# Titled "amish" dogs



## miken (Feb 16, 2009)

I am in the process of looking for a puppy and also a low force way of training him. I'm really looking into the so called Amish training. I am just starting out training this will be my first dog. My goals are to have a well rounded, obedient dog that I can possibly try to title. My question stems from "The Wildrose Way" dvd. Like I said I'm new to this and I was impressed by this dvd. In the video, the dogs appear to do what ever the handler wanted them to do and they were very steady. My question is how well do these "amish" dogs do in trials and hunt tests compared to conventional training?


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

You should probably define what you mean by "Titled." To many on here that means nothing less than FC (Field Champion) or AFC (Amateur Field Champion), Canadian titles notwithstanding.

EDIT: I would add that following a more conventional training program is beneficial because:

1) There is a good reason why Rex Carr based programs are more commonly used and it is related to success.
2) A "hidden" benefit of following a conventional training program is that when you want advice from training partners, people at a club training session, a pro you may eventually employ (even if you think you won't ever do that) or even just folks on here there is a much greater likelihood that you will find advice applicable to your training program. An analogy would be that it is much easier to find someone to work on your Windows or Mac PC than on your old Commodore.

I freely admit that I have not seen that DVD and I probably never will.

Welcome and good luck with your pup.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

I started out as a "conventional" trainer, as opposed to an e-collar trainer. My husband was a conventional trainer through Rex Carr's heyday, and won his fair share, too.

While I have roots in non-collar training, I now train with the e-collar. That's not to say you should, necessarily. But let me just make one point:

Training without the e-collar does not necessarily entail lower force or gentler training than training with it. It's a tool, and one that good trainers can use to improve their effectiveness. 

That's all.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

miken,
Not to split hairs on terms but a "conventional" trainer at least at one time was a version of "Amish" training aka non-electric and use of the e-collar was you guessed it simply a "collar trainer". As for titled dogs and handlers I've only got a couple through intermediate levels of HT's but some here have titled at Master and QAA in FT's without the advantage of the e-collar tool.
Peake
________
VAPORITE VAPORIZER REVIEW


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*miken said:*



> I am in the process of looking for a puppy and also a low force way of training him. I'm really looking into the so called Amish training. I am just starting out training this will be my first dog. My goals are to have a well rounded, obedient dog that I can possibly try to title.


 (emphasis mine)

The poster did not ask about e-collars, or any other 'force/pressure' way of training his dog. In fact, he specifically asked for '...a low force way..' way of training him. He did not ask for anyone to convince him otherwise.

So, I'll take a shot at answering his question. miken, I am also trying to train my dog with the least force possible. I use the term 'least force possible' advisably. When you train your dog, you are putting your dog under pressure. And, IMHO, you're dog is putting himself under pressure because he wants to please. There will also be times when you will have to raise your voice to get compliance, and even 'correct' your dog when he outright blows you off. So, there is, again IMHO, no way to train your dog without some pressure, or even 'forcing' your dog to comply on occasion.

But, that is very different from building an entire training program on 'force/pressure' which is what most US bred training programs are based upon. This is not a blanket indictment of these programs or training philosopy. But, there are other ways of achieving your stated, modest goals without building your whole training philosophy and training on 'force/pressure'.

I have viewed Mike Stewart's 'Wildrose Way', and as with all programs it has it's strengths and weaknesses. I have also spent a very brief period of time training with Mike Stewart. IMHO, his program is weak in providing answers to what you should do when your dog refuses to (fill in the blank). On the other hand, his program relies on enhancing the dog's breeding and natural desire to prevent these situations as much as possible. As such, it is about building a program that is pre-emptive in a sense. His section on teaching a dog to 'hold' is very solid and thoroughly explained and demonstrated.

Which ever path you chose, to be a 'functional' retriever, your dog must 'fetch' and 'hold' reliably. I don't believe that can be done using purely (and I mean 'purely') positive rewards based training.

Just FYI, my dog has only one 'title' to his credit, HRD 'Started' hunting retriever. Working on 'Seasoned'...


Snick


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

My brother and I train without an e collar, so i will only speak as to what I know and not venture a guess on others that train the way we do. Have we used a collar before..yes for problem dogs. but are our dogs force fetched or collar conditioned..no. 

can I tell the difference ..no because I havent trained with an E collar, I have watched and learned how to use an E collar from some of the best, but I choose not to use one, for a variety of reasons. But I respect trainers that use an E collar and the results cant be questioned, but as long as they dont try and convert me to using one then we will get along just great.

whichever method you decide to use dont use it "ala carte"..i.e. a little from column A, a tad from column B..If you go the non collar route you will undoubtedly run into snags just like a collar trainer, maybe not the same problem but generally speaking you cant fix certain problems using the other persons methods...and for the record we dont use cattle prods,or shoot rat shot at our dogs

and yes my brother has titled FC AFC a dog without the use of a collar, and has 3 wins with two other non collared dogs..so it can be done


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Now my pea brain is getting a bit confused. I am hearing what I think is Amish, conventional and non e-collar training techniques compaired as being about the same techniques. My understanding of Amish training, is no disapline at all if they do wrong, attrition only, no healing stick or anything simular. And then there are conventional trainers without e-collar, who use bb guns, sling shots and birdshot as well as cattle prods etc on their dogs etc. to get the desired results when the dog is within reach or if they are good enough shot with what ever shooting instrament they are using. I would rather use the e-collar the majority of the time due to its efficiency and the fact that a knowledgable trainer does not have to impose the pain it is capable of to get results. Bud


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

akblackdawd, I'll let Chris Atkinson correct me if I"m wrong, and that's ok with me because I believe Chris coined the phrase 'amish'. It simply means 'no electricity'. It does not automatically imply, in my understanding, other harsh means like bird shot, bb guns, or anything else.

Chris, I respectfully await your correction...


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

How could you train without disciplining a dog ? I have whipped a dog, grabbed his ears and virtually cleaned his clock, I have used a riding crop or heeling stick as some may call it, but I have never used a sling shot,bb gun or shot at my dog or anyone else dog. I only learned about the word Amish when I came to this site...I was always called an old school trainer or just plain old


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Bon, first of all I want to apologize to you. My post came out only minutes after yours did and I had not seen yours. I was refering to the most extream trainers from the past. I fully realize that there are some very good trainers who perfer not to use the e-collar and are very humain in there issue of disaplin.

On "Amish" I will stand corrected. I had always assumed that since the Amish are pacifists, that the term refered to training without force, violance or or any type of corpral punishment, which to me means attrition only. Bud


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

I trained hunting dogs without a collar for fifteen years before I got one (a collar not a hunting dog). If you think you're going to train a dog without force you are living in a fantasy world. We are trying to get them to do stuff that isn't natural for them. That requires force. I use a collar because it requires less force, is more understandable to the dog because of the timing possible with a collar, thus it is more humane than the other way. (and I still manage to screw it up)

Amish is another way of saying foot to ass. Pressure is pressure. You can try to fool yourself into thinking you aren't going to use pressure and have a decent dog. You are whistling past the graveyard.
Like the man said, you can pay me now, or pay me later.

You WILL use force to have a good dog. You decide....push a button or run out there and put foot to ass. It can be done either way. but the one with the button is easier on you and the dog.

And that is why everyone is doing it regards,


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

akblackdawg said:


> Bon, first of all I want to apologize to you. My post came out only minutes after yours did and I had not seen yours. I was refering to the most extream trainers from the past. I fully realize that there are some very good trainers who perfer not to use the e-collar and are very humain in there issue of disaplin.
> 
> On "Amish" I will stand corrected. I had always assumed that since the Amish are pacifists, that the term refered to training without force, violance or or any type of corpral punishment, which to me means attrition only. Bud


Bud no apology necessary,i think we posted at the same time...shows how much I know about Amish, i thought it meant non use of electronic equipment, I did not know it referred to the pacifist side of things...



as to the Leddyman post about whistling past the graveyard and fooling myself.
that is a perfect example of why I usually dont involve myself in a discussion of ecollar vs non ecollar..
you see I accept and respect your right and ability to train and use a collar,but your response looks at someone like me and asks how dare you even train that way..I wont get into a urinating match with anyone on the use of ecollars vs non ecollars anymore than convincing my few Mormon friends to go to my church of worship...not going to happen

training non collar fits my personality and my philosophy, I love labs as much as anyone, no more,no less. I train with ecollar people but I dont try to change them and they dont try and change me. I respect them and their methods and I hope they respect me and mine


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Snicklefritz said:


> The poster did not ask about e-collars, or any other 'force/pressure' way of training his dog. In fact, he specifically asked for '...a low force way..' way of training him. He did not ask for anyone to convince him otherwise.


