# "Teaching" with "pressure"



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

I've always heard it was a major no-no.

Can someone explain then to me how FF isn't teaching *with* pressure? Don't you 'teach' the dog to open its mouth and take the object with ear/toe pressure?


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

ff is about the only time I can think of when we teach with pressure. For the many reasons that have been discussed, debated, and kicked around umpteen 'million' times.

As a general rule, everything else is taught first w/out pressure, then reinforced with pressure.

Juli


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> I've always heard it was a major no-no.
> 
> Can someone explain then to me how FF isn't teaching *with* pressure? Don't you 'teach' the dog to open its mouth and take the object with ear/toe pressure?



Because during FF, you are teaching them how to deal with pressure.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

dixidawg said:


> Because during FF, you are teaching them how to deal with pressure.



And not in any other point in "teaching"?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> And not in any other point in "teaching"?


Alec,

I think you may be a little over focused on what is the general good practice of a "Teach, force, reinforce" approach to training. Force fetch is a process that operates a bit outside of that pattern because of its unique nature.

Certainly the "Hold" element follows that pattern, but when we begin to train "Fetch", it is generally a force-taught function. That's outside of the general scope of practice we like to follow, but that doesn't make it necessarily bad, or even wrong.

Conditioning to pressure is a vitally important part of the training cycle, and it doesn't start with fetch. It's merely extended there, and tends to produce a much better and more stable dog.

Evan


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> I've always heard it was a major no-no.
> 
> Can someone explain then to me how FF isn't teaching *with* pressure? Don't you 'teach' the dog to open its mouth and take the object with ear/toe pressure?


Lots of people say NO to doing it but it can be effective.

Dobbs taught that method for years and years.

My first two dogs I trained were bank forced without being able to handle.

It is effective. Is there a better way? Depending on the dog, most respond better to indirect pressure but there are a few that direct pressure really gets the point across.

WRL


----------



## labhauler (Oct 22, 2007)

What is bank forced?


----------



## Kirk D (Apr 3, 2005)

IMO life in general teaches us to deal with pressure. With our kids, teachers and coaches put lots of pressure in the learning process. Kids learn to handle it and they are stronger and smarter. The weak kids quit or make bad grades.(or get a tudor/private coach)

Not much different with our dogs. Do I train with pressure? By all means but not before I have thoroughly taught a concept first. FF teaches so much more than how to carry a bird. It teaches a dog that "if I do what is asked of me I can turn the pressure off". I am not a high pressure trainer but I ask quite a bit of my dogs. Attrition will only go so far. As teaching algebra to kids, not cheating that little piece of water at 200 yds is tough for a dog. It goes against their natural instinct. If they do cheat, they will lose their line and likely not be successful on the mark. 

I know of no other way to reinforce such a concept as bank cheating without some form of pressure. Although too much or applying pressure at the wrong time can certainly have adverse effects.


----------



## Kirk D (Apr 3, 2005)

labhauler said:


> What is bank forced?


I think he means shore breaking. Not sure though.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

sky_view said:


> ff is about the only time I can think of when we teach with pressure. For the many reasons that have been discussed, debated, and kicked around umpteen 'million' times.
> 
> As a general rule, everything else is taught first w/out pressure, then reinforced with pressure.
> 
> Juli


But pressing a pups butt down teaching sit is pressure.

Tugging on a leash to tech recall is pressure.

Opening a dogs mouth and holding it closed on an object is pressure.

Pressure, all very limited in scope [we hope] but pressure none the less.

initial phases [and others] of training lest you get undesirable responses, correct?


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Alec Sparks said:


> But pressing a pups butt down teaching sit is pressure.
> 
> Tugging on a leash to tech recall is pressure.
> 
> ...


Yes, I realize that we use low pressure in training to get the dog to do what we desire - press on the behind to get them to sit, or on the shoulders to get them to lay down - there are all types of 'pressure' in training.....
But the wording of your post indicated you were talking about more painful type pressures that elicit a more powerful 'escape' type response, such as ear pinch, toe hitch, or e-collar stimulation....

Juli


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Alec Sparks said:


> I've always heard it was a major no-no.
> 
> Can someone explain then to me how FF isn't teaching *with* pressure? Don't you 'teach' the dog to open its mouth and take the object with ear/toe pressure?



Who was it that said you can't teach the dog what the command "fetch" means before adding force?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> But pressing a pups butt down teaching sit is pressure.
> 
> Tugging on a leash to tech recall is pressure.
> 
> ...


Gee Alec, do you think, "Teach without pressure," might be a nice sounding platitude people repeat without thinking much about how we actually teach a dog or how a dog learns.

I've always felt it was a semantic thing and that there is pressure in teaching a dog whether we want to acknowledge it or not.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Whenever you inflict your will upon the dog you are force training a dog. Problem is people associate force/pressure with abuse. Society struggles with this and finding the right balance. Growing up my dad used to whip the tar outa me for disobedience. These days if a parent spanks their kid, they take the kid away and lock up the parents. Nobody wants to hear the word force/pressure/aversive training etc. The real question comes down to balance. When does force become abuse? I can tell ya my dad never abused me, in fact I got what I earned. You have to decide what level of force is acceptable for the dog, the situation and for you. So when you say teaching with pressure is a no-no, I say whoever told you that, probably doesn't understand training dogs. 

/Paul


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Howard, we both know some degree of pressure is used in most of the current "serious" retriever training doctrine. I just find it quite "interesting" how the gloves come off as many people set up for an adversarial training situation during FF. 

I just been dealing with a lot of people lately that are under the impression FF HAS to be ugly. Hell....the Internet is full of them asking questions and many professional trainers foster that way of thinking IMO.

Starting out by pinching a dog ear hard enough to get it to open its mouth in protest is a "great" way to begin and many people feel it is.

I don't. 

Getting dogs FFed *without* a big ugly battle [using the "pressure is your teacher now" method] is my goal [along with through FF with a fast response] using as little pressure as I can for each individual dog.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Alec, not too long ago my husband, (who is as much a beginner as I am) posted on a thread about FF. His approach was almost identical to yours. He had only previously FF'd one dog, mine, and is now preparing for that phase with his own pup. He learned a lot from his first experience, and feels now that if the proper work is done prior to formal FF, it can be somewhat of a non-event. Why squeeze the dogs ear till he screams if you can get the desired response with less? I wish I could find the post and let it speak for itself, but his main point was if you approach FF with a take no prisoners attitude, you are sure enough going to get a fight.

He said the same about early training being forms of "pressure" or "force" that you did. I am really looking forward to seeing this in action. If it works, it will certainly be a lot less traumatic part of training! It does not have to be a rodeo. 

Thanks for your post.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> Getting dogs FFed *without* a big ugly battle [using the "pressure is your teacher now" method] is my goal [along with through FF with a fast response] using as little pressure as I can for each individual dog.


For what it's worth in this discussion, using pressure to force fetch is does not automatically lead to a "big ugly battle". I haven't had one of those for a long time, in fact. This is one of those issues where it's more about _how_ you do it, and less about _what_ you do.

Evan


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> Who was it that said you can't teach the dog what the command "fetch" means before adding force?


Being new here I read so much and appreciate the information available.

The question I have is it possible to teach 'fetch' (as I have done with very little pressure) i.e. Force Fetching the easy method. I am sure you could also train a dog to fetch simply by using the dogs retrieving desire.

Is it possible to later re-enforce this trained command, say when a dog grows more mature, to the same level of pressure say used in Evan Grahams smartfetch?

Or would it make more sense to start the program FF all the way through and not bother with training a unforced fetch?

Not sure if the question makes sense, if not please forgive.

R/ Byron


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

VAfarmer said:


> Is it possible to later re-enforce this trained command, say when a dog grows more mature, to the same level of pressure say used in Evan Grahams smartfetch?
> 
> R/ Byron


Byron,

We can confuse issues easily in this discussion. Let me try to clarify. Only force fetch is force fetch, and the essential ingredient is "force".

A conditioned fetch certainly can be established. I show how to do that on the new Puppy Program DVD. But I also state in clear terms that it is, in effect, just a game to establish a relationship between the verbal command "fetch" and the act of picking something up and carrying it around. The result may look the same, but it is not.

Evan


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

Thanks Evan,

I just recieved your smartworks package this past weekend and have not had a chance to study it all, yet. From what I have seen it is much more detailed than any of the other stuff I have bought to date. I have not yet watched the puppy portion, I have watched FF, Formalizing OB, and I can tell from that I need to basically start over to capture the details I had missed in my version of OB alone. Again thanks,

V/R Byron


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> I just been dealing with a lot of people lately that are under the impression FF HAS to be ugly.


Alec, is this thread an offshoot or corollary of your venomous disregard (good on you, mate) for those who're shilling ready-trained (nay born-trained) retrievers? Actually, to distinguish them further, I think their spelling is (or ought to be) retrievours.

MG


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Actually no, that's another tear I'm on. 

