# Reason for Force fetch?????



## ctfdworkman (Feb 13, 2011)

If a dog is retriveing well what is the purpose of force fetching?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I would love to hear your theory on why.


----------



## Brian Courser (Feb 10, 2010)

To make sure that when the dog doesn't want to retrieve you have a way to have them retrieve. Why do you teach your dog to walk at heel all the time when he will do so in the yard. or why do you teach your dog that sit means sit regardless of what else is happening. So that you will have a dog that will do it's job and be a pleasure to work with. Those are my thoughts I am sure that others will post thier thoughts. I would ask back to you why would you not? And what insurance do you have that your dog would pick up what you wanted them to everytime?


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I would love to hear your theory on why.


 
ctfdworkman, welcome to RTF.

I would say that "Force Fetch" is probably the most discussed topic in the history of RTF.

Please let me apologize for Packleader's curt response above. We really need to treat new folks with the respect and courtesy that we'd appreciate if we were the new guy.

I took a quick look at your post history. I see that you've mentioned your young pup. You've asked about hunt tests. You've asked about teaching a pup to sit on a whistle. You've asked about when to collar condition.

I just want to caution that you are best off embracing a training program and adhering to it. Force fetch is a fairly standard building block in many of the most commonly used training programs for North American retrievers used for hunt tests, trials and hunting.

If you hit the FAQ link at the top and look at "general forum usage", you will find some instructions on how to do a search. There are hundreds of threads available on RTF that discuss Force Fetch.

I would advise against using any of those threads to try and implement a FF regimen with a pup. I would advise that you arm yourself with some programs and instructional material to study the overall flow and program its entirety.

My suggestion is that you check out the link at the top of the page for TotalRetriever.com and check out, at a very minimum, the volume I articles for $24.95. There's a comprehensive TRT 2nd edition DVD series available as well.

Rick Stawski's Fowl Dawgs and Evan Graham's Smartworks are other programs that will walk you through these steps and how they fit together. 

Good luck and welcome to RTF.

I'd also suggest you find a local retriever club and some folks in your area who are open to having you join their training sessions. 

Force fetch is NOT a requirement. Force Fetch has many more purposes that just getting a retriever to pick up and deliver an object. There are lots of ways to skin a cat. 

I doubt that I will ever train a retriever in the future without going through a FF regimen and the incorporation of that into a stepwise training progression. 

Good luck!

Chris


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I'm not trying to be mean I just wanted to hear what his thoughts are on why you would want to FF a dog.


----------



## Boo Dog (Mar 21, 2011)

ctfdworkman, 

Let me preface this by saying that I am very green amateur, but just thought my experience might help you to make a decision. 

I was where you are about 6 months ago. I had my first retriever pup and just couldn't understand why in the world you would FF a retriever. After all, all I wanted was a dog that would go pick up my ducks. After being told time and time again by close friends who are much more versed in the dog world I reluctantly begin the FF process. 

I am SO glad that I did it. It turned my average-drive dog into a well oiled machine.

I did most of the process myself with daily over-the-phone guidance from TWO trainers. Like chris said, get yourself a proven program and stick to it, join a local club, or even better, do both. 

Hope that helps


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I'm not trying to be mean I just wanted to hear what his thoughts are on why you would want to FF a dog.


Call it whatever you'd like. One thing I'd not call it is "friendly". 

Another I'd not call it is "helpful".

Chris


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I agree with what Chris's advice was to you.

One other thing I would add, since you are asking all kinds of questions about "sit" ,,"Collar",, is that you make an effort to find a GOOD training group in your area, and see if they will let you join in! 

There is alot more to FF than just having the dog retrieve.
Its more about the dog understanding pressure.

Gooser


----------



## Swampbilly (May 25, 2010)

MooseGooser said:


> There is alot more to FF than just having the dog retrieve.
> Its more about the dog understanding pressure.
> 
> Gooser


+1..and how it's turned off!


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

What others are eluding to is FF is a "conditioning tool" that is used as a lead in for the more advanced portion of "basics". Without FF other things will take two or three times as long to teach, which equates to more pressure being put on the dog.

Almost all of these dogs will retrieve a bumper/bird when it is thrown or shot for them, but will they deliver a bird fit for the table, or will they munch on it a little? Will the dog bring the bird all the way back, or will it set the bird down and shake when it gets out of the water? Does the dog give you the bird/bumper, or do you have to take from the dog? FF gives you a way to resolve those issues.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

ctfdworkman if you have to ask this question it means you don't know what the modern steps are in training an advanced retriever. 

So you have to ask yourself what your goals with your dog are. Trainers much smarter than I, have developed an entire program for training retrievers in which force fetch is the first step. So if you want an advanced retriever you would force fetch as the first step in a step by step program.

Or, you could wing it and make up your own program. Good luck with that.

Of course, you could be a troll just trying to rile the natives.


----------



## Meleagris1 (Dec 10, 2010)

ctfdworkman said:


> If a dog is retriveing well what is the purpose of force fetching?


Force fetch basically removes the "if".


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

The purpose of force fetch is twofold:
1. To become a nonslip retriever. Dog gets and retrieves no matter what the circumstances.
2. Teaches the dog to deal with and learn how to escape pressure.

Now that you have an answer you need to reread and follow the advise given by Chris.


----------



## Ryan M (Feb 6, 2010)

I am a first time dog trainer. My dog retrieved very well and has a high drive. She was 50/50 on bringing the bumper/bird back to my hand. Now that I have force fetched trained she brings bumper/bird back to heel every time. Also, I can tell she understands the concept on what we are both trying to achieve as a team now. Since force fetching training has also gotten ALOT more fun and not as frustrating...


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

ctfdworkman said:


> If a dog is retriveing well what is the purpose of force fetching?


ctfdworkman, 

you will hear all kinds of claims for what force fetch will do for your dog around here, and the better of the trainers here will disavow the more outrageous claims. But, force fetch *is* controversial, as Chris has eluded to. The reason it's controversial is not a matter of results, it's simply that force fetch involves inflicting pain upon your dog to get him to do something he is, by virtue of breeding, willing to do in the first place. In fact, all of force/pressure training is similar in one regard. Force/pressure is not used to teach...it is used to confirm, assure, solidify, reinforce, generalize...add any similar term you like for trying to get the most reliable response to an already learned command, concept, task. The key concept is....'already learned'.

There's good people on this forum that don't like inflicting pain on their dogs...pure and simple. Hats off to them! But, never-the-less, they force fetch their dogs because they genuinely believe that it teaches their dogs to avoid pressure (pain) in the long term by complying, and their belief that you can't get reliable results otherwise, and therefore the pain is justifiable. 

There's some justification for making that decision because it works! 'Positive punishment' followed by 'negative reinforcement' is a powerful training tool. But, no method is 100% reliable...although you may hear suggestions otherwise. The question is...is there an alternative? And, the answer is 'Yes, there is!'.

Snick


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

So what is your answer.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> is there an alternative? And, the answer is 'Yes, there is!'


Snick, you stopped to soon. What is the alternative and how well does it train dogs? Can you give us the names of some acomplished dogs who have been trained this way? The trainers?

Pass the popcorn regards,


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

"Force-fetching is the procedure whereby the dog is trained to pick up an object on _command_. Owners of talented young dogs with loads of natural retrieving desire often insist their dog doesn't 'need" to be force-fetched. They mistakenly assume that trainers force-fetch in order to make up for deficiencies in certain dogs' natural retrieving abilities.

It is certainly possible to hunt successfully with an unforced dog, but your training foundation will be a house of cards that can collapse one day when your dog's natural inclination conflict with your commands. A dog that has never been force-fetched may quit retrieving altogether when corrected or admonished for misbehavior."

Mike Lardy Training with Mike Lardy Volume I


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Howard N said:


> Snick, you stopped to soon. What is the alternative ........,


the alternative Howard,
is payin' $75 to enter and goin' out 
in the first when Rover blinks a flapper!
click - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUt0AUDfHvo


.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Depends on what you are wanting to accomplish. It is not necessary for a good hunting dog IMO. I had to FF my last dog and thank god I did. However,I do not plan on FF my current pup.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Snick, you stopped to soon. What is the alternative and how well does it train dogs? Can you give us the names of some accomplished dogs who have been trained this way? The trainers?
> 
> Pass the popcorn regards,


not gonna get in this urinating match ..but I know of more than one


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Who was the last FC that was not FFed in the US?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

tom said:


> Who was the last FC that was not FFed in the US?


I'll give you a hint, they were both raised in your area and one of them won 3 doubleheaders and was a National Finalist...


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

So Snick, you been asked at least twice for your alternative but you've chosen not to answer.
Are we game playing here or do you have something of value to contribute to that position?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

ctfdworkman said:


> If a dog is retriveing well what is the purpose of force fetching?


 The purpose is for when your dog *STOPS* retrieving well. 

And he/she will eventually give you a refusual or do something really bonkers, like blink a wounded flier, or pee on a rotten duck, or decided to take a plump young hen behind the bushes to be de-boned. Don't think it can't/won't happen to you? Just wait..............


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Pals said:


> .... or decided to take a plump young hen behind the bushes to be de-boned...............


gosh that sounds dirty when you say it Nancy 





.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Who me? 

Now why ever would one think that? It's the ho boots again isn't it?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> gosh that sounds dirty when you say it Nancy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You would know,

Large Nipple Wench Wanted Regards,

WRL


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Quote By Ms Pals:

........ or decided to take a plump young hen behind the bushes to be de-boned. Don't think it can't/won't happen to you? Just wait.

:shock::shock::shock::shock:


OH GRRRRRRRRRR Baby GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!:razz:


Gooser


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Pals said:


> Who me?
> 
> Now why ever would one think that? It's the ho boots again isn't it?


Nope...its the ho ho ho brain......

WRL


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Snicklefritz said:


> There's some justification for making that decision because it works! 'Positive punishment' followed by 'negative reinforcement' is a powerful training tool. But, no method is 100% reliable...although you may hear suggestions otherwise. The question is...is there an alternative? And, the answer is 'Yes, there is!'.
> 
> Snick


A 2Q Golden received a JAM at a Field Trial on Friday. The Sunday before that, a positively trained Tervuren finished her OTCH. The assertion that you MUST use force to find success in ________ venue is having holes poked in it. 

It is a more difficult path? Youbetcha. 

Is it because the training method is just plain inferior? I don't think so. 

The 2Q trainer is, for the most part, on their own. If you're using an e-collar or a choke chain, how many highly successful people can you turn to when you run into a problem? When you throw out those well-established tools and pick up different ones, you have to figure out how to use them all by yourself. And even with that huge disadvantage, they're still achieving traditional definitions of success.


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

With all due respect, the two examples you quoted don't fit my view of "still achieving traditional definitions of success".


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> ctfdworkman,
> 
> you will hear all kinds of claims for what force fetch will do for your dog around here, and the better of the trainers here will disavow the more outrageous claims. But, force fetch *is* controversial, as Chris has eluded to. The reason it's controversial is not a matter of results, it's simply that force fetch involves inflicting pain upon your dog to get him to do something he is, by virtue of breeding, willing to do in the first place. In fact, all of force/pressure training is similar in one regard. Force/pressure is not used to teach...it is used to confirm, assure, solidify, reinforce, generalize...add any similar term you like for trying to get the most reliable response to an already learned command, concept, task. The key concept is....'already learned'.
> 
> ...


and this is exactly why you never understand FF. You equate it to nothing more than putting your dog in pain. It is not about pain. It is about understanding pressure, teaching the dog a work ethic and how to deal with stressful situations properly. Its exactly the same as what humans have to learn growing up, how to handle life's pressure and work through it. Course today's world doesn't believe in that, therefore pharmaceutical companies are filthy rich.....

/Paul


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

I think FF is a great step in the learning process, and my dogs all come out better students after the process. And it's never been that big of a deal, a little stressful at times, more mental than otherwise. Mostly the stress is just from them learning the process, but I believe it reduces the stress in learning other things down the road. The dogs always get excited when they know it's time to FF just as the do when they know it's time to run marks.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> and this is exactly why you never understand FF. You equate it to nothing more than putting your dog in pain. It is not about pain. It is about understanding pressure, teaching the dog a work ethic and how to deal with stressful situations properly. Its exactly the same as what humans have to learn growing up, how to handle life's pressure and work through it. Course today's world doesn't believe in that, therefore pharmaceutical companies are filthy rich.....
> 
> /Paul


I'm about as green as you can get when it comes to training a dog. But, in preparing for my new pup, I have come to realize that I was force fetched as a child. I was taught that I needed to do what my parents asked of me (being taught), whether I wanted to or not, and there were consequences if I bucked that system (pressure or correction). Whether or not I received "pressure" or "correction" was completely in my hands; I could avoid it by compliance, or doing what was expected. I think Paul's point about the phamaceutical companies is well taken here.

If you don't want to use this technique, fine by me. It's your dog and you shoud do whatever you think is best just like I will. I can't understand why you wouldn't do this, as it seems to have many more benefits than just making sure they go get the bird every time.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> ctfdworkman,
> 
> you will hear all kinds of claims for what force fetch will do for your dog around here, and the better of the trainers here will disavow the more outrageous claims. But, force fetch *is* controversial, as Chris has eluded to. The reason it's controversial is not a matter of results, it's simply that force fetch involves inflicting pain upon your dog to get him to do something he is, by virtue of breeding, willing to do in the first place. In fact, all of force/pressure training is similar in one regard. Force/pressure is not used to teach...it is used to confirm, assure, solidify, reinforce, generalize...add any similar term you like for trying to get the most reliable response to an already learned command, concept, task. The key concept is....'already learned'.
> 
> ...


Chuck,

I am asking you publicly to discontinue your posts in Force Fetch threads on RTF. 

If you want to discuss any specifics regarding this request, please contact me. Hopefully this request is clear and will not drive the need for detailed discussion.

Thanks, Chris


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> A 2Q Golden received a JAM at a Field Trial on Friday. The Sunday before that, a positively trained Tervuren finished her OTCH. The assertion that you MUST use force to find success in ________ venue is having holes poked in it.


What FT stake? Finishing is success to some but it often doesn't lead to much more. If people want success in FT, they eventually turn to a pro who CC ad uses the collar and then they say the dog was positive trained but not "only."


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

ctfdworkman said:


> If a dog is retriveing well what is the purpose of force fetching?


Back to your origional question.

While for new trainers and some not so new trainers, who for whatever reasons, don't (won't) understand the value of forcing something that they believe to be a natural ability, it's about far more than delivery to hand and mouth habits. 

It is the establishment of conditioned response to trained commands. All trained commands,not just "fetch". Think of it as boot camp/basic training for military service.
Recruits know when they sign up that they will be required to respond to the Sargent's orders before they get their hair cut and put on the uniform. But their response to the orders won't become 2nd nature until the end of bootcamp. In the process the absolute establishment of the trainer's statis in the dog/man relationship is established.(a point that a lot of the authors of books and programs today leave out, but IMO is crucial in the understanding of FF)

Done correctly and thoroughly the dog not only learns to "work through" or "beat" the pressure (IMO more of a product of the process than the purpose) but he is conditioned in the psych 101 sence of the word to respond to all commands. This gives both the dog and handler the tools and confidence to concentrate on the job at hand.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Bert


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

To give a different perspective, I will offer this:

My goals are to develop training protocols that produce the essential gundog behaviors without pressure. After a few years of blundering around, I have gotten semi proficient at it. 

My performance standard is an excellent gundog. I define that as a dog that has excellent manners in a high distraction environment (lots of shooting and ducks falling) and a dog that retrieves all the birds (cripples first) with a minimum of work and noise from the handler.

I have forced fetched a great number of dogs over the years but I no longer do it. I simply teach delivery to hand as a game. It works great.
I do not need force fetch to train a response to pressure since I use little to no pressure. Here is the game:
It is simply paying delivery to hand with a short retrieve:


Playing fetch from ground with Buccleuch Temperance​Reinforcing delivery to hand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrOkq9fsSkI


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

There is a new sticky over at the refuge that explains force fetch and it's pros and cons. Something similar might be very useful here to at least provide a basic education on the subject in order to then make follow up questions more useful.

It seems like Evan posted something similar here in a recent thread. In fact, it may be the same thing that's posted at the fuge.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Chuck,
> 
> I am asking you publicly to discontinue your posts in Force Fetch threads on RTF.
> 
> ...


As you wish, Chris. Your post is the clearest expression of denial and pain I've read here.

Peace and Health - Chuck


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Rick_C said:


> There is a new sticky over at the refuge that explains force fetch and it's pros and cons. Something similar might be very useful here to at least provide a basic education on the subject in order to then make follow up questions more useful.
> 
> It seems like Evan posted something similar here in a recent thread. In fact, it may be the same thing that's posted at the fuge.


As I read the orgional post the question was why we do it. Not weather or not to do it. 

Only a couple people have answered his question.

Bert


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Chuck,
> 
> I am asking you publicly to discontinue your posts in Force Fetch threads on RTF.
> 
> ...


 
*THANK YOU CHRIS!*


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Reason for force fetch ?????


If you are a new trainer and trying to decide whether or not to do FF, the intelligent approach would be to first accept that there are opposing views. That's the easy part. 

Here's my reason for doing FF. Choices make more sense after doing. Work a program that uses FF on your first dog. Then on the next use a non-FF approach. You could reverse the order but that would not alter the rationale. To repeat, choices make more sense after doing. 

On the other hand, you could just blindly accept my experience. I have four dogs that have strictly followed FF programs. They are titled and pleasure to hunt with. They are not "firebreathers" all the time and are fun dogs to be with. So I can tell you from my experience FF programs are effective and a plus was it's easy to find help when needed. 

Then again, I haven't got a clue about how well my dogs would have done using a non-force program. As one might expect, there are beliefs that the two approaches do not always target the same final product. The "grey" areas perpetuate threads like this. 

In conclusion, I will add this, successful training depends a great deal more on teaching skills than a curriculum......but it is wise to have long term expectations based on working knowledge. The reason for doing FF......do it so you will know.


----------



## holly krohn (Feb 26, 2010)

wrong thread arrrgg


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

rbr said:


> As I read the orgional post the question was why we do it. Not weather or not to do it.
> 
> Only a couple people have answered his question.
> 
> Bert


Right. But understanding what force fetch is and is not would/could help explain the "why", no? I know for my first dog,
once I understood the "why", I was able to decide on the "whether". This is basically what the post did. 

Just a thought...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> As you wish, Chris. Your post is the clearest expression of denial and pain I've read here.
> 
> Peace and Health - Chuck


Chuck,

Thank you sincerely for your cooperation with this request.

Chris


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

NP, Chris...condolences and deepest sympathy.

Deepest sympathy to the dogs too!

Snick


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

*What You Should Know About Force Fetch*
An Introduction

It won’t go away! On every Internet discussion forum, or pretty much any gathering place for retriever enthusiasts there are trainers with questions and ideas about force fetch. The topic of conversation may be a new perspective, or some technique someone heard about that they want to discuss. Usually, though, it’s a question from someone who just doesn’t understand it, or some part of it.

“But we are training dogs that have natural drive to retrieve!”

“Why would I want to force my dog to do something he does naturally?”... goes the frequently asked question. After all, retrievers are bred to retrieve by instinct, aren’t they? We would all like to think so, but many are bred just to sell, i.e. puppy mills. Many others are bred with objectives other than retrieving, such as those engineered for their appearance alone, i.e. the show ring. But our focus is on working dogs – dogs bred to do the work for which the breed was established, hunting; bringing game to hand. Why would you need to force a dog like that to do the very work he’s been bred for?

You see, it’s the absence of information along with a love for the dog that drives such inquiries. It’s reasonable, and it’s a question that begs to be answered. So, perhaps this insight will help clear up some of the misunderstandings about this very important subject. Certainly, there is nothing new about people seeking an alternative to doing it – frequently because they have just enough information about it to think it’s something that it isn’t. I think it’s that word, force. A new trainer often hears that word and gets an instant mental image that sends them running the other way!

It won’t go away, and for good reason. Let’s start by clearing up what force fetch actually is (or isn’t).

The Myths

More appropriately, there are more misperceptions than myths surrounding the process of force fetching retrievers. I think it starts with the term force. To the novice trainer/dog lover that word summons visions of a dog being thrashed or brutalized in some way or another. There are stories, some true, some contrived, about harsh measures being used to force fetch, like using bottle openers, pliers, etc. Nothing like that will appear as a suggestion in this text because it has nothing to do with how I approach it. Let’s start there and clear the air about that subject.

Force: In retriever training this is a term that describes the use of pressure to achieve a sure and reliable response. Influence that moves something, says the dictionary. The amount of pressure is specified more by the dog than by the trainer. Often very little actual pressure is needed.
Pressure: something that affects thoughts and behavior in a powerful way, usually in the form of several outside influences working together persuasively.

