# re-running marks



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

What is everyone's take on re-running a mark when a dog struggles with it the first go round? I'm reading in James Spencer's book on marking and he goes over a drill where you re-run the mark as many times as needed if your dog isin't stepping on it. I've heard 2 opinions from many people, no one seems to ride the fence on this issue. Any opinions?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I know there will be some 'black & white' sounding answers to this. But it isn't a totally black & white issue. Generally, I think repeating marks is anywhere from a poor practice, to at least a less than efficient one. It can be counter productive. But it depends on the rationale in the moment.

Is this a mark of a type your dog has only struggled with once? Is this a set of circumstances he struggles with a lot? Is it just the distance? Proximity to other falls? Why are you repeating it? Will it just make you feel better to run it until he finally does it well? What are the long term benefits of doing it?

On the other hand, is this a case of struggling with a particular concept on a regular basis, and some repeating of the concept is needed to strengthen his abiilty at it?

Evan


----------



## GG (Jan 29, 2006)

The dog that knows how to hunt up a bird has a better chance of winning an all-age trial than a dog that is taught to pin-point marks. There should be a good reason to repeat a mark, not stepping on it is not a good reason!!!!!
GG


----------



## g_fiebelkorn (Jul 31, 2006)

claimsadj said:


> What is everyone's take on re-running a mark when a dog struggles with it the first go round? I'm reading in James Spencer's book on marking and he goes over a drill where you re-run the mark as many times as needed if your dog isin't stepping on it. I've heard 2 opinions from many people, no one seems to ride the fence on this issue. Any opinions?


I rerun marks that might be considered more as drills than “real” marks. I especially rerun marks associated with important concepts such as cheating. I usually start short and increase the distance with each rerun.

At some pro’s seminar, I think I heard that dogs soon learn the difference between drill types of marks and real marks.

I do not normally repeat real marks, but I do re-visit then from time to time.


----------



## kpolley (Jun 5, 2007)

I have been told that repeating is ok for the young dogs but as they get older repeating marks just teaches a dog to go back to an old fall. Instead of repeating a mark that the dog has had trouble with, continue training on the concept that the dog failed on and come back in a day or two and rerun the mark to see if the dog now understands what you were trying to teach him.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

GG said:


> The dog that knows how to hunt up a bird has a better chance of winning an all-age trial than a dog that is taught to pin-point marks. There should be a good reason to repeat a mark, not stepping on it is not a good reason!!!!!
> GG


Exactly.

Evan


----------



## bburress (Aug 3, 2008)

I prefer to find another mark that works on the same concept rather than rerun the same mark. When grounds are limited or it really just is the perfect setup, then I've had trainers more experienced than me say to rerun it and check the dog's learning.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanks for the replies, I don't have any specific examples in mind, just read over that drill and it just sounded like the opposite of what I had heard from the majority of people.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Are you referring to Kwick Lab's decheathing drill? 

Evan


----------



## louisianadukdog (Mar 22, 2006)

So what if you are trying to get longer distances? If the dog is checking up and hunting short consistantly?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

louisianadukdog said:


> So what if you are trying to get longer distances? If the dog is checking up and hunting short consistantly?


Simple. Walking singles. Have your bird boy take a bag of birds & a pistol, and walk a course the starts moderately short, and proceeds at an angle so that each new mark is a fresh one, and thrown to land at a progressively longer distance each time.

Run a new one each training day over a course of weeks until you are both starting and ending at much greater distance with a dog that is flying to all of them confidently. It's best to do these on a featureless field with little to no cover.

Evan


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

This is what Lardy says. Short and sweet.

http://www.totalretriever.com/tip7.htm


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

If the dog gets to the fall area and just has a hard time hunting up the bird. I would not re-run. If I had to handle on the line to the bird for failure to navagate and obstacle or factor I will re-run to make sure I got what I needed out of the handle and or pressure.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

I have been told by my mentors to not repeat a mark but repeat the concept.
I have also been shown how to turn a mark into a drill.
Moving way up, bird boy tossing, walking backwards as dog is going out tossing, moving back tossing.
It will end up being a lining drill.
In my training group there is a person that does repeat marks.
In my training group, I have been talked into repeating a mark.
Every time I personally have repeated a mark it has bitten me in the ass.
I always leave the line muttering how I knew I should not have repeated it.
On Very very rare occasions when teaching a double retrieve I will toss the memory bird as a single.
Then toss it again as the memory of a double, That is it. Other than that I NEVER repeat a mark.
Except when I turn it into a drill.

Clear as mud?


.


----------



## g_fiebelkorn (Jul 31, 2006)

Evan said:


> Are you referring to Kwick Lab's decheathing drill?
> 
> Evan


Anyone --- What is Kwick Lab's decheating drill???

Thanks.


----------



## Cthomas (Sep 21, 2003)

claimsadj,
Many years ago an old trainer told me that, "every time you run your dog you burn up dog."
He said, "there is only so much dog to burn. . ."
Be efficient. Don't burn up your dawg spinning your wheels!
Programs like Evan's and Lardy's consistently produce nice dogs.
Chris


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

I will repeat a mark if there is something unique about it that I can not duplicate elsewhere. This situation will generally have to do with either the route to the bird or some odd visual rather than the area of the fall.
We can debate if the repeat is still really a mark.

Tim


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> I will repeat a mark if there is something unique about it that I can not duplicate elsewhere. This situation will generally have to do with either the route to the bird or some odd visual rather than the area of the fall.
> We can debate if the repeat is still really a mark.
> 
> Tim


I agree with this. Marks are repeated only if there is something unusual about the mark and you want the dog to be successful.



> I'm reading in James Spencer's book on marking and he goes over a drill where you re-run the mark as many times as needed if your dog isin't stepping on it.


 I would look into a more current training book. I don't know anyone that recommends this anymore.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I generally don't repeat marks. I will repeat concepts. But like others have said, if the dog has a hard time negotiating the way to a mark, I'll intervene, then run the rest of the set-up. Then re-run the mark the dog had trouble on. I _almost never_ immediately re-run the mark. I want to see if the dog learned the lesson from my intervention by delaying the repeat.

Angie


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Angie B said:


> I generally don't repeat marks. I will repeat concepts. But like others have said, if the dog has a hard time negotiating the way to a mark, I'll intervene, then run the rest of the set-up. Then re-run the mark the dog had trouble on. I _almost never_ immediately re-run the mark. I want to see if the dog learned the lesson from my intervention by delaying the repeat.
> 
> Angie


I agree. This follows my practice very closely. I did have a guest trainer today, however, whose young dog showed little confidence on fairly short simple marks, and didn't do either mark of a short double without significant help. We repeated both of them.

We followed up with a pair of singles, on which he did much better. I advised the trainer to run lots of singles - especially stickman drills - over the next couple weeks; all singles.

Evan


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Evan said:


> I agree. This follows my practice very closely. I did have a guest trainer today, however, whose young dog showed little confidence on fairly short simple marks, and didn't do either mark of a short double without significant help. We repeated both of them.
> 
> We followed up with a pair of singles, on which he did much better. I advised the trainer to run lots of singles - especially stickman drills - over the next couple weeks; all singles.
> 
> Evan


That I will do also. A little dog that either won't go or needs a lot of help, I'll re-run to improve momentum....

Angie


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

If a dog is tempted to go back to the area of a previous mark (fall) and this is why a mark is almost always not rerun, what stories do people have where this has actually happened from training to a test (FC or HT)? 

In other words, the dog generalized from training on reruns to the point of running back to an old fall during a test (where the test is in a *new location, etc)?

I'm of the camp to do reruns on young dogs where they have problems, and with transition and advanced dogs where the particulars of a poor mark dictate a rerun, but generally I don't do reruns.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

My concern with repeating marks in field setups is that it can send a mixed message to the dog. If it's not OK to return to an old fall in the licensed events you'll be running on the weekend, I don't think it's a good idea to train your dog that it's OK to go back to an old fall during the week, by immediately rerunning the exact same mark.

I think trainers fall into a trap sometimes. I used to be one of the folks caught in this trap. The trap is the notion that if a dog does less than desirable on a mark, you immediately rerun the mark in hopes that he'll do it better the next time.

It seems that the more I've witnessed mark reruns, since I've switched my mind to the "don't repeat marks as a general rule" camp, I've observed a trend. This is that the majority of repeat marks seem to let the dog repeat whatever flaw they demonstrated the first time they ran the mark. I seem to rarely see a repeat mark that gives a totally satisfactory outcome for the trainer on the repeat. Yet, said trainer may tend to do it again the following training session, with a similar outcome. Then on yet another training session, Groundhog day starts over again.

- Chris, who generally avoids repeating marks.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

I agree with your points, Chris.

I don't accept Spencer's "step on it" approach, but I agree with his reasoning behind rerunning marks: to help the dog learn to use their eyes, judge depth, memory, etc. 

And I'll write there's a difference between knowing a concept and having the skills to actualize that concept. Of course, this is from a human perspective, not necessarily a dog's perspective. ;-)

I would quietly and firmly discourage someone from constantly rerunning the same marks as a matter of their general marking philosophy. 

I know I have no problem if someone is running marking drills from the same gunner position where the marks are angled and the angles are not repeated. But this marking setup would be for specific reasons, not as matter of a general marking regime. In fact, I did this today. :smile:


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Everyone I train with reruns marks if the dog did not get the key concept that was being worked on that day. If the dog does not drive the hill, drives past the hip pocket or does not take the cover, he does it again. If the dog does the concepts but has a hunt once he gets there, it is not rerun.

I have read Lardy and others that say not to rerun, but I have not seen that happen in the real world when training with successful field trialers. I think the dogs learn not to go back to the same mark in the same series even if they rerun some marks.

Russ


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Russ said:


> Everyone I train with reruns marks if the dog did not get the key concept that was being worked on that day. If the dog does not drive the hill, drives past the hip pocket or does not take the cover, he does it again. If the dog does the concepts but has a hunt once he gets there, it is not rerun.
> 
> I have read Lardy and others that say not to rerun, but I have not seen that happen in the real world when training with successful field trialers. I think the dogs learn not to go back to the same mark in the same series even if they rerun some marks.
> 
> Russ


I know there are folks out there who re-run marks routinely and have success. Don't know for certain but I've heard that Kenny Trott routinely re-runs marks.

Another thing Lardy says is that we have to evaluate, are we successful because of the way we train or in spite of the way we train.

Are any of those that you train with as successful as Lardy? I know that's an unfair question, but what would you consider a successful field trialers.

By the way, Lardy does repeat drill type marks and certain marks in a field set up. Failure to check down on the short retired in a secondary selection set up is one instance. He will not send for the long stand out after the failure to check down on the short retired. He will re-throw the long bird, the short retired, then will pitch a bird off line rather than re-run the middle distance go bird. This way he repeats the key bird and does not repeat the other birds in the triple. Minimizes the number of marks repeated and saves time.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but one reason not to repeat is the extra time investment in a given dog. Another Lardyism paraphrased... "I like to spend as much time with my good dogs as I do with my bad ones."


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Russ said:


> Everyone I train with reruns marks if the dog did not get the key concept that was being worked on that day. If the dog does not drive the hill, drives past the hip pocket or does not take the cover, he does it again. If the dog does the concepts but has a hunt once he gets there, it is not rerun.
> 
> I have read Lardy and others that say not to rerun, but I have not seen that happen in the real world when training with successful field trialers. I think the dogs learn not to go back to the same mark in the same series even if they rerun some marks.
> 
> Russ


This is closer to my view than any other.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

captainjack said:


> I know there are folks out there who re-run marks routinely and have success. Don't know for certain but I've heard that Kenny Trott routinely re-runs marks.
> 
> Another thing Lardy says is that we have to evaluate, are we successful because of the way we train or in spite of the way we train.
> 
> ...


So you not only called Mr. Kenny out but basically said he has success despite his techniques. You certainly are an expert on being controversial @ best of late.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

I believe in an ideal world it might be better to not repeat but time constraints and available grounds make it hard to set the concept in a new spot every time a dog does not figure it out. Sometimes short cuts have to be made.

The people I train regularly train with are successful in trials. While they certainly do not have the record that Lardy has at the National, some of them put FC titles on a much higher percentage of dogs they run while also pursuing interests outside of dog training. Their dogs do not have a noticeable propensity to return to old falls (nor do mine) and I believe that is why they are not supposed to be repeated.

Russ


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

When I repeat a mark, I want it to be on essentially the same line from the line to the mark. I also don't like it to be in the exact same spot as the last mark. If the dog runs to the same spot he just picked up a bird I want him to be able to see it if he looks around but not in real plain sight. This isn't always possible but that's what I'd like.

BTW, I'm a repeater for bad lines, cover and terrain cheats. If I get the same line on the rerun as I got on the first run, I'm handling to tell the dog where he should be. I don't have lots of grounds available to me and if I leave before I think the dog has understood, or done, the concept I feel like we didn't get all we could have out of the training. If I had unlimited grounds and time I probably would repeat less than I do.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> In my training group, I have been talked into repeating a mark.
> Every time I personally have repeated a mark it has bitten me in the ass.
> I always leave the line muttering how I knew I should not have repeated it.




I have re*mark*ably similar memories!

In addition to what has been said so far, I have a thought to add.

If the dog failed to mark the fall, and that's the motivation for repeating the mark, then I think it is a very bad idea to repeat it, without changing something.

Unless you just enjoy repeating failure.

However, if there was a specific lesson that the dog was schooled on, during that specific mark, I do think there is value in repeating the mark, to make sure the dog learned, and remembered, the lesson.

That only works, if the dog actually knew where the mark was. If the dog actually marked the fall.

Also, if you are going to run a single, and repeat it immediately as the memory bird of a double, you had better pick a single that the dog did a great job of marking.

I don't think there is much value in repeating a mark, that the birdboy had to help out on, or the dog had to be handled to the AOF. Those are cases where I would simplify for success, while still doing my very best to repeat the concept, by including the specific factor that caused the "problem".


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> So you not only called Mr. Kenny out but basically said he has success despite his techniques. You certainly are an expert on being controversial @ best of late.


Not calling Mr. Kenny out. In fact the person who told me he re-runs marks ( and I have no 1st hand knowledge whether he does or not), was telling me how good Kenny was. Also, I didn't state my opinion on the subject, rather just added a couple of more things Lardy refers to in his program about the subject.

But, as you may gather if you read my posts, political correctness means nada to me.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

FinnLandR said:


> As a person new to all this; when you say "re-running a mark" are you talking about a bird or bumper that lands in the same spot, or a bird or bumper thrown from the same area?
> 
> The distinction I have in my mind is this: my bird boy stands in the same place, but his throws follow a clockwise pattern, 10 "minutes" of separation per throw. Is this re-running the same mark?
> 
> ...


This feels more like a drill and the dog probably looks at is as a drill rather than a field set up. I wouldn't consider it re-running the mark whether it was drill length or longer because the bird is not falling in the same area. Sounds more like what Evan refered to in his earlier post.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> My concern with repeating marks in field setups is that it can send a mixed message to the dog. If it's not OK to return to an old fall in the licensed events you'll be running on the weekend, I don't think it's a good idea to train your dog that it's OK to go back to an old fall during the week, ....



Chris you bring up an important aspect of training and that is the difference between training during trial season and between seasons. 
Repeating is one of those items I would be less likely to do and run within a few days. 

Tim


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Lets put another spin on this WHY NOT... Please give me another reason other than it teaches a dog to go back to old falls. Dogs learn through repetition. We start bascis by teaching dogs to go back and forth to the same pile over and over. Most do pattern blinds over and over, what is the difference.

Most AMs do not have the grounds to go and duplicate marks. So what is more important, your dog learning to do a certain mark correctly by repeating or him not learning the concept.