Actually he did ask this:



miken said:


> My question stems from "The Wildrose Way" dvd...My question is how well do these "amish" dogs do in trials and hunt tests compared to conventional training?


And that was why I made the comments that I made. IMO from what I have seen of people who had dog's trained "The Wildrose Way," it is unconventional even without regard to the use of the e-collar. For instance, their method of lining a dog up for a blind is extremely unconventional and that has nothing to do with the e-collar. The lack of FF is unconventional as well, at least by my definition.

I have personally trained an "Amish" dog to his UH HR and SH "titles." There is some contention as to whether those actually constitute titles or not, but they are commonly referred to as titles and that is another matter. It wasn't out of principle, but out of ignorance (note: ignorance is not the same thing as stupid) and the resulting problems created by my ignorance. Back then there were no Lardy tapes, no Smartwork, etc. In fact I wasn't aware of any dog training videos at all when I started training him in 1995. I didn't know what I was doing and I tried to use the e-collar without collar conditioning him because I had never even heard of collar conditioning. I was using Water Dog as my primary resource, but I guess I read an article or two about training with the e-collar and thought I knew what to do. Well I burned the dog up (I say "burned up" based not on intensity but on the amount of confusion caused by the fact that I had not taught him how to "turn it off") and by the time I found out what I had done wrong I decided (right or wrong I don't know) that the e-collar would always be too traumatic for this dog so he was "Amish" from there on out. On my second (current) retriever, I had more and better resources such as Lardy's Total Collar Conditioning so he is a collar dog all the way. I still don't use the collar as much as some do because I am not always sure what the proper correction is in time to make it in a timely manner, but I would not personally consider training another dog without it given the choice and the experience of doing it both ways.



bonbonjovi said:


> and yes my brother has titled FC AFC a dog without the use of a collar, and has 3 wins with two other non collared dogs..so it can be done


That is very impressive IMO, as if training an FC AFC isn't impressive enough regardless of training methods used.



Snicklefritz said:


> I believe Chris coined the phrase 'amish'. It simply means 'no electricity'.


That is my understanding as well. I don't think it implies FF or the lack thereof. 




bonbonjovi said:


> Bud no apology necessary,i think we posted at the same time...shows how much I know about Amish, i thought it meant non use of electronic equipment, I did not know it referred to the pacifist side of things...


I don't think it has anything to do with the pacifist angle. I think it is referring to lack of e-collar (a modern device).


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> and yes my brother has titled FC AFC a dog without the use of a collar, and has 3 wins with two other non collared dogs..so it can be done


How long ago did he do this Bon?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Wow, there's a whole new group of people ready for Victoria Stilwell's forum. Go, enlighten yourself. 


/Paul


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

achiro said:


> How long ago did he do this Bon?



Clint titled FC AFC Sourdough's Quickstart (Judge ) back in the early seventies when he and Dr EdA were students at A&M , he also had another male John Rex Rascal (Rex) that had an Open win and an Amateur win before being retired after TLPO surgery...and then he won the Amateur last year(actually 07) with Nola at the Eastern Idaho trial..He also qualified Mirk for 08 Canadian National Open


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

miken said:


> I am in the process of looking for a puppy and also a low force way of training him. I'm really looking into the so called Amish training. I am just starting out training this will be my first dog. My goals are to have a well rounded, obedient dog that I can possibly try to title. My question stems from "The Wildrose Way" dvd. Like I said I'm new to this and I was impressed by this dvd. In the video, the dogs appear to do what ever the handler wanted them to do and they were very steady. My question is how well do these "amish" dogs do in trials and hunt tests compared to conventional training?


Hey Miken,

Welcome to the site and congrats and good luck on your endeavor of finding a pup. I know Mike, have a WR dog and believe/know that you can produce a well rounded, obedient gundog using his material.

One thing you have to keep in mind, and HuntinDawg makes some great points, is that the HT/FT circuits are filled with conventional/collar trainers and the evolution of the collar and training methods have changed the games.

Mike's approach is much slower. While it's good to get into a group, train, etc., it's hard to resist that temptation to train on what everyone else is doing...trust me! If you start mixing and matching the training styles, you'll run into troubles and, as HuntinDawg pointed out, there really isn't going to be anyone there that understands what you're doing/where you're coming from....trust me!

Depending on the venue, your time, etc, you should be able to compete in the hunt tests without too many problems, you'll just be doing it at a much slower pace.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

hi Mike,

i can't speak to the benefits or drawbacks to training in the Wildrose style, as i have not seen the video or trained with Mr. Stewart.

i have trained 3 personal dogs over the last 20 years using non-collar methods. the first had no formal training until she was 3 years old. at six she was an MHR (NAHRA) and an MH (AKC). the AKC title was earned with 5 straight passes. she went on to earn the GMHR NAHRA title. the second dog was perhaps the most talented i will ever own. impeccable pedigree with multiple NFC and NAFC titles in 3 generations.THANK YOU,Priscilla!!!! she was an MHR at 2, QAA at 2 with a win, MH at 2, and went on to earn UH and GMHR titles as well. i honestly believe we'd have earned the all-age titles as well, if she had not gone deaf at 4 YOA. it was the only thing that prevented her from earning the HRCH title. she had 6 passes and we needed 7. it's hard to line both blinds in the same test, BUT SHE DID IT 6 TIMES. LOL!!!! my third dog is currently 7 years old and has UH, HRCH, MFR, GMHR and MH titles, and is also QAA with a win. her record is remarkable. to date she has run 49 top level HT's across 4 different testing programs and only failed 2; we blew an AKC land blind and we blew an HRC water blind. i am sure that i will never have a more consistent performer. all were fantastic gun dogs. i hunt A LOT!!!!

can it be done without a collar training program? absolutely. will the dog be as good as one that went thru one? yes, if you do your part well.

it calls for the same requirements as the collar program; teach first, reinforce what you have taught, then test to make sure the dogs response is reliable under lots of different situations.

you must be patient, fair in the application of force, (which you WILL have to use to make the dog reliable) and honest in your evaluation of the dogs progress. you will have to learn to adapt your training as you go, and think outside the box, so to speak, when you are problem solving. the collar trainers have to do the same thing.

i have never used a slingshot, rat shot, or kicked a dog to get my point across. i HAVE used a heeling stick and run out to the dog to do so. each successive dog HAS seen less force as i have evolved as a trainer. it's been said already, and i agree that force is a necessary component of training a retriever (or to raise a child!). the ability to get results with the least of it should be everyone's goal.

whichever training path you follow, good luck!-Paul


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

akblackdawg said:


> Bon, first of all I want to apologize to you. My post came out only minutes after yours did and I had not seen yours. I was refering to the most extream trainers from the past. I fully realize that there are some very good trainers who perfer not to use the e-collar and are very humain in there issue of disaplin.
> 
> On "Amish" I will stand corrected. I had always assumed that since the Amish are pacifists, that the term refered to training without force, violance or or any type of corpral punishment, which to me means attrition only. Bud


Amish in regards to dog training means no electric collar.

The Amish people are pacifist in that they do not go to war. This is why they do not have mustaches to go with their beards. In the Old Country, soldiers always wore mustaches. The Amish shaved theirs as a means of protest, and the tradition continues today.

However, there is a difference between Pacifism and non-corporal. The amish actually have very strict rules of conduct, and certainly do not shy away from corporal punishment of their children. 

What you are thinking of is probably what is most popular in the agility community but also seen in obedience showing: the Pure Positive movement. Only certain personality types can be trained with any sort of success using Pure Positive. Dogs with any sort of drive at all are generally going to run out of control in a competition/distracting situation. I see it all the time in both agility and obedience competition. If you never teach a dog what is "wrong", how can you expect them not do do those things that you consider "wrong"? Dogs need both "this is right" and "this is not acceptable" boundaries explained to them. Otherwise, they are likely to act like, well, dogs! Usually when you least expect or want it.

Lisa


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I trained my first dog the amish way. I didn't know it was amish but was following Water Dog. I trained a decent hunting dog and that was good enough for me at the time.

The limitation I ran into was this. The dog would handle the exact distance I was willing to run out and correct her. After that she was strictly self employed. I would correct for 100 yards on land and 40 on water. If a duck fell further than that we walked out and hunted it up. 