I have found applying an ear "press" [not hard enough to elicit a mouth opening response] for a week or so while *I* place the object in the dogs mouth lets them better understand the relationship between the press and the action of taking the dummy. As I slowly transition to a bit more of a pinch the dog better understand what to do.

Anyone that's forced a bunch of dogs know that the amount of pressure it takes to get some dog, in the initial stages of FF to open their mouth, is the same amount of pressure that gets them to rear up, twist around, lie down, try to bite, etc. etc.

I've found the whole process to be much less traumatic [with all dogs] if they have an understanding of the pinch/open/take the dummy when they have learned the concept using less then traditional doctrine fetch pressure. i.e. pressure till the dog opens its mouth.

Just trying to make the FF easier for the dog.......

PS Evan, I've never seen any of your material so none of this is directed at you to my knowledge.

My first "field trial" dog had a bullet like fetch response off the ground long before he was forced, not a good thing in some ways. Many high desire dogs fetch _in spite_ of pressure not because of it fooling many into thinking they're FFed.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

I spoke with a pro not long ago who referred to a panic response (not so good) as opposed to a solid conditioned response (good), that some cross over to unknowingly when Force Breaking a dog.

I thought this was an interesting comment.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> Anyone that's forced a bunch of dogs know that the amount of pressure it takes to get some dog, in the initial stages of FF to open their mouth, is the same amount of pressure that gets them to rear up, twist around, lie down, try to bite, etc. etc.


Alec,

I hope you get a chance to see my approach because it sounds like the one you're familiar with is harsher. I assert that it's a conditioing process, but that we are guiding behavior as we go along. This guidance starts at the inception as we place the fetch object in the dog's mouth manually for a while to illustrate to them how to turn off the pressure. Actually, very little pressure is involved in the process.

This program has force fetched hundreds of dogs successfully. There is more to it, of course, but rarely is there the amount of pressure you've alluded to. It's worth seeing..._really_.

My first retriever, and several thereafter, had a passively conditioned "fetch" response. Some have a greater or lesser capacity to do it. But it's not the same thing.

Evan


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I spoke with a pro not long ago who referred to a panic response (not so good) as opposed to a solid conditioned response (good), that some cross over to unknowingly when Force Breaking a dog.
> 
> I thought this was an interesting comment.


Absolutely!! If fact I use the same word [panic] when I talk about it.

Many people think they have a great "fast" response but they have crossed the line into panic response. Yeah, the panic response is fast but puts unnecessary pressure on the dog physically and mentally IMO.

At it's worst the dog has a panicky response that bleeds over to other aspects of training and many time a negative attitude towards training in general. Many high desire dogs still go like hell _despite_ that type of training failure.

Evan, good to hear as I know your books/DVD are influencing a lot of people.

I start the press waaaay back during hold. After 7-10 day of praise and repetition hold work [where I've placed the object in the dogs mouth]. At that point whey they drop it I'll press on the ear....just enough so they can feel it. As I press I place another bumming in their mouth and stop pressing. Over a week the press very gradually gets a bit firmer and many dogs start reaching for the dummy long before a pinch is needed to get them to open their mouths. It's an easy transition at that point to fetch for many....

In my experience there are some dog that will have a panic response to fetch pressure no matter how you go about it but they are the minority.

I think it's a long row to hoe but hopefully more people will understand that FF doesn't mean "tie your dog to a table and fight with it while it's fighting you" so common today.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

To resurrect another less-pressurized and pliant approach that needs no disclaimer, despite Robert Milner's "altruism" in offering one.



rmilner said:


> ...some thoughts on force fetch training for retriever gundogs: Note the operative word gundogs (not field trial dogs)
> 
> 1. I have found that the lighter the pressure (pinch), the faster the overall process proceeds. You want to use just enough pressure to make the dog uneasy so that he wants to escape. Then you provide the escape path which is the dummy in mouth.
> 
> ...


MG


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

In my experience and opinion "gun dogs" actually have to be FF more throughly then FT dogs. In fact my departure from posting much from RT.net a few years ago was over just such a topic.

The theory being that gun dogs don't need to be forced as much as a FT dog. Well...if all you want is delivery to hand, you really aren't worried about reliability and you're a relative novice at FF, the RM outline may be for you.

In the world I train for daily, people aren't spending a lot of money on my professional training to get any less then the most reliable dog I can get them. Many of the "gun dogs" I train also learn to handle BUTBUTBUT 90% of the dogs I train are going home to owners who have no more idea about how to enforce FF [should the need arise] then I impart to them.

FT dogs in general are going to homes where the owners have a FAR greater understanding of the FF process and most have avenues available [other then me] to get help if they encounter a problem such as a training group which may have professional guidance on a regular basis.

The gun dogs I force are expected to deliver to hand from the day they leave my kennel to the day they stop working with no maintenance. FT dogs continuing advanced work have the basic skills of delivering to hand re enforced thousands of time more frequently [ensuring a conditioned response] them the average shooting dog does.

IMO a fully FF dog I train need to [if anything] be "better" FFed then a FT dog or at least just as well. So what I'm talking about/how I train, is a properly FF dog thats been introduced to fetch pressure in such a way that the vast majority have a much better understanding of that pressure and what to do about it as the force escalates then in traditional initial "pinch to open" training doctrine.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

There are all kinds of pressure. Many times I hear someone say, "I didn't correct, just blew whistle, and no, here." That is pressure.

I believe use the least amount of pressure is get the desired behavior change. Might even be a simple "no". That's why we prefer sensitive dogs. A tough dog is one we don't wish to train. Don't like to see a dog that tolerates pressure.

It helps to remember that inhancing one part of training will usually detract from another. That's why the word balance is so important in retriever training.

Too much pressure can detract from other necessary aspects, and can dig holes, create dark rooms. Example, you train dog with high pressure to seek water, stay in till the end. You walk to line in open, you need 100 yard angle entry. Your dog jumps in fat. That won't play. You also can't get the middle bird of an in-line triple. Or, you use high pressure to keep dog from returning to old fall, result, you have a dog that in future will never go near one, or a gun, all neccessary in AA stakes. You have created a dark room, really hard to undo it.

If I see my dog panic, I usually feel that we have failed as trainers, although there are a few that just have this in them. Panicked dogs don't learn. Many of the dogs being bred today need very little in the way of collar pressure, medium/low nick works for many. Less is best, you can always go more if you need to later. I really liked your post, Alec. Very easy to mis-read panic in a high desire dog. These types stress up, so many times will end up not with, sulking, walking, but spinning, freezing etc. equallly as undesirable.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> There are all kinds of pressure. Many times I hear someone say, "I didn't correct, just blew whistle, and no, here." That is pressure.
> 
> _I believe use the least amount of pressure_* is get the desired behavior change*. Might even be a simple "no". That's why we prefer sensitive dogs. A tough dog is one we don't wish to train. Don't like to see a dog that tolerates pressure.
> 
> ...


Da** cakaiser (Charlotte I think) you're good. You've really explained an important aspect of all age work. 

I do want to emphasize a point. When we usethe least amount of pressure we can, sometimes we don't use enough. I've many times caught myself handling when a dog makes a mistake instead of making the correction I should have made. Nagging doesn't do the dog any good either. Like everything else in dog training you have to reach a balance for that dog.

Still it's better to err on the side of less pressure than on to much pressure. But high pressure, *the dog understands*, for a slipped standard is training at it's very best.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

How about doing things that don't fit the rules for the sake of preventing a dog from forming bad habits? Something along the lines of not necessarily preceding a correction with a command for heeling to the line so the dog never develops the habit of forging. Or perhaps something along the lines of preventing noice by means that don't fit the rules so that a dog does not get a habit of making excess noice.

I have pretty much given up on training my pooches, but looking back I'd be less of a stickler for the rules for the sake of preventing certain bad habits in some circumstances.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Howard, I certainly don't disagree. Usually comes a time when it is important to do this, good trainers can read the dog, and know when to get the point across, and get it done. They can read LACK OF EFFORT. We usually try to do this with dogs we are certain know what is expected. Exactly, high pressure for a dog we know UNDERSTANDS. High pressure for one dog may be a medium 4, another dog needs different level..

Example, our 6 yr old AFC doesn't get a second chance. Our 2 yr old does.

Like many amateurs, we are probably guilty of nagging, because we are afraid to make a mistake. You better be sure you know what you are doing before you rock that dog's world. Good pros are so much better at this than us. Part of the art in training, knowing when you need to buck up! 

But, on the whole, most amateurs are better off with less, than more. Use the least amount needed to affect behavior change is a good guideline I think. But that's all it is, a guideline, we all know, there are no absolutes in dog training. I see too many that think pressure cures all, when in fact it may cause unexpected and unwanted behaviors.

and yes, it's Charlotte


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

VAfarmer said:


> Being new here I read so much and appreciate the information available.
> 
> The question I have is it possible to teach 'fetch' (as I have done with very little pressure) i.e. Force Fetching the easy method. I am sure you could also train a dog to fetch simply by using the dogs retrieving desire.
> 
> ...