I have seen most of the most successfull trainers in todays FT repeat. I learned to train with one of the most successfull and his program is built on repeating.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

dexdoolittle said:


> Lets put another spin on this WHY NOT... Please give me another reason other than it teaches a dog to go back to old falls.....


I think I'm about to learn something, and that makes me very excited!

Here is my "why not", other than that it teaches the dog to return to an old fall.

Because, if the dog failed to MARK, the fall, and that is the reason that it needed to be helped or handled, the dog is probably not going to mark the repeated fall, if you don't change something.

Just repeating the mark, doesn't teach the dog anything. It will still fail to mark the fall.

I believe that a marked retrieve can be broken down into "sections", and the dog can fail to do any one of those "sections".

If the "section" that the dog failed to do, resulted in it not knowing where the bird is, I don't think that repeating the same thing, is going to produce a different result.

It's kind of like the definition of insanity. Repeating the same thing, over and over again, but expecting a different result.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I think I'm about to learn something, and that makes me very excited!
> 
> Here is my "why not", other than that it teaches the dog to return to an old fall.
> 
> ...


I agree. Forgive me internet masses, I assumed things that most do not. Programs that repeat are not repeating marks just because they had a hunt. It is because the dog failed a certain aspect of the mark. But, for that being said repeating is not as detrimental as some make it out to be.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

At least with the people that I train with, the rerun is not about memory but giving into factors. This may mean the dog ran poor lines or it may mean he got completely lost because the factors such as terrain, cover, wind and the relationship of the marks to each other.

Often times we will run the a mark as a single or double at the end of the training day and put it all together as a triple or quad the next time out. If the dog has to rerun it, he will usually get it clean the second time if he does not give into the factors again. This is one way to teach the dog to deal with the factors. 

When we train as a group, we are generally training on a combination of factors. In between group training sessions, we work on factors, usually one at a time, through drills.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

copterdoc said:


> I think I'm about to learn something, and that makes me very excited!
> 
> Here is my "why not", other than that it teaches the dog to return to an old fall.
> 
> ...


There is something else that I want to add, to my previous post.

Even if the dog is successful on the repeated mark, I think we need to ask ourselves a question or two.

Was the dog successful for a "good reason"?

What if the dog was successful, for a "bad reason"?

Did the dog mark the fall on it's second try, or did it still not mark the fall, and instead received success for simply returning to the place that it previously found a bird?


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> I agree. Forgive me internet masses, I assumed things that most do not. Programs that repeat are not repeating marks just because they had a hunt. It is because the dog failed a certain aspect of the mark. But, for that being said repeating is not as detrimental as some make it out to be.


Dex, whatkinds of things do you do, when repeating a mark due to a dog failing an aspect of that mark, to change the outcome on the repeat?

All too often, I see dogs who fail an aspect of a mark, do something similar on the repeat. (or in my mind, they get away with enough on the repeat that I frequently come away wondering what positive they learned from the repeat)


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Dex, whatkinds of things do you do, when repeating a mark due to a dog failing an aspect of that mark, to change the outcome on the repeat?
> 
> All too often, I see dogs who fail an aspect of a mark, do something similar on the repeat. (or in my mind, they get away with enough on the repeat that I frequently come away wondering what positive they learned from the repeat)


One aspect that trainers have a hard time conveying is that dogs need to do things because they(dog) made the right decision. If you can understand that wording. It is similar to letting a dog ride over a piece of land with water behind it. If he consistently cheats it and you show him what you want, is he truelly understanding what is being asked. NO. You should allow him to make his on decisions, because come trial day you can not make them for him. So, in training you are going to let him make the decison, hopefully the wrong one(for training purposes) so you can correct. If repeated hopefully the next time when the decision process comes he realizes that it is better to take your route.

If you repeat and the dog makes the same mistake as he did the first time you have not gained anything out or your training process.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

copterdoc said:


> There is something else that I want to add, to my previous post.
> 
> Even if the dog is successful on the repeated mark, I think we need to ask ourselves a question or two.
> 
> ...


Dex, do you agree with the above, or am I all wet?


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> Dex, do you agree with the above, or am I all wet?


I think I agree. I think you should step back and ask yourself what were you trying to accomplish, cheaty water mark, angle entry, lining into cover, there should be a reason you put a mark where you do. So what is it you want the dog to learn from a certain mark. If he is not accomplishing what you set out to teach him then you are right repeating for the sake of repeating is wasting time.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Russ said:


> At least with the people that I train with, the rerun is not about memory but giving into factors. This may mean the dog ran poor lines or it may mean he got completely lost because the factors such as terrain, cover, wind and the relationship of the marks to each other.
> 
> ...


When running the 1st time through, do you handle when the dog gives into a factor or let the dog try to work it out and find the bird on its own.


----------



## Kory Poulsen (Jul 6, 2010)

Would if you are running a triple and your focus bird (concept your working on for the session) is thrown second and picked up second and the dog struggles big time. Bird #3 is still laying on the ground. Do you send for #3 anyways? Do you put the dog up then come back and run #2 (repeat) and #3 again? Rerun the whole setup? Rerun same setup in new field? What would be the best way to teach the dog the concept of bird #2 which will make the biggest impression on them for the future?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Kory Poulsen said:


> Would if you are running a triple and your focus bird (concept your working on for the session) is thrown second and picked up second and the dog struggles big time. Bird #3 is still laying on the ground. Do you send for #3 anyways?


Me? Absolutely not!
I would be kicking myself for going "over the dog's head" on the #2 bird.



Kory Poulsen said:


> Do you put the dog up then come back and run #2 (repeat) and #3 again? Rerun the whole setup? Rerun same setup in new field? What would be the best way to teach the dog the concept of bird #2 which will make the biggest impression on them for the future?


I would try to figure out a way to simplify the mark, while retaining the concept that threw the dog for a loop, and run it as a double, in a different location.

I would not repeat #2, rerun the triple, or repeat it in a new location. The dog showed me what I need to work on. Instead of repeating the same outcome, I will try to isolate the concept, and train on it in as clearly defined of a scenario as I can.

That's what I would try to do. I'm not saying I would succeed!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Kory Poulsen said:


> Would if you are running a triple and your focus bird (concept your working on for the session) is thrown second and picked up second and the dog struggles big time. Bird #3 is still laying on the ground. Do you send for #3 anyways? Do you put the dog up then come back and run #2 (repeat) and #3 again? Rerun the whole setup? Rerun same setup in new field? What would be the best way to teach the dog the concept of bird #2 which will make the biggest impression on them for the future?


If she mucks up the 2nd mark of a triple it'll depend on what the muck up was. If she was going to beach early and I corrected and put her on the bird I'll send for the 3rd bird and probably not repeat the 2nd mark. But, if it was a hunt all over hell's half acre with her giving in to factors, hunting short, hunting long and in general not having a clue where the bird was, I'll generally repeat as a single. After the muck up if she lines up for the 3rd bird I'll send her, if she doesn't have a clue I'll usually repeat the 2nd bird she mucked up as a single and throw the 3rd bird she never was sent for as a single. If the mucked up bird was a short to intermediate retired bird in front of a deeper flyer I'll repeat as a double or maybe as a complete triple. So if I repeat it or not or if I send for the 3rd bird or not depends on the mark, the setup, and how the dog mucks it up and if she remembers the 3rd bird.

Clear as mud huh?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> ...Clear as mud huh?


Well, clear as muck anyway!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Me? Absolutely not!
> I would be kicking myself for going "over the dog's head" on the #2 bird.
> 
> 
> ...


Copterdoc, we're training, we're trying to advance the dog. Why would you be kicking yourself for going above your dog's head? Look at any open, the first series is eliminating ~ 1/3 to 2/3rds of the _entire field_. How do we get dogs to this high a level by always staying within what the dog can do? We've got to stretch their minds and abilities out. We've got to approach and sometimes go over the threshold of what dogs can do. I feel if you aren't failing 10 to 20 percent of your marking setups your dog isn't learning. If they are doing everything in good shape I'll bet they're regressing, not advancing or even maintaining. Failures are part of training, consider them training opportunities. 

You've got to think about the mark and why the dog failed. I like to repeat it right then and there so hopefully the dog will know where the bird is and will learn the way to get there. If she cheats something or gives in to something I'll handle when I see it to show her the way she should have done it. It's your fault if the dog repeats the same mistake(s) and you don't show it the correct way to do the mark.

You definitely should break the failed mark down into factors, maybe combinations of factors, and work on them in other places and other times. That's training too.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> ....Failures are part of training, consider them training opportunities.....


I agree, but if the dog failed to mark, or remember the bird, then I think that *I* failed the dog.

It's one thing if the dog caved in to a factor, or wasn't trying hard enough.

It's another, if I was trying to "show off" for the training group, or just for myself, and hack my way through a mark that my dog wasn't ready for.

I could repeat a lot of marks, and the dog might "do them" on the "mulligan", but I think that trying to look good, is a poor training objective.

I try, I mean really try, to keep the dog in it's "grade", and when the dog gets lost on a mark, I can usually see that it was my fault.

I think the dog learns the most, when it is challenged "just right". Not too much, not too little.

That's a tough balance to strike though....


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

80/20 rule. Howard is right. The dog should be failing at some times. This question is impossible to answer because it depends on the dog, the setup, how things went yesterday, what just happened, and do I have time and opportunity to set new test.


/Paul


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

captainjack said:


> When running the 1st time through, do you handle when the dog gives into a factor or let the dog try to work it out and find the bird on its own.


It depends(Where has LVL been??) Sometimes handle, sometimes have the gunner help, sometimes pickup the dog and start over.


----------



## minnducker (Jan 29, 2010)

Some pros allow amateur customers to participate in daily training sessions. The amateurs may handle their own dogs, or if their dog is currently "with the pro", the pro may do the handling. This helps the pro somewhat as these folks throw birds, plant blinds etc., and the amateurs learn a lot by observing the test set-ups, watching, and asking questions. In general, pros have a limited amount of time to spend with each dog compared to an amatuer trainer with 1, or a very few dogs. During these types of training days, most pros may not allow re-runs for any reason. And, they may exaggerate the reasons not to do re-runs, to better justify this rule since they know it will be difficult to give everyone an opportunity to run all the tests. They also likely have some goals in mind for set-ups for the day, and time will simply not allow for re-running some of them.. 
But I don't think amateurs need a hard and fast rule that NEVER allows re-runs. 

Possible reasons to re-run a test - 

Dog is younger, learning new concepts and received a correction on first run
Because of dog's past history/experience/stage of training, you want to make sure the correction had the desired effect
Dog's "balance" is a bit off, and dog could use a confidence builder
Last set-up of the day, dog received correction, re-run and leave on a good note

Possible reasons NOT to repeat a test -

Dog did test perfectly with no corrections
Dog's performance and correction on test was severely screwed up, and it's clear test is way over dog's current abilities, and correction did not accomplish anything
Dog is older, has had many similar corrections with no ill-effects, and is in "balance" regarding attitude and style
You are training with a group, where one or more partcipants subscribe to the notion that you never repeat a test, don't rock boat
Training group is too large, time is short
A storm is coming


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

minnducker said:


> Some pros allow amateur customers to participate in daily training sessions. The amateurs may handle their own dogs, or if their dog is currently "with the pro", the pro may do the handling. This helps the pro somewhat as these folks throw birds, plant blinds etc., and the amateurs learn a lot by observing the test set-ups, watching, and asking questions. In general, pros have a limited amount of time to spend with each dog compared to an amatuer trainer with 1, or a very few dogs. During these types of training days, most pros may not allow re-runs for any reason. And, they may exaggerate the reasons not to do re-runs, to better justify this rule since they know it will be difficult to give everyone an opportunity to run all the tests. They also likely have some goals in mind for set-ups for the day, and time will simply not allow for re-running some of them..
> But I don't think amateurs need a hard and fast rule that NEVER allows re-runs.
> 
> Possible reasons to re-run a test -
> ...


Regarding the bolded above, I have a hard time reconciling what happens when the dog repeats the same kind of thing he did on the first run. Or what happens if he tries to repeat again, and you choose to "correct" yet again? (in this second case, your original intention was to end on a good note, yet you wound up digging back into the same hole you were hoping to avoid with the rerun)

That's where I personally come up unsure if it is worth taking the chance.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Regarding the bolded above, I have a hard time reconciling what happens when the dog repeats the same kind of thing he did on the first run. Or what happens if he tries to repeat again, and you choose to "correct" yet again? (in this second case, your original intention was to end on a good note, yet you wound up digging back into the same hole you were hoping to avoid with the rerun)
> 
> That's where I personally come up unsure if it is worth taking the chance.[/QUOTE
> 
> Without taking the chance how do you know your dog learned what was intended. So what if, you repeated and he does the same thing that he did the first time. What I would be more concered with is that I did not get my point across the first time. The correction was not enough for him to make a different decision the next. Most on here can not duplicate similar marks on similar training grounds. They will benefit more by getting their point across by repeating marks than trying to duplicate similar scenarios.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> Chris Atkinson said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the bolded above, I have a hard time reconciling what happens when the dog repeats the same kind of thing he did on the first run. Or what happens if he tries to repeat again, and you choose to "correct" yet again? (in this second case, your original intention was to end on a good note, yet you wound up digging back into the same hole you were hoping to avoid with the rerun)
> ...


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Most on here can not duplicate similar marks on similar training grounds. They will benefit more by getting their point across by repeating marks than trying to duplicate similar scenarios.


On the quote above, if you substituted Howard, for "Most on here," you'd have the reason I repeat.

Thanks Dex for articulating this.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

_Because, if the dog failed to MARK, the fall, and that is the reason that it needed to be helped or handled, the dog is probably not going mark the repeated fall, if you don't change something.

*Just repeating the mark, doesn't teach the dog anything. It will still fail to mark the fall.*

I believe that a marked retrieve can be broken down into "sections", and the dog can fail to do any one of those "sections".

If the "section" that the dog failed to do, resulted in it not knowing where the bird is, I don't think that repeating the same thing, is going to produce a different result.

It's kind of like the definition of insanity. Repeating the same thing, over and over again, but expecting a different result._ -- Coptor

Maybe, maybe not. It depends.

If a dog fails a 170 yrd land mark due to a factor, let's say, an optical illusion due to slight rolling terrain, and you're confident about your dog's eyes being good and the dog hunts 20 yards short and this is the first time on this terrain, do you handle or have the BB help? 

I'd have the BB help, then I'd rerun the mark to see if the dog learned anything about the previous mark: namely, did he/she adjust/calibrate their perception of the distance of the mark? If I don't rerun, I have no way of knowing in that instance whether the dog "gets it". I have to rerun inorder to find out. Now, can I wait a day rerun? Maybe, maybe not; dedends on schedule and access to that spot. 

What if I rerun and the dog fails again? Then I shorten the mark so that dog can succeed, then lengthen it back out. If the dog fails again on the long mark, then I stop and ask much more critically, why is he failing on this long mark? It might end up that the mark is broken down into pieces so that parts of the rolling terrain are deal with individually, then slowly pieced back together (much more methodically than simple shortening the mark and lengthening it back out). 

Everything in context, everything in moderation.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

claimsadj said:


> What is everyone's take on re-running a mark when a dog struggles with it the first go round? I'm reading in James Spencer's book on marking and he goes over a drill where you re-run the mark as many times as needed if your dog isin't stepping on it. I've heard 2 opinions from many people, no one seems to ride the fence on this issue. Any opinions?


Yes I would rerun the mark again if he really messed up!!!Obviously something amiss there where he does not get it first go around. Hopefully I can decipher what the problem was and correct it.


