# bill hillman or mike lardy



## MBellow74 (Jun 19, 2014)

Looking to purchase new dvd's and can't decide which set to go with. For those of you that have watched both, What are the differences in the two? are the guys dvd's similar ? I'm sure they is already this post floating around but I'm new to the site..thanks!!!


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Both! If I were starting with a puppy, I'd buy Hillman's puppy video and then, start with Lardy about the time I got to force fetch.


----------



## Jerry S. (May 18, 2009)

Charles C. said:


> Both! If I were starting with a puppy, I'd buy Hillman's puppy video and then, start with Lardy about the time I got to force fetch.


Or continue through Hillmann's FF and then on to Lardy.
I read so much about Hillmann's puppy method but less on his FF method. His method is so different than the traditional ear pinch but is discussed very little.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Hillmann has a whole DVD series to get you completely through the yard now. It contains excellent basics for any gundog or competition dog. I follow his methods for all of my dogs now. 

The Puppy DVD will show you how to thoroughly teach them the 'meaning' of sit. It will help multitudes in preventing creeping and noise by teaching them 'patience'. Don't take shortcuts and rush the process though!!

The Fundamentals DVDs will teach them basics on land and water. 

This set of 3 DVD contains all of the tools you will need to create a 'balanced retriever' with a solid foundation.


----------



## Gerald Kelley (Apr 26, 2010)

I really liked Hillmans puppy DVD. I didn't really care for his Fetch dvd though.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

I think the Fetch DVD gives you an option over the traditional 'force fetch' methods which don't work on some dogs, especially non-labrador breeds.....


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

TBell said:


> I think the Fetch DVD gives you an option over the traditional 'force fetch' methods which don't work on some dogs, especially non-labrador breeds.....


The DVD doesn't put it out there like that.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Jerry S. said:


> Or continue through Hillmann's FF and then on to Lardy.
> I read so much about Hillmann's puppy method but less on his FF method. His method is so different than the traditional ear pinch but is discussed very little.


I've been watching the videos. Basically, fetch is taught by getting the dog excited for the bumper and praise until the dog does it well and then it is reinforced with low nicks on a ecollar. Basically, that is all there is to it. I haven't gotten into the fundamentals DVD yet but as far as I can tell that is all there is to it.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Both! If I were starting with a puppy, I'd buy Hillman's puppy video and then, start with Lardy about the time I got to force fetch.


I read in another post that indirect pressure doesn't work unless there is traditional force fetch. I basically don't know what I am doing because I have only played around with three dogs and didn't have a lot of success with the first two. I like the results I am getting so far using the Hillmann Puppy DVD. It is fixing some issues I had with the first two, and it gives me things to do with an energetic puppy. One thing I wanted to point out is that if someone is truely following the Hillmann DVD step by step, they are working on teaching hold and fetch much earlier than the Lardy Flow Chart. I'm going to start teaching "hold" and my puppy is only 3 1/2 months but time frames are different and mine is probally a bit too wild still. If someone doesn't use some of the Hillmann stuff they have to do things like in the Merten's video until the puppy is 4 months old. I want to add one more thing. The puppy is collar conditioned differently with Hillman than Lardy. In Hillman it is light nicks somewhat regardless of whether the dog is sitting or not. That is not what is in the Lardy video and it can likely be done with a three month old puppy. I don't know how well that would incorporate into Lardy collar conditioning.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Every dog is different and I know of many dogs that 'traditional force fetch' has ruined. Bill's method of 'Fetch' is easy to follow and keeps up the momentum. You can use it alone or in combination with 'traditional force fetch' which is what I do.

I'm in 'force fetch' with two pups from my last litter right now. I wish I had made a video of each because they are so different. One is easy and has taken each step of traditional hold and force fetch well. The other is becoming a clammer with the 'force' so I am using Bill's method of fetch to resolve those issues.

Lardy's flow chart is just a guide, again every dog is different. Hillmann's method allows you to gradually teach your dog each step without him realizing he is even being 'taught', and the dog easily transitions into the next step. Lardy's method is more regimented. Lardy's flow chart says no collar until 6 months old, but with a wild young dog full of drive this can be too late. I've seen it with several of my high drive labs.

You can begin your pup with the Merten's video at 7 weeks with food as a reward and learning tool. Many new trainers have perfected that method. Then transition into Hillmann's puppy video, Land Fundamentals and then Water Fundamentals videos. This will give you a solid foundation in which you can use for a lifetime of retriever work.

For those wanting to go into transition and advanced work, you can continue on with any multitude of drill work written and recorded by various well known authors. You can spend hours watching and ton's of money of all of those, but the best time spent is throwing birds for someone who has had success in the game  Many of them would be glad to help you!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I think it is hard for most beginners to learn and do FF from any video, much better to have someone who has done a ton of dogs to help you hands on in person. That said I prefer the Lardy videos, but lots of people like the Hillman. The Hillman puppy video literally put me to sleep.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> I think it is hard for most beginners to learn and do FF from any video, much better to have someone who has done a ton of dogs to help you hands on in person. That said I prefer the Lardy videos, but lots of people like the Hillman. The Hillman puppy video literally put me to sleep.


I'm with John on this one. I liked the Hillmann Puppy video for how he emphasized teaching sit and have used his method with my new pup. But the constant background guitar, and the fact that the puppy in the video did virtually everything correctly, drove me nuts. I'm dealing with some issues with my current pup that I feel more confident dealing with by reverting over to my Smartworks method.

Point is...every dog is different and sometimes it just takes more experience than one video can offer to deal with a situation.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I think it is hard for most beginners to learn and do FF from any video, much better to have someone who has done a ton of dogs to help you hands on in person.


