# Simplifying Dog Learning Science -10 FAQs



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Frequently Asked Questions about the Science of How Dogs Learn. 

(Warning: Long and only for those that are interested in this stuff!)

Q1. Can you train retrievers without this scientific stuff?
A1. Absolutely. Most FCs are made by trainers who don’t know the science. Nonetheless, many of the most effective, efficient and fair trainers practice the principles of this science, perhaps without knowing it. The principles of learning do matter! 

Q2. Who cares? Why bother?
A2. The science of learning demonstrates that some methods of learning are longer-lasting, less stressful and more effective. Understanding them can help decide on best procedures. An understanding of the science can help you to train based on behaviour knowledge-not trial and error at your dog’s expense. 

Q3. Why is the science so complicated and hard to understand?
A3. The science was not developed by retriever trainers but by behavioural scientists who describe their ideas in generic terms applicable to many species and situations. The principles that are universal have taken a century to develop. The basics are simple but the exceptions complicate generalities. The science uses terms quite different from that of the day-to-day person or dog trainer. Most of the explanatory books have been written by positive only proponents who have little experience with retrievers, e-collars and the methods that we routinely use. They don’t talk like we do! The scientific terminology is precise but foreign to many. This is evident in many RTF debates.

Q4. Can you explain conditioning?
A4. Conditioning is a form of learning in which the dog learns from the consequences of its behaviour. All of our retriever training is conditioning! Almost all working retriever training uses Operant Conditioning as opposed to Classical conditioning?

Q5. What in the world is Operant Conditioning?
A5. Lots of terminology behind the phrase Operant BUT it basically means behaviour conditioning. Our retrievers form an association between what they do (their behaviour) and what happens next (the consequence). 
Think about that! Our retriever does something which is followed by something good or bad (a consequence) and the dog learns (is conditioned!). All of our training is based on that. Our retrievers are learning constantly-being conditioned- whether we plan it or not! Interestingly when no reward (good) or bad (aversive) happens the behaviour gradually disappears-this is called extinction.

Q6. OK then what is Classical conditioning.
A6. That’s Pavlov with his bell, dog food and salivating dog! The bell was a stimulus that got associated with the food. The dog knew what was coming and started to salivate. Scientists call the food a primary reinforcer-we don’t have to teach it. The bell was a secondary reinforcer-it got associated with the food. Note clicker training is based on this idea. Most of our training is based on operant not classical conditioning (unless EVERY time you blow your whistle you nick!!)

Q7. What is reinforcement and what is punishment?
A7. In learning theory talk as opposed to everyday talk, reinforcement occurs when a dog’s particular behaviour (like sitting) is increased in the future because of some consequnce. In contrast, punishment occurs when a dog’s particular behaviour decreases. Example 1. You say “back” and the dog retrieves a bird (good consequence)-this is called reinforcement when next time the dog goes on back with great gusto!. Example 2. You yell “no” and burn your dog (bad consequence) when he chases the cat. If he stops chasing cats this is called punishment (of the behaviour to chase cats). 

Q8. What is negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement?
A8. It’s not what you think!!! We dog trainers think positive is praise (“good dog”) and negative is aversive (“e-collar nick”). Behaviour scientists use positive to mean add and negative to take away. Hmmn- remember your arithmetic!

OKAY here’s the tough part.

If you give something or something is added for the dog it is positive. If the behaviour increases it is positive reinforcement but if the behaviour decreases it is positive punishment. Example 1. Puppy is standing so you say sit, puppy sits and you add a treat. Next time pup sits quickly on “sit” = +ve R.
Example 2. Puppy is standing so you say sit and then add a hard push to sit. Next time puppy cowers and won’t sit but immediately stands= +ve P.

Similarly for Negative: If something is taken away from dog and behaviour increases it is negative reinforcement but if behaviour decreases it is negative punishment. Example 1. Puppy is standing so you pull up on leash to make him sit and immediately stop pulling when he sits. Next time he sits quicker = -ve R. Example 2. After “sit” puppy stands as you start to give treat. You withdraw treat. Next time he stays sitting and the standing behaviour decreases =-P.

Q9. Ok if I understand these terms how do they help?
A9. Frankly the terms don’t help-it’s the principles that do. The terms only matter when we are reading the literature or talking to others such as on RTF. Understanding this stuff can help you read your dog and react to either reinforce or punish. Sometimes you will want to stop behaviours but much modern day retriever training is based on trying to increase good behaviours as opposed to stop bad behaviours. These days our dogs need to be comfortable going anywhere. The days of ‘don’t get out on the point’ or ‘always just get in the water’ are long gone. Understanding reinforcement can help you train a dog to make good decisions by teaching rather than testing. The alternative method is to test, set up for failure and then correct. This can be a very discouraging process for a sensitive dog. Both methods use an aversive but reinforcement has been shown to last longer and thus be more reliable than punishment training. I think many of today’s dogs tend to be quite sensitive and better candidates for reinforcement training.

Q10. How can I relate this to every day retriever training?
A10. All of the procedures that we use in retriever training can be analysed in terms of learning theory. Most training issues such as ‘noise by dogs’, ‘cheating around ponds’, ‘getting out down the shore early’, or ‘creeping’ can be addressed though punishment or through reinforcement. If you analyse the schools of training by various “authors” you will see an emphasis on one or the other. For example, the dog climbs out on a point and is nicked there so he avoids landing next time. What is that –reinforcement or punishment? What do you do and why.

OK you read this far. 
Is this stuff appropriate format on RTF? Maybe Chris has thoughts here?
Do you want to know more? Like where does indirect pressure fit in?
Do you have more questions? What are they? 
Do you think this is all Gobbledygook? I realize that this stuff is NOT for everybody but only for certain types of minds (and that is who it is written for). I never expect to change the minds of the others and it won’t bother me if you don’t use it.
You probably got out of it what you paid for it! Nothing.
Hint: press “back” or “delete”! 

Cheers


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Dennis,
your too cool 
thank you
Ken


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

Dennis
I can't think of a better place for it.

Lynn


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Dennis,
You're the man! Thank's for all the time and effort you put into helping us better understand our dogs. 
Breck


----------



## RodneyB46 (Dec 18, 2008)

so i read the post,all the way till the end.not sure i understood all of what was said.not sure i could even if i went back and re-read it again.but i am sure it made sense to someone other then me.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

when explaining the positive and negative reinforcement, what does ve mean in your equation?
________
LovelyWendie99


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Thanks Dennis.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

precisionlabradors said:


> when explaining the positive and negative reinforcement, what does ve mean in your equation?


Simply an abbreviation as is "negati*ve*" or "positi*ve"*, you abbreviate with* -ve* or *+ve.*


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Thanks Dennis. 

It has been my contention over the years, sometimes articulated on this very forum, that a basic knowledge of this is a must especially for those using an e-collar as the aversive. Of course that is just me.

This may be pressing it but, as a topic , Indirect Pressure described in these terms , would be much easier to grasp. So if you find time, could you give us your thoughts ............


john


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

I may not understand it all but I try. I'm like a sponge. Give me more. I want to learn.

Bill


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Thank you. But is your analysis harder to train a dog? Because now you have to think like a dog and not think about what makes you tick. And now train changes from testing to teaching or am I confused? I like this topic. Thank you it has me thinking.


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

More specific dog training examples, please.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Didnt understand all of it,, but the specific training examples helped a bunch.

I would really be interested in reading more.

Thanks 

Gooser


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

Loved it Dennis and please provide more. I very interested on your thoughts about indirect pressure, and well anything in the training realm. Thanks.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Dennis thank you for taking the time to post on RTF. Your magazine is absolutely the best retriever reference available and i personally recommend it to anyone with an interest in advancing their dogs.


----------



## Marilyn Fender (Sep 3, 2005)

Nice to see that some people are interested in this topic. I have had articles on the topic in Retrievers On Line for many (well over ten) years now ---- probably around 80+ or so of them. One segment is an entire series on starting pups. There is usually a limited audience that is interested but there is some following and encouragement for me to put them out in a manual. Maybe one of these days I will have time enough to get it done. 

My primary actual career was teaching (and researching) effective learning strategies , based on applied behavior analysis, for the hard to teach. The principles work just as well for dogs as humans that I was teaching and researching. The articles translate (in fairly simple terms) what principles are used done in training that make it work or not. Keep in mind that these principles are working every time someone teaches or trains --- regardless of whether anyone knows any of the terms or not. It is just like gravity --- it is there all the time whether you think about it or not. 

Correct use of principles and concepts are what make dog training easy and effective (happy trainer and dog) or if used wrong, make it a mess and unhappy situation and bad dog attitude. No one needs to know the exact terms to be a good trainer. Actually sometimes the words get in the way. A 15 minute session of double-T would take a grad class about an hour or two to discuss effectively. 

So -- easiest place to get examples of training using the principles and concepts is to contact Dennis and order the last ten or more years of ROL if you don't already subscribe. I also have published in a variety of other magazines but ROL has been the primary place. Dennis and I talk about the topic all the time.......but it does not interest many. It does make a difference in training success --- regardless of whether the terms can be named.

BTW -- ROL is also filled with other valuable articles that help train more effectively. Dennis writes at least two or more each issue and his success is obvious if you look at his history. He trains alone a great deal of the time and has had two Canadian National Amateur Champions and a Canadian National Open Champion and multiple FC AFC titles in USA and Canada. He has a DVD coming out soon (we hope) on training alone. 

No I don't want to get involved in a long discussion thread on this topic --- just don't have the time. 

Happy Retrieving,

Marilyn 
Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

This may help a bit...to understand the roots of operant conditiong...it's sort of the cliff notes version, but it explains it a bit more...Dennis did a very good job of relating it to retriever training....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning


----------



## Brent Keever (Jun 14, 2008)

That is pretty cool I am a safety coordinator in the oilfield and all of our training for safety is behaverial based. excuse the spelling.


----------



## cgoeson (Jan 22, 2008)

Ok, that's great stuff... Let me ask a question though. How do you know when to use positive or negative. Can you give more examples as it relates to new puppy training?


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

This is wonderful stuff, Dennis, and thanks. Its interesting, useful, and appropriate. I for one would love to read more (and I do read Marilyn's articles in ONLINE, too).


----------



## Debbie C (Jul 22, 2006)

I need to Visually and Mentally understand all of this, so some questions might not even make sence..

an example ...teaching pup to sit.

For positive...when you say GIVE something, is that a treat, toy or praise? and when you say ADD something, does that mean add a touch (gently push butt onto ground, or add pressure with the collar later on?)to make puppy sit? Is the GIVE something "always" for Reinforcement and is the ADD something "always" for Punishment or would it be for reinforcement as well...ex. Add pressure? Example two sort of reads that the pushing down of the dogs butt would be +ve Punishment. Is it a punishment, because we are assuming at this point the puppy already knows what sit is? Is it all positive reinforcement or positive punishment because we are trying to Teach the dog to do positive or good things? (sit when told, here when called, stop on the whistle...etc.) When a pup is bieng taught to sit, don't we end up reinforcing and punishing at the same time.....touch puppys bum at the same time as putting a cookie in front of pups nose and lifting it up? 

For the negative.....to remove or take away. Do we only apply Negative pressure or punishment AFTER the dog knows a given command or action (sit, here etc)? When you say that if something is taken away from the dog and behaviour increases, does this mean the dogs behaviour increases for better or worse? I am assuming that what we would want to take away from the dog to make the behaviour better, more solid or increase, would be the pressure? Is this ALWAYS negative reinforcement? When you say when the dogs behaviour decreases, do you mean that the dog behaviour or actions are getting worse? We take something away...Negative punishment...mabey no treat, no bird, no praise???

I'm sure I am out to lunch here, but because I can't physically see what you mean, I have to try and interpret it here with words and more examples from any of you folks would sure make a better picture.

What about Collar Conditioning.