----------



## Kory Poulsen (Jul 6, 2010)

minnducker said:


> Possible reasons to re-run a test -
> 
> Dog is younger, learning new concepts and received a correction on first run
> -
> ...


Does re-running to leave on good note do anything for a dog running at the QAA/Am/Open level? I tend to think that these two items above go hand in hand with the younger dog, but how about for the more experienced dog?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I'm reading the September-October issue of Retrievers ONLINE and there is an article on the subject. The article is titled _Illusions and Reality_ and discusses Four of the Most Popular Illusions. #2 Illusion: Repeating marks increases marking accuracy.

I recommend it.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

PhilBernardi said:


> .....I'd rerun the mark to see if the dog learned anything about the previous mark: namely, did he/she adjust/calibrate their perception of the distance of the mark? If I don't rerun, I have no way of knowing in that instance whether the dog "gets it". I have to rerun inorder to find out.....


I'm sure a lot of people would repeat the mark. And if the dog succeeds on the second attempt, they would believe that the dog learned something.

I wouldn't repeat a mark, that the dog failed to mark. My logic comes from this thought process.


copterdoc said:


> .....Even if the dog is successful on the repeated mark, I think we need to ask ourselves a question or two.
> 
> Was the dog successful for a "good reason"?
> 
> ...


If you repeat the same mark, the dog doesn't need to have marked it, in order to "know where the bird is".

It makes the dog *look* good, vs actually *being* good. The dog probably didn't learn anything, that we want it to learn.

If you think the dog might have learned something about marking, when it finally reached the AOF with BB assistance, then you need to repeat the concept in a new location, in order to test whether the dog is marking the fall or not.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I'm sure a lot of people would repeat the mark. And if the dog succeeds on the second attempt, they would believe that the dog learned something.
> 
> I wouldn't repeat a mark, that the dog failed to mark. My logic comes from this thought process.
> 
> If you repeat the same mark, the dog doesn't need to have marked it, in order to "know where the bird is".It makes the dog *look* good, vs actually *being* good. The dog probably didn't learn anything, that we want it to learn.


The sentence in red is one of the things mentioned in the RetrieversONLINE article I referenced in a previous post above. The dog may run a better line, but not necessarily because the dog watched the arc of the bird and marked the fall. The article also mentions doing drill type marks to teach a dog to fight factors which are repeated. But this is not a re-run of a typical field mark.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

captainjack said:


> I'm reading the September-October issue of Retrievers ONLINE and there is an article on the subject. The article is titled _Illusions and Reality_ and discusses Four of the Most Popular Illusions. #2 Illusion: Repeating marks increases marking accuracy.
> 
> I recommend it.


I'm not sure if anyone here is under the illusion that repeating marks increases marking accuracy. At least I sure hope not... But what repeating marks does do is help dogs gain confidence and learn concepts with courage. The concept of dogs learning through repetition here is the one main theory.

Now lets throw out there that I do not advocate repeating marks because a dog took a perfect line and then proceed to hunt he**'s half acre. 

I advocate repeating when a dog fails a certain aspect of the mark that eventually would have lead to his failure of the mark.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

captainjack said:


> The sentence in red is one of the things mentioned in the RetrieversONLINE article I referenced in a previous post above. The dog may run a better line, but not necessarily because the dog watched the arc of the bird and marked the fall. The article also mentions doing drill type marks to teach a dog to fight factors which are repeated. But this is not a re-run of a typical field mark.


Carr had a phrase for repeating marks and blinds as most trainers do it; _"Salve for the handler"_. It makes the handler feel better, while doing very little for the dog.

Evan


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Copter,

I understand the logic of what you write. 

I'd rerun the mark I wrote about. If the dogs succeeds on the rerun, did he because he was brought to the AOF by the BB and went back to the old fall as a result thereof, or did he recalibrate his perception?

One way to find out is to run that set up from a different line and having a different fall area (i.e., a different mark) on that rolling terrain, neither of which I object to. In fact, I would do that to test the hypothesis of calibrating perception. But another way is to throw to a different fall area on the opposite side - as you very well can imagine. 

Then you might ask: Why rerun that mark again? My simple answer is to allow the dog success on that mark without help, and to allow perception recalibration; the latter of which can and ought to be tested.

Even under a strict Spencer "step on it" rerunning, eventually anyone who pays attention to their dog will learn over the course of a few months as to whether their dog can actually mark.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Evan,

Sometimes handlers need salve. ;-)

Everything in context. 

See, if I make the analogy of a hockey player doing rote snap-shot drills to hit the upper left-hand corner of the goal, how's is going to another rink to do the same thing helpful? It isn't. What is helpful is to move from point A to point B to point C...while targeting the upper left-hand corner. But I sure as hell don't have to go to another rink to do any of that. ;-)

And is doing rote snap-shot drills helpful? Damn right it is! Hand-eye coordination refinement.

Of course, the assumption here is that dog perception and skill of vision is like that of a human or very close in its general working. 

There's a reason why angle outs and ins are used during marking drill work.


----------



## NBHunter (Apr 24, 2009)

Well one thing is for sure...there are about as many "correct" answers as there are trainers. I guess what I'm envious about is everyone that seems to have countless fields to train in to run the same concept in a new location. I'm feel lucky to have one field to run in during this time of year.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Evan said:


> Carr had a phrase for repeating marks and blinds as most trainers do it; _"Salve for the handler"_. It makes the handler feel better, while doing very little for the dog.
> 
> Evan


Are you going to catagorize "most trainers". I have seem some very successfull trainers repeat marks even Rex's top protege repeat on occassion. Are you trying to add something here with little or no relevence??????


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> Are you going to catagorize "most trainers". I have seem some very successfull trainers repeat marks even Rex's top protege repeat on occassion. Are you trying to add something here with little or no relevence??????


I didn't categorize "most trainers", he did. And he was generalizing, not specifying individuals. Is that clearer?

Evan


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

No not really. I came from a repeating program that ranks up there with the best in the Country. So to say that repeating has no beneficial gain is absurd, no matter what the level trainer you are. I have done it and seen it by many, so I can say with Confidence that it does work....


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

This is a good discussion with many valid points on both sides. 

I believe that there is more than one way to reach Nirvana.

I know a very successful amature training group (more than 500 AA points over the last 10 or so years) that run a technical set up as single marks in the morning and then come back in the afternoon to run the complete set up.

Other very successful trainers (pro and amature) I know would almost never repeat a mark.

Point is, there are no absolutes in this game. 

Whatever works for you regards, ;-)


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Canine Vision
by Mark Plonsky, Ph.D. 

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/DrP4.htm

Summary 

Dogs are red-green color blind. They see a brighter and less detailed world when compared to humans. Peripheral vision is better than humans (dogs see more of the world), but distance is not judged quite as well. Dogs excel at night vision and the detection of moving objects. Figure 1 is a rough guesstimate of what a dog and human might see when viewing a color band (the electromagnetic spectrum). 

These differences in visual ability make sense in light of evolutionary theory. Good depth perception and visual acuity are necessary for a primate (from which humans evolved) jumping from tree limb to tree limb. Good color vision enabled this primate to choose the ripest and most nutritious fruit. The canine, on the other hand, is well adapted as a nocturnal hunter of camouflaged prey. 


Particulars 

Color 
Dogs see something like a human deuteranope, that is, they are red-green color blind (occurs in 4% of male humans). Simply put, this is due to having only 2 cone types rather than 3 (light sensitive cells include cones and rods). 

Detail or Acuity 
Since dogs have no fovea (or area with 100% cones), their estimated eye for detail is (roughly) 6 times poorer than in an average human. 

Night Vision 
Dogs have much better night vision for 2 reasons:

The have more rods (which enable night vision). They have a structure called the Tapetum Lucidum. This is a reflective surface behind the retina (area including the light sensitive cells) that reflects light back through it (gives the eerie shine at night). 

Sensitivity to Movement 
Dogs are better able to detect movement. 


Depth & Field 
Figure 2 show the field of view of a human and a dog. Due to the placement of the eyes, humans have an overlap of the field of each eye of 140; in dogs, it is about 100.

This results in the dog having limited ability to accommodate (focus on items at different distances), but a wider overall field allowing them to see more of the world.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> No not really. I came from a repeating program that ranks up there with the best in the Country. So to say that repeating has no beneficial gain is absurd, no matter what the level trainer you are. I have done it and seen it by many, so I can say with Confidence that it does work....


Point well missed. No one, Carr included, said repeating has no benefits. But randomly repeating as a knee jerk reaction to a momentary failure does more to soothe the trainer than to advance the dog more times than not.

There are times that repeating a specific fall is the better course, and most experienced trainers can discern those times. Few beginners can see any difference, and that creates a point of contention in the 'repetition' discussions. Do as you will.

Evan


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Evan said:


> Point well missed. No one, Carr included, said repeating has no benefits. But randomly repeating as a knee jerk reaction to a momentary failure does more to soothe the trainer than to advance the dog more times than not.
> 
> There are times that repeating a specific fall is the better course, and most experienced trainers can discern those times. Few beginners can see any difference, and that creates a point of contention in the 'repetition' discussions. Do as you will.
> 
> Evan


nailed it Evan,
you must have slept at La Quinta because you NAILED it.
Not that I have changed my position of years back posted in this thread above. I will not repeat a mark, as it was first tossed. It never works for me. But even in the Lardy Marking series you will se Mike repeat. Just not in the same context of the original multiple. You need to be able to step back and say, O.K. for this dog this set of marks is no longer a set of marks. Hit the radio, tell the other gunners they have time to pee in the bushes. and turn it into a short bit of drill work for the dog at your side. Then, in your mind it is not a mark any longer and it is a drill. 
　
　
.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

FinnLandR said:


> Ok, now I am confused, again. I thought re-running marks referred to immediately or very shortly thereafter re-running the same setup. I would have thought that doing the same singles as a full course more than four hours later would not be considered re-running the same marks. Can someone please clarify?


5 minutes later, 
3 dogs later,
3 days later,
if the thrower stands in the same spot
the duck hits the ground in the same spot
and the dog runs from the same spot
its the same mark.
　
　
.


----------



## minnducker (Jan 29, 2010)

To clarify and explain some – 

I couldn't agree more; if the ONLY reason for a re-run is to make the trainer feel good, it's not necessary and not a good use of time. But it is very important to make the dogs "feel good". 
One rule-of-thumb when training on a FF e-collar program, is to try and make sure that the first and last set-ups of the day, are something the dogs can succeed on. It can be just a single, maybe with a real bird. This approach insures that any apprehension or hesitation the dog may have carried over from the previous day’s session is minimized by starting on a good note. Likewise, a success at the end of the day puts them to bed on a good note. This “rule” goes a long way towards keeping dogs in balance as to attitude, style and trainability while on a FF/e-collar program. It’s not the total answer, but it is a good idea/tool to keep in mind. So, many times, after correcting on a test late in the day, a successful re-run serves this purpose without the need for an additional “easy” set-up.
What to do if the dog makes the same mistake/correction on the rerun? Well, I also think it would be very important to know that you’re previous work was ineffective, and little was accomplished.
And yes, you’d better follow through on the re-run and correction. However, this should make you ask why? Is the set-up flawed as to terrain, distractions? (e.g. previously undetected obstacles/water, bitch in season, dead animal in field, unseen spectators etc., etc. ??????). Is timing of correction confusing? Is the method or severity of correction too great or not enough? Do I need to simplify? (or - does this fit one of the reasons Not to re-run the test / "Dog's performance and correction on test was severely screwed up, and it's clear test is way over dog's current abilities, and correction did not accomplish anything") 
Your training set-ups and corrections should have the desired effect, and you should expect the dog to do the re-run correctly, so with that in mind, the re-run does less to advance the dog’s ability, than it does to advance the dog’s attitude. If the above is not happening, you're not advancing your dog, and you need to figure out why.
Bottom line here, is that a re-run can be valuable not just for a pressure reliever, but may uncover something you need to correct yourself. 
Either way, it can be a good thing.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

PEOPLE!!! Listen to what Dex is trying to tell ya'. (Dex knows )

Dex is assuming you didn't just stand there with your whistle in your pocket and your thumb warm while the dog floundered around, and then repeated it just to see if he'll do better.

There is a long list of considerations before you decide to repeat, and then there are effective ways to do it. Or not. If you're looking for a definitive answer, you're going to be discussing this a looong time.

I train with some pretty darned successful trainers ... a dozen or so FC/AFCs, including National finalists on the truck ... and they don't hesitate to repeat a mark _if the circumstances dictate_. (I always ask, "why", afterward)

One thing I'm certain of: Repeating a mark and teaching a dog to return to an old fall are NOT the same thing!

:2c:

JS


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

JS said:


> PEOPLE!!! Listen to what Dex is trying to tell ya'. (Dex knows )
> 
> Dex is assuming you didn't just stand there with your whistle in your pocket and your thumb warm while the dog floundered around, and then repeated it just to see if he'll do better.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jack, I just got off the phone with a pro who qualified 10 dogs for last years national. His answer to my question was" YES I repeat." Now, granted there are times to and times not to but to say that there is no training benefit in repeating marks is just not true.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

JS said:


> .....There is a long list of considerations before you decide to repeat, and then there are effective ways to do it. Or not. If you're looking for a definitive answer, you're going to be discussing this a looong time.....


There is a long list of considerations, that factor into the decision to repeat a marked retrieve.

I'm trying to explain the thought process that I have, that lets me decide whether or not to repeat a marked retrieve, and maybe learn something that I hadn't considered.

The standard answer I have heard before, is that "We don't generally repeat marks, unless it's a drill type scenario." That doesn't tell me much about *why*.

I believe that the "why", is in what you are trying to repeat.

If you are trying to repeat the "mark" part of the marked retrieve, I don't believe that is even possible, if you just repeat the entire marked retrieve.

You will actually be repeating everything *except* the "mark" part of the retrieve!

However, if you are trying to repeat some other aspect of the retrieve, then yes, I think there is value in repeating. Things like incorporating a tough single into a multiple, correcting the dog's line, etc.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Repeating the same mark and letting the dog repeat the same 'error' is prolly NOT a good idea......

Handling the dog and correcting the error, then repeating the mark SUCCESSFULLY is probably a better idea


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I'm trying to explain the thought process that I have, that lets me decide whether or not to repeat a marked retrieve, and maybe learn something that I hadn't considered.


ChopperDoc, are you an engineer or an accountant?   

Nothing wrong with either of those professions but there are some things one just can't quantify. That's why it's difficult, if not impossible to get an absolute answer to things like this. You gotta get in touch with your artistic side and then be there to see what happened. 




> The standard answer I have heard before, is that "We don't generally repeat marks, unless it's a drill type scenario." That doesn't tell me much about *why*.


Kinda like porn ... very difficult to define but you probably know it when you see it.



> If you are trying to repeat the "mark" part of the marked retrieve, I don't believe that is even possible, if you just repeat the entire marked retrieve.
> 
> You will actually be repeating everything *except* the "mark" part of the retrieve!


What do you mean when you say "the *mark*"? Are you talking about the "seeing" and "remembering" of where the bird falls?

If that's the case, there is not a lot you do to teach that. You ensure good visibility, good focus and concentration, minimize head-swinging, expose the dog to increasingly difficult marks, build confidence, etc., etc., etc. In other words you try to develop the natural talent the dog has to his maximum potential. If you suspect the dog didn't *see* the fall, you have options ... probably re-throw, but not necessarily. Those things are a given.

But, if by "the *mark*", you are referring to the entire process of retrieving a thrown bird (which I think we are), there are several hundred yards between the mat and the fall that influence the dog's success and *those* are the things you really teach and train. And, in a well placed mark, those influences are intended to challenge the dog, often beyond his current capabilities. *That *is where you teach, help, correct ... whatever is appropriate for this dog on this day ... and then make a determination whether repeating can be of benefit, detrimental, or just a waste of time.