The dogs I have trained with an e-collar have been easier to train and have advanced faster and further than I ever thought was possible.

Can you train a dog without an e-collar? Certainly!!! But be prepared to wear out multiple sets of tennis shoes.

An old and fat not running after dogs
Mark L.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

fishduck said:


> I trained my first dog the amish way. I didn't know it was amish but was following Water Dog. I trained a decent hunting dog and that was good enough for me at the time.
> 
> The limitation I ran into was this. The dog would handle the exact distance I was willing to run out and correct her. After that she was strictly self employed. I would correct for 100 yards on land and 40 on water. If a duck fell further than that we walked out and hunted it up.
> 
> ...


It's like deja vu all over again. That is exactly what I did. I started in 1989 with my first lab. In 1989 I could run like a deer. Now I run like a fat guy.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

fishduck said:


> I trained my first dog the amish way. I didn't know it was amish but was following Water Dog. I trained a decent hunting dog and that was good enough for me at the time.
> 
> The limitation I ran into was this. The dog would handle the exact distance I was willing to run out and correct her. After that she was strictly self employed. I would correct for 100 yards on land and 40 on water. If a duck fell further than that we walked out and hunted it up.
> 
> ...


Very similar to my own experience, except I learned first from James Lamb Free's "Training Your Retriever". Neither of my first two trained Labs were force fetched, and neither every wore an e-collar. Both were QAA. But now all I can do is wonder what they might have been.

Evan


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

miken said:


> I am in the process of looking for a puppy and also a low force way of training him. I'm really looking into the so called Amish training. I am just starting out training this will be my first dog. My goals are to have a well rounded, obedient dog that I can possibly try to title. My question stems from "The Wildrose Way" dvd. Like I said I'm new to this and I was impressed by this dvd. In the video, the dogs appear to do what ever the handler wanted them to do and they were very steady. My question is how well do these "amish" dogs do in trials and hunt tests compared to conventional training?


Miken,

Welcome to RTF!

Where did you first hear the term "Amish" in reference to retriever training? Does Mike say this in his video/DVD? 

Can you title a dog without using an e collar? Yes you can.

There is no "one size fits all" with anything in the retriever world. 

If you know exactly what you want in the end, that may help you make some decisions on breedings and training methods. The problem most of us have is that our desires, goals, beliefs and opinion of our own training knowledge tends to evolve over time!

Welcome! Chris


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Hey, Chris...bout' time 

Don't wanna answer for miken, but 'No!' Mike Stewart does not use the term 'amish' in his video.

Snick


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> Hey, Chris...bout' time
> 
> Don't wanna answer for miken, but 'No!' Mike Stewart does not use the term 'amish' in his video.
> 
> Snick


Brother Snick, I hope you keep at this stuff for future retrievers. It will be fun to see your training ideas evolve!

Thanks for the answer.

Chris


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

I hope so to, Chris...and, the Good Lord willing, I will. And, I may evlove..but, where I evolve to, is even scary to me


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Originally Posted by Evan * 



> Very similar to my own experience, except I learned first from James Lamb Free's "Training Your Retriever". Neither of my first two trained Labs were force fetched, and neither every wore an e-collar. Both were QAA. But now all I can do is wonder what they might have been.
> 
> Evan


Jeez, Evan. You sound like a 'little league' parent.  Your previous dogs were QAA. What's wrong with that? ;-)


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ok ,I will fess up too, my brother and I learned originally from the Jambs Lamb Free book too until the day we met John Luther, I remember he just laughed and said burn that d**m book... I wont rip any author on a public forum, but at the time the only other book I had ever read on dog training was by James Wehle. (Elhew pointers)


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Leddyman said:


> It's like deja vu all over again. That is exactly what I did. I started in 1989 with my first lab. In 1989 I could run like a deer. Now I run like a fat guy.


Good Lord Leddy that was 20 yrs ago we all run like fat guys now, and if you must quote George Clinton at least go with "Why must I be like that why must I chase the cat.....nuthin but the dog in me"

Hey it is a dog forum afterall.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Originally Posted by Evan *
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, Evan. You sound like a 'little league' parent.  Your previous dogs were QAA. What's wrong with that? ;-)


At least one of them had a very good shot at an FC. Big time marker. I just didn't have the knowledge in time for her.

In other words, they were nice dogs, and being QAA is nice. But what might they have been?

Evan


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Leddy,



> _If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away_


Henry David Thoreau


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Evan Graham said:*



> In other words, they were nice dogs, and being QAA is nice. But what might they have been?


What's wrong with what they were? 

Nough' said. <Exit stage left>


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Evan,

have most of the dogs you have trained since then, and used collar training techniques with, achieved all-age titles? just wondering if this is the limiting factor in most cases.-Paul


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

There was nothing wrong with the dog I trained without a collar. She was exactly what I needed at that time in my life. She had tons of desire and was a really nice marker. She was limited by my training abilities. Not that she ever would have been an FC/AFC or even QAA but she would have been a better trained dog if I had followed a different system. 

Training the Amish way does not fit my temperment. After I run 100 yards to make a correction I am mad. Maybe you can calmly sprint 100 yards and deliberately correct a dog. When I ran that far I was angry. That is not the way to communicate what you want the dog to do. Anger just confuses the dog. I can calmly and deliberately push the button on my transmitter and then show the dog what I want.

If you can run the dog down calmly and get the behaviour you want then by all means go ahead. It can be done and there are those that can prove it. Not my cup of tea. I have used the Amish method and cannot reccomend it.

Mark L.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Evan said:


> At least one of them had a very good shot at an FC. Big time marker. I just didn't have the knowledge in time for her.
> 
> In other words, they were nice dogs, and being QAA is nice. But what might they have been?
> 
> ...


Hey Evan I thought you were against using QAA as a unit of measure or title and were among those that said it diminished what titled dogs have accomplished. 

I wish I new the way to put a smile, wink and a nudge behind my comment.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

So just how many "Amish" trained dogs have earned a FC or an AFC in the past ten years?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Hey Evan I thought you were against using QAA as a unit of measure or title and were among those that said it diminished what titled dogs have accomplished.
> 
> I wish I new the way to put a smile, wink and a nudge behind my comment.


No, Steve. I never have been opposed to acknowledging  it as the qualification or achievement it is. I am still opposed to the idea of creating a new title for it. I know I did good! 

My statement supports my respect for an FC (or AFC), which is one of the biggest reasons I'm opposed to a new QAA title.

Evan


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Now back to the original question. How do Amish trained dogs do in tests/competition?

We have 1 SHR
1 FC
1 AFC
3 GMHR
3 MH
2 UH
4 Qaa I know it is not a title
1 HRCH

I only used the highest title attained for each dogs or multiple titles if in different venues.

We also have 3 individuals who have trained with both methods. All three of us are of the opinion that you will have a better trained dog by using the collar. The Amish system does work but takes much more effort and does have limitations. Of the Amish trained dogs I have seen at hunt tests most have problems passing the blinds. If you are the type of person who hunts deer with a recurve bow because of the challenge this might be the training style for you.

Mark L.

P.S. There are actually 4 who have used both methods and I think Chris is now using a collar.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> So just how many "Amish" trained dogs have earned a FC or an AFC in the past ten years?


For that matter, what is the track record for "pure positive" trained dogs in HT and FT events?

A trainer Ends Up With The Dog S/He Deserves Regards;

Lisa


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

probably not so good...

glad i deserved good ones!-Paul


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> So just how many "Amish" trained dogs have earned a FC or an AFC in the past ten years?


Sorry but I think this discussion compares Apples with Pears.
Before you can ask this question you first have to ask how many people train with the e-collar and how many without.
If everybody involved in the Field Trial Circus trains with the e-collar it is not possible to find titled dogs trained without e-collar.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Sissi said:


> Sorry but I think this discussion compares Apples with Pears.
> Before you can ask this question you first have to ask how many people train with the e-collar and how many without.
> If everybody involved in the Field Trial Circus trains with the e-collar it is not possible to find titled dogs trained without e-collar.


I haven't made the jump you have.

I am simply trying to get an answer to the original question.

However, if the numbers remain at the level currently reported (1 FC), I would say that the sample is so small as to be irrelevant for any comparison.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I haven't made the jump you have.
> 
> I am simply trying to get an answer to the original question.
> 
> However, if the numbers remain at the level currently reported (1 FC), I would say that the sample is so small as to be irrelevant for any comparison.