Dog knows sit and here. Now we are adding pressure to reinforce sit and here and make it more solid by saying sit "nick" sit, or Here ' nick' Here is this positive reinforcement because we have added some pressure? or is it positive punishment???

What would be negative reinforcement and what would be negative punishment?


I'll stop now, because I'm gonna confuse myself as well. I really appreciate all and ANY input and I realize everyone has their own methods and opinions, I just would really like to better understand the positive VS negative reinforcement and punishments.

I want to better understand my dogs, I want to be able to make changes for the better and would also like my dogs to better understand me.

thanks and sorry for the long post.
Debbie.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Dennis and Marilyn, 

I can't thank you enough for taking the time from what I know must be incredibly busy schedules to contribute/reply to topics on this forum. These kinds of topics and contributions are what make RTF such a valuable training and research tool. Marilyn I have been trying to get hold of as many of your articles as I can ever since I met you at Mike's Basic-Transition Training Seminar last year. Your contributions on training and your groundbreaking research on CMN is amazing....thank you! Dennis, I am getting ready to renew my subscription to Retrievers Online (there was never a doubt about that); but will also be ordering several years of back issues...

Thank you both again and please keep these topics coming!


Patti
________
 herbalaire vaporizer review


----------



## Debbie C (Jul 22, 2006)

So is adding pressure on ear, butt, toe etc. until desired behaviour occures,(sit, here, FF, CC etc?) called positive punishment? I realize the example I gave may not have been the best, but I have been told to do that in the past, which is why I asked if it was a punishment and or a reinforcement. The majority of anything I learn is unfortunately not be visual example, so you can see where only reading something can get lost in translation.
I know I am going to over analyse this till I get it, but I need to "get it". I just gotta find the right collection of words that sink in to this fat head.

Another question..but put in a different way. Is positive punishment adding something they don't like to get a desired responce (pulling on the leash, tapping their butts, ecollar, or stick,) and is negative punishment taking away something they DO like to get the desired responce? (no treat, no bird, no retrieve?)


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Debbie H said:


> So is adding pressure on ear, butt, toe etc. until desired behaviour occures,(sit, here, FF, CC etc?) called positive punishment? I realize the example I gave may not have been the best, but I have been told to do that in the past, which is why I asked if it was a punishment and or a reinforcement. The majority of anything I learn is unfortunately not be visual example, so you can see where only reading something can get lost in translation.
> I know I am going to over analyse this till I get it, but I need to "get it". I just gotta find the right collection of words that sink in to this fat head.
> 
> Another question..but put in a different way. Is positive punishment adding something they don't like to get a desired responce (pulling on the leash, tapping their butts, ecollar, or stick,) and is negative punishment taking away something they DO like to get the desired responce? (no treat, no bird, no retrieve?)


Debbie:

Read Part 3 elsewhere.
I recommend that people develop one good example for these things and use that to help understand the more obscure examples. 
Try this example.

You say fetch and pinch the dog's ear and he fetches and you immediately stop the pinch. If his behaviour of fetching increases next time (is faster, more decisive) it is reinforcement. You removed the pinch when he did the behaviour-so it's negative reinforcement. If you had said fetch and added praise when he did, it would be positive reinforcement.

Sometimes it back fires!!

If next time he refused to fetch-that is the behaviour decreased, it is punishment to him. You added the pinch and probably kept it on too long after the fetch-so it is positive punishment. You might also have conditioned him to getting praise everytime but then you stopped. Some dogs would notice and feel punished (you removed something and the fetch response decreased.) 

SO you can see that all these things can happen depending on the timing and the sequence. In normal force fetching I try to do only positive and negative reinforcement, that is increase the fetching behaviour. 

Must be clear as mud by now- It does take time-I have always said this is not for everyone-some should just train their dogs


----------



## Annette (Mar 21, 2004)

Dennis thank you for taking the time to post. Please continue as it it much appreciated.
Marie


----------



## Poodlegirl (Dec 19, 2007)

Dennis - thanks so much for your time in putting this together. Even though I DO get the magazine the interaction and questions asked helps to solidify and clarify some points. I can read all day, but if I am not applying something I have a hard time with retention. So, though as Marilyn said many articles on such subjects have been written - this forum seems like a great venue to discuss and maybe apply the concepts to situations we've faced in "our" training.

I doubt that you have time to deal with everyone one-to-one but this is certainly a great way to cover various "topics".

Thanks again. Claudia


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Q6. OK then what is Classical conditioning.
> A6. That’s Pavlov with his bell, dog food and salivating dog! The bell was a stimulus that got associated with the food. The dog knew what was coming and started to salivate. Scientists call the food a primary reinforcer-we don’t have to teach it. The bell was a secondary reinforcer-it got associated with the food. Note clicker training is based on this idea. Most of our training is based on operant not classical conditioning *(unless EVERY time you blow your whistle you nick!!)*


How about if one nicks* every* time one blow an immediate *second *whistle ?

After a while does not the "quick second whistle" then become a secondary reinforcer to the nick, by pairing it with the nick........... ?

john


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

john fallon said:


> How about if one nicks* every* time one blow an immediate *second *whistle ?
> 
> After a while does not the "quick second whistle" then become a secondary reinforcer to the nick, by pairing it with the nick........... ?
> 
> john


John, 
I appreciate that you are obviously thinking about this procedure since it is such a mainstay of much training and is often questioned.

In learning theory, secondary reinforcer has a fairly specific meaning.
It becomes a reinforcer only when it is paired with a primary reinforcer-something that reinforces naturally such as food. A secondary reinforcer initially has no effect. An example is “good dog”. Initially it means nothing to a puppy. Only after you pair it with food, or petting or something which makes the dog feel good naturally does it act to make the dog feel good. Only then is it a secondary reinforcer. I’ve seen 9 month old dogs that didn’t respond to “good dog.” What a shame!

When we “sit” whistle, nick, “sit” whistle, what is happening? The “sit” whistle was learned long ago as a command to sit after we taught the word ”sit” as a command. In both cases, if we followed a collar conditioning program, we reinforced “sit” with a nick. The dog learned that if he sat quickly, the aversive e-collar nick stopped and so next time he sat quicker (negative reinforcement). You were probably taught to repeat the “sit” after the nick. Why? 

Astute dog trainers learned that it “stabilized” the response. It seemed to make the dog relax a bit, feel surer and less rattled after the nick and subsequently respond better. Rather than label it, think about why –what could it mean to the dog?

In negative reinforcement, the dog learns that he has avoided or escaped the e-collar when he sits quickly. Dog: _“whew, that quick sit stopped that-I’ll sit quickly next time!”_

Now, if he hears another “sit” whistle as he’s sitting there, he might say _“Great- I escaped that sit whistle--it didn’t even nick when I sat!-*feeeling goood*”_

OK Sorry for the talking anthropomorphic dog-but get the idea?
I don’t think the second whistle is a secondary reinforcer for the nick any more than the first whistle is. We didn’t teach the whistle to mean nick-it’s supposed to mean sit even though some dogs misconstrue that! Reinforcers reinforce behaviour not e-collars. The second whistle simply reinforces the “sit”. It’s not really secondary since the second sit whistle hasn’t been paired with any primary reinforcer. At least, I hope it wasn’t-we don’t want the whistle to mean pain- we want it to mean sit!

*I’m going to wave a little red flag here. As retriever trainers we should focus on observing our dogs and how they respond to their environment and what we do. As Marilyn Fender identified, this Applied Behaviour Analysis is a difficult topic to fully understand. We should strive to understand and use the principles and knowledge of learning theory but not get distracted too much by terminology. For example, there are about half a dozen types of "reinforcers" and their definitions get very intertwined with subtle differences. I don’t pretend to understand them all. I think we all need to be careful about trying to label everything. *

Cheers

PS. You do not have to always repeat the command after the pressure!! As dogs advance we do it less and less and eventually infreguently, except occassionally for emphasis.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Might be good for folks to read Vicki Lambs article in the latest issue of HRC magazine....

/Paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm sorry that I did such a poor job in articulating my question.

The practice I am referring to is one where on, lets say, a difficult point on a water blind at an open where a lot of handlers are losing their dogs around a scented point....Or, if the dog initially took the cast, they were hooking back behind the point.

No one is successful when trying to carry the point, and most are having difficulty even when stopping and casting......... that is with a few notable exceptions.

Here is what they(the exceptions) did : cast on to the point, toot,cast. immediate toot (No matter if the dog took the cast or not), then a recast.

Now that second whistle had obviously been paired with a strong correction in training and the net result was that got the cast.

My question was about the science behind that type of immediate second whistle. 

Let me take this opportunity to again join the chorus of T_hank Yous_ for taking the time to answer these questions

john


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

john fallon said:


> I'm sorry that I did such a poor job in articulating my question.
> 
> Here is what they(the exceptions) did : cast on to the point, toot,cast. immediate toot (No matter if the dog took the cast or not), then a recast.
> 
> ...


I am quite familiar with this technique but would never assume it was effective because the second whistle had been paired with a strong correction. I think this is a simple case of immediately stopping the dog again to create presence ( a form of pressure?) and have the dog be more thoughtful about paying attention to the cast. This could work with a dog who has never even worn a collar! This is probably just good emergency handling rather than anything scientific!

PS. My fingers are feeling kinda tired answering a question that you now say you didn't ask. Rereading your question, I can't for the life of me see this is what you were talking about? In any case it's not secondary reinforcement

Cheers


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> I am quite familiar with this technique but would never assume it was effective because the second whistle had been paired with a strong correction. I think this is a simple case of immediately stopping the dog again to create presence ( a form of pressure?) and have the dog be more thoughtful about paying attention to the cast. This could work with a dog who has never even worn a collar! This is probably just good emergency handling rather than anything scientific!
> 
> PS. My fingers are feeling kinda tired answering a question that you now say you didn't ask. Rereading your question, I can't for the life of me see this is what you were talking about? In any case it's not secondary reinforcement
> 
> Cheers


You'll get used to it Dennis.

/Paul


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Might be good for folks to read Vicki Lambs article in the latest issue of HRC magazine....
> 
> /Paul


What kind of strip tease is this I've heard this magazine has some good stuff in it but for those of us deprived field trialers who don't yet get the HRC mag, how does the gist of Vicki's article relate to this? C'mon take it all off or don't tease!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> What kind of strip tease is this I've heard this magazine has some good stuff in it but for those of us deprived field trialers who don't yet get the HRC mag, how does the gist of Vicki's article relate to this? C'mon take it all off or don't tease!


Well its kinda long, but in essence she wrote about Rex's theories and thoughts on this exact topic. 

/Paul


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

> He has a DVD coming out soon (we hope) on training alone.


Dennis I hope this is true.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Bud said:


> Dennis I hope this is true.


 
I hate to always be quoting Rex Carr but I can remember him emphatically saying "hope should not be in the dog trainers mind. I couldn't care less if your dog does this test-_it's just an opportunity to learn"_

Anyway, the Training Retrievers Alone DVD has been filmed but we are still working on sound, narration and a comprehensive manual to go with it. Perhaps next spring. I had hoped for Christmas but that was just _"an opportunity to learn"_ how hard it is to put thses things together.


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

I don't care who you quote, as long as it keeps making sense. 

I am looking forward to it, and will be one of the first in line. Until then I think I'll just train my dog.


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Debbie:
> 
> You say fetch and pinch the dog's ear and he fetches and you immediately stop the pinch. If his behaviour of fetching increases next time (is faster, more decisive) it is reinforcement. You removed the pinch when he did the behaviour-so it's negative reinforcement. If you had said fetch and added praise when he did, it would be positive reinforcement.
> 
> ...


Dennis, it is often helpful to me, to be clear and state the behavior we are attempting to reinforce and/or punish. In your example the "fetch response".

However the terms used are happening all the time and aren't just applying to the behavior we're working on. Oten some behavior is being positively punished (we can't remove the pressure (negative reinforcement) without first applying it (positive punishment)), while we focus entirely on the behavior we're conditioning (in this example the FF).