Don't take what I said to mean teach it in lieu of FF, I just meant teach it to prepare the dog for FF, making it a bit more fair, and a bit easier. 

I taught my new guy fetch, and went immediately into FF.

Right or wrong it seems to have worked OK and I felt it was more fair for the dog.


----------



## Eshielsgundogs (Sep 24, 2008)

I tend to use the dogs natural desire to fetch or retrieve as we call it over here. I usually teach a dog to hold tennis ball at 4 to 6 months with them sitting in front of me, giving plenty of praise, and just increasing the time gradually, some take a day, some a week, key is not to rush it. I find the desire to retrieve is in the breeding.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Eshielsgundogs said:


> I tend to use the dogs natural desire to fetch or retrieve as we call it over here. I usually teach a dog to hold tennis ball at 4 to 6 months with them sitting in front of me, giving plenty of praise, and just increasing the time gradually, some take a day, some a week, key is not to rush it. I find the desire to retrieve is in the breeding.



Sure.....it is in the breeding. I do believe the criteria requirements of US dog games, makes escape/avoidance training the norm. 

My word they.....the dogs.....can and want to drill as long as the owners/trainers allow. 

We and our dogs get paid/positively reinforced eventually. We are all controlled by stimulus.


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

Perhaps the subject line or the description of this topic should have been "teaching pressure"? and not "teaching with pressure". Just my take.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Why is it some people just never seem to understand that "we" don't force "our" retrievers to get them to retrieve?

That's one of the biggest BS lines the "British" retriever people use and it seem that many people in and out of America just d o n 't g e t i t....

Any "American" retriever worth feeding [] already retrieves. 

WE DON'T FF THEM TO GET THEM TO RETRIEVE!!! 


I have a conformation type lab in training right now that has no retrieve in her. Or I should have said "use to not retrieve". I've gotten her interested in retrieving but FF hasn't had a thing to do with it. I'll force her to get reliable delivery to hand when she comes back from a retrieve.


Training pretty much just shooting dogs for the last 8 of 17 years, they've all been FFed. So American dog games don't have anything to do with why many American dogs are FFed.


On another note.....I have some more to say about FF pressure when I get the time....


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

I would like to contribute to this discussion.
As mentioned before the e-collar is against the law in Germany. If a judge in a trial supects the dog to be trained with an e-collar, he has the right to eliminate it.
Yet we still have Field Trial Champions in Europe. IMO there are ways to practise a reliable retrieve with a dog without FFing it in the way tjypical for the US.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Sissi said:


> I would like to contribute to this discussion.
> As mentioned before the e-collar is against the law in Germany. If a judge in a trial supects the dog to be trained with an e-collar, he has the right to eliminate it.
> Yet we still have Field Trial Champions in Europe. IMO there are ways to practise a reliable retrieve with a dog without FFing it in the way tjypical for the US.


I find this really interesting.

Can you answer - what sort of behaviors or tendencies does an EU Field Trial judge look for to draw conclusions that a dog was trained with an e-collar?

Thanks!

Chris


----------



## Devlin (Jan 19, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I find this really interesting.
> 
> Can you answer - what sort of behaviors or tendencies does an EU Field Trial judge look for to draw conclusions that a dog was trained with an e-collar?
> 
> ...


Excellent question, Chris...and I'm also really curious to know why e-collars are illegal in Germany (or anywhere else, for that matter). Sure, the e-collar can be abused (and unfortunately often is), but can't choke collars, as well? And pinch collars? And heeling sticks? And even one's own voice?! It just burns my backside when government..._any government_...gets its priorities so screwed up that it'll go after things like e-collars when there are such greater issues to address. But then, despite this mini-rant about Germany and whoever else, we (the US) _are_ the home of PETA, aren't we?! Gosh. That makes me so proud. NOT. :evil:

But getting back on track with this thread, because I'm an amateur, my Sadie is the first dog I FF'd...and it was really a soft process. My little girl took all of 2 weeks to be fully FF'd, and has never shown me any reason to think we/she/I failed in the process. Realistically, there is some degree of "pressure" or "stress" put on the dog no matter what it's being taught...IMHO, the operative word is "degree." And, I suppose, dogs are a bit like children: some require a higher degree of "pressure" to keep them focused on learning and to respond to what is being taught. God knows I did! ;-)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As far as *teaching* with Pos and Neg _pressure_, I suggest that quite a few of you would do well to familiarise yourselves with the work of BF Skinner.

A fellow Pennsylvanians regards

john


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> ... what sort of behaviors or tendencies does an EU Field Trial judge look for to draw conclusions that a dog was trained with an e-collar?


The astute German judge has a keen ear and when a dog begins yodeling Edelweiss in the key of G, and gets to the second verse, it's dropped immediately. At which time, the judges also channel the Comedian Harmonists along with Zero Mostel and Mel Brooks for a farewell rendition of "Springtime for Handler."

As if the Germans didn't give the world "force breaking" 150 years ago... though when it comes to water work, they also gave us the Battle of Jutland and the Bismarck, but not a lot since--particularly when it comes to their retriever field trials...

MG


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

john fallon said:


> As far as *teaching* with Pos and Neg _pressure_, I suggest that quite a few of you would do well to familiarise yourselves with the work of BF Skinner.
> 
> A fellow Pennsylvanians regards
> 
> john


Well despite where he is from he did manage to influence the behavior of some very entertaining pigeons.....I wonder how many field trials he won? I don't see that he trained dogs at all. 

Skinner says that there are 5 main obstacles in learning:
People have a fear of failure
There is a lack of directions
There is also a lack of clarity in the direction
Positive reinforcement is not used enough
The task is not broken down into small enough steps
Skinner suggests that with all of the obstacles out of the way any age appropriate skill can be taught using his 5 principles:
Have small steps
Work from most simple to most complex tasks
Repeat the directions as many times as possible
Give immediate feedback
Give positive reinforcement
/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

crackerd said:


> The astute German judge has a keen ear and when a dog begins yodeling Edelweiss in the key of G, and gets to the second verse, it's dropped immediately. At which time, the judges also channel the Comedian Harmonists along with Zero Mostel and Mel Brooks for a farewell rendition of "Springtime for Handler."
> 
> As if the Germans didn't give the world "force breaking" 150 years ago... though when it comes to water work, they also gave us the Battle of Jutland and the Bismarck, but not a lot since--particularly when it comes to their retriever field trials...
> 
> MG


So the astute German Judge decides if a dog vocalizes that it "must" have been trained by en ecollar? Care to guess how many dogs are trained with an ecollar every year that don't vocalize at all in test? 

/Paul


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I find this really interesting.
> 
> Can you answer - what sort of behaviors or tendencies does an EU Field Trial judge look for to draw conclusions that a dog was trained with an e-collar?
> 
> ...


Well of course this is a major problem to find out signs that the dog was trained with an e-collar, so I guess this rule is mainly theoretical. I havn't heard of a dog banished because of that. And the e-collar was only banned last year so I guess there are still many dogs competing which learned the basics with e-collar. But for the future there is a possibility that there should be fairer competition because e-collar is forbidden....(I know this is a radical point of view, but for me using an e-collar is a little bit like doping. It give the user an advantage over people who chose not to use it )


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Far be it from me to care if a thread is derailed........ I undestand America is banning computers....way to dangerous, we're going back to typewriters and USPS mail.

.....but back to FF and pressure.

As pointed out pressure in general can cause the dam to spring a leak far from where you're digging a hole. Helping the dog better understand what fetch pressure is all about, before that pressure is applied at a level that may cause undesirable behaviors to surface, seem intelligent to me.

I see it as unfortunate that many people see a dogs ability to take pressure as a well with limitless water. I approach pressure like a well that I have no idea how much water is in it. Therefore I only use as little as I have to because it's a BAD thing to run out.

Your dog may take pressure during FF but it all adds up and some type pressure you apply down the training road may be the straw that breaks the camels back.....the dam breaks where you aren't digging.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Well despite where he is from he did manage to influence the behavior of some very entertaining pigeons.....I wonder how many field trials he won? I don't see that he trained dogs at all.
> 
> Skinner says that there are 5 main obstacles in learning:
> 
> ...


You might want to spend a little more time on his work. 
Pay close attention to his work with Thorndike's Operant conditioning. You do know what that is don't you.

While you may or may not, I'm sure "Rex" did. Of course his FT success rate is also questionable.;-)
john


----------



## Renate with Vlekje GER (Mar 9, 2008)

In Europe it isn’t accepted to use e-collars for the retriever-training. Retrievers are breed to retrieve and a normal working retriever does it already with a few weeks of one's own accord.
See http://www.retriever.biz/users/vlekje/_private/7,5weeks.htm 

We have worldwide famous behaviour scientists and they found, that a dog, who is taught “positive”, is more trusty. So e-collar or FF isn’t essential for a good result.

The most people in Germany think so.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Could someone please translate this to German cuse I'm guessing some people can't read English. 




