1.) humping the female in standing heat right next to him or 2.) Being told to stay at heel and get a click treat while a female in heat is standing next to him?
> 
> I have stayed in several hotels with my 3 yr old golden and can easily heel him past the open breakfast area with waffle and bacon smell, children and people saying how cute he is. He was clicker trained to heel and finds it very rewarding to be with me in training mode.


How has your young dog done in competition? The reason I ask, it that the level of excitement get raised considerably and the distraction level is raised exponentially.

I know LOTS of dogs that are model citizens in the home, in the hotel or even in training but when the day for the event comes, they are jumping out of their skin.

If your dog scoots on the line at an event (or any behavior that in training you would not reward), have you heeled them off the line and said "Thanks for your time judges I am not going to run my dog."

How have you handled this situation where the dog has to contain ITSELF and not be restrained physically or verbally by you?

WRL


----------



## Jennifer Henion

WRL said:


> How has your young dog done in competition? The reason I ask, it that the level of excitement get raised considerably and the distraction level is raised exponentially.
> 
> I know LOTS of dogs that are model citizens in the home, in the hotel or even in training but when the day for the event comes, they are jumping out of their skin.
> 
> If your dog scoots on the line at an event (or any behavior that in training you would not reward), have you heeled them off the line and said "Thanks for your time judges I am not going to run my dog."
> 
> How have you handled this situation where the dog has to contain ITSELF and not be restrained physically or verbally by you?
> 
> WRL


I've made no secret of the fact that I've only achieved a JH title. And that was on the dog described as heeling in the hotel. He is now 3 and too slow and showy for field work. My new 10 month pup is a field bred dog and we'll see how things go in the Derby this spring. 

To /Paul: bacon treats aren't the reward used in the field. Birds and bumpers are the reward in the field.

Jen


----------



## gdgnyc

I think that the retrieve is a very powerful tool in training a dog that loves to retrieve and fits in nicely with Jennifer's training philosophy. Retrieve for reward, removal for punishment.

To the critics:
How have you corrected your dog to steady it---heeling stick, collar correction, prevention of retrieve, something else? How have you gotten your dog steady to flush? I am all for using anything that works and I am open to trying new things and evaluating them.

How many new techniques have you tried?

For the record, I am not critical of anyone's training style. I personally don't like to be committed to one style, I like to have an open mind which I feel will help me grow as a trainer.

To quote someone whom I respect: "Be married to your goal, not your style of training."


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Jennifer Henion said:


> I've made no secret of the fact that I've only achieved a JH title. And that was on the dog described as heeling in the hotel. He is now 3 and too slow and showy for field work. My new 10 month pup is a field bred dog and we'll see how things go in the Derby this spring.
> 
> To /Paul: bacon treats aren't the reward used in the field. Birds and bumpers are the reward in the field.
> 
> Jen


How do I use birds and bumpers to teach healing?

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore

gdgnyc said:


> I think that the retrieve is a very powerful tool in training a dog that loves to retrieve and fits in nicely with Jennifer's training philosophy. Retrieve for reward, removal for punishment.
> 
> To the critics:
> How have you corrected your dog to steady it---heeling stick, collar correction, prevention of retrieve, something else? How have you gotten your dog steady to flush? I am all for using anything that works and I am open to trying new things and evaluating them.
> 
> How many new techniques have you tried?
> 
> For the record, I am not critical of anyone's training style. I personally don't like to be committed to one style, I like to have an open mind which I feel will help me grow as a trainer.
> 
> To quote someone whom I respect: "Be married to your goal, not your style of training."


a rope and let the bird fly away. Have a clipped wing pigeon in your pocket. When dog is steady to flush, (bird MUST fly away, this is where homing pigeons are handy) you throw clipped wing pigeon and bang. If dog is not stead all it sees is the bird fly away. Do this a million times. There. I know a positive training method. But, someone will probably not call this positive I'm certain.


----------



## JusticeDog

I am all for positive training in the obedience ring, the agility ring, around the house, etc. But dogs cannot hear a clicker at 450 yards. I have seen it happen before with obedience/positive trainers that think they can train for field trials in the same manner. At 450 yards, or when the mental pressure is on the dog, is when the wheels fall off. These dogs lives are too short to risk a talented dog in this manner IMHO. To have to go and try and retrain the dog at 3 or 4 years old, FF it, etc, is just unfair at that point in time. You loose a lot of competitive time. It's all a form of operant conditioning however. It's just a matter of a difference in the stimuli. 

So, I know for sure I won't be doing it. Just have seen too many good trainers have it blow up in their faces. But, if it works for you, I'll be one of the first to applaude your success.


----------



## Dave Flint

gdgnyc said:


> How have you gotten your dog steady to flush? I am all for using anything that works and I am open to trying new things and evaluating them.
> 
> How many new techniques have you tried?



It’s pretty easy to get a birdy dog to sit when he scents a bird using 2Q methods only, but as he get’s more experience at it, it will tend to slow his flush to the point (no pun intended) where he slows down on the way in rather than accelerating into the flush as is required in the Springer games that I play. 

If a bold flush isn’t important to you however, it’s probably the more reliable method to use.


----------



## sixpacklabs

WRL said:


> How has your young dog done in competition? The reason I ask, it that the level of excitement get raised considerably and the distraction level is raised exponentially.
> 
> I know LOTS of dogs that are model citizens in the home, in the hotel or even in training but when the day for the event comes, they are jumping out of their skin.
> 
> If your dog scoots on the line at an event (or any behavior that in training you would not reward), have you heeled them off the line and said "Thanks for your time judges I am not going to run my dog."
> 
> How have you handled this situation where the dog has to contain ITSELF and not be restrained physically or verbally by you?
> 
> WRL


You touch on something extremely important to training mainly with +R and -P that's ignored by many or glossed over, and that is the necessity of preventing--to the extent possible--your dog from being reinforced from behaviors you don't like or that don't meet criteria for the behavior you're training. You structure training so that the dog is allowed to make a choice, but you control the consequences so the dog isn't reinforced for making a bad choice. For example, if I'm training a sit stay with distractions with a very young pup, I might drop a piece of kibble by my foot. If the pup stays put, I say "good" to mark the correct choice and he gets a tasty little morsel. +R. If he starts to move, I just put my food over the kibble. -P. Different consequences for different behaviors. That's what operant conditioning is all about. In this example, I'm not controlling the dog. I'm controlling the consequences he experiences. He learns that self control is the route to what he wants. Being impulsive gets him nothing. I think preventing the dog from being reinforced from bad behavioral choices is important even if you're using all four quadrants. 

If you study the methods of people who are training effectively using mainly +R and -P, you'll find that they're obsessive about knowing what's reinforcing to their dog in any given situation, and about preventing--to the extent possible--their dogs from being reinforced from bad behavioral choices. You'll also find the vast majority of these folks in sports like agility and freestyle, where the competition environment is relatively sterile compared to what dogs experience in the field and the handler is working close to the dog, making it is far easier to manage the dog's access to reinforcement. Also, in those sports, you are to a large extent building novel behaviors for which there's no inherent reinforcement value for the dog, and must supply reinforcement to build the dog's motivation for the behavior. There's some of this in field work, of course...but you're also working with behaviors that have high reinforcement value in of themselves, like chasing prey. 