Without paying close attention to how the total behavior of the dog is being affected, sudden undesireable responses appear that we missed in our focus to impact change in the behavior we're training.

Great thread thanks, learning and attempting understanding of operant conditioning helps me immensley, in examing my timing in training, and in describing how I'm achieving or not achieving training results.

All the best,

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

Dennis, Thank you so very much for your posts. I have really enjoyed the "thinking" I have to do to wrap my mind around the concepts. I have been playing the HT game for several years now and I will be training my new pup for FT's only. I need all the help I can get..........


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> *I am quite familiar with this technique but would never assume it was effective because the second whistle had been paired with a strong correction.* I think this is a simple case of immediately stopping the dog again to create presence ( a form of pressure?) and have the dog be more thoughtful about paying attention to the cast. This could work with a dog who has never even worn a collar! *This is probably just good emergency handling rather than anything scientific!*
> 
> PS. My fingers are feeling kinda tired answering a question that you now say you didn't ask. Rereading your question, I can't for the life of me see this is what you were talking about? *In any case it's not secondary reinforcement*
> 
> Cheers


 
I did not assume anything. The second whistle was in some instances followed by a vocalization. 

Of course it is good emergency handling but rarely do I attribute anything to pure happenstance! 
So ,rhetorically speaking of course, if not secondary reinforcement, is it not,*something else* that can be explained in behavorial scieance terminology ?

Thanks again for your time.
john


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

john fallon said:


> I did not assume anything. The second whistle was in some instances followed by a vocalization.
> 
> Of course it is good emergency handling but rarely do I attribute anything to pure happenstance!
> So ,rhetorically speaking of course, if not secondary reinforcement, is it not,*something else* that can be explained in behavorial scieance terminology ?
> ...


You said earlier,
_“Now that second whistle had obviously been paired with a strong correction in training and the net result was that got the cast.”_


I think that your use of “obviously” implies that you believe the whistles were paired with strong corrections. Since I have seen the same reactions in non- collar trained or low nick trained dogs, I was suggesting that we couldn’t assume that strong corrections occurred in training. Now you are assuming that because some dogs vocalized after the whistle, it is further evidence of a strong correction in training. Did you ever train with any of those "Red Devil" Goldens in the past? Some of them vocalized on the sit whistle after the smallest and eevn rare correction!" I'm not saying it was happenstance either -I just can't assume I understand what happened in training by watching a dog at a trial.

However, let’s “ass-u-me?” you are correct. Then, using the whistle to help make the dog think about a strong correction is called a “conditioned aversive stimulus”. If you *always *use the whistle to associate with pain then you could argue it was a conditioned reinforcer which is also sometimes called a secondary reinforcer. Certainly if you *"burn first and then blow the whistle"* this could be the case! So if you want to label whistles as secondary reinforcers, it could be.- I won’t argue with anyone if that is how they use the whistle. _I personally try to use the “sit” whistle primarily more as a communicating device to say, “sit down and let’s talk”. I hope my dogs don’t think they will get burned everytime they hear the whistle!_

When we start to fiddle around with repeating stimuli such as whistles and nicks, we move into a whole branch of behavioural science that has to do with reinforcement schedules- ratio schedules, fixed intervals, variable intervals and more!. Frankly I don’t want to go there. You’re all welcome to look it all up. While we change our reinforcement schedules all the time, I haven’t found that studying and labelling all the schedules and being rigorous about them has helped my training that much. 

Cheers


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

john fallon said:


> I did not assume anything. The second whistle was in some instances followed by a vocalization.
> 
> Of course it is good emergency handling but rarely do I attribute anything to pure happenstance!
> So ,rhetorically speaking of course, if not secondary reinforcement, is it not,*something else* that can be explained in behavorial scieance terminology ?
> ...


John if I can take a stab at finding a "descriptive" in the op. theory...but eager to see other responses to your question also....

The second immediate toot, becomes a conditioned stimulus (discriminitive stimulus) - for what exactly, depends on the dog. For one the second fast toot might indicate - WHOA change of direction, or Pay Attention, or Don't Get into that Suction...NO!!!!! CAST ??

Where dog's vocalized you could describe the vocalization as a conditioned response to the fast second toot and immediate cast (which the dog has come to associate with e-stimulation in that situation?) - unless it's a gear box of a dog that also happened to vocalize on other unrelated casts and might just be geeked to get going....

How you would describe the second toot cast in behavioral science terminology depends greatly on each individual dog's response. 

The terminology doesn't dictate the behavior, the behavior or behaviour change (or complete lack of change) dictates the terminology.

Not sure I made any sense at all, but thanks John, it was fun thinking about and trying to describe....

Somebody else?

Wayne


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

For those trying to focus on the terminology and attach the labels, it is worth pointing out that "punishment" and "reinforcement" are both defined by the RESULTS.

If your action did not diminish (or make less likely) the undesirable behavior, then the dog did not perceive it as punishment, regardless of your intention. Likewise with reinforcement.

UNLESS, as Wayne suggests, the dog has associated your action with another behavior (behaviour, for the Canadians ;-) ).

This is why it is valuable to occasionally ponder learning theory and reflect on ALL of what is going on. And why it is always good advice to SIMPLIFY when you encounter difficulty.

Thanks for these threads! Good wintertime stuff!

JS


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Dennis's discussions on this thread are just examples of his articles in Retrievers Online. Marilyn Fenders articles on the learning process are frequently published in RO. Long time readers of RO know this.

You do subscribe, don't you?


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

lablover said:


> Dennis's discussions on this thread are just examples of his articles in Retrievers Online. Marilyn Fenders articles on the learning process are frequently published in RO. Long time readers of RO know this.
> 
> You do subscribe, don't you?


Not directed at me, but just had to day I just signed up received my first issue about a week or so ago (after reading some of Dennis' comments, esp relating to training solo). I am very pleased with the content. Funny thing one I first heard of it a few years ago I thought it was an "online" subscription, in which articles would only be viewed on your computer.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Wayne and JS 
Those are great points . Thats what I like to hear. Just as Dennis cannot write a complete analysis over the internet,,,I think that would be called a book or volumes of books on just 1 subject.. Others can fill in other vital pieces of the puzzle with information that helps us better understand what is going on. And things to think about when something doesn't go as expected.

Pete


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Marilyn Fender said:


> A 15 minute session of double-T would take a grad class about an hour or two to discuss effectively.



Love it-and these threads.


----------



## golden epi (Jan 31, 2011)

Nice post!


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Marilyn and Dennis wrote some articles for ROL describing the 4 A's of how dogs learn. Dennis has an article on the learning process with flow charts and a table of field training examples for each of the A's (Vol. VII). I found these articles to be particularly useful to help me understand how dogs learn and refer to them regularly. 

The 4 A's
Acquire the skill or behavior
Automatic -practice it until it becomes automatic
Apply- apply this skill in new situations (Generalizing)
Always -maintaining the desired behavior over time


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

This is awesome stuff. I just commented on Paul Young's post in another thread. This is wonderful material as well!

I frequently think of RTF as a scenario like the email inbox of a modern day corporate executive. He's so busy he has to really pick through his informatioin to find the pieces that matter. IF he's really organized, he'll grab some things that don't matter today, but may matter later. Otherwise he'll glean the stuff of value and sidestep all the chaff.

This is an example of nuggets of value that are out there. It's also an example of an email that hit my inbox long ago, that I'd forgotten!

The challenge is for someone to gather all the nuggets of value TO THEM, and hang on to them.

There's a lot of treasure here on RTF. And yes, Vicky, I did indeed purge the whole database for a few seconds back when I was trying to do a 60 day purge on the lab puppy classifieds. That was ugly and still makes me want to puke!

Many wonderful pieces of RTF memorabilia were lost in that accidental purge.

Luckily this gem by Dennis was not.

Chris


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Keith Stroyan said:


> More specific dog training examples, please.


Ok, here is an example that I have played with for years;

Say you are doing swim-by or FTP, you cast your dog and then give it a "nick in route". What portion of operant conditioning did you just use?


----------



## jecartag (Feb 25, 2011)

Very very helpful, thank you very much for the time you put in!


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

tom said:


> Ok, here is an example that I have played with for years;
> 
> Say you are doing swim-by or FTP, you cast your dog and then give it a "nick in rout". What portion of operant conditioning did you just use?


Positive Reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement means to give something to increase behavior. 

Positive doesn't always mean good. Negative doesn't always mean bad.

I think that's where many people get confused.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Positive Reinforcement.
> 
> Positive reinforcement means to give something to increase behavior.
> 
> ...


Or was it +ve Punishment?
Instead of thinking in terms of what you were thinking, think about what could be going through the dogs mind. Was the dog thinking "damn, I better not pop, or I will really get it"? (+ve punishment used to reduce or prevent an undesirable behavior)

My point is that sometimes there is more than one possible perception by the dog.
(those pesky exceptions that complicate simple rules)

It's a good thing to understand, unless we enjoy correcting all those training errors.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Positive punishment means to give something to decrease behavior.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

tom said:


> Ok, here is an example that I have played with for years;
> 
> Say you are doing swim-by or FTP, you cast your dog and then give it a "nick in rout". What portion of operant conditioning did you just use?


Why are you nicking? What outcome of behavior are you hoping to see? What would happen if you didn't nick in route?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm saying it's positive reinforcement also. 

But..... just to confuse the issue, doesn't this work because the dog has been introduced to the negative punishment of force fetch and collar fetch? Or would it work with an unforce fetched dog? I've never done it with a non force fetched dog.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Positive punishment means to give something to decrease behavior.





> Why are you nicking? What outcome of behavior are you hoping to see? What would happen if you didn't nick in route?



Correct, "(+ve punishment used to reduce or prevent an undesirable behavior)". In this case the nick is used to reduce the chances of a no-go, entry refusal, or pop. In both swim-by and FTP the idea is to prevent no-go and pops from ever showing their ugly heads, and if the 'nick in route' is used properly -- they won't.

So again, the answer to which portion of operant conditioning is it lies completely in the perception.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Howard N said:


> I'm saying it's positive reinforcement also.
> 
> But..... just to confuse the issue, doesn't this work because the dog has been introduced to either the negative punishment of force fetch and collar fetch? Or would it work with an unforce fetched dog? I've never done it with a non force fetched dog.


If the dog was never put through FF then the behavior of going after the bird under pressure probably wouldn't work. The dog would most likely turn around or do something else he was never conditioned to do. 

Then you would be decreasing the behavior with a nic. 

Motivational corrections work because the behavior has already been conditioned. FF is the conditioning for FTP.


----------



## jecartag (Feb 25, 2011)

Hey all, I took a behavior class in Purdue's vet program. I pulled this information from my notes. This information came from Dr. Luescher who is one of our behaviorists (this is not my own information, and I am not plagiarism...all the credit goes to him)...He does not train dogs to hunt, but is a master at the principles of learning. This information is QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM HIS NOTES....

Refinforcement : Any stimulus change that increases the probability of the behavior preceding it.


Punishment : Any stimulus change that reduces the probability of the behavior preceding it

Positive (reinforcement or punishment) : A stimulus is added to the situation (food, shock)

Negative (reinforcement or punishment) : A stimulus is removed from the situation (termination of shock, withholding food)


Dont feel bad if you dont get this stuff. I still have to sit down and look at it for a few minutes. Also, as long as you understand the principles, dont worry about getting caught up in the terminology. You have to be the dog and think like the dog. A dog will learn that if it sits and gets a treat, it is being positively reinforced. The behavior will become more frequent because the dog likes the consequence. If the dog is doing something and gets shocked, it will associate the behavior with something bad. Therefore, this is positive punishment becasue a shock was ADDED to make the behavior less frequent. 

I am going to try and format the following in a table, but not sure if RTF will let me. here goes

Positive Negative
Reinforcement Food presented Shock Terminated
Punishment Shock Applied Food Withdrawn

Again, this table came from Dr. Luescher's notes and all credit goes to him!