> *Why is it some people just never seem to understand that "we" don't force "our" retrievers to get them to retrieve?
> 
> That's one of the biggest BS lines the "British" retriever people use and it seem that many people in and out of America just d o n 't g e t i t....
> 
> ...


PLEASE people F O C U S.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Whoh very nice and polite reply. Please excuse us Germans for not beeing able to focus. But than please explain us why do you need force fetching than???? If your retrievers have this natural ability????
I have tried to understand this for about 2 years now. Especially after reading books by Amy Dahl and Robert Milner. I think those books are exceptional and very well written. (And both of them don´t talk much about the e-collar in their books).
Really my opinion is also that your American Dogs don´t need FF. I think it was developed by somebody some time ago and it makes things easier. The person training the dog has to think less about the mentality of the dog (Except in some rare cases like this Chessy trained by Kristie Wilder right now. By the way I´m deeply impressed by her).
You just have to follow the program and nothing can happen. But I´m not sure that it is really necessary. But thats only my poor German opinion.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

Sissi said:


> Whoh very nice and polite reply. Please excuse us Germans for not beeing able to focus. But than please explain us why do you need force fetching than???? If your retrievers have this natural ability????
> I have tried to understand this for about 2 years now. Especially after reading books by Amy Dahl and Robert Milner. I think those books are exceptional and very well written. (And both of them don´t talk much about the e-collar in their books).
> Really my opinion is also that your American Dogs don´t need FF. I think it was developed by somebody some time ago and it makes things easier. The person training the dog has to think less about the mentality of the dog (Except in some rare cases like this Chessy trained by Kristie Wilder right now. By the way I´m deeply impressed by her).
> You just have to follow the program and nothing can happen. But I´m not sure that it is really necessary. But thats only my poor German opinion.


Thanks, Sissi, for the kind words. 

I'll put my two cents in on why to force... It's because a lot of what we want out of our dogs comes from TRAINED behaviors that build on their NATURAL abilities.

So, for example, in our competitions/tests, we want the dog to get to the bird as quickly as possible so that it can mark it as well as it possibly can. If the dog dodges every obstacle on the way to the bird, it can often disorient itself and miss the mark and/or have to hunt for a while to find it. If MULTIPLE birds are down, the longer it takes on any of the early birds, the less it's going to remember WELL where the other birds are.

In order for dogs to take straight, crisp lines (especially on longer marks in demanding field trials) there is a LOT of learning that is NOT natural. So they need to have crisp, reliable responses to handling as we teach them things that are NOT natural but that they are CAPABLE of doing.

A simple example - if you're hunting, trialing or testing on a pond, an untrained dog might want to run all the way around that pond to get the bird. Yes, sometimes that MIGHT be the fastest way. But it can also, as mentioned above, cause the dog to miss the mark and be fussing around the field while they hunt it up, burning up time. Going straight to birds allows them to keep a bearing and mark better. For me, I feel this is AS IMPORTANT in hunting as it is in performance events.

If I'm hunting and it's safer and faster for the dog to go around, then I'll gladly direct them that way.

Now, back to FORCING... I think it would be a better if we came up for a different name for the process. But it is what it is. It's a VERY short duration in the dog's life. Maybe 3-4 weeks max and it's over, as far as the "awful" part of it. Then it's over and you move on to more fun stuff. BTW, with the Chessie, I have four other dogs that I'm forcing and they are happy and comfortable as can be. It doesn't have to be a nasty process.

I think the bottom line is that we "Americans" want a COMBINATION of natural AND trained behaviors. That gives us what WE want in the dog. To get a finished product the way we train, it is typically 18-24 months of training and then a lifetime of maintenance. 

There's NO reason most of our training days can't be fun, relaxed and pressure-free. But there are days where use the collar, give a swat with the heeling stick or some other correction. The dogs, in the end, are still happy, well balanced and relaxed to work. They are still loving companions and great teammates.

I think the word "force" just makes it all sound so nasty. And to some people, it will be no matter what we call it. But when I'm hanging out with my gaggle of 20 dogs who all love me, love to work and love to play... I just don't have a problem with it. And, if it makes any non-force people feel better, I had a HUGE problem with force fetch and the collar when I first watched some friends train. Now I understand it and see what great tools they can be when you use and balance them fairly.

-K


----------



## Georgia Smith (Feb 22, 2007)

Kristie! You always have a way of putting it just right. WELL SAID!!


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Alec Sparks said:


> I see it as unfortunate that many people see a dogs ability to take pressure as a well with limitless water. I approach pressure like a well that I have no idea how much water is in it. Therefore I only use as little as I have to because it's a BAD thing to run out.


Exactly, well put. The reason why there have been some that titled young, and won't get in the water by the time they are 5 or so. Their well has gone dry.

As has been stated many times ad nauseum, FF is the foundation on which the whole basic/transition program is based. It may not be the most fun period in a dog's life, but with a smart, eager dog, they advance and learn quickly. They then have the tools to go on and do what they love more than anything, their very heart and soul, field work.

Like Kristie said so well, we train the dog to many unnatural behaviors. It is not natural for a dog to swim 300 yards, run straight, cast into wind, ignore scent, etc.

Totally agree with Alec, we do not force our dogs to RETRIEVE. Any dog we own where this would be neccessary, would not be trained at all! Too many dogs that want to work to waste time on one that doesn't.

I can remember pre-collar training, do not wish ever to go back there. If the collar is such a bad thing, why are the great majority of dogs these days running flat out on blinds and marks? Most have ears and tails up, and can't wait to work. More fail becuse they are too high and eager, than down and scared. Go to any FT, see with your own eyes how much these dogs love to do it.

If I see a dog with his tail between his legs, makes me sick to my stomach. Absolutely no reason for this with today's training methods. It's either the wrong dog, or the wrong trainer. What kind of fun is that.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> If the collar is such a bad thing, why are the great majority of dogs these days running flat out on blinds and marks? Most have ears and tails up, and can't wait to work. Many fail becuse they are to high and eager, not down and scared. Go to any FT, see with your own eyes how much these dogs love to do it.


Shhh, don't go giving those German FT judges insight on DQing dogs that "appear" to have been trained with the e-collar...

MG


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Sissi said:


> But for the future there is a possibility that there should be fairer competition because e-collar is forbidden....(I know this is a radical point of view, but for me using an e-collar is a little bit like doping. It give the user an advantage over people who chose not to use it )


You've got to be kidding? 

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

john fallon said:


> You might want to spend a little more time on his work.
> Pay close attention to his work with Thorndike's Operant conditioning. You do know what that is don't you.
> 
> While you may or may not, I'm sure "Rex" did. Of course his FT success rate is also questionable.;-)
> john


Please John, Thorndike theories were all based on cats and their behavior....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FF does not make a dog want to retrieve. If it did then I could take a pot bellied pig and run FT's. FF is about teaching the dog good mouth habits, maintaining control during stressfull situations to accomplish the task and provides a structured foundation for accepting discpline properly in high stress situations. Sadly human society today is full of humans who never learned how to do those things so I'm not surprised that people wouldn't understand that a dog performing with the precision of a FT dog would need it as well.

/Paul


----------



## Bryan McCulloch (Nov 3, 2007)

Well put Paul,as always.Humans still have hope though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_7_kfQ9KZw&NR=1


Cheers Bryan.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You've got to be kidding?
> 
> /Paul


Let me express it in another way. 
In the first place if I'm wrong, why do you use it???
Then why do you think it was banished in Germany? Because we don't want the sucess you guys have with your dogs???? (by the way of course e-collar is probably still used by some people and there are also people doing FF).
I think the reason for banishing it was because some people thought it is harmful for dogs and that it is an instrument used by people to get sucess in competitions (and this would be my definition for doping too)

By the way I don't want to attack anybody and I'm really not trying to change anybodies mind.
Also I agree that everybody should train its dog the way he thinks is right !!
But whatever I do I try to be open-minded to other ways of thinking and acting. (in fact since I started with my Curlies I learned many things and I think different about many things now than in the beginning) And I'm not at the end of the road yet!!!

@Kristie Thanks for your very informative post


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Sissi said:


> Let me express it in another way.
> In the first place if I'm wrong, why do you use it???
> Then why do you think it was banished in Germany? Because we don't want the sucess you guys have with your dogs???? (by the way of course e-collar is probably still used by some people and there are also people doing FF).
> I think the reason for banishing it was because some people thought it is harmful for dogs and that it is an instrument used by people to get sucess in competitions (and this would be my definition for doping too)
> ...


See my post #56. Making widespread accusations that "something is harmful" is typically fostered by ignorance of the facts, generated by stereotypes and leads to prejudices. The ecollar is just a tool like any other tool. The biggest problem is mis-use of the tool. So what they should have banned is letting people with no education of the tool with short tempers and a preference for wearing green pants purchase them for training dogs. I'd be willing to bet that same group of people would be able to declare an entire group of people as fitting that description.


