# Training Programmes? ...idle curiousity!



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

One very notable difference between how you train in USA vs how we train in UK, is that it seems (and I may be mistaken) that the majority of you (who are training particularly to compete) are on, or follow, some sort of "programme", which is produced by a particular trainer/kennels. In the UK, there is nothing much parallel to this (other than just a couple of 'celebrity' DVDs), and we all seem to train in a much more 'organic' (haphazard! LOL) way. Perhaps partly because the nature of our game is somewhat different.

Without diverging into picking through the whys and wherefores of what methods are 'better', can anyone tell me is there a 'programme' which doesn't involve the use of an electric collar, or force fetch? If there isn't, there isn't. But just wondered if there was.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

km, specific to training *competitively*, for _*North American*_ competition, particularly field trials, none that has been made known to or gained any traction (via bonafides) with the retriever-training public.

How 'bout training for eyewipes without FF or the e-collar, how do you manage that?:wink:

MG


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

I think any program can be modified for non collar/FF use.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

OK, thanks MG. That's a shame. I'd love to see a bit more 'structure' in our training methods over here. We do all tackle the same things and get to the end goal eventually, but we just seem to be a lot less regimented in doing it!

Oh, we bumble along....;-)........


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

KM,

One "programme" on a DVD is "The Wildrose Way", it's non collar or FF. I've used inverted commas because I don't see it as fully fledged; the basic obedience is very sketchy and IMO insufficient. However if you put basic OB into a puppy and followed Wildrose you'd get a decent hunting dog. If you care to drop me your postal address via PM you can borrow my copy.

In general, all the published Carr based programmes can be used as way markers in non collar / FF training. Again if you want to have a butchers at one (Strawski) let me know. I thinks it's an awful piece of work with many faults, but the structure is the standard model.

As to published works other than DVDs that lay down a plan, where to start? Susan Scales, Peter Moxon, Nigel Mann, Keith Erlandson, Eric Begbie, Vic Barlow, Ken Roebuck ...... that's just the first few on my top shelf!

Eug


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Colonel Blimp said:


> KM,
> 
> One "programme" on a DVD is "The Wildrose Way", it's non collar or FF. I've used inverted commas because I don't see it as fully fledged; the basic obedience is very sketchy and IMO insufficient. However if you put basic OB into a puppy and followed Wildrose you'd get a decent hunting dog. If you care to drop me your postal address via PM you can borrow my copy.
> 
> ...


Thanks Eug, I've got the Wildrose (coffee table) book which has some methods and exercises similar to 'British' methods. I didn't know there was a DVD! Would be interested in a look thanks.

I also have most of the books you mention, along with the odd DVD etc. But none of which are really a 'programme' and that is the difference to me in our methods. We tend to 'dip into' things, but don't rigidly follow any programme with any structure. Not saying that is right or wrong, just an observation that it is different. 

I'll look up Carr, not heard of that?


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Just about all the published collar / FF stuff from the US is based on the work of a bloke called Rex Carr. 

Eug


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

That would be _*Maj.*_ Rex Carr to you, Colonel!

km, as noted above, the force- and collar-based programs are adaptive and can be undertaken without force or collar. But I'm unaware of anyone who's achieved (N. American) competitive success going that route.

Regimenting is a good way to go, though, and why I got into retrievers in the first place - love the training more than the trials. But what we're learning over here is that you can also customize the regimentation for other gundogs - HPRs and (retrieving) spaniels in particular. They do just fine on programs, with a soupcon of force and electricity, of course. Especially - since we're talking regimentation and majors and colonels - what Bill Meldrum's buddy Bob Gutermuth used to call "ye olde sergeant major's dog" the Sussex spaniel










going through her paces going on 12 years now having been trained nonslip (via Mike Lardy's program).

MG


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

As someone who doesn't use the collar or force fetch on my current dog, I've found it necessary to use the "Hodgepodge" method. But it has been incredibly helpful to have the Mike Lardy TRT books and dvds as a backbone structure for my training plan. Thanks to the TRT materials and modifications, my dog got two Senior Hunt Test ribbons at 18 mos. We went a little down hill after that with our blinds, but she is back better than ever on the whistle and taking casts. It's a great program, but I think anyone not using the core force and compulsion methods will need to really watch the dog and change course here and there to get success.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Jennifer Henion said:


> As someone who doesn't use the collar or force fetch on my current dog, I've found it necessary to use the "Hodgepodge" method. But it has been incredibly helpful to have the Mike Lardy TRT books and dvds as a backbone structure for my training plan. Thanks to the TRT materials and modifications, my dog got two Senior Hunt Test ribbons at 18 mos. We went a little down hill after that with our blinds, but she is back better than ever on the whistle and taking casts. It's a great program, but I think anyone not using the core force and compulsion methods will need to really watch the dog and change course here and there to get success.


LOL Jennifer @ "hodgepodge" method. That's definitely what we use over here!!!.... maybe we do have a method/programme after all!?

Thanks, that is interesting. And well done you!


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Daren - thanks for your PM. I've seen that flow chart. I can't seem to reply to you or new message you at all for some reason?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm the idea of programs is relatively new, and I hazard to say any professional trainer and most knowledgeable amateurs over here, has his own hodgepodge of methods incorporating a bit of this a bit of that; no-one uses everything out of every program. They use what works for their dog. Now can a great retriever be made without an e-collar? Of course it can but it's harder and takes longer. Most of us stopped riding horses and bought cars at some point . Can a dog be a great retriever without FF, maybe but I'd hazard to say everyone teaches their dog that fetch means pick this up and hold it; then enforces the command (which without all the bells and whistles is forcing a fetch) . Rex Carr was one of the first to teach others a method, most later trainers who developed programs used his teaching as they learned from him. To find the non-e-collar based methods you have to go back further, and I don't know of any that were actually written down, verses being passed from trainer to trainer (Most trainers I know HATE writing things down). The e-collar took over, and while some trainers still know those methods, I don't think they get passed on or utilized as widely anymore...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmm the idea of programs is relatively new, and I hazard to say any professional trainer and most knowledgeable amateurs over here, has his own hodgepodge of methods incorporating a bit of this a bit of that; no-one uses everything out of every program. They use what works for their dog. Now can a great retriever be made without an e-collar? Of course it can but it's harder and takes longer. Most of us stopped riding horses and bought cars at some point . Can a dog be a great retriever without FF, maybe but I'd hazard to say everyone teaches their dog that fetch means pick this up and hold it; then enforces the command (which without all the bells and whistles is forcing a fetch) . Rex Carr was one of the first to teach others a method, most later trainer developed programs from his teaching as they learned it from him. To find the non-e-collar based methods you have to go back further, and I don't know of any that were actually written down, verses being passed from trainer to trainer (Most trainers I know HATE writing things down). The e-collar took over, and while some trainers still know those methods, I don't think they get passed on or utilized as widely anymore.


I started with my first dog in 1979, I didn't know anybody, had never heard of a pro trainer and had no idea how to train my dog, so I went to my local library and looked up any books they had on the subject. I found two, James Lamb Free's book and Richard Wolter's _Water Dog_. I hate to admit it now, but Wolter's book worked fine for what I needed and gave me more insight into retrievers than I had before. I had moved to Montana when I got my next dog, so had a few more resources, but even though I trained with a good amateur and later a pro, we didn't use the word "program", I just trained day by day doing what these guys said to do. The reality is that I was following a program, we just didn't call it that. I didn't use that word until the Lardy video tapes came out, after that there was more structure in our training. Now you have competing programs and variations of programs, kind of like the West Coast offense coaching tree. Everybody wants to now what program you are following.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I have a silly question for the UK folk. OK can't use the collar. I get it, but why can we not "force fetch" (I hate the term because it's really incorrect) a dog? There are multiple methods and tools that could be put to use to get the same result. Might take a tad longer but would produce reliable results.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> I have a silly question for the UK folk. OK can't use the collar. I get it, but why can we not "force fetch" (I hate the term because it's really incorrect) a dog? There are multiple methods and tools that could be put to use to get the same result. Might take a tad longer but would produce reliable results.