Nowhere in any definition of these terms is abuse or brutality, nor should it be. Like many things, force and pressure are either good or bad depending on how they are applied.

Another misperception is often the assumption that retrievers do all of their retrieving functions by nature, and shouldn’t need to be forced. Frankly, about all that dogs do by nature is to chase after motion, and follow their curiosity about what they smell. We cultivate the rest, both passively and through the use of pressure. Even the most basic puppy-fetch conditioning we all do to get them started is an act we contrive. These dogs retrieve out of self-centered impulses. Bringing birds to us is not a nature-driven act. Thankfully, it can be easily engineered!

Take a well-bred pup and turn him loose in a fenced yard for three years, or so. Leave him strictly to the influences of nature. Then go out one day and see how well he does on the type of retrieving work that would make him useful in game conservation. Compare his work to even an average gun dog with amateur training. How do you think it would come out? No brainer! Whatever natural gifts a dog may have, without some kind of guidance they will tend to be of little value.

It’s not a negative statement that retrievers need training to do the work we need them to do in the field and marsh. That type of work requires a dog to have good natural abilities, but also to be taught how to put those abilities to work because the skills and functions we require are our idea. We invented them. It’s okay. That’s why dogs and trainers are so often referred to as a team. Both contribute to the effort.

The Reality

First of all, force fetch is more than just one thing. It is a definable process with clear goals. But, within the process are several steps or phases. Those steps will be laid out later, but first let’s examine the goals.

1. To establish a standard for acceptable mouth habits.
2. To provide the trainer with a tool to maintain those habits.
3. To provide the trainer with a tool to assure compliance with the command to retrieve.
4. To form the foundation for impetus (momentum).
5. Pressure conditioning.

Mouth habits include such important items as fetching on command, even when your dog may be distracted, or moody, or any number of things that might interfere with compliance. Sure, you may get away for years without having such problems, but being smart and being lucky are not the same thing. Force fetch gives you a tool to handle this when it comes up, plus some insurance that it is less likely to come up due to this training.

Along with compulsion issues we need to mention a proper hold, and delivery on command. If my pheasant is punctured I want it to be from pellets, not teeth. That actually covers some ground in all of the first three categories.

Let’s spend a little time on number four. Lots of people use the terms momentum and style interchangeably. I think it’s important to distinguish between the two because of how they relate to this subject. Force fetch is the foundation of trained momentum, and provides a springboard into subsequent steps of basic development. Style has little to do with this. Here’s why.

Style: A combination of speed, enthusiasm, and just plain hustle that you see in a dog going toward a fall. Style is the product of natural desire and athleticism.
Momentum: In a retriever, the compulsion from the dog’s point of origin; defined in the dictionary as “the force possessed by a body in motion,*Measure of movement:*a quantity that expresses the motion of a body and its resistance to slowing down. It is equal to the product of the body’s mass and velocity”.

Clearly, this quality is a tremendously valuable asset in the running of blinds and overcoming diversion pressure. It even applies to running long marks, and/or marks through tough cover or terrain. When you need a dog to drive hundreds of yards against the draining influences of terrain, cover, re-entries, and all of the real and perceived factors that are so commonly momentum-robbing, having a dog with a reservoir of momentum is immensely valuable. Force fetch is where that reservoir is established, and can be built upon.

From the foundation of a forced fetch most modern methods progress through stages that continue to build on this principle. Stick fetch, Collar Condition to fetch, Walking fetch, Force to pile, and Water force are all extensions of the work we do in ear pinch or toe hitch, which are popular means to get it all going. When a dog has finished such a course the result is an animal far more driven, with much more resolve to overcome obstacles and distance and distractions.

Lest we forget ~

I am not suggesting that we harm or abuse dogs in any of this force work I’ve spoken of. The late Jim Kappes said, “A properly forced dog shouldn’t look forced”. I completely agree. Momentum and style are distinct terms, each with their own meanings, as pertains to retrievers. I firmly believe that both are traits that should co-exist in a well-trained retriever.

Intro from SmartFetch. You gentlemen would do well to meet more credible trainers. And I don't mean just "pros", as all that is required to be a pro is to take money for it, even if it's under false pretenses. Quality trainers of retreivers do not take part in the practices mentioned.

Evan


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Thanks Evan, that's exactly what I was talking about.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> NP, Chris...condolences and deepest sympathy.
> 
> Deepest sympathy to the dogs too!
> 
> Snick


I am not going to play this game.

I responded to your private message.

Thanks.... You get the last word Chuck...reply nicely please and then let's close this.\

For what it's worth, the original poster has PM'd me and indicated that he does indeed intend to follow a FF program with his pup. My dogs only need condolences for my business travel, which cuts down on their time training and afield. They need no condolences for the treatment they receive, nor for the training methods I emply.

Chris


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> They need no condolences for the treatment they receive, nor for the training methods I emply.
> Chris


Of course they don't, and neither do all the rest of the dogs owned by members of this forum.
How offensive for someone to imply otherwise.

These dogs have better lives than most humans..


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

cakaiser said:


> Of course they don't, and neither do all the rest of the dogs owned by members of this forum.
> How offensive for someone to imply otherwise.
> 
> These dogs have better lives than most humans..


as I sit here watching my dog who got a ton of rewards yesterday, lay here sleeping it off while I work, I tend to agree Charlotte


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

It's just a way for our fast paced society to get to an end goal. The same goal can be met by many other alternatives, but may take longer, or may be quicker. People who do it love it and swear by it, people who don't don't see what the big deal is. Again it's just a tool to get to an end goal. I tried FFing my pup but he didn't take to it. Took a break with him from training and now using only positive reinforcement and I couldn't have asked for a better retriever. Again I made it to the end goal, but it took a little longer. 

I suspect people that only think FF is the answer are the same ones who pay a trainer to board, train, and run "their" dog. Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

You said it well, Charlotte. No condescending sympathy needed for our dogs. Can anyone say passive-aggressive???


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

agengo02 said:


> I suspect people that only think FF is the answer are the same ones who pay a trainer to board, train, and run "their" dog. Can't we all just get along?


It is because of nifty little remarks like this from non FF posters that creates much of the "not getting along".


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

agengo02 said:


> It's just a way for our fast paced society to get to an end goal. The same goal can be met by many other alternatives, but may take longer, or may be quicker. People who do it love it and swear by it, people who don't don't see what the big deal is. Again it's just a tool to get to an end goal. I tried FFing my pup but he didn't take to it. Took a break with him from training and now using only positive reinforcement and I couldn't have asked for a better retriever. Again I made it to the end goal, but it took a little longer.
> 
> I suspect people that only think FF is the answer are the same ones who pay a trainer to board, train, and run "their" dog. Can't we all just get along?


Maybe, its a lack of training ability from people who are unable to train a dog and want to make excuses. One can't say "they could not have asked for a better retriever" until said retriever has completed his lifetime and there are many OTHER retrievers to compare to.

You say you made it to the "end goal"? What exactly was that? Delivery to hand? If that's your "end goal" then great, but its not the "end goal" for MOST people. 

Regards from a force fetch advocate who does all her own training, boarding, feeding, handling and shoveling ****,

WRL


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

agengo02 said:


> It's just a way for our fast paced society to get to an end goal. The same goal can be met by many other alternatives, but may take longer, or may be quicker. People who do it love it and swear by it, people who don't don't see what the big deal is. Again it's just a tool to get to an end goal. I tried FFing my pup but he didn't take to it. Took a break with him from training and now using only positive reinforcement and I couldn't have asked for a better retriever. Again I made it to the end goal, but it took a little longer.
> 
> I suspect people that only think FF is the answer are the same ones who pay a trainer to board, train, and run "their" dog. Can't we all just get along?


Yes, we can all get along. That's the goal of the RTF culture. We can disagree in a civil manner and learn from both sides of most debates/discussions.

One way to get along is to avoid making broad-brushed generalizations about how RTF folks train. 

I prefer to FF and doubt that I will have any retrievers that I train that are not FF. I started training in the late 1970's and have had a few dogs, both force broken and not. I have never paid a pro to train, handle, board or run any of my dogs.

If you are getting results that please you, don't sweat it. FF is not abuse. 

Some of us amateurs emulate the programs introduced by pros. Why? Because it gives wonderful results. If you get results through other means, good for you. Good for your dog.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

agengo02 said:


> I couldn't have asked for a better retriever.
> 
> I suspect people that only think FF is the answer are the same ones who pay a trainer to board, train, and run "their" dog.
> 
> Can't we all just get along?


Was this a multiple time NFC? Becasue if not, you sure could have asked for a better retriever  

On the second point you are patently incorrect. Negative reenforcement training (I'm sure you don't know what that means) is a powerful tool in all parts of your training regimen. FF is only a single aspect and a small one at that. It is the most extinction resistant method we employ, and may well be the fastest route to habitual behavior. The sooner we get habitual behavior on basics the better chance we have of achieving maximum results, period. The vast majority of us on the forum who TRAIN AND RUN OUR OWN DOGS use it! 

With comments like these, getting along is like asking a hunter to sleep with a birkenstock wearin vegan PETA member.

Ain't gonna happen.

And BTW, you mentioned positive only training, do you use a collar and lead on your dog? If you do, you are a hypocryt.

There, got it out of my system.

Back to training dogs.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> It's just a way for our fast paced society to get to an end goal. The same goal can be met by many other alternatives, but may take longer, or may be quicker. People who do it love it and swear by it, people who don't don't see what the big deal is. Again it's just a tool to get to an end goal. I tried FFing my pup but he didn't take to it. Took a break with him from training and now using only positive reinforcement and I couldn't have asked for a better retriever. Again I made it to the end goal, but it took a little longer


 
I totally agree with you. We all should be growing our own food,riding a horse and buggy to work and get rid of this high speed internet crap. 
Also I think if you tried FF your dog and it didn't work,,,I bet everything I own that either your dog has no drive or your the problem and not the operant conditioner

Pete


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Evan said:


> *What You Should Know About Force Fetch*
> An Introduction
> 
> It won’t go away! On every Internet discussion forum, or pretty much any gathering place for retriever enthusiasts there are trainers with questions and ideas about force fetch. The topic of conversation may be a new perspective, or some technique someone heard about that they want to discuss. Usually, though, it’s a question from someone who just doesn’t understand it, or some part of it.
> ...


Wow! Very well written article Evan, and a very rational explanation of why FF is not only humane, but necessary for most of us that compete at a high level.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

agengo02 said:


> I suspect people that only think FF is the answer are the same ones who pay a trainer to board, train, and run "their" dog.


You couldn't be more wrong. I breed, "board", train and run my own dogs. They get a lot of cookies, liver, hotdogs, string cheese, you name it... too. But they do get FF'd, just as probably 99% of the dogs owned by folks on this board. 

I am in an Open obedience class w/ my 4 yo FF'd dog (did JH 2.5 yrs ago) who sat there w/ the dumbbell in her mouth last night patiently as the instructor spoke to us. The gal next to us w/ a very animated Samoyed was SO impressed that she could/would happily do that. Her dog was a very happy retriever, but.... kept tossing and playing and dropping the dumbbell (I thought, wow, w/ just a few weeks of formal retrieve work, the dog is going to be awesome-- if she'll do the formal part!).  I told her she was FF'd at ~8 - 9 mos so she SHOULD be doing that. She asked me "why" I would HAVE to do that w/a lab. I said because some day, something will be more fun to do than go chase a dumbbell (ummm, like a bird or a rabbit...???) but she still HAS to get the dumbbell because this is obedience! Sure enough, there was so much distraction about the time we all demo'd our retrieves, I KNOW she'd rather have gone to do something else but she thought the better of it. 

I also want my dogs to be able to pick practical items up for me at times too-- broke my back a few years ago, and I can't tell you how handy that is. If they only do it when and if they want to, they can't be of much service.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> Her dog was a very happy retriever, but.... kept tossing and playing and dropping the dumbbell (I thought, wow, w/ just a few weeks of formal retrieve work, the dog is going to be awesome-- if she'll do the formal part!).


Heck if she used markers and food to train her obedience commands, all she has to do is turn it around, condition "hold" as a punisher and she has that problem fixed! 

She doesn't even need FF to fix that problem 

She's just letting the dog get away with murder because if you said "conditioned punisher" to her she would probably think that was a WWE star!


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

What instructional materials are available regarding how to advance a dog through upper level field work without the use of force fetch/e-collar/other aversives? I've asked Mr. Milner about this several times, but haven't gotten a response from him. I'm just a relative newbie to training a dog myself and am honestly curious as to what programs are out there that could be used to train a dog to MH/HRCH/FT levels without the aforementioned tools. 

I'm a strong believer in FF/E-collar training when done responsibly, but I'm also open minded and believe that the more knowledge one can acquire, the better trainer they can become. So...where can I learn more about positive-only training for HT/FT retrievers?

It seems like all of the concrete knowledge is on the side of the ff/collar programs, whereas the positive-only approach is more of a vague theory.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

agengo02 said:


> It's just a way for our fast paced society to get to an end goal. The same goal can be met by many other alternatives, but may take longer, or may be quicker. People who do it love it and swear by it, people who don't don't see what the big deal is. Again it's just a tool to get to an end goal. I tried FFing my pup but he didn't take to it. Took a break with him from training and now using only positive reinforcement and I couldn't have asked for a better retriever. Again I made it to the end goal, but it took a little longer.
> 
> I suspect people that only think FF is the answer are the same ones who pay a trainer to board, train, and run "their" dog. Can't we all just get along?


I am going to call you on three of your statements, 1) FF isn't quick and easy. FF takes skill, hardwork and perserverance. The easy thing is to just ignore it and just rely on your pups natuaral drive and willingness to retrieve to hand. Please read Evan's great article which he posted in this thread. I'm sure many people can train their dog to be a perfectly adequate retriever without FF.

2) The fact that you trying to FF your own pup and it not working out well isn't proof that FF was wrong for your dog, only shows how hard it is to do.

One of my contentions based on observing good pros and very experienced amateurs FF dozens of dogs, is that it takes skill, practice and a very good understanding of the process to be good at FFing your own dog. I have an issue with Joe-beginner picking up a book, getting a table and FF equipment and trying to FF his dog in a follow the pictures sort of way. As a matter of fact I am a clutz at it. I have a hard time believing just anybody can pick up a book and do a good job FFing their dog, if I being fairly intellegent, and being a private pilot, sailor, surfer, skier, ect have good hand eye coordination, and having been around dogs and dog trainers for the last twenty years, have a hard time doing it. The timing and flow of it is tricky to me, and everydog responds differently. I prefer to have a pro FF my dogs. Someone who does it every day of the week with all types of dogs from the very willing to the downright obstinate.

3) How do you expect us all to "get along" when you insult every person on this site who believes FF is the best answer for building a strong foundation into your retreiver. I doubt there is anybody on this site, whether they use a pro or not, that doesn't love "their" dog, and most on here keep their dogs at home and run them themselves. I use a pro from time to time, but the majority of my dog's life is spent sleeping on my bed with me running him in FTs in all stakes.

John


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

whitefoot said:


> What instructional materials are available regarding how to advance a dog through upper level field work without the use of force fetch/e-collar/other aversives? I've asked Mr. Milner about this several times, but haven't gotten a response from him. I'm just a relative newbie to training a dog myself and am honestly curious as to what programs are out there that could be used to train a dog to MH/HRCH/FT levels without the aforementioned tools.
> 
> I'm a strong believer in FF/E-collar training when done responsibly, but I'm also open minded and believe that the more knowledge one can acquire, the better trainer they can become. So...where can I learn more about positive-only training for HT/FT retrievers?
> 
> It seems like all of the concrete knowledge is on the side of the ff/collar programs, whereas the positive-only approach is more of a vague theory.


I've asked the same question and never got a link to any material. I have also not been able to find anything modern on my own. With this I assume it does not exist. Which in my book would make it absurb for a new trainer to try and go this route.

Maybe that is the sub-forum to make, a no FF, no CC, no wack on the butt with a heel stick area. Than all the positive only trainers can get together and write a training manual for retrievers.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

whitefoot said:


> What instructional materials are available regarding how to advance a dog through upper level field work without the use of force fetch/e-collar/other aversives? I've asked Mr. Milner about this several times, but haven't gotten a response from him. I'm just a relative newbie to training a dog myself and am honestly curious as to what programs are out there that could be used to train a dog to MH/HRCH/FT levels without the aforementioned tools.
> 
> I'm a strong believer in FF/E-collar training when done responsibly, but I'm also open minded and believe that the more knowledge one can acquire, the better trainer they can become. So...where can I learn more about positive-only training for HT/FT retrievers?
> 
> It seems like all of the concrete knowledge is on the side of the ff/collar programs, whereas the positive-only approach is more of a vague theory.


Ian, it's my personal contention that only a fool would limit themselves to one aspect of operant conditioning when trying to train an animal for such complex tasks.

I now deal with a lot of dogs who were taught basic obedience with "positive only methods" and one thing stands out, the dogs don't know right from wrong because the don't know what WRONG is.

If social pressure (voice/body language) and negative punishment (withholding rewards) is as far as you're willing to go to correct a behavior, you need and EXTREMELY motivated and intelligent dog to get any results. Those things are AVERSIVE BTW, so even if that's all you do you haven't really achieved "positive only" results.

On the other hand, the use of negative re enforcement and positive punishment in a fair, humane fashion clearly communicates to the dog when he did something right, as well as when he did something wrong.

Since we can't teach them to anticipate negative outcomes using our language, we depend on these other methods of operant conditioning to convey certain messages in a way they can understand.

Aversives as part of our "communication system" with our dogs are critical to forming and preventing certain habitual behaviors. 

And BTW I have NEVER seen a positive only trained dog. Every one I have ever seen at some point has worn a collar and lead, which in and of itself removes any credible claim of "positive only" a trainer can make. Every one has had a treat witheld for non compliance. Every one has had a good stern talking to at some point by it's trainer. ALL these are aversive to the dog.

Can you use reward based training to teach most of these behaviors? YES, but you better have some very high value rewards or else eventually, chasing a live squirrel is going to trump finding a dead duck.

Chase drive works for us but also against us with these dogs. We generally need more than our voice to influence the behavior we want.

Everything we do other than allow them to chase game is against thier instincts. That can't generally be overcome without some form of aversive, and as I said, "positive only", if you're going ot call it that should mean just that... no collar, no lead, no raising the voice, no withholding rewards, nothing aversive of the sort.

I can't say I have ever seen it and I doubt I ever will in any arena involving a K9.

Down with municipal leash laws!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

jtfreeman said:


> I've asked the same question and never got a link to any material. I have also not been able to find anything modern on my own. With this I assume it does not exist. Which in my book would make it absurb for a new trainer to try and go this route.
> 
> *Maybe that is the sub-forum to make, a no FF, no CC, no wack on the butt with a heel stick area. Than all the positive only trainers can get together and write a training manual for retrievers*.


Forums already exist for this sort of stuff on the net. 

Hopefully by now, those participating in this thread realize the poll was posted quite a while ago. The results are strongly indicative to me that there's no compelling reason to add a subforum for new folks, and I don't think we'll be adding a "meat dog" subforum either.

Thanks, Chris


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Forums already exist for this sort of stuff on the net.
> 
> Hopefully by now, those participating in this thread realize the poll was posted quite a while ago. The results are strongly indicative to me that there's no compelling reason to add a subforum for new folks, and I don't think we'll be adding a "meat dog" subforum either.
> 
> Thanks, Chris


sounds good to me


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

jtfreeman said:


> I've asked the same question and never got a link to any material. I have also not been able to find anything modern on my own. With this I assume it does not exist. Which in my book would make it absurb for a new trainer to try and go this route.
> 
> Maybe that is the sub-forum to make, a no FF, no CC, no wack on the butt with a heel stick area. Than all the positive only trainers can get together and write a training manual for retrievers.


That would be the golden retriever forum...bad nancy!


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Many of the shortsighted make incorrect assumptions, such as assuming that all positive trainers limit themselves totally to positive training. That would be similar to making the assumption that all force-based trainers train only with force.


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

Mr. Milner, how would you suggest that a novice trainer learn how to train a dog for upper level HT/FT work without using force fetch, e-collar or other aversives?


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Learn the principles of operant conditioning and work out some retriever training protocols using them. Google is a good place to start.
The biggest obsacle is working out the retriever applications without current models. The second biggest obstacle would probably be finding like-minded people to train with. I would venture to observe that the general retriever training community is not very tolerant of a positive based training program that excludes FF, FTP, CC, etc, etc.

On the plus side, I have found in my USAR work that novice USAR trainers learn positive training appoximately three times faster than they learn compulsion training. That is a significant plus.

For written material, a gentleman named Jim Barry has written a book called "Positive Gun Dogs". I found it a bit too academic, but that might not be the case for others.