100% agree with this. Most dogs that people say are ruined by FF is probably due to lack of understanding how to do it correctly.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

I like Bill Hillman's style and delivery.. he's a great teacher


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I think it is hard for most beginners to learn and do FF from any video, much better to have someone who has done a ton of dogs to help you hands on in person. That said I prefer the Lardy videos, but lots of people like the Hillman. The Hillman puppy video literally put me to sleep.


I'm caught in the details of this but if someone watches the Hillman Fetch DVD, it says anyone can teach fetch like the video shows, but not everyone can do traditional force fetch. It says that any dog breed can be taught using the method. Personally I don't doubt my own ability to do traditional force fetch.

The DVD basically says traditional force fetch is unnecessary and that people do it because they don't know any better, and it was started long ago before anyone remembers by a frustrated duck hunter. It is teaching fetch without force and reinforcing a known command with nicks. I know videos make points to be educational, etc... That's just what it says. If someone follow that video step by step that is what they would be doing.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

To me, FF is so much more than just teaching a command and reinforcing it. I can't argue with Hillman's success. I teach delivery and fetch early on with puppies, but FF, at least to me, teaches a dog to think through the pressure instead of reacting to the pressure. Thinking through the pressure is a valuable tool later on in training.


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

MBellow,

I am a huge fan, follower and advocate of the Hillmann training material. I am a student of his methods. The "student" approach to learning from Hillmann is important. If you take the approach to passively watching his videos, you are likely to miss much of what he is teaching.

The reasons are many:



Bill does not define his work with terminology or jargon. He explains his techniques in terms of his philosophy and principles. His language is plain and simple; you don't need a background in behavioral science or dog training to understand it. The dog work on the video demonstrates the mechanics of his methods, which are rooted in his philosophy and principles. Those that mimic his mechanics without thoroughly studying, understanding and implementing the underlying philosophy tend to under-value the content of Hillmann's training method. 
As with any master of any field of endeavor, Bill makes the dog work on his videos look easy. Top athletes, musicians, etc. make superlative performances look easy. If we want to learn from these performers and duplicate these abilities, we need to study the subtlety and detail of the technique. Then practice. Then study more and practice more. This may be generally true of all training material, but it is particularly true of Hillmann's material. 
The beauty and genius of Bill's training style is the lack of formal structure. It is not a Step 1, Step 2, ..., recipe-type approach. It is based on a continuous dynamic interaction between dog and trainer, whereby the trainer is adjusting on-the-fly to fulfill the dog's needs moment by moment. The dog's needs pertain to balance and are measured in terms of excitement, focus, enthusiasm, happiness, fairness, fun, obedience, partnership. The lesson may begin with a plan for certain concepts or skills, but it must evolve based upon the response from the dog. This is commonly called "reading the dog" and is a key characteristic of good training. Bill's training material teaches and develops the ability to be able to read your dog. He starts at the seemingly simple distinction of balancing excitement and obedience. The subtleties and nuances require study. 


Much, much more could be written. I have written much on RTF about Hillmann's training material. I feel that those that think that there is not much to it or those that are unable to focus on the depth of the content have completely missed the essence of it.

I hesitated to comment publicly on this thread because I have not studied Lardy's material. It is obvious to me that many have responded who have not studied nor have any understanding of Hillmann's material.

If I slept through Lardy's material would you be interested in my knowledge and understanding of Lardy?

If you have questions about Hillmann, I will be happy to try to answer.

Jim


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

I haven't seen the karst or hilman but have been looking to buy some and wondered how the farmer/aycock video is in comparison to these 2? Thanks


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

T-Pines said:


> MBellow,
> 
> I am a huge fan, follower and advocate of the Hillmann training material. I am a student of his methods. The "student" approach to learning from Hillmann is important. If you take the approach to passively watching his videos, you are likely to miss much of what he is teaching.
> 
> ...


I have watched his new puppy DVD several times and like a lot about it. I especially like the way he balances excitement with obedience and advocates each dog is different. Reading the puppy is very important. I also like the way he begins collar conditioning early to reinforce sit. I may just be stubborn on FF. It's the way I was taught (by a good pro) and what I feel comfortable with. With that said, if someone doesn't have a strong knowledgeable mentor to help with the 1st FF, Hillman's method of FF may work better. I have not tried it, so I can't speak to that.

The "flow charts" that a lot of people have out there is a general guideline of progression through a typical training program. I can guarantee you could ask any of the respected pros that publish these and they would say it needs to be structured to the individual dog you are dealing with. Reading the dog is a primary key necessary to training a balanced and happy retriever.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Didn't mean to offend with the put me to sleep comment. As I said many people love the Hillman approach, I'm just not one of them, heck I like Goldens, most others prefer Labs, so take my comment with a grain of salt.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

T-Pines said:


> MBellow,
> 
> I am a huge fan, follower and advocate of the Hillmann training material. I am a student of his methods. The "student" approach to learning from Hillmann is important. If you take the approach to passively watching his videos, you are likely to miss much of what he is teaching.
> 
> ...


Does it matter if I don't sit on a bench starting "hold"?


----------



## MBellow74 (Jun 19, 2014)

Thanks for the replies everyone..i'm going to get both and see which one i prefer or suits what I'm doing with my dogs. I actually did FF pretty much on my own with my first dog and we had to work through some issues but for a beginner and it being my first dog.. the traditional method worked for me! thanks again everyone.


----------



## James Seibel (Aug 20, 2008)

DL said:


> I'm caught in the details of this but if someone watches the Hillman Fetch DVD, it says anyone can teach fetch like the video shows, but not everyone can do traditional force fetch. It says that any dog breed can be taught using the method. Personally I don't doubt my own ability to do traditional force fetch.
> 
> The DVD basically says traditional force fetch is unnecessary and that people do it because they don't know any better, and it was started long ago before anyone remembers by a frustrated duck hunter. It is teaching fetch without force and reinforcing a known command with nicks. I know videos make points to be educational, etc... That's just what it says. If someone follow that video step by step that is what they would be doing.