Mr Shih. the comparison may be irrelevant but as a non collar trainer (hate the term Amish) I dont put down my collar friends or colleagues, and I certainly dont look at someone like my brother and his current accomplishments as irrelevant. Why cant E collar trainers accept non collar trainers and leave it at that. This urinating match has been going on since I got into labs back in the last millenium.You have your house of worship and i have mine, I respect your right to study from whatever labrador religion you desire as i hope you do mine..but we are not irrelevant


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Bon, I hate to put words in Ted's mouth, 'cause I know for sure that he can speak for himself quite well. But.....I don't think he was calling any success your brother may have had irrevelant, but was calling into question the statistical sampling currently available. The old principal that the bigger the sample, the more accurate the results/conclusions.

Additionally, dogs were trained for quite a number of years before the advent of the collar. For some, it was a more convenient, humane tool; for others---well there are some folks who should NEVER be allowed to hold a transmitter. There were many Field Champions before the collar came into wide use. Not so sure there are too many today, but I'm sure there could be some. I think fewer and fewer trainers--at least in the field trial game (not circus)(and Sissi, I look at conformation events as something akin to overeaters anonymous)--train without a collar. Some still use a blend of both methodologies, but most have transitioned to the collar.

Regards,

Vicki


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> Mr Shih. the comparison may be irrelevant but as a non collar trainer (hate the term Amish) I dont put down my collar friends or colleagues, and I certainly dont look at someone like my brother and his current accomplishments as irrelevant. Why cant E collar trainers accept non collar trainers and leave it at that. This urinating match has been going on since I got into labs back in the last millenium.You have your house of worship and i have mine, I respect your right to study from whatever labrador religion you desire as i hope you do mine..but we are not irrelevant


Bon

You are putting words in my mouth ... or on my post ... that are not there. And it is you, not me, that has chosen to make this a much bigger deal than it needs to be.

By the way, I have met your brother and competed against him, and the last thing I would do is demean his accomplishments.

However, let's get to the original posters first question - How many titled Amish dogs are out there? So, far one ... your brother's ... from over 10 years ago. If that is all that is out there .... then I would say ... that's it, ballgame's over. 

As far as religion goes, I worship what works. If using a kazoo would help me make my dogs FC/AFC, and National Competitors, then I would use a kazoo.

Until someone shows me that the Amish way produces more FC/AFC and National Competitors, my religion will remain the collar. By unlike you, I choose my religion for pragmatic, not dogmatic reasons.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Vicki Worthington said:*



> Bon, I hate to put words in Ted's mouth, 'cause I know for sure that he can speak for himself quite well. But.....I don't think he was calling any success your brother may have had irrevelant, but was calling into question the statistical sampling currently available. The old principal that the bigger the sample, the more accurate the results/conclusions.


 (emphasis mine)

Vicki, what you have said is true...if... you are working with a random sample (actually homogenous is the term). The dogs currently running field trials are not a random sample at all since virtually all of them have been FF and collar trained. So, if 100% are collar trained, then 100% of the title will go to collar trained dogs. Work your way backward with the math and you won't get a reliable answer until about half the dogs are collar trained, and the other half are not. That's a homogeneous sample.

You could argue that more dogs are collar trained because it is proven to be more effective. But, it's 'proven' by the number of FC dogs that are collar trained. And, around and around we go...


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

I agree with Bon's statement that ecollar trainers always seem to want to prove that non-collar trainers are wrong, or just misguided. There's more than a bit of prostelitizing going on. However, well intentioned or enthusiatic it may be, it comes across, to me at least, as disrespectful.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Why are you limiting it to the last 10 years? If we include all top-level field trial titles to the point of origin, non-collar trainers probably come out ahead due to the fact that the collar has only been around for 30 years or so. If you only want to include the timeframe since the collar has been in use, then collar trainers come out ahead...but you have ask yourself to what degree the training device itself has influence the evolution of the game and the tasks asked of the dog.

I'd still like to hear an opinion (anyone's) on the question Paul Young (on this thread or another) asked about any potential jump/block/etc between QAA and higher field trial titles. A couple of contributors said they were able to train to the QAA level without a collar and lamented what might have been. Is there some barrier/testing/jump/etc that takes place beyond that level that would limit a non-collar trainer from legitimately competing?

I don't know, I'm just asking and thinking it would be an interesting topic to delve into because, obviously, the collar and training programs it has helped produce has influenced the game itself and really, asking that question is a bit like comparing apples to pumpkins.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Snicklefritz said:


> I agree with Bon's statement that ecollar trainers always seem to want to prove that non-collar trainers are wrong, or just misguided. There's more than a bit of prostelitizing going on. However, well intentioned or enthusiatic it may be, it comes across, to me at least, as disrespectful.


It goes both ways Snick.

It's all about perspective.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> However, let's get to the original posters first question - How many titled Amish dogs are out there? So, far one ... your brother's ... from over 10 years ago. If that is all that is out there .... then I would say ... that's it, ballgame's over [/FONT]


Just to clarify, the poster asked:



> My question is how well do these "amish" dogs do in trials and hunt tests compared to conventional training?


You're the one that added "FC or an AFC in the past ten years?".

/editorial regards.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

miken said:


> My goals are to have a well rounded, obedient dog that I can possibly try to title. . My question is how well do these "amish" dogs do in trials and hunt tests compared to conventional training?


Title plus trials equals FC or AFC

Ten years makes the time frame more response to inquiry


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Why are you limiting it to the last 10 years?
> .


Because the Open tests of ten years ago are the qualifying tests of today.

The tests today are far more demanding of handler and dog than those a decade ago.

I want to know what works today.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Additionally, dogs were trained for quite a number of years before the advent of the collar. For some, it was a more convenient, humane tool; for others---well there are some folks who should NEVER be allowed to hold a transmitter. There were many Field Champions before the collar came into wide use. Not so sure there are too many today, but I'm sure there could be some. I think fewer and fewer trainers--at least in the field trial game (not circus)(and Sissi, I look at conformation events as something akin to overeaters anonymous)--train without a collar. Some still use a blend of both methodologies, but most have transitioned to the collar.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vicki


Vicki what does your statement concerning me mean? If you think I shouldn´t discuss because I´m a conformation person you might be right, because my experience is not very big. But 3 of my dogs have german hunting titles and I trained them with help of a very good friend of mine who is very experienced in Tests. She qualified with her dog for the german Championships. And we practice without collar. So I know at least the possiblities of non e-collar training.
I didn´t mean to offend Mr. Shih. In fact he is much respected by me for his sucess in field and in work. I also like his writing style. But still IMO his question was not possible in this way.
Lets say you have 100 persons training with e-collar. they get 28 FC and AFC
Then you have 3 person training without e-collar.. They get 1 FC
So what does it prove??


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> I agree with Bon's statement that ecollar trainers always seem to want to prove that non-collar trainers are wrong, or just misguided. There's more than a bit of prostelitizing going on. However, well intentioned or enthusiatic it may be, it comes across, to me at least, as disrespectful.


I view this as a bottom line matter. I want my dogs to get their FC's and AFC's and I want to compete in the National Amateur and National Open.

I have no particular commitment to the collar ... other than it works.

If you can demonstrate to me that Amish, Flemish, or Martian works better ... I am listening

But, I don't see any data to support the proposition

And I don't think I need a PhD in statistics to reach that conclusion


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> I agree with Bon's statement that ecollar trainers always seem to want to prove that non-collar trainers are wrong, or just misguided. There's more than a bit of prostelitizing going on. However, well intentioned or enthusiatic it may be, it comes across, to me at least, as disrespectful.


Not to steal your thunder, but i don't know a single successful trainer that gives any thought whatsoever to proving anything to non-collar trainers, or that actually puts any thought into this subject at all. The biggest difference between collar trainers and non-collar trainers is that collar trainers want to be successful and non-collar trainers want to be successful without using a collar.

In my opinion, its like riding a bike to work across town when you have a car available in the garage. A lot of people ride their bikes to work, and they eventually get there... just sucks for them when it rains. The folks in cars want to get to work... the folks on bikes want to ride their bike to work.

Riding a bike to work and training a dog without a collar - both cult-ish in nature and both give you more exercise! HAHA

SM


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Shayne, don't worry about my thunder...I left that behind years ago 



> The biggest difference between collar trainers and non-collar trainers is that collar trainers want to be successful and non-collar trainers want to be successful without using a collar.