I have worked out some training protocols that will suffice for most Hunt test work and some field trial work, especially the complex water blinds. Monthly, I do a seminar at Duckhill and occasionally other parts of the country. A schedule is on the website.

An exportable version of the seminar will be out in the next couple of months. It will be web-based.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

rmilner said:


> ...I have worked out some training protocols that will suffice for most Hunt test work and some field trial work, especially the complex water blinds....


Can you give the names of some dogs that have earned advanced titles in American HT or FT, that were trained using those training protocols?


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

Thank you for the response and the information. I have to admit that I'm skeptical that your approach is the best approach for the masses (especially novices like myself and others who usually post force fetch questions on this forum). Having said that, I would love to read more about the techniques and drills that you employ to get your results.

Thanks again for your time.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I googled operant conditioning and found the definition.

Definition: Operant conditioning (sometimes referred to as instrumental conditioning) is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and *punishments* for behavior. Through operant conditioning, an association is made between a behavior and a consequence for that behavior.

What OC should I be studying for all positive methods?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

What he is reaching for is all positive, so classical conditioning would be the study of choice, not operant conditioning.

But I'm not sure, that's why I ask.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

rmilner said:


> ...I have worked out some training protocols that will suffice for most Hunt test work and some field trial work, especially the complex water blinds....





copterdoc said:


> Can you give the names of some dogs that have earned advanced titles in American HT or FT, that were trained using those training protocols?


Well, can you?


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

whitefoot said:


> What instructional materials are available regarding how to advance a dog through upper level field work without the use of force fetch/e-collar/other aversives? I've asked Mr. Milner about this several times, but haven't gotten a response from him. I'm just a relative newbie to training a dog myself and am honestly curious as to what programs are out there that could be used to train a dog to MH/HRCH/FT levels without the aforementioned tools.
> 
> I'm a strong believer in FF/E-collar training when done responsibly, but I'm also open minded and believe that the more knowledge one can acquire, the better trainer they can become. So...where can I learn more about positive-only training for HT/FT retrievers?
> 
> It seems like all of the concrete knowledge is on the side of the ff/collar programs, whereas the positive-only approach is more of a vague theory.


There isn't a lot. Mostly, in my opinion, because there is not a very strong tradition of R+ training of retrievers. At this point in time, if someone came to me and asked my opinion (why they want the opinion of someone who's extent of field training is throwing bumpers and teaching sit to whistle, I have no idea, but go with me) on the best way to train their dog, and the only way they're going to be happy with the dog is if they get hunting titles, I would direct them to one of the established programs. Reliable, proven resources do not exist (yet). That said, if you're interested, here is where I started:

http://2q-retriever.blogspot.com/
http://lumi-laddie-test-series.blogspot.com/
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/PositiveGunDogs/
These are two blogs and an e-mail list about training retrievers for field. The e-mail list also covers other gun dogs.

http://www.dogwise.com/itemdetails.cfm?ID=DHR230
Positive Gundogs Book. Published by Karen Pryor Clicker Books. I have heard mixed reviews. The authors also do seminars, there are some coming up in the midwest.

I think at this point in time, you have to be more dedicated to the method than the titles to try to train a retriever this way. For myself, field is not my main sport. That is agility, and there IS a very strong tradition of strict R+ in agility. To me, it seems inconsistent to train one way for one venue and a completely different way for another. Just because the dog might put up with it is not an excuse for an inconsistent training philosophy in my mind.



John Robinson said:


> I am going to call you on three of your statements, 1) FF isn't quick and easy. FF takes skill, hardwork and perserverance. The easy thing is to just ignore it and just rely on your pups natuaral drive and willingness to retrieve to hand. Please read Evan's great article which he posted in this thread. I'm sure many people can train their dog to be a perfectly adequate retriever without FF.
> 
> 2) The fact that you trying to FF your own pup and it not working out well isn't proof that FF was wrong for your dog, only shows how hard it is to do.
> 
> ...


Training is a mechanical skill. 

Training is a mechanical skill, and a very important component of that is timing. For example, you have to take the pressure off the ear when the dog has the stick in his mouth. In general, it is harder to ruin a dog with poorly timed R+ than the other quadrants, which is one reason I think more new dog trainers should have a GOOD introduction to R+ training. There's bad, sloppy training every where using every method. When I take classes with my dogs, I tend to be the only clicker trainer in the room. Classes tend to be choke chain based, and one of the biggest problems I notice is terrible leash handling skills. How is the dog supposed to know he is right when he's strung up on a choke chain half the time, and the only time it's slack is when the owner isn't paying attention to the dog?

The issue of "pure positive" is a difficult one. After all, positive punishment is positive too. And punishment, in an OC sense, it not awful and abusive. It is something that ends behavior. Heavy handed and unbalanced punishment can create a dog that doesn't do anything, which is why R+ trainers tend to avoid it and train alternative behaviors instead. IE, kneeing the dog in the chest when he jumps up to greet doesn't really give the dog information on what TO do, only what NOT to do. Reinforcing sitting for petting does tell the dog what to do.

Opponents of R+ training also have a habit of stealing every way R+ trainers come up with to describe themselves and twist it around into something it was not meant to be. In practice there's a pretty clear difference between someone who trains with clicks and food and someone who is using force, discomfort, and intimidation, even if they also use markers and rewards, but coming up with a phrase that accurately describes that is difficult. Please understand what I am trying to say here, I am having trouble finding words to express what I mean. I am not saying that FF/CC is cruel and abusive, but there is no denying that it is not exactly sunshine and rainbows for the dog, it wouldn't work otherwise.


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

ReaganW, I really appreciate your well thought out and rational post. It's refreshing to read an intelligent explanatioon of positive training and it's advantages and limitations.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Has anyone read that "Positive Gundogs" book? I would be very interested in the "blind retrieves" chapter, but not $24 interested based on the first 2 "free pages" you can see.


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

I guess this my question for those who consistently post on these ff threads with overly generalized admonitions of force fetch, where is the line? What if the force that you use is no less than the force that I use during force fetch? Since I'm doing ff and your force is for, say, steadying, does that make your force ok and mine not ok? 

Rather than stating that you are opposed to using force in training, why not just state that you are opposed to force fetch?

Unless you are totally positive, as ReaganW suggests, then I think it is hypocritical of you to lash out at people for force fetching when you are ok with using other sorts of "pressure" to get results.


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

Thanks for the post Raegan. From the little I've already read, the links you have posted seem very interesting. Looking forward to delving into it more. I also want to say that I'm reading Karen Pryor's book "Don't Shoot the Dog". Really good read and incorporating some of her stuff into the Lardy based training protocol I use has really seemed to help. My dog seems to pick up on what it is you want him to do faster. 

Now, I will say, the flip side of Raegan's statement "negative reinforcement doesn't show them what they are supposed to do" is that positive reinforcement doesn't show them when they've done something wrong. Pryor herself says that that is one marked difference between tame and wild animals (even wild animals raised to be "tame" i.e. wolfs or dolphins in captivity) is the ability of truly tame animals (i.e. dogs) to learn through negative reinforcement. So I do still believe in negative reinforcement and do use it, but am trying to do much more of the R+ when shaping a behavior and much less of the R-.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> ...At this point in time, if someone came to me and asked my opinion (why they want the opinion of someone who's extent of field training is throwing bumpers and teaching sit to whistle, I have no idea, but go with me) on the best way to train their dog, and the only way they're going to be happy with the dog is if they get hunting titles, I would direct them to one of the established programs. Reliable, proven resources do not exist (yet)......
> 
> .....I think at this point in time, you have to be more dedicated to the method than the titles to try to train a retriever this way......
> 
> ...


That was a great post, but I needed to reduce it a tad. I am not intending to twist your words, just leave the parts in pertinent to my reply.

I agree with your point about bad training equaling bad results, regardless of the trainer's philosophy.

And that really gets down to the root of the issue. The most important measure of training, is the results. If you don't get adequate results, there is no point in training.

It takes years, and years, of experience to become proficient at training dogs. If your measure of success has no scale, then you can simply declare yourself and your methods sufficient at any time.

This is a Retriever Training forum. That's actually the name of the site!

There is nothing on this Earth that the members here care about more, than the health and well being of their dogs.

However, we have also come to terms with the fact, that the world we live in is not all "sunshine and rainbows", for anyone, or anything that lives in it. Yes, that also includes hunting, working, and training.

If we ignore the fact that training involves pressure to the dog, the dog's performance will suffer.

It will never learn how to deal with the pressures of training and hunting.

It is impossible to completely shelter a Retriever from pressure, in the course of it's training. Force Fetch, is the way that a dog learns how to deal with, and react to pressure, while still functioning as a Retriever.

That is why we FF our dogs. Because it works.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

I have been watching this thread with immense interest(outside the odd distraction) for some-one across the pond that hasn't used FF ,but closely studied and seen the results of such with an open mind to all training methods with dogs.
So I suppose my experience is one sided in such a way that I can only show results from non FF.
That doesn't mean that I am against it,or agree with it.
that also doesn't mean that I am a 'fence sitter'.. anyone this side who knows me knows that I call it like it is.(and please not let this post turn the thread into US V UK) methods!

I have had a few dogs that FF training could and would show that individual dog what was required,I personally found that the similiar result was achieved if approached in a different manner to suit that individual dog?,now the puritans may well say', thats going off the mainstream', hey ho', I never followed a spreadsheet,or curriculum or diagram or programme in my life.
But I did follow a path that was made up from all of these.

Even FF is positive reinforcement? but so is 'Operant Conditioning'?
You can call it all the fancy phrases and terms you want?
It all boils down to gettin that dog to 'want to do it'?...some want to more than others'? for a while?, and that while', is where when and how you do the training' for that dog(imo)

I personally have learned even more about the FF psychology regarding US training by reading this thread,and I hope to learn more!
Thanks RTF.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

dpate said:


> Now, I will say, the flip side of Raegan's statement "negative reinforcement doesn't show them what they are supposed to do" is that positive reinforcement doesn't show them when they've done something wrong. Pryor herself says that that is one marked difference between tame and wild animals (even wild animals raised to be "tame" i.e. wolfs or dolphins in captivity) is the ability of truly tame animals (i.e. dogs) to learn through negative reinforcement. So I do still believe in negative reinforcement and do use it, but am trying to do much more of the R+ when shaping a behavior and much less of the R-.


I'd make is stronger: I'd say it's unique of DOGS to be trained with R-. Ever try to put a choke chain on a cat? But with R+, even cats can be retrievers.



copterdoc said:


> However, we have also come to terms with the fact, that the world we live in is not all "sunshine and rainbows", for anyone, or anything that lives in it. Yes, that also includes hunting, working, and training.
> 
> If we ignore the fact that training involves pressure to the dog, the dog's performance will suffer.
> 
> ...


For me, it's precisely because the rest of the world is rainclouds and thunderbolts (sorry, I have a fondness for running metaphors) that I don't want to bring that into my training. Dog training is my hobby. I want it to be FUN. I don't find intentionally causing discomfort to my dogs, even if it's for "the greater good," fun. This is a purely emotional reaction, but it's not a small part of my decision to stay as close to R+ as I can. 



> It will never learn how to deal with the pressures of training and hunting.


Schutzhund has a lot in common with Field Trials. They are both tests of working dogs for the dogs' original function that have become more and more sport over the years. Traditional Schutzhund training is also very, very hard on the dog. The rational being, these are tough, high drive dogs! You can't baby them! The actual trial is also incredibly demanding physically and psychologically on the dog, as well as featuring varying degrees of physical aversives (it varies depending on who's rules you are playing by). On a positive schutzhund training list I am on (because IMO the Schutzhund people have the highest standard of obedience and are using R+ to knock it out of the park), this came up in a discussion over whether aversives needed to be used in training because they will certainly come up in competition:



> When I first started doing protection work, the fact that the dog has to work through stick hits, being yelled at, other potentially aversive stimuli was something I considered, but came to the opposite conclusion. I wanted my dog to learn that she should not give in to pressure, aggressive posturing, stick hits and other painful stimuli. Rather, I wanted her to learn that she was tougher, stronger, would always win, and that she didn't have to back down or change her behavior because of it.


Just food for thought.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> ....I don't find intentionally causing discomfort to my dogs, even if it's for "the greater good," fun....


I don't think you will find anybody on this forum, that says FF is fun.

They will simply say that it is necessary, because we live in an imperfect world.

"Good for", is not synonymous with "feels good".

When you take the emotion out of the argument, you quickly realize that FF and e-collars, are safe methods of conditioning a dog to function under pressure.

It is the environment in which the dog lives and works, that contains the things that will lead to it's harm, if left to it's own devices.


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Well said Raegan. I started experimenting with positive training 10 years ago, and found it very difficult because of my well ingrained habits and responses. As I have progressed in skill level, I find that this positive style of dog training is much more fun for me and for the dog.
Today, I feel I have failed if I have to resort to making the dog perform a behavior. The challenge is setting up the training scenario such that the dog makes a decision and pre-stacking the deck so that he makes the decision that the trainer wants. I find it a great challenge and great fun.

Polmaise touched on it. It is not making the dog do something. It is getting the dog to want to do that something.

Susan Garrett has a very good treatment of the process in her book, "Shaping Success". Susan is an agility trainer but many of the behaviors are quite similar to those needed by a retriever gundog and the process is the same.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Since the link was posted I have a question: Why would one run 17 SH's? Is it because it took 17 tries to get the SH or is it because one wanted more experience? Or 12 times for that matter? I've failed my fair share of tests, but I would really reconsider my training methods if I went to the line 17 different times for a Senior on the same dog. Be very careful posting about "successful" new methods of training for American Retriever Field Trials and Hunt Tests.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Pals said:


> Since the link was posted I have a question: Why would one run 17 SH's? Is it because it took 17 tries to get the SH or is it because one wanted more experience? Or 12 times for that matter? I've failed my fair share of tests, but I would really reconsider my training methods if I went to the line 17 different times for a Senior on the same dog. Be very careful posting about "successful" new methods of training for American Retriever Field Trials and Hunt Tests.


In my excitement I might have overstated things. Is the dog an FC? No. But people have been saying for years and years that X accomplishment (A CDX. A UD. UDX. An OTCH. SchI. SchII. Sch III. SH. MH. JAM in a Field Trial.) is IMPOSSIBLE without using force. And positively trained dogs continue to prove that IMPOSSIBLE qualifier wrong. It IS possible. You will notice I am careful to say the revolution has not yet taken place. I am not even saying "the goal" is to end the use of force in training retrievers completely. But for the trainer who is interested in using less to no force in their training, there are more and more validations of that choice.


----------



## mattm337 (May 17, 2010)

GulfCoast,

While not familiar with _Positive Gun Dogs_, Lorie Jolly's _Motivational Training for the Field_ does a good job discussing blind training from a more "positive" approach in the field. For those interested in the letters, she has put an AFC, AFTCh, and a MH on the dog with which she used those methods. Jolly uses a drill-based approach (TT, pattern blinds, etc).

From another interesting perspective, Helen Phillips' _Clicker Gundog_ goes through some great clicker protocols working up to the more complex work but falters, imo, getting to blinds. In her defense, she trials in the UK where, as you know far better than I, the blind training is different than for our games.

Like I said, not a direct answer to your question, but I've learned a lot from those two titles, even though I also own copies of Rorem's "Art and Science," Lardy's TRM, and Charlie Jurney's "Finished Dog." To top it off, I've CC'd and FF'd my Boykin, participate in HRC, and have no interest in running the upper levels.

Someone who likes to learn from it all regards,


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

RaeganW said:


> In my excitement I might have overstated things. Is the dog an FC? No. But people have been saying for years and years that X accomplishment (A CDX. A UD. UDX. An OTCH. SchI. SchII. Sch III. SH. MH. *JAM in a Field Trial*.) is IMPOSSIBLE without using force. And positively trained dogs continue to prove that IMPOSSIBLE qualifier wrong. It IS possible. You will notice I am careful to say the revolution has not yet taken place. I am not even saying "the goal" is to end the use of force in training retrievers completely. But for the trainer who is interested in using less to no force in their training, there are more and more validations of that choice.


Again, what stake?



> I think you're trying to tell me that the shock is not always aversive to the dog. I would really like to know more about this, because that does not make any sense whatsoever to me. I am working from the assumption that the dog is actively trying to avoid being shocked by the collar.


Did it look like the dogs were running looking like they were afraid of being burned?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

mattm337 said:


> While not familiar with _Positive Gun Dogs_, Lorie Jolly's _Motivational Training for the Field_ does a good job discussing blind training from a more "positive" approach in the field. For those interested in the letters, she has put an AFC, AFTCh, and a MH on the dog with which she used those methods. Jolly uses a drill-based approach (TT, pattern blinds, etc).
> ,


She hasn't put an AFC on a dog using those methods. As I have personally seen her train Speaker with a collar, stick, you name it, I know that for a fact.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

ErinsEdge said:


> Did it look like the dogs were running looking like they were afraid of being burned?


I have no reason to disbelieve the reasoning that a dog does not fear getting shocked if he knows how to turn off pressure (or avoid having it put on in the first place). But the dog knows what actions make pressure come on, yes? And he's trying to avoid that from happening?

I truly am not trying to pick a fight or win any converts. I am seeking to let people understand why someone might eschew traditional methods, as well as gain my own understanding of what the traditional methods are and how they work.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> But the dog knows what actions make pressure come on, yes? And he's trying to avoid that from happening?


The trainers I use are not into a lot of nicking and burning but teaching. Blatant refusals like not getting in the water may elicit pressure but I find most people into the purely positive have a complete misconception as to what is really going on in training and your observation is your opinion to justify your methods and nothing more.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Matt

Again I state: be careful when posting if you are not familar with the book you should be familar with a few facts. Lorie wrote the book long after she put the AFC on Speaker. She is very candid on the methods she used, ask her. So no, she did not put a MH or AFC with only positive training, she used traditional methods as well. I have one of speaker's grandkids and I've spent lots of time with Lorie. I think the world of her and I'm ordering her book--because I'm always willing to learn. But I would never distort or mis-state(intentionally anyway) someone else's successes to prove my own opinion.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> I have no reason to disbelieve the reasoning that a dog does not fear getting shocked if he knows how to turn off pressure (or avoid having it put on in the first place). But the dog knows what actions make pressure come on, yes? And he's trying to avoid that from happening?


No, I would only say that's the case, when the dog demonstrates willful disobedience, or avoidance for it's own purpose.

For the most part, a dog is not forced to do anything in training, unless it is being forced as a correction, for doing something that falls under the definition of willful defiance or lack of effort.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

ErinsEdge said:


> The trainers I use are not into a lot of nicking and burning but teaching. Blatant refusals like not getting in the water may elicit pressure but I find most people into the purely positive have a complete misconception as to what is really going on in training and your observation is your opinion to justify your methods and nothing more.


*This is exactly why I am on this forum.* 

I find it a huge weakness that by and large R+ trainers do not understand how GOOD R- trainers train. In my observation, R- trainers also do not understand how GOOD R+ trainers train.

I've told you my assumption. I have yet to see anyone actually tell me what about my assumption is wrong and what is going on instead.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> In my excitement I might have overstated things. Is the dog an FC? No. But people have been saying for years and years that X accomplishment (A CDX. A UD. UDX. An OTCH. SchI. SchII. Sch III. SH. MH. JAM in a Field Trial.) is IMPOSSIBLE without using force. And positively trained dogs continue to prove that IMPOSSIBLE qualifier wrong. It IS possible. You will notice I am careful to say the revolution has not yet taken place. I am not even saying "the goal" is to end the use of force in training retrievers completely. But for the trainer who is interested in using less to no force in their training, there are more and more validations of that choice.


Validations? I do not consider a combined effort of at least 30 trips to the line for two dogs-for a SH validation. I consider that painful. I hate flunking, I still make my share of donations to the club for DAH errors, and lately: for breaking. But never for a refusal, avoidance or no go--of that I'm very proud. My dogs are happy, they love to hunt and they love to go to the line, Ryder perhaps a wee bit too much-anyway I take offense at people who think my dogs are mistreated because I use the collar and FF.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Pals said:


> Validations? I do not consider a combined effort of at least 30 trips to the line for two dogs-for a SH validation. I consider that painful. I hate flunking, I still make my share of donations to the club for DAH errors, for breaking. But never for a refusal, avoidance or no go--of that I'm very proud. My dogs are happy, they love to hunt and they love to go to the line, Ryder perhaps a wee bit too much-anyway *I take offense at people who think my dogs are mistreated because I use the collar and FF.*


I am not sure this was directed at me or not, but I do want to be very, very clear on this point.

I do. not. think that people who use an e-collar on a dog are mistreating their dog. If anything, it's the opposite. In my opinion, if you are going to use force in your training, FF and CC make sense. They are in a language the dog has been taught. Clearly, people are able to use them and get the result of an enthusiastic and accurate worker. I have outlined why _I_ have chosen to exclude them from my training program. 