I wrote Bill in regards to his statement that a frustrated duck hunter started force fetch . After a hour on the phone we concluded that I could NOT prove Bill was wrong nor could Bill prove me wrong. 

I contend that David Sanborn is given credit for the invention of force fetch and it has been said he was a Pointer man by some people. I was told Sanborn was a English Setter man . 

Lets go back in history a little . I went to work for Richard S. Johns in 1972 and shortly after I was there he asked me if I could force fetch a dog. I said I had done one . I was 18 years old when I force trained a GSP that would not retrieve. Richard handed me a book to read I was then 19 years old, the book title . "How To Train Your Bird Dog " Copywright 1892 - The man showed how to force fetch train a English Setter. And this method I read is the SAME basic method I use today. "ear Pinch " and a soft method of sorts I might add. 

Richard told me that I was NOT allowed to call this method Force Fetch and MUST call it Condition Retrieve Training. 

I agree totally with Bill that some people can not seem to understand force fetch or do it correctly. I also agree that it is wrong to use any type of tool that would hurt a dog Or make them be vocal. For that matter any harsh method of ear pinch. 

But Again I still say NOT all dogs can be forced fetched using Hillman method. Maybe all people can do it that I do not know as of yet. 

Richard was a dog man in the 20's and died maybe 5 years ago or so. He knew about force fetch in the early 20 and 30's and understood that a Setter man invented the system to teach dogs to retrieve that would not pick up a bird . I think the facts I present should prove a mad enraged duck hunter could NOT be possible to invent force fetch. 


I disagree that Bill's method of force fetch works on any and all dogs or breeds. I told him so and someone here will have to prove to me other wise. 

No# 1 the system is based on a dog that loves to retrieve - Dah - Now what do we do folks with a dog that refuses to pick up a bumper - look at it or chase it - Ball or anything else you try ? Now tell be or explain to me how this method is 100% effective on non retriever breed that lack the genetics to do it ? 

I have personally force fetched conventional method over 1000 dogs maybe 2000 of ALL sporting breeds. It has worked for all . But after through study of Bills method , I conclude I have to disagree . IT WILL NOT WORK FOR ALL DOGS . Bill even said to me it takes the right dog for it to work. 

Now for the rest of the DVD and System - I congratulate Bill on a outstanding DVD collection and to share his system to train retrievers. I endorce the system and have blended much of into my current Rex Car / Lardy based program . 

A final note on his force fetch method . I have used it on a few dogs and though I liked it , I went back and conventionally force fetched those dogs. Just for insurance. So maybe someday I will change my mind and fully understand the method 'perhaps ? ' 

As far as DVD "Traffic Cop " Seems to me one of the Greatest Methods I have seen to steady a dog and correct line manners. 

My advice is buy Both DVD collection if you can - Hillman / and Lardy


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

DL said:


> Does it matter if I don't sit on a bench starting "hold"?


Not being evasive, but I'd like to reply by illustrating to you the point I was trying to make about mechanics being rooted in philosophy and principle. In revised Puppy, Chapter 13, Bill begins teaching Hold with Drifter by sitting on a bench. This is a choice Bill makes about technique or mechanics. 

Think about this. What are the key philosophy/principles underlying Bill's teaching of Hold? In what ways does sitting on a bench enhance these key elements? Any downside to the bench? Does the temperament of the dog play into this? The temperament of the trainer?

Note, Bill works on Hold in this video segment sitting on the bench and not sitting on the bench. At what point is good training good enough? When do we stop looking for ways to improve upon any detail of training or handling? What changes ... the philosophy or the mechanics?

Sorry, but this is the way that Bill is teaching me to think.

Jim


----------



## Captzig (Jun 14, 2013)

If I were to bring you a dog and told you I had forced fetched her, how would you test my dog to prove my claim? 

The reason I ask, is that force fetching method of Hillman's was my biggest concern about continuing his program. After much thought and discussion, I decided to try it. Worse case scenario would be it didn't work and I would go old school. Well, I am thoroughly convinced my dog is force fetched following his instruction. That is if you consider a dog to be force fetched when they will quickly pick up anything you say fetch to, hold and deliver to hand. No matter location, size or shape. I tested this tonight around the house, having 3 boys, there is never a shortage of items to pick up. Every item I said fetch to she quickly snatched up and delivered to my hand. Am I over simplifying the force fetch desired result?


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Captzig said:


> If I were to bring you a dog and told you I had forced fetched her, how would you test my dog to prove my claim?
> 
> The reason I ask, is that force fetching method of Hillman's was my biggest concern about continuing his program. After much thought and discussion, I decided to try it. Worse case scenario would be it didn't work and I would go old school. Well, I am thoroughly convinced my dog is force fetched following his instruction. That is if you consider a dog to be force fetched when they will quickly pick up anything you say fetch to, hold and deliver to hand. No matter location, size or shape. I tested this tonight around the house, having 3 boys, there is never a shortage of items to pick up. Every item I said fetch to she quickly snatched up and delivered to my hand. Am I over simplifying the force fetch desired result?


You are over simplifying. More experienced people have discussed this but force fetching is more than just fetching something on command to hand. I have never used Hillman's instruction (used Lardy) but would imagine he would go into the philosophy. Force fetching is about complying to a command even when the conditions are unfavorable ie the dog performs the task while in a pressure/uncomfortable state. 

Again, I am unfamiliar with Hillmans, but stick fetch with a stick or collar would tell me whether your dog is forced fetch. This is understanding of the command and more importantly the pressure.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

T-Pines said:


> Not being evasive, but I'd like to reply by illustrating to you the point I was trying to make about mechanics being rooted in philosophy and principle. In revised Puppy, Chapter 13, Bill begins teaching Hold with Drifter by sitting on a bench. This is a choice Bill makes about technique or mechanics.
> 
> Think about this. What are the key philosophy/principles underlying Bill's teaching of Hold? In what ways does sitting on a bench enhance these key elements? Any downside to the bench? Does the temperament of the dog play into this? The temperament of the trainer?
> 
> ...