Hohpefully this helps. I am by no means an expert at this, but if omebody still has questions, I will do my best.

Also, as a sidenote....it is important to note that there has been research done and found that puppies have certain stages in their life that may instill certain images in their head for the rest of their life that may be tough to break....

Socialization period is from 4 to 12 or 14 weeks of age! Socialize with as many people and vaccinated dogs as possible. You do this at your own risk if pup hasnt had vaccines, but pup may be fearful or skiddish around strangers/other dogs if this opportuniy is missed.

FEAR PERIOD!!!! 8 to 10 or 12 weeks. This is important because this period of the pups life is WITHING the socialization period. Use caution when socializing. You dont want strangers approaching pup abruptly, but with confidence and steadiness. Same goes with other dogs. Control the situation as much as possible during this period. Same goes for possible loud noises, etc. If a puppy is to be shipped that was purchased, it might be a bad idea to do it during this time in the pups life.

There are other growth periods, which include juvenile period (3-6 months) and adolescent period (puberty to adulthood).

Again, this information came from Dr. Luescher (sorry if this gets annoying, but I want to emphasize the fact that I am not taking credit for his work!)

Guys, please keep these in mind if plannin on shippin a puppy, introducing to guns/fireworks/people/other dogs, etc. This is very important!


Also, for you breeders out there...Dr. Luescher also told us that there has been research that has shown *"Mild stress of the neonatal dog (0-10 days) such as induced by handling or by placing the pup on a cool surface [for approx 30 seconds] will increase the pup's ability to cope with stress later in life."*
I thought this was very interesting and may be helpful for those who breed to do this for the first 10 days of the newborns life. I'm not sure where he got this information from, but he is an excellent behaviorist and I would trust him with any of my dogs!

Sorry so long....if this was useful to atleast one person then it was worth it!


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

maybe this will help with terminology...
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzezw4q7/id11.html


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

jecartag said:


> Also, for you breeders out there...Dr. Luescher also told us that there has been research that has shown *"Mild stress of the neonatal dog (0-10 days) such as induced by handling or by placing the pup on a cool surface [for approx 30 seconds] will increase the pup's ability to cope with stress later in life."*
> I thought this was very interesting and may be helpful for those who breed to do this for the first 10 days of the newborns life. I'm not sure where he got this information from, but he is an excellent behaviorist and I would trust him with any of my dogs!
> 
> Sorry so long....if this was useful to atleast one person then it was worth it!


What it sounds like you are referring to possibly is the Early Neurological Stimulation program used by the U.S. Military in their canine program. There are many references to it and many breeders have been doing it for quite a while. There is a specific start/stop date (day 3-16) and 5 specific steps performed once a day, the last one involving a cold towel. But really don't want to get off topic of Dennis's most excellent thread.


----------



## mbcorsini (Sep 25, 2005)

Excellant thread Dennis. Your insight is always welcome. Love your training alone articles.

Mary Beth


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I guess I'll have to follow Cotton Pershall, "couldn't train a dog by reading a book, that dog training is 99% hard work and persistance, " "That the retriever trainer has to have energy, dedication and sensitivity.

And I think he also said a good trainer knows how to make a correction
A great trainer can read the dog so he doesn't have to make the correction.

So I don't think he was much into make dog training anal.


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

Dennis,

I think some of your explanations of the four possible avenues for acquiring behavior aren't quite accurate.

Operant Conditioning, developed by Skinner, describes learning through either Positive or Negative Reinforcement. It occurs when a behavior is either reinforced with a
reward, meaning something valued or liked by the dog, or it's discouraged by punishment, meaning something the dog dislikes.

+R
Positive Reinforcement is something you add that the dog likes, and it always follows the behavior you are seeking. The Positive Reinforcement is something added that will strengthen or increase the behavior it follows. You can add praise, food, play, petting, a retrieve, a fun bumper, etc., as a reward, so long as it is something the dog likes.

-R
Negative Reinforcement is the removal of something the dog doesn't like, and it also comes after the behavior you are seeking. So when you squeeze something sharp into a dog's ear and then jam a bumper into it's mouth when it yells in pain, you're using -R. When the dog will hold the bumper for a second, which is the behavior your seeking, you cease pinching; thereby removing something the dog doesn't want. Removing something that follows the behavior you're seeking, was for Skinner, subtracting something. In this case you're subtracting the infliction of pain.

So Reinforcement, whether positive or negative, both strengthen the behavior your seeking. And both follow or come after the behavior your seeking.

+P
Positive Punishment is something the dog doesn't like and it always come after the behavior. It's purpose is to decrease the behavior it follows. The most common punishment used by the force method is burn the dog. So if the dog is returning from a long blind and tiring decides to swim to shore and run the rest of the way on land, the punishment of shock is added after the dog's undesired behavior. Punishment is something dogs dislike and is intended to decrease undesirable behavior.

-P
Negative Punishment is something subtracted or removed, that the dog does like. This also follows the behavior. The biggest example I can think of is one that many trial and hunt test trainers screw up. At a training session, a trainer brings their dog to the line. The dog acts like a wild bronco, won't heel, and is amped-up on the line, yet the trainer calls for the bird and sends the dog. The dog viewed the retrieve as highly desirable. In that scenario the dog was rewarded with a retrieve for lousy behavior. Being rewarded will increase the likelihood the dog will behave the same way in the future. Negative Punishment, on the other hand, might have been a more effective choice. Subtract something the dog wants or values by removing the opportunity for the retrieve. Skinner called that negative, because he took something away, as occurs in math when something is subtracted, and he labeled it punishment because the dog didn't like the consequences that followed his behavior.

Punishment, whether positive or negative decreases undesirable behavior. Both always follow the dog's behavior, you're not seeking.

The retriever community overwhelmingly uses the force method and relies on -R, +P, and -P. Notwithstanding it's popularity, it has built in short comings that require trainers to spend more far time than necessary, often for poorer results, than would be the case if they used the entire theory. As such we lag behind almost all other breed sports in our training method. All things being equal +R takes less time to teach behaviors, is more motivating, generates fewer training problems, and creates a far deeper bond between trainer and dog. 

I surprised, but glad, there has been so much interest in your post. 

Daniel


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

Howard N said:


> I'm saying it's positive reinforcement also.


You guys are leaving out an important criteria; to be positive reinforcement it must be something the dog likes or wants. I never met a dog that liked getting juiced.

Daniel


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Daniel I believe you are forgetting about all of the retrieving these dogs get to do!! THAT is +R......Why don't you leave your agenda off the keyboard:-x


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Daniel said:


> Dennis,
> 
> I think some of your explanations of the four possible avenues for acquiring behavior aren't quite accurate.
> 
> ...


Daniel

Since I have no objection to your definitions, I am not clear what you find inaccurate. Perhaps, one of the issues with examples is that in actual field application, they often employ more than one of + or - R or P. This isn't a rat lab!


More importantly, I am not sure who in the retriever training community you train with but the use of positive reinforcement is extremely common in the training I am familiar with. I'll wager that +ve R is used 5-10 times more than -ve R or P in training advanced dogs. In Basics and Transition, there is a lot of conditioning and reinforcement especially with -ve R. But, some advanced dogs may go weeks without an aversive but receive all kinds of rewards-most notably as Bridget said-retrieves and "good dogs". Having said that there is no compelling evidence that +ve reinforcement is more powerful than -ve reinforcement to increase behaviours but I do agree both are required for the best partnership. What distinguishes the retriever community is that they DO use all 4 unlike a lot in other breed sports. 

I would hope that you don't think a high desire retriever can be only trained with +ve R for succesful competitive field sports like field trials. If so, I have not seen the evidence.


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

Debbie C said:


> _Collar Conditioning:
> Dog knows sit and here. Now we are adding pressure to reinforce sit and here and make it more solid by saying sit "nick" sit, or Here ' nick' Here is this positive reinforcement because we have added some pressure? or is it positive punishment???_



Debbie,

As trainers we can get so locked into what were doing that 'we sometimes don't the forest for the trees'. The modern force method uses an e-collar as it's primary training tool. So in order to make the e-collar effective a dog has to be taught to understand the collar's significance, and how to turn off the collar. It's not about enforcing sit or here. Don't you agree? Rather than get bogged down in an endless discussion about which element of Operant Conditioning is being engaged, like so many others have done, in this instance why not just give it a pass, because the use of a collar is always aversive to a dog, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Instead, once the dog fully understands the collar, take a behavior, any behavior, and then pose your question. Then it will be a much easier for you to answer your question. Because dogs always dislike even the mildest nic, it will never be +R (positive reinforcement) therefore it will be one of the remaining three choices.

The larger question that's not been asked is: why is it that the hunting community is so far behind other dog breeds, and in fact all other animal training, in adapting newer training technology?

Daniel


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Daniel said:


> .... The modern force method uses an e-collar as it's primary training tool......
> Daniel


sure of this you are?


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Daniel said:


> Debbie,
> 
> As trainers we can get so locked into what were doing that 'we sometimes don't the forest for the trees'. The modern force method uses an e-collar as it's primary training tool. So in order to make the e-collar effective a dog has to be taught to understand the collar's significance, and how to turn off the collar. It's not about enforcing sit or here. Don't you agree? Rather than get bogged down in an endless discussion about which element of Operant Conditioning is being engaged, like so many others have done, in this instance why not just give it a pass, because the use of a collar is always aversive to a dog, so it's a bit of a moot point.
> 
> ...


Since when is training the application of only one OC type for a single behavioral outcome?


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Daniel
> 
> Since I have no objection to your definitions, I am not clear what you find inaccurate. Perhaps, one of the issues with examples is that in actual field application, they often employ more than one of + or - R or P. This isn't a rat lab!
> 
> ...



Dennis,

I'm glad to hear that Positive Reinforcement is so prevalent where you are. That hasn't been my experience. I'm sure it's true that many, if not most, throw fun bumpers and the like, but that doesn't make a training program. Even in this thread, a couple people commented that to nic when sending a dog is +R. But of course that's not so. Even in this thread you can see a lot of confusion about positive reinforcement really is. Frankly I don't have a clue about the percentage +R to -R or -P training in advanced dogs. But I think the larger, more important point you made about the efficacy of aversive vs positive training is not supported by the vast majority of the behaviorist community. Though admittedly even among that group I could easily imagine lacking one hundred percent agreement. I think it's unfortunate that our retriever community doesn't use positive reinforcement in a more significant way within the larger force program.

As to your last point, only someone with no awareness of the dogs running in today's trials & hunt tests would think Positive Reinforcement was a successful program for competition dogs. I'm not aware of any dogs who have earned a title that wasn't trained by the force method. It's hard not to see the force program as the single most effective program ever designed for training retrievers. There isn't even a program in second place.


Daniel


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> sure of this you are?


Ken,
Do you have something else in mind?


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

I had written on RTF before that I sent an email (7-8 years ago) to Morgan Spector and asked him to take a retriever using only a +R to either a Grand title or FC title. 

I'm still waiting.... 


Let's put this another way: How do dogs teach each other? They use both, don't they? Their wild brethren _Canis lupus_ also do the same. What's the mix overall? Haven't a clue, but we do know that dogs interact with each other using behaviors that reinforce responses.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

I don't know how I missed this gem by Dennis when it was first posted or in subsequent bumps, but I'm glad it was stickied because it's the best and most practical explanation of behavioral science as it relates to retriever training I've ever read. Have to admit as soon as I read the word operant conditioning or see stuff like p+ and -r my eyes tended to glaze over, but this was a great explanation. Now I feel like I have a better understanding of operant conditioning, especially the terminology, and more important how it relates to what we do on a daily basis with our dogs. Thank you Dennis and all those who took the time to post (non-agenda driven) contributions to this thread.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Daniel said:


> Dennis,
> 
> partial quote:
> 
> ...