I think my point in this thread as been made, if anyone would like to continue via PM I would be happy to. I really am not interested in trying to convert someone away from what is obviously working for them, and I feel continuing in this thread would only lead to that.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

RaeganW said:


> *This is exactly why I am on this forum.*
> 
> I find it a huge weakness that by and large R+ trainers do not understand how GOOD R- trainers train. In my observation, R- trainers also do not understand how GOOD R+ trainers train.
> 
> I've told you my assumption. I have yet to see anyone actually tell me what about my assumption is wrong and what is going on instead.


Unfortunately, one of the truths of life is: you can not disprove the imaginary.

All "terms" are subjective. What is a "good" trainer? Who or what is the "evaluation" method?

At this time, the "evaluation" method is competition. So unless you have a dog trained only with positive methods competing at the top levels, your methods are not deemed "sucessful". It matters not whether you are a positive only trainer, or have some "other" method of training. 

WRL


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> She hasn't put an AFC on a dog using those methods. As I have personally seen her train Speaker with a collar, stick, you name it, I know that for a fact.




X2...............


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I've read the 2Q blogspot and the other articles mentioned. 2Q may work up to a point with some dogs, for people who have endless time & some extra $$, who don't mind that it takes years to get a dog to a reliably finished level, if they can. Realistically, I think very few pros or anyone serious about field venues is going to take on 2Q methods whole-handedly. It simply isn't going to work en masse, not to the refinement levels we expect in the timeframes we desire, I don't foresee any major revolution coming in that aspect. 

People who train 2Q aren't any worse or better than force training proponents, that's their thing, have at it. It's the assumptions and/or implications by some positive only trainers that those of us who use force in our training are somehow less humane and care only for getting ribbons that rubs the wrong way, IMO.


----------



## mattm337 (May 17, 2010)

Ca and Pals,

I've sent you PMs explaining my initial comment re: Lorie as there is no need to turn this into a shouting contest. Both of you entirely misunderstood what I said since it is quite apparent from Lorie's book that she CC's her dogs and that she trained with Mr. Carr, so she obviously has no issue with a collar.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Snicklefritz said:


> ctfdworkman,
> 
> you will hear all kinds of claims for what force fetch will do for your dog around here, and the better of the trainers here will disavow the more outrageous claims. But, force fetch *is* controversial, as Chris has eluded to. The reason it's controversial is not a matter of results, it's simply that force fetch involves inflicting pain upon your dog to get him to do something he is, by virtue of breeding, willing to do in the first place. In fact, all of force/pressure training is similar in one regard. Force/pressure is not used to teach...it is used to confirm, assure, solidify, reinforce, generalize...add any similar term you like for trying to get the most reliable response to an already learned command, concept, task. The key concept is....'already learned'.
> 
> ...


Well, Chris has recently asked me to submit my posts for his approval before posting. That's insulting to me, and you could be next, and it's not going to happen. I'm reposting my original post and noting that not a single individual has taken exception to any statement I've made in this post. Just a lot of shouting and hand waving....

Snick


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Last time I checked this WAS/IS Chris's house and his rules, IMHO you just made a bad choice Snick...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Snicklefritz said:


> ....force fetch involves inflicting pain upon your dog to get him to do something he is, by virtue of breeding, willing to do in the first place.....


You really are not grasping the concept of pressure conditioning.

It is not done simply to get the dog to do something that it is willing to do in the first place.
It is done to get the dog to *not* be unwilling to fetch as a result of pressure.

Three key conditions need to be met during the process. 

First, the dog must receive sufficient pressure to cause it to withdraw. When the dog is withdrawn, it is not interested in anything to do with fetching.

Second, the dog has to exhaust all of it's ideas on how to remove itself from the pressure. It has to be shown that no amount of bugging, begging, pleading, hiding, or avoiding will get it "out".

Third, it has to be shown that the only way to remove itself from the pressure, is by fetching.




Snicklefritz said:


> .....they force fetch their dogs because they genuinely believe that it teaches their dogs to avoid pressure (pain) in the long term by complying, and their belief that you can't get reliable results otherwise, and therefore the pain is justifiable.....


 It doesn't teach the dog to avoid pain. 
It teaches the dog that pressure is not resolved by giving up and avoiding the situation.

If a non-ffed dog receives, or perceives pressure during the act of trying to fetch, it will always have the tendency to stop trying to fetch. To a non-ffed dog, pressure always means *stop*.

That is the way that all dogs are predisposed to respond to pressure.

FF reverses that thought process. It shows the dog that the correct response to pressure is never to not fetch. The correct response to pressure is to try even harder to fetch.



Snicklefritz said:


> .....is there an alternative? And, the answer is.....


No!

There is absolutely no way that a Retriever can ever learn that significant of a lesson, unless it goes through it.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

rmilner said:


> Many of the shortsighted make incorrect assumptions, such as assuming that all positive trainers limit themselves totally to positive training. That would be similar to making the assumption that all force-based trainers train only with force.


No assumption Robert, I simply said if you call it positive "only" then you pretty much have to be lying once the collar goes on and the leash comes out, which I think it does about 99.5% of the time 

"Positive only" is such a gimick in pet dogs circles it makes me sick.

Now as for "positive" training vs. "force based training", I don't know what "force based" is supposed to really mean? If you're talking about the use of negative reenforcement as an operant conditioning method, then I think you misquote if you say that is the "basis" for any program.

My dog, for instance, went through a Carresq type of thing and negative reenforcement is rarely used at all now that we're into the more advanced parts of the program.

The program is actually based in positive reenforcement (retrieves as rewards), negative punishment (you're not getting that bird you insist on fighting me for), and positive punishment (you did something you know you're not supposeed to do). Negative reenforcement was applied to all commands at a stage in the program in order to make them more resistant to extinction and create a tool for later use, but it was a very limited phase relative to the totality of the dog's life.

So I'm not sure how you or anyone else defines "force" but if it's negative reenforcement you're referring to, then a Carresq program is hardly based on it. 

In fact, I think you'll find it's based more on earning rewards than it is anything else, so it's really a "positive" program when all said and done.

As I said the "force" portion is actually very short relative to the totality of a dog's life/training and does NOTHING except make certain basic behaviors very resistant to extinction. 

That's it, nothing more, nothing less. We spend FAR more time teaching and rewarding than we do forcing, or even punishing, when you really think about it.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> You really are not grasping the concept of pressure conditioning.


Copterdoc, you're casting pearls before swine.

Some people are untrainable. Give them away to a pet home and move on to someone more trainable.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Yo, Pals, your dog ever fail a HT for blinking a cripple?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Why no Kim he hasn't. Now I know that with some young dogs this is pretty common, but I was very careful in my FF and made sure to expose him to cripples so that he would not flee in terror should a duckie not be dead in the field. That would really suck to have a well trained retriever get dropped for refusing to pick up a cripple. 

Alas.....breaking is our downfall. But I continue to work on it.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> Well, Chris has recently asked me to submit my posts for his approval before posting. That's insulting to me, and you could be next, and it's not going to happen. I'm reposting my original post and noting that not a single individual has taken exception to any statement I've made in this post. Just a lot of shouting and hand waving....
> 
> Snick


Chis has been respectful reguarding your approach. But with minimal success comes minimal respect. Maybe you have a posting addition,if so maybe you should start your own forum. More to the point ,boring.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> In practice there's a pretty clear difference between someone who trains with clicks and food and someone who is using force, discomfort, and intimidation, even if they also use markers and rewards, but coming up with a phrase that accurately describes that is difficult. Please understand what I am trying to say here, I am having trouble finding words to express what I mean. I am not saying that FF/CC is cruel and abusive, but there is no denying that it is not exactly sunshine and rainbows for the dog, it wouldn't work otherwise.


You're right Raegan, the former has a dog that will do things only when it wants to and the latter has a dog that will do what it's told because it knows it must. One is a Pez dispenser, the other a trainer/handler of dogs.

And BTW as someone who employs markers, food and other higher value rewards, as well as compulsion training, I take offense to the assertion that "force, discomfort and intimidation" are in any way my training tools. 

Fair and humane pressure applied either through a mechanical and or e-collar is none of the above, and I'll bet you that in the long run when I'm done with the -r portion of a dog's training that it gets a lot less +p throughout the rest of it's life.

I find it patently unfair to the dog to teach it what's right, and never teach it what's wrong, since the first lesson it may get could be taught by a car bumper or a trip to the shelter after it bites someone.

Being out in the pet dog world has been a real eye opener. I now believe more strongly than ever that "positive only" training is sending more dogs to thier death each year than any other cause.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Pals said:


> Why no Kim he hasn't. Now I know that with some young dogs this is pretty common, but I was very careful in my FF and made sure to expose him to cripples so that he would not flee in terror should a duckie not be dead in the field. That would really suck to have a well trained retriever get dropped for refusing to pick up a cripple.
> 
> Alas.....breaking is our downfall. But I continue to work on it.


Possibly not enough shaping was done, maybe a little more canned cat food to make birds less scary? Hey, there's something you can try with Ryder, keep a can of cat food in your pocket, surreptitiously smear some on your pants closest to his head to keep his attention while he's honoring. Piece of cake.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Copterdoc, you're casting pearls before swine.
> 
> Some people are untrainable. Give them away to a pet home and move on to someone more trainable.


Ha ha ha Howard!! 

Copterdoc sees there's nothing there that a GOOD FORCE program couldn't fix!

WRL


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> You really are not grasping the concept of pressure conditioning.
> 
> It is not done simply to get the dog to do something that it is willing to do in the first place.
> It is done to get the dog to *not* be unwilling to fetch as a result of pressure.
> ...


copterdoc,

I do appreciate you're taking the time to actually respond to what I posted. You have made a number of statements of 'fact' about what dogs can, and cannot do. You really have suggested they have near human mental capacity for understanding. But, you have offered no evidence (please note, I'm not asking for hard proof...just evidence) that the attributes that you assign to dogs, and capabilities and assign to them, or deny them.

In the end, no matter how much you believe, you have only your belief and the support you get from other 'believers'. And, no matter how strident you are in stating your case, you have little objective evidence to support your belief system.

If you did a 'search and replace' on your post, and replaced 'pressure' with 'pain', you'd see where I'm coming from. Political correctness abounds.

Chuck


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Rainmaker said:


> Possibly not enough shaping was done, maybe a little more canned cat food to make birds less scary? Hey, there's something you can try with Ryder, keep a can of cat food in your pocket, surreptitiously smear some on your pants closest to his head to keep his attention while he's honoring. Piece of cake.


 
good plan! I'm on it. The duct tape training failed miserably, I forgot to use Ken's tried and true method of a layer against skin facing out first, rats. ;-)


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Pals said:


> good plan! I'm on it. The duct tape training failed miserably, I forgot to use Ken's tried and true method of a layer against skin facing out first, rats. ;-)


 

Shhhhhesh! Why do I bother to keep layin' it down if nobody is gonna pick it up?


.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Snick,

I have a couple questions for you. 

1) How many dogs have you ATTMPTED to force fetch?

2) How many dogs have you SUCCESSFULLY force fetched?

I ask these questions because I don't know the answers but could guess. 

I noticed that only ONE person on here that is a "non-force fetch advocate" has probably ever successfully forced a dog.

Please don't dodge the questions, they are very simple. One word answers are all that are required.

It would seem to me, the bulk of people advocating non-force methods are like a kid that sits at the dinner table saying "I'm not eating those peas! They taste yucky and I won't like them." Only to find out once they TRULY taste them they are pretty good. And in this case, it works well. 

WRL


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> Shhhhhesh! Why do I bother to keep layin' it down if nobody is gonna pick it up?
> 
> 
> .


 
:monkey: I fear I may be untrainable. It's true, even Bart has given up. Darn it all. 

But my dog doesn't Blink Cripples!!!! So it's all good. ;-)


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

WRL said:


> Snick,
> 
> I have a couple questions for you.
> 
> ...


1) - None, thank Gawd!
2) - None, thank Gawd!

You have failed to notice that my objection to FF is not based on effectiveness. Please re-read my original post.

Your last paragraph suggests that those who use FF have, somehow, worked their way past their distaste for it, and now actually relish it...you're not serious...are you?

Are you really bragging about how tough and insensitive you are?

Snick


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Snicklefritz said:


> Are you really bragging about how tough and insensitive you are?
> 
> Snick


 
are you really braggin' on how well Buddy pickes up live birds?



.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, Snick, sometimes, it just takes a ballsy woman to get the job done, and done right the first time. Sorta like raising kids. Kept mine out of trouble by making the consequences worse than the reward of partying or failing classes, watched other kids flame out because they were never told "no" or made to be accountable for their actions. I didn't bargain and ask with my son, nor did I beat him, same goes for my dogs. Oversimplified a tad, of course, can't really make a true correlation between canines and human kids. I'm happy I have a loving, respectful relationship with my son and my dogs. Whatever floats your boat, have at it, you got nothing on me.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Why care? 

Why does everyone on here care how someone else trains their dog?


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Ken Bora said:


> are you really braggin' on how well Buddy pickes up live birds?
> 
> 
> 
> .


Dumb remark, Ken...disappointed.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Well, Snick, sometimes, it just takes a ballsy woman to get the job done, and done right the first time. Sorta like raising kids. Kept mine out of trouble by making the consequences worse than the reward of partying or failing classes, watched other kids flame out because they were never told "no" or made to be accountable for their actions. I didn't bargain and ask with my son, nor did I beat him, same goes for my dogs. Oversimplified a tad, of course, can't really make a true correlation between canines and human kids. I'm happy I have a loving, respectful relationship with my son and my dogs. Whatever floats your boat, have at it, you got nothing on me.


OMG...here we go with the canine/human equivalence arguement...so many darned 'talking point's to respond to...jeeesh...can't you do better than than?

Congrats on your kids...I've done well myself...

Snick


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2011)

Snicklefritz said:


> Dumb remark, Ken...disappointed.


I'm not, Ken!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> are you really braggin' on how well Buddy pickes up live birds?
> 
> 
> 
> .


That sure must be humiliating to have a dog that blinks, especially an older dog.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> 1) - None, thank Gawd!
> 2) - None, thank Gawd!
> 
> You have failed to notice that my objection to FF is not based on effectiveness. Please re-read my original post.
> ...



Funny. I am pretty damn sure (maybe even on this thread) how you said force fetch DIDN"T WORK on your dog. So I am PRETTY SURE that you at least ATEMPTED it once and FAILED.

I am sure someone can search and find YOUR POST.

WRL


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Schutzhund has a lot in common with Field Trials. They are both tests of working dogs for the dogs' original function that have become more and more sport over the years. Traditional Schutzhund training is also very, very hard on the dog. The rational being, these are tough, high drive dogs! You can't baby them! The actual trial is also incredibly demanding physically and psychologically on the dog, as well as featuring varying degrees of physical aversives (it varies depending on who's rules you are playing by). On a positive schutzhund training list I am on (because IMO the Schutzhund people have the highest standard of obedience and are using R+ to knock it out of the park), this came up in a discussion over whether aversives needed to be used in training because they will certainly come up in competition


 I would agree with this,,,,but you must realize that schutzhund is all patterning. In trials and Ht nothing can be duplicated. This changes every thing. Lots of time is spent on the positive side of obedience but there comes a time when corrections are a must. in schuzhund. There is a way to make a dog look sharp doing his work correctly,,and although positive is a big part of it,,the other 3 OC can be incorperated to stegnthen style also.

There is no cookie big enough to make a dog "out" when its in drive.
The same with retrievers you can aid in the dogs obedience by positive methods and you should,,this will enable the dog sharpen his style and also handle corrections and force in such a way that there is little conflict between the dog and handler. The same with schutzhund where conflict between dog and handler is down graded. In retriever games its not scored unless its so bad the dog is a pig. A retriever is doing more independent work and controlled work over long distances,,,schutzund is not.

Its a different game which is judged totally different.
But I do agree with you those guys hit it out of the park when it comes to style in obedience. Thats because they train in drive. food ,,prey,,and defense,,,and they do it correctly. There are lots of retriever trainers that do it correctly also,,, where the dog shows the same intensity on his work. 

2 different games

Pete


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> That sure must be humiliating to have a dog that blinks, especially an older dog.


What would be more humiliating, would be to have either admitted it on a public forum or have had it witnessed, then to go to that same forum and tell everyone thier training methods are barbaric, when mine are obviously ineffective.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> What would be more humiliating, would be to have either admitted it on a public forum or have had it witnessed, then to go to that same forum and tell everyone thier training methods are barbaric, when mine are obviously ineffective.


Exactly. I couldn't say it better.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> 1) - None, thank Gawd!
> 2) - None, thank Gawd!
> 
> You have failed to notice that my objection to FF is not based on effectiveness. Please re-read my original post.
> ...


I was all positive when I first started, even anti-collar, tried to CC/FF Flash myself, failed!! Almost gave up, until one day Flash had to be setup and tackled down 100+ yards out while he was attempting to make a pigeon an afternoon snack...I met the right people, worked with a Pro and learned a collar and FF was so evil. I did go home and bawl my eyes out the first time I watched the Pro walk Flash through a FF session....it tore me up and I questioned what I was doing, but Flash was a new dog you could see it in his body language, he relished his job, he relished working for me! 

So yes many of us start out anti-FF & CC, but I know after 12+ years what works for me and my dogs....my dogs are happy go lucky, they don't run out of fear of being shocked, they run for the love of the retrieve. Just last night Flash retrieved with the same pep in his step that he had when he was 10 weeks old, a little slower due to age, but the same intense desire!

To each there own....


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Oh yeah, my very first HT test I failed, I was told my dog wasn't properly FF....that was from Chris Payne who was the judge. at the time it pissed me off, upset me greatly. It took me a few years to realize he spoke the truth....flash refused to retrieve because the lilies on the pond was too much pressure for him, he gave up because he didn't know what else to do....he wanted the bird, but he didn't know how to tackle the lilies. FF is so much more than pinching an ear, but hey what do I know....

BTW thanks Chris P. for being brutally honest, even though I didn't understand it at the time.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

FOM said:


> I was all positive when I first started, even anti-collar, tried to CC/FF Flash myself, failed!! Almost gave up, until one day Flash had to be setup and tackled down 100+ yards out while he was attempting to make a pigeon an afternoon snack...I met the right people, worked with a Pro and learned a collar and FF was so evil. I did go home and bawl my eyes out the first time I watched the Pro walk Flash through a FF session....it tore me up and I questioned what I was doing, but Flash was a new dog you could see it in his body language, he relished his job, he relished working for me!
> 
> So yes many of us start out anti-FF & CC, but I know after 12+ years what works for me and my dogs....my dogs are happy go lucky, they don't run out of fear of being shocked, they run for the love of the retrieve. Just last night Flash retrieved with the same pep in his step that he had when he was 10 weeks old, a little slower due to age, but the same intense desire!
> 
> To each there own....


I can't say that I was anti-FF, but I was scared to do it myself. My blm was at the point in his training where he needed FF'ing (he was literally eating the dang pigeon) and my trainer was gone at a bunch of FT and I had to tackle it alone, with some help from here and a lot of phone calls to trainer. Completely different dog. Humbled the beast in short time. Would I want to tackle it alone the next time? Probably not, but would I do it...absolutely. Am I still a little scared? Sure.

I honestly think the thing I learned the most from FF'ing Gunner was how to properly use the E-collar. Funny that that is what I got out of it, but through the process of FF'ing, I learned to be darn good with the timing of the pressure/correction, and that alone has helped me with my dogs, my kid, my high school students, and with the horses. Who would have thought the the process of FF'ing would help me in so many ways? Oh, and the dog...he's still a jerk, but he stopped eating birds, will try until he dies, and somehow through the whole process is darn good with his return to heel...go figure.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

what would someone say if I was to mention that I don't think FF has anything to do with stopping a dog from eating a bird? that it is rather controlled by teaching a proper HOLD?


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> what would someone say if I was to mention that I don't think FF has anything to do with stopping a dog from eating a bird? that it is rather controlled by teaching a proper HOLD?


I would say that the process of the proper hold was a part of whole finished product. Finished being used very lightly in the case of this monster. All the more reason I wouldn't dare attempt it alone with the next one.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> what would someone say if I was to mention that I don't think FF has anything to do with stopping a dog from eating a bird? that it is rather controlled by teaching a proper HOLD?


I would agree about the ear pinch part of FF.

As far as I am concerned, FF starts with hold, and ends with FTP.

However, I think the ear pinch is the foundation of pressure conditioning. That's where the dog learns to make the "leap" that pressure means to *do* something, not to react and avoid doing something.

From there on out, it's just a matter of communicating with the dog, so that it understands what you require.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I would agree about the ear pinch part of FF.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, FF starts with hold, and ends with FTP.
> 
> ...


Much like debolting.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> I would agree about the ear pinch part of FF.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, FF starts with hold, and ends with FTP.
> 
> ...