Interesting idea. But, is it fair to make such a blanket statement as if it were a matter of fact? I'll check with my analyst


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> Shayne, don't worry about my thunder...I left that behind years ago
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting idea. But, is it fair to make such a blanket statement as if it were a matter of fact? I'll check with my analyst


Yes... especially if said trainer trains Chessies or Goldens. HAHA

SM


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Title plus trials equals FC or AFC
> 
> Ten years makes the time frame more response to inquiry


The original post also included hunt tests. Could be Started, Grand, Finished, Junior, Hunter... the original post doesn't state a preference of one venue or title over another. 

While limiting it to 10 years may indeed garner more response, it also has to with your next post...and if you're really, truly asking for a sampling, then limiting the timeframe to 10 years taints your sample for reasons you state. If you're not looking for an actual sample, then you're probably just looking for evidence to support your position, regardless of the accuracy.



Ted Shih said:


> Because the Open tests of ten years ago are the qualifying tests of today.
> 
> The tests today are far more demanding of handler and dog than those a decade ago.
> 
> I want to know what works today.


Undeniably, the game has evolved with the use of the collar, and the collar with input from pros running the game. Both continue to evolve and allow trainers to do more and more with their dogs; things that were once extreme are now commonplace. 

While you may want to know what works today and are trial-centric, the original poster stated no parameters.


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Yes... especially if said trainer trains Chessies or Goldens. HAHA
> 
> SM


.."that will do", Shayne,....as in "leave it", "drop it"... 

HAHA...

Judy


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> While you may want to know what works today and are trial-centric, the original poster stated no parameters.


Give me a break

He said TRIALS, when it comes to Retrievers there are Hunt TESTS and Field TRIALS

As for parameters, he was talking about what he was doing TODAY and asking for feedback

And even if that is not what he wanted - which I dispute - why is it so difficult to answer my very simple question

How many FC/AFC dogs have been Amish trained in the past 10 years?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

miken said:


> My question is how well do these "amish" dogs do in trials and hunt tests compared to conventional training?


It sure seems to me that he is asking about how amish dogs perform in today's trials.

But, no doubt I misread his post because I am trial centric.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I started retriever training in '91. Collars were then in use but not everybody used them. Most long term trainers at that time had one, (maybe more, 'cause you needed 3. One in use, one going for repair, and one coming back from repair) but many would not admit to it. Matter of fact, there were some trialers very adament against ecollar use. Look at the Cappes/Curtis tapes and you'll see why. 

But, over the years a higher and higher percentage of trainers used the collar. Lardy's tapes came out in ~'95 and we then had a good basis for an ecollar training program. Before his tapes came out it seemed like everyone was secretive of how to train with a collar.

If collars weren't more effective at training dogs we wouldn't see the higher levels of retriever work dominated by collar trainers. After all, they didn't have them when this game first started. They came on in (I think) the 70's and 80's. If they didn't train a retriever well, they wouldn't be in use by almost every high level retriever trainer.

It's just a tool for training a dog and a better tool than what came before it.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

For those that dislike the 'Amish' moniker, (never heard it until I became a member of RTF...mebbe a Chris origination eh?) how about what we called it when I started in the 80's: A tennis shoe trainer. We certainly ran down a lot of dogs in those days, even when they were in the water.

Prior to joining a club in the early 90's, I was a rock-throwin' waterdog trainer. I'd throw a rock in the slough, and as the dog neared the spot where it fell, I'd throw another one farther out. Eventually the dog would get a scent of the bird, or see it, and that's how I started running blinds.

I'd also get a pheasant or duck wing, drag it around in the pasture on a string, and turn the dog loose to trail it. With that sort of background, you can imagine how shocked I was to watch trialers teaching their dogs with whistles and hand signals...to swim along the shoreline. As a meat hunter, that was the last of my concerns...HOW the dog got the bird.

With the help of some good trainers that have become dear friends and off-and-on hunting buddies, I was able to put Master titles on a couple of chocolate labs, and after getting involved in HRC, I also got their HRCH titles. The daddy named Clyde, was my 16 year old son's dog, and was trained by committee. I got several reminders, "Dad, do we have to get so rough?" Clyde played us like a fiddle, but did well enough to get the chicken at the tests. He hated training, but loved the games.

His son was named Luke. Totally collar conditioned and trained. Spent several weeks at a pro's facility learning how to use the collar, and train with it. The pro thought Lukie might be trial quality, but I was having too much fun doing hunt tests, so that's the direction we took.

I've since trained a few more labs with the collar. Have learned from each one of them. What they really taught me was to read them, so I knew what to expect, and could train them with fewer mistakes, and more confidence. 

Needless to say, I'd never go back to 'tennis-shoe' training again. Couldn't if I wanted to. Age has it's limitations. But over the years of running hunt tests in every venue, and titles from most of them, along with boxes of ribbons, I've had many participants come up to me and ask if I collar train. I'd tell them I do and ask them why they want to know. They enjoyed how happy my dogs reacted around me, and they didn't understand how they could be that friendly and jovial, yet under control, without showing any fear. The collar-trained dogs they saw seemed sad, or cowed, or very fearful, so they didn't have a good feeling about training their dog that way. 

So I told them my secret. I wear clean socks, and give my dogs goose-stick treats. Why wouldn't they be happy?;-)

UB


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> ... because I am trial centric.


Step 1 is admitting you have a problem. Not sure about step 2, i've always lacked follow-thru.

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Step 1 is admitting you have a problem. Not sure about step 2, i've always lacked follow-thru.
> 
> SM


IF I had a problem,
and
IF I addressed it, 

What exactly would that do to your ability to pay your mortgage?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> IF I had a problem,
> and
> IF I addressed it,
> 
> What exactly would that do to your ability to pay your mortgage?


The problem is that you obviously don't have enough dogs/entries.

My ability to pay my mortgage is limited only by my own creativity for coming up with excuses for why it is late again.

My dog ate the checkbook regards,

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> The problem is that you obviously don't have enough dogs/entries.
> 
> My ability to pay my mortgage is limited only by my own creativity for coming up with excuses for why it is late again.
> 
> ...


Well, if you don't appreciate my business, I will have to go to the OTHER business, who probably won't appreciate me, either


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Well, if you don't appreciate my business, I will have to go to the OTHER business, who probably won't appreciate me, either


I dunno... i think they have an anti-trial-centric policy.... whereas i support such concepts - or any other concepts my customers wish to come up with. HAHA

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> I'd still like to hear an opinion (anyone's) on the question Paul Young (on this thread or another) asked about any potential jump/block/etc between QAA and higher field trial titles. A couple of contributors said they were able to train to the QAA level without a collar and lamented what might have been. Is there some barrier/testing/jump/etc that takes place beyond that level that would limit a non-collar trainer from legitimately competing?
> 
> .


Degree of Difficulty

Think of the Qual as High School Football and the Open as the NFL


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Once your're at the trial its all about the dogs having an equal opportunity to do the test put before them in the same conditions. How or what method was used to train them the week before means nothing. If people want to say its not a fair comparison of "amish" vs collar trained dogs they can do that, but always keep in mind that the method used to train the dog is in direct correlation to the results achieved at the trial. If dogs trained in an amish method were winning trials, people would be doing it. 


/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Still waiting to hear how many Amish trained dogs have obtained their FC or AFC in the past 10 years .....


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Still waiting to hear how many Amish trained dogs have obtained their FC or AFC in the past 10 years .....


I would guess it is zero or dang close to it.

Is it still possible? I really don't think so. It would take an absolutely incredible dog.

Even if the dog could be trained to the all-age level, how can it be maintained at that level without developing problems, long enough to run enough trials to earn the points.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I view this as a bottom line matter. I want my dogs to get their FC's and AFC's and I want to compete in the National Amateur and National Open.
> 
> I have no particular commitment to the collar ... other than it works.
> 
> ...


 In my own personal opinion you would be just as sucessful as now if you would train your dogs with a different method. Because you would put the same effort you put in this method also in another method.

And all the F.T. CH. in Europe today are trained without e-collar and for me there is no proof whatever that they work worse than US dogs.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

How many FC AFC have been trained by the owners over the last ten years?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Sissi said:


> In my own personal opinion you would be just as sucessful as now if you would train your dogs with a different method. Because you would put the same effort you put in this method also in another method.
> 
> And all the F.T. CH. in Europe today are trained without e-collar and for me there is no proof whatever that they work worse than US dogs.


Maybe 25 years ago, I trained my dogs without the collar. I can't imagine doing that again.

I doubt that I would have any success at the higher echelons of competition, if my dogs were trained without the collar. 

I know of no current FC or AFC dogs trained without the collar.