It takes a lot of "dog savvy" and a lot of experience ... more than I have ... to make the correct call on the spot. And the better qualified the trainer is to provide good advice, the less likely he/she will be to give an absolute answer.

Good to ask questions and try to learn, but futile to think you'll ever find "the answers".

JS


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

*me*, "hi, my name is john. i'm a repeater!" 
*group*, "HI, JOHN."
this is like a twelve step meeting for me but, i must admit that i have one taught "patern mark" that i only use with my puppies under 6 months. it could be run to 400 and has several factors (two swales, trees, landscaping islands and dirt path) but is always mowed short. i use this mark if a pup is breaking down short in other setups to teach running long for marks. i have also felt there is an incidental benefit of paying no attention to the other stuff on the way. we do bb marks too but usually in early transition after ff. the pattern mark seems to build drive, confidence and momentum. what about it, bad or good idea?

also with dogs less than 18 months i *occaisionally* will run a set up as singles and later in the day as multiples. i never run the multiples in the same fall order as i ran the singles. i know ken said 5 min, 5 dogs, 5 days *it's a repeat *and this has been discussed already but, does changing the order in anyway change things in the dogs mind as to old fall avoidance?

last question is this: it's hunting season, i got nine derby points on little fido and three months to get that last point for the derby list. she is the only pup in the kennel. we go out and flush 200 mallards out of a hole, the wind is 15 and at my back. i throw three decoys left, four right, 5 minutes later i hit the call and a single greenhead decoys in the hole at 25. my three buddies are there and we put fifteen more on the water, all landing feet up in a spot the size of a dishpan.(hey it could happen) what did i just do to little fido's training? will we ever get that last jam and point? should i only hunt her when there is no wind and you can't tell which-a-way the gray duck are coming from, much less where they might fall? should i never hunt her?


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> 5 minutes later,
> 3 dogs later,
> 3 days later,
> if the thrower stands in the same spot
> ...


And where is the problem here? Seriously????


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

JS said:


> ....What do you mean when you say "the *mark*"? Are you talking about the "seeing" and "remembering" of where the bird falls?


That's tough to explain, but basically it means that the dog sees a fall, knows where the bird is, and is right.

Memory, is a separate issue. A dog can forget a mark, that it did mark. And a dog can also remember a fall, that it didn't mark.



JS said:


> .....If that's the case, there is not a lot you do to teach that. You ensure good visibility, good focus and concentration, minimize head-swinging, expose the dog to increasingly difficult marks, build confidence, etc., etc., etc. In other words you try to develop the natural talent the dog has to his maximum potential. If you suspect the dog didn't *see* the fall, you have options ... probably re-throw, but not necessarily. Those things are a given.


I agree. I just want to make sure that my training is engineered to enhance the "right" things. The things that can be enhanced.

I don't want the dog to be successful, for the wrong reasons. That just creates more problems.



JS said:


> ....But, if by "the *mark*", you are referring to the entire process of retrieving a thrown bird (which I think we are),


Now we are getting somewhere!

I realize the standard terminology for a marked retrieve, is simply a mark. I am trying to overcome that, and separate the term mark, from marked retrieve.

There is a lot more to a marked retrieve, than just marking. That "other stuff" is where I believe that there is value in repeating. Like everything in the below quote.


JS said:


> .....there are several hundred yards between the mat and the fall that influence the dog's success and *those* are the things you really teach and train. And, in a well placed mark, those influences are intended to challenge the dog, often beyond his current capabilities. *That *is where you teach, help, correct ... whatever is appropriate for this dog on this day ... and then make a determination whether repeating can be of benefit, detrimental, or just a waste of time.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Good discussion 
Many opinions.

a lot of the use of the word NEVER.:razz:












Ok how about this visual.

Dog is at the line. pretty easy 175 yrd mark.
Big splash in the decoys.
Distance from line to road is about 65 yrds.

When the dog reaches that place, it has a decision. 
1. run the road, and get off line.

2. stay straight ,take water.

Lets say dog makes the decision to run road. You handle. Handles become a little sloppy, but you get the dog to the bird, by handling off the road, and back in the water.
Dog comes back to the line,, and a person says to you, "Would you like to repete?"

This is the last mark of the day, There is no other place, nor time to set something up similar.

What do you do?

Gooser


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

LOL @ Roseberry


----------



## Alex (Jan 22, 2008)

MooseGooser said:


> Good discussion
> Many opinions.
> 
> a lot of the use of the word NEVER.:razz:
> ...


I'd repeat


----------



## Alex (Jan 22, 2008)

roseberry said:


> *me*, "hi, my name is john. i'm a repeater!"
> *group*, "HI, JOHN."
> this is like a twelve step meeting for me but, i must admit that i have one taught "patern mark" that i only use with my puppies under 6 months. it could be run to 400 and has several factors (two swales, trees, landscaping islands and dirt path) but is always mowed short. i use this mark if a pup is breaking down short in other setups to teach running long for marks. i have also felt there is an incidental benefit of paying no attention to the other stuff on the way. we do bb marks too but usually in early transition after ff. the pattern mark seems to build drive, confidence and momentum. what about it, bad or good idea?
> 
> ...


Hunt her. Hunting and training are different. Training is controlled hunting isn't.
Besides that Fido can get a million jams and that still won't get him that last point


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

MooseGooser said:


> Good discussion
> Many opinions.
> 
> a lot of the use of the word NEVER.:razz:
> ...


I would repeat so the dog crosses over the road and takes the line straighter. If you handled him over then repeating will give you a chance to see if he got the idea and can make the decision where he is to go. Straight to the bird no matter what is in his way! IMHO


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> Dog comes back to the line,, and a person says to you, "Would you like to repete?"
> 
> This is the last mark of the day, There is no other place, nor time to set something up similar.
> 
> ...


Make a note in my training journal that this dog was cheaty today on his water mark. Then for the next few sessions I would run a few cheaters and clean that up. Once the concept is stronger it won't tend to interfere with water marks in the future for a while. Not unusual. These things will all need maintenance. But it doesn't sound like he failed to mark. He's just gotten dry minded.

Evan


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

dexdoolittle said:


> And where is the problem here? Seriously????


problem?
Finn asked for a definition of a repeated mark.
I took the 10 seconds needed to type it.
You disagree with the definition? Seriously?
　
.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

roseberry said:


> last question is this: it's hunting season, i got nine derby points on little fido and three months to get that last point for the derby list. she is the only pup in the kennel. we go out and flush 200 mallards out of a hole, the wind is 15 and at my back. i throw three decoys left, four right, 5 minutes later i hit the call and a single greenhead decoys in the hole at 25. my three buddies are there and we put fifteen more on the water, all landing feet up in a spot the size of a dishpan.(hey it could happen) what did i just do to little fido's training? will we ever get that last jam and point? should i only hunt her when there is no wind and you can't tell which-a-way the gray duck are coming from, much less where they might fall? should i never hunt her?


don't be goofy,
Hunting ain't training and dogs know the diff.
However, my passed on dog Ice would always check
the landing zone left in the center of the decoys going
out and back like a dog looks to the other gun stations in training.
He knew how often ducks were in that spot. He grew to know the opening
in my random decoy pattern was the spot the ducks landed and then we shot at them.
　
　
　
.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Yesterday we were were working on long entries into cover and water with my Master level dog. One mark was approximately 100 yards to a 15 ft wide strip of cover that the mark was thrown behind. To get there the dog slightly down and across a hill, down and back up a small swale to the cover line. He stayed right on line the whole way then, when he got to the cover line, he turned hard right to run around. I whistled and handled him through the cover where he found the bird on the other side.

We turned him right around and repeated the mark. At that point I could care less about the mark. I wanted to see if he'd keep his line and push through the cover.

He did and we ran the same concept on a different mark later to "proof" the lesson, which he did correctly.

Now, we'll continue to run similar concepts in the future but to say repeating that mark was of no benefit to the dog, as some have claimed, doesn't jive with me or the results I saw.

For a pro or amatuer that is able to go out everyday and work on similar concepts in different locations, maybe repeating right then is not necessary. But for us working stiffs that may not have the opportunity to run something similar untill next weekend, I think it is beneficial.


.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> problem?
> Finn asked for a definition of a repeated mark.
> I took the 10 seconds needed to type it.
> You disagree with the definition? Seriously?
> ...


No I do not, I am just trying to get a logical opinion of why not to repeat marks.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

MooseGooser said:


> ....What do you do?
> 
> Gooser


It depends.

What was the wind direction?

Was this truly a single, or was it run after another mark or blind, that could have influenced the mark?

Other than moving up, what could I do to simplify the repeat?

And most importantly, did I have to handle again, after the dog took the cast into the water? Did the dog get itself to the AOF?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Good discussion
> Many opinions.
> 
> a lot of the use of the word NEVER.:razz:
> ...


I write in my book that I need to run cheating singles with my dog next time I train. Getting in the water is a fundamental.


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Good discussion
> Many opinions.
> 
> a lot of the use of the word NEVER.:razz:
> ...


Is yelling NO blowing a sit whistle and calling the dog in when the poor decision was made an option? Have the bird boy throw another once you get lined up and push the dog a little fat. That's what I would do. Saves some time and give the dog a 2nd chance and because he wasn't allowed to get the bird he has something to think about. 

Not very often my dogs will cheat me again like that, but if he did sit - burn cast into the water. I try and give my dog one more chance to get it right on his own. Timing is very very important with the first NO sit.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

dexdoolittle said:


> No I do not, I am just trying to get a logical opinion of why not to repeat marks.


Less of an opinion and more of this is the way I learned it. But...

The repeat doesn't improve marking as the dog doesn't need to mark the fall rather only needs to return to a known destination. The repeat may improve the dog's ability to fight the factors though. But you can teach the dog to fight factors by handling on the mark the instance you read the dog has made the decision to give in to a factor. Through handling(*edit:* primarily on marks with visable guns), we teach the dog over a period of time to fight factors and run straight. this method is followed by many very succesful professionals and does not have the side effect of teaching the dog to give up on a hunt for a tough memory bird and return to an old fall.

The decision to repeat a mark is made when it is determined by the trainer that the risk of the dog not getting the particular mark is greater than the the risk of the dog learning that its ok to return to an old fal.

As an example, checking down on a short retired in front of a longer stand out gun after having retrieved a middle distance go bird. Classic secondary selection set up.

So when the dog over runs the short retired, we will handle the dog to the bird with no pressure (dog must be relaxed to dig out this bird). We will then have the long bird re-thrown, the short retired re-thrown, and will pitch a bird off-line while the sort gun retires.

By doing it this way, we only repeat the short-retired thus minimizing the risk of the dog developing a habit of going back to the old fall.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

captainjack said:


> Less of an opinion and more of this is the way I learned it. But...
> 
> The repeat doesn't improve marking as the dog doesn't need to mark the fall rather only needs to return to a known destination. The repeat may improve the dog's ability to fight the factors though. But you can teach the dog to fight factors by handling on the mark the instance you read the dog has made the decision to give in to a factor. Through handling(*edit:* primarily on marks with visable guns), we teach the dog over a period of time to fight factors and run straight. this method is followed by many very succesful professionals and does not have the side effect of teaching the dog to give up on a hunt for a tough memory bird and return to an old fall.
> 
> ...


I apreciate your time to give a true honest opinion to my question. I am not going to argue the fact wether or not repeating marks improves marking or not becuase there are many factors that go into a dogs marking.

Now to the fact that repeating marks teaches dogs to go back to old falls. Lets poll All-Age trainers and ask them what is the toughest field trial set up today and see what they say. OH I know the answer to that one. It is the tight hip pocket short retired. Now lets ask them why they don't get that mark. Oh I know that answer also. Its because they over ran the mark. Oh by the way the short retired mark is probably the most repeated mark All- Age trainers do. But yet they still have problems with it and it has nothing to do with going back to old falls. Now that logic just doesn't make sense if repeating marks teaches dogs to go back to old falls.

I am by no way trying to persuad any one to use a certain program over another. Just make the statement that repeating doing correctly does not teach a dog to go back to old falls.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

dexdoolittle said:


> I apreciate your time to give a true honest opinion to my question. I am not going to argue the fact wether or not repeating marks improves marking or not becuase there are many factors that go into a dogs marking.
> 
> Now to the fact that repeating marks teaches dogs to go back to old falls. Lets poll All-Age trainers and ask them what is the toughest field trial set up today and see what they say. OH I know the answer to that one. It is the tight hip pocket short retired. Now lets ask them why they don't get that mark. Oh I know that answer also. Its because they over ran the mark. Oh by the way the short retired mark is probably the most repeated mark All- Age trainers do. But yet they still have problems with it and it has nothing to do with going back to old falls. Now that logic just doesn't make sense if repeating marks teaches dogs to go back to old falls.
> 
> I am by no way trying to persuad any one to use a certain program over another. Just make the statement that repeating doing correctly does not teach a dog to go back to old falls.



The emphasis I make on repeating marks is that the risk of the dog not learning to check down on short retireds is greater than the risk of the dog returning to the old fall. So, in very limited situations such as these, many people who generally don't repeat marks will repeat. 

I gave you a clean example of a situation where I would repeat a mark and gave you the rationale behind the decision to re-run or not.

So,can you please explain (or direct me to a previous post as I have not read them all) how you correctly repeat a mark so that it does not teach a dog that it is ok to return to an old fall.

And I will also not try to persuade anyone to change their program but will make the statement...
Marilyn Fender addressed this issue in a 2007 issue of Retrievers ONLINE. She explains why repeating marks does not teach a dog to mark better.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

captainjack said:


> The emphasis I make on repeating marks is that the risk of the dog not learning to check down on short retireds is greater than the risk of the dog returning to the old fall. So, in very limited situations such as these, many people who generally don't repeat marks will repeat.
> 
> I gave you a clean example of a situation where I would repeat a mark and gave you the rationale behind the decision to re-run or not.
> 
> ...


There was more to my response the first time but for some reason I guess my thought process took to long and when I submitted it, it did not.

The scenario you gave was spot on. That is exactly how it should have been handled. I had a conversation with Al Arthur about that exact scenario. Most all- age dogs are trained to go where sent. How many times did you send to the pile in yard. Where you not sending the dog to place he has already been. NOw granted that is not a mark but are dogs smart enough to rationalize that I can go back to a similar spot in yard work or on a pattern blind but not a mark. The whole issue here is that dogs *are* smart enough to understand that if they came from a certain mark that they are not allowed to go back there unless I send them there.

The point about repeating teaching dogs to mark better. Marking is a culmination of things marking, attitude, confidence, training, etc. Does repeating Make a poor marker great, NO. But repeating does teach confidence and proper decision making which will make dogs better markers. If repeating marks does not make dogs better markers then why do pros slave away day in and day out throwing marks?


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Just in case I missed it in all the GDG...here is what Lardy says...

http://www.totalretriever.com/index...t-or-not-to-repeat&catid=31:general&Itemid=76


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

dexdoolittle said:


> Most all- age dogs are trained to go where sent. How many times did you send to the pile in yard. Where you not sending the dog to place he has already been. NOw granted that is not a mark but are dogs smart enough to rationalize that I can go back to a similar spot in yard work or on a pattern blind but not a mark.
> 
> *The whole issue here is that dogs are smart enough to understand that if they came from a certain mark that they are not allowed to go back there unless I send them there.*
> 
> The point about repeating teaching dogs to mark better. Marking is a culmination of things marking, attitude, confidence, training, etc. Does repeating Make a poor marker great, NO. But repeating does teach confidence and proper decision making which will make dogs better markers. If repeating marks does not make dogs better markers then why do pros slave away day in and day out throwing marks?