That all depends on when and how you do your collar conditioning but in a "Traditional" program, I get what you mean.


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

Fowl Play WA said:


> Am I still a little scared? Sure.


But, I bet it's going to be that fear that makes you study and think about what you are doing prior to each and every session.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> That all depends on when and how you do your collar conditioning but in a "Traditional" program, I get what you mean.


This gets pretty complicated, but I think every Retriever benefits from the pressure conditioning it gets from the ear pinch portion of FF. Even the ones that never wear a collar.

Unlike Snick, I do not believe that pressure and pain are synonymous.

A dog can easily be under tremendous pressure, without feeling one iota of pain.

However, if it hasn't been conditioned to retrieve under pressure, it may shutdown and refuse to pick up. Even if it was only due to stress and attrition.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Possibly not enough shaping was done, maybe a little more canned cat food to make birds less scary? Hey, there's something you can try with Ryder, keep a can of cat food in your pocket, surreptitiously smear some on your pants closest to his head to keep his attention while he's honoring. Piece of cake.


Hot damn! Finally a tidbit of info to write in my little book!!!!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> Well, Chris has recently asked me to submit my posts for his approval before posting. That's insulting to me, and you could be next, and it's not going to happen. I'm reposting my original post and noting that not a single individual has taken exception to any statement I've made in this post. Just a lot of shouting and hand waving....
> 
> Snick


This is a repeat pattern of undesirable behavior.

Chuck, I am absolutely finished communicating with you via private message. Once again, my words have been manipulated. You wrote in your PM to me that you feel I'm scared of you.

It is not fear. It is trust. You have shown a repeat pattern of erratic behavior that gives me no reason to trust what you will do. You have repeatedly twisted my words and played games. It's over. You win. The game has stopped.

As you suggested in your private message, your account is suspended indefinitely. Do not register an alias account please.

I wish you and Buddy the best. He's a nice dog. 

Sincerely,

Chris


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2011)

Thank you Chris. I'm sorry you have to spend your time on things like this.


----------



## winewinn (Aug 29, 2008)

I think this is really good advice.

Another thing I'd like to add is not to start too soon. Pups still cutting teeth, just as an example.

Jennifer



Chris Atkinson said:


> ctfdworkman, welcome to RTF.
> 
> I would say that "Force Fetch" is probably the most discussed topic in the history of RTF.
> 
> ...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> This gets pretty complicated, but I think every Retriever benefits from the pressure conditioning it gets from the ear pinch portion of FF. Even the ones that never wear a collar.
> 
> Unlike Snick, I do not believe that pressure and pain are synonymous.
> 
> ...


nothing complicated about it. on this thread you and I pretty much agree 100%


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Bill Hillman is supposed to be coming out with a new DVD on non-force FF which might satisfy the non force crowd. I heard from someone who was invited to preview it.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

I wonder what happened to *ctfdworkman*, the original poster? During WWII my late father dug an air raid shelter in the back garden; I bet if I looked he's probably down there.

FWIW a simple answer to his question is that if your dog is a reliable retriever you have no reason to consider FF. 

I'm quite sure that FF will produce a reliable retriever; where I start to sing out of tune is in the follow up assertion "and nothing else will". And just to be clear, I mean FF; not sequential training, or indeed collar training as such.

Currently I have only three working dogs; they were afield last season on 44 days on driven shoots, 4 night flights, a couple of mornings on the foreshore, and around 14- 16 days wood pigeon shooting. Non of them *ever* didn't try to make the retrieve. I don't know how many birds we picked in total but 480 pigeon went to the game dealer. Average driven day ... 35- 45 birds each maybe? So it's a lot of attempts for zero no go's, and none of them were FF'd. They were trained in other ways. 

Any and all of my dogs can fail on the retrieve through illness, exhaustion, bad luck or lack of ability; but not trying, refusing to go? Never. That's me done, pass the steel helmet and stirrup pump please. 








Anyone seen *ctfdworkman*?








Handy for putting out small incendiaries. See C. Atkinson for price and shipping details. 

Eug


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Well said Eug.
Nearly every working retriever owner in the UK could make a similar statement. 
FF is nearly never encountered in the UK. That doesn't make FF inherently bad. It does say that FF is not a necessity in order to have a good dog that does not refuse out of lack of effort.


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

Colonel Blimp said:


> I wonder what happened to *ctfdworkman*, the original poster? During WWII my late father dug an air raid shelter in the back garden; I bet if I looked *ctfdworkman *is probably down there.
> 
> FWIW a simple answer to his question is that if your dog is a reliable retriever you have no reason to consider FF.
> 
> ...


Eug,
A nice example of how your dogs are hunted during the season. I understand driven hunts and would assume you and all 3 dogs are positioned. As a bird approaches and you do your part,one of the three would be sent, the other 2 honour. When the retrieving dog returns with bird in mouth, I assume he sits to deliver demonstarting a proper hold??
Would you care to elaborate how those skills were developed(the correct delivery).
I see the 'no go' as an entirely different issue with a myriad of other reasons why that might happen and do not see it as a result of FF or no FF.

Thanks.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

So the fact that well bred dogs with hundreds of birds flying over thier heads while being restrained on honor to retrieve every third bird, will reliably go when sent on a mark is a reason not to formalize the command to retrieve?

Heck if that were the only situation I was ever faced with I would formalize sit, here and hold, play a little baseball with them, be done with it and go hunt! 

But that ain't what we ask a dog to do in our games, or even in the field, so I don't see how it really applies?

Not pokin at ya Eug. I love your posts 100% of the time but I think we've found an apple in our pile of oranges here.

Let's face it, all these other assertions of what FF really is either cover too braod a spectrum or misrepresent what it really is, a simple formalization of the command to initiate a retrieve, using negative reinforcement as the method of choice. 

We pretty much formalize every other obedience behavior we expect the dog to complete with some form of pressure, be it e collar or mechanical. I fail to understand what it is about formalizing "go" that screws up people's minds.

They'll yank on a collar for sit, smack it in the ass with a stick, reel a dog in on a check cord, drag it around to get it to heel, slap it in the chin to get it to hold, pinch a lip to get it to release and then they freeze when it comes time to pinch an ear and formalize fetch! 

I just don't get it!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I have/had 3 Labs, never FF, though some CC, raised from pups with conventional puppy treat training then leash OB, they all hunt and deliver to hand like most field-bred retrievers do and will. They've been strictly upland gundogs and we've enjoyed them. 

No, I don't think you have to formally FF a retriever to have a hunting dog that will bring back game. I do think FF is the foundation of making a solid, polished, _reliably finished _retriever in a _timely manner_, especially if one is going to run HT/FT and other field venues. 

Different games, different expectations and standards.


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Driven shooting with the dog sitting at the peg is a fairly small component of the retriever's job in the UK.
Perhaps lack of knowledge is contributing to a lack of understanding.


I will borrow Tom's signature line here:

"there is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance --- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Herbert Spencer


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Colonel Blimp said:


> ...I'm quite sure that FF will produce a reliable retriever; where I start to sing out of tune is in the follow up assertion "and nothing else will". And just to be clear, I mean FF; not sequential training, or indeed collar training as such.....


That depends on what you need to get the dog to do, in order to still be competitive with other trainers and their dogs.




Colonel Blimp said:


> .....Any and all of my dogs can fail on the retrieve through illness, exhaustion, bad luck or lack of ability; but not trying, refusing to go? Never. That's me done, pass the steel helmet and stirrup pump please......


 I agree, that if you have a dog with sufficient drive and desire, and all it needs to do is be silent, steady, honor, retrieve marked falls, and hunt up unseen falls when sent, you do not necessarily need to put it through FF.

However, that is not all that a Retriever competing in American FT and hunt tests is required to do.

We have to train our dogs to hold a line through multiple factors and diversions that are all influencing the dog to go off course. 

Our dogs need to be taught things like, "Get in the water right here. Stay in the water till here. Hold that line across that side hill. Fight that cross wind. Don't square that ditch. Don't cheat that corner. Bust through that cover and come out on the other side, and oh, by the way, don't even think about picking up that poison bird. You better ignore those flyer crates, and listen to me." 

All of those things must be taught to the dog, so thoroughly that it will go through all of them and hold a line to a bird that it has no reason to believe is even out there, over 200 yards away.

That is a whole bunch of pressure all by itself, even for a fully trained dog. Imagine how many times the dog has had to overcome that pressure, in order to learn those concepts in training.

I assure you, many highly accomplished dogs, would have given up trying to fetch in training, well before they reached that level. They didn't, because they they were conditioned to deal with pressure, not avoid it.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

rmilner said:


> Driven shooting with the dog sitting at the peg is a fairly small component of the retriever's job in the UK.
> Perhaps lack of knowledge is contributing to a lack of understanding.
> 
> 
> ...


LOL Robert, REALLY?

I was responding to Eugene's post, not making a statement about Brit gundogs overall. Call me ignorant if you want but consider the following before you do.

I've hunted 30+ years with and without dog. My dogs have picked up at continental and tower shoots, hunted fields for geese, coastal plains, marsh, flooded timber and eveywhere in between for ducks. They've flushed upland and trailed many a hen pheasant through the woods. My latest dog does all this and even backs a pointer on occassion + plays AKC HT and FT games at the MH and qualifying level respectively.

So seriously, tell me what a Brit gundog is asked to do that isn't covered in at least one of those venues? 

You guys asking dogs to do backflips or load the shooter's gun? Make the sandwiches for lunch? 

Tell me, what do you ask of a retriever that a versatile American gundog isn't also asked to do?

Keep trying to maintain the mystery that allows you to get away with claiming your method and dogs are superior to the garden variety FC-AFC. Those who know ain't buyin it.

Incidently I've read several of your articles and other works, and I think for the average american gundog guy (which I recognize are the majority of US retriever trainer/owners), your stuff would work pretty well and not cause a lot of the problems we see with the unknowledgable trying to force a dog to do something it's not got the breeding to really do. 

The only thing I'm ignorant about is why I guy would beat a dog with a heeling stick but not pinch his ear!


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Currently I have only three working dogs; they were afield last season on 44 days on driven shoots, 4 night flights, a couple of mornings on the foreshore, and around 14- 16 days wood pigeon shooting. Non of them *ever* didn't try to make the retrieve. I don't know how many birds we picked in total but 480 pigeon went to the game dealer. Average driven day ... 35- 45 birds each maybe? So it's a lot of attempts for zero no go's, and none of them were FF'd.


I think that because you require more natural ability in your trials especially in the upland that your training is geared more to use natural ability ,,,which is a trait that is nurtured and guided and then learned by the dog more than trained. There should be no force involved in that. Most US hunters would love to have that type of dog. Here in the US the hunt is not tested for ,,, only the hunt on the mark. so a bird that sails off through thick tree's and over a hill would slaughter most US dogs unless the dog was given the chance to develope that skill. A good hunting dog must be able to figure out through trailing and running all over the place often to get back on track.

The water work required is also different. In my opinion generally speaking,,,force has nothing to do with a dog quitting,,, but when it comes to quickly teaching a dog skills in the water I think it has everything to do with a dog not quitting and the handler being able to make timely corrections without going for a swim. it has everything to do with enhancement of learned skills which are required to perform a task in a certain way. In a program where the dog is learning lots of technical things weekly which are not related to natural ability,, the dog has to follow certain protocals during this process. One of them is don't drop the bird no matter what,,,hang on through corrections and force. And if the dog does temperarily spit it out ,,through conditioning he dives in to grab it again.

We do things fast and furious here in the US,,, FF enables a person to cruise through all the trained skills we wish to sinch down and then move on to the meat of the games we play which include duck hunting. very few young dogs could not reach the level of control and precion in a 4 or 5 month period if it weren't for the FF programs which are available. Efficiency is really the name of any game we play in life.,,, But I totally understand why you wouldn't need it on your side of the ponds. 
Its all good.

Pete


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

The original post that started this thread really didn't state what his end goal is, nor did he state what training programs or methods he wanted to use.

How we train is a personal decision. You can make Master level retrievers in today's hunt tests without FF, without an e-collar, and withouth a Carr-styled program. Several here have done it and can walk the talk. (I'm in that group)

I personally have chosen to open my mind and look at a modern program and *for me, personally, it is a better way*. I feel that my previous retrievers would have done well and could have benefitted from this style of training. I am thankful for all the experience I was able to gain from the past retrievers we have enjoyed. 

This does not mean that I should condemn another trainer that his way is any more "right" or "wrong".

It is a PERSONAL DECISION. 

There is a big difference between a personal decision and making one's decision personal. 

There is a big difference between one's personal decision of how to train their dog, and making one's decision on how they train personal.

One more time with feeling:

There is a difference between the personal decision one makes in how they train their dog, and making one's training method personal. 

I have found in this thread and others on the FF topic:


Certain folks claim that we should all just get along, yet make a statement that others, who train differently, would take personally.

Certain folks have attempted to claim that certain training methods are cruel and un-necessarily painful for their dogs. That's nonsense and I sure as heck hope that these folks' agendas fail. We as trainers, and our dogs as companions whom we foster for our own end-uses, deserve to have the right and ability to train with methods and equipment that work for us.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Chris Atkinson said:


> T You can make Master level retrievers in today's hunt tests without FF, without an e-collar, and without a Carr-styled program. Several here have done it and can walk the talk. (I'm in that group)


Chris,
If you took 100 well bred dogs, and attempted to train them to the MH level without FF, what you estimate the percentage of success to be? Then if you took 100 well bred dogs, and attempted to train them to the MH level using FF, what would you estimate the percentage of success to be? I am interested in your opinion because you have now had both types of dogs.

I believe the success rate of the FF dogs would be higher than the non-FF dogs, to say nothing of how much quicker you would reach MH with the FF dogs than the non FF dogs. FF is just one more tool, in the right trainer's hands, that can that increases your chances for success and saves time getting there.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

*Reason for Force fetch????? *

The original question of this thread was "Reason for force fetch". 

I was once told that the most inhumane correction is on that is given more than once due to a lack of understanding. That statement was explained with three parts. 1 - Never correct a dog that has not been taught a task first and knows what it has done wrong. 2 - Never correct a dog with a form of correction it does not understand. 3 - Never correct a dog in an untimely manner.

#2 and #3 is why I choose to FF.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Steve Hester said:


> Chris,
> If you took 100 well bred dogs, and attempted to train them to the MH level without FF, what you estimate the percentage of success to be? Then if you took 100 well bred dogs, and attempted to train them to the MH level using FF, what would you estimate the percentage of success to be? I am interested in your opinion because you have now had both types of dogs.
> 
> I believe the success rate of the FF dogs would be higher than the non-FF dogs, to say nothing of how much quicker you would reach MH with the FF dogs than the non FF dogs. FF is just one more tool, in the right trainer's hands, that can that increases your chances for success and saves time getting there.


I now this was directed at Chris, but I will respond anyway. 

In a good trainer's hand, I think a greater percentage would reach a finished/MH level through a FF program. Probably 20% or more (no idea where that % came from, just a guess). The timing would definitly be quicker. I think that percentage differs even more when you progress to the FT game.

I think some dogs tend to get washed out early in training due to not being able to handle the pressure of a FF program. This is probably due to the demands to title by a certain age that some are in a race to do. I would say that within a time limit the percentage is a lot greater difference as well.

I own one of those dogs that did not handle FF pressure or collar pressure well at all. He never had a lot of drive from day one, despite a very very strong pedigree. I backed of the FF program and got him to a finished level with A LOT of praise teaching and a lot more gray hair added to my head. It took a long time. Chris actually judged him on his HRCH title run. (that old left over schrimp water at Treasure Coast was COLD) I don't think he would have ever made a FT dog.

With all that being said, I feel in the long and short run a good solid FF program is the best and most human way to succeed in the upper level HT and definitely FT game, due to the dogs appropriately understanding the corrections given and the ability to give the corrections in a timely manner.

I will also say that in the long and short run a poor misunderstood FF program is the least and most inhuman was to succeed in training any level retriever.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Steve Hester said:


> Chris,
> If you took 100 well bred dogs, and attempted to train them to the MH level without FF, what you estimate the percentage of success to be? Then if you took 100 well bred dogs, and attempted to train them to the MH level using FF, what would you estimate the percentage of success to be? I am interested in your opinion because you have now had both types of dogs.
> 
> I believe the success rate of the FF dogs would be higher than the non-FF dogs, to say nothing of how much quicker you would reach MH with the FF dogs than the non FF dogs. FF is just one more tool, in the right trainer's hands, that can that increases your chances for success and saves time getting there.


I don't know Steve. I don't think I am qualified to make that guess in the top paragraph. The most well-bred dog that I have owned and worked with is out in my truck waiting to train at lunchtime. My percent guess would be just that, a guess. 

Answering the first paragraph is not that easy anyhow. FF is a term used to describe one generalized set of steps to get a conditioned retrieve response. Even those who claim that they don't FF, have their own way of conditioning a dog to pick up and deliver an object. Even those who "don't FF" are still working with their dogs to open their mouths, pick something up and deliver it in association with some commands.

I'll say this: I enjoy my dog training immensely. It is an indescribable bonding experience that I enjoy with a dog. When I am trainnig and I see the dog perform well, and show that he gets it, he's doing it AND HE'S ENJOYING IT, it feels awesome. 

I love how pretty it looks when a good golfer steps up and strikes that ball off the tee...how it starts off nice and straight and rises up and sails out, settling down out there in the sweetspot on the fairway. It has got to be an awesome, rewarding, soul-warming feeling. I think maybe I felt it once. (but then endured 17 other holes where I hacked it up and wished I was fishing or dog training)

I love how awesome it feels to make that perfect flycast. You see that perfect spot tucked right up against the shore with cover on either side and a little overhead brush that you need to get under. You false cast a couple times and then you throw that perfect, tight loop. The leader extends out and the fly lands right on the X. The fish takes the fly, you set the hook, your rod's bent, you feel the tension, you are connected to that fish. It is one of the best feelings that I have experienced.

I get that same feeling when my dog runs a beautiful blind or handles a challenging setup. It is the culmination of many sessions of training to fairly steer the dog to that point as his mentor. To me, one of these sessions feels just like that perfect drive off the tee, or the perfect cast to the hole holding that gamefish.

I can experience this elation, much more frequently, much more fairly, and much more quickly using a modern program that employs a FF step and the use of an e-collar, than my former "Amish" ways. 

I doubt that I'll go backwards. 

My time is too valuable. I love my dogs too much. I want the best for them. Someone recently told me that no puppy should have a bad day. Really, no dog should have a bad day. If your dog is unhappy, you've got a problem. That problem has nothing to do with whether or not you do or don't FF your dog in training.

Chris


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Thanks Chris.....that made my day and many more!


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

KwickLabs said:


> Thanks Chris.....that made my day and many more!


Yep....that and putting Snick in time-out


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

KNorman said:


> Yep....that and putting Snick in time-out


I got a beer bet he show up on the 'fuge forum next with the anti-ff crowd! ;-)


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

*Darrin*, all my oranges would still be oranges if you would stop painting the little buggers green and yellow


Seriously, your impression of dog work on a driven shoot isn’t valid. Nor should you think that the command to initiate a retrieve isn’t formalised, so your observation


> So the fact that well bred dogs with hundreds of birds flying over thier heads while being restrained on honor to retrieve every third bird, will reliably go when sent on a mark is a reason not to formalize the command to retrieve?


 is way off anything I’ve proposed. I think you also seriously underestimate the physical stress that a driven shoot can present to a dog.


What don't you do that I do? Hunt in the dark one the foreshore and inland.


*Krakofdawn* posted


> I understand driven hunts and would assume you and all 3 dogs are positioned. As a bird approaches and you do your part,one of the three would be sent, the other 2 honour. When the retrieving dog returns with bird in mouth, I assume he sits to deliver demonstarting a proper hold?? Would you care to elaborate how those skills were developed (the correct delivery). I see the 'no go' as an entirely different issue with a myriad of other reasons why that might happen and do not see it as a result of FF or no FF.


Again that’s a misconception about how we do things. I don’t get paid to take three dogs and have two wait on their backsides. Mine don’t normally sit to deliver to hand, that’s showmans stuff for when I do demonstrations. Its quite possible to have three dogs lining up with birds and still have cripples to collect, so I take the bird and get Fido away on the next one. 

The no-go issue is the one I addressed because it’s the most usual objection raised against non FF training.

Anyway all this has inspired me to get my teach in on driven shooting for you guys back on track. It’s been a no-go area recently. (Groan)


Eug


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Colonel Blimp said:


> What don't you do that I do? Hunt in the dark one the foreshore and inland.
> 
> 
> Eug


I'll give ya that one Eug  we get locked up for that kinda thing over here. 

The rest of it I guess I'll have to see some day to understand how it's that much different from anything we ask a dog to do on an estate shoot or a tower shoot of 400-500 birds.