I would not like to have the program that I follow be labelled "the force program" or the methods I use "the force method". Sure force and aversives are used but it is paired with all sorts of rewards. In fact one could label it "The Reward Program" because that is at the root of the approach. I'm sure that if you asked the 60 plus people that just attended the advanced workshop that Mike Lardy and I gave last week you would find that the very successful program we advocated was not solely based on aversives or force. The first option was never force.

I too, am well aware that a large percentage of the behaviorist community thinks positive reinforcement is "better" than negative. This persists despite no quantitative data to support it and despite several scientific papers challenging this viewpoint. The following excerpt presents an even more fundamental issue about the differences. Nonetheless it is still valuable to be super aware of rewards verus aversives for our dogs. talk! You probably have no idea how much I preach ABC-Attitude, Balance and Control. Rewards and aversives are at the heart of that!
.
eg Excerpt:From the Behaviour Analyst 2003

Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved?Baron A, Galizio M.
*Abstract*

Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence. Moreover, there is no good basis, either behavioral or physiological, that indicates the involvement of distinctly different processes, and on these grounds he proposed that the distinction be abandoned. Despite the cogency of Michael's analysis, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is still being taught. In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years. However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a negative reinforcer. We conclude by reiterating Michael's admonitions about the conceptual confusion created by such a distinction.


Footnote Addendum by Dennis:

I could have added that there is considerable evidence that negative reinforcement is more powerful than positive reinforcement but i do not want to use that to rationalize aversives. For starters have a look at : 
J Exp Anal Behav. 2008 July; 90(1): 1–22. 


Concurrent Schedules of Positive and Negative Reinforcement: Differential-Impact and Differential-Outcomes Hypotheses

Michael A MagoonAuburn University
Thomas S CritchfieldIllinois State University

*Abstract*

Considerable evidence from outside of operant psychology suggests that aversive events exert greater influence over behavior than equal-sized positive-reinforcement events. etc.etc


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I am sooo thankful Dennis is on this forum!!!


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Great Thread, I hadn't seen it either until this morning. 

I'd like to point out that there's a guy on the east coast named Lindsay Ridgeway who is training with all positive reinforcement and no negative or punishment. His dog Laddie, a Topbrass field bred Golden has titled SH so far and has gotten a Reserve Jam in a Qual this summer as well as a Jam in another Qual this summer. Ridgeway has never ever put down anyone using an e collar or other punishment methods, he just chooses not to use punishment himself. He has been following Mike Lardy's program and modifying the drills to fit his positive reinforcement training. It is working! 

Below is a recent video he posted on Laddie doing a 300 yard blind with lots of factors and diversion bird.

Daniel, I think it's counter productive to give a sideways insult to folks using the traditional methods to train field dogs - even if it was an unintentional insult. I think the main reason folks aren't using the newest positive methods in the field sports, is that there are NO MENTORS or examples leading the way - except for Lindsay and a handful of others who haven't been very public about it. Daniel, if you want to really make a change and help folks to transition from the traditional methods to new ones, please jump in and prove that it can work. Phil B made a good point, that no one will believe it can work or that it works better, until someone can prove that it does. So far Lindsay says it is definitely not easier or faster to do it all positive with no corrections. But, it may well get easier and faster once the trail is blazed and others jump on to help problem solve.

Just want to reiterate that Lindsay goes above and beyond to say he has a great deal of respect for and no malice toward others who use the collar or punishment. I am in that camp, too. But I do want to see if the all positive can work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDoioUyN4ac

And a link to his blog that describes his training:

http://lumi-laddie-test-series.blogspot.com/2012/06/land-multiples-land-blind-with-video.html

Jennifer Henion


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> I would not like to have the program that I follow be labelled "the force program" or the methods I use "the force method". Sure force and aversives are used but it is paired with all sorts of rewards. In fact one could label it "The Reward Program" because that is at the root of the approach. I'm sure that if you asked the 60 plus people that just attended the advanced workshop that Mike Lardy and I gave last week you would find that the very successful program we advocated was not solely based on aversives or force. The first option was never force.
> 
> I too, am well aware that a large percentage of the behaviorist community thinks positive reinforcement is "better" than negative. This persists despite no quantitative data to support it and despite several scientific papers challenging this viewpoint. The following excerpt presents an even more fundamental issue about the differences. Nonetheless it is still valuable to be super aware of rewards verus aversives for our dogs. talk! You probably have no idea how much I preach ABC-Attitude, Balance and Control. Rewards and aversives are at the heart of that!




Dennis,

I can understand why you don't like the label "force program". And yet as you indicate in your following paragraph the practice continues. I think there are compelling reasons to explain why the practice continues today, but I don't make the rules. I'm not certain if you're saying you don't like me referencing your training method as force, or if your complaint is with academia who continues to use the label. And so I don't know if your being overly sensitive about how the program is referenced outside the retriever community, or simply expressing irritation with anyone who uses that label. Labels are just tools for referencing something, so for me they're not a problem. I do think however that we in the retriever community use lots of euphemisms in the program, and I think they have a tendency to keep us from seeing clearly. If you think we can't use the prevailing terms, maybe that should be discussed on its' own thread so the issue is narrowly focused.

I have no doubt that if the seminar you gave is similar to Lardy's books & DVDs then the seminar would have demonstrated that _"the first option was never force"_. I've long made the argument to those who argue against including positive reinforcement within the larger program, that Lardy's record is the best example to support that opinion. You're correct about my not having any knowledge of your personal methods. What I said was an attempt to state a clear, and affirmative reasoning supporting the force program; i.e. it wins in competitions. I also mentioned: _"I think it's unfortunate that our retriever community doesn't use positive reinforcement in a more significant way within the larger force program."_ Along with your belief in the what you call_"the ABCs"_ don't we share a common opinion?


Daniel


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Ken Bora said:


> sure of this you are?


These are not the droids you're looking for. They can go about their business.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

It cracks me up when people refer to "non-force, or positive only" training methods as being "new" ... as though it is the "enlightened" approach. :shock:

People were trying to train this way in the 1960s when I got started. Nothing new about it at all.

And it is no more successful now than it was then. When someone talks about doing it "successfully" without corrections, better find out exactly WHAT they're considering success.

And while I'm ranting, how accurate is it to label a method as a "force program" simply because it includes, along with huge amounts of reinforcements, an element of force. Bull.

Tail-waggin' dogs, regards,

JS


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

JS said:


> It cracks me up when people refer to "non-force, or positive only" training methods as being "new" ... as though it is the "enlightened" approach. :shock:
> 
> People were trying to train this way in the 1960s when I got started. Nothing new about it at all.
> 
> ...


Picky picky... New doesn't mean enlightened. New means, a significant amount of new techniques have been developed in just the last two years, not to mention the last 4 years. The first and only book published to help guide "all positive" trainers for gun dog sports was published in 2007. A lot of cross-over training techniques developed by the Obedience and Free-style trainers in the last two years are now being used in gun dog / field dog training. These trainers have been getting OTCHs etc for the last 25 years using traditional methods and are now melding their long-term experience with clicker - reward based techniques that make training difficult concepts very easy for the dog and trainer. New ways to do things are developed all of the time - the most recent of which are described as "new".

Frozen pot pies aren't new - they were on the selves in the 70s. But with new techniques of making them, freezing them and nuking them, they taste a hell of a lot better than they did in the 70s!!! Just had one yesterday - ummm. And yes, I ate them in the early 70s, too - not so good.


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

Jhenion said:


> Great Thread, I hadn't seen it either until this morning.
> 
> I'd like to point out that there's a guy on the east coast named Lindsay Ridgeway who is training with all positive reinforcement and no negative or punishment. His dog Laddie, a Topbrass field bred Golden has titled SH so far and has gotten a Reserve Jam in a Qual this summer as well as a Jam in another Qual this summer. Ridgeway has never ever put down anyone using an e collar or other punishment methods, he just chooses not to use punishment himself. He has been following Mike Lardy's program and modifying the drills to fit his positive reinforcement training. It is working!
> 
> ...





Hello Jennifer,

I agree with you when you say, _"I think it's counter productive to give a sideways insult to folks..."_. I neither intended, nor believe I said anything insulting. Nor did I do so by inuendo. If you read something insulting into what I said, or thought I implied, and felt offended, I'm sorry. I never intended such a thing. I joined this forum a couple of years ago, but haven't been interested in posting, in part because I dislike some of the snide comments I see when someone disagrees with a poster's opinion. I don't talk that and I don't write like that.

I'm well aware of others who are trying to use strictly positive reinforcement, including Ridgeway. Frankly I admit I forgot about him in my original post. Last I knew he'd gotten a JH on his dog. My point was about my exposure to contemporary training through membership in several clubs and training groups, which showed that the overwhelming majority of trainers subscribed to the prevailing method. In fact I've never met any successful non-traditional competitive retriever trainers. I think most would agree trials require a somewhat higher level of skill than hunt tests. If that's agreed than the real test of another program would be for it to have success in field trials. So my impression remains; in the absence of other programs, such as positive reinforcement, ability to win, the contemporary method looks like the best choice. Isn't it the winning-est program ever developed for retrievers?

Your comment about mentors is an important one. I understand why people who want to use positive reinforcement exclusively, shy away from the larger retriever community. Mentors are a chicken and an egg problem. If your interested in discussing how to promote that, we should probably go to a new thread so we don't the subject of this one. As for proof positive reinforcement works you've already cited Laddie's SH. I think there is a larger question and that is could it work for everyone else. I don't think so. I've taught dogs for fifty years. I started learning from Roger Reopelle, a very successful retriever trainer. Though I didn't want to use all the methods Roger used, I understood why he did what he did. I trained quite a few retrievers for friends and local hunters before switching to upland bird dogs. Following that I trained working border collies, and now I've ended up full circle, back with retrievers. I've never owned an e-collar and had to generate my own drills and training methods. I use +R and -P, so that often puts me at odds with the purists in the positive reinforcement community.

I've always thought a collaborative effort of working with a group of experienced trainers using prevailing methods would be the fastest way to, as you suggest, make progress. Can positive reinforcement replace the main method of training today? I don't see how. Can additional positive reinforcement techniques be inserted into the current training method and radically improve dog performance? Absolutely. I believe it would elevate so many dogs to a significantly higher level of skill, that both field trials & hunt tests would have to be altered to accommodate such an advancement of skill. If you're serious and want to take a run at it, I'd certainly be willing to jump in and contribute.

I hope you'll reconsidered if I'm a man who speaks ill of people, whether to their face, or as you said, _sideways_.


I hope that helps Jennifer.

Daniel


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Very good thread. I have not seen this thread before. Lots to learn from this. Wouldn't like to think that force was the number one tool to train your retriever. Many dogs probably wouldn't retrieve if force was the the sole method. I don't read that in Lardy's tapes. If fact one of his champions ? Lean Mac? (correct me) when training for the Retriever title maybe used the collar twice?? So indiscriminate use of force is an individual thing! IMO I know I won't train that way. Just the other day my Tar did a wonderful blind for me and I jackpoted him with his favorites and hugged him. Not the usual but he likes the attention! after working!!


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Hi Daniel,

Glad you explained. What I've found in my own postings on similar threads and topics is that people are automatically offended when they see a statement like "I don't see why more people aren't doing this that or the other already! It's clearly better than what they're doing now." I know you didn't say that exactly, but something similar. Although you nor I mean it to offend people, it does. They feel what they're doing is fine and working. When people enter the sport, they look for what works and for people who know what they're doing to help lead them. If there's no one to lead them down the +R, -P only route, then most won't go down that path. But you know that.

I'm really glad you outlined your intentions and your experience level. And I agree, I doubt a +R only program will be popular. Not sure anyone could ever stick to it. It's like trying to play the Hot and Cold game without the "Cold". But I'm having fun on my journey training my dog with +R and -P and I think if those of us who enjoy that can develop a program for it that is easy to follow and successful, it will be possible to eliminate more of the +P from the current popular way of training field dogs. But it has to be proven first. Ridgeway and his dog are doing well for being alone with no club or mentors. Hope he takes it further.