Sounds like the voice of experience...... I know Dex has trained many a fine Derby dog too!

Most dogs ARE smart enough to know that they are repeating a marked fall because they did something wrong and received a 'correction' (a handle, a 'no', or a nick). 

When you repeat the mark after the correction, it is to see if the dog understood what he did wrong. This also allows the dog to enjoy the accomplishment of doing the mark correctly and receiving a GOOD DOG from his trainer!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

TBell said:
*"Sounds like the voice of experience...... I know Dex has trained many a fine Derby dog too!*

*Most dogs ARE smart enough to know that they are repeating a marked fall because they did something wrong and received a 'correction' (a handle, a 'no', or a nick). *

*When you repeat the mark after the correction, it is to see if the dog understood what he did wrong. This also allows the dog to enjoy the accomplishment of doing the mark correctly and receiving a GOOD DOG from his trainer!"*




TBell,, I agree with you,, but I have been told many times,, that the ONLY thing that was accomplished by doing this is it made ME FEEL better, and the drive home more pleasent!

I really dont know,, but I like repeating a mark, if the dog is struggling with a factor getting there. 

Gooser

Gooser


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

RF2 said:


> Just in case I missed it in all the GDG...here is what Lardy says...
> 
> http://www.totalretriever.com/index...t-or-not-to-repeat&catid=31:general&Itemid=76


1-
In Mike's example, the dog apparently got the flyer successfully and then failed the memory bird by returning to the old flyer fall. Then the trainer repeated the entire setup including the flyer.

That is ludicrous! I don't think anyone here is promoting that.

2-
Neither do I believe anyone here is promoting the idea of just letting the dog fail the mark uninterrupted and then run it again.

You stop the dog and show him the error of his ways. In some cases, that may mean you will abort or modify the remainder of the planned setup and concentrate on the mistakes. Then you make him do it (the failed part) properly. How complicated is that?

Yes, most dogs are smart enough to know what is going on and that they are not being given permission to ROF.

JS


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

MooseGooser said:


> TBell said:
> *"Sounds like the voice of experience...... I know Dex has trained many a fine Derby dog too!*
> 
> *Most dogs ARE smart enough to know that they are repeating a marked fall because they did something wrong and received a 'correction' (a handle, a 'no', or a nick). *
> ...


Gooser take my word for it you are doing a lot more for your dog than soothing your psyche.

OH ye you have no reason to take my word for it, but PM and I'll give you Bill Eckett, Scott Dewey and Al Arthur's numbers just to mention a couple that I know repeat marks under certain situations.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Thank You Dex!

Gooser


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

dexdoolittle said:


> There was more to my response the first time but for some reason I guess my thought process took to long and when I submitted it, it did not.
> 
> The scenario you gave was spot on. That is exactly how it should have been handled. I had a conversation with Al Arthur about that exact scenario. Most all- age dogs are trained to go where sent. *How many times did you send to the pile in yard. Where you not sending the dog to place he has already been. * NOw granted that is not a mark but are dogs smart enough to rationalize that I can go back to a similar spot in yard work or on a pattern blind but not a mark. The whole issue here is that dogs *are* smart enough to understand that if they came from a certain mark that they are not allowed to go back there unless I send them there.
> 
> The point about repeating teaching dogs to mark better. Marking is a culmination of things marking, attitude, confidence, training, etc. Does repeating Make a poor marker great, NO. But repeating does teach confidence and proper decision making which will make dogs better markers. If repeating marks does not make dogs better markers then why do pros slave away day in and day out throwing marks?


Thanks Dex,

Your statment about pile work in the yard can also be said of TT and pattern blinds. Dennis Voigt has an article in the same issue of Retrievers ONLINE about that. Semptember-October 2007 . Basically saying that he and many very successful pros will not return to pattern blinds, TT, or blind drills among other similar drills were the dog goes back to a pile. I'll mis-quote for sure but this article mentions that many people will go back to pattern blinds or running blinds to a visable object after having difficulty with the transition to cold blinds. The dog runs with confidence and the handler feels like the dog is progressing. Then the handler doesn't understand why his dog lacks confidence again when he goes back to the cold blinds. The quote goes something like it is an illusion to think that a dog can gain confidence in running cold blinds by not running them (by going back to pattern blinds).

Another subject for another day for sure, but the problems with transitioning to cold blinds come up here on RTF it seams monthly. For those interested in the article... http://www.retrieversonline.com/

Edit: For JS & Dex... Do you believe that the average newby trainer that come to an internet forum for training advice has the knowledge to know how and when marks could or should be successfully?


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

captainjack said:


> Thanks Dex,
> 
> Your statment about pile work in the yard can also be said of TT and pattern blinds. Dennis Voigt has an article in the same issue of Retrievers ONLINE about that. Semptember-October 2007 . Basically saying that he and many very successful pros will not return to pattern blinds, TT, or blind drills among other similar drills were the dog goes back to a pile. I'll mis-quote for sure but this article mentions that many people will go back to pattern blinds or running blinds to a visable object after having difficulty with the transition to cold blinds. The dog runs with confidence and the handler feels like the dog is progressing. Then the handler doesn't understand why his dog lacks confidence again when he goes back to the cold blinds. The quote goes something like it is an illusion to think that a dog can gain confidence in running cold blinds by not running them (by going back to pattern blinds).
> 
> ...


"
I think there at the end you left out the word "repeat". Every dog trainer that I know starts an answer by "it depends". So don't take this to apply to every situation. My answer to your question would be that giving most ams do not have access to unlimited grounds and do not spend all day in the field doing marks. Taking those two factors into consideration and only those two they would be far better off repeating marks that where their dog failed a certain aspect of the blind, than putting the dog up and coming back next week to work on a similar concept some where else. Dog training in general is a give and take art. Fixing one problem might create another, you just need to realize when one arises, and take note. It will be easy to notice if your dog is getting in the habit of going back to old falls and if he does it is easy to fix..


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

Dex has been dead on throughout this thread. I don't have anything to add but simply to say kudos for jumping in here Dex with some reality.

It may be a noble thought to say "I never repeat a mark" but a lot of excellent trainers do...some more effectively and more wisely than others. 

Keep hittin em Dex...



.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

captainjack said:


> snip
> ..... many people will go back to pattern blinds or running blinds to a visable object after having difficulty with the transition to cold blinds. The dog runs with confidence and the handler feels like the dog is progressing. Then the handler doesn't understand why his dog lacks confidence again when he goes back to the cold blinds. The quote goes something like *it is an illusion to think that a dog can gain confidence in running cold blinds by not running them (by going back to pattern blinds)*.
> 
> Another subject for another day for sure, but the problems with transitioning to cold blinds come up here on RTF it seams monthly.


Yes, I have strong feelings about that and I cringe when I read the standard answer, “go back to the pattern blind field and get their confidence back”.

I run a lot of pattern blinds but I do it a lot different than most.

I believe the value in pattern blinds is not in the _running_ of them, but in the _learning_ of them. I teach a set of three until they are good enough to line them with confidence and then I go to another location (usually a different park) and teach another set. And so on. I may stay on pattern blinds for a month but they aren’t the same 3-leg pattern. By the time I’m done, I’ll have 6 or 8 different sets in different locations and the last few sets were taught in 10 minutes because they developed confidence by learning something new. They’re actually running cold blinds without even knowing it.



> Edit: For JS & Dex... Do you believe that the average newby trainer that come to an internet forum for training advice has the knowledge to know how and when marks could or should be successfully?


Of course not. But that can be said for a multitude of issues.

They’re usually looking for a specific answer to a specific problem they had that day and they are likely to generalize advice to every situation they see in the future. That’s a main reason it’s hard to get guys like Dex and others who really know what they’re talking about, to contribute. They don’t want to be responsible for someone taking their comment out of context and running with it.

The best advice for an inexperienced trainer (and I don’t mean to sound elite, because I’m not) is to follow a proven program religiously and don’t skip around. Probably won’t get you a Field Champion with your first dog, but you will have all the bases covered and you will learn a lot along the way.

JS


----------



## Randy Bohn (Jan 16, 2004)

What some people are forgetting when Dennis Voight and Mike Lardy say they will go set up the same set up in another location is because they can. Most amateurs on this forum don't have access to thousands of acres of training property or they might not have to repeat marks either. And most of the dogs I know aren't smart enough to figure out that it's ok to do repeats or not if that...or this...or maybe this... or etc...as a trainer use your brain if you see a switching problem change something, they all switch sooner or later even the NFC/NAFC dogs. How many people repeat cheating singles? Probably everyone....let me see the dog who says it's ok to go back to an old fall for a cheating single but not a regular mark...I'd like to shake his/her paw....Randy (and yes we repeat marks and it works!!)


----------



## Pat Oneill (Jun 10, 2009)

this is a good topic. Possibly more the important question, is the caution of corrections on repeating marks and concepts (when where and how much). this may be the birth place of many a dogs problems created in training.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

dexdoolittle said:


> "
> I think there at the end you left out the word "repeat". Every dog trainer that I know starts an answer by "it depends". So don't take this to apply to every situation. My answer to your question would be that giving most ams do not have access to unlimited grounds and do not spend all day in the field doing marks. Taking those two factors into consideration and only those two they would be far better off repeating marks that where their dog failed a certain aspect of the blind, than putting the dog up and coming back next week to work on a similar concept some where else. Dog training in general is a give and take art. Fixing one problem might create another, you just need to realize when one arises, and take note. It will be easy to notice if your dog is getting in the habit of going back to old falls and if he does it is easy to fix..


Could not decide whether to publically state what I do as an am or newbie when training. I am hoping some am and newbie who maybe have not had all the opportunities you fellows have had nor the years of experience do ask questions and do tackle training their dogs just as you fellows started out at one time. I have access to and I work number of fields I am lucky to have use or get use of 2 good water places. Biggest issue is I train by myself b/c distance from groups and I work. Having said that I do feel if there is an issue that crops up in training or at a test I will ferret out the best way to solve the issue as soon as possible. If this means travelling for group support or calling a senior in the field I do it. I will not repeat a mark or concept if I am going to dig myself deeper into a hole or know I can't solve my problem by myself. Tonight for example I was doing a version of Dennis Voigt's training alone marks and three blinds after the marks. On one of the marks which was through a ditch then through a small body of water and then another ditch Tar made the wrong decision and tried to skirt the water. He was whistle sat and handled to a better position to the mark. After finishing the drill off, I did the blinds and then repeated my problem mark. He made the right decision this time. End of session. Had he not made the right decision, I would have to back up and revisit to a simpler scenario so he can think to do the right decision. I am just saying this because all of us new, am, experienced or pros have to learn to solve issues with our dogs somehow and each person finds his or her own way and all to different levels. 
I appreciated reading all your comments in all of the threads. But in no way is the internet forum a panacea to solve problems that may arise through training your retriever. It is a forum for discussion out of which could come some ideas but not a whole program in sequential steps to train your dog. IMHO. This was a great discussion!!


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Mary,

Do I get a kudo for reopening this 14 month old dormant thread? 

;-)


p.s. Nice post


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Moosegooser,

To respond to your scenario, I'd want to know more about what has happened in training prior to that run, along with the dog's experience running that type of setup (i.e., road factor, decoys, etc) and how many times has he been handled through a factor, especially going into water from such a factor. Also, do I have enough dog left to run it again?

I'd have to know that before I'd give an answer.

Everything in context.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

PhilBernardi said:


> Moosegooser,
> 
> To respond to your scenario, I'd want to know more about what has happened in training prior to that run, along with the dog's experience running that type of setup (i.e., road factor, decoys, etc) and how many times has he been handled through a factor, especially going into water from such a factor. Also, do I have enough dog left to run it again?
> 
> ...


I've seen this behavior before. I think is is called avoidance behavior. Should it be handled with a "sit" nick?

Come on Phil.
Nothing happened in training prior to this run.
The dog is experienced with this type set up. Has a couple of JAMS and a 3rd in 6 qualifying stakes run. Cheated and bombed in the 3rd series of the last Q run.
Has been handled through these factors severl times and has actually run this same mark a couple of years ago and was stopped at point of cheat and cast into the water on the 1st attempt.
You have more dog left than you know what to do with. In fact you have decided to road the dog around the pond and fields if you choose not to re-run the mark.

Can you give an answer now?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Mr Berardi.

The question was, what would YOU do if it were You,, and YOUR dog made that decision to cheat?

You did handle, though it was sloppy.

Did you correct?

Will you repeat?

Why? or why not?

Gooser


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

LOL

Taking the Captain's assumptions, I'd rerun it. I'd want to know if fido gets the correction, so I rerun. 

If we fail, then I'll chalk that up to a lessoned learned and not run that type of setup without time to rerun or at least break up the test so I can leave on a successful run.

I'm willing to take the risk. My dog is awesome and bounces back from these things. ;-)


----------



## Tony C (Jul 17, 2010)

I was thinking of posting this question on my way home from training tonight, quess this is as good a spot as any. Due to the recent heat, and lack of cool time to run land marks, I thought about flip floping my set up(same marks run from opposite end of field) to save time. Is this teaching your dog to return to an old fall area? I saw this set up in Denis's dvd.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Previously, my answer would be to handle and make a mental note to address this next time the response is similar. But now, taking the captain's assumptions, this dog would get no slack.

Considering his propensity to cheat, prior handling and corrections in this situation, and the fact he did the same thing in the last trial, he has shown me he hasn't gotten the message.

Gooser said he made his decision to veer right at the road ... he went 55 of the 65 yards on line and made an obvious move at the road/water.

Toot, NO, HERE/burn, get him back to the spot of the flare, toot, straight up left back. Yes, I would repeat here and not do any other marks in this setup.

From the info I have, I think the dog knows what he did and would be surprised if he repeated his attempt to avoid the water. But if he did, we would have a fight on our hands.

If he got in and took too much water to the left and missed the mark, I would have the BB help with a "hey, hey". Avoid a handling battle ... the lesson is now, "see water, get in".

I would expect he will get it right next time. If not, there is something missing in this nearly-QAA dog's basics and we need to back up and clean it up.

The next few days would include multiple opportunities for him to show me he has seen the light.

JS

PS: I definitely would NOT call all the way back as someone suggested earlier. Call back to the spot of the error.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

PhilBernardi said:


> Mary,
> 
> Do I get a kudo for reopening this 14 month old dormant thread?
> 
> ...



Yes Phil Thanks.


----------



## verne socks (Feb 11, 2010)

Tony C said:


> I was thinking of posting this question on my way home from training tonight, quess this is as good a spot as any. Due to the recent heat, and lack of cool time to run land marks, I thought about flip floping my set up(same marks run from opposite end of field) to save time. Is this teaching your dog to return to an old fall area? I saw this set up in Denis's dvd.


I don't believe this is teaching you dog to return to old falls. To me this is a different mark and I do this once in a while to save time.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

A little something for everyone who doesn't repeat marks in training because they're worried about this or that. 
You won't have to worry about winning, that's for sure.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> It may be a noble thought to say *"I never repeat a mark"* but a lot of excellent trainers do...some more effectively and more wisely than others.


Another common rub in this discussion; "never". It ranks right down there with "always". At seminars I'm often asked if I always do 'this', or if I 'never' do that. Rex called them both "dirty words", and in large part, I agree. I don't always do anything, and I don't 'never' do anything. 

At all times I'm ready and willing to do what best meets the needs of the dog at my side...at this moment, and in this situation. That includes an immediate repeat of a mark - and in an extreme circumstance, even a blind. All of this is readily determined by someoe who has both ample experience combined wtih a knowledge base in order to know what best serves the interests of the dog. That is the greater sticking point when throwing out admonishments on an Internet discussion board for all the neophytes to dash out and do something that may set their dogs back, when the intent was to help them.