/Paul


----------



## _Evelyn_ (Mar 7, 2008)

Eshielsgundogs said:


> I tend to use the dogs natural desire to fetch or retrieve as we call it over here. .



correct ian!!!!!!!!

and I go even further (sorry german as well:razz: )

I NEVER would use a stud, if I would know he is trained FF or electric
I NEVER would buy a dog out of such parents
...............
and I go even further, what will remain of our labradors, when they can only be trained for succssesful competing with FF and electric;-)

I am born 1962 (so after the 2. world war, and after Bismark)

lg evelyn


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Sissi said:


> Let me express it in another way.
> In the first place if I'm wrong, why do you use it???


The simple answer to that question is, because it allows us to train dogs to advanced levels that most feel are not possible without the right tools.

If you don't understand the kind of work a competive AA dog is required to do, then you can't really understand why.

If it's possible to be successful in Germany without a collar, great. IMHO, waste of time and money to run US trials without a collar trained dog.

By the way, "doping" is not allowed on weekends, dogs run without collars.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

_Evelyn_ said:


> correct ian!!!!!!!!
> 
> and I go even further (sorry german as well )
> 
> ...


It's your loss!!!!!

It is really funny what the difference between the myth and reality really is. The Myth of the type of dogs would be selected with e-collar training vs the reality of what is actually occurring. The consensus of all the old timers (those that were training dogs before the e-collar) is that today's FT dogs are MUCH more sensitive and intelligent than the FT dogs before the e-collar. ;-)


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

_Evelyn_ said:


> correct ian!!!!!!!!
> 
> and I go even further (sorry german as well:razz: )
> 
> ...


Evelyn, what do you feel is the general agreement about what is so terrible about e-collars and force fetch? Do people feel they are "hurting" the dog? Do they feel they break the dog's spirit? What does it really come down to?

I'm asking because if you met my dogs and watched them work, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE of how I trained them... And they ran well, and happy. And they were excited to work. And, moreover, they were affectionate and personable... How would you feel about my dogs? And what difference would it make they they are trained with FF and ecollar? 

Because FF and ecollar CERTAINLY don't give a dog a good, sweet temperament. They certainly don't teach a dog how to mark well and retrieve happily... So what's so bad about them if the dog is still a happy, driven, well-trained dog?

Thanks in advance for your response.

-Kristie


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Yes, the myth of the robotic, push button, forced FT dog. 

Couldn't be further from the truth.

I think the collar is why you see so many more good females these days, it allows for far more sensitive types to be trained.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Sissi said:


> Whoh very nice and polite reply. Please excuse us Germans for not beeing able to focus. But than please explain us why do you need force fetching than???? If your retrievers have this natural ability????
> I have tried to understand this for about 2 years now. Especially after reading books by Amy Dahl and Robert Milner. I think those books are exceptional and very well written. (And both of them don´t talk much about the e-collar in their books).
> Really my opinion is also that your American Dogs don´t need FF. I think it was developed by somebody some time ago and it makes things easier. The person training the dog has to think less about the mentality of the dog (Except in some rare cases like this Chessy trained by Kristie Wilder right now. By the way I´m deeply impressed by her).
> You just have to follow the program and nothing can happen. But I´m not sure that it is really necessary. But thats only my poor German opinion.





> Whoh very nice and polite reply.


That's what the "winky eye" thing was for......I was being sarcastic.

"Focus" was a joke about keeping on the subject at hand, FF pressure, not hashing out the FF/collars are evil topic ......again. 



> I think it was developed by somebody some time ago and it makes things easier. [/qoute]
> 
> I'm not sure how being able to both understand, master and apply a complex process like FF or CC makes "things easier". Skilled American trainers not only know how to train a dog *without* FF and CC they also know how to train both of those [somewhat tricky] concepts.
> 
> ...


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Think the Germans also have concerns about Einstein's Theory of E-Collarivity--that dogs trained with the collar genetically perpetuate electrons (and protons) for succeeding generations. Good thing their judges can divine those dogs that have and those that haven't via the geiger counter provided by the RUFFwaffe (Radioactively Undermining Force Fetch)...

MG


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Alec Sparks said:


> That's what the "winky eye" thing was for......I was being sarcastic.
> 
> "Focus" was a joke about keeping on the subject at hand, FF pressure, not hashing out the FF/collars are evil topic ......again.
> 
> ...


No bad feelings Alex By the way I admire your avatar. I would love to have a paint horse..
By the way I don't think pressure is something a dog cannot handle.
I'm not a fan of training only with positive reenforcements (although my experience is that specially young dogs and horses love encouragement by the trainer especially in situations where they are not sure how to handle it)
I'm a big fan of pack behaviour, and there dogs accept pressure very well. In fact IMO packs couldn't exist without pressure.
BUT I have trained 3 dogs now without FF and all of them responed very well. So for me there is no necessity to change my trainingsprogramm right now.
And I don't have the chance to practise with an e-collar in Germany as it is forbidden. So how could I get personal experiences???
 By the way I watched the videos of Lardy and I was impressed by his well organized trainings approach but still I believe with my dogs I will be able to reach my goals also without using a collar (And believe me my dog is stubborn, it is a Curly and not a F.T. lab)


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

crackerd said:


> Think the Germans also have concerns about Einstein's Theory of E-Collarivity--that dogs trained with the collar genetically perpetuate electrons (and protons) for succeeding generations. Good thing their judges can divine those dogs that have and those that haven't via the geiger counter provided by the RUFFwaffe (Radioactively Undermining Force Fetch)...
> 
> MG


Oh you are telling something completly new This I must have missed somehow in my education


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

_Evelyn_ said:


> correct ian!!!!!!!!
> 
> and I go even further (sorry german as well:razz: )
> 
> ...


I may be missing something here, but what does a ff'ed or e-collared parent have to do with the off-spring? If I've missed something in my quick reading of all this, kindly clear this up.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Kristie Wilder said:


> Evelyn, what do you feel is the general agreement about what is so terrible about e-collars and force fetch? Do people feel they are "hurting" the dog? Do they feel they break the dog's spirit? What does it really come down to?
> 
> I'm asking because if you met my dogs and watched them work, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE of how I trained them... And they ran well, and happy. And they were excited to work. And, moreover, they were affectionate and personable... How would you feel about my dogs? And what difference would it make they they are trained with FF and ecollar?
> 
> ...


Kristie if you ever participate in competitions in Florida please send me an PM because until November I'll stay there. Actually I already planned to watch some Trials and I would love to watch your dogs running.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

Sissi said:


> Kristie if you ever participate in competitions in Florida please send me an PM because until November I'll stay there. Actually I already planned to watch some Trials and I would love to watch your dogs running.


May be at Tallahassee in a few weeks...


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Kristie Wilder said:


> May be at Tallahassee in a few weeks...


Great! I was thinking about going there anyhow


----------



## _Evelyn_ (Mar 7, 2008)

crackerd said:


> Think the Germans also have concerns about Einstein's Theory of E-Collarivity--that dogs trained with the collar genetically perpetuate electrons (and protons) for succeeding generations. Good thing their judges can divine those dogs that have and those that haven't via the geiger counter provided by the RUFFwaffe (Radioactively Undermining Force Fetch)...
> 
> MG



I am sure, you have a lot of german relatives behind

evelyn


----------



## _Evelyn_ (Mar 7, 2008)

Kristie Wilder said:


> Evelyn, what do you feel is the general agreement about what is so terrible about e-collars



Hi kristie

I want to see a will to please and honest labrador, 
who workes with me also at the distance.

the trainability is what remains on the way, my opinion.

because also hard to train dogs, will be successful with the collar.

we see dogs here from usa, that "normal " people can´t or don´t want to train anymore in a traditional way

lg evelyn


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

_Evelyn_ said:


> I want to see a will to please and honest labrador,
> who workes with me also at the distance.
> 
> lg evelyn


And this is different from trainers in the US, how????

Believe me, if we don't have a compliant, trainable dog, they don't get very far.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> And this is different from trainers in the US, how????
> 
> Believe me, if we don't have a compliant, trainable dog, they don't get very far.


I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

_Evelyn_ said:


> *because also hard to train dogs, will be successful with the collar.*


Yea, that *IS* the myth!!!!! 

Of course you have to ignore the fact that an easy to train dog trained with a collar will be *EVEN MORE* successful!!!


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Sissi said:


> Kristie if you ever participate in competitions in Florida please send me an PM because until November I'll stay there. Actually I already planned to watch some Trials and I would love to watch your dogs running.


Sissi,

Hope you will attend the HRC hunt test in North East Florida (Callahan, Fl) on Oct 18, and 19th.

Then the following weekend Oct 24, 25th and 26th the Jacksonville Retriever Club will be hosting a field trial in Williston Fl. (near Ocala)

Given some of the distances the dogs will work at, you may want to bring some binoculars to the field trial as most likely, many of the handlers will be using them to see their dogs as they handle them to the bird on blind retrieves in the Open.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Sissi said:


> And I don't have the chance to practise with an e-collar in Germany as it is forbidden. So how could I get personal experiences???