I vowed the day I left West London Shooting School that I was going back for more lessons, so when I do, I guess I'll have to find some other things to do! 

My only regret in spending about half of 95 - 97 over there was not seeing these things first hand. I was a bit busy at the time though.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> The original post that started this thread really didn't state what his end goal is, nor did he state what training programs or methods he wanted to use.
> 
> How we train is a personal decision. You can make Master level retrievers in today's hunt tests without FF, without an e-collar, and withouth a Carr-styled program. Several here have done it and can walk the talk. (I'm in that group)
> 
> ...


 

This thread and every other one I've ever read on this subject, always seems to come down to this:

*What is the best, most effective, efficient, fair and humane way to train a retriever to the highest level of competance? *

Where the differences of opinion mostly lie is around each person's idea of what a high level of competence is.

To some, having a well trained gundog is the be all and end all. To others it's having a MH and to still others it's having a FT champion that is competative week in and week out.

It's fine to say that how one trains is a "personal decision" however for this discussion to have any merit and validity, we all need to be on the same page as to what is, in fact, *the highest level of competence*.

I wish for once this arguement/discussion would set some parameters so we were all discussing the same thing.

Otherwise it boils down to comparing apples to oranges to grapes to bannanas to cumquats. 

*To all the force fetch and e-collar naysayers: *

*When you can show me that you can consistenly train retrievers that are competative in North American Open All Age Field Trials, in the same quantity and quality as those dogs who are trained using modern force fetch and e-collar methods, then I would happily place some credence in your assertions.*

*Until then those assertions are just dreams, conjecture and hypothesis. *


*IMHO*


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

*When you can show me that you can consistenly train retrievers that are competative in North American Open All Age Field Trials, in the same quantity and quality as those dogs who are trained using modern force fetch and e-collar methods, then I would happily place some credence in your assertions.
*
Mr Boot, meet Mr Otherfoot.*

When you can show me that you can consistenly train retrievers that are competative in European Field Trials, in the same quantity and quality as those dogs who are trained using modern non force fetch and e-collar methods, then I would happily place some credence in your assertions.*

That's me done. I think we've travelled a long way and not come very far. Just to add that *Darrin* and anyone else from RTF who finds themselves in The Principality in the shooting season is invited to Blimp Towers (below) for tiffin and enlightenment. Excellent kennelling, dogs also catered for. 










Eug


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Colonel Blimp said:


> *When you can show me that you can consistenly train retrievers that are competative in North American Open All Age Field Trials, in the same quantity and quality as those dogs who are trained using modern force fetch and e-collar methods, then I would happily place some credence in your assertions.
> *
> Mr Boot, meet Mr Otherfoot.*
> 
> ...


Eug,

Give me an afternoon with your dog and an e-collar and I will have your jaw on the floor. Great control at the line is one thing, great control at 300 yards is another. Everyone has their doubts and fears about the e-collar, that's why we do free demos.

Regards,

Regards,


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Eug,
> 
> Give me an afternoon with your dog and an e-collar and I will have your jaw on the floor. Great control at the line is one thing, great control at 300 yards is another. Everyone has their doubts and fears about the e-collar, that's why we do free demos.
> 
> ...


But you have never competed in a trial so actually who cares what parlor trick can do with an ecollar at 300 yards.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Eug,

I have seen dogs working in England and was greatly impressed, different style of trialing, different style of hunting. I know it can be done without FF, but do realize that it is not done with out pressure of some form (watched one lady stomp out, have a "conversation" with her dog and then proceed to finish handling - what we call "amish style") - Anyway, can I still come and visit?  Please!

FOM


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

FOM said:


> Eug,
> 
> I have seen dogs working in England and was greatly impressed, different style of trialing, different style of hunting. I know it can be done without FF, but do realize that it is not done with out pressure of some form (watched one lady stomp out, have a "conversation" with her dog and then proceed to finish handling - what we call "amish style") - Anyway, can I still come and visit?  Please!
> 
> FOM


Agree; P+ is P+ doesn't matter if it is done with a stern voice or a pinched ear.
Doesn't matter if it is done with a British slip lead or an e-collar either.
Fact is I have never done anything with an e-collar that I hadn't done previously with a slip lead.

lots about nothing regards
tom


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

tom said:


> Agree; P+ is P+ doesn't matter if it is done with a stern voice or a pinched ear.
> Doesn't matter if it is done with a British slip lead or an e-collar either.
> Fact is I have never done anything with an e-collar that I hadn't done previously with a slip lead.
> 
> ...


Dog's can tell when they have no leash on. They also learn from doing. If the bird is always within the length of your long line, the dogs going to expect to find the bird within that distance all the time. Makes it hard to stretch them out later.

I can't get the kinda control from a slip lead I can with the e-collar, or I would be using a slip lead. What ever works for, you that's all that's important.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Dog's can tell when they have no leash on. They also learn from doing. If the bird is always within the length of your long line, the dogs going to expect to find the bird within that distance all the time. Makes it hard to stretch them out later.
> 
> I can't get the kinda control from a slip lead I can with the e-collar, or I would be using a slip lead. What ever works for, you that's all that's important.


Do you start a dog on 3hc with an e-collar or a long lead? I do 3hc up close & personal, and the last thing I want when doing 3hc is to get into a de-bolting session. Thus the dogs have experenced the same corrections with a lead that they will experence when we move to the pattern field or out in the field with an e-collar.
A properly collar conditioned dog understands that the e-collar and a slip lead correction mean the exact same thing.


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> But you have never competed in a trial so actually who cares what parlor trick can do with an ecollar at 300 yards.


This answer describes what is problematic about many responses-many people have almost no trial experience. Many may have an opinion but based on what experience and how many have actually trained their dogs to the AA level?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Lot's of great retriever trainers in history never competed in FT. If that's your standard so be it.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Colonel Blimp said:


> That's me done. I think we've travelled a long way and not come very far. Just to add that *Darrin* and anyone else from RTF who finds themselves in The Principality in the shooting season is invited to Blimp Towers (below) for tiffin and enlightenment. Excellent kennelling, dogs also catered for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I would like to cordially reciprocate. 

Anytime you find yourself in North America and wish to see the level of skill and training required for a dog to be competative in today's Open All Age Field Trial's, I'm sure there would be many besides myself who would love to show you around ..........for enlightenment purposes only of course, as well as to share a pint or two.

Of course, our beers pale in comparison to your British brew, and I do mean that sincerely.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Eug,
> 
> Give me an afternoon with your dog and an e-collar and I will have your jaw on the floor. Great control at the line is one thing, great control at 300 yards is another. Everyone has their doubts and fears about the e-collar, that's why we do free demos.
> 
> ...


I don't know if you caught it, but the Colonel issued an invitation to get a rare chance at experiencing their part of the retriever world. I've only seen the out of season dummy-games side of it, and THAT was wonderful.

It feels to me like instead of responding with gratitude and politeness, he got responded to here with arrogance and cockiness. Fred Hassen has left the building. There's no need to emulate Fred's style anymore. (At least not on RTF)

Bummer. 

Eug, I'd love to take you up on the offer and, like labguy, would love to show you a trial in our neck of the woods. It is quite different from what you guys do. I love it though... I love how it goes on both sides of the Atlantic. Frankly, I believe that a dog trained our way, could play your game... 

When I spent time over there at Bill's gamefair, I got to spend many an hour talking with people that I'm sure you know, about training methods and the results they produce.

As Bill Beckett could attest to, I did love the guinness while in Ireland. 

That was a very generous offer for you to put up. I would love to one day see "Blimp Towers".

Chris


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

I was looking for the tree with the bumper hanging in it ;-)


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

labguy said:


> Of course, our beers pale in comparison to your British brew, and I do mean that sincerely.


I don't know about that, there are some pretty good micro-brews out there these days  I did find it humorous that when David and I went to England and had a drink at a small local pub everyone was watching to see if the Americans could handle a single pint - oh please....a pint is just warming up 

One thing I found interesting from across the pond was how they care for the birds used on driven hunts and prepare them for the hunt....wished I had more time to learn about that, but their care and handling of game is intriguing compared to how we raise game. Not to mention the whole game keeper career....our friends made it look like a fun job to have, but my guess is it is very difficult at times and very demanding time wise, but all the same it would be an interesting career I think.

FOM


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I don't know if you caught it, but the Colonel issued an invitation to get a rare chance at experiencing their part of the retriever world. I've only seen the out of season dummy-games side of it, and THAT was wonderful.
> 
> I love how it goes on both sides of the Atlantic. Frankly, I believe that a dog trained our way, could play your game...
> 
> Chris


Then when you have finished playing with the kids';-) you can try the real thing?


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


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

WRL said:


> Snick,
> 
> I have a couple questions for you.
> 
> ...


Peas taste horrible. Lets not confuse Snick....

/Paul


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Then when you have finished playing with the kids';-) you can try the real thing?
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moBXEEJcChs


That's absolutely beautiful! I had the good fortune to hang out with a retriever club in Scotland when I was there in the summer of 2000. It was incredible! 

I always wondered what your username was about. I envisioned the stuff I like on my sandwiches and burgers. 

Thanks for posting this.

I'm heading out to play with the kids in a few hours. Can't wait!

I just took a bag of birds out of the freezer to thaw a bit.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Peas taste horrible. Lets not confuse Snick....
> 
> /Paul


 
Sometimes one's mind is like concrete. All mixed up and permanently set.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I already had that conversation with Eug via PM. I still got a chuckle from this post tho.

Don't confuse confidence with cockiness.



Chris Atkinson said:


> I don't know if you caught it, but the Colonel issued an invitation to get a rare chance at experiencing their part of the retriever world. I've only seen the out of season dummy-games side of it, and THAT was wonderful.
> 
> It feels to me like instead of responding with gratitude and politeness, he got responded to here with arrogance and cockiness. Fred Hassen has left the building. There's no need to emulate Fred's style anymore. (At least not on RTF)
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I already had that conversation with Eug via PM. I still got a chuckle from this post tho.
> 
> Don't confuse confidence with cockiness.


I did...my hunch is several others did as well. Thanks for clearing this up.

Maybe you could put more of the friendly PM stuff in your public posts. 

You know what they say Jamie: 

If you're good, you don't have to tell people. 

Chris


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I have trained exactly 1 dog in field, and we're just starting. That's my qualifications, sad, I know. 
If you've trained ONE dog, or for that matter just a few dogs, I don't think you can say what does or doesn't work, no matter how much you've read or studied the subject. Your experience is much too limited. You can only say what did or didn't work for your dog, TO THIS POINT IN TIME. They're all different. Just because my dog responds well to one thing doesn't mean that's the only way to do things. In fact, my dog might be the ONLY dog it works for. I have no way of knowing; he's the only dog I've tried it with. And maybe it's only worked in the very few things we have experienced so far; when we get more experience, we might find our training method breaks down.
A good trainer/handler/pro realizes that training is dynamic. Methods get adjusted for each dog, for each handler, and for the goals for that particular dog. There is no one right or wrong way to do things.
I hope to be a good enough trainer to be able to read my dog, and know what he, as an individual, needs to be able to be the best that he can be.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

I said I was dropping out of this thread but now Robert (*Polmaise*) has arrived, I have a question for him...

Robert, I was really brassed off when the Cup was cancelled last time round, I'd done a bit of preparation, but didn't think we were on standard with the Springer (Lab was fine) so didn't enter, but planned to attend as an observer. Then it was blown out for lack of entries (so I was told). As Herr Atkinson has it ... Bummer.

What are the plans for this year? If we're on, I need another Springer asap and to get some mega training down. And about 5000 clays.

I think your "formula" is great, but maybe you'd get more entries at a venue "darn sarf"? 

Eugene


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I did...my hunch is several others did as well. Thanks for clearing this up.
> 
> Maybe you could put more of the friendly PM stuff in your public posts.
> 
> ...


I know it came out wrong. The brag was not about me but the e-collar itself. I think anyone who CCs dogs can make a huge improvement on a armish trained dog in a short amout of time. 

Point taken.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> I know it came out wrong. The brag was not about me but the e-collar itself. I think anyone who CCs dogs can make a huge improvement on a armish trained dog in a short amout of time.
> 
> Point taken.


But would the "improvement" be relevant to their game? All my dogs are CC'd, but I run US style field trials. I have never been to a UK style FT, so I don't really know how much of our training is applicable to their FTs, I sure would love to see one in England or Scotland. My point is that I think you are being a bit presumptious in assuming that you could show their dogs a thing or two by using our training methods in their venue. You could be right, or you could be wrong, you could also be very humbled if you tried it.

John


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> But would the "improvement" be relevant to their game? All my dogs are CC'd, but I run US style field trials. I have never been to a UK style FT, so I don't really know how much of our training is applicable to their FTs, I sure would love to see one in England or Scotland. My point is that I think you are being a bit presumptious in assuming that you could show their dogs a thing or two by using our training methods in their venue. You could be right, or you could be wrong, you could also be very humbled if you tried it.
> 
> John


What changes would you make to CC obedience if you changed venues?


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Colonel Blimp said:


> I said I was dropping out of this thread but now Robert (*Polmaise*) has arrived, I have a question for him...
> 
> Robert, I was really brassed off when the Cup was cancelled last time round, I'd done a bit of preparation, but didn't think we were on standard with the Springer (Lab was fine) so didn't enter, but planned to attend as an observer. Then it was blown out for lack of entries (so I was told). As Herr Atkinson has it ... Bummer.
> 
> ...


I agree mate, the venue would attract a bigger entry south of the border!
But the contacts I have are all in Scotland,and logistically it would be difficult for me to organise such an event from Scotland /down there .maybe I should hand over the mantle to someone like yourself?:razz:

I haven't any plans for this year, it appears the format is too difficult for most?...yet I do it every darn day?;-)...maybe the 'mericans', can show us?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> What changes would you make to CC obedience if you changed venues?


Having never run one, or even seen one in person, I have no idea. I just think its presumptuous to believe we know better what works for them than what they have been doing successfully for years. You might be right in that our training methods are so far advanced over what they do, it would be like showing flashlights to the natives of Borneo (no offence to anyone from Borneo), but I have to assume that their training methods have evolved as necessary to to succeed in their venue. It might be fun for someone to try though, as in effect that's what Dave Elliot did back in the thirties by importing Scottish sheep dog handling to American field trials. My mind isn't closed to your proposal, I'm just skeptical about CC really being necessary for their style of field trials. 

As far as obedience, from the little I have seen of UK field trails, obedience seems to be last thing I would be concerned about, they seem to have that part down pat compared to some of the creeping semi-wild line mannered dogs I see running American FTs.

John


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I'm sure the drills are much different but the e-collar is not a drill it's a tool. Much like a leash it can be applied to any dog in any venue. 

That's my thoughts on it anyway.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

PackLeader said:


> Eug,
> 
> Give me an afternoon with your dog and an e-collar and I will have your jaw on the floor. Great control at the line is one thing, great control at 300 yards is another. Everyone has their doubts and fears about the e-collar, that's why we do free demos.
> 
> ...


If you can teach control of a dog at 300 yards with an e-collar in an afternoon, I need to take lessons from you. :razz:


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Jamie, just so you know, I'm a big believer in the effectivness and utility of the modern E-collar. I also believe that handled intelligently it is more humane than other forms of training, it is especially well suited to more sensitive dogs. I have used it 100% since my first hunt test dog in 1992. It may also work wonders in the UK FT game, but that is pure speculation until someone tries it over there.

John


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Everytime a thread comes up about FF I shutter.
There's sooooooooooo much that goes into FF both with the trainer and the dog.
Not every dog is the same and I have never had any 2 dogs that have ff the same.
Timing is everything and 
I also believe that "Reading The Dog" is another one of the biggest keys to success.
I think that both Positve only folks and FF folks would all agree.
I also believe that the same can be said for CC.
Whatever works for you and your dog is great go for it.
I wish everyone all the best.
Sue


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> If you can teach control of a dog at 300 yards with an e-collar in an afternoon, I need to take lessons from you. :razz:


Control of a dog at 300 yds is begun without an e collar at 3 feet;-)

200th post on this thread regards

john


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

After reading this thread I am certainly more educated on FF and opinions. A few conclusions I have drawn are.

1) FF folks are fairly convinced that non FF will not allow higher achievement in the dog games. I wonder how many attempts have been made, and until attempts followed with failures have occurred I believe it is only conjecture that it is impossible.

2) People are very defensive of FF especially when the use of the word "pain" comes up. 

3) More than anything else the strongest argument for FF is it application to winning competitions.

4) The vast majority of hunting labs don't play the games. Therefor if your not interested in the "tests" you definitely have the option of low force non Ecollar methods that will produce reliable pleasant hunting companions.

5) There is very little actual 100% positive training. All dogs will be subject to a leash or collar at some point perhaps the mild scolding for chewing up a slipper or getting into the trash.

6) there are too many assumptions from both sides of the fence.


these are just my novice opinions.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I wouldn't say it can't be done. If it was would that make it practical?

I could build a home with a hammer and a ruler, but it would get done faster and more accurate with modern tools.

There is no such thing as a complete 100% positive training program. That's why there is no material on it.


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

PackLeader said:


> I wouldn't say it can't be done. If it was would that make it practical?
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a complete 100% positive training program. That's why there is no material on it.


 
Please don't tell that to the dolpins, sea lions, elephants, gorillas and other zoo animals that are trained positively. You would likely cause a major rebellion.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> 1.) It's more humane to use a forcing program, then not


Just out of curiosity how do you come to this conclusion?

Humane
–adjective
1.
characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.
2.
of or pertaining to humanistic studies.

—Synonyms 
1. merciful, kind, kindly, kindhearted, tender, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic; benevolent, benignant, charitable. See human.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

rooster said:


> By the way i don't care if you ff or not it is your choice.


I don't care either..I only seek the truth.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Pas Bon said:


> I don't care either..I only seek the truth.


 
Who's truth? 

This whole thing has turned into a car wreck, FF threads always go this route. 

Now we've got dolphins, lions and bears--OH MY!


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Just out of curiosity how do you come to this conclusion?
> 
> Humane
> –adjective
> ...


Yes let's look at horses. The horse has a bit in his mouth, you apply pressure to turn them left or right. Do they appear to be suffering or in distress?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The truth is it has been tried, for years, and other than a few that are successful at the qualifying level, they go out on the blinds. First of all, you have to be a very good dog trainer and understand dogs. Either people quit because it becomes too frustrating or too expensive, or they end up with a pro or collar if they want to compete. End of story.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

rmilner said:


> Please don't tell that to the dolpins, sea lions, elephants, gorillas and other zoo animals that are trained positively. You would likely cause a major rebellion.


Yea like the one where the EAT the trainer!

Bribing an animal to do a trick isn't training one.


----------



## Ron Bonneau (Nov 18, 2009)

Ugh!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Remind everyone NOT to click when the killer whale has me in its mouth, OK?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Click....click....click....


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

sorry mark, you are screwed buddy! Whale snack.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Pas Bon said:


> I don't care either..I only seek the truth.


What "truth"? 

It is personal preference. 

That's all there is to it. 

I take issue to either "side" trying to make a case that the other is "wrong".

If it works for you and your dog, great!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

PackLeader said:


> Yes let's look at horses. The horse has a bit in his mouth, you apply pressure to turn them left or right. Do they appear to be suffering or in distress?


actually that would be incredibly bad horsemanship, but carry on


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

FOM said:


> Click....click....click....


are those the heels on your ho shoes?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Chris Atkinson said:


> What "truth"?
> 
> It is personal preference.
> 
> ...


I cant believe it took 218 posts for someone to finally say it ...well done Chris


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> I cant believe it took 218 posts for someone to finally say it ...well done Chris


Thanks Bon,

I think I said it here too:

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=783140&postcount=159


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> What "truth"?
> 
> It is personal preference.
> 
> ...


No I'm not talking about right or wrong. 

The truth I'm after is....is it necessary to FF a dog to achieve a master hunter field trial champion what ever you guys call it.

Can a non FF low force non ecollar dog be reliable to the point that it won't refuse even under perceived pressure in a hunting type situation like cold water or thick cover etc.

Some have stated that pressure is not pain and I wonder how they really know this? ( I am guilty of inflicting pain on my dog).

How many non ff dogs have been proven?

Just looking for an education. 

I have seen the VERY UGLY side of FF and because of that I went another direction. I'm not saying anyone here is guilty of cruelty but it does happen under the umbrella of FF.

Look at it this way. I saw an exhibition of a prominent British style low force program and in my naive eyes it was AWESOME!!!

I also saw a smile and a glint in a mans eye when he bragged about making a dog piss itself because he was barring down on its ear with the brass of a shotgun shell. I have also hear "pros" talk about how they can't FF their own dogs because they don't like to watch them go through the rough parts of it.

So YES I am a little biased and for very good reason but I am trying to maintain an open mind and discover the TRUTH and do a better job with my own animal.

