# Purely Positive Rant



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

It is very interesting to see that the purely positive contingent is somewhat active in the world of field/hunt tests. People who hold this philosophy are in the majority in agility and pet training. They also are very vocal on competitive obedience forums.

When I first started competitive obedience I was heavily influenced by the PP folks in forums and in training classes. The PP group as a whole seems to be extremely educated and convey their ideas in a very compelling way. My experience was that the "traditional" trainers in obedience were cynical and sometimes gruff. Because the PP folks were so "inviting" and inclusive I went the PP route. It took me 2 years to really understand that the approach would not work. None of the PP I talked with were getting the kinds of results I wanted with the kinds of dogs I have. I wasted a great deal of time, and confused my dogs, by following the advise of people who were very successful in their communication and persusion skills...and not so successful at actually training dogs.

I beg the traditional trainers in field/hunt tests to be gentle with new trainers who can be misguided by PP groups. Do not reply to PP who post obviously poor information in a cynical or mean manner. I have found that a simple request for "what titles have you achieved" is sufficient to communicate to new trainers the quality of the information being provided. If you can't answer this simple question, you should not be pretending to be an expert.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

There are a couple FB pages for the Competition obed folks that I read. The one has been largely taken over by the PP folks, leading another group comprised of more balanced trainers. This article was linked there yesterday and I too felt that that term "cult" was pretty accurate: http://connectwithyourk9.com/a/?ref=nf
It's hard to find even a pet trainer anymore who has a balanced approach in certain areas. Sad because all the bite inhibition work, etc, that a breeder may do prior to sending pups home is undone and then folks wonder why their puppy is so obnoxious.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

windycanyon said:


> .... This article was linked there yesterday and I too felt that that term "cult" was pretty accurate: http://connectwithyourk9.com/a/?ref=nf
> ......



great article


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

I assumed folks were just restraining themselves out of respect for Dennis.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

A good place to start...


http://www.myownmind.com/recoverygroups.cfm


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> great article


I couldn't agree more Ken. I've been struggling with this a bit myself as of late. After some recent threads and discussions on the topic on different forums, and a few pm's to people...

...I had come to my own conclusion that there has to be more balance. 

I had thoroughly been misunderstanding some of the things I was reading. Some of it still isn't clear, but more balance looks better all the time. That article helped to clear up some things for me and balance is central to that.

I like how he coined the phrase aversive free, or AF. That describes it well.

Balance...neither positive, nor negative, but balanced. I like that.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Good topic & article. Here's another one :

http://www.tsurodogtraining.com/_articles/behaviorism.html

This "cult" mindset is growing in acceptance throughout the dog culture because it sounds so appealing to people who view their dogs as "fur babies". It's what is taught to the public when they sign up for classes at their local PetSmart and is behind attempts to make ecollars illegal in some places. As the OP points out, the proponents of this religion are very well versed in behaviorist jargon & regurgitate many theories by B.F. Skinner (et al) that have been debunked by later work. It amuses me when these theories are described as "new" & "scientific" . That's like promoting Sigmund Freud's work as cutting edge.

It is unfortunate that it is promoted in such an adversarial manner because the understanding & application of behaviorist theory is very beneficial to any dog trainer, but the PP movement has distorted the message by denigrating the so called "punishment" aspects without being able to produce the same results as the balanced trainer. I’ve used a clicker on the last several dogs I’ve trained for their early obedience & have found it to be quite effective & fun but when the time is right, I introduce collar conditioning to instill the reliability I require.

A favorite argument often promoted by the so called Purely Positive cult regards the training of Killer Whales & Dolphins through the use of food rewards. Of course they don’t consider the fact that these highly social animals are kidnapped from their family pod in a very traumatic manner & placed into a concrete pool where their primary sense (sonar) bounces off the walls, completely disorienting them until they become hungry enough to accept a fish tossed by their new “trainer”. 

And This is the argument for why my dog should never hear a discouraging word?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Windy Canyon Great article. There are always going to several differences with training our dogs. I don't have a problem with the different points of view. But I do have a problem when 1 size fits all or it is the only way things should be done. That is exactly what type of comments we will be getting into in this thread. I picked out this comment below from the article because I feel IMO it is important to highlight. 

*‘Contrary to their claims, a aversive free (my edit to terminology) training approach is not as effective and takes considerably longer to reach any level of reliability even close to what a balanced approach can produce. In some instances, reliability cannot be realized using a positive only approach and some dogs will not be trainable at all until appropriate corrections are included.’ (Quoted from Roger Hild.)*

This quote from the article says *some dogs *will not be trainable at all. He uses the word *"some"*. Again I go back to my pup lots of talent, hard driven but no focus would run havoc over this program where as my 3yo would love it. That is thing we have to keep foremost in our minds; we must strive to find the right program that suits our dogs. That is not meaning to say we are opposed to this type of training or at least I wouldn't be but we cannot superimpose it on all dogs. Because all dogs do not have the same demeanor!! We are our dogs advocates. We try teach our dogs reasonably and fairly, so it behoves us all to search for what makes our dogs tick and enjoy their work!!! Have fun with this thread!!!


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

mitty said:


> I assumed folks were just restraining themselves out of respect for Dennis.


I think that is the case. Dennis is a very knowledgeable trainer with practical credentials to back it up. His contributions to this forum are valuable indeed. I felt guilty jumping in there and helping to sidetrack what was an excellent thread, and I apologize. It's just hard sometimes, to keep still when things are being misrepresented and taken out of context.



RobinZClark said:


> .......
> 
> My experience was that the "traditional" trainers in obedience were cynical and sometimes gruff.
> 
> ...


That's a fair and decent suggestion. We should at least be courteous.

I don't really believe most of the "traditional" responders here intend to be gruff or cynical simply because someone espouses a different training philosophy. I have no interest in how someone else trains their dog. Try what you want and good luck. What fuels the fire and keeps the bickering alive is the constant _misrepresentation_ of training programs that include punishment, physical corrections, force, etc. A lot of ignorance is displayed by seemingly otherwise intelligent people.

• Look at some of the statements Dennis has posted.
• Look at the written and video advice provided by any of the popular retriever training programs.
• Spend some time watching and working with professional retriever trainers. Watch their success. See how happy their dogs work.

Do that and then post something on the internet about how those folks "don't know any other way". That they have never tried anything new. That their dogs "don't know how to learn" and are constantly "worrying about getting a correction". The dogs "rarely get a positive reinforcement" ... in fact, we "don't even use the term correctly".

What Hogwash! Very, very clearly, those folks are hearing/reading what they want to and have never ventured into our world. Successful trainers are constantly innovative. They explore all avenues to see what works best for the dog beside them. If they have 15 dogs on their truck, they most likely have 15 different "programs". It is uncanny how these guys & gals can read a dog. In 20 minutes watching a dog work, they can tell a person more about that dog and his needs than the person who has raised him.

And then for some Psych101 behaviorist wannabe to say these folks don't understand BF Skinner is insulting.

Yes, some folks here are impatient and a little terse at times. But I've belonged to this forum for about a dozen years and I can tell you this is not the first time for this debate. It gets old. It comes up about once a year, always from someone who has read a lot of books and spent relatively little time at the line with very few resulting accomplishments. In fact, they have little understanding of the challenges these dogs are capable of mastering.

They always fade away, never to be heard from again nor seen at an event near you. Never actually coming back to say, "Look! I did it my way and here are my results! I surpassed all the conventional trainers!". We can only assume they gave up. I wish just one of them would come back and teach me how to run my dog downwind past a poison flyer without ever having to correct. I'll pay good $ for that.

JS


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I took a ride on the atv around the property about 8 months ago. Kept finding gloves with a little piece of cheese sitting neatly on top of the glove in the grass. So, I think someones' messing with me. I then notice, there is a ribbon hanging nearby the first glove. 100% certain someones' messing with me, I keep looking around trying to figure out how I'm gonna become the butt of this glove and cheese joke. I see more ribbons that I surely didn't place for blinds. I find more gloves, a couple socks and each one has a neat little piece of cheese sitting on it. Baffled because neither gloves match nor, do the socks. Nobody's in sight, can't find any typical jokers peeking around the corner laughing at me I leave the area. 

found out later folks use cheese rewards for tracking....so much for being paranoid about folks messing with me. Not that this has anything to do with the story but, I thought it was sort of funny. I guess the tracking dogs must not have had a very successful day...felt bad I messed up someones' training day and didn't know it until later..