I know nothing about what the dogs do in Europe and so will not comment on them. But, here the collar trained dogs dominate the competition.

Ted


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Maybe 25 years ago, I trained my dogs without the collar. I can't imagine doing that again.
> 
> I doubt that I would have any success at the higher echelons of competition, if my dogs were trained without the collar.
> 
> ...


An interesting thing I note in my training journal is that when dogs get to the late transition and advanced levels is that the actual collar corrections are fairly few and far between. I believe its because of the timliness of the corrections throughout training that allows us to build good habits from properly timed corrections resulting in less collar use than ever before. A testiment to the great training programs being followed today.

This brings up the question in my mind for the amish, "is 4 collar corrections on average per week worse than X poorly timed amish corrections per week on average?"

I didn't realize you had been in retriever sports that long Ted. I've only been doing retrievers for about 15. I bet you've seen some real changes in the training programs...

/Paul


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Sissi said:


> In my own personal opinion you would be just as sucessful as now if you would train your dogs with a different method. Because you would put the same effort you put in this method also in another method.
> 
> And all the F.T. CH. in Europe today are trained without e-collar and for me there is no proof whatever that they work worse than US dogs.


Most of the European's call our FT dogs robots compared to theirs. ;-) 

That is because of the amount of control that is required of the dog at a distance.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Most of the European's call our FT dogs robots compared to theirs. ;-)
> 
> That is because of the amount of control that is required of the dog at a distance.


Its a completely different style of hunting. People forget that.

/Paul


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Its a completely different style of hunting. People forget that.
> 
> /Paul


You are right, it is a completely different style. I have watched an AKC Hunttest in the US and parts of a F.T. on video.
And I agree with you that it is probably not possible to compete on a high level in the F.T.´s without an e-collar. So I guess two different trial systems two different methods of training.
But I´d like to picture a scenario. If nobody would use an e-collar what would happen??? 
Would the F.T.´s change?? 
Would they change the rules?? 
There would still be F.T. Champions I guess . Or not??? 
Would different dogs get the titles????
I think there are many interesting questions but of course reality is different


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Sissi said:


> But I´d like to picture a scenario. If nobody would use an e-collar what would happen???
> Would the F.T.´s change??
> Would they change the rules??
> There would still be F.T. Champions I guess . Or not???
> ...


For me, it is irrelevant. The judges don't care whether you train with a collar, cookies, or a kazoo. All they care about is how your dog performs. In that sense, it is very simple.

I am curious why you seem to find the collar so reprehensible. To put it another way, why do you want to eliminate the collar from the equation?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I didn't realize you had been in retriever sports that long Ted. I've only been doing retrievers for about 15. I bet you've seen some real changes in the training programs...
> 
> /Paul


I had just gotten out of law school and got into the dog games. Mike McConnell, Dale Flenthrope, Rich Carpenter, Gary Brady, Ken Erikson, and some other folks whose names I have forgotten started the Platte Valley Hunting Retriever Club - which I understand is going strong to this day.

I trained one dog - Murphy - without the collar. He died young, and I got Chance, and started him without the collar. Gary Brady convinced me that I needed to have my dogs trained with the collar and recommended Cherylon Loveland.

I had Chance with Cherylon for maybe a year, and then work demanded that I devote my attention to it. So, I stayed away from the dogs for about 10 years. Then I got Zowie and the rest, they say, is history.

In the mid to late 80's when I first met Cherylon, the corrections could be discomforting.

There really is no comparison today.

The problem is that many influential authors, trainers, etc. only remember the bad old days, and fail to give recognition to how far collar training has advanced. People still refer to collar trained dogs as "robots" or mention the "escalon shuffle." That type of dog is in the minority today and does not fare well at the upper echelons of competition.

One of the great things about competition, is that it is ruthless in how it exposes weaknesses and forces everyone to improve.

If you talk to the "A" list pros, they will tell you how Mike Lardy's success, forced them to re-evaluate their training programs, and adapt in order to compete. I have spoken to several of them, and they uniformly mentioned how relaxed his dogs looked digging out the killer bird in the 8, 9, and 10th series of Nationals, and how good they were at problem solving. Lardy's success forced them to rethink their programs.

I am always amazed when people contend that trainers are locked into the collar because of their inflexibility or dogma. 

When the next Mike Lardy appears - and eventually he or she will - and starts kicking everyone around in FT and at the National with his or her new training technique, you had better believe that the collar affiiciandos will be re-evaluating their programs.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Sissi said:


> You are right, it is a completely different style. I have watched an AKC Hunttest in the US and parts of a F.T. on video.
> And I agree with you that it is probably not possible to compete on a high level in the F.T.´s without an e-collar. So I guess two different trial systems two different methods of training.
> But I´d like to picture a scenario. If nobody would use an e-collar what would happen???
> Would the F.T.´s change??
> ...


Simple. Look at FT's from the 60 and 70's.....

Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I had just gotten out of law school and got into the dog games. Mike McConnell, Dale Flenthrope, Rich Carpenter, Gary Brady, Ken Erikson, and some other folks whose names I have forgotten started the Platte Valley Hunting Retriever Club - which I understand is going strong to this day.
> 
> I trained one dog - Murphy - without the collar. He died young, and I got Chance, and started him without the collar. Gary Brady convinced me that I needed to have my dogs trained with the collar and recommended Cherylon Loveland.
> 
> ...




Very cool. In those days i was still involved in my uncle Normans dog sport, FT herding dogs. Very different competition, and its own unique training gear  The collars back then were brutal. But the story is the same. There were trainers who consistently produced great dogs that dominated their region. Those who wanted to contend had to grow in their training. Oddly enough, while the advancement of the tool had a place, what changed the game was the training philosophy. It both made people change the way they viewed their training as well as in some way drove the manufacturers of the training tools to advance their technology. This is what makes me smile when I hear people speak so adamantly against a tool. It is never the tool that speaks to success, its the training behind it. The tool just allows the philosophy to work.

/Paul


----------



## Scott Sutton (Jul 5, 2008)

Don't know if Dude has been mentioned, didn't read the whole thread, but Dude is a GRHRCH trained without an e collar. I think he earned his Grand title (passed the only 2 grands he has run) this past Spring in GA as a two year old (dog 138 B). Dude is owned/trained by Mark Massey, and trained/handled by Stephen Durrence. I heard someone talking at a hunt test that Mark is looking into running some trials with Dude. 


GRHRCH Big Black Dude II
http://huntingretrieverclub.org/2008 Fall Grand/New Grand Champion Pass Rpt.pdf


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> An interesting thing I note in my training journal is that when dogs get to the late transition and advanced levels is that the actual collar corrections are fairly few and far between.
> /Paul


A really important and accurate point. That's the way it should be, and, with the right dog, usually is.

Wonderful post by Ted, the program has changed so much, and Mike Lardy deserves a lot of credit for forcing all of us to train to his level; If, we wished to be competitive. 

I also credit the better program with allowing for so many good females. We are selecting trainable, sensitive dogs to compete, and then to breed. I, for one, love that. Most of us don't enjoy colllar corrections, the fewer, the better.

Agree too, if collars banned, the game would change, but not in a positive way. Today, more dogs fail at FTs because they are too high, too eager, than because they are nervous, afraid. A far cry from the robotic, push button image.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> For me, it is irrelevant. The judges don't care whether you train with a collar, cookies, or a kazoo. All they care about is how your dog performs. In that sense, it is very simple.
> 
> I am curious why you seem to find the collar so reprehensible. To put it another way, why do you want to eliminate the collar from the equation?