I do not randomely suggest that each apparent failure in the field calls for a repeat. The downside of such practices should be apparent to an experienced trainer. Play it safe, especially you newer trainers. If you see a pattern of failure on a given concept or factor, run more retrieves that focus on those elements, rather than just performing a knee jerk repeat.

Evan


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Breck said:


> A little something for everyone who doesn't repeat marks in training
> because they're worried about this or that.
> You won't have to worry about winning, that's for sure.


Yea you're right. Those folks at Handjem have never won a thing. Nor has Dennis Voigt.
:


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> At all times I'm ready and willing to do what best meets the needs of the dog at my side.


Dead right Evan!

Here is an example from my program. I received a young dog that another person had obedience trained and FF'd...did a great job, almost too good in terms of obedience.

Issue: When I applied collar pressure in terms of forcing to a pile or water force the pup wanted to return to heel. How does one progress in the yard and in water force without the aid of an e-collar?

Solution: I will deal with the water. I set the e-collar aside, got in the pond, and physically swam with the dog for hours over the course of several days. I did not lower my standards for going and going properly...I merely adapted to what THIS dog needed.

Dog now: He is ripping through pile work. He is swimming the channel, exiting, re-entering, and swimming the channel again with no pressure and with tremendous style...and his field marking is tremendous.

Don't paint yourself into a box and always be willing to do what the dog needs as opposed to making the dog conform to a strict program that may not be working at the time...



.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Is there really a difference between saying "I almost never repeat a mark." and "I sometimes repeat marks under certain circumstances."

I can't find where anybody that has posted in this thread says that they never repeat a mark.

There are rules on when to repeat, and when not to repeat. That's what I think needs to be discussed.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

captainjack said:


> Yea you're right. Those folks at Handjem have never won a thing. Nor has Dennis Voigt.
> :


? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Breck said:


> ? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?


Well you should be able to figure that out.

The Handjem team doesn't repeat marks nor does Dennis Voigt. So they obviously never won anything based on your statement.



Breck said:


> A little something for everyone who doesn't repeat marks in training
> because they're worried about this or that.
> You won't have to worry about winning, that's for sure.


Oh I'm sorry...
I overlooked the 7 National Wins by Lardy and the 70+ FCs titled and the countless AFCs and some NAFCs obtained by Lardy clients. And I believe Dennis has about three National wins in Canada and was a finalist in the 2011 Canadian National Am. 

Does this info help clear up your confusion on where I stand.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

captainjack said:


> Well you should be able to figure that out.
> 
> *The Handjem team doesn't repeat marks* nor does Dennis Voigt. So they obviously never won anything based on your statement.
> 
> ...


That statement is not true.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

I Know of an FC/AFC and a NDC that have not suffered much from repeated marks.


----------



## T Farmer (Aug 27, 2008)

Funny you should say that Scott!! I was thinking the same. I don't know anyone who does not repeat. When necessary..


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

dexdoolittle said:


> That statement is not true.


It is true as a general rule. Never say never. Refer back to our previous posts back and forth. 

I know what I know from the training materials, clinics attended, etc. of the Handjem crew and Dennis Voight. With certain limited exceptions similar to, but not limited to the one I pointed out in my previous posts, these folks don't repeat marks.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

If most of your knowledge has been gained from reading and/or listening to others, then my advice is be a little more flexible in your stance.;-) HPW


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

captainjack said:


> Well you should be able to figure that out.
> 
> The Handjem team doesn't repeat marks nor does Dennis Voigt. So they obviously never won anything based on your statement.
> 
> ...


 
Glen, 
You're a bit missinformed about training field trail dogs so I'll resist being sarcastic in my reply. I see you're just getting into trials coming from HRC, hunt tests or whatever and even won yourself a 20 dog qualifying this spring. That's a great start! However, you have a ways to go and some of the things you've heard, read or think you know for a fact should not be taken out of context or as gospel. If you look up to Mike and Dennis's accomplishments and want to incorporate things they do into your training you may want to learn a bit more about it. Since you're in Georgia and not far from both of their winter training grounds I suggest you arrange for an invite this winter to go see for yourself how these guys train dogs. You will be a bit surprised to say the least.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Breck said:


> Glen, You're a bit missinformed about training field trail dogs. I see you're just getting into trials coming from HRC, hunt tests or whatever and even won yourself a 20 dog qualifying this spring. That's a great start! However, you have a ways to go and some of the things you've heard, read or think you know for a fact should not be taken out of context or as gospel. If you look up to Mike and Dennis's accomplishments and want to incorporate things they do into your training you may want to go see for yourself how they train. Since you're in Georgia and not far from both of their winter training grounds I suggest you arrange for an invite this winter to go see for yourself how these guys train dogs. You will be a bit surprised to say the least.



I am not misinformed and I did spend a week with Mike this spring. And you are the one who is taking comments out of context. I won't repeat myself here but you can read for yourself what I have written in the back and forth posts with Dex previously in this thread.

Read the Septemebr 2007 issue of RetrieversONLINE. Watch Lardy's Total Retriever Training Series and study his RJ articles. Attend one of the clinics that the Hanjem crew and Dennis put on. If you come away from that thinking that they repeat marks as a matter course, then you aren't paying attention.

You are correct, I'm just starting out, but I'd like to know where your running this spring. Nothing would satisfy me more than to bring my self trained, no repeating mark pups up there and kick your butt!

Edit: Oh, and it was a 19 dog Q after scratches and three of the dogs were mine. Here's the link. https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedin/viewentries.aspx?eid=4700

The RTFers may recognize some of the names of the handlers and dogs that didn't win.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Those of you who repeat marks (and have had success), under what circumstances do you repeat? I'm looking for specific examples and not looking for "after the dog was handled on a water cheating single." Everybody does that. What are some concrete scenarios where you repeat and feel like it helps the dog? By the way, I'm not on one side or the other. I'm looking for some guidance.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

captainjack said:


> I am not misinformed and I did spend a week with Mike this spring. And you are the one who is taking comments out of context. I won't repeat myself here but you can read for yourself what I have written in the back and forth posts with Dex previously in this thread.
> 
> Read the Septemebr 2007 issue of RetrieversONLINE. Watch Lardy's Total Retriever Training Series and study his RJ articles. Attend one of the clinics that the Hanjem crew and Dennis put on. If you come away from that thinking that they repeat marks as a matter course, then you aren't paying attention.
> 
> ...


You the Man


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

claimsadj said:


> What is everyone's take on re-running a mark when a dog struggles with it the first go round? I'm reading in James Spencer's book on marking and he goes over a drill where you re-run the mark as many times as needed if your dog isin't stepping on it. I've heard 2 opinions from many people, no one seems to ride the fence on this issue. Any opinions?


Just wanted to get the OP back out here for the folks who joined late. 

This post is not talking about re-running a particluar mark under certain circumstances because you only have this one field to train in, etc...

The original post is talking about re-running a mark when a dog struggles on the first go round.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Charles C, this probably doesn't answer your question but I think it's very good advice from Mike Lardy on when to repeat. I copied his entire page on when to repeat and when not to. I *bolded * his when to repeat stuff. I'm not a Lardyite and I'm sure I repeat much more than he does, especially with my young dogs, but I think his advice on this is very sound. I do repeat almost all instances of what he says to repeat. (what I bolded) I don't get to go to lots of different areas so I'm thinking that what I consider a unique mark and what he thinks is a unique mark would be different. 

Glen, in your week with Lardy he never repeated? Were all his dogs good on secondary selection tests all the time? He never did a drill-like mark somebody or other cheated on? 



> Training Tip #7
> To Repeat or Not To Repeat
> From Total Retriever Marking with Mike Lardy
> 
> ...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Howard N said:


> ...
> Glen, in your week with Lardy he never repeated? Were all his dogs good on secondary selection tests all the time? He never did a drill-like mark somebody or other cheated on?


Howard, the only field marks repeated (there were twelve dog/handler teams running about 3-4 field set ups, not all marking set ups, a day) that week were for failure to secondary select.

We did do a drill of Dennis Voigt's the Handjem folks dubbed the Ontario Ten Step. In the drill, the second mark (the walk away) was repeated for the dogs that failed to dig out the mark. In fact the purpose of this drill was to teach the dog to stay in there and hunt out a tough retired bird after having picked up a stand out bird near the location the 2nd gunner walked away to retire. The dogs that failed the mark (about 6 of the 12) all switched to the visable gun (old fall) after hunting but failing to find the retired bird. Dogs were recalled and the 2nd bird only was re-run.

If Breck, HPW and anyone else who thinks I am misinformed about training filed trial dogs would take the time to read my previous posts in this thread, they will see that what I have written is very similar to what you have bolded in the Lardy tip. It is very similar because that is where I first learned it.

Edit: To pick out the last sentence of the Lardy tip posted by Howard... My bolding but those are Lardy's !!!


Howard N said:


> ...
> *Some trainers do repeat a lot. For their dogs repeating is a concept itself! My experience is that when you repeat a test with a dog that you have generally not repeated with, the dog can get very confused and often repeats the failures of the first attempt! *


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I would say, in general, they don't repeat simply for a failed mark.
They may repeat stuff, almost everyone does, but usually some time passes..

I think what this thread shows is....there isn't one way to train a good dog.
Emphasis on the "good."


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

My point in posting the Lardy article was to show that he provides clear boundaries for when and how to repeat a mark. This is the type of guidance that enables less experienced trainers to learn and proceed with confidence. 

Belittling the techniques of successful trainers and categorically declaring repeats are good is not beneficial to anyone.

Soft landing regards,


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

RF2 said:


> My point in posting the Lardy article was to show that he provides clear boundaries for when and how to repeat a mark. This is the type of guidance that enables less experienced trainers to learn and proceed with confidence.
> 
> Belittling the techniques of successful trainers and categorically declaring repeats are good is not beneficial to anyone.
> 
> Soft landing regards,


Well said, Allen.

Evan


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Those of you who repeat marks (and have had success), under what circumstances do you repeat? I'm looking for specific examples and not looking for "after the dog was handled on a water cheating single." Everybody does that. What are some concrete scenarios where you repeat and feel like it helps the dog? By the way, I'm not on one side or the other. I'm looking for some guidance.


Charles, I repeat marks.

While this is a generalization, cliff note version if you will, this is my ideology.

There are two parts to a "mark"....

1) The journey from the sending point to the area of fall.

2) The area of fall.

If a dog FAILS the first part, ie cheats, fades with the wind or doesn't fight whatever factors, I will repeat the mark. To me, NOW this has not become about the "spot" the bird fell in but a correction of the LINE from the send to the AOF.

If a dog reaches the AOF, but fails to "put his nose on the bird", I do not repeat. 

If the "failed mark", happens within a multiple, I will only RERUN on the mark/marks affecting or influencing the failed mark. 

WRL


----------



## Art Stoner (Nov 18, 2007)

captainjack said:


> I am not misinformed and I did spend a week with Mike this spring. And you are the one who is taking comments out of context. I won't repeat myself here but you can read for yourself what I have written in the back and forth posts with Dex previously in this thread.
> 
> Read the Septemebr 2007 issue of RetrieversONLINE. Watch Lardy's Total Retriever Training Series and study his RJ articles. Attend one of the clinics that the Hanjem crew and Dennis put on. If you come away from that thinking that they repeat marks as a matter course, then you aren't paying attention.
> 
> ...


Glenn

Thanks for reminding me about that drill.

We almost did it. Mike fairly well predicted how many dogs would be able to do it as well.

You are right on with your comments.

Art


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Evan said:


> Well said, Allen.
> 
> Evan


But that last 4 pages say he does not repeat. 

No body has belittled some one else training program. The question came up wether or not it was beneficial to repeat. I have the creds along with several others here to verify that it is beneficial to repeat. The problem with this conversation its kinda like being kinda pregnant, you either are or your not.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

WRL said:


> Charles, I repeat marks.
> 
> While this is a generalization, cliff note version if you will, this is my ideology.
> 
> ...


Do you distinguish between whether the dog botched the line to the bird because of factors or simply memory issues in a multiple?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

dexdoolittle said:


> But that last 4 pages say he does not repeat.
> 
> No body has belittled some one else training program. The question came up wether or not it was beneficial to repeat. I have the creds along with several others here to verify that it is beneficial to repeat. The problem with this conversation its kinda like being kinda pregnant, you either are or your not.


Yes, that is what we are *discussing* whether it is beneficial to repeat a mark or not repeat; no matter what venue you are in. And there are varying opinions and ways to handle the repeats. I like your statement on being pregnant - you either repeat marks or you don't repeat the marks. Nobody should belittle any program. There is value is all that is discussed!!!IMHO tTo those who put on the references on re:Lardy and Voigt's. They were helpful! Thanks.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

I have been kinda jammed up here between last weeks National Amateur and a pending trial in 2 days to have followed and participated in this thread. I have been quoted here and for the most part accurately but nonetheless here are a few points some of which have already been made by others of course.

It depends!!!!

Never say always and never say never!!!!

Every trainer I know repeats some marks sometimes but the debate is about when and whether it is routine. This has not much to do with whether a pro has 24 dogs to train or has unlimited grounds to repeat concepts. If I or Mike Lardy thought that regular repetition of routine marks was beneficial, we would. If we think there is a better way, that is what we will do. I train a huge amount of time on one home property in the summer-I do not have unlimited grounds! I can routinely repeat mark concepts without repeating the same mark. For example it is common to set up 3-peat marks in which all 3 have the same concept-thus no need to repeat the same mark.

I have found that if a dog screws up on a mark and there is no good intervention, that the dog is likely to screw up on the re-run. I have found that if there is a good intervention, that there is no need to re-peat because the lesson was learned with a good response. These dogs only have so many miles in them-make them count the most.

I believe that with advanced dogs a mark is only a true mark the first time. After that memory and rote become new elements. Dogs truly remember routes and locations. I have marks on my home property that are repated several times a season and my dogs can do them almost blind-folded. That is not what we are talking about here for the most part.


My dogs do NOT need to repeat to for confidence or success. They get confidence and success from the whole package of how I train and I ensure that they have a high degree of success by how I design set-ups.


I do repeat some marks for example, cheating singles best done as a pair a la Rex in which you do not repeat back to back but as a pair of singles. I will sometimes repeat that short check down if over-run. I will repeat a unique mark with a unique location when travelling and I am unlikely to see that unique deal again.


I repeat triples and marks a day or week later and build on them. For example, when training alone I will set up a tough triple and run as singles. A day or several days later I will run it as a multiple. This gives me far more of a challenge couples with likely success. I have even done this 3X in 5 days. I get more out of it by delaying the repeat.

I do not like going back to same spot back to back in any field type context but my dogs do understand certain drill type situations. Ditto for blinds.


I see trainers that repeat ALL the time, perhaps singles then triples. Some are very successful. I think you either have to repeat all the time or hardly ever. I am seeing more and more trainers doing less and less repeating unless it is a real drill type mark lesson.

I am always looking for efficiency and effectiveness together. That is why I do what I do.

Cheers

PS. Returning to an old fall is all too common in todays tough tight multiples. Rex Carr said at one point that the single biggest reason for failures on water mutliples is going back to an old fall. Food for thought .


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> I can't find where anybody that has posted in this thread says that they never repeat a mark.





> I have read Lardy and others that say not to rerun





> *The Handjem team doesn't repeat marks* nor does Dennis Voigt.


This is the type of rhetoric I was referencing. Now I know "doesn't repeat marks" , or "say not to rerun" is not exactly the same wording as "never repeats a mark" but come on...the idea was presented that there are trainers who don't repeat marks...I am simply saying that is an overstatement at best...how did that get a rebuttal?????