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Robin, it sounds like your intentions are good, but when you say that positive reinforcement trainers are better at communicating than "actually training dogs" three people jumped to mind:

Please check out these folks who you may have already heard of:

1)Janice Gunn - more than 25 years of top level success in obedience and retriever field trials. She likely used force for much of her career, but now uses positive reinforcement and teaches seminars on using that method for all aspects of obedience training at her famed TNT Kennels and training center. Here is her link: http://tntkennels.com/events/events-at-tnt scroll down to Janice's seminar and click to download the brochure. Then surf around her site. No one with right mind could question her successes and experience level. Why would such a person switch to positive reinforcement methods?

2) Michele Pouliot - more than 30 years experience of top level success in obedience, free - style and a founding lead trainer for the Guide Dog for the Blind program. Her link is: http://www.guidedogs.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_people_staffvol_bios_mpouliot and http://cdf-freestyle.com/about.htm

3) Susan Garrett - one of the most successful agility competitors ever. Her link is http://www.clickerdogs.com/susangarrett.htm

Anyone who looks at these links and still says Pos. Reinforcement with no aversives doesn't work - I'd be interested in your thoughts on why.

Kumbaya regards - 
Jennifer Henion


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> we must strive to find the right program that suits our dogs.


If you're the type of person that needs credentials to look at to believe something someone says, then disregard what I'm about to say because I don't have any credentials.

IMO, the above quote is a misconception. The article wasn't about finding the right program. It was about being a balanced trainer. That means we should learn as much as possible, even from other methods, and use every tool available at our disposal. We as trainers must train the dog and find a balance that suits him. Not some program.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Jhenion said:


> Robin, it sounds like your intentions are good, but when you say that positive reinforcement trainers are better at communicating than "actually training dogs" three people jumped to mind:
> 
> Please check out these folks who you may have already heard of:
> 
> ...


Let me see if I understand Jennifer's post. Because agility, obedience and leader dog programs (and the goals therein) are the same as a waterfowler's, hunt tester's and field trailer's, it's a no-brainer to move to an all positive system of training our retrievers.

Do I have this about right? 

Last time I checked, what I want as a waterfowler from my hunting retriever is more than being able to sit or lay down, or to wait at a corner for traffic to clear, or to run through a barrel then turn 90 degrees to run up some stairs. 

I've taught my dogs to ring a bell to go outside; to play dead when I shoot them; to bark on command; blah blah. NONE of those help me when I need a duck or goose retrieved from 150 yards out because I didn't stone the bird. ;-)

Jennifer, my ears are cupped. I await the yells of both you and Dan.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Jhenion said:


> Robin, it sounds like your intentions are good, but when you say that positive reinforcement trainers are better at communicating than "actually training dogs" three people jumped to mind:
> 
> Please check out these folks who you may have already heard of:
> 
> ...


Jennifer, these are all good resources. Keep in mind though, that as far as I know Robert Milner is the only trainer who's continually training and writing articles using similar methods as relates to hunting dogs. At least he's the only one I'm aware of. I just read a post by him from a 2009 thread here on RTF and in his own words he stated that he has not accomplished what he wants as of that post in 2009. I am unaware if he has reached that goal. Bless his heart for trying though. I give him credit for what he is trying learn and do, and commend him for it.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

I had no idea that Janice Gunn was a purely positive trainer? I was under the impression that she was a "balanced" trainer. Does she train her dogs in field work without an ecollar? She lives on the other side of the country from me and I am not very familiar with her methods. I am familiar with her results which are amazing and inspiring.

I don't know Michele Pouliot, but when I look her up for competitive obedience results on this website: http://www.dogshowscores.com/
It does not appear that she has obtained any titles in the past 12 years. My sport is competitive obedience and I know very little about free style. Maybe she competes in England? 

Don't get me started on Susan Garrett...she has never been very successful in obedience...or at least she hasn't earned any titles in the past 12 years according to the above database. I don't believe she has ever done field. Agility is a completely different sport that allows extreme positive reinforcement after less than 30 seconds of activity doing something that dogs naturally enjoy doing. It is still very difficult, but requires completely different training strategies than those required in field and obedience.

The reason why I say that Pos Reinforcement with no aversives does not work (at least for my sport of competitive obedience) is that no one (with the possible exception of Denise Fenzi) has been successful. Many many people who use a balanced approach are amazingly successful. No one (that I am aware of) who uses purely aversive methods is successful at anything. It is all about BALANCE.

I do give people credit for trying and for blazing new territory. But it is very much unproven at this point. And my dogs seem to be more comfortable with a physical method of telling them that they are "wrong". I have tried the all positive route and it seemed to make them extremely neurotic.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Phil, I was responding to Robin's post about her experience training her Keeshonds for the obedience ring. She said the positive reinforcement people didn't have any credentials or actual ability in training dogs. So I provider her with some examples of people who do.

Also, there are many cross-over skills between the high level obedience training and the field training / hunting world. To say you only obedience only has to do with siting and staying a traffic cone, is a gross understatement. Just ask Robin, the OP. 

Not only is obedience the core foundation of all field work, the obedience competition includes fetch, hold, give, walking and running and jumping over obstacles with a dumbbell. It also includes sending the dog away from the handler to a specified location (send-outs). It also includes steadiness in the presence of other dogs and distractions. 

Lets face it, there are crazy people in every field and every hobby. There are unsuccessful people who confuse the hell out of their dogs using the force method and the exact same is true of those using the positive method.

A balanced approach is definitely called for. I like to train with a reward based system, but I also use the word "No" every day and use my body language to block behaviors I don't like. If my pup is snaking on a pile of horse poo, I say No and re-direct. I own a kennel and dog daycare with 20 to 30 dogs everyday - with the dogs running together in the play field. I have to use the word "No" and my body to stop dangerous behavior. They are not dogs I raised from pups. They need an instant message of what's not acceptable. 

What I want to know is, if I have never put you down or your methods, why do you put me down? I haven't made false claims about the positive method or of my own experience. I've always said it's an experiment for field work, but that if it can work in so many other areas, maybe it can work in the field.

Jennifer


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

The Gunn's are balanced trainers, let's not get silly!


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Robin, I respect your position. If you click the link I gave for Janice Gunn, it may answer your questions about her. Don't think she is using PR for field work - but it wouldn't surprise me if she adapted her obed. training methods to the field training very soon. 

Jennifer


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

*And I repeat...there is only ONE person that I am aware of who has earned an OTCH using purely positive methods...Denise Fenzi...and I only know this from reading her blog. Whereas I personally know dozens of people who have earned an OTCH using balanced methods. * Because my Border Collie is so extremely biddable I very rarely have to give her any kind of correction to do very advanced obedience work. On the other hand, my Keeshonden would never pick up anything if they did not recall the ear pinch they were taught years ago. Different dogs require different techniques. It is extremely easy to train a border collie or aussie to do agility with no external rewards. It isn't so easy to get a precise 12 minute utility routine with no external rewards. And I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to teach a dog to fetch a duck in ice cold water. I wouldn't think that any quantity of cookies could do that!

I started this thread because I did not want to trash up Dennis's beautiful thread on principles. I spent $126 yesterday on 3 volumes of Online Retreiver so that I can study more of his writings. I love to listen to people who have been successful and try to model their behaviors. I object to people who misrepresent their level of expertise. I'm sure that there are none of these people on the RTF forum. But I have seen/heard plenty of them on obedience forums.

Jennifer, are you certain that Janice Gunn is purely positive? I know the line of dogs that she trains and I can't imagine but they would eat her hat if she never physically corrected them. "Alot of dog" is an understatement.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

*To say you only obedience only has to do with siting and staying a traffic cone, is a gross understatement.*

Reread my post.


Let me be crystal clear about my assessment of an all positive training system for retrievers who run hunt tests, field trials and work in the field as retrievers for hunters: Until YOU ALL have shown more than once that the all-positive approach can and does obtain behaviors for winning at FC and Grand levels, you're blowing smoke and talking out the sides of your mouths.

This whole area is more than just having trainers alter their methods, this is intimately tied to breeding. 

Put up or shut up. 

<I'm done here>


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Jennifer, are you certain that Janice Gunn is purely positive? I know the line of dogs that she trains and I can't imagine but they would eat her hat if she never physically corrected them. "Alot of dog" is an understatement.[/QUOTE]

I pasted this from their web site: take it for what it's worth. Maybe she means she doesn't use aversives in the seminar, but does at other times, but I doubt it. I do know Janice is NOT a fly by night or an unbalanced trainer. Her resume speaks for itself.