I think there's a tendency among people who come to field work from sports where they've been successful using mainly +R and -P to assume they can just export their methods wholesale without thinking about the many things that are different between their old sport and field work. IMO it's better to think about where the methods might be effective, and where they might fall short. In my experience, tools like markers are really helpful in the initial training of obedience behaviors like heeling where the behavior itself is not inherently reinforcing, and where it's helpful to be able to communicate precisely when the dog is doing the correct behavior. Once you start moving basic trained behaviors into the field, you're dealing more with behavior chains where one behavior reinforces another and I don't see much use, if any, for markers.

In the case of the dog scooting at the line, I don't think it matters whether you've done your training with a clicker or an e-collar. If you allow the dog to scoot, and then re-heel, and then send him, he's just learned something you didn't want him to learn. He's learned that the standards at tests or trials are different than they are in training. Maybe next time he'll creep further to see if that works. If you let him retrieve, he learns it does. Maybe the next time he'll experiment with breaking. So yes, if the dog does not meet criteria, I'd thank the judges, leash the dog, and walk back to the truck. I've done that. I don't want to start my dog down the slippery slope of learning that standards are different in competition than they are in training. You're not throwing your entry fee away. You're making in investment in future success.


----------



## WRL

gdgnyc said:


> I think that the retrieve is a very powerful tool in training a dog that loves to retrieve and fits in nicely with Jennifer's training philosophy. Retrieve for reward, removal for punishment.
> 
> To the critics:
> How have you corrected your dog to steady it---heeling stick, collar correction, prevention of retrieve, something else? How have you gotten your dog steady to flush? I am all for using anything that works and I am open to trying new things and evaluating them.
> 
> How many new techniques have you tried?
> 
> For the record, I am not critical of anyone's training style. I personally don't like to be committed to one style, I like to have an open mind which I feel will help me grow as a trainer.
> 
> To quote someone whom I respect: "Be married to your goal, not your style of training."


Teaching a dog steady to flush AND SHOT is relatively simple if the dog will sit on a whistle.

WRL


----------



## JusticeDog

FinnLandR said:


> Devil's Advocate: would Susan's scenario, above, be where the tone functions on ecollars would come into play?


I still don't think the tone functions on e-collars simulate or condition the dog for the physical and mental pressure of great distance, tight set ups, and 4-5 birds in the field at one time. I would consider that more in the realm of clicker, praise, etc. I do understand where you are going ie: carrying the tone with you on the collar would be like carrying the clicker per se, but the discipline and pressure needed as I've described - I don't believe it would be a useful tool. Again, go for it. I just won't risk it.


----------



## MooseGooser

WRL said:


> Teaching a dog steady to flush AND SHOT is relatively simple if the dog will sit on a whistle.
> 
> WRL



YES!!!

So,,Now we have come full circle.. A solid "sit" standard.
Plus,, How do you enforce that standard, at distance?


----------



## Scott Parker

I'm just wondering why people that use positive only training by that I mean no e collar or pressure to make the dog comply to your commands just a reward bases. Use that type of method do you believe it makes for a better trained dog or do you feel it's cruel to use pressure on a dog? The reason I ask is I don't believe some people realize what causes pressure for a dog. If I send my dog on a blind and he takes a poor initial line and I stop him and call him back to resend him that puts more pressure on him then if I would have stopped him given him a nick and cast him back. There are a lot of ways to put pressure on a dog with out using an e collar or a stick and I don't think some people realize what constitutes pressure to their dog and are putting them under pressure with out realizing it.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

sixpacklabs said:


> You touch on something extremely important to training mainly with +R and -P that's ignored by many or glossed over, and that is the necessity of preventing--to the extent possible--your dog from being reinforced from behaviors you don't like or that don't meet criteria for the behavior you're training. You structure training so that the dog is allowed to make a choice, but you control the consequences so the dog isn't reinforced for making a bad choice. For example, if I'm training a sit stay with distractions with a very young pup, I might drop a piece of kibble by my foot. If the pup stays put, I say "good" to mark the correct choice and he gets a tasty little morsel. +R. If he starts to move, I just put my food over the kibble. -P. Different consequences for different behaviors. That's what operant conditioning is all about. In this example, I'm not controlling the dog. I'm controlling the consequences he experiences. He learns that self control is the route to what he wants. Being impulsive gets him nothing. I think preventing the dog from being reinforced from bad behavioral choices is important even if you're using all four quadrants.
> 
> If you study the methods of people who are training effectively using mainly +R and -P, you'll find that they're obsessive about knowing what's reinforcing to their dog in any given situation, and about preventing--to the extent possible--their dogs from being reinforced from bad behavioral choices. You'll also find the vast majority of these folks in sports like agility and freestyle, where the competition environment is relatively sterile compared to what dogs experience in the field and the handler is working close to the dog, making it is far easier to manage the dog's access to reinforcement. Also, in those sports, you are to a large extent building novel behaviors for which there's no inherent reinforcement value for the dog, and must supply reinforcement to build the dog's motivation for the behavior. There's some of this in field work, of course...but you're also working with behaviors that have high reinforcement value in of themselves, like chasing prey.
> 
> I think there's a tendency among people who come to field work from sports where they've been successful using mainly +R and -P to assume they can just export their methods wholesale without thinking about the many things that are different between their old sport and field work. IMO it's better to think about where the methods might be effective, and where they might fall short. In my experience, tools like markers are really helpful in the initial training of obedience behaviors like heeling where the behavior itself is not inherently reinforcing, and where it's helpful to be able to communicate precisely when the dog is doing the correct behavior. Once you start moving basic trained behaviors into the field, you're dealing more with behavior chains where one behavior reinforces another and I don't see much use, if any, for markers.
> 
> In the case of the dog scooting at the line, I don't think it matters whether you've done your training with a clicker or an e-collar. If you allow the dog to scoot, and then re-heel, and then send him, he's just learned something you didn't want him to learn. He's learned that the standards at tests or trials are different than they are in training. Maybe next time he'll creep further to see if that works. If you let him retrieve, he learns it does. Maybe the next time he'll experiment with breaking. So yes, if the dog does not meet criteria, I'd thank the judges, leash the dog, and walk back to the truck. I've done that. I don't want to start my dog down the slippery slope of learning that standards are different in competition than they are in training. You're not throwing your entry fee away. You're making in investment in future success.



Well said!

Thanks for contributing to the discussion!


----------



## Jennifer Henion

This thread is like a cocktail party. Lots of different discussions going on at once. Now where did I put my cocktail?


----------



## Dooley

Could you please define +R and -P, I also like Scott Parker post #261 and Jennifer's post reply.


----------



## gdgnyc

WRL said:


> Teaching a dog steady to flush AND SHOT is relatively simple if the dog will sit on a whistle.
> 
> WRL


How many dogs have you taught that way?


----------



## Dave Flint

Scott Parker said:


> I'm just wondering why people that use positive only training by that I mean no e collar or pressure to make the dog comply to your commands just a reward bases. Use that type of method do you believe it makes for a better trained dog or do you feel it's cruel to use pressure on a dog? The reason I ask is I don't believe some people realize what causes pressure for a dog. If I send my dog on a blind and he takes a poor initial line and I stop him and call him back to resend him that puts more pressure on him then if I would have stopped him given him a nick and cast him back. There are a lot of ways to put pressure on a dog with out using an e collar or a stick and I don't think some people realize what constitutes pressure to their dog and are putting them under pressure with out realizing it.