Thanks, I got it. The philosophy dictates the mechanics. The philosophy is balance, attitude and repetition. The added factors are the dog's temperament and my own temperament. How it is done is not as important as whether it fulfills the philosophy. Interesting.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Bill does not define his work with terminology or jargon. He explains his techniques in terms of his philosophy and principles. His language is plain and simple; you don't need a background in behavioral science or dog training to understand it. The dog work on the video demonstrates the mechanics of his methods, which are rooted in his philosophy and principles. Those that mimic his mechanics without thoroughly studying, understanding and implementing the underlying philosophy tend to under-value the content of Hillmann's training method.
> As with any master of any field of endeavor, Bill makes the dog work on his videos look easy. Top athletes, musicians, etc. make superlative performances look easy. If we want to learn from these performers and duplicate these abilities, we need to study the subtlety and detail of the technique. Then practice. Then study more and practice more. This may be generally true of all training material, but it is particularly true of Hillmann's material.
> The beauty and genius of Bill's training style is the lack of formal structure. It is not a Step 1, Step 2, ..., recipe-type approach. It is based on a continuous dynamic interaction between dog and trainer, whereby the trainer is adjusting on-the-fly to fulfill the dog's needs moment by moment. The dog's needs pertain to balance and are measured in terms of excitement, focus, enthusiasm, happiness, fairness, fun, obedience, partnership. The lesson may begin with a plan for certain concepts or skills, but it must evolve based upon the response from the dog. This is commonly called "reading the dog" and is a key characteristic of good training. Bill's training material teaches and develops the ability to be able to read your dog. He starts at the seemingly simple distinction of balancing excitement and obedience. The subtleties and nuances require study.
> 
> ...


Excellent response Jim

Those are some reasons why it is hard to teach a new person,,,training morphs from day to day and responding to the dogs needs "at the moment" changes frequently.
Learning needs to start at square one ,,but most people are bored with that. Like how to praise,,really not that easy to do correctly. Its usually under done or over done all at the wrong time. A student of the game will want to master that one ,and keep an eye out for its effectiveness or lack there of.
I think both approaches are necessary to understand to fully develop a trainer,,because it helps the trainer make connections to what will work and why. But a new person needs to start somewhere and any of the programs is a good place,,because they are all new to the newby. As a new person matures in this sport they will take on different aspects of different programs and also through some of there own in there too.
Pete


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

DL said:


> Thanks, I got it. The philosophy dictates the mechanics. The philosophy is balance, attitude and repetition. The added factors are the dog's temperament and my own temperament. How it is done is not as important as whether it fulfills the philosophy. Interesting.


Yes, I believe you do have it.

Just to follow through on the thought, I'd like to add a few thoughts about the bench and Hold. Teaching Hold is often the toughest lesson with a puppy. The general training principles of patience, calmness, gentleness can be harder for the trainer to adhere to ... it can be a real challenge to maintain composure and not turn the lesson into a battle.

So, how about sitting on a bench in the shade? More comfortable. Easier to be patient, calm and gentle. Can gently nest your legs around the pup to help stabilize without jerking. Less likely to be to be in a position directly over the dog, which can be intimidating.

Is the bench necessary? Of course not. But it can be used to our advantage to enhance the philosophy. We should always be looking for, and open to ways to enhance the philosophy. That's why we should be mindful of the mechanics, but never take our "eyes" off the philosophy and principles. 

It can be very easy to fixate on the discipline of the mechanics at the expense of the philosophy. The greater requirement for discipline is to remain true to your philosophy and principles.

Jim


----------



## Mountain Duck (Mar 7, 2010)

Jim, is it true that Mumford and Sons are cutting a special track that can be played in the background to enhance the overall understanding of the philosophy, and avoid the "sleepies"?


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

I believe they went on sabbatical to work on that project exclusively.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

As a newbie doing my first honest to god force fetch, I have some observations/questions. I am using James Spencer's methods as outlined in Marshes and Meadows. We are on our fourth week. I initially used a plastic water bottle as my fetch object because I wanted to use something my dog was not going to be fetching in competitions. I went thru all the steps in my living room with the water bottle. So far, great. Last week we started to fetch different objects in my living room. Pretty smooth sailing. I thought that I had the project well under control until I walked across the street to do a session with the bumper. The poor guy had no idea what I was asking him. So...I went back in the house to the kitchen with the water bottle. Next session we walked on the front porch. Then we fetched on the back porch. We fetched and carried the bumper in the driveway. The entire time he is showing improvements but is continuing to make errors in each new locations. 

This morning I tried across the street again. It was a bit better but still too many errors. My guess is that he has no idea how to fetch off of GRASS. He kept trying to pick up the bumper by the rope. So in my next session I am going to use the water bottle again and find some shorter grass. 

My observation is that getting thru all the steps in force fetch in one location is just the beginning...the tip of the iceberg...and that generalizing the command to different objects and different locations (especially exciting ones) is where the real work lies.

I am completely new to this, so I might be doing everything wrong and I welcome your advice and counsel.

p.s. I also purchase Lardy's Total Retriever Training and have watched the force fetch portion twice. I also bought Lardy's articles. Because he only does the Force Fetch in one location I wondered perhaps if I am overthinking this.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

RobinZClark said:


> As a newbie doing my first honest to god force fetch, I have some observations/questions. I am using James Spencer's methods as outlined in Marshes and Meadows. We are on our fourth week. I initially used a plastic water bottle as my fetch object because I wanted to use something my dog was not going to be fetching in competitions. I went thru all the steps in my living room with the water bottle. So far, great. Last week we started to fetch different objects in my living room. Pretty smooth sailing. I thought that I had the project well under control until I walked across the street to do a session with the bumper. The poor guy had no idea what I was asking him. So...I went back in the house to the kitchen with the water bottle. Next session we walked on the front porch. Then we fetched on the back porch. We fetched and carried the bumper in the driveway. The entire time he is showing improvements but is continuing to make errors in each new locations.
> 
> This morning I tried across the street again. It was a bit better but still too many errors. My guess is that he has no idea how to fetch off of GRASS. He kept trying to pick up the bumper by the rope. So in my next session I am going to use the water bottle again and find some shorter grass.
> 
> ...