*Janice Gunn is offering a special one day workshop at TNT on Saturday April 28, 2012*

Come and learn all the newest, latest concepts in competition obedience training. *NO compulsion, no adversive methods used!* Learn how to use positive reinforcement training correctly. Learn how to get the most from your dog in day to day training, how to incorporate play, tricks, jackpots, how to use marker training, and so much more! Seminar details listed in this attachment:
Janice highly encourages all competition students at TNT to attend! The seminar is open registration to all, first come, first served, don’t wait to register!
*Download Seminar Flyer & Registration Form*


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

PhilBernardi said:


> Let me see if I understand Jennifer's post. Because agility, obedience and leader dog programs (and the goals therein) are the same as a waterfowler's, hunt tester's and field trailer's, it's a no-brainer to move to an all positive system of training our retrievers.
> 
> Do I have this about right? "
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Jhenion said:


> PhilBernardi said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see if I understand Jennifer's post. Because agility, obedience and leader dog programs (and the goals therein) are the same as a waterfowler's, hunt tester's and field trailer's, it's a no-brainer to move to an all positive system of training our retrievers.
> ...


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Thanks for posting this Jennifer. Janice Gunn is no fool and this is how she makes a living. She knows that the no correction approach is popular in obedience circles and that is what is selling seminar seats. She is wise to target her marketing appropriately. But I don't think this means she doesn't use compulsion in her training. I applaud her for being so openminded and see her (and Denise Fenzi) as wonderful trailblazers. I'd be willing to bet that Janice is never critical of people who do choose to use compulsion. I'd also be willing to bet that she would help me to train my dog appropriately with compulsion if that is what I needed.

But I return to my original point, that I personally know of zero people who have earned an OTCH with PP methods, although I do know plenty of people who have tried. I know dozens of people who have earned OTCHs using balanced methods. I believe that competitive obedience is different and requires LESS compulsion than field training because of the extreme physical hardships in field.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I took a ride on the atv around the property about 8 months ago. Kept finding gloves with a little piece of cheese sitting neatly on top of the glove in the grass. So, I think someones' messing with me. I then notice, there is a ribbon hanging nearby the first glove. 100% certain someones' messing with me, I keep looking around trying to figure out how I'm gonna become the butt of this glove and cheese joke. I see more ribbons that I surely didn't place for blinds. I find more gloves, a couple socks and each one has a neat little piece of cheese sitting on it. Baffled because neither gloves match nor, do the socks. Nobody's in sight, can't find any typical jokers peeking around the corner laughing at me I leave the area.
> 
> found out later folks use cheese rewards for tracking....so much for being paranoid about folks messing with me. Not that this has anything to do with the story but, I thought it was sort of funny. I guess the tracking dogs must not have had a very successful day...felt bad I messed up someones' training day and didn't know it until later..



So where did you put my gloves and socks, I don't think they like cheese as much as I thought, gonna try bacon next time.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Hi Happy,

I actually said twice that the Gunns *don't* use PR or at least strictly PR for field work.

Jennifer


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

I don't know, but I would be willing to bet large sums of money that Janice Gunn does not use a PP approach in her personal obedience training. I do believe that she uses a balanced, "mostly positive" approach...this is vastly different than PP. Her high-drive, intelligent dogs would eat her lunch if she never used physical corrections. It is likely that she uses physical corrections in household matters and rarely needs them in obedience training.

I follow the same approach..."mostly positive"...and my corrections are mostly for things around the house.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

jeff evans said:


> So where did you put my gloves and socks, I don't think they like cheese as much as I thought, gonna try bacon next time.


Funny you mention that because I did find something of yours out here.... I would have ate the salami but, it was pretty dried up and stuck to the bumper. Surprised the dogs couldn't scent that in the short grass..... 

Sorry, Jennifer, I mis-read what your were posting.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Jhenion said:


> .....
> 
> 
> Not only is obedience the core foundation of all field work, the obedience competition includes fetch, hold, give, walking and running and jumping over obstacles with a dumbbell. It also includes sending the dog away from the handler to a specified location (send-outs). It also includes steadiness in the presence of other dogs and distractions.
> .........


All due respect to serious OB trainers, but these things are "kindergarten" compared to advanced retriever work, believe me. Do I need to explain in detail?

I've done both; trained 5 UDs just as an off-season, wintertime activity. No comparison in the challenge.

This is what I mean when I say we are not on the same page regarding the difficulty and standards. You're doing that work in a 60' enclosed ring. And a 3 minute sit/stay with distraction?? "Distraction" is sitting at honor beside the working dog while they shoot a live, cackling flyer 50 yards in front of you and the working dog is released to retrieve.

And John trains his AA dogs positive only??? NOT! 

JS


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

RobinZClark said:


> the no correction approach is popular in obedience circles and that is what is selling seminar seats.


Don't really think that even this is a fair/accurate statement. While perhaps more accurate for the Rally obedience, I do not know of many(any) competitive obedience folk who are aversive free. It is also interesting to note that when going to the TNT website you will see an article about Bob, and I know she wasn't trained aversive free. It is important to realize that as in field, obedience and agility dogs are know being sought after based on pedigree and bidability of the litter's sire/dam. And while aversive free training programs might work (work better) with these highly bidable dogs, they are not nearly as effective with breeds/litters that are not bred to this criteria. 

It used to be that the top obedience trainers would seek out a pup from a notoriously "untrainable" breed just for the recognition they got in getting a CDX or UD on the dog. I do not see this so much anymore. Instead. everyone (well known obedience trainers) seems driven to obtain the maximum number of perfect runs (200 scores) that they can. And to even get close to a 200 score takes a pretty remarkable dog; as I can think of nothing more boring for a dog than the endless number of hours they spend heeling around in circles training/ingraining proper heel position. And yes, because of the tedium a lot of reward incentives are used. However, if the dog is not paying attention or repeatedly messing up on something the trainer knows the dog has an understanding of, most obedience trainers will revert to using some form of aversive reinforcement that this behavior is not correct and wont be tolerated. Based on the numbers of perfect and near perfect scores that I see in my region, this type of training works and works well. I remember seeing a 4 way runoff for second place at 199-1/2. When you compare this to field training where the goal is that the dog recognize the retrieve as the reward that makes up for all the tedium and aversions involved in getting the dog to the bird along the correct path, perhaps you will see the similarities and differences in the training involved in these venues. 

T. Mac


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I trained a retriever to go open the fridge and bring silver bullets. I'd open it and give him a taste as a reward. All positive. He then learned if he opens the fridge and grabs a cold one, he could bite through the can and drink the whole beer himself. 

Now I have a positively happy drunk dog and no beer. 

My last attempt at all positive training. 

/Paul


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Thanks T. Mac...what I should have said was that the "no correction approach" is popular in the people who are starting out in competitive obedience or who are competing in the "A" amateur classes. In other words, the "no correction approach" is popular with people who do not have much experience and who are the largest market for seminars.

In order to achieve the types of scores needed to win the "B" classes it takes a special dog, a special trainer, lots of external rewards and a careful use of aversives. The rewards are needed to get the precision required...it is very tedious. The aversives are also required...it can be very boring to the dog. Field work is completely different in that the task is much more complicated and the physical conditions are much more difficult. At the same time, field work does not require the extreme precision that obedience requires (think dressage). And field work involves very nice rewards that are inherent in the actual work. Whereas my BC and Aussie enjoy retrieving in itself, my Keeshonden have no interest in any of the obedience tasks. They are very clever dogs and know quite well that I do not have food when in competition. If they did not have some compulsion training I fear that they would never do anything!

You are absolutely correct. It typically requires a 199/200 in order to win a large class. And I too have seen run-offs between dogs with 199.5 scores. It is extremely difficult to get a 8-12 minute performance with only one tiny error.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

JS said:


> I think that is the case. Dennis is a very knowledgeable trainer with practical credentials to back it up. His contributions to this forum are valuable indeed. I felt guilty jumping in there and helping to sidetrack what was an excellent thread, and I apologize. It's just hard sometimes, to keep still when things are being misrepresented and taken out of context.



There is another component to this and that is concern that newbies will be led down a path that they will later regret. The PR world has an inherent appeal to many. 