Thats it nothing more...so if you "take issue" with that I'm sorry and thats MY truth..MY reality.

Carry ON! Sorry If I sound combative I really don't mean it that way.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

chris and bon,

true it is a personal preference. a *WAY TOO PERSONAL PREFERENCE*!!!

you guys take it easy on mr. milner, we all use his old stuff whether we know it or not. plus he is always courteous in discussing htese matters.


sincerly, too old to run, dive and swim,

john mc


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

roseberry said:


> chris and bon,
> 
> true it is a personal preference. a *WAY TOO PERSONAL PREFERENCE*!!!
> 
> ...


You got me in the wrong camp...I am in the non FF non EC side but after a couple of these urinating contests I have learned, that I am not going to change anyones heart and mind, and vice versa....and as a historical note Clint competed against Mr Milner many years ago, and we have nothing but respect for the man, dont know about the hows or why's of his methods,and not interested in changing either...


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Pas Bon said:


> No I'm not talking about right or wrong.
> 
> The truth I'm after is....is it necessary to FF a dog to achieve a master hunter field trial champion what ever you guys call it.
> *
> ...


since you asked...my responses in blue


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Bon are you saying the pros that have run the dogs never trained them with the collar?


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

Bon,
i was not clear in my post. i was only stating that you and our moderator are correct, it is a personal preference. but after 23 pages of entertainment it is obviously very personal to many. i am not one who takes it personal either way.

Bon, you are the only one who ever has an answer to the "threads old" question, "can anyone name an afc fc trained with no ff?" i figured you to be a more "positive" trainer.

when i said "you guys take it easy..." i had changed gears and was no longer refering to posts made by you and chris. i intended that comment for the "lets make fun of whale training" posts.

Bon, i regret being unclear because i always enjoy and value your inputs to this forum. 

i also respect the training choices made by each trainer. i feel every post on this thread was made with the best intrests of retrievers in mind.

john mc


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> Bon are you saying the pros that have run the dogs never trained them with the collar?


No, not saying that at all, but Star, Nola, and Mirk were all trained and finished by Clint before they went to Scott D and Chris L...and none of them were FF, and none were collar dogs, they have been shown a collar but not the way Cint prefers to train....its also probably the reason they arent at pros any longer...*it kind of handcuffs the Pro when they arent collar trained and asking them to change the way they train*...

it really showed with Brig, he did not do well at all when a collar was applied, actually gave Clint a no go at a trial last year...He hasnt seen a collar or pro since and probably never will...and thats not anything against pros, its just two different modes of training..not really interchangeable


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

rmilner said:


> Please don't tell that to the dolpins, sea lions, elephants, gorillas and other zoo animals that are trained positively. You would likely cause a major rebellion.


Sorry Bob, but I am quite familiar with this program.
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/
They place an *emphasis* on Positive Reinforcement, but that does not rule out the use of the other three portions of Operant Conditioning. Believe me, these people are not fools they *know* what it takes to train an animal.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> After reading this thread I am certainly more educated on FF and opinions. A few conclusions I have drawn are.
> 
> 1) FF folks are fairly convinced that non FF will not allow higher achievement in the dog games. I wonder how many attempts have been made, and until attempts followed with failures have occurred I believe it is only conjecture that it is impossible.
> 
> ...


These threads are always a colossal waste of time, as evidenced by this being what you got out of the pro-FF camp after 230 posts on the subject.

To each their own, as long as you and the dogs are happy. In general and with eachother ;-)


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> actually that would be incredibly bad horsemanship, but carry on


Is it really? I have no idea.

Last time I rode a horse was a long time ago. I asked the handler "how do I steer this thing" he said pull on the left to go left. I assumed the bit was applying some kind of pressure to make that happen.

Anyway we are beating a dead horse.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

tom said:


> Sorry Bob, but I am quite familiar with this program.
> http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/
> They place an *emphasis* on Positive Reinforcement, but that does not rule out the use of the other three portions of Operant Conditioning. Believe me, these people are not fools they *know* what it takes to train an animal.


Please expound on that comment..I'm curious to know how it's done that conflicts with what Mr. Milner said or led you to make the somewhat contradictory response.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

tom said:


> Sorry Bob, but I am quite familiar with this program.
> http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/
> They place an *emphasis* on Positive Reinforcement, but that does not rule out the use of the other three portions of Operant Conditioning. Believe me, these people are not fools they *know* what it takes to train an animal.


Tom I pondered the dolphin etc use, but came to the conclusion the trainers requirements where not as complex as ours. Natural versus trained. Am I wrong, AGAIN?


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Pas Bon said:


> Please expound on that comment..I'm curious to know how it's done that conflicts with what Mr. Milner said or led you to make the somewhat contradictory response.





> that are trained positively


Implying that *only* R+ is used to train these animals, which is not true. There is a big difference between an emphasis and only.
If you watch a good "force trainer" train a dog from start to finish you will find that they too place an emphasis on Positive Reinforcement, whether they will admit it or not.

Aussie, would this take nurturing or training? Is it any less complicated than retrieving a duck?










Did you know that there are also "force protection" Sea Lions and dolphins? Nice thing to remember should you think about going for a dip around a Naval vessel.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

rmilner said:


> Please don't tell that to the dolpins, sea lions, elephants, gorillas and other zoo animals that are trained positively. You would likely cause a major rebellion.


All those groups are cruel and inhumane according to the animal rights people. How dare you with-hold food unti the trick is performed. how is that positive?

/paul


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> _actually that would be incredibly bad horsemanship, but carry on :razz:_Is it really? I have no idea.


Not incredibly bad but a bit amateurish and untutored. 



> Last time I rode a horse was a long time ago. I asked the handler "how do I steer this thing" he said pull on the left to go left. I assumed the bit was applying some kind of pressure to make that happen.


 Just another meat dog, oops, sorry horse. You were using continuous level four when you merely needed to give an "over".:grin: The pressure was certainly there but misapplied. At the upper levels of horsemanship (lets call it FT) the signal for a turn with impulsion comes from the riders opposite leg; increased pressure is applied somewhat to the rear of the natural leg position. Watch a horse/ rider combination in dressage; even in tight turns there is no discernible rein movement to the side in initiating the turn. 



> Anyway we are beating a dead horse.


I agree, but would add that it's a dead horse that's been resurrected from the grave several times already, and has no flesh left on its bones. We're just kicking the old ribs round the yard one more time.

Eug

(British Horse Society Approved Instructor, Porlock Academy, 1966.)


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Colonel Blimp said:


> I agree, but would add that it's a dead horse that's been resurrected from the grave several times already, and has no flesh left on its bones. We're just kicking the old ribs round the yard one more time.
> 
> Eug
> 
> (British Horse Society Approved Instructor, Porlock Academy, 1966.)


Horses, dolphins, gorillas...why don't any of those sound like good choices as duck blind companions?  Guess I'm old fashioned.










Evan


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

PackLeader said:


> Is it really? I have no idea.
> 
> Last time I rode a horse was a long time ago. I asked the handler "how do I steer this thing" he said pull on the left to go left. I assumed the bit was applying some kind of pressure to make that happen.
> 
> Anyway we are beating a dead horse.


That must have been a specific type of horse trained a specific way, possibly with an e bit? 

Pressure from the outside leg makes the dead horse turn, or at least that's how I was taught.

OOOH I posted this without reading Eug response and got it right! 

I know less about horse training than dog training though, so I better really stop posting about that LOL! 

Just havin some fun w/ya.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2011)

DarrinGreene said:


> I know less about horse training than dog training


Scary thought! :razz::razz::razz:


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> That must have been a specific type of horse trained a specific way, possibly with an e bit?
> 
> Pressure from the outside leg makes the dead horse turn, or at least that's how I was taught.
> 
> ...


ACtually, the answer would be "not always".......

Packleader's answer was also wrong. If he was on a horse and wanted to go left and pulled the left rein, he's doing what would be called "plow reigning". No its not pressure on the bit as far as its more like moving the head in the direction one wants to go.

Lots of "trail horses" out there that do not have the advanced skills beyond plow reigning. 

WRL


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Evan said:


> Horses, dolphins, gorillas...why don't any of those sound like good choices as duck blind companions?  Guess I'm old fashioned.
> 
> Evan


I think dolphins would make great sea duck retrievers. Horses are deadly for sneaking up on geese..... and gorillas... well if you find someone in your duck hunting spot a big ole' gorilla could definitely take care o' bidness!!

jus sayin'

:BIG:


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2011)

WRL said:


> No its not pressure on the bit as far as its more like moving the head in the direction one wants to go.


Which is exactly why we use the bit to teach dogs how to mark. Finally, some sanity comes out of this thread.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

To me what is cruel is the dog that someone gets that does not know or care to learn how to train a dog. Eventually due to the owners ineptitude the dog is relegated to the back yard. The dog the get bored and starts doing something wrong and ends up on a chain or in a kennel full time. Then finally abandoned or given to a shelter to be euthanized. 

The way you train your dog is YOUR responsibility not some faceless person on the net. British this FF that and e-collar blah blah blah means jack squat done incorrectly. I have seen all kinds of dog work from incredible to the neighbors barking poop eater and all are products of their owners training. This topic is quite beyond beaten to death and I never have seen much beneficial that has not been repeated. I dont drive a prius, nor do I care to but that does not make it irrelevant.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2011)

Thanks Steve for ruining a perfectly good thread.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Here you can see high levels corrections being administered to the dogs neck. IMO the dog is getting a higher level correction than would be required from e-collar, I also think the e-collar is a much safer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCtlRAGnsdU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

What makes this R+? Just the fact that the dog has no e-collar on? If this is the method I need to resort to to call myself a positive trainer I'd rather not.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Here you can see high levels corrections being administered to the dogs neck. IMO the dog is getting a higher level correction than would be required from e-collar, I also think the e-collar is a much safer.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCtlRAGnsdU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> What makes this R+? Just the fact that the dog has no e-collar on? If this is the method I need to resort to to call myself a positive trainer I'd rather not.


What's the difference between having the lead in your hand and giving it a pop, and stepping on the lead? Ya it is training through the use of P+, but what I see there hardly rises to the level of abusive or distasteful. You only need to ask one question when making a correction that way, did the dog understand the correction? In the vid the dog clearly showed that it understood the correction. Also the pups behavior after getting the bumper is completely predictable, I don't believe I have ever had a pup that didn't try that.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

tom said:


> What's the difference between having the lead in your hand and giving it a pop, and stepping on the lead?


Neither is r+.

With a pop the dog then makes a mental decision on it's own. The dog makes no mental decision when you step on the leash. All they learn is that didn't feel good. That is not positive reinforcement IMO.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Neither is r+.
> 
> With a pop the dog then makes a mental decision on it's own. The dog makes no mental decision when you step on the leash. All they learn is that didn't feel good. That is not positive reinforcement IMO.


Your wrong! If the lead was in your hand it would stop the pup from running off just the same as it did when you step on it. But you are right, either way it is still positive punishment. (P+ as I indicated above) If you watch the vid again, you will see that the dog did make a mental decision after the correction to return to the handler. (tail still wagging)


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

I don't claim to be the best there is on positive training (I had and have a lot of very well ingrained habits from many years of compulsion training), however I do claim to be working very hard at getting as good as I can get at it. The more I learn, the more convinced I become that it is much better than traditional compulsion training. I have also found that positive training is much more quickly learned by a novice trainer, than is compulsion training. To me that is a significant value.

Most of the critics appear to have a lack of knowledge and experience
on positive training. I think that most who know the theory and have spent at least a little time and effort learning the proper application, would appreciate the full value.

Here is another clip of a different dog that had not been previously trained to "not come".

Playing fetch from ground with Buccleuch Temperance​Reinforcing delivery to hand​http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrOkq9fsSkI​


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

rmilner said:


> I don't claim to be the best there is on positive training (I had and have a lot of very well ingrained habits from many years of compulsion training), however I do claim to be working very hard at getting as good as I can get at it. The more I learn, the more convinced I become that it is much better than traditional compulsion training. I have also found that positive training is much more quickly learned by a novice trainer, than is compulsion training. To me that is a significant value.
> 
> Most of the critics appear to have a lack of knowledge and experience
> on positive training. I think that most who know the theory and have spent at least a little time and effort learning the proper application, would appreciate the full value.
> ...


Bob
What you are *not* doing is properly *defining* positive training. You and I have both been around dogs long enough to know that training using nothing but R+ methods is a physical impossibility. Even tho' you choose to use different methods to apply pressure, you still apply pressure.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

That's not even remotely close to a proper finish IMO. We all have different standards, which is why we all have diffrent oppinions.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I had meant to leave this thread a long time ago, but it just seems to go on and on, so here I am again.

I won't argue that positive only training is possible, it may or may not work in the field trails game versus hunt test or just plain hunting, I just don't know enough about it to argue either way. The bottom line for me and my dogs is that conventional field trial training, ala a Carr based program along with what I consider to be flexable, sensitive trainers has worked well, and I see no reason to experiment with something different. My dogs do get corrected from time to time at different levels and I'm sure FF was no picnic for them, but they jump out of the truck tail wagging and springing into the air as if training was the best thing in the world, which to them it probably is. On the other hand my first Golden really didn't like the training, you could read it in him. He was only training because he had to, but hunting, my God he loved that. So we retired him from training and the hunt test game and just let him hunt and be a couch potato at home.

I guess my only point isn't to argue whether positive only training works or not, but to argue with CC or force training being automatically abusive. It can be, and I have personally witnessed dogs be abused with the shock collar. I have also seen dogs abused with a choke chain or just by hand. That is on the individual, not the process. I once read an article by Jackie Mertens where she attributed the modern ecollar with being a training equalizer in it's ability to train sensitve Goldens to the highest level, where the same dog would have washed out under the greater pressure of old style training.

John


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> I had meant to leave this thread a long time ago, but it just seems to go on and on, so here I am again.
> 
> I won't argue that positive only training is possible, it may or may not work in the field trails game versus hunt test or just plain hunting, I just don't know enough about it to argue either way. The bottom line for me and my dogs is that conventional field trial training, ala a Carr based program along with what I consider to be flexable, sensitive trainers has worked well, and I see no reason to experiment with something different. My dogs do get corrected from time to time at different levels and I'm sure FF was no picnic for them, but they jump out of the truck tail wagging and springing into the air as if training was the best thing in the world, which to them it probably is. On the other hand my first Golden really didn't like the training, you could read it in him. He was only training because he had to, but hunting, my God he loved that. So we retired him from training and the hunt test game and just let him hunt and be a couch potato at home.
> 
> ...


Exactly John,

The collar can be adjusted to the proper level for any dog. A stomp on the long line cannot. You also have no chance of damaging the dogs neck.


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Tom,
To avoid a side trip into semantics, let me give my take on the difference between traditional compulsion training and "positive training".

(1) I look at traditional compulsion training as operating from the perspective of looking for deviations from the desired behavior and correcting them; including the frequent practice of "setting them up" to deviate so that correction can be applied.

(2) I look at "positive training" as operating from the perspective of looking for the desired behavior and rewarding it; including "setting them up" to do it right so that the right behavior can be rewarded.

To me, #2 is a dramatically different approach to training as practiced in the sporting dog sector.

I am certainly not naive enough to claim that I never use vocal diapproval signals and occaisional physical contact such as checkcord. Obviously either 1 or 2 applied to an irrational extreme would not be terribly effective.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

WRL said:


> ACtually, the answer would be "not always".......
> 
> Packleader's answer was also wrong. If he was on a horse and wanted to go left and pulled the left rein, he's doing what would be called "plow reigning". No its not pressure on the bit as far as its more like moving the head in the direction one wants to go.
> 
> ...


Quite sure I don't know the details on that one. I just live with an English hunter/jumper afficionado so I have to hear all the critiques every time we see someone on a horse LOL


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> Scary thought! :razz::razz::razz:


Yes but I don't even attempt that so it's all good 

Oh and BM!


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

rmilner said:


> (1) I look at traditional compulsion training as operating from the perspective of looking for deviations from the desired behavior and correcting them; including the frequent practice of "setting them up" to deviate so that correction can be applied.


I think you would be very, very surprised if you spent a day training with some of the really good pros these days.
Because I have and the above statement isn't accurate. I know no trainer that frequently "sets them up" solely for the purpose of correction. Most design their set ups with the idea of achieving a high success rate.

# 2 is much closer, and the positive is the retrieve, a bird, and a job well done.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

rmilner said:


> Tom,
> To avoid a side trip into semantics, let me give my take on the difference between traditional compulsion training and "positive training".
> 
> (1) I look at traditional compulsion training as operating from the perspective of looking for deviations from the desired behavior and correcting them; including the frequent practice of "setting them up" to deviate so that correction can be applied.
> ...


Where the problem lies is that *"positive training"* is forever linked to R+ Operant Conditioning, and what you are trying to promote falls outside of that definition. Most of the problems that threads like this encounter are causes by far too many definitions being used for the same terms.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

rmilner said:


> Most of the critics appear to have a lack of knowledge and experience
> on positive training. I think that most who know the theory and have spent at least a little time and effort learning the proper application, would appreciate the full value.
> 
> Here is another clip of a different dog that had not been previously trained to "not come".
> ...


Pretty simple process leveraging the dog's natural desire to chase things.

We do this with food for less motivated dogs. Throw a treat across the floor and let the dog get it. Tease the dog back to you and reward it again. Then throw another treat, then reward for returning... The ball then gets layered over the treats and the treats are put on intermittant and then random schedule, ultimately being removed with the ball replacing them as the "reward". 

The video shows using the ball as a reward and layering it over the bumper to create the same habitual behavior with the new object.

Do this long enough and eventually she'll pick up a lot of different things anticipating that you'll throw the familiar item as a reward.

Just in case you thought we were all completely ignorant to +r just because we use -r


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Hi Guys', I am understanding and learning alot from this thread(outside all the qwerky remarks)

From someone who has not used these methods of training such as FF ,CC ETC,therefore I cant comment on the effectiveness? I can only see the the results. 
What I have seen/heard and read about is :,that it does produce results.
But my question is?......
If FF is a process to achieve what is desired and E-collar a tool to teach/train the dog to do what is desired?.then _Why ? is an e-collar still used on a 'trained', dog??..surely if it has learned then it should perform every time?_
Or am I just a thick 'limey', that just doesn't get it?
I suppose you could argue that the e-collar is there to 'remind' the dog?,or the 'just in case'? scenario, but then that would be saying ''it hasn't learned maybe"?

I aint havin a dig'!...just want to understand a bit more?
atb
Robert


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

rmilner said:


> Tom,
> To avoid a side trip into semantics, let me give my take on the difference between traditional compulsion training and "positive training".
> 
> (1) I look at traditional compulsion training as operating from the perspective of looking for deviations from the desired behavior and correcting them; including the frequent practice of "setting them up" to deviate so that correction can be applied.
> ...


Actually Robert, given the power of a retrieve as a reward to these dogs, I think you'll find that they very frequently get rewarded for the appropriate behavior, and that -p can be a very powerful tool with some highly motivated dogs. 

The use of -r to reinforce known commands actually reduces the frequency of infractions and drastically lowers not only the frequency but the intensity of +p used for the balance of the dog's life.

What you find is once you get through the -r portion of the program, you rarely, if ever use that particular operant. Applying a small amount of well timed +p to most issues gets the appropriate behavior quickly, allowing the dog to be rewarded (usually with a retrieve).

I think people who have such strong opinions regarding FF and other modern -r methods discount the fact that the retrieve IS a reward, and a very potent one for these dogs.

I'm actually teaching my dog to down from a standing position right now and using -r in that process. WHen he gets it right his reward is... you guessed it, a fun bumper. He would rather retrieve than eat, so a retrieve is his reward, just like a tug toy might be for a protection dog.

The assertion that -r and "Carresq" type programs rely on the threat of pressure to get things accomplished is just flat out incorrect. The dogs in these programs receive numberous, powerful rewards day in and day out when they perform the appropriate behavior.

I think the behaviors are so complex at times and have so many compnents that one might think the dog never gets it right. Well, every time with allow a dog to make a retrieve, we're telling him he did it right and rewarding him for it! 

I don't know too many dogs that don't get to retrieve a high percentage of thier birds daily. We go around counting success percentages and work to keep thin in the 75%+ range every day, and higher for the more sensitive dogs. 

So someone has to fill me in on how a dog that gets rewarded say 80% of the time and either -p or +p 20% of the time isn't on a "positive" training program.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

They don't wear e-collars when competing yet they still perform. The ecollar is always on the dog so you can maintain your standards in every situation. You don't have control of what might go wrong on a given day, but you do have the ability to control the dog at all times.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Hi Guys', I am understanding and learning alot from this thread(outside all the qwerky remarks)
> 
> From someone who has not used these methods of training such as FF ,CC ETC,therefore I cant comment on the effectiveness? I can only see the the results.
> What I have seen/heard and read about is :,that it does produce results.
> ...