Don't take this the wrong way because I am just going to throw some comments out. Take what I say with a grain of salt. I actually think I know how to do force fetch and have only done two. I learned a lot with the second one which was nine years ago. 

I can't really imagine you teaching "hold" with a plastic bottle. A really good thing for that is a paint roller. You would do hold with the paint roller and then do hold with the bumper. Then fetch with the paint roller, then fetch with the bumper.

When you switch objects, work on hold with it a little before you ask the dog to fetch it. When you do start asking the dog to fetch the new object, start in front of the dogs mouth. You can even work on fetch a little at the same time as hold if the dog decides it doesn't want you to put the object in it's mouth. You are right about having to proof it in different locations and situations and with distractions. The Lardy Articles talk about walking fetch, and stick fetch. That is part of the proofing but there is more to it than that.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

DL, there was more reason than I stated for using the plastic bottle...I wanted the audible feedback when he mouthed it...fixing his mouthing was my initial concern. He does very well with the plastic bottle. Everytime I introduce a new object I go right back to the beginning as you state and put the object in his mouth. He progresses quite rapidly. I am quite familiar with the problems dogs have in generalizing behaviors, but he has been unusally clever about generalizing other skills to new locations. It just surprises me that he is struggling a bit with this and that I am having to break it down into such tiny pieces. He is very willing to put new objects in his mouth...no problem there...the problem that I have is that he wants to mouth each new object with gusto. And he wants to pick up each new object by the end and not grasp it in the middle. I am very unsure if my standards are too high and these issues will get resolved during walking fetch/stick fetch? This is the first time I've done this.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

RobinZClark said:


> DL, there was more reason than I stated for using the plastic bottle...I wanted the audible feedback when he mouthed it...fixing his mouthing was my initial concern. He does very well with the plastic bottle. Everytime I introduce a new object I go right back to the beginning as you state and put the object in his mouth. He progresses quite rapidly. I am quite familiar with the problems dogs have in generalizing behaviors, but he has been unusally clever about generalizing other skills to new locations. It just surprises me that he is struggling a bit with this and that I am having to break it down into such tiny pieces. He is very willing to put new objects in his mouth...no problem there...the problem that I have is that he wants to mouth each new object with gusto. And he wants to pick up each new object by the end and not grasp it in the middle. I am very unsure if my standards are too high and these issues will get resolved during walking fetch/stick fetch? This is the first time I've done this.


Here are some ideas. If you think it is the thing to do, you can reposition the object in their mouth, you can trying tapping on the snout softly with an index finger and say hold and cuff under chin etc..., you can karate chop the bumper out of the mouth, then ear pinch to the bumper. 

Another option could be to get the dog to moving after fetching from the ground, and move on to walking fetch. Do a a Fetch and walk around, then do a Fetch and walk around. 

Part of the problem could be anxiety with the dog that isn't going to go away. The best advise is probably to get your dog to walking around.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Good advice DL. That is exactly what I did this morning. When he holds it poorly I reposition it in his mouth. I cuff under the chin when he mouths. I tap the bumper out of his mouth, then ear pinch to the bumper. After two rounds of that, I walked him around just holding the bumper. I think that what I will do differently is to add more walking around sooner during my next session. It sounds like I am on the right track doesn't it? Is this a typical progression? Lardy makes it looks so easy...


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

RobinZClark said:


> Good advice DL. That is exactly what I did this morning. When he holds it poorly I reposition it in his mouth. I cuff under the chin when he mouths. I tap the bumper out of his mouth, then ear pinch to the bumper. After two rounds of that, I walked him around just holding the bumper. I think that what I will do differently is to add more walking around sooner during my next session. It sounds like I am on the right track doesn't it? Is this a typical progression? Lardy makes it looks so easy...


I remember my dogs doing the same thing. They may have been more soft mouthed dogs. Maybe that has something to do with it. It sounds like a typical progression to me. I have the older Lardy videos that barely cover it. I seem to remember that it is good to fetch with the dog circling at arms length with the handler turning along with the dog. You are probally past that point.


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

DL said:


> I'm caught in the details of this but if someone watches the Hillman Fetch DVD, *it says anyone can teach fetch *like the video shows, but not everyone can do traditional force fetch. It says that any dog breed can be taught using the method. Personally I don't doubt my own ability to do traditional force fetch.
> 
> The DVD basically says traditional force fetch is unnecessary and that people do it because they don't know any better, and it was started long ago before anyone remembers by a frustrated duck hunter. It is teaching fetch without force and reinforcing a known command with nicks. I know videos make points to be educational, etc... That's just what it says. If someone follow that video step by step that is what they would be doing.


Teaching the fetch part seems to be easy enough. Teaching a dog how to understand and turn off various forms of pressure is to me the actual lesson. Does anyone have feedback on if the Hillman method in the video would address this. Always interested in additional approaches and recommendations on videos and books.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DMA said:


> Teaching the fetch part seems to be easy enough. _Teaching a dog how to understand and turn off various forms of pressure is to me the actual lesson_. Does anyone have feedback on if the Hillman method in the video would address this. Always interested in additional approaches and recommendations on videos and books.


That's what I was wondering. I just had the basic puppy DVD that didn't get into FF, I'm just following that discussion on this thread.