I'm definitely going to take a run at it, and I'd love any helpful input from you or anyone else. And I'm willing to do what I can to help others. Right now my pup is only 5.5 months and I'm about to go on a 3 week vacation. When I get back, pup and I will be formalizing our training and going full speed ahead. So far, my plan is to use Mike Lardy's flow chart and as much +R as possible with a little -R and -P thrown in. If you were serious, I'll look you up when I return first week of August.

Thanks,
Jennifer


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

In the Michael Ellis videos on leerburg.com he talks about why neg reinforcement and positive punishment are more effective than the other 2 quadrants. You would have to listen to it to really understand it...he has a way of explaining things that is amazing. What I took from it is that evolution favors organisms that can react quickly and persistently to aversives. A species won't last very long if it doesn't know how to flee from a saber toothed tiger. Positive reinforcement does not lead tp a behavior persisting as long as punishment does. This seems true in my competitive obedience experience. As long as the dog has a clear understanding of why they are being punished which is where we most often get tripped up. 

I can tell you that my border collie and australian shepherd had zero desire to retrieve until being force broke. Now it is their favorite thing to do in the entire world. My two keeshonden will retrieve reliably after being force broke, but they don't like it the way the aussie and BC do.

Anyone who thinks they can train a dog with only one of the 4 quadrants is delusional in my mind. And honestly, retrieving is the BIGGEST reward my aussie and BC can be given. They love their bumpers!

Wasn't Lorie Jolly extremely successful with Mr Speaker using mostly postive methods? I am not sure of the details. But I do know that Mr. Speaker is my new puppy's grandpa


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

RobinZClark said:


> In the *Michael Ellis videos on leerburg.com* he talks about why neg reinforcement and positive punishment are more effective than the other 2 quadrants. You would have to listen to it to really understand it...he has a way of explaining things that is amazing. What I took from it is that evolution favors organisms that can react quickly and persistently to aversives. A species won't last very long if it doesn't know how to flee from a saber toothed tiger. Positive reinforcement does not lead tp a behavior persisting as long as punishment does. This seems true in my competitive obedience experience. As long as the dog has a clear understanding of why they are being punished which is where we most often get tripped up.
> ...snip...


I found the Philosophy of Dog Training video, is that the one you mean? I'm liking it a lot, very helpful...


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

All of Michael's videos are excellent. But I was referring to the 3 part introduction to ecollars. He really has a knack for explaining complex theories in a way that I can understand. The ecollar lectures are amoung the best videos that I have ever seen.


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

JS said:


> It cracks me up when people refer to "non-force, or positive only" training methods as being "new" ... as though it is the "enlightened" approach. :shock:
> 
> People were trying to train this way in the 1960s when I got started. Nothing new about it at all.
> 
> ...



JS,

Doesn't sound to me like you think it's funny. Getting your facts straight would be helpful. People weren't trying to train this way in the 1960's; and certainly not in the Midwest, where I was training at the time. Enlightened is a pretty good description of PR if you equate the word with an advancement in knowledge that produces a better outcome. For example, many trainers speak of the days when they first began using an e-collar. They tell of not understanding the technology and of ruining lot's of dogs. Today there are successful trainers like Lardy who have, over time, learned to use compulsion with kid gloves, having learned how and when to use it for maximal effectiveness, and when not to use it. And evidently, according to Dennis, 60 some people recently attended a seminar of his to enlighten themselves as well.

Academics developed the technology of Operant Conditioning in the 30s & 40s, but it wasn't until a serendipitous turn of events brought it to the public forum. During the late '90s books started reaching the dog world, extolling the virtues of the then unknown training method called Positive Reinforcement.

Your grossly incorrect when you claim that Positive Reinforcement is ineffective! To the contrary it is far and above more effective in some areas of training than the compulsion based, escape/avoidance training that is the dominate method in use today among retriever trainers.

Your inaccuracy in labeling our dominate training method, the method used by every single professional trainer I'm aware of (In fact if you know of a pro trainer competing on the field trial circuit who doesn't use compulsion, please let me know) is representative of our community's lack of understanding regarding the core elements of the program we use. In fact the popularity of pro trainer seminars is indicative of the retriever community's wanting to learn more about how to effectively apply the components of the compulsion method.

If you would bother to learn the criteria for each of the two programs, you wouldn't make the mistake of misrepresenting both of them. To say that our compulsion based program includes tons of rewards indicates an incomplete understanding regarding the use of the term in the positive reinforcement method. What you and Dennis, and others refer to as reinforcement (I assume you meant positive, though you didn't say so) is not what is meant by the term used in positive reinforcement. And to further minimize the very core foundation of the compulsion program, indicates a complete misunderstanding of that method also.

Many trainers, from all areas of dog sports have started to learn about, and incorporate positive reinforcement into their training. Why would they bother to do that? Because they want to gain a competitive advantage, and they've come to understand that Positive Reinforcement does that for their program, like nothing else they've found! 

Daniel


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Daniel, you seem like a very well rounded trainer. Is it possible to use positive only techniques to revert natural instincts. Such as shore breaking ect.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Very interesting discussion.

I would be extremely interested in a +only training method if I could get one question answered. The current method strives to create a compulsion to do what we ask our retrievers to do, including working through different kinds of pressure. How will a +only training method address this issue? What happens if/when the + reward is not rewarding enough to overcome a distraction? What tools will be in the toolbox to address the issue?

I am open to this and I am asking a serious question, not seeking to dismiss +only training out of hand.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

I look forward to Daniel's singing from the FC or Grand mountain top. 

And less I or he commit that god-forsaken statistical fallacy of Man Who, I welcome multiple shouts from said mountain top. 

My ears are cupped....


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

jeff evans said:


> Daniel, you seem like a very well rounded trainer. Is it possible to use positive only techniques to revert natural instincts. Such as shore breaking ect.


Hi Jeff,

Not quite sure what you're asking. If you're wondering can we teach our dogs not to cheat using Positive Reinforcement only, the short answer is absolutely. But I would be misleading if I left it there, because most people will read that and think teaching a dog not to cheat using PR is a walk in the park. But there is a lot of "behind the scenes" work that makes that training go smoothly. For example, with my dogs I'm usually finished with cheating work when they're around nine months old. With other peoples dogs, who haven't been through what my dogs have, it's much more time consuming for me because they haven't learned how to learn. Had those dogs been raised like mine, they would have learned just as fast.

Did answer your question well enough?

Daniel


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

Great read, 

I am a newbie to the game and I REALLY appreciate the fact that this type of knowledge has taken years to collect and you are so willing to share it with the rest of us. 

Cheers to you!


----------



## Daniel (Oct 29, 2008)

RookieTrainer said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> I would be extremely interested in a +only training method if I could get one question answered. The current method strives to create a compulsion to do what we ask our retrievers to do, including working through different kinds of pressure. How will a +only training method address this issue? What happens if/when the + reward is not rewarding enough to overcome a distraction? What tools will be in the toolbox to address the issue?
> 
> I am open to this and I am asking a serious question, not seeking to dismiss +only training out of hand.




I believe your serious. It's similar to the question I once asked. My academic contacts said they didn't see why it wouldn't be possible; I didn't think that was a very enthusiastic endorsement. When I asked the dog world, it was a mixed bag. Agility trainers, obedience trainers, working border collies trainers, protection dog trainers, said no problem. When I turned back to my roots, hunting dogs, and asked those guys the question, the answer was an unqualified no! The question affects both the traditional compulsion training method AND the positive reinforcement method. And both have, as you said, a toolkit for when a breakdown occurs.

My own opinion is for compulsion trainers who don't have the time or inclination to dig into the why of a program, they will probably be better served staying with what their doing. A lot of the kinks have been removed and that program produces very well, and it will help those who don't want to delve into things. I wanted to put that caveat out there first because to traditional trainers, PR could easily look like smoke and mirrors.

In other dog sports however, PR has made huge inroads in a pretty short period of time. If you look at old movies of competitions from those sports and compare them to today's dogs in competition; it unreal. The skill level has advanced so much it's just a completely different world.

In a breakdown, to answer your question directly, for a dog taught with PR the reward is rewarding enough. I know that's sounds like a bit of a stretch. But because of how the dog has learned, motivation lives within, and well taught dogs are always motivated to perform the task. And why wouldn't they? There's nothing asked of them they're not capable of doing. When they're taught a new skill they learn it in increments. I don't teach anything, unless I'm convinced I'll be able to explain it clearly enough, so they'll have success almost immediately. So the dogs almost always accomplish what I ask of them.

Every dog already knows how to swim, pick up an object, sit, lie down, come to you when it wants to, etc., without us ever giving it any training. What we want is for them to do it when we say so. The compulsion method uses force; force fetch, force to the pile, force on the T, force in the swim by, etc., to elicit an escape/avoidance response that a skillful trainer can utilize for their purpose. Force is the at the core of the program. And it works! Using PR a dog has no reason to avoid anything, because they've been taught a method of learning in which they are always free to choose what to do and they love it. When they do something the teacher wants, they get a reward that they really like. PR dogs never want the lesson to stop.

A key element of operant conditioning puts the pupil in charge of the reward. Dogs learn very rapidly that something they do is worth a treat, and they work hard to to figure out what it is, so that they can make me give them a reward. That's how PR works. Dogs learn that their behavior manipulates me into giving them a reward. So they are always thinking, what's going to make that guy give me what I want. Thinking dogs can acquire pretty impressive skills. Using compulsion, dogs are always thinking what do I have to do so I won't have something happen to me I don't like. They fill their minds with what not to do. PR dogs fill their minds with possibilities of what do.

Dennis made the comment in a post in this thread that he gives his dogs plenty of praise and I'm sure he does. And I'm sure there are many people on this forum who have been told to be positive and give their dog plenty of praise. _But giving a dog praise, or treats, is not PR_. I don't praise very much, because in truth the dogs don't give a rip about it. The dog may want my attention and if I want to throw in some praise the dog won't mind, but it's the attention he wanted. Dogs care about themselves, and what they want. And what a retriever wants could be food, maybe it's a bumper, maybe a retrieve, maybe it's a game, maybe to go swimming, maybe playing Frisbee.

The last thing to say is I also employ what operant conditioning calls punishment. So I'm not a pure +R teacher. There's only one reason why I don't use +R exclusively. Say we're working on something at home in the kitchen. She does what I want she gets a treat, again she does what I want she gets a treat, then she doesn't give me what I want, and I withhold the treat. In operant conditioning withholding a reward is considered punishment. This kind of punishment is -P. I don't use this until I get to advanced lessons and only then when I haven't been able to design a lesson plan clearly showing the dog how to be successful. I hate using it because it shows me up as an ineffectual teacher. That's a hard nut to swallow.

To really do justice to your question would require a little seminar so you could see understand the larger picture and like the dogs become successful. That's the gist of it.

I know it's not enough, but I hope that's helps a little.

Daniel


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

RookieTrainer said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> I would be extremely interested in a +only training method if I could get one question answered. The current method strives to create a compulsion to do what we ask our retrievers to do, including working through different kinds of pressure. How will a +only training method address this issue? What happens if/when the + reward is not rewarding enough to overcome a distraction? What tools will be in the toolbox to address the issue?
> 
> I am open to this and I am asking a serious question, not seeking to dismiss +only training out of hand.


Yes I would be interested in knowing how you correct an extremely hyper dog through positive training. Enlighten me. I have a pup who has Cosmo in him and has little focus. Food is a motivator but.... I don't need pressure b/c of his drive. I need how you would make your pup hold and do your FF program especially if there are problems. I can see it may work with my Tar but.. but this little fellow is very distracted. He loves to learn and is intelligent. Very interested in your method! and yes I too am serious about knowing what you do to accomplish this!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Daniel said:


> ......Not quite sure what you're asking.......
> .....If you're wondering can we teach our dogs not to cheat using
> Positive Reinforcement only, the short answer is absolutely.......
> ...I'm usually finished with cheating work when they're around *nine months old*.........
> ...


you have, for me


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Daniel, can you tell us what titles you have earned on your dogs and their breeds?