Good post Scott,

“Positive Only” is the preferred approach of many parents too these days but consider the case where a mother tells her young son that if he’ll clean up his room she’ll take him to the pool. When she checks on him later, she finds that he hasn’t done what he was told so she informs him that they’re not going. Don't you think the child (assuming that he really wants to go swimming) sees this as punishment? 

If so, then isn't the only difference between what the modern mother does & what my mother would have done (P+) in how the modern mother feels about herself?

Author Alfie Kohn in his book, Punished by Rewards makes the case that
“Punishment and rewards are two sides of the same coin.”


----------



## JusticeDog

Dooley said:


> Could you please define +R and -P, I also like Scott Parker post #261 and Jennifer's post reply.


+R = positive reward = rat in the maze touches the lever and gets the cheese
-P = negative pressure = rat in the maze touches the lever and gets his nose whacked.


----------



## Happy Gilmore

MooseGooser said:


> YES!!!
> 
> So,,Now we have come full circle.. A solid "sit" standard.
> Plus,, How do you enforce that standard, at distance?


no cookie for you


----------



## sixpacklabs

JusticeDog said:


> +R = positive reward = rat in the maze touches the lever and gets the cheese
> -P = negative pressure = rat in the maze touches the lever and gets his nose whacked.


Close but no cigar  It's positive _reinforcement_ and negative _punishment_. The example you gave of the rat getting his nose whacked would be positive punishment (positive because you added something, the nose whack) if in the future the rat was less likely to touch the lever because he got his nose whacked. Negative punishment involves removing something the animal desires or expects. For example, you toss a bumper, the puppy scoots forward and you go pick up the bumper. If the behavior of scooting forward decreases in the future, denying the retrieve was negative punishment. 

The first post in the sticky "Simplifying Dog Learning Science" has definitions of these terms, gives some examples, and explains a bit about operant conditioning.


----------



## gdgnyc

Dave Flint said:


> It’s pretty easy to get a birdy dog to sit when he scents a bird using 2Q methods only, but as he get’s more experience at it, it will tend to slow his flush to the point (no pun intended) where he slows down on the way in rather than accelerating into the flush as is required in the Springer games that I play.
> 
> If a bold flush isn’t important to you however, it’s probably the more reliable method to use.


Dave, one of the things I like is a bold flush. I have hunted over several springers and that is exactly the kind of work I like to see.


----------



## dpate

There a difference between bribery and reward but your point Is well taken. 



Dave Flint said:


> Good post Scott,
> 
> “Positive Only” is the preferred approach of many parents too these days but consider the case where a mother tells her young son that if he’ll clean up his room she’ll take him to the pool. When she checks on him later, she finds that he hasn’t done what he was told so she informs him that they’re not going. Don't you think the child (assuming that he really wants to go swimming) sees this as punishment?
> 
> If so, then isn't the only difference between what the modern mother does & what my mother would have done (P+) in how the modern mother feels about herself?
> 
> Author Alfie Kohn in his book, Punished by Rewards makes the case that
> “Punishment and rewards are two sides of the same coin.”


----------



## Mark

Jennifer Henion said:


> I've made no secret of the fact that I've only achieved a JH title. And that was on the dog described as heeling in the hotel. *He is now 3 and too slow and showy for field work*.
> Jen





Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Which is great if the dogs only drive in the world is a piece of fake bacon and the soothing sound of a piece of plastic clicking in their ear. * I prefer to train high drive bird dogs with much more intense desires than that...
> *
> /Paul


Isnt this really the crux of the matter and why there is so much difference of opinion on the subject. Ultimately clicker training on its own has not proved itself to be suitably efffective in US FT training.
The proof is in the pudding. Everyone would have jumped on the bandwagon if it were effective. Its not a new science after all.

Mark


----------



## Dave Flint

gdgnyc said:


> Dave, one of the things I like is a bold flush. I have hunted over several springers and that is exactly the kind of work I like to see.


I just threw that out there as a warning because of the Springer in your Avatar.

Several years ago, I tried it on a very nice Springer pup because as you know, a “soft flush” is probably the #1 reason good dogs wash out of the Field Trial game. I made the assumption that the most common cause of it was inappropriate or excessive pressure during the steadying process so I thought I’d avoid that by using only P+. What I noticed is that as the dog learned that sitting at the flush meant that he’d get the reinforcement of a retrieve, he started to anticipate that he’d want to sit as soon as he made game. 

Although the pup initially had a bold flush, it progressively slowed down until it looked “tentative”. This was clearly not a case of a soft dog blinking birds, in fact it was the opposite. The dog loved birds so much he was trying extra hard to make sure he got the retrieve. 

From that experiment I learned that in order to develop & maintain the Bold flush required, I need to first encourage a dog by letting him catch clip winged pigeons often enough to keep him thinking that if he tries hard enough, he can snatch them from before they get away and to use aversives to keep him right on the “edge of control”. The 2Q approach, while effective in teaching the dog that “self-control brings a reward” is not appropriate for what I want in this case.


----------



## Jonronamo

Jennifer Henion said:


> This thread is like a cocktail party. Lots of different discussions going on at once. Now where did I put my cocktail?


Thats for sure!


I am new to the forum and I posted this thread to get a some opinions, I would have never imagined it would go this long or be this controversial. However, I have read some interesting points on this topic and appreciate everyone's input..

I would like to educate myself on some of these training methods. Whether or not I use them is to be seen. Knowledge has been an ongoing mission in my life and I am always learning from others, I don't see why these training methods should be any different. 

Does anyone have references to these training methods? Books ,videos, websites....

I did order a copy of Robert Milners book and visited his website and watched some videos, I must say it's impressive!


----------



## polmaise

Jonronamo said:


> Thats for sure!
> 
> 
> I am new to the forum and I posted this thread to get a some opinions, I would have never imagined it would go this long or be this controversial. However, I have read some interesting points on this topic and appreciate everyone's input..
> 
> I would like to educate myself on some of these training methods. Whether or not I use them is to be seen. Knowledge has been an ongoing mission in my life and I am always learning from others, I don't see why these training methods should be any different.
> 
> Does anyone have references to these training methods? Books ,videos, websites....
> 
> I did order a copy of Robert Milners book and visited his website and watched some videos, I must say it's impressive!


Why don't you just book some lessons with a 'Trainer'?...I imagine websites and videos would get you as much of a 'cocktail' as the thread?..Anyhow! At least you would be working with 'the dog in front of you'?...rather than some-one else's?..Just a thought!


----------



## JusticeDog

sixpacklabs said:


> Close but no cigar  It's positive _reinforcement_ and negative _punishment_. The example you gave of the rat getting his nose whacked would be positive punishment (positive because you added something, the nose whack) if in the future the rat was less likely to touch the lever because he got his nose whacked. Negative punishment involves removing something the animal desires or expects. For example, you toss a bumper, the puppy scoots forward and you go pick up the bumper. If the behavior of scooting forward decreases in the future, denying the retrieve was negative punishment.
> 
> The first post in the sticky "Simplifying Dog Learning Science" has definitions of these terms, gives some examples, and explains a bit about operant conditioning.