Sometimes on RTF, I feel genuine concern for the dogs and the way they are trained in traditional programs and I become interested in responding. They often want to experiment or try something new that others have tried unsuccesfully before. At the same time I feel it is important to have open discussions amongst accomplished trainers using all sorts of diffeernt techniques. It is how we learn. BUT, I have searched the PR world extensively for techniques to improve my training to little avail There is no revolution of new techniques for those that have been students. Perhaps to the pet owner masses there is. So, if the newbie who does not yet know the requirements for advanced field work is hood-winked into thinking they can get there in a way that has never been proven to work, it is unfortunate indeed for both them and their dogs.

Reading this thread so far, it seems that the majority here are aware of short-comings of a PP approach for what we do.

I just made a comment on my sticky thread instead of simply deleting the whole thing!! In some ways it will be too little too late. 

Later. (My compulsion trained dogs want my attention.)


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Later. (My compulsion trained dogs want my attention.)



"And a fully forced dog shows no sign of ever being forced".....Rex Steve S


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

And John trains his AA dogs positive only??? NOT! 

JS[/QUOTE]

No one said he does - in fact I have now three times said that he does not.

Jen


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

You all should chill out on this positive only bash. After all, strictly from a training retrievers for the field perspective, what is the down side of of purely positive training other than that the dog may not achieve to it's full potential in a timely fashion if at all ?

On the other hand with the conventional force methods...... In my opinion, in all but the most knowledgeable of hands,(read wrong hands}, they poses the_ possibility _for a significant downside;-)

The soft collar regards....

john


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

john fallon said:


> You all should chill out on this positive only bash. After all, strictly from a training retrievers for the field perspective, what is the down side of of purely positive training other than that the dog may not achieve to it's full potential in a timely fashion if at all ?
> 
> On the other hand with the conventional force methods...... In my opinion, in all but the most knowledgeable of hands,(read wrong hands}, they poses the_ possibility _for a significant downside;-)
> 
> ...


John, have you ever worked dogs from folks who did all positive training in some OBED rings then come out and want to work in the field and get a JH even? Just really curious if you've taken the time to try and help folks like that out. By your statement, I don't believe you've ever worked with show dogs coming out of OBED with owners interested in field work.


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

> All due respect to serious OB trainers, but these things are "kindergarten" compared to advanced retriever work, believe me. Do I need to explain in detail?
> 
> I've done both; trained 5 UDs just as an off-season, wintertime activity. No comparison in the challenge.


This annoys me a bit- I have a few UD's and Otch and my current dog has Otch points. HUGE difference in getting an Otch and UD, totally different mindset, and since there are only about 100 a year, not an easy feat. Unless you have done that? 



> ohn, have you ever worked dogs from folks who did all positive training in some OBED rings then come out and want to work in the field and get a JH even? Just really curious if you've taken the time to try and help folks like that out. By your statement, I don't believe you've ever worked with show dogs coming out of OBED with owners interested in field work.


Not sure how to take the second quote, are you making fun of people who want to try and get a JH? Really?

Finally



> Come and learn all the newest, latest concepts in competition obedience training. *NO compulsion, no adversive methods used! Learn how to use positive reinforcement training correctly*


Do you see the correctly part????? And yes, I have met Janice and may direct her to this thread. However- what so many people forget is ANY correction, which may mean you don't walk in front of me you walk behind or next to me carries over into any type of training. YOU may not consider telling a dog not to jump or mouth my arm is a correction, but it is. You may not consider telling him to get off the couch or to sit and making him so it a correction, but it is.

Sorry, I am over this. More dogs and kids have no limits, and it is going to cost us. 

Balanced Obedience is the answer in my mind, and I have a lot to back up that opinion.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Not making fun of anyone trying to get a JH. Their start is the biggest problem. If you tell a dog that everything it does, no matter how it does it is, "GOOD!" you cause as much harm when you take that dog and try to attempt to work it in the field as a guy who doesn't know how to use a collar and presses the button because the dog chases the neighbors cat then, presses the button when it doesn't pick up a bird.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> John, have you ever worked dogs from folks who did all positive training in some OBED rings then come out and want to work in the field and get a JH even? Just really curious if you've taken the time to try and help folks like that out. By your statement, I don't believe you've ever worked with show dogs coming out of OBED with owners interested in field work.


I have not , but I have trained with and helped some of the Amish among us with field breed Labs. Also helped out with a few Poodles

BTW PHGl what is your take on the upside v downside.

john


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Not making fun of anyone trying to get a JH. Their start is the biggest problem. If you tell a dog that everything it does, no matter how it does it is, "GOOD!" you cause as much harm when you take that dog and try to attempt to work it in the field as a guy who doesn't know how to use a collar and presses the button because the dog chases the neighbors cat then, presses the button when it doesn't pick up a bird.


Ok, I agree with this-just checking. I agree with Dennis too, and whoever said a well FF dogs shows no sign of being FF


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

I have Janice Gunn's Obedience DVDs and she does demo a type of force fetch using an ear squeeze...I think she's a fabulous trainer and love her dvd!


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

D Osborn said:


> More dogs and kids have no limits, and it is going to cost us.


Was reading this thread with the TV on in the background "City Dogs" (an apparent all-positive dog training reality show). Seems to me people raising dogs these days aren't much different than how so many are raising their kids. Everyone gets a ribbon & trophy if they have a pulse, no matter how abhorrent and anti social their behavior is. We are raising kids that are rewarded for mediocrity and grow up to be spoiled brats that think the world owes them a living, and condemning thousands of dogs to death because they were never taught basic good manners.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I took a ride on the atv around the property about 8 months ago. Kept finding gloves with a little piece of cheese sitting neatly on top of the glove in the grass. So, I think someones' messing with me. I then notice, there is a ribbon hanging nearby the first glove. 100% certain someones' messing with me, I keep looking around trying to figure out how I'm gonna become the butt of this glove and cheese joke. I see more ribbons that I surely didn't place for blinds. I find more gloves, a couple socks and each one has a neat little piece of cheese sitting on it. Baffled because neither gloves match nor, do the socks. Nobody's in sight, can't find any typical jokers peeking around the corner laughing at me I leave the area.
> 
> found out later folks use cheese rewards for tracking....so much for being paranoid about folks messing with me. Not that this has anything to do with the story but, I thought it was sort of funny. I guess the tracking dogs must not have had a very successful day...felt bad I messed up someones' training day and didn't know it until later..


Crap, they werent MINE. I use HOT DOGS. Bar S brand... the cheap ones....  You got baited Paul.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

jeff evans said:


> The Gunn's are balanced trainers, let's not get silly!


Hmmm, I wondered the same. The Gunn videos I have here still show that she does FF (ear pinch) for obed. She DOES do a LOT of motivational/positive training, no doubt about it but so do many of us who do obed.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

RobinZClark

How would you describe your current training style? I have to admit that I feel that there are pluses and minuses to any one style but I get the feeling that you were really disillusioned by positive training.


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

<shrug>
I've watched several OTCH's run hunt tests and field trials. They don't seem do do better in the field.

I'm not knocking OB stuff, it's obviously a good thing. Just doesn't seem to translate over.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Bottom line is that the extreme pure positive or pure force is very rare!
I think the real delineation between trainers is whether you are reward based, or compulsion based. I truly think that there is no one in the field world, except struggling Lindsay Ridgeway who is all "Purely Positive" or all "Force". I think most of us are a mix of the two. But some of us are mainly reward, motivation based and some of us are compulsion to do it like I say to, based.

I am the reward/motivation based, but I also make sure that the dog carries out a command that I know the dog knows. Others, like my training partner are compulsion based. I don't badger him about his way and he usually doesn't badger me about mine. We both make sure the dog carries out the task at hand, if we're sure the dog knows the lesson. We just have different ways of making it happen. So we're both "balanced" trainers, but we have different ways of teaching the lessons. He gets his formalized sit with a heeling stick tap then a collar nick and I get my formalized sit with the clicker and treat. But if after formalizing the behavior and reducing latency, my dog doesn't sit when asked to, I make sure to stop everything and get the dog to sit quickly.

So, to me, the difference between most trainers is what base you're coming from - motivational or compulsion. I think it is the rare case that any trainer is one extreme or the other.

Jennifer


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

My journey as a trainer continues to evolve & I expect that someday my thoughts on this subject may change, but here's where I see it now.