I wonder this as well, the e-collar is only used in the last proofing portion of FF, and that is more about transitioning from a close up (physical-manual) pressure to collar pressure (for later e-collar use). It doesn't have anything to do with producing a reliable retrieve it's just another method to enforce the command. Fetch


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Training an advanced retriever without an ecollar is sort of like hunting ducks with a long bow. It's possible, but has many limitations and includes frequent failure.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> I have a silly question for the UK folk. OK can't use the collar. I get it, but why can we not "force fetch" (I hate the term because it's really incorrect) a dog? There are multiple methods and tools that could be put to use to get the same result. Might take a tad longer but would produce reliable results.


I think Force Fetch isn't used, because it isn't needed here? Our dogs are all bred with an enormous desire to pick things up, hold them and fetch them, and this is encouraged in a positive manner around the home. There is no need to go through a process of forcing them to hold/fetch something and making it into an action of pressure/fear? I've never had a lab that I have had to force or even encourage to hold/carry/fetch. They all just want to do that?


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Charles C. said:


> Training an advanced retriever without an ecollar is sort of like hunting ducks with a long bow. It's possible, but has many limitations and includes frequent failure.


I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that one! ;-)
Obviously it depends on your definition of 'advanced', but I would consider our retrievers running at the International Gundog League Retriever Championships to be fairly 'advanced', and I don't think there is one amongst them that has been trained on an e-collar or force fetched.....


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

kennel maiden said:


> I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that one! ;-)
> Obviously it depends on your definition of 'advanced', but I would consider our retrievers running at the International Gundog League Retriever Championships to be fairly 'advanced', and I don't think there is one amongst them that has been trained on an e-collar or force fetched.....


Kennel Maiden This sounds like thread is getting into whether it is better to use the collar or not. You OP is 

*Without diverging into picking through the whys and wherefores of what methods are 'better', can anyone tell me is there a 'programme' which doesn't involve the use of an electric collar, or force fetch? If there isn't, there isn't. But just wondered if there was.
*

You can use Lardy's and other programs without using the collar. You could use attrition instead of collar pressure. You could walk out and have a discussion with your dog. You could do any number of drills where pressure is not needed to correct issues. These are in Lardy's DVD and others. I find some of these ideas and others I could list useful for training. I am certain you have your methods! JMO


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Kennel Maiden This sounds like thread is getting into whether it is better to use the collar or not. You OP is
> 
> *Without diverging into picking through the whys and wherefores of what methods are 'better', can anyone tell me is there a 'programme' which doesn't involve the use of an electric collar, or force fetch? If there isn't, there isn't. But just wondered if there was.
> *
> ...


Mary - I totally agree, thanks! Our methods are different. They just are. It's perfectly possible to train to the highest level using either method. It is. We've both proved that. 

I have my answer thanks everyone - there isn't a program per se, but you could adapt one.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> I think Force Fetch isn't used, because it isn't needed here? Our dogs are all bred with an enormous desire to pick things up, hold them and fetch them, and this is encouraged in a positive manner around the home. There is no need to go through a process of forcing them to hold/fetch something and making it into an action of pressure/fear? I've never had a lab that I have had to force or even encourage to hold/carry/fetch. They all just want to do that?


L, now that you've gotten your answer to "programming," we need to convince you that FF is not "necessary" here either, but is applied/imparted to dogs that have the same desire to pick things up as yours, are encouraged in exactly the same "positive manner around the home" as yours, but are not subjected to force fetch to get a dog (or more likely a six-month-old pup) *to retrieve* out of fear or from pressure. To quote kennel maiden, "They all just want to do that!" But what they _*don't*_ want to do - yet, because because we haven't taught them - is retrieve _*how*_ we want them to, like 350-yard water blinds and triples at that distance or greater with retired birds.

Force fetch ain't a necessity, and our dogs don't "need" it any more than yours do. But our field trial dogs usually get it to give them a foundation for all the advanced stuff that follows - that follows *here* but not over there...

MG


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

crackerd said:


> L, now that you've gotten your answer to "programming," we need to convince you that FF is not "necessary" here either, but is applied/imparted to dogs that have the same desire to pick things up as yours, are encouraged in exactly the same "positive manner around the home" as yours, but are not subjected to force fetch to get a dog (or more likely a six-month-old pup) *to retrieve* out of fear or from pressure. To quote kennel maiden, "They all just want to do that!" But what they _*don't*_ want to do - yet, because because we haven't taught them - is retrieve _*how*_ we want them to, like 350-yard water blinds and triples at that distance or greater with retired birds.
> 
> Force fetch ain't a necessity, and our dogs don't "need" it any more than yours do. But our field trial dogs usually get it to give them a foundation for all the advanced stuff that follows - that follows *here* but not over there...
> 
> MG


But we manage 300 yd blinds without FF? I don't see how it gives them a basis for confidently running blinds? If you do your ground work, building thru memory marks, and proofing the dog in a variety of terrains you can get a dog running lines confidentially without pressurising it....

anyway, horses for courses as I say.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> But we manage 300 yd blinds without FF? I don't see how it gives them a basis for confidently running blinds? If you do your *ground work*, building thru memory marks, and proofing the dog in a *variety of terrains *you can get a dog running lines confidentially without pressurising it....
> 
> anyway, horses for courses as I say.


The medium of water and courses of water is the level that the UK have not trained for or have the requirement for (with one command) .That's the difference at that level (imo)
Strange?, as we are an Island and full of water


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

kennel maiden said:


> I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that one! ;-)
> Obviously it depends on your definition of 'advanced', but I would consider our retrievers running at the International Gundog League Retriever Championships to be fairly 'advanced', and I don't think there is one amongst them that has been trained on an e-collar or force fetched.....


I agree with both you and you might agree with Charles also if you allow me to add that he means "advanced N.American competetion retriever". Our competitions do not reward the same skills as do yours. In a nut shell; we want our dogs to prove the quality of their vision rather than their nose on marks. In these they must mark on a relatively tight line and show no characteristics of "nose" until they are inside the area of the fall. On blind retrieves we want them to run an almost laser like line under the complete control of the handler. They must ignore every aspect of the field save their ability to follow the handler's direction, they must ignore their nose and will be eliminated on a blind if they are unduly distracted by scent from off line. While our rule books may state that marking is of paramount importance, most competitions will reserve the ultimate marking test for those dogs who have proved themselves on their blind retrieves. This may help to explain why we use a collar; it enables us to force (however gently) our dogs at (sometimes) very great distance to stop and look to us for direction without fail and in spite of temptations to hunt on their own.

It would appear from what I have read and had described to me, that your tests are less restrictive on the dogs' route to its marks and more rewarding of those dogs who show independent hunting ability to retrieve both marks and blinds. Your tests also appear to place as exacting and inflexible standards on line manners as we do on lines to and performance on blind retrieves, this seems to indicate that much of your training emphasis might be accomplished with a hunt lead and a quirt rather than an electric collar. Control at a distance is what our training programs are trying to accomplish and e-collars have been proven to be the most successful and humane (when properly introduced and used) tool to use.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> I think Force Fetch isn't used, because it isn't needed here? Our dogs are all bred with an enormous desire to pick things up, hold them and fetch them, and this is encouraged in a positive manner around the home. There is no need to go through a process of forcing them to hold/fetch something and making it into an action of pressure/fear? I've never had a lab that I have had to force or even encourage to hold/carry/fetch. They all just want to do that?