Honey, I studied B.F Skinner and Operant conditioning in college probably before you were born. My rat made it through all of his mazes in 3 weeks. what's your record?  while the words may be different the principles are the same. People always re-package stuff and try to re-submit it as new. Kinda like Bell Bottoms...


----------



## Dooley

Thanks Susan for your reply to +R and -P.....just wanted to make sure I understood the symbols.


----------



## Howard N

> Now where did I put my cocktail?


Yeah, RTF has made me forget things and driven me to drink on a few occasions too.


----------



## JS

rmilner said:


> A compulsion trainer has to have a certain level of knowldege and certain level of skills to do a good job and produce a good product.
> 
> A positive trainer has to have a certain level of knowledge and certain level of skills to do a good job and produce a good product.
> 
> Being a good compulsion trainer does not make one a good positive trainer; being a good positive trainer does not make one a good compulsion trainer.


Now there is something from Mr. Milner that I can agree with!!!

But they are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, without a doubt, the most successful, expedient ... and the fairest TO THE DOG ... scenario is a trainer that is good at both AND has the skill and experience to read the dog he/she is training.

JS


----------



## Jonronamo

polmaise said:


> Why don't you just book some lessons with a 'Trainer'?...I imagine websites and videos would get you as much of a 'cocktail' as the thread?..Anyhow! At least you would be working with 'the dog in front of you'?...rather than some-one else's?..Just a thought!



Polmaise,

Good Idea and I am entertaining it. Robert Milner is the only one I can find, but he is 10 hours away, but probably well worth the drive...


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Jonronamo said:


> Thats for sure!
> 
> 
> I am new to the forum and I posted this thread to get a some opinions, I would have never imagined it would go this long or be this controversial. However, I have read some interesting points on this topic and appreciate everyone's input..
> 
> I would like to educate myself on some of these training methods. Whether or not I use them is to be seen. Knowledge has been an ongoing mission in my life and I am always learning from others, I don't see why these training methods should be any different.
> 
> Does anyone have references to these training methods? Books ,videos, websites....
> 
> I did order a copy of Robert Milners book and visited his website and watched some videos, I must say it's impressive!


Here are a couple of web sites:
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1134

http://www.video.clickertraining.com/library

And here are a couple of books:

Positive Gun Dog Training (you can download this from the net onto your computer)

Reaching the Animal Mind, by Karen Pryor. More general about the training method, but a really good read.

Good luck, Jonronomo! It's always good to keep an open mind and figure out what to take from the different methods to fit your style, goals and your dog.

Jen


----------



## Pete

> How do I use birds and bumpers to teach healing?


After the bumper is seen as a prey object by the dog,,, the trainer then sticks it under his arm pit to keep the dog looking up and staying position. Pretty common technique and easy to apply
Pete


----------



## Jonronamo

Jennifer Henion said:


> Here are a couple of web sites:
> http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1134
> 
> http://www.video.clickertraining.com/library
> 
> And here are a couple of books:
> 
> Positive Gun Dog Training (you can download this from the net onto your computer)
> 
> Reaching the Animal Mind, by Karen Pryor. More general about the training method, but a really good read.
> 
> Good luck, Jonronomo! It's always good to keep an open mind and figure out what to take from the different methods to fit your style, goals and your dog.
> 
> Jen




Thanks Jen,



I will check them out and Yes, it's wise to keep an open mind! Thanks again for the resources...


----------



## DarrinGreene

Jonronamo said:


> Thanks Jen,
> 
> 
> 
> I will check them out and Yes, it's wise to keep an open mind! Thanks again for the resources...


Did I put the Michael Ellis video in here? Best explanation of why clickers work that I have ever heard. 

http://leerburg.com/flix/videodesc.php?id=529

Ellis, to me is good because he's not a +r only zealot. He just understands and does a good job of explaining how it works.


----------



## Erin Lynes

DarrinGreene;1043277
Ellis said:


> Agreed! Haven't seen all of his stuff yet, but what I have seen is very digestible and easy to follow. And it works.


----------



## cakaiser

> *DarrinGreene
> *LOL that may be true and you may be old but you still got the answer wrong Susan


Who cares. Her rats are still the smartest. They have titles to prove it.


----------



## Becky Mills

cakaiser said:


> Who cares. Her rats are still the smartest. They have titles to prove it.


That's cause they are English rats. She got them when she was at Oxford
And no fellas, that isn't the Oxford where the skimpily clad young Southern ladies hang out.


----------



## AmiableLabs

Becky Mills said:


> And no fellas, that isn't the Oxford where the skimpily clad young Southern ladies hang out.


Forget the one in England, where's this one? :shock:


----------



## Bartona500

Becky Mills said:


> That's cause they are English rats. She got them when she was at Oxford
> And no fellas, that isn't the Oxford where the skimpily clad young Southern ladies hang out.


I live right by that one... and this is a true assessment!


----------



## WRL

gdgnyc said:


> How many dogs have you taught that way?


Don't know....probably around 30.

WRL


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Darrin, Thanks for posting that Michael Ellis / Leerberg video again! You're right, it's perfect! What a great explanation and a dynamic speaker. The first time you posted it - in a different thread - I watched the first 3 mins and clients walked in and I forgot about it. It is long, but great. Hopefully the people who have questions about "rewards based" training will take 15 minutes to watch it. 

Maybe we can kidnap him and make him create a retriever program.


----------



## DarrinGreene

Jennifer Henion said:


> Darrin, Thanks for posting that Michael Ellis / Leerberg video again! You're right, it's perfect! What a great explanation and a dynamic speaker. The first time you posted it - in a different thread - I watched the first 3 mins and clients walked in and I forgot about it. It is long, but great. Hopefully the people who have questions about "rewards based" training will take 15 minutes to watch it.
> 
> Maybe we can kidnap him and make him create a retriever program.


Not sure why you'd want that with the amount of great retriever programs that are out there Jenn.

Besides that, as I mentioned, from what I've seen (I don't know the guy), Ellis has no problem with aversive methods of training. He seems really good at early development and setting dogs up so that pressure down the line is minimized though.

I just like the clarity of his explanations, regardless of topic.


----------



## DarrinGreene

cakaiser said:


> Who cares. Her rats are still the smartest. They have titles to prove it.


Dang it when will I learn to delete before I post instead of after #footinmouthagain


----------



## gdgnyc

WRL said:


> Don't know....probably around 30.
> 
> WRL


That's impressive. How did you teach your dog to sit on the whistle?


----------



## duk4me

gdgnyc said:


> That's impressive. How did you teach your dog to sit on the whistle?


First you put your dog on a leash then you heel him and when he isn't looking you drop a whistle then you walk him in a circle and when you come back by the whistle tell him sit. Caution make sure the whistle is flat on the ground or the dog might resent it. If it isn't flat on the ground and you hear a muffled whistle sound hold your nose and command here and walk off.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

DarrinGreene said:


> Not sure why you'd want that with the amount of great retriever programs that are out there Jenn.
> 
> *Besides that, as I mentioned, from what I've seen (I don't know the guy), Ellis has no problem with aversive methods of training.* He seems really good at early development and setting dogs up so that pressure down the line is minimized though.
> 
> I just like the clarity of his explanations, regardless of topic.


Neither do I, Darrin. Sounds like he knows what he's doing. Didn't hear him mention that he uses much compulsion or aversive escape methodology in his early training, which is what I do shy away from.