I think this says it all.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I've seen horrible things done to a dog on a leash. I think we should ban leashes.

/Paul


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I've seen horrible things done to a dog on a leash. I think we should ban leashes.
> 
> /Paul


For that matter, I've seen horrible things done to dogs with owners...


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Yes, collars are tools of us lazy Americans that are always looking for a new and better way of doing things. They make things very easy!

EASY for the dogs. 

Anyone with a whit of intelligence knows that the sooner you can enforce a command [after it has not been complied with] the easier it is for a dog to understand what is expected of him. Collars in the right hands make it easier for the dog to learn. Period.

I just don't understand some peoples issue with doing something "faster/easier". As long as it done in a fair/humane and compassionate manner, I don't understand why taking a longer time and using old school techniques is so superior as some people think. On top of that I'm not always sure that FF/CC is "faster" and it can sure as heck be very difficult with some dogs.

Can dogs be trained without them and to a high level? Of course.

Does anyone really care if someone uses a collar or not? I doubt it, I sure don't. I started this thread hoping to help people understand their is a better way [IMO] to introduce dogs to FF then common FF doctrine. Unfortunately, that had been derailed by more of the endless collar/FF pro/anti debate that is so prevalent.

Do FF and collar users get sick of people who know nothing about them, spouting off on how "cruel" they are and how wonderful their dogs are without their use. Absolutely.

I've run across a few "wonderful" dogs in my day and they all weren't regardless of their owners opinions of them.

Sissi, My little pony is a 17.3H warmblood cross, 1/2 hano 1/4 TB and 1/4 draft.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Alec Sparks said:


> Sissi, My little pony is a 17.3H warmblood cross, 1/2 hano 1/4 TB and 1/4 draft.


Gives a whole new meaning to sitting tall in a saddle, huh? That's a tall horse.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Alec Sparks said:


> Getting dogs FFed *without* a big ugly battle [using the "pressure is your teacher now" method] is my goal [along with through FF with a fast response] using as little pressure as I can for each individual dog.


As this was your original point, one that I agree with, not only FF, but in all aspects of training. We don't use maximum pressure in the yard, either. Most of the time, Howard. ;-)

Don't want the well to go dry if we can help it.


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Alec Sparks said:


> Yes, collars are tools of us lazy Americans that are always looking for a new and better way of doing things. They make things very easy!
> 
> EASY for the dogs.
> 
> ...


Alec, everthing in this world has to beome faster, easier and better so I guess my mentality is that of a dinosaur



> Can dogs be trained without them and to a high level? Of course.


 Great something we agree on



> Does anyone really care if someone uses a collar or not? I doubt it, I sure don't. I started this thread hoping to help people understand their is a better way [IMO] to introduce dogs to FF then common FF doctrine. Unfortunately, that had been derailed by more of the endless collar/FF pro/anti debate that is so prevalent.
> 
> Do FF and collar users get sick of people who know nothing about them, spouting off on how "cruel" they are and how wonderful their dogs are without their use. Absolutely.
> I've run across a few "wonderful" dogs in my day and they all weren't regardless of their owners opinions of them.


Sorry for derailing your thread but FF and the e-collar are somehow connected as they use the same aproach. And I never used the word "cruel" . And hopefully everybody on this board thinks its own dog is wonderful. I don't think it is a matter of using a collar or not. You can't take me serious anyhow as I have Curlies



> Sissi, My little pony is a 17.3H warmblood cross, 1/2 hano 1/4 TB and 1/4 draft.


Alec I really start to like you. Did I describe your horse as a pony? Maybe I misused the term "Paint" sorry for that. For me it describes a color.
But you're invited to my house in Germany. I breed German Warmbloods and I think you might feel I used the term right once you meet my mares. One of them is 1.80m (Sorry I don't know the american measurement)


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Sissi said:


> Sorry for derailing your thread but FF and the e-collar are somehow connected as they use the same aproach.


Au contraire as for derailing it--with respect to the late great Paul Newman, what we have here is not a failure to communicate but an opportunity to add to the retriever lexicon. Forthwith, all due credit your way for pushing Amish trainers out of the way in favor of Mennonite trainers.

MG


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Sissi said:


> Sorry for derailing your thread but FF and the e-collar are somehow connected as they use the same aproach.


Sissi,

I don't think that FF and the e-collar use the same approach. One can build on the other. However, they are not enextrictable linked to each other. You can do/use one or the other but not both if you decide to.

I tried to read all the posts but may have missed this. The fect part of FF really gets people confused. FF isn't about fetching it is about responding in an appropriate manner to pressure. The process of FF allows incremental amounts of pressure to be applied to the dog in a controlled environment t teach the dog and appropriate response. Fetch is used because it is something our dogs want to do. We take advantage of that in the FFing.

The e-collar is just a tool, as others have pointed out. Saying your dog is trained without an e-collar is kind of like buying furniture that was not built with power tools. It is a choice of the individual. It is not good versus evil, it is just another way of doing things.

One of the things that tends to get people wrankled is when comments are made about things like FF and the e-collar by people who have no personal knowledge or experience with them.

Have fun with your dogs,

Tom


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

FF is a training technique and an e-collar is a training tool just as a leash is. In fact the e-collar is often referred to as "an invisible leash".

Sissi, Did my PM get through to you or did RT.net eat it?


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Alec,

You hold yourself out as being a PRO.

State your beliefs.

Jerry


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Alec Sparks said:


> FF is a training technique and an e-collar is a training tool just as a leash is. In fact the e-collar is often referred to as "an invisible leash".
> 
> Sissi, Did my PM get through to you or did RT.net eat it?


Alec it got through allright; Thanks


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Please John, Thorndike theories were *all *based on cats and their behavior....
> 
> /Paul


Wrong! Thorndike used dogs as well.

Now fast forward if you will to a more modern day and Operant conditioning , and in the context of the thread--teaching with pressure--give us your position on it(P+/- N+/-) as it relates to training pressurre applied and removed using the e-collar as the source.

Start with an easy one, Don't try to get your feet wet with IP

john


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

A very interesting discussion overall. The first dog I ever FF was a rescue pit bull terrier that I was training for obedience. I trained by the Koehler method, which is a very old method of obedience training using FF to "proof" the retriever under all conditions. Much like now, FF did not FORCE the dog to retrieve. That was taught first with hold, fetch, etc. FF was used when distractions were introduced and the dog did not retrieve immediately, much like a leash is used to pop a dog into you when they don't come on "here". It worked very well and I was constantly impressed with how reliable my dog was.

I now train retrievers for obedience, field and agility. They are all FF, using much the same method that I used 25 yrs ago. I have used the collar on some with excellent results. My current dog did not respond well to the collar (I think Alec pointed out that some dogs don't) so we are training without. All of my dogs have had great attitudes and loved what they did. I do miss the ability to make an instant correct on technical and/or cheating stuff and I have had to become a bit creative with my water work. 

I don't understand Sissi's post about relating e-collars to "doping" (as if by using them you are somehow cheating because not everyone wants to use them). That is akin to saying that because I don't have access to technical water ponds or large areas of land with great terrain changes, I can't train the same way as other people, so they are "cheating" and shouldn't be allowed to use those grounds. If they really feel that e-collars are evil then why would they feel that they give a dog and handler an advantage? 

If you look at how much training has changed over the last 20-30 years, you can see the evolution of the retrievers. They are smarter, happier working dogs and yes more females are being trained and are doing very well because they understand the light pressure of the collar and could not or would not take the physical pressures used before collars became common. 

If people chose not to use collars, that is their choice and I have no problem with that. But I do feel a bit put out that people with NO experience training with a collar condemn those that do and call us cheaters. Please come over to the US and watch us train, watch how we teach our dogs, then reinforce and help them understand with the collar. It is not the great evil you have been led to believe.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Jerry said:


> Alec,
> 
> You hold yourself out as being a PRO.
> 
> ...


Well, I believe that although many years have passed but I remember your BBQ was pretty [email protected] good.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Wrong! Thorndike used dogs as well.
> 
> Now fast forward if you will to a more modern day and Operant conditioning , and in the context of the thread--teaching with pressure--give us your position on it(P+/- N+/-) as it relates to training pressurre applied and removed using the e-collar as the source.
> 
> ...


Now John, I'll leave the fancy philosophy to experts like yourself. You guys can haggle it all out, I got dogs with wagging tails to FF.

/Paul


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

We are so lucky our dogs receive positive reinforcement from retrieving?

There seems more books, DVDs etc than cook books nowdays!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning


----------



## Petra (Jan 29, 2008)

I think the kind of trials are the main difference between Retrieverwork in the USA and Europe.

Our F.T. is performed during a real hunting-day. On a day like this up to 200 to 400 birds might get shot. Also hares, rabbits and other animals....
The dogs are worked after each shooting period which might take up to 40 min. None of the handlers knows in advance which dog has to retrieve which bird...