Ok I have to admit that I just have a funny feeling when thinking about hitting a button while training my dog. 
I have been a dressage rider for many years and I saw many things I didn´t like. There are some awesome riders on the top in Germany but also many which shouldn´t ride at all. And there are methods in training dressage horses which simply break their personalities. You wouldn´t believe how many wash-outs and injured horses are around
Ok sucess is something, but is sucess more important than the animal involved?
IMO the e-collar is a very powerful tool and in the wrong hands it might be more harmful to a dog than a trainer who is running after the dog to enforce some commands or whatever. I think somebody mentioned the word "robot" in connection with F.T. labs. I personaly don´t want to train robots. 
Probably I´m completely wrong and of course I never trained with an e-collar because it is against the law in Europe. But I have so much fun training my dogs that I don´t really want to imagine how it would be to hit a button when my dog might be doing something wrong.
And I´m not against people using the e-collar. If they want to use it thats fine. My only concern are people who use something without thinking about possible harms. 
And what I like about this board is that there are so many different opinions and so many experts for important topics, that everybody who is interested will be able to learn about different points of view.
And that is what this board should be about. I don´t think anybody should change its mind but maybe learning about different aspects to one topic


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Scott Sutton said:


> Don't know if Dude has been mentioned, didn't read the whole thread, but Dude is a GRHRCH trained without an e collar. I think he earned his Grand title (passed the only 2 grands he has run) this past Spring in GA as a two year old (dog 138 B). Dude is owned/trained by Mark Massey, and trained/handled by Stephen Durrence. I heard someone talking at a hunt test that Mark is looking into running some trials with Dude.
> 
> 
> GRHRCH Big Black Dude II
> http://huntingretrieverclub.org/2008 Fall Grand/New Grand Champion Pass Rpt.pdf


Mark and the Dude are our friends and sometimes training partners. I keep hoping some of Dude's "Inner Good Dog" will wear off on Indy. What a personality!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> A really important and accurate point. That's the way it should be, and, with the right dog, usually is.
> 
> I also credit the better program with allowing for so many good females. We are selecting trainable, sensitive dogs to compete, and then to breed. I, for one, love that. Most of us don't enjoy colllar corrections, the fewer, the better.
> 
> Agree too, if collars banned, the game would change, but not in a positive way. Today, more dogs fail at FTs because they are too high, too eager, than because they are nervous, afraid. A far cry from the robotic, push button image.


I don't think some of the non-collar people get this at all. They think it's all about force whereas it's all about teaching and correcting for the basics. You just plain are not using that many collar corrections with these intelligent dogs when they get older if the basics were done correctly. Also, the point with the females-there are so many more competing than 20 years ago with the older collars. I still prefer the males, but then that's just me.


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

Sissi,
From what I've seen, e-collars are like some bits. In the right hands, educated and sensitive hands, they can work wonders. In the wrong hands they are the stuff of which nightmares are made.
Take Care,
Becky


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Sissi said:


> Ok sucess is something, but is sucess more important than the animal involved?


You are making assumptions without information, never a good combination.



Sissi said:


> IMO the e-collar is a very powerful tool and in the wrong hands it might be more harmful to a dog than a trainer who is running after the dog to enforce some commands or whatever.


A tool has no conscience. It is simply a tool. Do you condemn a tool because in the wrong hands it can cause harm?



Sissi said:


> I think somebody mentioned the word "robot" in connection with F.T. labs. I personaly don´t want to train robots.


Once upon a time - 10+ years ago - there were robotic dogs. That is no longer the case.

In fact, in my experience, I have seen more "piggy" dogs as the result of repeated recalls, than I have from collar corrections.



Sissi said:


> Probably I´m completely wrong and of course I never trained with an e-collar because it is against the law in Europe. But I have so much fun training my dogs that I don´t really want to imagine how it would be to hit a button when my dog might be doing something wrong.


If you have never trained with people who use the collar, and if you have never seen a collar trained dog, then I would say you are making conclusions and assumptions without sufficient data to support them.

Assumptions without information are not a good combination.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Becky Mills said:


> Sissi,
> From what I've seen, e-collars are like some bits. In the right hands, educated and sensitive hands, they can work wonders. In the wrong hands they are the stuff of which nightmares are made.
> Take Care,
> Becky


Although, without collars, those same hands would likely make nightmares using OTHER tools. It is the HANDS and personality behind tham that make the nightmares, NOT the tools held in those hands.


----------



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

In some ways, I see this e-collar vs. no e-collar debate like folks who try to evaluate an NFL QB who played in the '60s against a QB who is playing right now. 

The rules in the NFL and in field trials have changed and continue to evolve. Put a different way, an NFL QB playing in the '60s when most teams were more prone to run the ball, and in which on coming pass rushers could clothes line guys, and cornerbacks could basically be hit men, played under a few different rules than NFL QB's of today.

Clothes lining and chop blocking used to be legal. The NFL season used to be 12 games long. It's difficult to compare eras and performances and games when the rules and tools used to enhance performance continue to change.

I do think Ted Shih has come up with a truly overlooked training concept: kazoos. One could yodel commands to dogs into kazoos. 

Sorry--you're too late--I've just used legal zoom to copyright the idea. The Dokken--whoops--Duckin' Seat to Kazoo. Comes in purple, pink, ash, camo, and the $10.95 version DELUXE version comes with a 100 percent, certified organic hog bladder tweeter destined to make you the best dog/hog caller on your block. DVD training video/rap CD "Skip the E-Collar: Pup Up the Kazoo" to follow.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Yup, y'are kindakinky.


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

Scott Sutton said:


> Don't know if Dude has been mentioned, didn't read the whole thread, but Dude is a GRHRCH trained without an e collar. I think he earned his Grand title (passed the only 2 grands he has run) this past Spring in GA as a two year old (dog 138 B). Dude is owned/trained by Mark Massey, and trained/handled by Stephen Durrence. I heard someone talking at a hunt test that Mark is looking into running some trials with Dude.
> 
> 
> GRHRCH Big Black Dude II
> http://huntingretrieverclub.org/2008 Fall Grand/New Grand Champion Pass Rpt.pdf



What!? Somebody else has a hunting mutt named Dude? And he's the shiznit and from the great state of Georgia!? Awesome!


----------



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Yup, y'are kindakinky.


Old age forced me to use "kinda" as the adjective moderator.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

From the outside looking in...

Isn't it the case that FT requirements as currently conceived in the US have grown symbiotically with e collar use and practice to the point where running competitively is just about impossible without their use? 

If you have to correct at great distance a dog "cheating" or deviating from a straight line I can't see any way of doing it without a collar. Realistically you can't have one without t'other. 

FTs = straight lines at distance = collar correction in training. 

Regards
Eug


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Colonel Blimp said:


> From the outside looking in...
> 
> Isn't it the case that FT requirements as currently conceived in the US have grown symbiotically with e collar use and practice to the point where running competitively is just about impossible without their use?


Possibly could be done, Eug, but who would want to try and why, when a better, more advantageous, more conducive and generally more efficacious way of training is available?

By the way, this


> And all the F.T. CH. in Europe today are trained without e-collar and for me there is no proof whatever that they work worse than US dogs.


is comparing apples to crab apples. "No proof whatever that they work worse"--what, language barrier notwithstanding--kind of aspiration is that?

Our spaniel trials are your, and Europa's retriever trials essentially--all steadiness, and steadiness at close range. I've trained spaniels and HPRs (Germanic sort of dogs) for competition sans collar--no biggie, lots of others have too. Dog flushes or points a bird, the way they're trained, the dog either fails to hup or busts a bird at your feet--voila, immediate correction. The sad fact (to me) about the e-collar is that spanielers and pointing dog trainers that use it, use it as it was invented 30-40 years ago--all direct pressure, almost no subtlety next to nothing to do with handling.

Ted's thorough deconstruction above of Sissi's somewhat insidious (a little e-literation) argument speaks for itself. It's that same sort of somewhat insidious sales spiel (more e-literation) for "Gentleman's Gundogs"TM that implies American retrievers are *hardened* by the collar and by force fetching, and there's a very good chance they may pass on this "hardness" gene to their offspring. (Mendel and his peas--of course, Mendel would pee on this argument.) So rather than risk that happening or having an unruly field beast, instead buy a Gentleman's whatever. Me, I'd rather promulgate how easily my British dog has taken to e-collar training.

MG


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> You are making assumptions without information, never a good combination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi
The answer for your post took me a long time.
Of course, you are right I´m making assumptions. But I´m not sure about assumptions without informations. 
Many people in Germany used e-collars before it was banned. So I´ve heard many things about it and there are still people in favor (although they don´t admit it because if a judge thinks your dog was trained with an e-collar he is allowed to eliminate it) of the collar. Also what is written on this board I consider as information. There is a very interesting thread going on right now with some very interesting statements.
I you force your dogs to go to the pile by pushing a button, thats robotic to me.... I don´t care how happy they look while doing this.

You were talking about the change of time. Many people on this board used non-e-collar methods some years ago. Everybody thinks that time has changed and new methods are necessary. I agree completely with you. I don´t know these old training methods but don´t you think training methods without e-collar have changed too??? I know in Europe they have changed.

And yes I condem a tool which can harm animals in the wrong hands. I´ve seen it in horses and what I read and hear its the same in dogs. 
IMO the top performer in sports have a kind of responsibility. They have a leaderfunction. Everybody will try to do things like them and they really should consider that.