----------



## Jennifer Henion

duk4me said:


> First you put your dog on a leash then you heel him and when he isn't looking you drop a whistle then you walk him in a circle and when you come back by the whistle tell him sit. Caution make sure the whistle is flat on the ground or the dog might resent it. *If it isn't flat on the ground and you hear a muffled whistle sound hold your nose and command here and walk off.*


That only happens if you feed Purina.


----------



## Rnd

This has been a great discussion: 

However at the end of the day it's* DOG TO THE LINE.


*​Show us what you have


----------



## JS

gdgnyc said:


> That's impressive. How did you teach your dog to sit on the whistle?


Same way you teach them to seat on a duck. 

JS


----------



## dpate

Jennifer Henion said:


> Neither do I, Darrin. Sounds like he knows what he's doing. Didn't hear him mention that he uses much compulsion or aversive escape methodology in his early training, which is what I do shy away from.


I know its a big statement but it is the single best dog training video out there IMO. 

Watch from about 31:00 min on. Ellis talks about how medium drive dogs that have some drive, but perhaps not enough to totally focus or "do anything for" the reward (retrieve), recieve the brunt of his compulsion training out of neccessity. He goes on to say with self reinforcing behiavors (chasing squirrels etc), non-reinforcement does not work. It only goes away with punishment. He does say he tries to block the behavior as much as possible. 

He also talks about how he experimented with positive only training for a couple of years and the disaster it caused, thus he went back to the use of some aversives/compulsion. Belief it or not, he talks about how dogs need to learn how to turn pressure off. Very interesting stuff that is presented in a easy to understand manner.


----------



## WRL

JS said:


> Same way you teach them to seat on a duck.
> 
> JS


Exactly!

WRL


----------



## Aussie

Who does not break down criteria when training young pups? 

I go through a fair bit of chicken and cheese rewarding my 5 month old.

Cannot fault her desire, focus, obedience and ability to learn. She generalises well and training is fun..as it should be.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

Jennifer Henion said:


> Darrin, Thanks for posting that Michael Ellis / Leerberg video again! You're right, it's perfect! What a great explanation and a dynamic speaker. The first time you posted it - in a different thread - I watched the first 3 mins and clients walked in and I forgot about it. It is long, but great. Hopefully the people who have questions about "rewards based" training will take 15 minutes to watch it.
> 
> Maybe we can kidnap him and make him create a retriever program.


Agree Jen very good video with lots of info.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

DarrinGreene said:


> Not sure why you'd want that with the amount of great retriever programs that are out there Jenn.
> 
> Besides that, as I mentioned, from what I've seen (I don't know the guy), Ellis has no problem with aversive methods of training. He seems really good at early development and setting dogs up so that pressure down the line is minimized though.
> 
> I just like the clarity of his explanations, regardless of topic.


Yes he is very clear to what he expects of the dogs but fair in that video!


----------



## DarrinGreene

dpate said:


> I know its a big statement but it is the single best dog training video out there IMO.
> 
> Watch from about 31:00 min on. Ellis talks about how medium drive dogs that have some drive, but perhaps not enough to totally focus or "do anything for" the reward (retrieve), recieve the brunt of his compulsion training out of neccessity. He goes on to say with self reinforcing behiavors (chasing squirrels etc), non-reinforcement does not work. It only goes away with punishment. He does say he tries to block the behavior as much as possible.
> 
> He also talks about how he experimented with positive only training for a couple of years and the disaster it caused, thus he went back to the use of some aversives/compulsion. Belief it or not, he talks about how dogs need to learn how to turn pressure off. Very interesting stuff that is presented in a easy to understand manner.


AH HA! Someone who watched the whole thing! WTG! 

It's a tough concept for some people but I was once given 10 dogs to train a particular task and a week or so to get it done. 

I ended up training 10 dogs about 4 different ways in order to accomplish the task. Failure was not an option. Some were straight +r, some straight -r and some a combination. All were later collar conditioned to the behavior in a similar manner but getting them to that point was almost 100% individual for each dog, with about half requiring some level of compulsion. 

Had I not been versed in escape/avoidance training along with +r, I would never have been able to reach the goal.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

dpate said:


> I know its a big statement but it is the single best dog training video out there IMO.
> 
> Watch from about 31:00 min on. Ellis talks about how medium drive dogs that have some drive, but perhaps not enough to totally focus or "do anything for" the reward (retrieve), recieve the brunt of his compulsion training out of neccessity. He goes on to say with self reinforcing behiavors (chasing squirrels etc), non-reinforcement does not work. It only goes away with punishment. He does say he tries to block the behavior as much as possible.
> 
> He also talks about how he experimented with positive only training for a couple of years and the disaster it caused, thus he went back to the use of some aversives/compulsion. Belief it or not, he talks about how dogs need to learn how to turn pressure off. Very interesting stuff that is presented in a easy to understand manner.


Not quite sure I would go as far as you to say it was the single best video out there. It certainly is good but I would want to see more and how it would work or apply to my attention deficit dog. 
I don't have a medium or a dog that sits by the fireplace. I have a high drive and desire dog who is 1 1/2 yo with no focus. I was impressed though how he talked about getting the dogs attention. I don't like to feed food mongers however which is what my pup is!! 
If you do with hold the reward until he performs the command he may loose focus with that game. Training has to be kept short and varied. He is on his own planet still trying to run the show. But to treat, treat to teach the command and wait until he complies with a food monger??with no focus??. 
He is a very reactive dog and will be paying attention to the food IMHO. And I know he mentions the dog eventually goes from being reactive to an active dog but I think that could be difficult with this pup and problem dogs. 
There are some good things about the video I would apply. Timing of his yes and good response might capture dogs attention. And I assume you don't need to treat with food for his system to work. 
Was not sure I like the idea of when he tells his dog down way out, then lets the dog know he is right, the reward yes and the dog runs in to get the treat? That is not a good application. 
If I whistle sit my dog way out on a blind and he sits promptly and I say yes or good which is what I do b/c it signals to him you were good sitting not to come running in! So I was interested how you would stop that from occurring. I am always thinking how is that going to help me attain my goals with my dog in what ever venue I enter. It has to be applicable and doable, easy and acceptable for my dog.

IMHO some pups need a little more than treats. No offence to Ellis, he did speak about that firmness on the video. Need to see more on that subject, other problematic behaviors and more info on his methods! Very interesting video, however.


----------



## Pete

> There are some good things about the video I would apply. Timing of his yes and good response might capture dogs attention. And I assume you don't need to treat with food for his system to work.
> Was not sure I like the idea of when he tells his dog down way out, then lets the dog know he is right, the reward yes and the dog runs in to get the treat? That is not a good application.
> If I whistle sit my dog way out on a blind and he sits promptly and I say yes or good which is what I do b/c it signals to him you were good sitting not to come running in! So I was interested how you would stop that from occurring. I am always thinking how is that going to help me attain my goals with my dog in what ever venue I enter. It has to be applicable and doable, easy and acceptable for my dog.
> 
> IMHO some pups need a little more than treats. No offence to Ellis, he did speak about that firmness on the video. Need to see more on that subject, other problematic behaviors and more info on his methods! Very interesting video, however.