There's quite a bit of evidence that extrinsic rewards can be effective in motivating a person to accomplish tasks that are not otherwise self rewarding. For example, assembly line workers can be enticed to higher levels of productivity by paying "piece work" rates. However, many studies have shown that when the desired task is one that could be "intrinsically" rewarding, for example closing a sale or any job that involves a degree of creativity, the promise of a reward can actually have a de-motivating effect. A classic case is one my own children experienced in school when Pizza Hut promoted what they called their "Book It" program. Basically, the idea was to bribe children with the promise of a pizza if they read more books. The results across the board were disappointing. What actually occurred was that the children tended to read simpler, shorter books that they didn't necessarily enjoy & further, when the promise of a pizza was removed, they read even less than those children that hadn't participated in the program. There are literally hundreds of similar studies with both children and adults that follow this trend. The book, Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us by Daniel Pink is an interesting read on this subject in children and adults.

My belief is that a similar phenomena occurs in the dog world. A reward based program might be fairly effective in motivating a dog to do tasks that are not intrinsically rewarding such as obedience or agility however, they do not have the same effect when working with well-bred gun dogs in field work where the opportunity to hunt/retrieve is in itself extremely rewarding. 

This is not to say that the thoughtful application of rewards (and "punishment) doesn't have it's place in gun dog training of course, but I personally believe that the ideal situation is when we can use those tools to guide the dog to the point where his performance (to our standard) is his own reward. My approach begins with utilizing the puppys' "food drive" to teach. As he matures in his training I add his "comfort drive" through avoidance training but eventually I want to have established with him a relationship that he has a strong desire to maintain. Some people might think of this this as a "drive" to please the pack leader. I think that dogs have evolved over the last 10-20 thousand yrs. in a way that makes the feeling of a successful hunt with their human extremely rewarding. As a matter of fact, I think the feeling works both ways.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Bottom line is that the extreme pure positive or pure force is very rare!
> I think the real delineation between trainers is whether you are reward based, or compulsion based. I truly think that there is no one in the field world, except struggling Lindsay Ridgeway who is all "Purely Positive" or all "Force". I think most of us are a mix of the two. But some of us are mainly reward, motivation based and some of us are compulsion to do it like I say to, based


Why not use all four ? And I think most retriever trainers are motivation based. After all bumpers and birds are about as good of a motivator for a retriever as you can get. Now how you use those motivators is a horse of a different color. This is where you should be making your seperation.
Pete


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

RobinZClark said:


> And I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to teach a dog to fetch a duck in ice cold water. I wouldn't think that any quantity of cookies could do that


My golden would give ME cookies for the opportunity to retrieve anything in icy water.  As Dave Flint said, for most retrievers, the activity itself is highly rewarding. Not many retriever trainers use food rewards because they don't have to. They use compulsion/aversives/correction, whatever you want to call it, to better control and direct an activity the dog is more or less born liking. Obedience is not intrinsically rewarding, except for the most workaholic of dogs. The trainer has to work hard to make it rewarding, hence the balance of extrinsic rewards (food, play) versus compulsion is weighted more towards reward than compulsion. Which doesn'tmean compulsion never happens. In obedience, I think most good trainers of human trainers emphasize the postive because the impulse of most novice handlers is to give way too much correction.


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

A friend just alerted me about this thread, sorry I didn't come to your rescue sooner Jennifer! John only does field trial training with our dogs. Janice does competition obedience my first love, and i also run and train the dogs occasionally in the field. John and I share the dogs and it works very well for us. Yes, John uses an E-collar for field work and is a "traditional" trainer, doing force fetch etc. I REALLY like the new Bill Hillman video, which takes a much more positive approach about force fetching a young retriever. Now...to talk about just me  When we got Mighty (our Grady puppy two years ago) he was so smart that i decided i wanted to teach him some tricks. Most trick training today is taught with a click/reward system. Even tho i never liked or did use a clicker in the past i could see that it was a very valuable tool for teaching tricks. Thru this process it opened a whole new world of training for me to explore. In my obedience training with Mighty, i have never used any compulsion since i started training him at 7 weeks old. All i can say is, I'll never go back to "balanced" obedience training again. And, my current OTCH dogs are reaping in the benefits of positive no correction training as well. I have happier, faster and more trusting dogs. As far as obedience being "kindergarten" compared to field - I have to disagree. At least in field work we have "natural" drives to fall back on - i.e. - the desire to retrieve the bird. In obedience, you have a plastic dumbbell to retrieve, how exciting is that? You have no natural drives to encourage the dog to look stylish, for the dog to be super fast, for the dog to nail the extreme precision needed to get top scores and win. All i have is the relationship i have built with my dog to bring into the ring with me, AND, I can't talk to or encourage my dog while he is working in the ring. This is what makes obedience such a difficult and challenging sport, like no other. It is an intimate sport and relationship building is huge and something the majority of people don't know how to do and then just give up because it's just to much hard work. IMHO competition obedience and retriever field work are both every demanding sports, just in different ways. When i obedience train Mighty he is happy, fast, and loves everything about competition obedience training, it can be as fun and creative as a trainer knows how to make it. If he makes a mistake, i re-focus or re-direct his energy to make him right, I "fix" him or help him instead of correcting him. He trusts me and in return he gives me 110%. I am well aware of how purely positive trainers can be cult like, or on a crusade. That's not me, pick your poison, you live in your world and i'll live in mine. But i REALLY like the response that i am getting from my dogs without using compulsion. Obedience is what makes your field work stronger. I ran Mighty in a hunt test last month (2 years of age) he earned 2 Master Hunter legs that weekend. If he didn't have strong obedience skills he never would of got thru the breaking birds, honor, quartering & sit to flush, walk ups and poison birds. I personally don't think you'd have a competitive field trial dog without the e-collar, but you can certainly have a competitive OTCH dog without the use of force.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Janice, thanks so much for posting! What a wonderful honor to have you on this thread. You are such an amazing trainer.

My training style is very balanced. It is different for each of my 4 dogs. My very soft, sensitive, biddable border collie RARELY gets a correction and I am experimenting with very few food or toy rewards. Instead I have been playing chase, tag, wrestling with her. My silly aussie does get corrections for gawking at distractions...usually a little scruff shake or a big hair pull on her butt. All of my dogs are force broke. I have not had to ear pinch my BC since the week she was force broke. 

My two Keeshonden don't care about toys or play very much and require food rewards to continue working. One of them gets physical corrections...primarily for moving off of stays...he has a real problem with moving forward on the stand signal. The other Keeshonden only gets corrected for blatent effort errors.

What I am experimenting with right now is to use NO corrections during obedience training...just attrition...and use very few food or toy rewards. BUT, I am being much more vigilant about behavior outside of formal training and the dogs are getting more physical corrections for misbehavior outside of formal training. The aussie and the BC are being collar conditioned (using Hillman's soft collar approach) and I will use the ecollar for their field training.

There are definite plus and minuses to each style and the fun of it for me is trying to find the correct balance for a particular dog on a particular day. If anything I am probably skewed too much towards the reward based quadrants. My dogs do not do well (enough) in competition because I don't have the rewards with me. Although we've earned 3 UDs and 1 CDX in the past couple of years I am struggling now to earn OTCH points. I am more than a little bitter about THAT problem.

If you can't tell, I am just a little bit excited about doing field with my new golden puppy. So I am working with the aussie and BC to do field work to get my feet wet. I am planning to teach the puppy using Bill Hillman's approach.

I am just extremely irritated by PP people who believe that I should train my dogs the way that they train. They seem to have an extreme political agenda.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Janice, do you think it is possible to have a competitive OTCH dog without the use of force in basic household behavior? Doesn't a competitive OTCH dog have to have force in some area of their life in order to be competitive in the obedience ring? I would argue that the force work you do with your dogs in the field and in life carries over to the obedience ring. I am friends with Yvonne Pfeifer and we've discussed this topic quite a bit.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I think that Bill calls his approach the "Soft Collar"approach.
It has a good ring to it, and, with a little research into his training methods, it could aptly discribes in a thumbnail, what he is trying to convey.

john


----------



## plnolan (Oct 21, 2009)

Hi Dennis,

I have enjoyed enjoy your magazine.




I am coming into this discussion late. Not sure I understand all the fuss. I read your sticky note, good information there that is often misunderstood. 

I have trained some dogs and some animals to do some different tasks without any force. I have trained a few dogs to competitive success in the retriever field trials. I know of no way to train a field trial dog to an advanced competition level without using pressure. Ideally pressure both "to do and "not do." 

While there might not be much to learn from PP zealots there is much to learn from other sound training programs. In addition to retriever sports I have worked with elite working dogs and trainers; military, police and some sport dogs. 