Thank you!


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Ken Bora said:


> you have, for me


Me too...ha


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I think before Dennis's nice stickey gets mucked up, the positive people need to start their own thread. Then I want to hear what Daniel has actually run with those finished decheated 9 month old puppies.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> you have, for me


And also I!

Nine months??? That is absolutely awesome!

I know Danny, Mike and most of the other "force only" trainers are working on it for a lifetime! Daniel is sitting on a gold mine and may not know it.:shock:

JS


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

JS said:


> And also I!
> 
> Nine months??? That is absolutely awesome!
> 
> ...



Easy guys, I've trained with vollstead and other great amateurs that have completely water broke there dogs by this age, and it wasnt all force. I'm not a fan of starting this young but if I could implement some positive methods at this age and then reinforce reinforce after collar comditioning at an older age seems like a good idea. I am a bit scepticule what he considers water broke and from what distances and with what factors? Is he saying he can slice a piece of water at 300 yds? What I suspect is something similar to the diagram in another thread about decheating without an ecollar, and that's conceivable. Even the author of classical conditioning made a term for a natural instinct cropping back up called "extinction." what I take from that is...in the FT game we are training against the natural instincts of the animal, and he who has the best water dog has done the best job of training against the natural instincts. Extinction makes it impossible to use a positive only approach. Can you stand next to the waters edge or close to and train the dog to take a straight line to the bird with positive only, probably. Can you stand 275 back and run multiple marks with a cheaty retired with positive only, most unlikely. Even if it's possible why? The method we use if done properly the dog can't wait to get the collar on and work so I don't see the point as if there's a softer better way, I don't see it. Tails a waggin regards,


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

jeff evans said:


> Easy guys, I've trained with vollstead and other great amateurs that have completely water broke there dogs by this age, and it wasnt all force. I'm not a fan of starting this young but if I could implement some positive methods at this age and then reinforce reinforce after collar comditioning at an older age seems like a good idea. I am a bit scepticule what he considers water broke and from what distances and with what factors? Is he saying he can slice a piece of water at 300 yds? What I suspect is something similar to the diagram in another thread about decheating without an ecollar, and that's conceivable. Even the author of classical conditioning made a term for a natural instinct cropping back up called "extinction." what I take from that is...in the FT game we are training against the natural instincts of the animal, and he who has the best water dog has done the best job of training against the natural instincts. Extinction makes it impossible to use a positive only approach. Can you stand next to the waters edge or close to and train the dog to take a straight line to the bird with positive only, probably. Can you stand 275 back and run multiple marks with a cheaty retired with positive only, most unlikely. Even if it's possible why? The method we use if done properly the dog can't wait to get the collar on and work so I don't see the point as if there's a softer better way, I don't see it. Tails a waggin regards,



Was this before or after you were ready to sell Champ to Larry or I?


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Was this before or after you were ready to sell Champ to Larry or I?


You should have bought him...now you couldn't afford him


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think before Dennis's nice stickey gets mucked up, the positive people need to start their own thread. Then I want to hear what Daniel has actually run with those finished decheated 9 month old puppies.



Sorry! I think it IS already mucked up. 

A recent post was the epitomy of gobbledy-****.

_"Dennis made the comment in a post in this thread that he gives his dogs plenty of praise and I'm sure he does. And I'm sure there are many people on this forum who have been told to be positive and give their dog plenty of praise. But giving a dog praise, or treats, is not PR. I don't praise very much, because in truth the dogs don't give a rip about it. The dog may want my attention and if I want to throw in some praise the dog won't mind, but it's the attention he wanted. Dogs care about themselves, and what they want. And what a retriever wants could be food, maybe it's a bumper, maybe a retrieve, maybe it's a game, maybe to go swimming, maybe playing Frisbee.
"

_Read all the contradictions here and tell me I shouldn't just delete the whole thread (which I can do as OP). Note: apparently praise is NOT PR(perhaps he does not know how or when to give praise?), Note: apparently dogs don't care about praise but they want your attention??? Note: A retriever may want food but treats are not PR??? Note: dogs may want a bumper or a retrieve--Hello???isn't that the basis of our current total balanced program? And doesn't that mean we employ PR extensively!?????

I need to see some credentials and some videos. I have searched high and low for many years and cannot find an example of All-age field trial level performance by a PR only trainer. There was a recent post for a video of a 5 year old Golden doing sub-Qualifying work. A list of the problems this dog and handler had encountered was extensive. To train a dog at advanced levels you need to develop good mechanics and responses so that you can focus on the real issues of challenging retrieves in factor filled situations. So far no PR only person has proven they can accomplish that. It really is that simple.

PS. I did not say that you can not train a dog for basic hunting, some HT and even lower level field trial work with PR only. I believe it is possible and actually relatively easy. Advanced work is another issue. Most importantly what is the reason to follow PR exclusively? I can see no reason to do so when my dogs are treated fairly, with respect, taught incrementally and they are happy, motivated and willing workers who have learned to turn in a 100% effort every day.

PPS. By PR I mean Positive Reinforcement not Progressive Reinforcement because that latter term is more semantics smoke!


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Please do not delete this thread. It is incredibly valuable to me. I appreciate your insights so much Dennis. Just purchased 2007, 2008, 2009 Online Retriever volumes yesterday to get more info like this.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

For some reason the "reply with quote" feature is not working for me, so I will do it this way. Daniel's words are in red.

Thanks to Daniel for taking me seriously and at least attempting to explain where he is coming from.

Daniel: It's similar to the question I once asked. My academic contacts said they didn't see why it wouldn't be possible; I didn't think that was a very enthusiastic endorsement. 

Me: it's not an enthusiastic endorsement. Personally,it would not be persuasive at all.

Daniel: In other dog sports however, PR has made huge inroads in a pretty short period of time. If you look at old movies of competitions from those sports and compare them to today's dogs in competition; it unreal. The skill level has advanced so much it's just a completely different world.

Me: Is this because there are so many people getting into the other dog sports who don't understand that their dog is not human and doesn't "love" them? A lot of people don't spank or otherwise meaningfully discipline their children anymore either, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the right way to handle it.

Daniel: In a breakdown, to answer your question directly, for a dog taught with PR the reward is rewarding enough. I know that's sounds like a bit of a stretch. But because of how the dog has learned, motivation lives within, and well taught dogs are always motivated to perform the task. And why wouldn't they? There's nothing asked of them they're not capable of doing. When they're taught a new skill they learn it in increments. I don't teach anything, unless I'm convinced I'll be able to explain it clearly enough, so they'll have success almost immediately. So the dogs almost always accomplish what I ask of them.

Me: in my experience I find this very hard to believe. Maybe they are internally motivated to "get the bird," but are they internally motivated to get the bird in the way I want/need them to get it? My mentor's nickname for my dog is "Birdy SOB," but I have plenty of issues in getting him to do it the way I want it done.

Daniel: Every dog already knows how to swim, pick up an object, sit, lie down, come to you when it wants to, etc., without us ever giving it any training. What we want is for them to do it when we say so. The compulsion method uses force; force fetch, force to the pile, force on the T, force in the swim by, etc., to elicit an escape/avoidance response that a skillful trainer can utilize for their purpose. Force is the at the core of the program. And it works! Using PR a dog has no reason to avoid anything, because they've been taught a method of learning in which they are always free to choose what to do and they love it. When they do something the teacher wants, they get a reward that they really like. PR dogs never want the lesson to stop.

Me: again very hard to believe in light of my experience. Remember too that in a traditional program the dog chooses to get punishment by making a wrong decision just like they choose to get positive reinforcement by making a correct decision.

Daniel: A key element of operant conditioning puts the pupil in charge of the reward. Dogs learn very rapidly that something they do is worth a treat, and they work hard to to figure out what it is, so that they can make me give them a reward. That's how PR works. Dogs learn that their behavior manipulates me into giving them a reward. So they are always thinking, what's going to make that guy give me what I want. Thinking dogs can acquire pretty impressive skills. Using compulsion, dogs are always thinking what do I have to do so I won't have something happen to me I don't like. They fill their minds with what not to do. PR dogs fill their minds with possibilities of what do.

Me: very similar to previous paragraph. But what do you do on the days when the dog is not quite up to par or is just having a bad day? Is the reward of doing it right reward enough on those hopefully rare days when they just can't get anything right?

Daniel: Dennis made the comment in a post in this thread that he gives his dogs plenty of praise and I'm sure he does. And I'm sure there are many people on this forum who have been told to be positive and give their dog plenty of praise. But giving a dog praise, or treats, is not PR. I don't praise very much, because in truth the dogs don't give a rip about it. The dog may want my attention and if I want to throw in some praise the dog won't mind, but it's the attention he wanted. Dogs care about themselves, and what they want. And what a retriever wants could be food, maybe it's a bumper, maybe a retrieve, maybe it's a game, maybe to go swimming, maybe playing Frisbee.

Me: I am going to have to say that this sounds like pure hogwash. If a dog can feel pressure from the tone and volume of my voice, certainly he can feel rewarded in the same way. 

Daniel: The last thing to say is I also employ what operant conditioning calls punishment. So I'm not a pure +R teacher. There's only one reason why I don't use +R exclusively. Say we're working on something at home in the kitchen. She does what I want she gets a treat, again she does what I want she gets a treat, then she doesn't give me what I want, and I withhold the treat. In operant conditioning withholding a reward is considered punishment. This kind of punishment is -P. I don't use this until I get to advanced lessons and only then when I haven't been able to design a lesson plan clearly showing the dog how to be successful. I hate using it because it shows me up as an ineffectual teacher. That's a hard nut to swallow.

To really do justice to your question would require a little seminar so you could see understand the larger picture and like the dogs become successful. That's the gist of it.

Me: I wish you luck with your training. However, I would point out that the reason Total Retriever Training sells like it does is because Lardy has used it to train multiple field champions. Same with other programs. Unless a


----------



## 2labs (Dec 10, 2003)

Dennis, please do not delete this thread. I second the appreciation of your insight as well. Trainers like you really shed valuable light to those of us trying to learn the game and learn how to properly and fairly train our retrievers. I would appreciate hearing your answer to this question you posed in your original post. A10. All of the procedures that we use in retriever training can be analysed in terms of learning theory. Most training issues such as ‘noise by dogs’, ‘cheating around ponds’, ‘getting out down the shore early’, or ‘creeping’ can be addressed though punishment or through reinforcement. If you analyse the schools of training by various “authors” you will see an emphasis on one or the other. For example, the dog climbs out on a point and is nicked there so he avoids landing next time. What is that –reinforcement or punishment? What do you do and why. Whas nicking the correct response from the trainer? and what do you do when you need that dog in a different training scenerio to take that point??

Daniel---a respectful request to you to not reply to this thread and if you want to continue to explain your training methods please start your own thread. This thread belongs to Mr. Voigt and to those of us that are here to learn. 


Thank you
Dave


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Daniel,

May I ask you to please let us know who you are and what you do with your dogs today?

My name is Chris Atkinson. I have four dogs in my home at this point. One of them is a labrador that I enjoy training and running in all age stakes of an AKC trial once in a while. I travel a lot for work and I don't give my dog the kind of exposure he deserves to have a good chance at success in all age stuff. But I enjoy it.

Daniel, one other question: In a couple bullet pointed lines, what is it that you are trying to accomplish in your posts on this thread? I am the one who chose to make this thread a sticky and am actually regretting it a bit. 

To Dennis, please know that we value your contributions to the retriever world immensely. I'm coming home today from a business trip. I enjoy taking my Retrievers Online still in the envelope, and opening it on a train, plane, bus, etc. On Tuesday I took a trip from Tokyo to Ishinomaki. We had to catch a bus at Sendai to get up to Ishinomaki. Here is a shot I took, of one of my colleagues and a good friend at the bus stop in Sendai.