I think some folks just want to argue for the sake of arguing...



.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Based on information I gleaned at two lardy seminars, I truly believe that Mikes reluctance to repeat marks is more of a time management thing than any thing to do with teaching the dog bad habits.

john


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Keith Farmer said:


> This is the type of rhetoric I was referencing. Now I know "doesn't repeat marks" , or "say not to rerun" is not exactly the same wording as "never repeats a mark" but come on...the idea was presented that there are trainers who don't repeat marks...I am simply saying that is an overstatement at best...how did that get a rebuttal?????
> 
> I think some folks just want to argue for the sake of arguing...
> 
> ...


Oh and Why not. Holly Cow, I think I doubled my post in this one thread. Now just a couple more thousand and I'll be a professional retriever trainer.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Do you distinguish between whether the dog botched the line to the bird because of factors or simply memory issues in a multiple?


If the dog on the line looks out at the last memory bird of a triple and doesn't indicate that it in the least bit remembers the bird, then they are not sent without a rethrow. So that would not be a "rerun" that DAY, but might call for a rerun later in the week if I am rerunning that multiple.

But a dog that has truly "lost his mark" is going to be trained a bit different than a dog that has multiples down and "gets lost" because of the factor issues.

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Keith Farmer said:


> ..how did that get a rebuttal?????
> 
> I think some folks just want to argue for the sake of arguing...
> 
> ...


I wasn't specifically replying to your post, but rather the tone of the thread in general.

I was trying to point out that it's not an always/never philosophy difference, but rather a when-to/when-not-to difference.

However, since my last post, it is becoming more clear to me, that the real difference of opinion, is that one methodology deliberately sets up the majority of their marking tests, with the intention of repeating marks, while the other would rather not have to repeat a mark. Even though there are circumstances that they will.

At least that's how I read it.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

dexdoolittle said:


> Oh and Why not. Holly Cow, I think I doubled my post in this one thread. Now just a couple more thousand and I'll be a professional retriever trainer.


Dex, I really appreciate your posting in this thread.

I don't think that I have learned half as much from the internet, as I have from "real training", with knowledgeable and experienced trainers. I doubt that a message board will ever be "so great" that it could become more informative than "real life" training.

But, I can read, and I can learn.

We don't really get into these kinds of conversations on training days.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Just Me and My opinion,, but it seems like Howard posted what Lardy ACTUALLY says about the matter,, instead of what some have come 'AWAY" with watching his Vids or attending clinics.

Here is what Lardy says on the matter again.

Quote:

Training Tip #7
To Repeat or Not To Repeat 
From Total Retriever Marking with Mike Lardy

To Repeat or Not to Repeat

There's no doubt that repetition is a basis for learning. The question is, "Does repeating failed marks help a dog learn about marking"

In general I do not repeat failed marks. One basic reason for this is that I believe it contributes to going back to old falls-- a natural tendency that retrievers often revert to when they become uncertain. Repeating only contributes to the expectation that a bird can be found where you found one before.

For example, suppose a dog fails a triple by going back to the old flyer fall when sent for a long retired gun and you handled him out of the flyer and to the long retired gun. Now, if you repeat the entire triple you are sending him back to the flyer where he does find a bird. So what does he learn? He certainly doesn't learn that he is never going to find a flyer in the same area twice!

It is more productive to run a similar set-up in a new place rather than to repeat a failed mark. For example, in the above scenario, I might move over in the field and set up another test with a long retired gun. By setting up the same situation, but in a different place, and perhaps under slightly easier circumstances, I believe I will soon develop an understanding of the long retired gun concept. By not repeating, you will work harder to build marking concepts.

I do repeat certain kinds of marks under specific circumstances:

*Any drill-like mark like a cheating single or other singles that are set up to teach a dog to hold a line in spite of a very strong factor.*

*A failed secondary selection bird -- the tendency to miss these kinds of marks is so strong that any potential tendency to go back to an old fall on a short mark is worth it.*

*Any unique mark that you might not have the luxury of finding the time or place to create a similar circumstance. For example, a bird thrown on to an island, a bird thrown across a hidden channel, or a bird thrown across a river with a current. Even under these circumstances I will repeat just a particular mark as a single.--- I do not run the entire test over.*

Some trainers do repeat a lot. For their dogs repeating is a concept itself! My experience is that when you repeat a test with a dog that you have generally not repeated with, the dog can get very confused and often repeats the failures of the first attempt! 


So, He does repeat some marks under some circumstances.

I'm just confused at some of you that quote Lardy, and say he doesnt?

So again looking at the drawing I posted earlier,, 











In My opinion. The Actual MARKS AOF is a gimme.
Its thrown into decoys, with a big splash. The concept and factor is the dog,, when it gets to the road has to make a decision as to what to do. Either take water,, or run the very enticing road to the gunner.


You decide to handel. the dog gets back in,, but you struggle with the dog wanting to go to the close shoreline he has to swim along. You correct a couple times along the correct line.

The dog comes back with the bird.

What do you do??
It just makes sense to me that you would repeat!! To Me thats logical..
People have told me that Lardy says he doesnt repeat marks,, but I believe this is a perfect example of when he MIGHT.

The AOF isnt a big challenge. Its marked,, like I say,, with decoys and the bird falls with a big splash. The challenge is the LINE to it! What I think you are looking at is a cheating factor.

I guess I would want to see if he (dog) got the idea of why I had a finger on the collar!

Gooser


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> I wasn't specifically replying to your post, but rather the tone of the thread in general.
> 
> I was trying to point out that it's not an always/never philosophy difference, but rather a when-to/when-not-to difference.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying.

I would be in the latter...not intentionally seeking to repeat marks. However, I have had to abandon any form of a setup and concentrate on one mark or one concept on numerous occasions with certain dogs. Whatever the dogs need...


Good training.




.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

It just occurred to me, that there is a third methodology.

One that will repeat any mark that the dog fails, regardless of the reason.

That's the methodology, that I think is "wrong", although it's the most practiced. At least by non-competitive trainers.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> I have been kinda jammed up here between last weeks National Amateur and a pending trial in 2 days to have followed and participated in this thread. I have been quoted here and for the most part accurately but nonetheless here are a few points some of which have already been made by others of course.
> 
> It depends!!!!
> 
> ...


Thank you for this explanation Dennis. Very informative!


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> It just occurred to me, that there is a third methodology.
> 
> One that will repeat any mark that the dog fails, regardless of the reason.
> 
> That's the methodology, that I think is "wrong", although it's the most practiced. At least by non-competitive trainers.


And if you go back to post #1... 

"What is everyone's take on re-running a mark when a dog struggles with it the first go round?"

Nothing unique about it, nothing special about it, just a mark that the dog struggles with the first go round.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

MooseGooser said:


> Just Me and My opinion,, but it seems like Howard posted what Lardy ACTUALLY says about the matter,, instead of what some have come 'AWAY" with watching his Vids or attending clinics.
> 
> Here is what Lardy says on the matter again.
> 
> ...


Hi Gooser!

I think you are looking for a cut-and-dried answer on this, but I don't think there is one.

This is a "cheaty" single, but it's not a cheating single. At least from what you have described.

It sounds like you had a pretty good fight with the dog. Both in getting into the water, and staying in the water.

It sounds like you had to handle all the way to the AOF.

That's not something I would want to repeat!

When I set up a cheating single, I want everything pulling and pushing the dog towards the shore.

If there is an old fall, I want it on the shore. If there is a strong wind, I want it blowing towards the shore. I want any throwers, or holding blinds on the shore that the dog is going to cheat down.

The exception would be if the wind is light, I want it carrying the scent of an old fall, out to the dog, to provide suction towards shore.

I want a bright, white bumper floating in the water, so that the dog knows exactly where it is. Mark*ing* should not even be an issue on a cheating single.

If the dog cheats that kind of a set-up, I absolutely will handle. If the dog doesn't take my cast, it will probably get a large amount of correction, and another cast.

If it's a clearly defined set-up, and the dog responds correctly to the correction, it was valuable training. I will probably be able to repeat it, without need for another correction, and the dog will receive success, for doing the right thing.

However, if the whole ordeal was an epic battle, and the dog either forgot the mark, didn't mark it in the first place, or it wasn't clearly defined to the dog what I wanted it to do, then I think repeating would do more harm than good.

In that case, I would not repeat. I would back up and work on the fundamental skills required for the dog to actually learn something from this marking test.


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

Gooser,

If I had a dog that demonstrated much difficulty with a mark as you show in your drawing I would determine that the dog does not have a proper water attitude and I would, and consistently do, establish a proper water attitude in my drill ponds away from a marking scenario.

Take this water blind for example: I ran a 13 month old puppy on this water blind with full confidence. Notice the first point on the right (grassy point across the cove). I allowed the young dog to get within ten yards of the point before stopping and casting. What cannot be seen in the photo is two logs that are chained down in the water as an obstacle running parallel to the blind line. I gave ONE cast to the pup and he literally fought to crawl over the logs to go around and down the shore. He finished this 350 yard blind with a couple more strategic casts...tail high and happy!

Point is...he did not learn such casting/water prowess by being hammered in the field on cold setups. He learned in a very controlled environment and on known patterns what his responsibility is in the water both on entry and staying in.

If there is one piece of advice I will offer its this: don't try to establish your standards in the field...establish your standards in the yard then proof them and tweak them in the field.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> .......
> 
> PS. Returning to an old fall is all too common in todays tough tight multiples. Rex Carr said at one point that the single biggest reason for failures on water mutliples is going back to an old fall. Food for thought .


Dennis, that is not consistent with what I have observed in AA stakes. Somewhat unusual to see an Open dog ROF from what I see.

_Influenced_ by the old fall, yes. But not actually going back to it.

Just my observation.

JS


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JS said:


> Dennis, that is not consistent with what I have observed in AA stakes. Somewhat unusual to see an Open dog ROF from what I see.
> 
> _Influenced_ by the old fall, yes. But not actually going back to it.
> 
> ...


That was not the case in the Open at Pikes Peak, where only 15 or so dogs out of 75 were able to get the marks without handling


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Hi Gooser!
> 
> I think you are looking for a cut-and-dried answer on this, but I don't think there is one.
> 
> ...


And in what perfect world do you live that you ONLY run cheating singles when EVERYTHING is perfect?

Something I have noticed with you copterdoc, you talk doublespeak.

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> ....Something I have noticed with you copterdoc, you talk doublespeak.
> 
> WRL


I'm confused.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> And in what perfect world do you live that you ONLY run cheating singles when EVERYTHING is perfect?


Maybe our definitions are different.

When I think of a cheating single, I think of a younger dog, or a refresher for an advanced dog.

I'm not thinking about an advanced dog, running a complex test.

When I am running what I think of as a cheating single, I don't want any risk of confusion on the dog's part. I am *planning* on a correction, and I want to make sure that the dog clearly understands it.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Both copterdoc and WRL have made statements that I agree with regarding "marking" and the general idea of marked retrieving.

I agree that "marking" is the act of the dog seeing the bird/dummy fall at a distance, it has nothing to do, IHMO, with factors in the dog's line to get that bird/dummy. But it does have everything to do with the dog's ability to calibrate depth and distance from his vantage point to that bird/dummy.

So if a dog hunts short - not due to any factor - 30 yards on its first 150 yard mark, I'm rerunning that mark - no questions or thoughts about it, other than do I have enough dog left. 

Why?

First, the dog marked that bird/dummy at 120, not at 150. The act of hunting short stops any marking and related memory, depth and distance calibration of the 150 mark; it's now memory, depth and distance of a 120 yard mark that he has in his head. Having the BB help is not the continuation of that 150 mark, to me it's best described as a "helped mark of 30 yards".

I'm not really worried about the dog hunting short again either because he didn't find a bird there. ;-)

And I believe that a dog's natural prey instinct will help him drive the next 30 yards when I rerun because the dog wants that damn bird/dummy. This instinct and all the related physiology is what allows us to do what we do with these magnificent animals.

I'm rerunning that mark - that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;-)


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Maybe our definitions are different.
> 
> When I think of a cheating single, I think of a younger dog, or a refresher for an advanced dog.
> 
> ...


So when you run a set-up you don't "plan" on a correction? 

If you are not correcting, they ain't learnin'.

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> So when you run a set-up you don't "plan" on a correction?


Well, not always. Sometimes, I am just trying to teach.

If the dog is at a level to understand what I want, then the set-up doesn't need to be "perfect".

However, if my line correction is followed with a major "battle", I don't think that the dog was really ready for that particular test.

Don't get me wrong. I don't ever want to back down from a battle. Especially during basics. I just want to have the foresight, to be able to pick my battles.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

PhilBernardi said:


> ....if a dog hunts short - not due to any factor - 30 yards on its first 150 yard mark, I'm rerunning that mark - no questions or thoughts about it, other than do I have enough dog left.....


I disagree, with your logic.

Instead, I would change a few things, and repeat the concept.

I would move up, and move the thrower and fall laterally, outside of the original AOF.

If the dog was successful, I would gradually move back, and shift the mark laterally with each successive throw.

I'm maintaining the same concept, but simplifying to the point that the dog can learn from the test.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I disagree, with your logic.
> 
> Instead, I would change a few things, and repeat the concept.
> 
> ...


Is changing the look and mark repeating, "a mark" or is it simply repeating a concept?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Well, not always. Sometimes, I am just trying to teach.
> 
> If the dog is at a level to understand what I want, then the set-up doesn't need to be "perfect".
> 
> ...


Mish mash....doublespeak.

"perfect" set-up means what exactly? Like I said, if there is no correction, the dog is not learning. 

If the dog isn't learning, you aren't teaching it anything.

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Is changing the look and mark repeating, "a mark" or is it simply repeating a concept?


I don't think of walking singles, as repeating a mark.

There is a new fall location for each one. Even though they are all similar marks, they are not repeating the same mark.

The only reason to move the line, as well as the thrower, is to shorten the distance, while still maintaining the terrain feature that caused the dog to hunt short.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> ...Like I said, if there is no correction, the dog is not learning.
> 
> If the dog isn't learning, you aren't teaching it anything.
> 
> WRL


I disagree with that.

Dogs make honest mistakes all the time. Mistakes are just as much of a problem, as deliberate lack of effort.

I try to not correct a dog for making an honest mistake, but I will correct for a deliberate lack of effort.

I think that a lot of marking errors, are the result of honest mistakes.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm wondering why this isn't a cheating single? It seems like what Gooser wrote is cheating.


----------



## Gun Dawg (Dec 18, 2010)

Hi Lee,

Glad to see you're having fun w/all of this......


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> ..."perfect" set-up means what exactly?...


My "perfect" reference, was in response to this......


WRL said:


> And in what perfect world do you live that you ONLY run cheating singles when EVERYTHING is perfect?


I don't believe that an advanced dog, needs the same degree of definition in a marking set-up, in order to fully understand the correction.

That's all I meant.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> I'm wondering why this isn't a cheating single? It seems like what Gooser wrote is cheating


To me, it looks a lot more difficult, and less defined, than what I would call a cheating single.

I'm sure I am wrong, but that looks like a pretty tough mark.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

_I would move up, and move the thrower and fall laterally, outside of the original AOF_

And here's where I disagree with you. 

You see that 150yd AOF as the dog's AOF. In fact, Fido's AOF is at 120! You're confusing Fido's AOF with what you want it to be and where you asked the gunner to throw the bird/bumper. 

But Fido just gave you all the evidence you need as to what he thinks it is; as to what he calibrated the depth and distance of his AOF, and that was at 120 yards!

I'm rerunning and making assessments on Fido's repeat as to what I do next.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

PhilBernardi said:


> ....I'm rerunning and making assessments on Fido's repeat as to what I do next.