Ah yes but there's a BIG difference between a dog that does what it wants and does what YOU want! Force fetch has nothing to do with making up for lack of drive in a well bred retriever. Yes, in some it makes that difference but not in most of the dogs we discuss on this forum. A well bred American/English/Chinese/Japanese/Russian retriever has the drive and ambition... They would probably fetch 99.9% of the time anyhow. If only the .1% wasn't grounds for instant elimination from the trial. But "force fetch" goes way beyond that in terms of it's affect on a dog's mindset as a working companion. We're not just trying to solve a .1% chance of failure.

Just as a brief aside, this is why I hate the term "force fetch". We're not "Forcing" the dog to do anything. Imagine the mechanics of that mess? Ever had to hold down a scared 80 lb lab to put a catheter in? Four people for that one! You can't FORCE the dog to do anything. It's all but physically impossible.

What you can do is re-enforce the command using negative re-enforcement strategies (look up what this really means vs. what you may think), in addition to the positive re-enforcement that you're already doing every time your dog gets to chase (retrieve) something. By employing all the quadrants of the operant conditioning model, we create reliability and enhance the leader/follower relationship between ourselves and the dog, respectively. We teach not only what's right and required to earn a reward, but what's wrong and grounds for discomfort. We remove a lot of the dog's thought process in terms of what reward has the most value at any given moment. This balance translates to better overall performance from obedience to long distance direction and control, regardless of the tools employed.

And BTW if you've ever watched a bunch of good American Field Trial labs run they're work doesn't look "pressurized" one little bit. The good ones are very stylish and obviously enjoying their work. There's even a slot on the score sheet for "style", which is just that, the dog's obvious enjoyment of it's work. If you "pressurized" the dog to "force" it to do it's work, it's not going to look like it should. We see examples of that over here, but I don't believe we see it at the top echelons of competition. A dog that looks "forced" isn't appealing at all to most judges so probably isn't going very far.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> I don't think there is one amongst them that has been trained on an e-collar or force fetched.....


I'd wager a bet you're wrong about that one. I doubt seriously there are that many dogs operating at that level without having compulsion applied at some point in the process. "Force fetch" may not be what it's called and it may not follow the same process but... I would bet you a fair sum of money that behind the scenes those dogs know what a heeling stick and a slip lead are all about.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

polmaise said:


> The medium of water and courses of water is the level that the UK have not trained for or have the requirement for (with one command) .That's the difference at that level (imo)
> Strange?, as we are an Island and full of water


As I see it that's most of it. Many dogs can do well on land but the field trial really starts with the water series.

I know very little of British trials, just reading about them and the internet. Having said that "over here" each dog runs as much as possible the same test. All the dogs entered can be seen in the same light, under the same circumstances. So all the dogs are required to give a stellar performance or be dropped. If a dog "rises above" the others, to be competitive your dog also has to "rise." All age dogs are trained to be capable at everything as much as they possibly can.
You have to get through 4 series to finish and even hope to place. Usually if your dog does something even a little wrong it's enough to be dropped.

Since it's a competition many of the reasons a dog is dropped is of little consequence in hunting. If you are in a trial and have a couple big hunts, handle on a mark, disappear around a point or over a hill it's usually enough to be eliminated. Of course depending what everyone else does.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Oh and BTW to answer your question. If you have a dog that will reliably go when sent, fetch and deliver to hand, you can use any of the Carr based programs (Lardy/Smartworks etc.) to teach the skills. All the program does is outline the steps involved in a logical teaching progression. That part is not dependent at all on the use of the collar nor the "force fetching" process. You would simply skip those steps and do the drills in whatever order is called for.

But.. whatyagonnado when he stops fetching?


----------



## Bartona500 (May 23, 2011)

Maiden,

I train similarly to your methods over there, based on some of the "celebrity" dvd's and spending time with friends from over there. It seems that there is a large push on RTF for young trainers to be on a program, and I understand the reasoning. If you are doing collar conditioning and FF, you can't just hodgepodge that. There is a very structured, systematic approach to make sure you achieve success in your dog. If you do not follow the steps, the use of the collar may be unclear and, even worse, harmful to the dogs progress. As useful as a collar can be, they can be detrimental to a dog if used improperly. A solid program, particularly for a collar trained dog, is essential in allowing a trainer to track progression and not "skip" any essentials to a Carr based system.

As far as your type training, these programs can be very helpful in giving you new ideas for drills and lessons to teach new skills or the same skills in a new way. I have solidified my "method" based on how I prefer to train a dog, but it is certainly much more organic than one of the dvd program's mentioned above. We have certain "goal's" in certain skill-sets, once we achieve those goals we move forward. As we progress, new skill sets are added. What used to be hodgepodge has become mostly systematic, but far less systematic than a program.


----------



## Bartona500 (May 23, 2011)

DarrinGreene said:


> Oh and BTW to answer your question. If you have a dog that will reliably go when sent, fetch and deliver to hand, you can use any of the Carr based programs (Lardy/Smartworks etc.) to teach the skills. All the program does is outline the steps involved in a logical teaching progression. That part is not dependent at all on the use of the collar nor the "force fetching" process. You would simply skip those steps and do the drills in whatever order is called for.
> 
> But.. whatyagonnado when he stops fetching?


That's exactly right, the first paragraph. As far as the question, I've not had that happen!


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> I think Force Fetch isn't used, because it isn't needed here? Our dogs are all bred with an enormous desire to pick things up, hold them and fetch them, and this is encouraged in a positive manner around the home. There is no need to go through a process of forcing them to hold/fetch something and making it into an action of pressure/fear? I've never had a lab that I have had to force or even encourage to hold/carry/fetch. They all just want to do that?


.
A very common miss conception of force fetch. Basically has nothing to do with "fetching, holding or carrying" at all. It's more about introducing the dog to "pressure" and teaching them compliance = easing of pressure. 
I will email you tomorrow 2 PDF charts by John Cavanaugh showing a training progression, one using e-collar and one without using e-collar. 
I think I still have your www n email not sure.
Cheers.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Breck said:


> .
> A very common miss conception of force fetch. Basically has nothing to do with "fetching, holding or carrying" at all. It's more about introducing the dog to "pressure" and teaching them compliance = easing of pressure.
> I will email you 2 PDF charts by John Cavanaugh showing a training progression, one using e-collar and one without using e-collar.
> Cheers.


What does HSS stand for? 

To Kennel Maiden,

I hope you're keeping an open mind and enjoying the comments.

You are right that a big part of the FT's is about the water. The difference: We're an island too. We just have much more distance between points. With more distance - control erodes! 

On the "force fetch": My opinion is that it all comes down to how one defines "force Fetch". 

My personal interpretation is that it is a conditioned retrieve response. We decide, as trainers, how much compulsion we want to build into the dog, while balancing how much desire the dog already possesses.

I know some in N.A. want to state that FF has nothing to do with going to retrieve and delivering to hand. I personally believe that is an extreme comment and not accurate.

There is no "right" there is no "wrong".

What you all do with your dogs in your trials is wonderful. It is awesome. It is amazing. It is also different from what we do in our trials here.

Our trials here are: awesome, amazing....and different from UK trials.

Chris


----------



## pmw (Feb 6, 2003)

km - as has been already mentioned, most of the US based programmes can be used without e collars. To me, the major strength of the US approach is their disciplined step by step approach to training. The drills are fantastic as is the emphasis on keeping things simple and backing up when things get too confusing for the dog - ie simplify!. Carol Cassidy for instance has a book on training a retriever - drills and more. All of which can be done without a collar. Re FF - long before I had ever heard of US systems there was something called the trained retrieve which was all about holding and fetching from hand, etc. Very similar to FF but without the ear pinch. I have had a lot of success now with my dogs - the last three trained using US drills/programmes and would never go any other way. 