I think if you were to get efficient at that technique you would be surprised how well it works. He may start off there teaching down ( I don't know if he does or doesn't) at a distance but it doesn't end there,
I do the same with P+ and -R I don't make them wait at first but after a few sessions they are doing the long down stay at a distance. remember dogs are contexual,, what you looking for is the slam down not the down stay. Slamming into a down 5 feet away is different than doing it at 100 yards. So a show me what you want phase is helpful.
I find it is a great application to start with. And I have never watched the video. I did watch his philosophy video though.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Howard N said:


> Yeah, RTF has made me forget things and driven me to drink on a few occasions too.


All these one dog wonders are driving me to drinks...


/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Jennifer Henion said:


> Here are a couple of web sites:
> http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1134
> 
> http://www.video.clickertraining.com/library
> 
> And here are a couple of books:
> 
> Positive Gun Dog Training (you can download this from the net onto your computer)
> 
> Reaching the Animal Mind, by Karen Pryor. More general about the training method, but a really good read.
> 
> Good luck, Jonronomo! It's always good to keep an open mind and figure out what to take from the different methods to fit your style, goals and your dog.
> 
> Jen


Interesting how that first article talks about watered down non bird tests that focus mostly on the parlor trick aspects of the game vs doing real field work. 

/Paul


----------



## gdgnyc

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Interesting how that first article talks about watered down non bird tests that focus mostly on the parlor trick aspects of the game vs doing real field work.
> 
> /Paul


I have read those articles. I also was a little surprised at first. However, having goldens in mind, the non bird might be the thing to get people interested in the field aspect of their dog. My own club which is a breed club has about 100 members. Maybe 10 come out to the field, only five of us hunt. It is a shame but a reality. 

I recently gave a retrieving demo at our National Hunting and Fishing Expo. People didn't know what breed of dog I had and didn't know goldens could be worked. I hope that the other retriever breeds are in better shape.

Back to the article in question. A dying man will grasp at a burning straw. I would take any involvement from golden owners just to get them interested and keep retrieving in the breed, even those bumper tests as a start.


----------



## Pals

*My English Retriever*

My English Retriever
Trained using Lardy's materials and a huge amount of R+++---+++MOMMYDRINKS++ALOT! I can't release the videos on advice of my lawyer.


----------



## gdgnyc

Very nice Pals! A JRT that hunts birds! I'm envious.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

gdgnyc said:


> I have read those articles. I also was a little surprised at first. However, having goldens in mind, the non bird might be the thing to get people interested in the field aspect of their dog. My own club which is a breed club has about 100 members. Maybe 10 come out to the field, only five of us hunt. It is a shame but a reality.
> 
> I recently gave a retrieving demo at our National Hunting and Fishing Expo. People didn't know what breed of dog I had and didn't know goldens could be worked. I hope that the other retriever breeds are in better shape.
> 
> Back to the article in question. A dying man will grasp at a burning straw. I would take any involvement from golden owners just to get them interested and keep retrieving in the breed, even those bumper tests as a start.


I fully agree that we need to promote the sport and often this is what it takes to get people interested. However that is completely different topic than training methods to advanced levels..

/Paul


----------



## rmilner

"Advanced Levels" depends upon your perspective of retriever training. As I have no interest in field trials, "advanced levels" to me means higher proficiency at gundog behaviors, and the gundog behaviors are very different from field trial behaviors. USAR dogs and IED detection dogs also employ different behavior sets. Advanced levels also means to me higher proficiency at Urban Search and Rescue behaviors for those functional dogs, or higher proficiency at IED detection behaviors for those functional dogs. Well trained retrievers excel at all the above functions in addition to field trials.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

To quote Danny Farmer - "A trained dog is a trained dog." I train "meat dogs" the same way I train dogs that will go on to HT/FT's. A bird in the freezer means more to me that another orange ribbon sitting a box full of orange ribbons...

/Paul


----------



## Bartona500

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> To quote Danny Farmer - "A trained dog is a trained dog." I train "meat dogs" the same way I train dogs that will go on to HT/FT's. A bird in the freezer means more to me that another orange ribbon sitting a box full of orange ribbons...
> 
> /Paul


I disagree. Often times, running the bank will get you your injured teal much faster than the straight line taught for a FT. The steadiness requirement for a FT isn't sufficient for sitting quietly in the duck hole for 45 minutes of no activity. Etc etc.


----------



## bjoiner

Bartona500 said:


> I disagree. Often times, running the bank will get you your injured teal much faster than the straight line taught for a FT. The steadiness requirement for a FT isn't sufficient for sitting quietly in the duck hole for 45 minutes of no activity. Etc etc.


Yeah, but a well placed shot will get you a stone cold dead teal in the decoys.


----------



## fishduck

Bartona500 said:


> I disagree. Often times, running the bank will get you your injured teal much faster than the straight line taught for a FT. The steadiness requirement for a FT isn't sufficient for sitting quietly in the duck hole for 45 minutes of no activity. Etc etc.


Dogs quickly learn what is expected. I can let my dogs run the bank while hunting. Can a non decheated dog cut the corner of a body of water to avoid the broken glass on the bank? I know I can cast my dogs into the water if needed. I can also cast them onto the shore if that is more expedient. Training provides options.


----------



## GulfCoast

fishduck said:


> Dogs quickly learn what is expected. I can let my dogs run the bank while hunting. Can a non decheated dog cut the corner of a body of water to avoid the broken glass on the bank? I know I can cast my dogs into the water if needed. I can also cast them onto the shore if that is more expedient. Training provides options.


15 yard penalty. Use of common sense in British dog thread. Repeat second down.


----------



## AmiableLabs

fishduck said:


> Dogs quickly learn what is expected. I can let my dogs run the bank while hunting. Can a non decheated dog cut the corner of a body of water to avoid the broken glass on the bank? I know I can cast my dogs into the water if needed. I can also cast them onto the shore if that is more expedient. Training provides options.


You read my mind.

If you had not said it I would of. These creatures are amazing. They quickly learn what is expected of them and where as long the trainer/handler is consistent too.


----------



## Evan

AmiableLabs said:


> You read my mind.
> 
> If you had not said it I would of. These creatures are amazing. They quickly learn what is expected of them and where as long the trainer/handler is consistent too.


And all we need do is train them to do it.  What's really great is not one of them knows, or is concerned with whether or not they're British. Good training is good training wherever it occurs.

Evan


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Bartona500 said:


> I disagree. Often times, running the bank will get you your injured teal much faster than the straight line taught for a FT. The steadiness requirement for a FT isn't sufficient for sitting quietly in the duck hole for 45 minutes of no activity. Etc etc.


It is a well known fact that even dogs who marked the fall, when caving to factors often times get lost and need to handled. Now instead of a nice quiet retrieve in the marsh I got some yahoo standing up blowing whistles the dog won't take, yelling "over", walking out into the pond and disrupting the whole bloody hunt. You can build a case for why letting your dog do all that crap is "better" but i'll never believe it. I have standards of what I want out a nice days hunt and its often disrupted by the yahoo's and their bank running mutt across the pond...