I feel very, very fortunate that we have an editor of a periodical focused on our game, who happens to be the trainer/handler/titler of a National Champion, spending time and sharing thoughts with us.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Chris Atkinson said:


> To Dennis, please know that we value your contributions to the retriever world immensely. I'm coming home today from a business trip. I enjoy taking my Retrievers Online still in the envelope, and opening it on a train, plane, bus, etc. On Tuesday I took a trip from Tokyo to Ishinomaki. We had to catch a bus at Sendai to get up to Ishinomaki. Here is a shot I took, of one of my colleagues and a good friend at the bus stop in Sendai.
> 
> 
> I feel very, very fortunate that we have an editor of a periodical focused on our game, who happens to be the trainer/handler/titler of a National Champion, spending time and sharing thoughts with us.


Chris

Somehow I don't think a magazine stand in Japan would sell many issues. I have received some other neat photos of peole reading ONLINE. One was a two year old. Her dad said she just liked to look at the pictures. I know some adults that read magazines that way. I have often seen them in the magazine rack beside the throne" and once in a fancy two-hole outhouse. I was never sure if they were there for reading or other purposes!!

I think you are aware that I have had 3 National wins and 8 Field Champion dogs. But few know that all have been exclusively trained by me except one I got as a 2 year old. That has been very rewarding and educational. I am continually amazed with this game and that I can be learning something new and better all the time. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort but if I get a new DVD, I'll watch it 5-6 X to try and glean some tid-bit. Of course, I have learned so much from so many others, both top amateurs and professionals. The dogs have taught me a great deal and the best dogs weren't always the most instructive. But they sure help you advance and refine your techniques.


Even this thread has taught me a lot becasue I ended up watching a bunch of videos, reading blogs and studying some other trainers thoughts to gain a better understanding of their philosophy. I feel strongly about certain ways of training but I never think that I know it all. I am afraid sometimes on the Internet it can come across incorrectly. Trust me, nobody knows it all in this game and anybody that thinks they have it all figured out just needs to keep training more dogs to find out that's not true.

Cheers


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

2labs said:


> Dennis, I would appreciate hearing your answer to this question you posed in your original post. A10.
> 
> _"All of the procedures that we use in retriever training can be analysed in terms of learning theory. Most training issues such as ‘noise by dogs’, ‘cheating around ponds’, ‘getting out down the shore early’, or ‘creeping’ can be addressed though punishment or through reinforcement. If you analyse the schools of training by various “authors” you will see an emphasis on one or the other. For example, the dog climbs out on a point and is nicked there so he avoids landing next time. What is that –reinforcement or punishment? What do you do and why"
> 
> ...


I posed the question to have you think about what method you would use and why.

Let's take the example of a dog veering toward shore or to a point on the way to a blind. Another example might be running around a pond. One method is to allow them to get right up on land (or around the pond) and then yell "no" and correct them.. This would be trying to stop the undesireable behaviour and adding an aversive-thus Positive punishment. It can act to create a "hot-spot" and in the future dogs would not go there. This used to be a common technique. Two problems: Yelling NO does not tell the do what to do. Secondly, the no nick can create an unbalanced dog. Today's dog has to be as comfortable on land as the water. They cannot be afraid to land. What they have to learn is how to fight factors that prevent them from going straight and losing their destination. They have to learn how to make good decisions.

The way I train is to watch the dog and determine the instant he makes a decision to deviate. That is the best time to intervene in his mind and thinking. I don't want to condone a bad decision and then Bam he gets it. Instead, I will blow a sit whistle and literal cast to the bird. Now if he deviates I have told him what to do and he has not made an effort to change. Now I can either repeat that sequence(attrition) or I can blow the sit whistle and give a nick. The nick is on something he knows(sit) and it is negative reinforcement of the sit. This aversive reinforcement acts indirectly to promote compliance on the cast. We call that Indirect pressure. 

If you balance your training and make your interventions clear you lessen having dogs afarid to get on points. My dog's default is often to swim by the point given a choice but they should get on the point if I ask. Of course, some days they seek the point and sometimes they refuse my asking. I work on this forever and design 3-peats and tune-ups and cheating marks to keep these skills as sharp as possible. 

The theory guides the procedure. Consistent application and persistent effort guide the practice.


----------



## JTS (Apr 29, 2005)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> I posed the question to have you think about what method you would use and why.
> 
> Let's take the example of a dog veering toward shore or to a point on the way to a blind. Another example might be running around a pond. One method is to allow them to get right up on land (or around the pond) and then yell "no" and correct them.. This would be trying to stop the undesireable behaviour and adding an aversive-thus Positive punishment. It can act to create a "hot-spot" and in the future dogs would not go there. This used to be a common technique. Two problems: Yelling NO does not tell the do what to do. Secondly, the no nick can create an unbalanced dog. Today's dog has to be as comfortable on land as the water. They cannot be afraid to land. What they have to learn is how to fight factors that prevent them from going straight and losing their destination. They have to learn how to make good decisions.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this description, as I was explaining/discussing this very thing to someone the other day. Many folks I see don't quite grasp this fully......I will use your reply in future discussions. Thanks for this thread Dennis.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> I posed the question to have you think about what method you would use and why.
> 
> Let's take the example of a dog veering toward shore or to a point on the way to a blind. Another example might be running around a pond. One method is to allow them to get right up on land (or around the pond) and then yell "no" and correct them.. This would be trying to stop the undesireable behaviour and adding an aversive-thus Positive punishment. It can act to create a "hot-spot" and in the future dogs would not go there. This used to be a common technique. Two problems: Yelling NO does not tell the do what to do. Secondly, the no nick can create an unbalanced dog. Today's dog has to be as comfortable on land as the water. They cannot be afraid to land. What they have to learn is how to fight factors that prevent them from going straight and losing their destination. They have to learn how to make good decisions.
> 
> ...



I train the same way, as I came up with the TRT, attending Mike's seminars, and training with like minded people. The collar is a way to communicate with the dog in a consistent, understandable, and timely manner, over any distance (within reason). I wonder if you have had any thought about using the praise tone on the collar as a secondary reinforcer (like a clicker) to communicate with the dog at long distances that it has done the right thing. Is it enough that letting the dog continue, after stopping and casting, to communicate that it has done the right thing, or is there and additional training opportunity to communicate "yes, you have done it right" through the use of the tone? You mentioned "good dog" as a secondary reinforcer in an earlier message. It can be used when the dog is close but has limited utility at 200 yards.

Thanks!


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Sabireley said:


> I train the same way, as I came up with the TRT, attending Mike's seminars, and training with like minded people. The collar is a way to communicate with the dog in a consistent, understandable, and timely manner, over any distance (within reason). I wonder if you have had any thought about using the praise tone on the collar as a secondary reinforcer (like a clicker) to communicate with the dog at long distances that it has done the right thing. Is it enough that letting the dog continue, after stopping and casting, to communicate that it has done the right thing, or is there and additional training opportunity to communicate "yes, you have done it right" through the use of the tone? You mentioned "good dog" as a secondary reinforcer in an earlier message. It can be used when the dog is close but has limited utility at 200 yards.
> 
> Thanks!


I use good dog to over 200 yards. But i also pair it with a body signal-a sort of raised arems as in the parting of the seas! I can use that to 400 yards and even in a trial. I use it at the instant of the retrieve. It can't hurt but I know the real reward is the bird. I also practice stopped my dog silently with an arm pointing at them. All of these things keep our connection.

In the past, I experimented with the tone for good dog. I believe it has to be reinforced and maintained so carefully that it is not too feasible. I'm also not sure it has any effect in the water. Instead, I use it as recall signal now and I find it very useful for that.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> I use good dog to over 200 yards. But i also pair it with a body signal-a sort of raised arems as in the parting of the seas! I can use that to 400 yards and even in a trial. I use it at the instant of the retrieve. It can't hurt but I know the real reward is the bird. I also practice stopped my dog silently with an arm pointing at them. All of these things keep our connection.
> 
> In the past, I experimented with the tone for good dog. I believe it has to be reinforced and maintained so carefully that it is not too feasible. I'm also not sure it has any effect in the water. Instead, I use it as recall signal now and I find it very useful for that.


I also use the tone for recall with my three older dogs, and it does work well. I have not done it with my puppy, yet thinking I might try using it for good dog. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Dennis really appreciate your advice. Thanks.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

I have really enjoyed you posts Dennis. You've really helped to clarify some things.

Bill


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

*collar use*

" but much modern day retriever training is based on trying to increase good behaviours as opposed to stop bad behaviours. These days our dogs need to be comfortable going anywhere. the days of ‘don’t get out on the point’ or ‘always just get in the water’ are long gone. Understanding reinforcement can help you train a dog to make good decisions by teaching rather than testing. The alternative method is to test, set up failure and then correct. This can be a very discouraging process for a sensitive dog. Both methods use an aversive but reinforcement has been shown to last longer and thus be more reliable than punishment training. I think many of today's dogs tend to be quite sensitive and better candidates for reinforcement training" Dennis

You have just described why there was so much problem with trainers and the introduction of the collar many years ago....They (we) used it as a punishment tool for behaviors like you mentioned...With the learning of a program based on reinforcement we have seen great progress in the use of the collar as a training tool...Kinder and gentler for sure...Great post with too much info to digest at one sitting.....Thanks for it...Looking forward to more like it...Steve S


----------



## jleve206 (Sep 26, 2012)

Thank you for that post. I am new to the dog training world and find all of this information helpful. I say that I use +ve reinforcement to train my dog, but sometimes I am unsure about what really I am enforcing. I am learning that reinforcement or correction, they have to happen very quickly and at the exact second that the dog is doing/ not doing what it is supposed to be. Any advice or secrets that you want to share when it comes to training a dog for fun and hunting, please feel free to post anything like this anytime!
Jeremy


----------



## Mallard1 (Oct 4, 2011)

I appreciate the post and discussion.

The best information for me is the distinction between punishment and negative reinforcement. My guess is that I and others confuse the two in use, and thus confuse the dog.

Example, FF with the ecollar using negative reinforcement (stop the stimulus when the dog does the correct behavior, vs. shocking the dog when takes off around a pond instead of through it).


----------



## jleve206 (Sep 26, 2012)

Do you have a website that I can check out with those papers? I am new at all this and want to learn!
Jeremy


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Timing of reinforcement is greatly enhanced by using a bridge, marker, or clicker. http://reactivechampion.blogspot.com/2012/09/shedd-animal-training-seminar-bridge-to.html


----------



## Jason Ottinger (Jan 17, 2012)

Very well written! I'm a big fan of these methods - thanks for sharing!


----------



## dw36 (Oct 9, 2012)

Amazing stuff!!


----------



## Coxlabs (Oct 19, 2011)

Thanks for posting for people to read. I am still trying to digest this information so I can get a better understanding. I will have to read through it a couple of times.


----------



## Fran Seagren (Jan 21, 2013)

Great information and explanation. I would like to see more. Thanks.


----------



## FetchExpress (May 31, 2006)

Okay I buzz in and out of here a lot but have been away for awhile BUT THIS THREAD and the others similar to them all I can say is THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. My head goes to these places and I have a pretty good understanding but what I lack is the words to help explain these things! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Mostly now I am working with Diabetic Alert Dogs but my heart will always belong to the retrieve sports. I sometimes struggle to find the words to help folks understand these things when dealing with them... excellent stuff!


----------



## SDRooster1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Hey guys, I'm new here and enjoyed reading this article. Amazing what can be learned in a short amount of time.


----------



## Fowl Dawgs (Jul 27, 2013)

Great to know thanks


----------



## blacknwhite71 (Aug 18, 2013)

Good read thanks


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Thanks very much to Renee P. for bumping this requested thread back as a sticky. Thanks to Dennis V (RetrieversONLINE) for sharing with us.

Chris


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Thanks very much to Renee P. for bumping this requested thread back as a sticky. Thanks to Dennis V (RetrieversONLINE) for sharing with us.
> 
> Chris


Back by popular demand!


----------