One of the tricks used with collar training is that you don't just put the collar on when you intend to use it. You should put it on the dog every time you train. This prevents the dog from becoming "collar wise". My Lab is now 11 years old, so at this stage of the game I guess you could say we "practice" instead of "train". The collar still goes on every time even tho' I honestly can't remember the last time I pushed a button on it. When we do make a collar correction on a well trained dog it will usually be in the form of "indirect pressure". (could probably be just as effective to wake up the country side by shouting _HAY, PAY ATTENTION_)

Definition of indirect pressure

“You send your teenage son to the mailbox. On the way he spots the neighbor’s voluptuous daughter in a bikini (factor). He immediately starts in her direction (succumbing to the factor). 

You yell (whistle) Son!!!!!! (Handle). His eyes get back into focus and turns toward you and says “WHAT??” (responding to the whistle) For the Amish folks, you walk up to him and whop him upside the head!!! (correction=indirect pressure). You then say ‘You were told to go get the mail, now do what you were told!!!’ 

That my friends is Indirect Pressure and why it works.” 
Jerry Harris


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> Hi Guys', I am understanding and learning alot from this thread(outside all the qwerky remarks)
> 
> From someone who has not used these methods of training such as FF ,CC ETC,therefore I cant comment on the effectiveness? I can only see the the results.
> What I have seen/heard and read about is :,that it does produce results.
> ...


Robert, I can actually help you there.

FF does not "achieve" the desired result. Teaching achieves the result. FF simply applies -r to make it resistant to extinction. In other words, it insures they do the command every time. That's ALL it really does, despite so many other comments about learning to deal with pressure and all that. What's really happening is formalization of the GO command. The rest are just side effects.

I assume you understand the normal rule that says that in order for a dog to associate a reward or a punishment with a behavior, that we must deliver that reward or punishment within 1 second of the dog's action. The e collar as a tool does one thing and one thing only. It solves the timing issue with +p that we run into when a dog is 200 yards away and decides to be disobedient.

The ability to deliver +p in a timely and metered fashion really accelerates the process of formalizing commands we have already taught the dog. Having the abiltiy to deliver +p in a timely, consistent fashion reduces the frequency of infractions drastically. Missing corrections or having them be poorly timed only serves to lengthen the process, resulting in more corrections and ultimately more pressure for the dog.

The clarity and timing advantage you get from the e collar can not be produced by any other method (that I know of), once the dog leaves the range of a 6 ft lead.

Oh and why does a fully trained dog still wear one? Because they have brains and sometimes they decide ot do things thier way. In that case we need a clear, timely way to remind them whose driving the boat today. John Robinson explains it well in post 268.


----------



## Dark Timber Kennels (Sep 22, 2010)

Most guys are missing the point. Force is not really about holding or even fetch. It's a tool that allows the dog to learn how to turn off the pressure and respond to the command in a timely manner. FF is the foundation of a retriever. Not a gun dog, but a retriever.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> If FF is a process to achieve what is desired and E-collar a tool to teach/train the dog to do what is desired?.then _Why ? is an e-collar still used on a 'trained', dog??..surely if it has learned then it should perform every time?_


Complex answer-more than one can take a crack at it. Many dogs go through a training day and don't receive a correction, but just because they have been taught in the same manner doesn't mean they react the same to the training and trial challenges. Some dogs try really hard to please, and they may may just be shown the correct way by casting but other dogs may not give a good effort everyday, or they may like to pick up poison birds, or speed cheat the water, or they are not team players-they are self employed rascals. The trials are usually set up to differentiate the best from the rest and that sometimes is accomplished by bird or blind placement where a dog naturally doesn't want to go or will take the quickest way. You can gain some knowledge by watching a trial and watch what all of the dogs do on the same marks or blinds.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

polmaise said:


> Hi Guys', I am understanding and learning alot from this thread(outside all the qwerky remarks)
> 
> From someone who has not used these methods of training such as FF ,CC ETC,therefore I cant comment on the effectiveness? I can only see the the results.
> What I have seen/heard and read about is :,that it does produce results.
> ...


That is a good question Robert, I had the exact same question when I first started traing dogs 20 years ago. I remember calling Richard Wolters at home to ask a question about his book and being surprised when his wife told me he was out training at the minute but would call me back when he returned. I remember thinking, surely his dogs are trained by now, what does he have to train more for?

To answer your question, the very difficult and distant set ups a FT dog has to deal with in training and at a trial require a dog to make a lot of decisions and act against their natural impulse, all while running at full speed far away from his handler. The e-collar is used as a correction, it may be a slight nick, or something greater depending on the situation and the dog. We train with a collar every time, I mean 100% of the time, so that the dog develops good habits and never learns what he can get away with without a collar on. A dog that learns there are no consequenses other than getting yelled at when he does wrong with no collar is called "collar wise".

I had a very smart Golden that we used to have to walk with a collar on to keep him from wandering or chasing deer during the walk. Some times I would put the collar on him but bluff him as I didn't take the transmitter. We'll he figured that right out. Ok I can see him doing that but he also figured out that sometimes even with transmitter in hand the batteries were dead, he would proceed to do a minor infraction and if I nicked him, he was right at my side being an angel dog, but no nick he knew the collar was dead and just ignored me. Very smart, collar wise dog.

Some dogs become Trial-wise the same way. My dog Yoda never moved an inch in training but was a horrible creeper at a trial. The same dog that is religious about getting off a distant point on a difficult water blind in training might not be as diciplined in a trial without a collar. That's where the good habits and built in dicipline have to prevail.

John


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> FF simply applies -r


Rarely is a collar correction R-, unlike the ear pinch used in FF. Most of the time it is P+.
To be R- you would push the button down (or pinch the ear), give the command, and remove the pressure when the dog complies.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

rossicraig said:


> Most guys are missing the point. Force is not really about holding or even fetch. It's a tool that allows the dog to learn how to turn off the pressure and respond to the command in a timely manner. FF is the foundation of a retriever. Not a gun dog, but a retriever.


Learning to turn off pressure is a side effect IF force fetch is the first time the dog has been exposed to negative reinforcement. It was done this way in the original programs and it is a common misconception now.

I teach dogs that never fetch anything to turn off pressure. 

It's first done by witholding rewards (yes, this is pressure to the dog), then it's leash pressure (constant pressure on a pinch collar), then it may be e collar pressure if the owner desires it. I teach it on sit, here and down commands with great results. 

The power of negativ reinforcement is not to be underestimated, even with a pet dog that never retrieves a thing.

You don't HAVE to teach a retriever how to turn on pressure in force fetch. He may already know how if he was collar conditioned prior to the process beginning. SOme do and some don't teach it at this step in the process.

What you do have to do is formalize the fetch command and transition that formalization to the "back" command to get the dog to reliably leave the handler despite not seeing a bird fall.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

tom said:


> Rarely is a collar correction R-, unlike the ear pinch used in FF. Most of the time it is P+.
> To be R- you would push the button down (or pinch the ear), give the command, and remove the pressure when the dog complies.


 
that depends on who you are and how you use your e collar Tom


----------



## troy schwab (Mar 9, 2010)

Is there a standing record for the longest thread??????? LOL


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

tom said:


> Rarely is a collar correction R-, unlike the ear pinch used in FF. Most of the time it is P+.
> To be R- you would push the button down (or pinch the ear), give the command, and remove the pressure when the dog complies.


I use -r with the e collar on any new command I have taught and want to formalize Tom. Right now I'm teaching the dog to drop on recall and using -r to formalize it and get a snappy response.

Once I have it formalized I'll switch to +p for non compliance but when I teach the command and then want it formalized, I use -r.

You are right in that e collar "correction" isn't -r. Using the word "correction" implies +p. 

It's quite a strong tool for reinforcing commands through -r as well though.

Ultimately we transition from the ear to the collar and then into FTP. This is a prime example of the e collar being used to create -r. If we've conditioned the dog to it we can then use it to get a timely whistle sit as well. In fact, any time you issue "command burn command" or "command nic command" you're actually using -r. We use it all throughout the basics program, although we may not realize it.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

troy schwab said:


> Is there a standing record for the longest thread??????? LOL


I don't know but I think we set a new record. I wonder if the OP got his answer.


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

PackLeader said:


> I don't know but I think we set a new record. I wonder if the OP got his answer.


Not even close yet... http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9220&page=34


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> Robert, I can actually help you there.
> 
> we must deliver that reward or punishment within 1 second of the dog's action. The e collar as a tool does one thing and one thing only. It solves the timing issue with +p that we run into when a dog is 200 yards away and *decides to be disobedient*.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that;-)
It would appear the 'e-collar' CC (to me), ? is a 'visual', and 'trigger', for the dog ,to know when 'work', is about to perform? much like sniffer dogs 'dorn', a jacket, or 'gundogs' over here see me put the game bag over the shoulder and a gun in my arm?
I am still slightly puzzled', as to why ? *'the dog would 'decide to be disobedient'*...if it was trained(or learned the consequence),of not doing that learned behaviour?

I imagine'?..the crucial factor is the 'timing', of the use of the tool with the individual dog'? and the skills of the 'trainer', to read the dog?
"fascinating stuff" (for me)


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

polmaise said:


> If FF is a process to achieve what is desired and E-collar a tool to teach/train the dog to do what is desired?.then _Why ? is an e-collar still used on a 'trained', dog??..surely if it has learned then it should perform every time?_
> Robert


In addition to what the others have responded the e-collar is just part of the preparation before going to work. 

When my dogs see the collar come out, they get all wiggly in anticipation and literally thurst their heads into the waiting collar. It's a sign that we're going to go training and have some fun. They take it as an indication that something good is going to happen.

They rarely get a correction anymore but if it's required at least the collar is on and I can utilize it. If it's not on and they get away with ignoring a know standard without being corrected, it's possible to set your training back by not enforcing and correcting that known standard. 

In other words, it could be confusing to the dog.

The use of the e-collar needs to be absolutely black and white to the dog. They must understand what the correction is for and when it's applied fairly, there are no hard feelings.

The dogs run hard, happy and with enthusiasm when this tool (e-collar) is used correctely.

In the proper hands, it's by far the best, fairest, and most humane tool there is for training these dogs to the extremely high standards we expect of them. IMHO.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> Thanks for that;-)
> It would appear the 'e-collar' CC (to me), ? is a 'visual', and 'trigger', for the dog ,to know when 'work', is about to perform? much like sniffer dogs 'dorn', a jacket, or 'gundogs' over here see me put the game bag over the shoulder and a gun in my arm?
> I am still slightly puzzled', as to why ? *'the dog would 'decide to be disobedient'*...if it was trained(or learned the consequence),of not doing that learned behaviour?
> 
> ...


In John's post 268 he explains how the collar can become a "visual trigger" to the dog, although we try to avoid it. But your'e right Robert, a lot of dogs see the collar come out and anticipate work, which also means retrieves (rewards) and are quite happy, even sticking thier necks out to get it on. John also explains why we get some diosobedient responses at times when he mentions that we are training against the dog's instinct a lot.

You are right about the timing of the usage of the tool. The art if you will, is distinguishing the disobedience from the mistakes. Every dog will make an error when they are trying to do the right thing and while we may stop and teach them in that case, we don't want to correct. 

That's what makes the best IMO, well... the best. They know the difference between a lack of effort on the dogs part (Correction) and the dog trying but maybe failing or making a mistake in the process. They know when to teach vs. correct. 

Us somewhat newer at this are best off defaulting to teacher mode than correcting in many cases. That statement has it's drawbacks too though, in that there comes a time when a correction is absolutely justified and you may miss it if you don't realize that's the case. I still think it's better though, to err on the side of caution and not destroy a dog's attitude by correcting when it thought it was doing the right thing.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

polmaise said:


> Thanks for that;-)
> It would appear the 'e-collar' CC (to me), ? is a 'visual', and 'trigger', for the dog ,to know when 'work', is about to perform? much like sniffer dogs 'dorn', a jacket, or 'gundogs' over here see me put the game bag over the shoulder and a gun in my arm?
> I am still slightly puzzled', as to why ? *'the dog would 'decide to be disobedient'*...if it was trained(or learned the consequence),of not doing that learned behaviour?
> 
> ...


They are still dogs...

So what if they sometimes make bad choices. They rearly disobey a command. I wouldnt consider that disobedient.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> I am still slightly puzzled', as to why ? 'the dog would 'decide to be disobedient'...if it was trained(or learned the consequence),of not doing that learned behaviour?


Sometimes dogs don't know perfectly well what we want quite good enough ;-)

Usually if the dog is just confused we will rely on "attrition" rather than a collar correction. However if the dog is showing a lack of effort, or is just blowing us off, a timely collar correction will get their head back into the game very quickly.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

labguy said:


> In addition to what the others have responded the e-collar is just part of the preparation before going to work.
> 
> When my dogs see the collar come out, they get all wiggly in anticipation and literally thurst their heads into the waiting collar. It's a sign that we're going to go training and have some fun. They take it as an indication that something good is going to happen.
> 
> ...


I agree entirely that the my dogs see the 'game bag and gun', as much the same with as much enthusiasm'? as i said the visual trigger', to what is coming next!
So ..there is no 'confusion', for the dog (as i see it) it knows it's goin to work?
and it loves it
So it is black and white?...no gun no game bag...no fun!
The dog should run hard and happy with enthusiasm when these tools are the process for thier happiness?
Maybe the thread on here is not the best (because of all the previous) to have the best 'pro-active', forum discussion and broader understanding,for me to learn from you guys?

Across this side of the water,it is not the norm', and in some areas the e-collar and FF', are training methods that are either 'banned', or more often not understood??..due to complience?...Chris? maybe you could 'split', the thread?..to read "different training techniques"? (without getting into a them and us)..as an education of differences US/UK Styles? you never know 'we could probably learn alot from each other?...if taken positively.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

polmaise said:


> Thanks for that;-)
> *It would appear the 'e-collar' CC (to me), ? is a 'visual', and 'trigger', for the dog ,to know when 'work', is about to perform? much like sniffer dogs 'dorn', a jacket, or 'gundogs' over here see me put the game bag over the shoulder and a gun in my arm?*I am still slightly puzzled', as to why ? *'the dog would 'decide to be disobedient'*...if it was trained(or learned the consequence),of not doing that learned behaviour?
> 
> I imagine'?..the crucial factor is the 'timing', of the use of the tool with the individual dog'? and the skills of the 'trainer', to read the dog?
> "fascinating stuff" (for me)


Absolutely. My dogs jump for joy when they see me pull the collar out. They know it's time to train and they love training.

As to your other question, for the most part they aren't being willfully disobedient, just making the wrong or no decision on the fly, but if you could show me a way to simply train my very fast, high drive Golden to cast off that point at 300 yards or under the arc of a poisin bird consistantly in training and a trial I would be forever gratefull.
john


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

Quick question after sorting from my last post on this thread: How many champions have been produced by a non pro trainer? By that I mean how many of the top dogs are trained and/or handled by their owner?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

agengo02 said:


> Quick question after sorting from my last post on this thread: How many champions have been produced by a non pro trainer? By that I mean how many of the top dogs are trained and/or handled by their owner?


I don't have an exact number, but quite a lot actually. I know quite a few off the top of my head. Many of those occasionally may run with their owner on a pro set up day training situation, but for the most part train with their amateur group, some never see a pro for even one day in their life.

I personally use a pro quite a bit as I'm not retired yet, but I run my dogs in all stakes if I'm there.

John


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> The dog should run hard and happy with enthusiasm when these tools are the process for thier happiness?
> 
> Maybe the thread on here is not the best (because of all the previous) to have the best 'pro-active', forum discussion and broader understanding,for me to learn from you guys?
> 
> Across this side of the water,it is not the norm', and in some areas the e-collar and FF', are training methods that are either 'banned', or more often not understood??..due to complience?...Chris? maybe you could 'split', the thread?..to read "different training techniques"? (without getting into a them and us)..as an education of differences US/UK Styles? you never know 'we could probably learn alot from each other?...if taken positively.


I think a lot of us would love to have that productive discussion some time! 

I definitely would.

To answer your one question, the dog runs hard with or without the e-collaar/trigger because we condition them with -r to never think about whether or not they GO! That's the theory anyway.

Also, they come to know that there is ultimately a BIRD at the "blind", so they are eager to get that reward as well!

I know in parts of Europe e collars are actually illegal and hell Schutzund came from Germany so I assume someone there knows how to train a dog LOL! 

I don't know abou the English, but that's just because you're English 

JK of course, Cheers,


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> I think a lot of us would love to have that productive discussion some time!
> 
> I definitely would.
> 
> ...


I agree with all that you say?...except the last bit is 'insulting'
to some-one that wears 'tartan'?;-)


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> I agree with all that you say?...except the last bit is 'insulting'
> to some-one that wears 'tartan'?;-)


 
LOL I was obviously confused. That's the problem with the internet. NEed to pay attention cause ya can't hear the guy's accent! 

Ah ya know I think I need to pick up a bottle tonight.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Now we're getting somewhere.

Polmaise,

I married a Scottish girl (US born) in Scotland. Her dad wanted at least one of his children to have a wedding that incorporated their Scottish relatives.

She was told by her dad, shortly after we were dating, "Oh his name's 'Atkinson', he's English. Drop the bloody S.O.B. now." 

Honestly, I believe this lack of understanding of the clear differences and nuances between the Brits, the Scots, the UK Irish, the republic Irish, etc. etc.... It all ties in. It is representative of the cultural and methodical differences both in our training methods and in our dog games.

It is so hard for you guys to understand our "culture" with retriever training, just like it is hard for so many American gundog folks to differentiate between UK Gundogs, and the nuances of English versus Scots. ;-)

I bet you know some of the guys from Scotland that I ran with during the Irish Countrysports Fair that Bill Beckett put on a few years ago that I got to attend. The team captain was named "Gordon", he did NOT want any scotch at the bar. He wanted vodka with "no fruit!"

I have Buchanan tartan in my blood, but the easiest to "rent" (I forget what you guys call it) at the local shop was dress gordon, which is also in my blood.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Polmaise (Robert)
Are you by chance familiar with Alex Brant? He owns a shoot in northern Scotland with Ms Coleman called Tressady Lodge (Tressady.com). Alex is a very accomplished wing shooter, sports writer and guide. An American too! My first dog was born at Humewood in Ireland where they lived before moving to Scotland. 

PS Basically the e-collar's use for corrections is no different than any method you may use on your dogs to correct for non-compliance of a known command or lack of effort.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Chris
You look good in a dress

Pete


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Pete said:


> Chris
> You look good in a dress
> 
> Pete


Pete, don't you know anything at all? 

That's not a dress!


It's a skirt!


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

tom said:


> Aussie, would this take nurturing or training? Is it any less complicated than retrieving a duck?


Compared to a simple retrieve/a duck - no.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I just missed Robert's "location" in his profile. I KNOW BETTER than to confuse a Scott and an Englishman! ;-)


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Breck said:


> Polmaise (Robert)
> Are you by chance familiar with Alex Brant? He owns a shoot in northern Scotland with Ms Coleman called Tressady Lodge (Tressady.com). Alex is a very accomplished wing shooter, sports writer and guide. *An American too*!


Not personally Breck,He is the author of "The Worlds Best Shoots", I think?
There was a very good article in the shooting times and shooting gazette some time back if I remember?
Smart American that has decided *over here is better*?
Robert


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Pete said:


> Chris
> You look good in a dress
> 
> Pete


Didn't you notice that he cropped the pic so that we can't see his bony knees? ;-)


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Didn't you notice that he cropped the pic so that we can't see his bony knees


I thought he cropped the picture to keep us guessing. 
Pumps or open toed stilletto's

Pete


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Pete said:


> I thought he cropped the picture to keep us guessing.
> Pumps or open toed stilletto's
> 
> Pete


Only took 300 posts for this thread to really get interesting


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Breck said:


> Polmaise (Robert)
> Are you by chance familiar with Alex Brant? He owns a shoot in northern Scotland with Ms Coleman called Tressady Lodge (Tressady.com). Alex is a very accomplished wing shooter, sports writer and guide. An American too


There really is an Alex Brant? Years ago he wrote an article for an outdoor magazine about duck shooting around NYC. For sure I thought it was a pen name. (We winter a lot of brant here, so I thought that was the origin of the name.)


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Yes there really is an Alex Brant. He was from NY but moved to Ireland some time ago. He's written several books about shooting and sets up exotic hunts all around the world. My first puppy, Humewood Simba, was born at their place. Killerisk Hunter x Tursillagh Greylag. The bitch's owner had pointers and setters trained in PA by the same guy who trained Pete Simonds ABC National Gun Dog Champion Coppertop's Alderwitch. This world isn't as big as it looks!


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Some at least of Mr Brant's books are available second hand for not much money at Abe Books

Eug


----------