----------



## Mountain Duck (Mar 7, 2010)

DMA said:


> Teaching the fetch part seems to be easy enough. Teaching a dog how to understand and turn off various forms of pressure is to me the actual lesson. Does anyone have feedback on if the Hillman method in the video would address this. Always interested in additional approaches and recommendations on videos and books.


That is the essence of how Hillmann is different. There isn't a "turning off of pressure". Bill would tell you that "pressure" is something used to get a dog to "DO" something. Bill is interested in conditioning a dog to "BE" a certain way. That is, an action without thought. Practice. Example is cutting a corner of water. Don't do it a couple times until the dog gets it right (or burn him for doing it wrong), but rather hundreds of times until it becomes who he is. 

Realize that most programs are derived from Pros that train a large number of dogs on a daily basis, and are built on a regimented, streamlined schedule, that typically prohibits truly "custom" training a dog. I realize good trainers are flexible and "train the dog they're training", but to a large extent, the dog has to fit the "program" or they wash out. They can not repeat and practice things to the extent an individual can. They can't stand and hand throw 25 bumpers across a corner of water, then do 15 walking singles, then run a walkout blind, then work on steadiness, and then go run an actual setup all by yourself.....then etc..... That is what I like about the way Bill trains....it's how I CAN train. But it's important to understand the philosophy, in that, the philosophy is what will develop the relationship with your dog, that will in turn allow you to make the most of this way of training.


----------



## Captzig (Jun 14, 2013)

Mountain Duck said:


> That is the essence of how Hillmann is different. There isn't a "turning off of pressure". Bill would tell you that "pressure" is something used to get a dog to "DO" something. Bill is interested in conditioning a dog to "BE" a certain way. That is, an action without thought. Practice. Example is cutting a corner of water. Don't do it a couple times until the dog gets it right (or burn him for doing it wrong), but rather hundreds of times until it becomes who he is.
> 
> Realize that most programs are derived from Pros that train a large number of dogs on a daily basis, and are built on a regimented, streamlined schedule, that typically prohibits truly "custom" training a dog. I realize good trainers are flexible and "train the dog they're training", but to a large extent, the dog has to fit the "program" or they wash out. They can not repeat and practice things to the extent an individual can. They can't stand and hand throw 25 bumpers across a corner of water, then do 15 walking singles, then run a walkout blind, then work on steadiness, and then go run an actual setup all by yourself.....then etc..... That is what I like about the way Bill trains....it's how I CAN train. But it's important to understand the philosophy, in that, the philosophy is what will develop the relationship with your dog, that will in turn allow you to make the most of this way of training.


I was kinda thinking the same thing but couldn't have said it better than Mountain Duck, excellent post!


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

According to Bill's philosophy it is not necessary to teach a dog how to turn off pressure? It is instead necessary to create good habits? That idea seems to turn FF on its ear. Pun intended.

I can easily teach a dog to retrieve without teaching them how to turn off pressure....so there is no point to teaching them to turn off pressure? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

I think a lot of folks would disagree with you on this. I would argue that it is the seasoned pro's experience with many dogs that allows him/her to anticipate and instantaneously react to whatever a given dog does and thus tailor the program to each dog on the fly.

I also think this is the hardest thing about learning how to FF dogs without doing a bunch of them under the watchful eye of someone who has already done a bunch of them. There are so many varied reactions that you have to be ready to respond to with perfect timing that it is very hard to get it right the first few times through. Especially if you are having to stop and think about it because you are inexperienced like me.



Mountain Duck said:


> Realize that most programs are derived from Pros that train a large number of dogs on a daily basis, and are built on a regimented, streamlined schedule, that typically prohibits truly "custom" training a dog. I realize good trainers are flexible and "train the dog they're training", but to a large extent, the dog has to fit the "program" or they wash out. They can not repeat and practice things to the extent an individual can. They can't stand and hand throw 25 bumpers across a corner of water, then do 15 walking singles, then run a walkout blind, then work on steadiness, and then go run an actual setup all by yourself.....then etc..... That is what I like about the way Bill trains....it's how I CAN train. But it's important to understand the philosophy, in that, the philosophy is what will develop the relationship with your dog, that will in turn allow you to make the most of this way of training.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Luke T said:


> I haven't seen the karst or hilman but have been looking to buy some and wondered how the farmer/aycock video is in comparison to these 2? Thanks


 If you really want to learn how to FF a dog, and aren't just looking to FF your dog, the Farmer/Aycock Basics and Force Fetch DVD's are the very best of all of the training videos that currently exist.

They do an excellent job of emphasizing the primary objectives of basics and FF.

But, you still can't learn how to FF a dog simply by watching a video.
Every dog is an individual. 

They are all unique. Like snowflakes.


----------



## Marissa E. (May 13, 2009)

Ok, not to hijack this thread but...

My pup is now 6 months old. My last dog I sent away for FF, T, Swimby and that stuff. I want to do it myself this time. I have since also seen a few Pros work on FF during individual sessions but not yet seen a dog FF'd start to finish.

I have the Lardy DVDs (and Hillman Fetch and both the Farmer/Aycock DVDs lol) but I am still feeling a bit overwhelmed even thinking about FF. I have not started the process at all but my pup shows plenty of desire and will bring back bumper after bumper on land and in water... I know she is ready to begin more formal work.

If I go with a Pro to help me ( I have a good one in mind that is about an hour away) what type of commitment am I looking at? Traveling with my dog to Pros everyday, every other day, once a week? I want to learn how to do it and I really would like to avoid leaving my dog with a Pro again...

Thanks


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Marissa E. said:


> ....If I go with a Pro to help me ( I have a good one in mind that is about an hour away) what type of commitment am I looking at? Traveling with my dog to Pros everyday, every other day, once a week? I want to learn how to do it and I really would like to avoid leaving my dog with a Pro again......