Some people here seem very quick to use the collar but the better trainers always emphasise the teaching rather than correcting! The correction comes later and relatively seldom with a well trained dog.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

_Some people here seem very quick to use the collar but the better trainers always emphasise the teaching rather than correcting! The correction comes later and relatively seldom with a well trained dog._

Oh, absolutely! It is unfair to pressure (or punish) a dog for things you've not taught. And dogs seem to have a strong sense of right/wrong, fair/unfair. Maybe that's an anthropomorphism but I believe it strongly. In any event, it's just stupid and destructive to punish when you haven't taught.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> But.. whatyagonnado when he stops fetching?


Thankfully, I've never had that happen either.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

pmw said:


> km - as has been already mentioned, most of the US based programmes can be used without e collars. To me, the major strength of the US approach is their disciplined step by step approach to training. The drills are fantastic as is the emphasis on keeping things simple and backing up when things get too confusing for the dog - ie simplify!. Carol Cassidy for instance has a book on training a retriever - drills and more. All of which can be done without a collar. Re FF - long before I had ever heard of US systems there was something called the trained retrieve which was all about holding and fetching from hand, etc. Very similar to FF but without the ear pinch. I have had a lot of success now with my dogs - the last three trained using US drills/programmes and would never go any other way.
> 
> Some people here seem very quick to use the collar but the better trainers always emphasise the teaching rather than correcting! The correction comes later and relatively seldom with a well trained dog.



Thanks everyone for all your useful input. Like I said at the outset, we will probably have to agree to disagree on the use of FF and e-collar. Those are just not 'tools' that I would use, but the structured approach and drills is certainly something that we could encompass in our training a lot more.

I know the differences in our games, particularly when it comes to retrieving over water and use of nose vs eyes, but there are also I believe some fundamental differences in our dogs too. The dogs I work with have biddability in spades, in addition to their desire to retrieve. So, whereas there are a lot of dogs out there that have a huge amount of desire and drive, many of them can be quite self-motivated in that they are doing it for their own love (and I guess this is where you try and square that off with FF? so they do it for you instead of themselves?). These are not the sort of dogs I want to work with. I prefer the ones that are just trying everything to please you (although I am aware of all the literature that says dogs largely act to please themselves...). I'm trying not to fall into the cliché of saying all your dogs are hard-going, headstrong, 'head bangers'!!! LOL but what I am saying is that I believe that some of ours are very much 'softer' and more biddable, quiet and steady, via years of selective breeding. They are triers and aiming to please, and when things do go wrong a quick sharp tone of the voice is really enough to register a 'correction'. 

Thanks for all your thoughts. I've found a copy of Smartworks, which I had forgotten I had on my shelf. So, am going to read through that (I already have that Carol Cassidy drill book, which is useful) and try and motivate myself to take a more structured approach to the training of my youngster for the new year.... Happy Training!


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> Thanks everyone for all your useful input. Like I said at the outset, we will probably have to agree to disagree on the use of FF and e-collar. Those are just not 'tools' that I would use, but the structured approach and drills is certainly something that we could encompass in our training a lot more.
> 
> I know the differences in our games, particularly when it comes to retrieving over water and use of nose vs eyes, but there are also I believe some fundamental differences in our dogs too. *The dogs I work with have biddability in spades, in addition to their desire to retrieve. So, whereas there are a lot of dogs out there that have a huge amount of desire and drive, many of them can be quite self-motivated in that they are doing it for their own love (and I guess this is where you try and square that off with FF? so they do it for you instead of themselves?). These are not the sort of dogs I want to work with.* I prefer the ones that are just trying everything to please you (although I am aware of all the literature that says dogs largely act to please themselves...). I'm trying not to fall into the cliché of saying all your dogs are hard-going, headstrong, 'head bangers'!!! LOL but what I am saying is that *I believe that some of ours are very much 'softer' and more biddable, quiet and steady, via years of selective breeding. They are triers and aiming to please, and when things do go wrong a quick sharp tone of the voice is really enough to register a 'correction'. *


L, we've always agreed to disagree, but seems just as with the e-collar and your (and consensus UK) thoughts way back when that we use the e-collar as a "last resort" in training a retriever or retrieving gundog rather than systematically and through the method known as "indirect pressure," force fetch is used on dogs with the greatest desire (and often the most sensitivity as well) as integral to a program - not for upping the desire, taming a headbanger, or "squaring" things on dogs that are not the sort you want to work with. So you've not fallen into cliche, but as Breck noted, maybe into misconception.

What we're trying to get through to you is, it doesn't matter the dog, its temperament, its nose, or its breed, if it's an American field trial dog (or British dog running American FTs:wink, it's going to be force fetched. And your speaking (in generalities) that "some of ours are very much 'softer' and more biddable, quiet and steady, via years of selective breeding," voila, these are the perfect candidates for force fetching, the e-collar and finding themselves in a program through samesaid for _*our*_ competition too.

Lastly, don't think genetics ("years of selective breeding" - which is our MO too in turning out the most athletic and intelligent dogs on the planet [speaking in generalities]) has a lot to do with steadiness, and know it doesn't confer or withhold any AC/DC gene or punishment absorbent gene (for FF) on anyone's _*breeding*_ program(me). 

And "sharp tone of voice" in issuing a correction at 350 yards would have to belong to Luciano Pavarotti - though again, you're still not understanding that indirect pressure is how 99% of our e-collar corrections are made; they're *not* based on amperage or zapping a dog unawares, but yes, to close this circle, it all comes back to programmatic training.

MG


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> Thankfully, I've never had that happen either.


Do you incorporate a quirt or heeling stick into your training? a slip lead? choke or prong collar?


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

crackerd said:


> L, we've always agreed to disagree, but seems just as with the e-collar and your (and consensus UK) thoughts way back when that we use the e-collar as a "last resort" in training a retriever or retrieving gundog rather than systematically and through the method known as "indirect pressure," force fetch is used on dogs with the greatest desire (and often the most sensitivity as well) as integral to a program - not for upping the desire, taming a headbanger, or "squaring" things on dogs that are not the sort you want to work with. So you've not fallen into cliche, but as Breck noted, maybe into misconception.
> 
> 
> MG


MG, that's absolutely unfair! I know exactly how the e-collar is used, and I am not disagreeing with it at all (we just don't use it). The way it is used in USA is the correct way to use it. The way it is used punitively, here, as a 'last resort' is totally the incorrect way to use it. I never at all implied that you use it for taming a head-banger or squaring up. So, I resent that implication.

I knew as soon as I mentioned the differences between our dogs I would be in for trouble! So, I retract all that, as it clearly doesn't sit well with you. I have my beliefs on that, but will keep them to myself in future. 

Clearly, I am completely misguided and I will have to accept that!

Like I said, I wasn't trying to pick an argument, just get some creative input, and largely this has been achieved. Thanks.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> Do you incorporate a quirt or heeling stick into your training? a slip lead? choke or prong collar?


No to all of the above, except a slip lead, which is used to signify the dog is not working, relaxed, and then taken off once work commences, under the judge. No idea even what a 'quirt' is?!! and somebody did try and explain 'heeling stick' to me once, but it looks a bit like a riding crop?..... Don't need any of those things.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> No to all of the above, except a slip lead, which is used to signify the dog is not working, relaxed, and then taken off once work commences, under the judge. No idea even what a 'quirt' is?!! and somebody did try and explain 'heeling stick' to me once, but it looks a bit like a riding crop?..... Don't need any of those things.