As I know you do I do believe we can learn from many different venues and systems of animal training. The principals of how a dog learns are not different for each venue but sometimes we can learn new techniques from different venues. 

I have appropriated "training in Drive using verbal markers" from working dogs to my retriever field training. Basically you put the dog in a drive state, show them the object of their drive is available, and show them what they need to do to get the object of their drive. The verbal marker connects the dog's action with the delivery of the reward. 

This results in a much more cooperative training setting for dog and man. The dog wants to do what you want him to do, because that how he gets what he wants, then when you apply pressures it is much easier to make him do what he already wants to do. I call it push pull training. 

Here is a video clip of a dog doing a yard drill taught using this push pull. I will video blinds with distractions to show these same skills in a bigger setting. The dog is under control and working in drive. The clip is a ;little long at 3 minutes and starts a little slow. But it does show control that applies to retriever field sports and briefly the verbal marker.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Michael Ellis is currently my FAVORITE trainer. There are a wealth of free videos on leerburg.com. I agree that there is much to be learned from field, agility, obedience, protection work, IPO, ring sports. Why is it that dogs learn better when they are in "drive mode"? I have always believed it, but I'm not sure I understand all the principles behind it.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

This past weekend I was at a Connie Cleveland seminar. During a break I asked her how she would describe her training style because I noticed that she uses the terms of positive training---markers. lots of praise, bridge words, offering the behavior. etc., yet she does use corrections. She replied 'Why, can't you use both?". She then said to me to tell her at the end of the seminar what training style I thought she had. She actually answered that later on when she said that a trainer should not be married to a particular style of training but instead should be married to the goal. I think that there is a lot of wisdom in that statement.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Connie is both wise and kind! I've trained with her and can not say enough nice things about her


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Thanks Pat for taking the time to post . I was thrilled to see you mention "training in drive" Dog learn rapidly 'in drive" and the the 4 quadrants are magnified causing accelerated learning.
I truly enjoy your video's when I get to see them.

Thanks again
Pete


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

This has been a great discussion and I have learned a great deal about what others do, what can be done and about how I REALLY feel about training! It opened up into something where people in the know (Dennis, Janice, Pat and others) shared their revelations of how to use each quad effectively, which helped the rest of us posters discuss the topic, instead of just being on one side or another.

This has been helpful to me just to be able to talk about it and listen to what others have to say. RTF is probably the only place I could have had this discussion. Not too many retriever trainers of any training program in my little neck of the woods. So, Thanks!

Jennifer Henion

P.S. Thanks Janice Gunn for adding to the discussion!


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

Robin - here is a video tip on the Stand for your obedience http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9MqT51huNk&list=UULjhnUSXzC0F1WU70uQoYcA&index=1&feature=plcp
Hopefully the link will open for you. You will see how i handle the couple of mistakes that Mighty makes. Communication is integral in my training, i.e. - "connect" don't "correct" I have never physically or verbally punished Mighty or puppy Remi in any fashion and never intend to do so. Regardless of what dog i am training, it's just not in my program anymore. I have high standards for pet manners as i travel to many areas, motels, hotels, parks, etc. etc. but again, i haven't taught them how to behave thru the use of force, I don't have to. I do have to be consistent and clear in my criteria however, and consistency is a key factor. If you aren't consistent with what you expect, then your dog will take advantage of you, and i think that is where a lot of people fail, by letting their standards slip.

I have watched a few Pat Nolan videos and was going to suggest visiting his website, but Pat has now arrived and shared a video already, welcome!


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

plnolan said:


> As I know you do I do believe we can learn from many different venues and systems of animal training. The principals of how a dog learns are not different for each venue but sometimes we can learn new techniques from different venues.
> 
> I have appropriated "training in Drive using verbal markers" from working dogs to my retriever field training. Basically you put the dog in a drive state, show them the object of their drive is available, and show them what they need to do to get the object of their drive. The verbal marker connects the dog's action with the delivery of the reward.
> 
> ...


Hi Pat

Yes I'll wager you can even learn something about dog training from a buteo. Are you still flying?

I enjoyed your video clip. I am also doing more of this sort of thing these days. I used to feel that if i wasn't doing real set-ups I wasn't training. Wrong!!

What I like about your video and push pull training is that the dog is not only in "drive" state but also very focused on you and concentrating to be with you. They have to really listen. That's team work.

It's pretty easy for my dogs to get into drive state-actually they can become too excited about their rewards too often. The older and more common way was to try and take them out of that state and make them be obedient or else. Lots of punishment training ensued. It didn't carry over to trials because the dog was in a diffeernt state there and you couldn't get them out of it. Now I try to get them in that state and practice OB things like in your clip. This has helped my dogs operate more thoughtfully and cooperatively while in an excited and "drive" state. I surely don't have it mastered yet and ultimately you have to be able to do it in a more exciting world than training alone. But it's mostly aversive free and the dogs focus on you. Watching some of the Hillmann stuff, he strives a lot also for that balance between excitement(drive) and focused OB.


being able to do things like in your video does not mean a dog can do a huge water quad. But if they are talented and trained to do these challenges, OB games could improve their success rate greatly.

PS. These challenges are quite unlike some of the issues that Janet Gunn raised with competiton OB dogs that need motivation. I was looking at Leerburg.com and noting that Ellis has videos just on the subject of motivation and playing tug.

The field trial dogs I am exposed to sure don't need motivation!!!

Cheers


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Janice, Was Mighty forced fetched or, a purely positive "hold/fetch" program replaced the FF?


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

> I have high standards for pet manners as i travel to many areas, motels, hotels, parks, etc. etc. but again, i haven't taught them how to behave thru the use of force, I don't have to. I do have to be consistent and clear in my criteria however, and consistency is a key factor.


This is the area where I am currently struggling. I have 4 dogs that are somewhat rambunctious. Because I did not have high standards early on in their lives I am constantly working to fix bad habits. For example, when I return home from work my dogs have been resting/sleeping for 9 hours. They are very wild and I need to carefully manage their exit from their kennel and airing them on leash so that none of us gets hurt or angry. My strategy for doing this is to walk 2 dogs at a time on flexi leads. I do not allow them to run loose in our backyard because we currently have coyotes/foxes/skunks back there. So we have to walk down a set of fairly steep steps to the front yard. Initially I used force (pull up on the lead and push down on the butt) to get them to sit and wait at the top of the stairs until I got to the bottom where I released them. I also used the ecollar to enforce sit at the top of the stairs, but I only did this when I was working one dog at a time. 

This is just an example of where I am currently using force in my household manners. I do believe that if I had maintained high standards when they were young I would not have to resort to this. I still don't understand how to maintain high standards when dogs are extremely excited and full of energy without using force. For example, when walking two dogs at a motel, I can not imagine not needed to use collar corrections and sharp verbal corrections to prevent them from pulling on the leash! And my dogs are not as high drive as the field dogs that you guys are managing. 

Please help me to understand how to maintain high standards in basic manners without using force. I am particularly worried about dealing with this properly when in I get my puppy in October because I do not want to squelch any of his natural drive. I however MUST have a well behaved puppy. I've watched Anne Everett's excellent new video on puppy management but still feel that I do not competely grok how to do this.

Thanks so much!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Janice, Was Mighty forced fetched or, a purely positive "hold/fetch" program replaced the FF?


I'm also curious to learn (if indeed all PP fetched) how Mighty took to the transition to the collar w/ John. How is he handling pressure or is that not a problem w/ the genetics there? 

I ask as I use FF (note that I'm probably a softer, more positive trainer on this matter than most but I do use pressure and aversives as needed) to help w/ that pressure conditioning since I tend to have softer dogs. And, i'm also curious because I'm helping some obed folks w/ "other" breeds thru their Hold (no aversives other than the occasional tap on the nose as a reminder or grab of the scruff for mouthing) and will likely be proceeding to Fetch w/ some. I'm curious if you believe this method of training would work w/ a terrier who may have other motives in life than doing as he's instructed.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Janice, I am also very curious to learn if John uses the ecollar on Mighty to run him in field work? Again, my goal here is to understand the role that pressure serves in increasing work ethic in the obedience ring. Even if ***you*** are not using the ecollar on Mighty or your other dogs, won't they learn how to deal with the pressure of the obedience ring more effectively because of the use of pressure in other areas of their life?