 If you trust the Pro, then trust the Pro. Ask them what they think.

They aren't all looking to drain your wallet. 

If you have a real desire to learn, and have a real hunger for knowledge, you can easily find an instructor that is more than willing to mentor you.

It's the folks that want a Pro to give them a fish, vs teaching them how to fish, that get the cold shoulder.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> If you trust the Pro, then trust the Pro. Ask them what they think.
> 
> They aren't all looking to drain your wallet.
> 
> ...


It's about the best post I've seen and the only one I've understood from you


----------



## Mountain Duck (Mar 7, 2010)

RookieTrainer said:


> I think a lot of folks would disagree with you on this. I would argue that it is the seasoned pro's experience with many dogs that allows him/her to anticipate and instantaneously react to whatever a given dog does and thus tailor the program to each dog on the fly.


Steve, I believe you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. To clarify, I'm not questioning the "ability" of a Pro to read a dog and "instantaneously" react to what the dog is doing. As it relates to Lardy, his record and program certainly have been time proven, and I'm not foolish enough to believe I have any business trying to critique Mike Lardy, or any number of top Pros. ;-) 

My point is that a Pro has a certain number (typically large) of dogs to train daily. This requires a structured, regimented approach to ensure that all dogs get trained for the day. The training has to be somewhat homogeneous, as there simply isn't enough daylight to do *exactly* what every dog needs. It's not necessarily a matter of a "well timed correction", but possibly a matter of "should the dog even be doing this?" Now, obviously the cream rises to the top, and dogs go on to have 100's of AA points and end up in the HOF, but a certain number that don't fit the "program" wash. Not to say they would make it elsewhere, but there are certainly stories of dogs that have gone on to have success once given a more "one-on-one" type of training.

Most modern training programs are adapted from the regimented type atmosphere I described above. You see terms like "flowchart" "start formal obedience", force fetch, walking fetch, stick fetch, force to pile........... It's born from the need to have a structured day to day plan to fit a number of dogs, in a way that most of them will progress. It attempts to set benchmarks, and finite start/finishes, in a somewhat "paint by numbers" approach. For many people, this is great way to train. Many have used these to advance dogs to the highest levels.

Hillmann's approach is different. It's an alternative. It's *one dog *that you are training. It's not bound by the need to train 25 dogs today. Just the one. It's not a "I have a dozen 6 month old dogs that need to learn to sit, so I'm going to walk around in circles for ten minutes a day for two weeks with a lead and heeling stick until I get compliance", but rather "I have a 10 week old puppy that has a multitude of things he needs to learn in his lifetime." "We're going for a walk in the morning, and we're going to start chipping away at this Masterpiece I'm going to create." I personally like that approach to dog training.


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

DMA said:


> Teaching the fetch part seems to be easy enough. Teaching a dog how to understand and turn off various forms of pressure is to me the actual lesson. Does anyone have feedback on if the Hillman method in the video would address this. Always interested in additional approaches and recommendations on videos and books.





Mountain Duck said:


> That is the essence of how Hillmann is different. There isn't a "turning off of pressure". Bill would tell you that "pressure" is something used to get a dog to "DO" something. Bill is interested in conditioning a dog to "BE" a certain way. That is, an action without thought. Practice. Example is cutting a corner of water. Don't do it a couple times until the dog gets it right (or burn him for doing it wrong), but rather hundreds of times until it becomes who he is.
> 
> Realize that most programs are derived from Pros that train a large number of dogs on a daily basis, and are built on a regimented, streamlined schedule, that typically prohibits truly "custom" training a dog. I realize good trainers are flexible and "train the dog they're training", but to a large extent, the dog has to fit the "program" or they wash out. They can not repeat and practice things to the extent an individual can. They can't stand and hand throw 25 bumpers across a corner of water, then do 15 walking singles, then run a walkout blind, then work on steadiness, and then go run an actual setup all by yourself.....then etc..... That is what I like about the way Bill trains....it's how I CAN train. But it's important to understand the philosophy, in that, the philosophy is what will develop the relationship with your dog, that will in turn allow you to make the most of this way of training.


Eric correctly points out a major difference in philosophy. The program is designed entirely around conditioned reinforcement of success. The ecollar is a conditioned reinforcer and applied positively, at a low intensity 'nick', in operant terms.

If I understand this idea of "turning off pressure", you are talking about escape/avoidance training techniques. I do believe that this plays a role in the early process of conditioning the ecollar to be a positive reinforcer, through the early work with leash pressure. Again, this is applied at a very low level of intensity and very quickly evolves into high repetition, positive reinforcement of a behavior that the dog is doing correctly.

This, in addition to the reinforced practice of success that Eric explained so well, produces a dog that has a very clear understanding of the concept of indirect pressure. So, Hillmann's Fundamentals program utilizes a specific communication sequence, using indirect pressure, to teach the concepts involved in more advanced work. A key characteristic of this use of indirect pressure, is that the dog has been conditioned to understand and respond to very low intensity 'nicks' at the distances required for retriever work.

I see this as a clear example where the mechanics/method fits the philosophy. Hillmann's Fetch Command method of force fetch is very different from traditional methods. However, it is complete in the fulfillment of his system (philosophy) with regard to the use of pressure in communicating and conditioning. The trainer has all the tools needed and the dog has all the understanding needed.

So, when teaching basic obedience skills, pressure as punishment for corrections is not an integral part of the process. Later, during the teaching of Fundamentals of more advanced retriever work, the dog has a clear understanding of a communication sequence involving indirect pressure. Every aspect of the ecollar conditioning process incorporates an attitude of excitement, fun, happiness, etc so that the use of ecollar pressure does not diminish the attitude of the dog. This work can be accomplished while simultaneously building drive, desire and focus.