Yes both a quirt and a heeling stick are forms of riding crop. Awesome to see you working in such a positive manner. Wish you success.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

kennel maiden said:


> Thanks everyone for all your useful input. Like I said at the outset, we will probably have to agree to disagree on the use of FF and e-collar. Those are just not 'tools' that I would use, but the structured approach and drills is certainly something that we could encompass in our training a lot more.
> 
> I know the differences in our games, particularly when it comes to retrieving over water and use of nose vs eyes, but there are also I believe some fundamental differences in our dogs too. The dogs I work with have biddability in spades, in addition to their desire to retrieve. So, whereas there are a lot of dogs out there that have a huge amount of desire and drive, many of them can be quite self-motivated in that they are doing it for their own love (and I guess this is where you try and square that off with FF? so they do it for you instead of themselves?). These are not the sort of dogs I want to work with. I prefer the ones that are just trying everything to please you (although I am aware of all the literature that says dogs largely act to please themselves...). I'm trying not to fall into the cliché of saying all your dogs are hard-going, headstrong, 'head bangers'!!! LOL but what I am saying is that I believe that some of ours are very much 'softer' and more biddable, quiet and steady, via years of selective breeding. *They are triers and aiming to please, and when things do go wrong a quick sharp tone of the voice is really enough to register a 'correction'. *
> 
> Thanks for all your thoughts. I've found a copy of Smartworks, which I had forgotten I had on my shelf. So, am going to read through that (I already have that Carol Cassidy drill book, which is useful) and try and motivate myself to take a more structured approach to the training of my youngster for the new year.... Happy Training!


I assume that the reason your sharp tone of voice is effective is because the dog associates it with something bad. You scold it, it thinks, "Ruh oh! I'm gonna get it now!" Otherwise the dog would have no idea that the sharp tone meant something different than a normal tone. 

It appears that you believe that the correction you give your dogs by using a sharp tone is more fair than the correction I give my dog using an even tone of voice. I rarely need to press the button on the ecollar because my dog is in the habit of behaving, and my goal is to have my dog perform consistently without threatening her.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Good discussion, Kennel Maiden. Please don't take the biased comments personally. It happens when people are passionate about what works for them. And admire you for trying to get organized and more structured for the new year! I'm doing the same and it's a fun project. 

I'm glad you have had so much success in the past and I know exactly what you mean about the sharp tone being enough. 

Renee, there are some dogs who are born wanting to follow and be good little pack members, more than others. My dog is like this and has made long eye contact with people since she was 7 weeks old or younger. Any slight body movement or different tone, immediately gets her attention and gets her thinking of how to please. It's not that they associate it with something harsh or punitive, it's that they are instinctually sensitive to the difference.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

mitty said:


> I assume that the reason your sharp tone of voice is effective is because the dog associates it with something bad. You scold it, it thinks, "Ruh oh! I'm gonna get it now!" Otherwise the dog would have no idea that the sharp tone meant something different than a normal tone.
> 
> It appears that you believe that the correction you give your dogs by using a sharp tone is more fair than the correction I give my dog using an even tone of voice. I rarely need to press the button on the ecollar because my dog is in the habit of behaving, and my goal is to have my dog perform consistently without threatening her.


'Sharp tone' is an "ah ah" which is my marker for undesired behaviour, just as 'good girl' is my marker for good behaviour. I wouldn't really call it v threatening!!

I don't believe my correction is more fair than yours Renee! I've never met or passed comment on you or your dogs? Merely saying how I correct. Each to their own....


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Good discussion, Kennel Maiden. Please don't take the biased comments personally. It happens when people are passionate about what works for them. And admire you for trying to get organized and more structured for the new year! I'm doing the same and it's a fun project.
> 
> I'm glad you have had so much success in the past and I know exactly what you mean about the sharp tone being enough.
> 
> Renee, there are some dogs who are born wanting to follow and be good little pack members, more than others. My dog is like this and has made long eye contact with people since she was 7 weeks old or younger. Any slight body movement or different tone, immediately gets her attention and gets her thinking of how to please. It's not that they associate it with something harsh or punitive, it's that they are instinctually sensitive to the difference.


Jennifer, couldn't agree more!! Got it in a nutshell. 
Happy training. Looking forward to 2014.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

British, Irish, American, Chinese and Indian; they are all just Labs, they are the most versatile dog in the world, and they all have come from the same foundation stock as such they all have the same capabilities to succeed in any venue in any country, selective breeding for certain traits or not. Most of all and what we often fail to remember as we continuously clump these dogs, as being show (pretty yet slow), British(calm and stoic), American Field (Driven and Hard), is that every dog is an individual, every dog has some excellent traits and some that need work, No Perfect dog for any venue was ever born perfect, they were born with potential; the overall inherit versatility of the Labrador breed, and a few extra quirks from their parents. However we fail to realize *our* part in all of this, we see certain dogs in certain venues, because we ourselves take that potential and develop certain traits. We utilize methods that empathize this over that, to place a dog in a mold of what it should be to succeed in our chosen venue and we often remove individual dogs that don't fit that mold. Yet the lines still cross back and forth and they still all trace back to that foundation stock.

What it all comes down to, I've trained American Field (some are hard and driven, most are normal labs), I've trained a few imports,(some are calm, but they also have the potential to be maniacs, most are normal labs), I've trained show (some are slow with no instinct, most are just normal labs, which were never been developed toward the sport side). Point of it is you want a lab for your venue you buy a puppy from that stock (stack the odds a bit), but we do the Breed and the Keepers of the Breed an *Extreme Disservice* clumping dogs as being this or that. They are still all Labradors, they were developed for versatility, spectacular dogs for any venue can come from anywhere. That's the Point of having a Lab. 

There's Something to be said of a breed where, Joe-Blow with no real dog experience (aka Me starting out); can take a $200 penny-saver Labrador bitch, train her on the weekends (with Water-Dog ). Go out and run these HT< FT<OB<A thingies, hunt-track (birds, deer, people) Retrieve (rabbits, decoys, & beer). The dog is very capable and very happy to of do whatever is asked, sleeps on the couch, and rides in the passenger seat the other ~90% of the time.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Hunt'Em Up - the show and working labs in the UK are now so widely polarised they are almost two separate breeds! So, selective breeding really has taken it's toll. A few are trying for a 'dual purpose' lab again, but are not really attaining that goal. The last time there was a dual champion in this country for labs was half a century or more ago I believe? So, I don't agree a lab is a lab any more I am afraid. You couldn't take a UK show champion lab and put it into the field, and expect it to do anything purposeful. It would likely have a hard attack, and certainly wouldn't be jumping over anything. Likewise, some of our whippety, slim labs would just be laughed at in the show ring! So, I do believe we have moulded the breed for our own purposes. Otherwise we wouldn't all be seeking those special sires/dams to breed from. And the way you have moulded the breed for your game over there, I would contend, is somewhat different to how we are moulding the breed for our game over here. Of course it is. We are selecting the desirable traits for what we want in 'our' breed, be that looks, temperament or trainability...


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Good discussion, Kennel Maiden. Please don't take the biased comments personally. It happens when people are passionate about what works for them. And admire you for trying to get organized and more structured for the new year! I'm doing the same and it's a fun project.
> 
> I'm glad you have had so much success in the past and I know exactly what you mean about the sharp tone being enough.
> 
> Renee, there are some dogs who are born wanting to follow and be good little pack members, more than others. My dog is like this and has made long eye contact with people since she was 7 weeks old or younger. Any slight body movement or different tone, immediately gets her attention and gets her thinking of how to please. It's not that they associate it with something harsh or punitive, it's that they are instinctually sensitive to the difference.