Of course you are right it is probably nearly impossible to win a F.T. today without an e-collar, and I like the thought of Col.Blimp regarding this topic.

So your arguments are a lot better than mine. But for sure I will not try using the e-collar even if it really is a valuable tool. So I guess I will always be in the loosing position because I don´t know both sides


----------



## BamaK9 (Sep 29, 2004)

Sissi said:


> And yes I condem a tool which can harm animals in the wrong hands.


I take it from your response that you do not use a lead, flat collar or choke collar, riding crop/heeling stick or your voice in training? Because each one of these can do harm to an animal in the hands of the wrong person. The basis of all of your arguments are essentially "because I said so"


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Colonel Blimp said:


> From the outside looking in...
> 
> Isn't it the case that FT requirements as currently conceived in the US have grown symbiotically with e collar use and practice to the point where running competitively is *just about* impossible without their use?
> 
> ...


Eug,

A direct answer is "Yes". Correctly applied, the e-collar is so effective that no other tool matches its effectiveness for the timing of corrections at any distance - short or long.

Still, it must be said that the e-collar is a tool, not a method.

Evan


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

BamaK9 said:


> I take it from your response that you do not use a lead, flat collar or choke collar, riding crop/heeling stick or your voice in training? Because each one of these can do harm to an animal in the hands of the wrong person. The basis of all of your arguments are essentially "because I said so"


My dogs are really sensitive so I would never use a heeling stick or kick or hit them. For them it would do more harm than it would be useful. Of course I use my voice. And of course every dog is different. But why is it bad that I have my own opinion??? Everybody on this board has its own opinion. I´m training dogs and I still ride my horses because I love to do this, but I´m not able to keep my eyes closed. Sorry for that. 
By the way I love to watch well trained dogs. And I have seen e-collar trained dogs which work well.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Sissi said:


> My dogs are really sensitive so I would never use a heeling stick or kick or hit them...


Again, misleading the witness, as Ted would have it. Why would you link a heeling stick to kicking or hitting a dog? Sensitive dogs are exactly those that heeling stick use best benefits--because you're not thrashing (or kicking or hitting them) with it. You're shaping them/guiding them/positioning them. But again, never let a little insidiousness stand in the way of a good story. You're entitled to as many opinions as you wish to share about retriever training, but only when they're educated opinions will they hold (or not cheat;-)) any water.

MG


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

This post seems to have focused more on the collar than on the dog. I think you can find dogs out there who are better subjects for Amish training than others. Perhaps that is what the OP needs to focus on.

PS I also find that many newbs refer to any and all dog games as "trials". They just haven't learned the difference yet.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

miken said:


> I am in the process of looking for a puppy and also a low force way of training him. I'm really looking into the so called Amish training.


 
I think that the fundamental mis-conception here is that

Amish is necessarily low force.
Collar is necessarily not low force.

Neither is true.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

People tend to poo poo what they don't understand
They will stick to their guns no matter how silly their logic becomes. And so life goes on.
Europe is a bad example to use when speaking about e'collars
They have not explored all the different ways that one can be used, because they can't get passed their negatism (made that word up I think). It would be like explaining consevatism to a liberal or vise versa.
The 2 will almost never agree no matter what;-)

Pete


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

We don't know what's done to horses (prods?) so we wouldn't equate it to dogs. You are entitled to your opinion but to say "And yes I condem a tool which can harm animals in the wrong hands. *I´ve seen it in horses and what I read and hear its the same in dogs*." is a huge assumption and is saying that an e-collar is total abuse.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that the fundamental mis-conception here is that
> 
> Amish is necessarily low force.
> Collar is necessarily not low force.
> ...


Ted, I knew you and I could agree on some common ground, you are absolutely correct. Us TST (tennis shoe trainers ) use "force" it just comes in a different form than a collar,makes perfect sense. How else could you discipline a dog with out occasional snap of a whip,stick etc. thanks for clearing up that misconception that we dont discipline our dogs. an undisciplined dog is a renegade and eventually will turn you off, break your heart and is generally destined to fail....


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> We don't know what's done to horses (prods?) so we wouldn't equate it to dogs. You are entitled to your opinion but to say "And yes I condem a tool which can harm animals in the wrong hands. *I´ve seen it in horses and what I read and hear its the same in dogs*." is a huge assumption and is saying that an e-collar is total abuse.


Sort of reminds me of the expression "Everbody loves a circus animal but nobody wants to see a circus animal trained"


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Colonel Blimp said:


> Isn't it the case that FT requirements as currently conceived in the US have grown symbiotically with e collar use and practice to the point where running competitively is just about impossible without their use?


The FTs are all about placing the top 4 dogs of the field. 

Obviously as dogs became better trained, they did better. ;-) 
Both the methods and the tools have improved, resulting in better trained dogs. 



Sissi said:


> Many people in Germany used e-collars before it was banned. So I´ve heard many things about it and there are still people in favor (although they don´t admit it because if a judge thinks your dog was trained with an e-collar he is allowed to eliminate it) of the collar.


How convenient for you, if the dog is trained too well, just eliminate it ban the tool or the method! Great for maintaining the "nostalgia" of training dogs the "traditional" way. Not so good for generally improving the training either the methods or the tools. What's to say they won't ban any new method?

Contrary to Germany, the US FTs don't care the methods or the tools used in training the dogs. It is only about finding the best!

Yes, here too, there were those that wanted to ban the e-collar. However, the "morality" argument didn't fly as the non-collar methods employed by some were more cruel than any e-collar.

There was the argument that FT's are just selecting a certain type of dog that can take the "cruel" e-collar methods. Or alternatively, a less trainable dog that could only be trained with the help of a e-collar. That may have been true in the early days. However, I think with today's improved training methods, that has been proven wrong. 

The original post asked how "Amish" trained dogs did compared to e-collar trained dogs. The answer is they can't compete at the highest levels, where the best dogs are competing against the best trainers using the best methods. 

However, how high they can go depends on the talent of the dog as well as the talent of the trainer. A more talented dogs trained "Amish" with a talented retriever may be better than a less talented dog trained with an e-collar by the best trainer. At what point the field is level is debatable. ;-) 

As Ted has pointed out:


Ted Shih said:


> A tool has no conscience. It is simply a tool. Do you condemn a tool because in the wrong hands it can cause harm?





Sissi said:


> And yes I condem a tool which can harm animals in the wrong hands. I´ve seen it in horses and what I read and hear its the same in dogs.


Obviously, ANY TOOL can harm animals in the wrong hands. 



Sissi said:


> So your arguments are a lot better than mine. But for sure *I will not try using the e-collar even if it really is a valuable tool*. So I guess I will always be in the loosing position because I don´t know both sides


So what's the point? You have closed your mind. 

We would dump the e-collar in a heartbeat if a more effective tool or method came along.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that the fundamental mis-conception here is that
> 
> Amish is necessarily low force.
> Collar is necessarily not low force.
> ...


I agree completely
@Doug Main I´m not a supporter of any anti-e-collar group nor was I. The e-collar was banned before I even started to train my dog. And you are right that non e-collar trained dogs are not able today to get the F.T.Ch. title.
@ Erins Edge you are making an assumption here. I never said that the e-collar is an big abuse. Sorry if I sounded like I said this. I just think it is a very powerful tool. 
@ Frontiers lab if you point at me, its true that I´m not as familiar with the differences in your dog-competitions. But as far as I understood the question was how many Field trial champions are Amish trained. The question was not about dogs titled in hunt tests. Thats the reason why I always used the word "trial" I apologize if I used the wrong term.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Sissi said:


> @ Frontiers lab if you point at me, its true that I´m not as familiar with the differences in your dog-competitions. But as far as I understood the question was how many Field trial champions are Amish trained. The question was not about dogs titled in hunt tests. Thats the reason why I always used the word "trial" I apologize if I used the wrong term.


Nope, I was referring to the fact that the OP is new and since he is familiar with British methods, he might be referring to British Trials, not American Field Trials. Two entirely different games....


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Sort of reminds me of the expression "Everbody loves a circus animal but nobody wants to see a circus animal trained"


Good line.

Great looking dog in your avatar Greg.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Sort of reminds me of the expression "Everbody loves a circus animal but nobody wants to see a circus animal trained"


I thought that only pertained to sausage?

Hoo knew regards

Bubba


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Sort of reminds me of the expression "Everbody loves a circus animal but nobody wants to see a circus animal trained"



True...so VERY true


----------