Jim


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> It's about the best post I've seen and the only one I've understood from you


I'm the opposite,,,I find most of what he says quite insightful and understand what he is trying to get across in depth,,,
funny how that works
Pete


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Mountain Duck said:


> That is the essence of how Hillmann is different. There isn't a "turning off of pressure". Bill would tell you that "pressure" is something used to get a dog to "DO" something. Bill is interested in conditioning a dog to "BE" a certain way. That is, an action without thought. Practice. Example is cutting a corner of water. Don't do it a couple times until the dog gets it right (or burn him for doing it wrong), but rather hundreds of times until it becomes who he is.
> 
> Realize that most programs are derived from Pros that train a large number of dogs on a daily basis, and are built on a regimented, streamlined schedule, that typically prohibits truly "custom" training a dog. I realize good trainers are flexible and "train the dog they're training", but to a large extent, the dog has to fit the "program" or they wash out. They can not repeat and practice things to the extent an individual can. They can't stand and hand throw 25 bumpers across a corner of water, then do 15 walking singles, then run a walkout blind, then work on steadiness, and then go run an actual setup all by yourself.....then etc..... That is what I like about the way Bill trains....it's how I CAN train. But it's important to understand the philosophy, in that, the philosophy is what will develop the relationship with your dog, that will in turn allow you to make the most of this way of training.


Dude, where's my car? Sounds like you and that hippie dog have been sampling some of what grows in the hollers are probably into your third bag of Funyuns by now. 

I do agree with (part of) what you are saying. While good pros will treat dogs as individuals, there are things they can't do that amateurs can. Pat says often that he would love to have taken dogs back to review things like pile work, T or swim-by, since for some it has been years, but he simply didn't have the time unless it was absolutely necessary with the # of dogs on the truck.

Be the mark regards,


----------



## Mountain Duck (Mar 7, 2010)

Penn, this is pretty deep stuff. You may need to modify the contents of the back closet of your dog truck to keep up! ;-)


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

In my limited experience, your description of professional training and why dogs wash out are not accurate, but perhaps your experience has been different. Agree to disagree?



Mountain Duck said:


> Steve, I believe you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. To clarify, I'm not questioning the "ability" of a Pro to read a dog and "instantaneously" react to what the dog is doing. As it relates to Lardy, his record and program certainly have been time proven, and I'm not foolish enough to believe I have any business trying to critique Mike Lardy, or any number of top Pros. ;-)
> 
> My point is that a Pro has a certain number (typically large) of dogs to train daily. This requires a structured, regimented approach to ensure that all dogs get trained for the day. The training has to be somewhat homogeneous, as there simply isn't enough daylight to do *exactly* what every dog needs. It's not necessarily a matter of a "well timed correction", but possibly a matter of "should the dog even be doing this?" Now, obviously the cream rises to the top, and dogs go on to have 100's of AA points and end up in the HOF, but a certain number that don't fit the "program" wash. Not to say they would make it elsewhere, but there are certainly stories of dogs that have gone on to have success once given a more "one-on-one" type of training.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Mountain Duck said:


> That is the essence of how Hillmann is different. There isn't a "turning off of pressure". Bill would tell you that "pressure" is something used to get a dog to "DO" something. Bill is interested in conditioning a dog to "BE" a certain way. That is, an action without thought. Practice. Example is cutting a corner of water. Don't do it a couple times until the dog gets it right (or burn him for doing it wrong), but rather hundreds of times until it becomes who he is.
> 
> Realize that most programs are derived from Pros that train a large number of dogs on a daily basis, and are built on a regimented, streamlined schedule, that typically prohibits truly "custom" training a dog. I realize good trainers are flexible and "train the dog they're training", but to a large extent, the dog has to fit the "program" or they wash out. They can not repeat and practice things to the extent an individual can. They can't stand and hand throw 25 bumpers across a corner of water, then do 15 walking singles, then run a walkout blind, then work on steadiness, and then go run an actual setup all by yourself.....then etc..... That is what I like about the way Bill trains....it's how I CAN train. But it's important to understand the philosophy, in that, the philosophy is what will develop the relationship with your dog, that will in turn allow you to make the most of this way of training.


No; a pro certainly has not got that time to do standalones such as I do or walk out and run a blind. But a pro can read a dog better than us newbies trying programs b/c they run several dogs through several setups and some with many years of experience and many different dogs. I am of the viewpoint you can learn alot from watching others, viewing the programs offered out there and from listening and watching others run their dogs and then taking action and get out there and train your dog. There is most certainly more than one way to train your retriever.IMHO


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Bottom line.. Hillmenn's loves dogs .. Loves and respects them.. you can hear it his voice.....training is not about performance .. it is is about love between a dog and its owner.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

.44 magnum said:


> Bottom line.. Hillmenn's loves dogs .. Loves and respects them.. you can hear it his voice.....training is not about performance .. it is is about love between a dog and its owner.


Don't we all love our dogs as much as Hillman, even Mike Lardy? Did you see the tears in his eyes as he talks about Topbrass Cotton and Lottie?


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Could Lardy make my dog better... yes... or Hillmann..yes... but I respond better to the way Hillman speaks.. nice and slow, he keeps me steady... 

It's why one needs to buy some material from a variety of trainers and see which approach you can work with... I remember starting out with Richard Wolters, but I've bought Tom Dokkens, Smart Works, Lardy, but wished I'd found Hillmann stuff years ago... 

Yes we all love our dogs I hope... and the training should be a labor of love.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

.44 magnum said:


> ......I respond better to the way Hillman speaks.. nice and slow, he keeps me steady...


 How do you know that nice, slow, and steady, is what you need to respond better to?


----------



## MBellow74 (Jun 19, 2014)

Well I guess I got my answers from everyone! Think I've learn more from this thread then I thought I would! I got a hold of mike lardys DVDs and books! Looking to get hillmans also to see which I prefer! So far Lardy is impressive and I've learned a lot just from one book and DVD! Thanks again guys


----------