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

YES, John does E-Collar and FF train the dogs for field work, that will never change. Mighty had a FF with John prior to me working on his competition obedience hold and retrieve. So this time around, just for fun I did a hold and retrieve with our 4 month old puppy just to see if i could accomplish this with no compulsion. I just video'd it this morning and will post the you tube link once it is rendered. Altho all my dogs had been FF first with John, I still did an assertive HOLD IT and then ear pinched FF for obedience. My ear pinch then turned to an ear squeeze over the past few years. Then with Mighty, i decided not to do any force on his retrieve, and he has an awesome hold, and the fastest pick up and return I've ever had with any of my dogs. I would label Mighty as a sensitive dog, yet very willing dog. When he gets E-collar corrections in the field they are normally at a 2-3 level. That is just enough usually to change his mind. He handles the pressures of the field well enough. 

As far as pet manners go, i do let my dogs be a little "bad" sometimes, my biggest flaw would be letting them jump up on me (when invited only) but they often jump up on strangers when saying hello, opps! Mainly because my friends allow it when greeting them, they jump up then get a few hugs before they are told to get off. I just came off a 3 day obedience trial and i had 3 dogs at the hotel with me. The two girls no longer consider pulling on the lead, but Mighty could so he goes onto one of those very short traffic leads and that way pulling isn't an option. They all sit before i unclip the lead, and then wait to be released to go air. These are the kinds of things that pool into the manners area.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Thank you Janice! How do you teach a recall that is reliable enough to trust them to go air in an urban environment without using physical corrections? Although I use tons of treats to teach recalls, without force the deer poop always wins out over me and the cookies. So I always use a serious physical correction for failure to come when called.

Are you going to let John train Remi with the E-collar and force break him? Or will you keep Remi's training purely positive? At what point do you think you will show Mighty in obedience.

By the way, I am in love with your goldens! They work so beautifully. Incredible teamwork. I really admire you.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

plnolan said:


> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I have enjoyed enjoy your magazine.
> 
> ...


Pat, how would you handle the situation where you sent the dog to the stand, and he picked up the short bumper instead? Or on the return from the stand had grabbed that short bumper instead of coming to heel?

/Paul


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Pat, how would you handle the situation where you sent the dog to the stand, and he picked up the short bumper instead? Or on the return from the stand had grabbed that short bumper instead of coming to heel?
> 
> /Paul



I wondered the same thing but didn't think to ask. Thanks...


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Janice What do you think the carry over from the FF/collar work, for the field, is to the non aversive OB training you are doing with Mighty? I am thinking that because of the compulsion training you absolutely have to have a different dog than if there were no compulsion training at all .....
Thanks


----------



## plnolan (Oct 21, 2009)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Hi Pat
> 
> Yes I'll wager you can even learn something about dog training from a buteo. Are you still flying?
> 
> ...


Hi Dennis,

I have not flown a bird in a long time, the last was a Kestrel I trapped and trained with my oldest son and youngest daughter some years ago. 

I did learn a lot from training the hawks, it started me on the path of learning how to get more without force and to think about controlling the animals access to reward so he wanted to do what I want him to do.

The term I used is training "in drive" but really the process is training "with drive". Once the dog is conditioned to understand that the verbal marker means the very important reward is coming you can directly connect the dog's actions to the pursuit of the reward. For instance, I use the tables. To start I lure or guide the dog onto the table. When he goes on I "Mark" and then throw the bumper. When I mark the getting on the table the dog believes that he can make me throw the bumper by going to the table. Going to the table becomes an activity that he wants to do because that is one way to pursue the bumper.

Now I am not doing obedience while the dog is wanting to chase bumpers. I am showing the dog many different ways to "chase the bumper" 

That's why I call it Push/Pull training I have the push of force from the collar and the pull of the strong desire to retrieve. Actually the process is better described as Pull/Push training but that just doesn't sound right.


----------



## plnolan (Oct 21, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Pat, how would you handle the situation where you sent the dog to the stand, and he picked up the short bumper instead? Or on the return from the stand had grabbed that short bumper instead of coming to heel?
> 
> /Paul


Hi Paul,

Long answer to a short question. 

First, every command used in this clip,(and in fact in all basics) is taught with the verbal marker connecting the action to a retrieve for the dog. He believes that going to the table will "make a retrieve happen". He believes that coming in quickly when called will "make a retrieve happen", he believes that sitting on the whistle will "make a retrieve happen", going to heel, looking at me ect and so. 

Every action or command response is rewarded one to one at first for the fastest learning. Then each behavior is rewarded intermittently. This way when I "Mark" and reward the behavior is reinforced. If I don't reward he still tries harder because he believes that 'maybe next time" the retrieve will happen. Each action has e-collar overlaid on the response so I can force for them too.

In addition to the command responses dog learns two concepts;

Ignore the reward to get the reward. 

He learns to take the indirect path to reward. 

First ignore the reward, easy to introduce. With the dog at your side throw the bumper at his feet do not allow him to get it, do not correct just do not allow him to get it. Make some noise or cue him and when he looks at you (away from the bumper ) give the verbal marker then release him to get the bumper or pick it up and throw for him. He will quickly learn that the way to get it is to ignore it. 

The indirect path is introduced with the table or any action he knows. Stand back from the table and toss the bumper a couple of feet away. Turn to the table send him. When he gets to the table "Mark" and release him to get the bumper. Very quickly he will fly away from the bumper to get the bumper. Because the "Maker" tells him that getting on the table is what resulted in the retrieve. 

Once he knows these things well you can gradually make the work more challenging. Start with the diversions bumpers off to the side then gradually move them closer until you can sit him while you throw bumpers at him or send over top of bumpers or call him to come in over the top of bumpers. When he understands the indirect path is the actual pursuit of the bumper and he knows the way to get them is to ignore them you do not have to fight or correct (as much or as often) for control around the bumpers/birds.

When you teach the concepts the dog is on leash or line. You simply stop him when he tries to get the bumper without you directing him to retrieve or Marking a behavior you want to reward. 

When he is off leash and he grabbed one I would stop him and take the bumper away have him obey several more commands before he got a retrieve/ reward. 

When they understand the indirect path to reward the poison bird, dry shots, diversion marks, selection off flyers all come easier for the dog. 

Again sorry for the long answer to a short question

pat


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Great stuff, Pat !! Just found out about you two weeks ago from Paula Richard, who has attended your seminars. Thanks for sharing here and on your web site.

Jennifer Henion


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Janice What do you think the carry over from the FF/collar work, for the field, is to the non aversive OB training you are doing with Mighty? I am thinking that because of the compulsion training you absolutely have to have a different dog than if there were no compulsion training at all .....
> Thanks


Absolutely same Q here. When one of my pup owners or friends sends their pup off for FF to another trainer (usually because they admittedly hate the process), he comes home a "trained" (or at least a fairly solid) dog. Why wouldn't you expect the same of Mighty w/ your husband? If John did a good job (and I'm sure he does) w/ FFing, why would you need to do much more than "refresh" his memory? That to me doesn't equate to NOT FFing for obed since he clearly was already based on what you said. Just trying to bring this into a timeline that most of us are really dealing w/. I have no one here to help me, so what I dont do (or do wrong) is all on my back.


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

When i did FF it was a completely different method than what John uses. He uses foot pressure, i used an ear pinch. He doesn't care so much if they mouth the bumper a little, it's no points off in competition whereas it is for me. I also cannot allow my dog to run out and hit the dumbbell with his feet, toss it to the back of his mouth, and take a wide turn to come back to me. I need my dog to run out and p/u the dumbbell cleanly with no feet hitting, no mouthing on the return, and i need a fast tight pick up and return. I can't just rely on what John has taught the dog because our competition criteria is different. I still teach my dog those skills i require, but now in a motivational way. I do all the early training with the dogs, i.e. heeling, backing up, learning to stay, stay steady to retrieve, all that is done by me before John starts training the dogs for field which he does at about 8-9 months old. So by the time John starts working with a dog, a lot of their obedience is already in place. Then when they go to the line for the first time, i.e. Mighty, all that excitement and crazy kicks in and i stand back and let him take over )


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Janice Gunn said:


> When i did FF it was a completely different method than what John uses. He uses foot pressure, i used an ear pinch. He doesn't care so much if they mouth the bumper a little, it's no points off in competition whereas it is for me. I also cannot allow my dog to run out and hit the dumbbell with his feet, toss it to the back of his mouth, and take a wide turn to come back to me. I need my dog to run out and p/u the dumbbell cleanly with no feet hitting, no mouthing on the return, and i need a fast tight pick up and return. I can't just rely on what John has taught the dog because our competition criteria is different. I still teach my dog those skills i require, but now in a motivational way. I do all the early training with the dogs, i.e. heeling, backing up, learning to stay, stay steady to retrieve, all that is done by me before John starts training the dogs for field which he does at about 8-9 months old. So by the time John starts working with a dog, a lot of their obedience is already in place. Then when they go to the line for the first time, i.e. Mighty, all that excitement and crazy kicks in and* i stand back and let him take over *)


I have read this several times, but I believe you both will take over. Your body language will show that. 
Just my penny worth.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

plnolan said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> Long answer to a short question.
> 
> ...