I call B.S. Your dog has figured out how to read you. She does not instinctively know that a harsh voice means she is wrong. You have taught her what your body language and tone of voice mean.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

If it is true that the harsh voice or slight body language clearly etc. etc. is effective, then one could use that instead of the nick from the ecollar to communicate with the dog. Where Lardy nicks his dog, for example, just give yours the evil eye, and you would have the same result.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

*Hey Kennel Maiden*

In case you've not heard or read it yet, I'll repeat an old saying. The first time I ever saw it in print online, it was typed by my fingers. 

(although frankly, I probably heard it, or something like it, from someone else while training years ago)

_Question: What's the one thing two dog trainers are nearly sure to agree upon?
Answer: *That the third guy they're talking about is doing something wrong with his training. 

*_I have found that generally, you UK folks are masters at polite disagreement. Some of us North Americans....not so much.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

kennel maiden said:


> Hunt'Em Up - *the show and working labs in the UK are now so widely polarised they are almost two separate breeds! So, selective breeding really has taken it's toll.* A few are trying for a 'dual purpose' lab again, but are not really attaining that goal. The last time there was a dual champion in this country for labs was half a century or more ago I believe? So, I don't agree a lab is a lab any more I am afraid. You couldn't take a UK show champion lab and put it into the field, and expect it to do anything purposeful. It would likely have a hard attack, and certainly wouldn't be jumping over anything. Likewise, some of our whippety, slim labs would just be laughed at in the show ring! So, I do believe we have moulded the breed for our own purposes. Otherwise we wouldn't all be seeking those special sires/dams to breed from. And the way you have moulded the breed for your game over there, I would contend, is somewhat different to how we are moulding the breed for our game over here. Of course it is. We are selecting the desirable traits for what we want in 'our' breed, be that looks, temperament or trainability...


That is sad to hear. I thought only the US had messed that up!


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

I agree with you all !
For what it's worth KM ,and coming back to your original post. I believe we (uk) do have programs ,but probably better described as a 'Process' or 'Processes' that (we) as trainer/handlers follow,and if each part of the process is not completed then we don't proceed to the next _Level_.
So there is a Program! and it is usually unilateral following all the basics and yard work that is done on both sides of the pond and beyond!...For those that persue 'competition' This Process/Program takes off in a tangent to suit and follow the rules ,regulations and standards for the competitions _We_ are involved with.

There are some dogs that just don't fit' into (our program/process) in the UK ! That's why there are so many moved on as 'Not suitable for trialling?,So (we) can't say that (we) have the breeding right!

There are also many in the US that are moved in the same fasion ,and that may be due to the 'program' that the dog is on with whatever handler?.

In the 35 years I have been involved with Retrievers ,I know one certain thing ''None of them get up in the morning and decide they are gonna get this drill wrong! and none of them get up in the morning and decide they are gonna get this drill right!''....

Over the last 5-6 years I have learned from friends/colleagues in the US to incorporate many of the practices in Retriever training which has helped me to become a more 'systematic' and precise handler,and I can assure our friends accross the water that there are CC and FF ,and FTP methods used for Retriever training in the UK. (we) just ain't got Swim By yet.Probably because It's not a priority ''Yet''?

KM ,I believe is a positive trainer but not the puritanical version that is normally associated with the term,but Positive in the way that if the dog is already doing what you want 'Then why tell it'. She also operates at the highest level of competition. Now I however have the enviable task of working with all them dogs and owners who get the 'NOT SO GOOD' 

Like Chris said/quoted, Yea! , But there is common ground somewhere!? Jeezus! All mine are now cast off with a left hand! and they now do Right and left hand heeling!.....A few handlesrs I seen on the second day at The IGL Championships are doing the same 

Now KM , You must come up here to the frozen tundra again,I know you like Scotland,lets do some training on straight line blinds across 5 bodies of water with a few distractions on the way 
BTW, These Mericans are not all bad! They just shout alot!


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

mitty said:


> I call B.S. Your dog has figured out how to read you. She does not instinctively know that a harsh voice means she is wrong. You have taught her what your body language and tone of voice mean.


Wow Renee, you really are the dog guru. I bow down to your superior knowledge - just your diplomacy is a little lacking!


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Polmaise - will take you up on that!! We'll be up again in 2014, hopefully at Toms. We can compare sendaways then!


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> Polmaise - will take you up on that!! We'll be up again in 2014, hopefully at Toms. We can compare sendaways then!


 Look forward to it, Tom makes crap Tea,and he needs a new pair of legs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

kennel maiden said:


> Hunt'Em Up - the show and working labs in the UK are now so widely polarised they are almost two separate breeds!.


Welp with that stand point the only solution is to split your breed, Make you some U.K. Gentleman hunter Dogs, close your books to only a select group of field labs, those running & succeeding in the trials you choose. Throw out the majority of Labrador populations; the Show, the true working labs (seeing eye, detection, SAR), the Pets, the fanciers moving blood Internationally. It's only with closed books, and successive generations of off-spring; that you'll have solid proof of a different type of dog with different and defined characteristics. Until then blood and genes from the overall Labrador population will still go in and out, those pesky pets and working dogs will continue to cross the field and show lines back and forth. Until there's a definite split; A Lab is a Lab, out of the same foundation stock, anything can be crossed to anything, it'll still be registered as a Labrador. Myself I prefer not to trade in generalities; I'll just do what I've always done take an 8wk-6mt pup, train it for it's owner wants-needs (hunting, trials, therapy, SAR, what-have you), and actually see what it can do. I can't say I'm a fan of a big-ole show CH that comes out and tries to prove his field instinct by running working certificate, who at 4-5 yrs. old hasn't done anything but prance in a ring. However I've learned not to tell people, what their dog can and can't do, and I definitely won't say anything about any puppy's (out of any lines) potential. You start saying such to certain people and they make it their mission to show up at your trial and serve you a nice plate of crow. 

Generalities are true, only until they aren't; Had 2 show type labs, fall out of a mini-van and stomp my test. Both with a much drive as any Field stock. I didn't think Tanks could move like that. One passed, One broke on honor, beat the working dog to the bird. I don't blame the working dog; it's pretty intimidating to have a Rhino charging at yah with a bird . Now is this the norm? Perhaps not, but I won't be telling that handler that her dogs are not suited to the task. (crow served and eaten )


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

In the UK ,Eric Begbie ''tried to do a spreadsheet thing'' that according to some was a bit clinical and never allowed for the indivisual, and the Gundog club uk tried to almost make thier so called program a 'patent' ?,which wanted money for a run down on yard drills that could be found in the childrens library section I hear?.

Opportunity exists for an experienced Collar trainer from the US To 'Show us the way'?


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

polmaise said:


> In the UK ,Eric Begbie ''tried to do a spreadsheet thing'' that according to some was a bit clinical and never allowed for the indivisual, and the Gundog club uk tried to almost make thier so called program a 'patent' ?,which wanted money for a run down on yard drills that could be found in the childrens library section I hear?.
> 
> Opportunity exists for an experienced Collar trainer from the US To 'Show us the way'?


Didn't we export one a while back?!.... Comes back here periodically to supply commentary at the Home International.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> Didn't we export one a while back?!.... Comes back here periodically to supply commentary at the Home International.


Ahh!! but he has been 'Americanised' lol ..He did do a 'so -called ' collar roadshow ! , but it was just with his mates and had a good time with expenses 
He knows I'm having a larf!


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Renee, it's true my dog does know that when I say "no" it means I want her to stop doing what she's doing. I've even said it pretty sternly at times when I catch her eating cat poop in the woods. But I've never hit her or paired the word "No" with any physical aversive, chase down or other such threat. There are other dogs at my kennel business who hear my stern "No" and could care less. Some dogs are more sensitive and responsive than others. Some are born to lead and others to follow. My current prospect (Flyer) is super sensitive and responsive. My older washout show golden (Buck) acts deaf if I want to redirect his behavior. Not very sensitive or responsive. I'm not a good enough trainer to make much out of Buck, but I think Flyer is going to help me quite a bit!