/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Not quite sure I would go as far as you to say it was the single best video out there. It certainly is good but I would want to see more and how it would work or apply to my attention deficit dog.
> I don't have a medium or a dog that sits by the fireplace. I have a high drive and desire dog who is 1 1/2 yo with no focus. I was impressed though how he talked about getting the dogs attention. I don't like to feed food mongers however which is what my pup is!!
> If you do with hold the reward until he performs the command he may loose focus with that game. Training has to be kept short and varied. He is on his own planet still trying to run the show. But to treat, treat to teach the command and wait until he complies with a food monger??with no focus??.
> He is a very reactive dog and will be paying attention to the food IMHO. And I know he mentions the dog eventually goes from being reactive to an active dog but I think that could be difficult with this pup and problem dogs.
> There are some good things about the video I would apply. Timing of his yes and good response might capture dogs attention. And I assume you don't need to treat with food for his system to work.
> Was not sure I like the idea of when he tells his dog down way out, then lets the dog know he is right, the reward yes and the dog runs in to get the treat? That is not a good application.
> If I whistle sit my dog way out on a blind and he sits promptly and I say yes or good which is what I do b/c it signals to him you were good sitting not to come running in! So I was interested how you would stop that from occurring. I am always thinking how is that going to help me attain my goals with my dog in what ever venue I enter. It has to be applicable and doable, easy and acceptable for my dog.
> 
> IMHO some pups need a little more than treats. No offence to Ellis, he did speak about that firmness on the video. Need to see more on that subject, other problematic behaviors and more info on his methods! Very interesting video, however.


Mary your dog's lack of attention is probably a matter of lacking training at an early age. Sorry to say it but you probably missed the opportunity to get that element built in. Ellis somewhere else tells you that NOTHING happens until you have attention mastered. I think there's actually a free video on the importance of engagement where he goes over this. Some dogs may not begin real "training" until 8 months because they lack the engagement needed, if I recall that video correctly. We are all anxious to get things going, myself included and tend not to have the patience to tackle this element fully.

As for the moving reward it is correct application and done that way on purpose. That is why there is a "good" marker and a "yes" marker. The "yes" marker releases the dog from a stationary position and the reward is delivered in motion to increase it's effectiveness. Chasing the reward is a self fulfilling activity, meaning the chase itself is a reward ON TOP of the food. Delivering rewards in motion increases motivation and builds drive in the dog. That's in the video on delivering rewards properly or the training dogs with food video, I forget which one. It's also very useful later because it's very easy to chain the dog's name or "back" over top of the release marker in field work. 

I can only tell you from the one dog I have applied this to long term. It is an absolutely dynamic basis for Carr based retriever training. Once the communication system is in place it is very easy to work through the collar conditioning, force fetch and other elements of the program. The dog is not only engaged and paying attention, but they really understand what "good" and "yes" or "ok" mean, making life really easy. I'm in T work now and pup will look at the side piles once in a while but when she looks down the middle and I say "good" she locks on, ears up and gets ready to launch. That communication would still be in it's infancy had I not done my obedience using these markersand some other stuff I picked out of the Hillman videos.

I have used this system now on several pet dogs and find it extremely effective. I also teach a simplified version to clients and it works for them.


----------



## DarrinGreene

Pete said:


> I did watch his philosophy video though.


That's the one I referred I'm not sure which one Mary was watching. You have to see several and pay for a couple of them to completely understand the system. Or in your case Pete, make up your own


----------



## yellow machine

Just had my 6 mo YLF in to the vet. She is seeing ACL problems with the Brit dogs as the lines in the hind quarters are to straight.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

DarrinGreene said:


> That's the one I referred I'm not sure which one Mary was watching. You have to see several and pay for a couple of them to completely understand the system. Or in your case Pete, make up your own


Darrin I watched that one and their was one other on the site. I have to go back and view them a little closer. Thanks again. ML


----------



## leo455

I have 6 of Micheal Ellis Dvd's. He is very good at explaining the methodology of training with markers both + and -. His DVD on finishing work is one of the best out there. His "Engagement training" is the base of my puppy training.


----------



## Swack

yellow machine said:


> Just had my 6 mo YLF in to the vet. She is seeing ACL problems with the Brit dogs as the lines in the hind quarters are to straight.


Yellow Machine,

The British field Labs I've seen tend to have much better rear angulation than do most AKC field Labs. Could be a particular strain of British Lab in your area that your Vet is seeing that lack rear angulation, however that is not my experience.

Swack


----------



## Aussie

UK labradors would not win in US field trials?

US labradors would not win in UK field trial?

How many generations does it take to breed for type/a breed? Six generations, is that right, before they can apply to the Kennel Club? 

So UK and US labradors could/would/should be different. Simple really.


----------



## polmaise

British Labs/No force
After more than 30 pages on this thread it would appear that like most things when you get a topic that is either based on supposition or another’s opinion you will get controversy ,such is a forum.
I took an early interest in this thread for obvious reasons , being as I from Scotland. At the time of my insertion to the thread it was clear that the perception from many that ‘No-force’ related to either clicker’ or positive only training, and that a ‘few’ in the same camp swamped us with testimonials and accolades.
I therefore ‘tried’ to introduce a bit of ‘British humour’ with pictures and light hearted response.
Which,In my opinion resulted in the same response you get from UK Gundog forums ?..We ain’t all that different after all!
I come on this forum to learn from what you guy’s are doing with your dogs. It has already been mentioned that there are two sets of rules which guide us apart, yet we achieve the same goals, whether they are in competition trials and tests, or just hunting/shooting! 
You guy’s are actually pretty lucky! We aren’t allowed to use e-collar, or FF, or caged birds or many of the other tools available to you!? , we have to work with what we’ve got ! under the law and rules before us, for that we rely heavily on the decades of selective breeding for the traits that are best shown for the purpose we strive for, the most important being that of game finding! and line manners , No matter what theatre of gundog work you enter.
Let me give a few facts about how we train and the type of trainer in the UK, that I can truly state regarding the original post of Brit Labs/No force.
99% Of all UK Professional handler/trainers do not use ‘clicker’ training
There has never been a FTCH in the UK that has been trained with ‘positive only’ training.
There has also never been a FTCH in the UK that has been collar conditioned and FF used as a programme for retrieving.
So that said?, if the UK /Brit Labs don’t use e-collar or FF ,and also don’t use positive only or clicker?
Then how the heck , do we get these dogs to do what they do.
My post/reply is not to promote or advocate what we do ,or condemn what others on your side of the pond do!..Merely to point out the differences that we all work with, and why the same differences in each camp ,whether positive only or CC, or using a Ken Dodd Tickly stick? (Many of you won’t know what that is, but you can Google it)
I know it’s a long post, for many to read!..I make no apologies, it was necessary to explain what I have read and interpreted on the forum from ‘all you guy’s’!
Therefore, if you are not interested in some of the things we do in our shooting field without the use of everything You guy’s have at your disposal then you not need see the following home made clips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQfo5ZdSCcE
This is not a test or a trial,but it could be?,because they are asked on a daily shoot to perform the same. And more often with other dogs at their side.
Over here, on a Shoot day, whether walking up in a line, or driven game there primary function is to retrieve wounded game ‘first’!..to the exclusion of all else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VanUIPniNhc
Now there were more than 50 birds shot in that sequence ,with more than 100 shots fired!
Multiple marking?>
In our game the dog must remain steady with no collar and no noise, and honour others around it, with the same determination as one who wants to retrieve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WMaztF2gaU
The dog must also be soft of mouth! and take direction on Blinds , with control and direction in the field full of scent and distraction.
This last clip was more ‘proving a point for many on this side of the pond,on my part ‘, but you get the idea?..so sorry for the comments!
In all cases the dogs are non slip!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPvUQVgzTSE
Let me confirm, that none of these clips are intended as a promotion to field trailing in the UK! More to show what the dogs in the UK have to do! Whether they trial or not.
I do hope ,that the next posts on here regarding British Labs, and the next post I see in the UK regarding US retrieving is perhaps seen in a different light?
I wish you all a very Happy new year.