Go right ahead!

That kind of thinking, hasn't worked for me. Dogs don't think like we do.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> Mish mash....doublespeak.
> 
> "perfect" set-up means what exactly? Like I said, if there is no correction, the dog is not learning.
> 
> ...


Okay, I got some sleep, and I think I understand what you mean by doublespeak.

I said earlier, that I want to repeat a mark, following a line correction. However, in the scenario Gooser posted, I said that I wouldn't repeat.

The difference is, that it doesn't sound to me, like the dog really got the message from the correction(s) given in Gooser's scenario. It reads like it was still a fight, to get the dog into the water, and to keep it there.

If I correct a dog for cheating, and the dog responds to the correction by doing what I told it to, then I do want to repeat, to see if the dog understood, takes the line without assistance, and receives the reward of success, for making the right decision.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I really have to disagree with the notion that _"...if there is no correction, the dog is not learning."_ I know it's a pretty common idea among dog trainers, but it's not specifically true, and can be a slippery slope for sensitive dogs.

First, imagine a dog you've been working on for a particular weakness - say pulling our short middle birds successfully. You've drilled on the cocept, and have run many indented triples over a course of several months. You've made corrections for outright lack of effort, but have used a fair amount of attrition too. Of the three set ups this week with that type of mark, he's succeeded the last two times. No corrections. No do-over's, plus praise for compliance. I believe that dog has learned from his successes, as well as the rest of his education, that the extra effort to check down and hunt that difficult mark is rewarding.

Hammer on a sensitive dog enough, or really most dogs, and their learning attitudes will go south. Their style will often follow. Teach, force, reinforce.

Evan


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I disagree with that.
> 
> Dogs make honest mistakes all the time. Mistakes are just as much of a problem, as deliberate lack of effort.
> 
> ...


If the dog makes a mistake and "self corrects" for the mistake (ie hunts short then pushes back to the fall) the dog is showing that it has LEARNED what you have taught it prior.

If a dog makes a mistake, it RARELY self corrects itself.

Therefore, a "CORRECTION" is required. That does not mean specifically a handle or burn. It may mean a rethrow from the bird boy. But its STILL a correction.

WRL


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> .........
> 
> If I correct a dog for cheating, and the dog responds to the correction by doing what I told it to, then I do want to repeat, to see if the dog understood, takes the line without assistance, and receives the reward of success, for making the right decision.


and to do that, you could set up a series with 3 "3-peat" marks. Even in Goosers drawing there is room for that. Do the task, the concept, more than once will do exactly what you are doing.;-)


.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Evan said:


> I really have to disagree with the notion that _"...if there is no correction, the dog is not learning."_ I know it's a pretty common idea among dog trainers, but it's not specifically true, and can be a slippery slope for sensitive dogs.
> 
> First, imagine a dog you've been working on for a particular weakness - say pulling our short middle birds successfully. You've drilled on the cocept, and have run many indented triples over a course of several months. You've made corrections for outright lack of effort, but have used a fair amount of attrition too. Of the three set ups this week with that type of mark, he's succeeded the last two times. No corrections. No do-over's, plus praise for compliance. I believe that dog has learned from his successes, as well as the rest of his education, that the extra effort to check down and hunt that difficult mark is rewarding.
> 
> ...


The term correction does not mean "hammering on your dog".....If you have used attrition, its still a correction. 

Correction means to "change course" but it doesn't have to be a "stomp on the breaks, 90 deg turn".....

WRL


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

I just want to say that I've learned a lot from this thread. Thanks to everyone for presenting their perspectives. I know mine have changed......somewhat. Awareness often comes in small increments.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

WRL said:


> *The term correction does not mean "hammering on your dog".....If you have used attrition, its still a correction.*
> 
> Correction means to "change course" but it doesn't have to be a "stomp on the breaks, 90 deg turn".....
> 
> WRL


I agree with that, but with a significant qualifier; that we understand that "correction", or even "hammering" is what the dog esteems it to be. Even chronic nagging tends to have a negative impact on a dog's learning attitude. I don't think we have to interfere with a dog's work in order for the dog to progress & learn.

Doing the work correctly helps to form correct habits. Perfect practice makes perfect regards...

Evan


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Evan said:


> I agree with that, but with a significant qualifier; that we understand that "correction", or even "hammering" is what the dog esteems it to be. Even chronic nagging tends to have a negative impact on a dog's learning attitude. I don't think we have to interfere with a dog's work in order for the dog to progress & learn.
> 
> Doing the work correctly helps to form correct habits. Perfect practice makes perfect regards...
> 
> Evan


Always perfect practice is like treading water. It gets you no where.

I expect my dog to make mistakes. I set up for them to make mistakes. Not get into a gi-normous mind fuddle but a chance to correct for advancement. A little here and a little there. 

Each dog is at a different place. If I have to throw therapy marks I do, but we are looking for advancement. Longer, tougher conceptually marks and blinds. So reaching reaching reaching for the next step. 

WRL


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

*Dogs don't think like we do*

In some respects they absolutely do, in most they don't.

And I include their affect in the term "thinking".


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

WRL said:


> Always perfect practice is like treading water. It gets you no where.
> 
> I expect my dog to make mistakes. I set up for them to make mistakes. Not get into a gi-normous mind fuddle but a chance to correct for advancement. A little here and a little there.
> 
> ...


To each his/her own. I set them up in situations that challenge them to a higher level progressively. I expect periodic corrections of some sort. Virtually everyone does. That's how progress is most often made. It's just not the only way. Habits of succeeding are very important in all aspects of fieldwork, especially in marking. I believe dogs mark their best with consistency because they believe they _can_ and _will_. Failing all the time works against that. Some are more forgiving than others. But being lucky, and being smart are different things.

The more exceptionlly talented the dog, the more challenging it is for the trainer to provide frequent challenges. That's a fun position to be in! But it needs to be done, both to keep them advancing, and to keep them mentally engaged on the learning process. But even _they_ need to form correct habits to be reliable at manmade functions, which all of this is.

Evan


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't want anyone here to imagine that I run repeats for the sake of repeats. I definitely don't and won't. I've written before that Spencer's "step on it" is a bunch of huey (ok, I didn't write "huey", but basically wrote that it wasn't important). I want the dog in the AOF to hunt it up or to step on it (if Fido is good enough on his own to step on it).

Getting to the AOF tells me all I need to know about his calibrating that depth and distance. Stepping on it or having a very quick hunt is gravey on those pototoes. ;-) And yes, I'd love to have Fido do nothing but stepping on those marks or having super quick hunts, but that's not important enough to me to do repeats on my definition and standard of a "successful mark".

And I don't want anyone to imagine that decades of dog training anecdotal evidence about dogs returning to old falls is to be ignored. Absolutely not! I'm personally not at the level of concern about tight triples and tight quads and the probability of Fido returning to an old fall under those types of conditions.

Hence, the words of wisdom by a few in this thread about amateurs getting advice here about this type of subject, and about keeping it in perspective with your knowledge and experience as a trainer and handler.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Evan said:


> To each his/her own. I set them up in situations that challenge them to a higher level progressively. I expect periodic corrections of some sort. Virtually everyone does. That's how progress is most often made. It's just not the only way. Habits of succeeding are very important in all aspects of fieldwork, especially in marking. I believe dogs mark their best with consistency because they believe they _can_ and _will_. Failing all the time works against that. Some are more forgiving than others. But being lucky, and being smart are different things.
> 
> The more exceptionlly talented the dog, the more challenging it is for the trainer to provide frequent challenges. That's a fun position to be in! But it needs to be done, both to keep them advancing, and to keep them mentally engaged on the learning process. But even _they_ need to form correct habits to be reliable at manmade functions, which all of this is.
> 
> Evan


If you set up challenging marks, then they will progress as they succeed. But in order to succeed on a truly "challenging mark", they will have had a correction of some sort. It may not be a huge correction, but its SOMETHING. 

Whether you are slowly lengthening marks, or adding factors, there will be at least small misteps along the way. That is when the learning opportunities are there.

I don't work in a system of failure. Its positive positive positive. But even within that system, "corrections" will occur in order to get forward progress.

WRL


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

WRL said:


> If you set up challenging marks, then they will progress as they succeed. But in order to succeed on a truly "challenging mark", they will have had a correction of some sort. It may not be a huge correction, but its SOMETHING.
> 
> Whether you are slowly lengthening marks, or adding factors, there will be at least small misteps along the way. That is when the learning opportunities are there.
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree with you here.

Smart and sensitive dogs are able to progress through progressive success. 

They really don't need a correction to advance. 

I've advanced many puppies by 1st throwing a mark in the water. Then, throwing the mark on the land behind the water, then in the water beyond the land. The success of the 1st enables them to do progressively harder marks. All without any correction.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I think there are posters here speaking about a different level of marks and different ages and experience of dogs. I don't see all age dogs returning to an old mark but possibly may have to rof now with technical marks. I know what kind of marks Dex is speaking about, technical FT marks, but I'm not certain about some of the other posters who have not run all age but maybe more HRC. There are times marks are rerun but it is specific to the dog and where he is and the uniqueness of the mark like a long throw mid land point to point and the effort of the dog. Another "it depends". I agree with Doug, I have a sensitive dog who has been advanced through the positive and I know it can be done and I am very pleased.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I think people are not paying attention to what is a "correction." Instead of the word correction I would prefer to use different terminology.

Guidance - dog made a mistake. Handling the dog to help show him where/what/when/how to accomplish the task

Discipline - Dog was disobedient. Dog has sufficient education and has demonstrated so, yet chooses to commit an offense.

When teaching marks it it important to understand the difference. Especially if you choose to repeat marks.

/Paul


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> I strongly disagree with you here.
> 
> Smart and sensitive dogs are able to progress through progressive success.
> 
> ...


On any given day, there may not be a correction. But at some point, that pup may stop in the water on the "shorter throw" and may need a HUP HUP or rethrow from the bird boy. That's a correction. I believe that is when the real learning happens. 

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I think people are not paying attention to what is a "correction." Instead of the word correction I would prefer to use different terminology.
> 
> Guidance - dog made a mistake. Handling the dog to help show him where/what/when/how to accomplish the task
> 
> ...


That's right Paul.

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think there are posters here speaking about a different level of marks and different ages and experience of dogs. I don't see all age dogs returning to an old mark but possibly may have to rof now with technical marks. I know what kind of marks Dex is speaking about, technical FT marks, but I'm not certain about some of the other posters who have not run all age but maybe more HRC. There are times marks are rerun but it is specific to the dog and where he is and the uniqueness of the mark like a long throw mid land point to point and the effort of the dog. Another "it depends". I agree with Doug, I have a sensitive dog who has been advanced through the positive and I know it can be done and I am very pleased.


Yes very true. 

But there are no successful "all positive" training programs ( I am sure you did not mean to imply that). At SOME POINT, in the most positive program, there ARE CORRECTIONS.

WRL


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

_On any given day, there may not be a correction. But at some point, that pup may stop in the water on the "shorter throw" and may need a HUP HUP or rethrow from the bird boy. That's a correction. I believe that is when the real learning happens. _

I think most here totally agree with you. I personally wished that you would have added that there is also "real learning" without corrections. ;-)

Let's not forget all aspects of Learning Theory where canines are concerned.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

WRL said:


> On any given day, there may not be a correction. But at some point, that pup may stop in the water on the "shorter throw" and may need a HUP HUP or rethrow from the bird boy. That's a correction. *I believe that is when the real learning happens. *
> 
> WRL


You are saying because the dog had help on 1 mark, that is the only time it was learning. That's total B.S!!!! 

You are focused on the help . . . . and forgetting the fact that the dog was *successful* after receiving the help. 

I believe the learning happened because the dog was successful not because of the help. ;-) 

How else do you explain the progression on the marks without any help?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> You are saying because the dog had help on 1 mark, that is the only time it was learning. That's total B.S!!!!
> 
> You are focused on the help . . . . and forgetting the fact that the dog was *successful* after receiving the help.
> 
> ...


But the pup would NOT have been successful WITHOUT THE HELP!

If you go out and train every day for a week and your dog goes out and slams the test every day, he hasn't LEARNED A THING! He has practiced what he already knew.

WRL


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

WRL said:


> Yes very true.
> 
> But there are no successful "all positive" training programs ( I am sure you did not mean to imply that). At SOME POINT, in the most positive program, there ARE CORRECTIONS.
> 
> WRL


No, this is not all positive, but it is knowing when to correct and when not to correct, and it is about being successful and building confidence. As long as the dog understands the yes and the corrections, go, stop, come, get in the water. Threepeats work better than rerunning but sometimes if they just totally don't get the picture and get lost, there may be a rerun. They start to get the picture with success as well as legal corrections.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

WRL said:


> But the pup would NOT have been successful WITHOUT THE HELP!
> 
> If you go out and train every day for a week and your dog goes out and slams the test every day, he hasn't LEARNED A THING! He has practiced what he already knew.
> 
> WRL


I know for a fact. That's just not true!!!

There is both the carrot and the stick. The dogs can learn from both! 

We'll have to agree to disagree!!!!


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think there are posters here speaking about a different level of marks and different ages and experience of dogs. I don't see all age dogs returning to an old mark but possibly may have to rof now with technical marks. I know what kind of marks Dex is speaking about, technical FT marks, but I'm not certain about some of the other posters who have not run all age but maybe more HRC. There are times marks are rerun but it is specific to the dog and where he is and the uniqueness of the mark like a long throw mid land point to point and the effort of the dog. Another "it depends". I agree with Doug, I have a sensitive dog who has been advanced through the positive and I know it can be done and I am very pleased.


DITTO!!!


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> No, this is not all positive, but it is knowing when to correct and when not to correct, and it is about being successful and building confidence. As long as the dog understands the yes and the corrections, go, stop, come, get in the water. Threepeats work better than rerunning but sometimes if they just totally don't get the picture and get lost, there may be a rerun. They start to get the picture with success as well as legal corrections.


Absolutely.

WRL


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

The place where I train there is 14 to 18 ponds. Thus with young dogs you have to establish the mark, at say 75 yards, and build to 350 to 400. This is because you are doing multiple in a out water entries. Each in and out is like a new wall for the pup. Would you consider each step back, another in and out, a new mark or would this be repeating the old mark?


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> JS said:
> 
> 
> > Dennis, that is not consistent with what I have observed in AA stakes. Somewhat unusual to see an Open dog ROF from what I see.
> ...


Ted, help me understand your point here.

Are you saying that the 60 dogs who were handled, were handled *out of an old fall*? That would be amazing IMO.

I can see where the influence of a flyer or an enticing tight fall may pull or push a dog out into no-man's-land or result in a big, out-of-the-area hunt causing the handler to handle or pick up. But it's very hard to envision all these Open dogs actually going back *into* an old fall, or even threatening to. And that's the thing that the "no-repeaters" have always warned against. At least, that's the way I have always understood it.

JS


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Not all, but a good portion. That's what often happens with
a Momma Poppa configuration


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

I always disliked those mom and pop setups. Especially in a quad shot long, mom, flyer and then pop go bird and then mom retires in front of log standout gun. Ouch!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Breck said:


> I always disliked those mom and pop setups. Especially in a quad shot long, mom, flyer and then pop go bird and then mom retires in front of log standout gun. Ouch!


Be worse if mom retires with the flyer right behind her. :shock:


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> It depends!!!!
> 
> Never say always and never say never!!!!
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting Dennis...reminds me of the scene from Annie Hall; in a theatre line up Woody Allen has Marshall McLuhan step in and set some know it all straight after quoting him out of context.

Now if Mr. Lardy could post that would be a wrap, until then, here through the magic of YouTube is the clip from Annie Hall www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBtXfBdEXEs


----------