----------



## Bartona500 (May 23, 2011)

kennel maiden said:


> Wow Renee, you really are the dog guru. I bow down to your superior knowledge - just your diplomacy is a little lacking!


LOL LOL

I will say, of all the convos on this blasted subject, this has been one of my favs!


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Renee, it's true my dog does know that when I say "no" it means I want her to stop doing what she's doing. I've even said it pretty sternly at times when I catch her eating cat poop in the woods. But I've never hit her or paired the word "No" with any physical aversive, chase down or other such threat. There are other dogs at my kennel business who hear my stern "No" and could care less. Some dogs are more sensitive and responsive than others. Some are born to lead and others to follow. My current prospect (Flyer) is super sensitive and responsive. My older washout show golden (Buck) acts deaf if I want to redirect his behavior. Not very sensitive or responsive. I'm not a good enough trainer to make much out of Buck, but I think Flyer is going to help me quite a bit!


My older dog could care a less what I said to him or in what tone I said it to him. The difference between he and my 4 yo is like night and day. The 4yo is very responsive to the tone of my voice. Like you say some dogs are more sensitive and responsive than others. Having dogs is fun! Reading them is even more fun!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Renee, it's true my dog does know that when I say "no" it means I want her to stop doing what she's doing. I've even said it pretty sternly at times when I catch her eating cat poop in the woods. But I've never hit her or paired the word "No" with any physical aversive, chase down or other such threat. There are other dogs at my kennel business who hear my stern "No" and could care less. Some dogs are more sensitive and responsive than others. Some are born to lead and others to follow. My current prospect (Flyer) is super sensitive and responsive. My older washout show golden (Buck) acts deaf if I want to redirect his behavior. Not very sensitive or responsive. I'm not a good enough trainer to make much out of Buck, but I think Flyer is going to help me quite a bit!


I am not challenging your training methods. I am challenging your assertion that your dog "instinctively" knows what the English language means, what tone of voice means, or what your body language means. Dogs are not born knowing these things.


----------



## Marissa E. (May 13, 2009)

Then why could I scream at my one beagle till Im blue in the face and she just keeps wagging and being silly but all I have to say to my other beagle is "Daizy what is this?" in a normal soft tone and she pees all over the floor and looks guilty. Both beagles were trained the same way, with the same commands and phrases used.

What causes this difference? Because beagle number 1 has proved a challenged to house break (and train in general) dispute the fact she is FC x FC for like 4 or 5 generations bred. The other beagle is a granddaughter of a SPOFC but otherwise an amish bred meat dawg.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

mitty said:


> I am not challenging your training methods. I am challenging your assertion that your dog "instinctively" knows what the English language means, what tone of voice means, or what your body language means. Dogs are not born knowing these things.


Sorry Renee, I'm not the best communicator. I knew you weren't challenging the methods and it wasn't my intention to assert that dogs instinctively know the English language. Just that some dogs are very responsive to interruptive sounds and words, which make it very easy to communicate to them what is incorrect and what is correct - even at a distance.

Jen


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Sorry Renee, I'm not the best communicator. I knew you weren't challenging the methods and it wasn't my intention to assert that dogs instinctively know the English language. Just that some dogs are very responsive to interruptive sounds and words, which make it very easy to communicate to them what is incorrect and what is correct - even at a distance.
> 
> Jen


And I knew that you knew that dogs are not born understanding the English language but I threw that in to make my point... 

I did think you were asserting that your dog was born knowing what your raised voice or body language meant. I'm glad we got that cleared up!

If we are ever in the same neck of the woods, I would love to see how you are progressing your dog without the ecollar etc. It looks really hard, to me. I had watched GDGNY's vid of his dog doing a blind, and I was really impressed with the snappy sit he got using methods like you use.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

KM This should keep you busy for a while..........
Here are links to pdf files you'll find interesting & useful. These were written about 10 years ago by a very good student of the US Field Trial "game", John Cavanaugh.
The folks at WeeBeGoldens.com have been kind enough to keep these files on their website.
I suggest you save them for future reference. 
Keep in mind that the "Manuals" have typo/format errors and were not meant for publication as gospel but were written as "outlines" for group discussion and training seminars. So.... many nitty gritty "details" and "answers" need to be found elsewhere. 
make of them as you will.
Cheers......

Dogs Hard Wired (show training flow with and without e-collar) may speak to the topic of this discussion.
The first page is flow with Handling only (no e-collar but lead and maybe crop) second page shows how e-collar comes into play in same flow progression)
http://www.weebegoldens.com/DogsHardWiring.pdf

John's Mega Master Manual
link to the MS Word file of this manual is first item on this Google search page. https://www.google.com/search?q=wee...v=210&q=weebegoldens+john+mega+master+manual+


John's Judging Manual
http://www.weebegoldens.com/JudgesManual/Judging Manual Version 5.0.pdf



John's Master Seminar Manual Ver1
http://www.weebegoldens.com/John Cavanaugh Master Seminar Ver 1.PDF


Agenda for John's Training Seminar 2000
http://www.weebegoldens.com/2000_jc.pdf


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Breck, thanks for those. They are useful to everyone.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> Breck, thanks for those. They are useful to everyone.


Ditto Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

No worries...
I always wished John could have formalized what he started, but not to be. Good stuff in those writings none the less.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Breck - thanks a million. Lots of great stuff to read there.  In fact, at this rate I'll be doing more reading than training!!! (which is a good thing seeing as the weather is lousy). Really useful resources. Thank you.

Just one question (well, a couple actually!) - on the flow diagram, top line "go/line/cast". What does that mean? Is that your basic sendaway? ie. go and fetch it/take a line from handler to retrieve? and what is a 'fetch' reach/extension, vs 'go/fetch'?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Um, I don't know lol.
Go As Sent on the LIne I indicate until I tell you otherwise. On a cast, follow direction I cast you until you get to bird or I tell you different. We do not refer to the send bit as a "cast" although is is sort of. 
Fetch Reach refers to a part of the Force Fetch process where you go from dog fetching dummy from your hand to fetching it off of the ground. Difficult transition for many dogs. Some trainers will hold one end of bumper off of the grond by throw rope so only one end touches ground to get dogs past this.
Hopefully I got that right...
You may gleen a bit more after having a chance to read the other docs. Much will be foreign terminolgy to you but you may sort much of it out.
.
Others better than me can probably write about the technical details more.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Even people on this side of the pond may have difficulty with John's writtings.
If anyone cares to write a little "dictionary" list of what some of the terminology means in John's Dogs Hardwired chart, that would probably be helpful to some.
.......


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

kennel maiden said:


> Breck - thanks a million. Lots of great stuff to read there.  In fact, at this rate I'll be doing more reading than training!!! (which is a good thing seeing as the weather is lousy). Really useful resources. Thank you.
> 
> Just one question (well, a couple actually!) - on the flow diagram, top line "go/line/cast". What does that mean? Is that your basic sendaway? ie. go and fetch it/take a line from handler to retrieve? and what is a 'fetch' reach/extension, vs 'go/fetch'?


Here is my interpretation of the diagram:

The boxes on the top line seem to be subject areas, so to speak. To teach "go" "follow a line" "take directional casts" you follow the flow chart down. To teach fetch/delivery you follow that line down. The skill sets merge as one skill is needed to complete traininv of another.