Nice application of learning principles and chaining.

Connie did say you were good.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

plnolan said:


> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I have not flown a bird in a long time, the last was a Kestrel I trapped and trained with my oldest son and youngest daughter some years ago.
> 
> ...


Pat

I was sure the falcons would be good teachers. In my own case, I got into horses and quickly learned the power od feel, timing and balance instead of force. 1200 pounds of power and the flight instinct isn't effectively forced if you want a willing partner!!!

The bolded sentence above is a nice distinction and technically correct. However, in the process you are teaching the dog the dog to do something you want and to do it while paying attention to you. Thus, you are indirectly teaching obedience with distractions and a high standard. Perhaps, I have been having more success with this because I am now doing it more in the field and near the line with the prospect of the field set-up(they know what's coming). When I do it in the yard, it is always with bumpers and somebody is always anticipating the reward. 

You have clarified the anticipation of a reward and the need to "perform" with a verbal marker. That's a neat way of teaching these retrieveing fanatics in the yard. Again, the dog is learning to do something before getting the reward even if it is just sit and be patient. It would even be a nice pre-event session to partner up.

Obviously you find great value in the verbal marker or you wouldn't do it. But with these high desire to retrieve dogs, do you not think that that the same process is occurring when we buzz them around like in your video clip rewarding them with a retrieve without the verbal marker? I'm sure eventually your dogs need or get fewer markers as they transition to the field. Comment?


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

I happened upon the obedience while in "drive" accidentally. I noticed one of my dogs acted the same at field trials as she did during feeding time, basically, not paying any attention to me. At feeding time I started requiring an obedience drill before she could get her food. The obedience drill has become a means for her to get her food. Now, when I put the food down, she looks up at me and we go through some sit, here, heel, down drills with a few short retrieves or casts. Her enthusiasm for the drill is really high, as she knows what is coming at the end. After reading this thread in the airport yesterday, I transferred that same concept to the drill field this morning using a mark as the drive item and a pile as the means to get the mark. I have done this in the past with compliance but not enthusiasm because I was not consistent in my application and I was thinking more about making the dog ignore the mark and comply, rather than making the dog earn the mark by completing another task first. She was very enthusiastic, compliant, and understood exactly what we were doing. I believe the dinner time drill transferred to the drill field.


----------



## plnolan (Oct 21, 2009)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Pat
> 
> Obviously you find great value in the verbal marker or you wouldn't do it. But with these high desire to retrieve dogs, do you not think that that the same process is occurring when we buzz them around like in your video clip rewarding them with a retrieve without the verbal marker? I'm sure eventually your dogs need or get fewer markers as they transition to the field. Comment?


Dennis,

If I try to reward the dog for what he does at a distance without a marker I often end up rewarding the wrong thing. For example the dog sits on command at a distance and looks at me. I like that so I reach for the bumper, the dog sees me reaching for the bumper and rushes in as I throw the bumper. The dog is really being rewarded for watching my hands and running into me.

Once the dog knows that the verbal marker means the retrieve will happen and I give the marker when he sits on command at a distance the behavior that is reinforced is the sitting on command (what he was doing when he heard the reward) and he is free to rush in for the throw. 

If the reward (retrieve) always follows the marker and the marker always precedes the reward, the marker becomes very powerful and very useful. The marker becomes a reward itself (it is a conditioned reinforcer). It tells the dog he completed his task, (it is a terminal signal) and it helps the dog connect his actions to the reward, even when he is working at a distance and there is a delay between his act and the delivery of the reward (it is a bridge.)

You are right I use fewer or almost no markers on most field setups. 

Pat


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

plnolan said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> Long answer to a short question.
> 
> ...


Thanks Pat, good stuff. Can you explain what you meant by this "Each action has e-collar overlaid on the response so I can force for them too." Also, I'm thinking this approach works extremely well if you have the pup from the ground up as you build these behaviors in from the beginning. In my opinion or understanding denial of the reward is a form of correction, is this your thought process as well?

/Paul


----------



## plnolan (Oct 21, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Thanks Pat, good stuff. Can you explain what you meant by this "Each action has e-collar overlaid on the response so I can force for them too." Also, I'm thinking this approach works extremely well if you have the pup from the ground up as you build these behaviors in from the beginning. In my opinion or understanding denial of the reward is a form of correction, is this your thought process as well?
> 
> /Paul


Hi Paul,

I use the e-collar to force for the basic commands; here, kennel, sit, heel, fetch, back, and so on. By force I mean I apply e-collar pressure the dog can first escape and then avoid by obeying the command. 

I believe all training is more effective when taught young. I have a website dedicated to early training for retrievers. www.TrainingRetrieverPuppies.com 

I do regularly teach the same concepts to adult dogs though.

It is very important in training that we make sure the dog does not get rewarded for behavior we do not want. That which is not rewarded tends to go away. Of course some behavior is internally, or self rewarding and is reinforced whether we do something or not. 

It may be splitting hairs, and might not really matter, but I am not sure if withholding a reward is a negative punishment, removing a reward is. 

For example Rover really enjoys his chew toy. I do not want Rover in the kitchen. When Rover wanders into the kitchen I take his toy away from him. That is a negative punishment. 

Rover really enjoys his chew toy. When Rover (without his chew toy) wanders into the kitchen I do not give him his chew. By itself I am not sure that is a negative punishment. 

But it certainly is good training to see that he does not get rewarded when he enters the kitchen. 

Pat


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

At what point does a person say enough is enough! Say for a barking dog at the line you stop letting him retrieve b/c you are rewarding him based on what you have stated. Let us say the pup is really difficult, when do you or how do you curb that barking when that method fails or you have not let him retrieve for sometime?? When is the cutoff?


----------



## plnolan (Oct 21, 2009)

Dear Mary Lynn,

If your post is directed to my answer about withholding reward I think you misunderstood my post. I never suggested that withholding reward was the best way to correct, my post was more on the lines of defining terms. Withholding reward is part of a sound training system.

Again, if your post was directed to me, I describe my e-collar system as Push/Pull. You will find if you read my previous post in this thread that I say that I use the e-collar to force for desired behavior. I don't think I mention in this thread but I do use the e-collar and leashes, lines and metal training collars to correct for undesired behavior.

Pat


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

plnolan said:


> Dennis,
> 
> It tells the dog he completed his task, (it is a terminal signal) and it helps the dog connect his actions to the reward, even when he is working at a distance and there is a delay between his act and the delivery of the reward (it is a bridge.)
> 
> ...


Really appreciate your insight on this thread Pat. I used a lot of your puppy stuff from trainingretrieverpuppies.com and also train with a marker. Markers definitely create a very clear communication system between you and pup. However, I have found it really tough to use markers in the field or even in the yard past basic obedience. That is mostly due to my inexperience and the fact that I don't want to stray too far away from the program I am using (Lardy). You say you use "fewer or almost no markers in field setups" and I would be interested in how and when you do use them. 

Thanks,

Dustin


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

Extremism from any angle is destroying our abilty to THINK. as i watch political arguments unfold i see smart people closing their minds up every day. Personally i wish more people close their mouth and open their mind. Their is a world full of ideas but not many who will connect them together to make the world work.


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I took a ride on the atv around the property about 8 months ago. Kept finding gloves with a little piece of cheese sitting neatly on top of the glove in the grass. So, I think someones' messing with me. I then notice, there is a ribbon hanging nearby the first glove. 100% certain someones' messing with me, I keep looking around trying to figure out how I'm gonna become the butt of this glove and cheese joke. I see more ribbons that I surely didn't place for blinds. I find more gloves, a couple socks and each one has a neat little piece of cheese sitting on it.


How did I miss this?!?!

Happy,
Congratulations on on earning the first leg towards your tracking title!!!!!

DP


----------