----------



## Swack

polmaise,

It's good to see some authentic looks at the jobs UK Labs are asked to do in the field. You make a good point about the differences in points of view between those who hunt vs. those who trial. Often there are differing training goals depending on the venue and even a preference for differences in the dogs, depending on an individual's preference or requirements. 

Whether we are discussing hunting needs vs. FT needs or comparing US dogs to UK dogs I think we can often get bogged down in the differences instead of finding common ground. Regardless of the venue or the continent there is _no one style _of retriever that will fit everyone's needs. Rather than getting into the "My ______ (insert: Style of Lab, Way of Training, etc.) is better than yours!", which is often where these discussions end up, we should acknowledge the differences and try to understand and appreciate why there are differences.

There is no doubt that forums are imperfect places to exchange ideas with so many differences of opinions (including those whose opinions are based on misinformation and biases). However, in spite of the shortcomings it is the best place I can think of to exchange ideas and information. Your videoes from Scotland may be the closest I get to seeing how you folks across the pond do things and I appreciate you sharing them with us. I hope you continue to contribute your views and experiences from Scotland to help broaden the knowledge-base on RTF.

Cheers and Happy New Year to you as well!

Swack


----------



## polmaise

It should be a 'New Year' resolution Jeff.
Thanks for the comments mate!
.....................
I wish I had better clips than Paul French ,but I don't..and I wish I had better dogs than is seen on them.
I do know this however!.....We all appear to have the best! No matter how we achieve it!...
.......
Happy new year to you and yours also, as Here at this time is just about 'Party Time'!..and I may be missing for a few days!


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Now that we have that settled, can we resolve the Golden Vs Lab debate?


----------



## duk4me

Jennifer Henion said:


> Now that we have that settled, can we resolve the Golden Vs Lab debate?


Poor Jennifer you are a glutton for punishment arent' you.;-)


----------



## polmaise

Jennifer Henion said:


> Now that we have that settled, can we resolve the Golden Vs Lab debate?


Maybe that be better debated on your own thread?for resolvent of breed specific,rather than achievement or ability of breed,or procedure/training with any of them.
Without being specific,or detrimental to either US or UK Goldens !
Happy New Year To ALL! including the Goldens!..Hell! Kirsty Cousins and Louis would have my 'Gut's for garter's' if I didn't mention them


----------



## Jennifer Henion

duk4me said:


> Poor Jennifer you are a glutton for punishment arent' you.;-)



Just havin' a bit o fun...

Bandana wearer regards -


----------



## crackerd

polmaise said:


> Happy new year to you and yours also, as Here at this time is just about 'Party Time'!..and I may be missing for a few days!


Or at least til Bobby Burns Night - which reminds me, do Scottish Labs deliver haggis? I didn't say deliver to hand, just deliver, being aware that you sent a dog across a few weeks ago and wanting to know if you can pass off a couple of haggi as dummies getting them through customs to accompany the next dog you ship over. And you rotter - Ken Dodd! Who will you cite next for "British training," Frankie Howerd?

MG


----------



## Chris Atkinson

polmaise said:


> Maybe that be better debated on your own thread?for resolvent of breed specific,rather than achievement or ability of breed,or procedure/training with any of them.
> Without being specific,or detrimental to either US or UK Goldens !
> Happy New Year To ALL! including the Goldens!..Hell! Kirsty Cousins and Louis would have my 'Gut's for garter's' if I didn't mention them


Polmaise, Several years ago I came to the Irish National Countrysports Fair at Moira in Northern Ireland and got to spend some time with the Scottish team. There was a guy there whose first name was "Gordon". He was the team captain. 

On more than one occasion I saw him order a cocktail and it was always the same. Bacardi with Coke and "NO FRUIT!". 

Do you know him? 

He and his group were fun to be around.

i had many a discussion that week about the Lardy program versus the Brit program. When we really got down to it, the essentials were not that different. My takeaway was that those who think that Brits accomplish what they do with just hugs, pats and cookies are gravely mistaken. 

I know one English trainer who told me he keeps a cut fanbelt in his training bag. The purpose is for what I reference as "Indirect pressure with poor timing." He uses it to go out and tag a dog on the flanks for refusals. 

Chris


----------



## Jennifer Henion

Chris Atkinson said:


> Polmaise, Several years ago I came to the Irish National Countrysports Fair at Moira in Northern Ireland and got to spend some time with the Scottish team. There was a guy there whose first name was "Gordon". He was the team captain.
> 
> On more than one occasion I saw him order a cocktail and it was always the same. Bacardi with Coke and "NO FRUIT!".
> 
> Do you know him?
> 
> He and his group were fun to be around.
> 
> i had many a discussion that week about the Lardy program versus the Brit program. When we really got down to it, the essentials were not that different. My takeaway was that those who think that Brits accomplish what they do with just hugs, pats and cookies are gravely mistaken.
> 
> I know one English trainer who told me he keeps a cut fanbelt in his training bag. The purpose is for what I reference as "Indirect pressure with poor timing." He uses it to go out and tag a dog on the flanks for refusals.
> 
> Chris


Jeez Chris! We were ending this thread on such a good note... Of course, this does seem to be the thread doesn't die


----------



## polmaise

crackerd said:


> Or at least til Bobby Burns Night - which reminds me, do Scottish Labs deliver haggis? I didn't say deliver to hand, just deliver, being aware that you sent a dog across a few weeks ago and wanting to know if you can pass off a couple of haggi as dummies getting them through customs to accompany the next dog you ship over. And you rotter - Ken Dodd! Who will you cite next for "British training," Frankie Howerd?
> 
> MG


Not many in the world of dogs,have some that I have had dialogue with!..I thank you and many others from that side of the pond,which I gleam much from!?..digest then regurgitate ?. and then understand!
I alway's look at the techniques',and replies of every concept from a view of ''Well hell', if it ain't broke ,don't fix it'?"..With a twist of 'Hey', what if it ain't broke?, just built wrong?
...
Easy Jennifer?...I have honestly got enough enemies over here without more over there!
...
Anybody wanna shoot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZiVag7LW7c
..
Train your dog how you wan't it to be
And retrievers' btw are not the only dog's that do it
Chris,
Your man that drinks Bacardi?...everyone that does that without fruit is My 'kinda man'


----------



## Dale

For the life of me I still can't find any mention of British labrdaors on AKC's web page. They only list Labrador Retrievers??????????

I have watched a training video where the person says he does not FF. Then later in the program he has the dog on the table. 

IMHO any time you require a dog to do something that although he may be willing to do he does want to that is force. Force doesn't mean you have to be inflicting discomfort on the dog.


----------



## Aussie

The Australian ANKC (field trial) dog of 2011 was 

Nat Gr RtCh Kadnook Kwik Sand (Labrador Retreiver) owned and trained by Mr R Tawton

Mr R Tawton has since imported a black male labrador from Candlewood kennel.


----------