So, fetch/reach transitions to go/fetch. You teach the dog to fetch from your hand, extending the distance the dog must reach. You transition to fetch from the ground, extending the distance the dog must go to fetch. At some point you then incorperate the "return/here" skill, and the dog goes, fetches the object and returns.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

BBnumber1 said:


> Here is my interpretation of the diagram:
> 
> The boxes on the top line seem to be subject areas, so to speak. To teach "go" "follow a line" "take directional casts" you follow the flow chart down. To teach fetch/delivery you follow that line down. The skill sets merge as one skill is needed to complete traininv of another.
> 
> So, fetch/reach transitions to go/fetch. You teach the dog to fetch from your hand, extending the distance the dog must reach. You transition to fetch from the ground, extending the distance the dog must go to fetch. At some point you then incorperate the "return/here" skill, and the dog goes, fetches the object and returns.


Thanks, makes sense sort of. We don't do any of that teaching the dog to fetch from your hand or ground here. But we would look at tidying up delivery at some point later, if appropriate.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> We don't do any of that teaching the dog to fetch from your hand or ground here.


Sum on we Brummies does! 

I sometimes backchain the fetch command starting from the hand and transitioning to the ground with young Springers that are reluctant retrievers in a sort of "taught retrieve" that includes commands for "hold" and "dead". It's an adaptation of FF as espoused by James B Spencer. 

In the last few years I've reversed it for really sticky cases using clicker; starting off a few yards away and then coming to hand and release. This takes advantage of the progressive learning aspect; Fido doesn't have to get it right or even nearly right, just make a wee improvement in each session. 

Eug

PS, REF: JAMES B SPENCER "Hup! Training Flushing Spaniels the American Way".


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

I do wish there was a detailed sequential program out there that specifically covered non ecollar /non FF training. I have had good results with my hodgepodge method as well as using advice from Mr Robert Milner and the Wildrose DVD. However, I have seen some deficiencies in my training but I take full credit for that and attribute it to my own complacency. I have yet to have a refusal but 300 yarders with a strong tail wind have shown to be problematic as my 4 y/o relies heavily on his own nose and less on my instruction at times. But I will say he has impeccable blind manners and has picked up close to 100 birds this season saving me many many steps in the mucky marsh!


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> I do wish there was a detailed sequential program out there that specifically covered non ecollar /non FF training.


PB, "Training the Sporting Dog" published by the American Hunting Dog Club is an super presentation of non collar training, with an excellent sequential layout, stepwise progress and lots of self checking and result recording for the trainer. They do use FF but it isn't a central part of the deal. There is a section on aggressive dogs that I find a bit fanciful, but the rest is so very good that I forgive them  Highly recommended. 

Eug


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Colonel Blimp said:


> PB, "Training the Sporting Dog" published by the American Hunting Dog Club is an super presentation of non collar training, with an excellent sequential layout, stepwise progress and lots of self checking and result recording for the trainer. They do use FF but it isn't a central part of the deal. There is a section on aggressive dogs that I find a bit fanciful, but the rest is so very good that I forgive them  Highly recommended.
> 
> Eug



Thank You Sir!


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Kennel maiden explained to me in a PM that the electric collar is illegal in much of the UK and I suppose that for similar reasons there is huge opprobrium heaped upon anyone who uses the collar or even speaks the "e-word" in polite company in that part of the world. This all seems really silly to an American for two reasons.

First (and if you think about it, we could probably all agree on this one): The way the e-collar is used today (and I'm thinking of Hillman's system) the stimulation is almost imperceptible. That being the case, there is scant difference between the tactile buzz of the e-collar and the auditory sound of a clicker or even the verbal "atta dog". The advantage of the collar over a clicker and an "atta boy" is that at a distance, the timing of the stimulation is instantaneous and all things auditory are delayed sufficiently to distort their usefulness beyond even 50 yards/meters or so. In fact, poor timing on an auditory stimulus can screw the dog up. It's not neutral, it's detrimental.

Second (and this one will probably be divisive and I apologize in advance) making something like this illegal is so irritating for Americans. The "nanny-state-ism" that punishes the whole group for the stupidity of the minority of idiots that abuse something or just have rotten manners is just... wrong. Abusing dogs is evil. Make that illegal and enforce it vigorously. The e-collar is a tool. Nothing more or less.

(I've been in some serious pain today that renders me cranky and intolerant, and I've taken an opiate which disables most of my edit function. So please forgive if I've offended. I'm really not a butt-head ordinarily.)


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Kennel maiden explained to me in a PM that the electric collar is illegal in much of the UK and I suppose that for similar reasons there is huge opprobrium heaped upon anyone who uses the collar or even speaks the "e-word" in polite company in that part of the world. This all seems really silly to an American for two reasons.

First (and if you think about it, we could probably all agree on this one): The way the e-collar is used today (and I'm thinking of Hillman's system) the stimulation is almost imperceptible. That being the case, there is scant difference between the tactile buzz of the e-collar and the auditory sound of a clicker or even the verbal "atta dog". The advantage of the collar over a clicker and an "atta boy" is that at a distance, the timing of the stimulation is instantaneous and all things auditory are delayed sufficiently to distort their usefulness beyond even 50 yards/meters or so. In fact, poor timing on an auditory stimulus can screw the dog up. It's not neutral, it's detrimental.

Second (and this one will probably be divisive and I apologize in advance) making something like this illegal is so irritating for Americans. The "nanny-state-ism" that punishes the whole group for the stupidity of the minority of idiots that abuse something or just have rotten manners is just... wrong. Abusing dogs is evil. Make that illegal and enforce it vigorously. The e-collar is a tool. Nothing more or less.

(I've been in some serious pain today that renders me cranky and intolerant, and I've taken an opiate which disables most of my edit function. So please forgive if I've offended. I'm really not a butt-head ordinarily.)


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> Kennel maiden explained to me in a PM that the electric collar is illegal in much of the UK


That may be a misinterpretation.The use of e-collars is unlawful in Wales where I live; there are regular calls for them to be banned elsewhere, but thus far their use is still lawful in England, Scotland and N Ireland. They are used, but not widely in my experience and not as a regular part of training; more a trash breaking role. I'm not in the mainstream as much as I once was so things may have changed since I was alive.

In the instances that I've witnessed of their use over here the results were uniformly hopeless; the people didn't have a clue how to use them and the dogs remained the unruly noisy brutes they always were. Mind you I've seen someone bugger up a dog using clicker, so I guess it's true, "You can't cure stupid". 

BTW population of England / Scotland / NI = 60 million; population of Wales = 3 million. 

Eug


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Colonel Blimp said:


> "You can't cure stupid".
> 
> BTW population of England / Scotland / NI = 60 million; population of Wales = 3 million.
> 
> Eug


There is a place in England where 3 million are stupid Eug and a place in Wales where none of them are


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Colonel Blimp said:


> "You can't cure stupid".
> 
> BTW population of England / Scotland / NI = 60 million; population of Wales = 3 million.
> 
> Eug


There is a place in England where 3 million are stupid Eug and a place in Wales where none of them are


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

While it's not really a program, some of the old Bill Tarrant books present a non-collar system. Worth looking at.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

*training programs*



Colonel Blimp said:


> That may be a misinterpretation.The use of e-collars is unlawful in Wales where I live; there are regular calls for them to be banned elsewhere, but thus far their use is still lawful in England, Scotland and N Ireland. They are used, but not widely in my experience and not as a regular part of training; *more a trash breaking role.* I'm not in the mainstream as much as I once was so things may have changed since I was alive.
> 
> In the instances that I've witnessed of their use over here the results were uniformly hopeless; the people didn't have a clue how to use them and the dogs remained the unruly noisy brutes they always were. Mind you I've seen someone bugger up a dog using clicker, so I guess it's true, "You can't cure stupid".
> 
> ...


That is basically how the collar was used here in the beginning ... A punishment tool...The programs of today are far more kinder and gentler now than then ... A whole different concept of use...by most....Steve S


----------