For us most important is that the dogs are incredibly steady and have a very good memory. If a dog is noisy he is eliminated. Also if he retrieves a wrong bird 2 times. He cannot get a "good" anymore once he recieves an "eye-wipe". Our dogs also need self-dependence because you don't know everytime, where the battues fall down or where they are running. 

A distance more than 150m for a retrieve is rather seldom. With one exception "runner". For you it is really important that your dogs work long distances. I have no idea how to train this with an e-collar. On the other hand I wouln't know how to practise it without... I think at some point the dog would "ask".

Some time ago (not a very long time...) there were some dogs partiicipating in competitions which were trained with e-collar. You could see that for example in the moment when they stopped. It wasn't natural anymore but like a robot. Also when starting the dogs seemed unsecure although they went out straight and were handled perfectly.

Although I think the e-collar (in the right hand) is a very useful instrument. I do not support it for competitions. A good retriever should be trainable without it. At least for our trials.....

Concerning Evelyns Statement. I think dogs handled with e-collars are selected for a special toughness. Possibly its ok.
I have seen some US golden since which are out of control (Maybe because they are not trained with e-collar) they don't care for the handler and they are too much "hard-going" . They chew, don't deliver to hand, don't stop etc. Personally I want for my retriever always 1% more "will to please" than hunting-desire.

3 Years ago I got a Golden from the USA he is extremly tough but mentally very sensitive. When I cough he says "OK" He is very quiet while Hunting as well as while working with bumpers. I'm very happy to own him but while watching some (stressing the word "some") Goldens I can't stop thinking "Maybe I was just lucky....?"

Best wishes!
Petra

www.fielddogs.de


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

It's just apples and oranges here.

The point is, if you have not trained with a collar, and have no knowledge of the program, please don't use words like "insecure, tough, and robot."

What some might call an "unnatural, robotic, stop", others might call "fast and precise".

We in the good old US might use words like, "untrained, sloppy, slow", in the same manner. Perhaps those kind of words might possibily seem offensive to you.

the MYTH is alive and well.

Best wishes to you too!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Now John, I'll leave the fancy philosophy to experts like yourself. You guys can haggle it all out, I got dogs with wagging tails to FF.
> 
> /Paul


I'm surprised that one who posts as much as yourself would not seize the opportunity to show the viewers your depth

Phancy filosophy ? No. not at all . as you can now see by Julie's link , Classical and Operant Conditioning are a part of the foundation that dog training is built on built on .

Is _know it all_ a synonym for expert regards 


john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I'm surprised that one who posts as much as yourself would not seize the opportunity to show the viewers your depth
> 
> Phancy filosophy ? No. not at all . as you can now see by Julie's link , Classical and Operant Conditioning are a part of the foundation that dog training is built on built on .
> 
> ...


I'm just a simple dog trainer John. I have no desire to be a long dead philosopher extolling theories on behavor as noted in my private lab of mongolian fruit bats.....

/Paul


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Petra said:


> I think the kind of trials are the main difference between Retrieverwork in the USA and Europe.
> 
> Our F.T. is performed during a real hunting-day. On a day like this up to 200 to 400 birds might get shot. Also hares, rabbits and other animals....
> The dogs are worked after each shooting period which might take up to 40 min. None of the handlers knows in advance which dog has to retrieve which bird...
> ...




Petra, Thank you for your post. 

I must say though it's just another classic example of the misconceptions and myths about American retrievers and training collars. Your views are very prevalent with people who have no experience with them or have only seen [or theorized about] dogs trained poorly with them to the point where your post is almost a cliche.

You're very right about one thing, a good retriever should be trainable without a collar. The best retrievers can be trained both with and without one. 

I'm constantly amazed at the mystery that still surrounds them. I'm sure the most common misconception is that trainers routinely give their dogs shocks equal to a livestock fence or home outlet. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written on the Internet about how they are used and function. I've written quite a few myself. They seem to fall on deaf ears.

Good luck with your dogs.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Ah Alec,

But it's the eyes that need to pick up on the written words about the collar. Not the ears...   

Just trained my first ever e-collar dog tonight before dark. Man I really like him. I am so confident that if I'd have known what I know today, and trained my past non-collar dogs the way I'm training now, I'd have more confident, happier, better performing dogs.

I'm still a "never say never" type. But as of this moment, I have a hard time seeing myself training a retriever without a collar in the future. Nonetheless, I've certainly learned some things along this latest few chapters of my journey, that would transition over nicely to non-collar training in the future.

Chris


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Chris, I can't believe you have fallen into the ecollar no ecollar chasm that has developed on this thread. Why is it so hard to see that Alec was simply approaching the FF in a different manner? I believe he had a very important and useful thought to add. FF does not have to be a chamber of horrors, and can be done carefully and logically. It has absolutely nothing to do with the use or non use of e collars. Back up and read again, this is a great thread if you read the original intent.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

2tall said:


> Chris, I can't believe you have fallen into the ecollar no ecollar chasm that has developed on this thread. Why is it so hard to see that Alec was simply approaching the FF in a different manner? I believe he had a very important and useful thought to add. FF does not have to be a chamber of horrors, and can be done carefully and logically. It has absolutely nothing to do with the use or non use of e collars. Back up and read again, this is a great thread if you read the original intent.


Hi Carol!

I have been watching this since the beginning. I don't believe I've fallen into a chasm at all. I was one of those who did not understand the collar and I avoided it for a couple decades of Amish retriever training. Ironically, I knew Alec back then in the late 80's when he was a new pro and I was just running my first HT's. We were in the same retriever club in VT back then.

I actually have spoken with Alec live on the phone over the past two years, more than once about this very topic. (How to approach FF) The pro I quoted a couple pages back, who mentioned the "panic response".... Alec!

I know personally, I cringe when I read a post here on RTF written by a new stranger, whose dog we've never seen, and the immediate response is "more pressure" by someone. Who knows? Maybe more pressure would work in that particular situation. Then again, it could be the absolute worst response too!

I'll steer this thread back towards the FF topic with my own spin! The term FF or Force Fetch has become cliche in my opinion. I'd like to think of it on a bit broader definition. Force Fetch or Force Breaking is really just a conditioned retrieve response. It is the act of conditioning the dog to pick up and deliver an object on command. 

I had the good fortune to spend a week in Northern Ireland last Spring competing in and judging some International Gundog competitions. I got to spend time training as well as downing a few Guinesses back at the hotel with trainers from all over Europe. We talked a lot about training methods and misconceptions. The Europeans still use a leash and a collar. The Europeans still use various forms of "pressure" to condition their dogs to various obedience commands. While there are retrievers who naturally pick up a dummy or bird and deliver to hand, most all need some form of conditioning to do it the way the trainer wants. Dropping at the water's edge to shake, bobbling and juggling while carrying, spitting at the handler's feet, all of these things can crop up with the EU retrievers as they are trained. Most all retriever trainers, whether they call it "conditioned retrieve" training or not, do some form of conditioning to get their dog to pickup, carry and deliver an object the way they want. 

Like Alec alluded to at the beginning of this thread, if a trainer uses the tug of a leash, the tap of a stick, or the pressing down by hand on a dog's hindquarters to teach a dog to sit, he's using pressure to condition that response. I think that it's a pretty universal dog training norm to teach "force sit" (made that term up myself for effect) by dog trainers around the globe. 

My point is that many folks who claim that they don't do FF, surely don't in their own minds. If they have a reliable dog on fetch/delivery, but they've not ear pinched or toe hitched in the conditioning process, then they're right! In their minds, that is. To my mind, if they've spent time correcting the dog with any number of means, cuffing under the chin for example to correct a drop or a poor hold, then they've certainly worked on a conditioned retrieve to get it the way the handler wants, rather than the natural way the dog wanted to do it.

More of us, all around the world, do "conditioned retrieve" training than we realize. 

Having just made the switch with this current two year old dog to using the e-collar, I now understand how so many folks want to connect the FF process with a collar program. For many US retriever trainers today, they are unable to disconnect FF from the collar, because to them that's all they know! It's all part of "the program". This is exactly why a discussion about FF easily gets mixed in with collar use. That then quickly spins into a discussion about someone who trains "Amish" and therefore has no need for FF.

I maintain that 

A) Most Amish trainers do some form of conditioned retrieve training (a FF variant) without realizing it, or without wanting to describe it as such. 

B) Alec is correct and great results can be achieved by a less "Hell week"-like FF program than many dogs likely go through.

C) FF does fit nicely into a "collar program" in line with that developed by Carr. 

Personally, I doubt I'll train without a collar in the future. But if I did, or had to, I'd still Force Break future retrievers in a humane, stepwise, logical fashion. 

It's Wednesday morning here in the Midwestern USA... Going to be a great day too!

Chris


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Thank you Chris for this amazing post!!!! It was very informative and true.

@ Alec I really have to apologize for rerailing your thread. I reread most of it from the beginning and somehow I have to agree with you that maybe I didn't really focus. 
From todays point of view it reads differently. I especially like post #23 by Chris and post # 25 by you.
By reading these posts I think you are not very far away from the European point of view. Maybe this whole controversy in this thread is really a big misunderstanding only because of using the term "Forrce". 
(By the way there is a Video on Youtube showing the process of Forcefetching and this video really shows a pretty much broken dog, maybe this video gives a whole wriong impression of this procedure) 

By the way, to better understand Petras article. She is a very well known person in the retriever circus in Europe. (With her first Golden she won about everything possible!!!) I highly admire her skills. So for me she is not some unknown person with a retriever.

And also I would like to mention that not us Europeans brought in the word e-collar into this thread.
I think it was CBKaiser in post # 28. By the way there she also pretty much agreed with Petra on the problem occurring when overdoing the Forcepart (Freezing, panicking) The same problems Alec and Chris mentioned before too.

But now I have a question. Do you ever work with distractions during the Force-fetch part???? 
For me this was essential to condition the fetch command. When my dog was holding I showed her things like sausages and I threw a bumper just did very interesting things. From todays point of view I know that she hardly ever drops anything in any situation. So this part was really sucessfuli. 

And by the way I did the conditioning of the retrieve in my laundry room, not on a table. 
There I put the bumper in her mouth and told her "fetch". In the beginning I supported her chin. As soon as she tried to spit it out I put it back with the "fetch" command. 
When she was holding it reliable I started with distractions. 
After this part was working I started to do heelwork while she was carrying the bumper. And finally I told her to pick it up from the ground. 
I know this is not as well organized as your programms.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Very cool Sissi! 

Like they say in the U.S., "It ain't Rocket Surgery"! (Or is that "brain science"?)

Please see your Private Message.

Chris


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I too am sorry if I derailed this thread.

However, the title was "Teaching" with "Pressure"

To me, that encompasses a lot more than FF. 

Chris is correct, difficult for me to disconnect FF from entire collar program. One step leads into the next.

I don't think we "proof" in the traditional way I have seen the obedience people do. No sausages. One of the great things about the basic/transition program, if you don't have it right, you will know this when you try to move on. So, if your dog isn't really FF properly, it will show up in pile work. Pile work not adequate, you will find out TT. TT sloppy, beginning blinds will show it. And so on.

Kind of a built in "proofing" system.

I think this thread was interesting, something besides political GDG 

Edit; Might also add, that maybe someone reading this will think a bit more the next time they run into a problem, and decide the automatic answer is turning up the heat.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

I'll post when I have more then 2 minutes to clarify a couple things and give props where due.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Thanks Chris for helping people understand a bit better....I speak better then I write [thankfully!] and no one owes me an apology, threads get derailed all the time. It's not a big deal.

Before some of my fellow trainers [both amateur and pro] start thinking I'm advocating "conditioning" a retriever to hold and fetch using less then appropriate levels of pressure mandatory to ensure "complete" FFing and turning fetch into fun fetch. I'm not.

The dogs I train end up collar fetch enforced just like yours.  What I found a number of years ago was an easier way for the dog to understand fetch pressure by beginning fetch with less then traditional levels of fetch pressure. The trouble spot was figuring out how to get the dummy into the dogs mouth when it wasn't being opened from pressure seeing as one had was pressing the ear and the other was holding the dummy. Once I worked that out, it was clear sailing.

Now a disclaimer:

I find a small percentage of dogs I train still will have a panic response despite the more gentle approach to FF....it's just their nature. Also, just like a traditional fetch pressure start, some dogs will make a tussle out of it, again, in spite of the easy start. Using the trainers traditional responsibility of getting the dog to understand that NOTHING stops the pressure *except* taking the object is still paramount......just adding pressure [the majority of the time] was never a great answer in many cases IMO.

Whatever the case with a troublesome individual dog, I still sleep better knowing I'm doing everything I can to help the dog understand the relationship between the pressure and the timing of hold/dropping or taking the object. I believe that starts with introducing fetch "pressure" at less then traditional doctrine levels that enables the dog to just that.

This post had been brought to you courtesy of an Oct. thunderstorm passing through.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I'm just a simple dog trainer John. I have no desire to be a long dead philosopher extolling theories on behavor as noted in my private lab of mongolian fruit bats.....
> 
> /Paul


but earlier typed: 




Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Well despite where he is from he did manage to influence the behavior of some very entertaining pigeons.....I wonder how many field trials he won? I don't see that he trained dogs at all.
> 
> Skinner says that there are 5 main obstacles in learning:
> People have a fear of failure
> ...


I started to read the thread and could not help getting excited (I know I need a life LOL), as thought it may go onto, factors which affect learning.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Aussie said:


> but earlier typed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just shared what Skinner wrote.

/Paul


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I just shared what Skinner wrote.
> 
> /Paul


Thanks I was hoping simply more would be added. Often thought about adding a thread, regarding factors that affect learning. 

I stubbornly feel the 4Q in dog training are so relevant, at the very least I can understand why my dogs do what they do, and any given time. 

Instead of somehow: English? Who needs that? I'm never going to England." -- Homer Simpson 

Alec, you also train pointers? I should expect you do not force them to go to such a standard as labradors for trialling/dog games especially in man made dog games, not UK style etc. At the very least, all that damm (retrieving) drills LOL. Stop go stop go stop go. Balance between control and drive. 

Madness, all for a ribbon.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

I train a lot of pointing dogs and love doing it. I rarely FF a pointing dog as I'm not a fan of forcing non-retrieving breeds. 90% of pointing dogs I train will retriever well enough nurturing their natural ability, some are downright retrieving fools. 

I have little personal interest in pointing dog games where delivery to hand is a "requirement [though I help any clients that does.]

Training pointers is where much of my developed 'caution with pressure' comes from. I learned my retriever FF/CC/etc. from a pro that lived with Rex C and trained with him from time to time for many years after. I learned Rec C doctrine by the book about 18 years ago.

IMO, you need more technical knowledge to fully train a retriever and a TON more finesse to train a pointing dog. While much retriever training doctrine falls under "one roof", pointing dog training is all over the board and much of it still in the stone age. An example would be many trainers use the collar as little more then a long range spanking tool. "Real" CCing is not widely used.

Retrievers in general are SO much more forgiving when it comes to less then perfect use of pressure. That's why I think so many trainers don't follow a very technical collar program, it's very easy to really screw them up.

Some trainers try to run their pointing dogs through very technical programs but from what I understand they have a pretty high washout rate. Others still rely on the toe of their boot for "training" and screw up a lot of dogs that of course they blame on the dog being "bad".

A large group still just cut em loose and hope mom and dad produced a decent pup.



On your factors that effect learning idea:

I feel one of the most important ones [if not the most important] is to have a "happy" and relaxed dog. Dogs [and people] just don't seem to learn as well when they're nervous or scared. I've aways been know to train my dogs on a pretty loose leash and have very "up" dogs...even the low desire or sensitive ones. My shooting dog washout rate in 17 years is almost zero.

Although scoffed at in a topic I ran across last year, the trainers mental state affects the dogs attitude when training FAR more then people generally think. Tense/rushed or pissed off....your dog picks up on that and it influences their learning, either on a daily basis or overall if certain human emotions rule training. Relaxed [but FOCUSED] trainers and dogs are usually more "successful" then not, focused being a vital factor. 

Ego [and testosterone] gets in the way of a lot of people that could be more successful with their dogs and I think most anyone can learn how to balance their training approach IF they are willing to take a critical look at themselves and their dogs/program.

I think a lot of people struggle with training because they are only comfortable using one side of their brain or the other.

The left gets you understanding the mechanical steps and training flow and the right help with your training intuition/feel. I find a lot of guys have a hard time with the "feel' end of things and think by following the steps....just like the manual said to...the dog will come out perfect. Unfortunately, it's a dog not a motor.

The right side only types have the feel down but can have a hard time following a structured program and not letting emotion cloud training decisions.

The best trainers I know seem to have a great balance when it come to structure and feel in their program. [Of course some dog do well on structure only and others are successful with feel.]


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> I train a lot of pointing dogs and love doing it. I rarely FF a pointing dog as I'm not a fan of forcing non-retrieving breeds. 90% of pointing dogs I train will retriever well enough nurturing their natural ability, some are downright retrieving fools.





Alec Sparks said:


> I have little personal interest in pointing dog games where delivery to hand is a "requirement [though I help any clients that does.]
> 
> Training pointers is where much of my developed 'caution with pressure' comes from. I learned my retriever FF/CC/etc. from a pro that lived with Rex C and trained with him from time to time for many years after. I learned Rec C doctrine by the book about 18 years ago.
> 
> ...





Alec I train pointers as well, belong to a NSTRA club here for over 10 years. I do FF my pointers but completely agree about the training aspect of the different breeds. Upland pointing dog work is extremely different than retriever work. I agree completely with your assessment of training the two styles…

/Paul


----------

