# Amish Training?



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

What is Amish training. I know some Amish people but none are dog trainers. Somebody please explain.

mrgd


----------



## Gruntinbuck (Feb 25, 2006)

How I understand it the Amish use alot of vocal persuasion in their training methods combined with a heeling stick. They don't use collars, the vocal/physical aspect are used to somewhat intimidate the response that they want. Kinda like when your father chased you around as a kid w/ his belt. Chris


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Gruntinbuck said:


> How I understand it the Amish use alot of vocal persuasion in their training methods combined with a heeling stick. They don't use collars, the vocal/physical aspect *are used to somewhat intimidate the response that they want. * Kinda like when your father chased you around as a kid w/ his belt. Chris


 :shock: :shock: :shock: 

Chris A. & Paul Young need to post up quick!! I'm still "technically" Amish. I trained my first dog w/out a collar or ff (I think most Amish do ff though) & I think you can get to upper level HTs without a collar or force. I put lower level titles on my new dog w/out collar or force & then sent him to a pro to ff & cc because I just don't understand either. I've only held a transmitter once & that was at a training day 3 weeks ago w/ someone elses dog.
As for the "intimidate the response" being a description of Amish training-that's a wee bit off base. You teach first the same you do w/out a collar, but your corrections are either verbal or physical & not meant to be any more "intimidating" than a collar correction.

Bottom line-timing is timing & if you can get the correction in at a point that benefits the dog-the end result is the same.

M


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris A., but it's simply training w/o electricity.... as simple as that.

You still Amish Chris??? Sent you a PM on Deuce's first test...

Mike


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

MRGD said:


> What is Amish training. I know some Amish people but none are dog trainers. Somebody please explain.
> 
> mrgd


MRGD


I am largely to blame for this. No I am completely to blame!



Back in 1998, RTF was a little tiny group of dog folks and we were not as "PC" as we sometimes try to be today.

I wanted a term to describe training without electricity and "Amish" fit at the time.

I figure that as long as mainstream pros can talk about "Chinese drills", the amish reference may be semi-ok to use among üs retrieverites!  

Anyhow, that's all the term was intended to imply: "without electricity"

Chris- who lost his "Amish Trainers Association card" with this new 9 month. Old BLM and thus far has no regrets!

Back-nick-back


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Mike Tome said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris A., but it's simply training w/o electricity.... as simple as that.
> 
> You still Amish Chris??? Sent you a PM on Deuce's first test...
> 
> Mike


Yes, Amish is just training without the ecollar. Sometimes it is confused & considered training without force. It is not that.....just think of it as the including most training methods/styles that don't use the modern ecollar but can include FF & use of other force methods.


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Well, that's just hilarious. It makes complete sense and that is kind of what I figured. Thankfully, it is a victimless PC violation since I don't know any Amish internet users! :wink: 

mrgd


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Mike,


I got your note. Thanks!


Bus is on day 3 of double T and is doing fine. I really like him! 


I am not the least bit surprised that folks are complimenting deuce's looks! Sounds like you got to say the old "gosh he's never done that before" line that unca Jerry is so fond of!

I showed my family a photo of paul sletton next to joe. They all asked who that guy is next to bus in the picture.

I never met joe black but I like joe black. One day I hope to (FC) meet joe black!

Chris who suspects his amish days are over for ever!


----------



## Gruntinbuck (Feb 25, 2006)

Miriam Wade said:


> Gruntinbuck said:
> 
> 
> > How I understand it the Amish use alot of vocal persuasion in their training methods combined with a heeling stick. They don't use collars, the vocal/physical aspect *are used to somewhat intimidate the response that they want. * Kinda like when your father chased you around as a kid w/ his belt. Chris
> ...



Your absolutely correct!!! You pretty much explained what I was trying to say. But their is still intimidation used. Chris


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

*Amish steadying????*

At a training group this AM I noted that a fellow stood on his dogs tail :shock: I asked him what he was doing and he said the dog wasnt steady yet,so he's still standing on the dog's tail :shock: Is that a amish thing ? Never seen that in my life.Seems to me that it would promote creeping when he finally quits doing it.....but I guess I would wrather teach the dog to sit.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I don't know about standing on tail. But I agreee with Gruntinbuck as to what Amish is. Miriam you started an older dog in the hunt game which makes a difference in your opproach. Obviously your opproach didn't work on your young dog who has all this drive. To get to the upper levels FF is a necessary tool. Without it you have a gap in your training. I train amish and intimadation is necessary. Right in their face. Yes this is just my opinion. 

But amish is not asking the dog to perform it is telling him to perform.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Our own Franco/Booty, does not train Amish but does advocate standing on their tail for steadying a young dog.
I have tried it and it_ Does _work.

john


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

For those of us from the real ooooold school prior to the E-collar era, it was as Chris stated. His name was superior to what we used...tennis shoe trainers. Being Amish was the same, only more lyrical. 

Plus it conjures up so many beautiful and descriptive illustrations. Certainly Hutterite, while similar in genre, is more present day than the practices of the Amish, and just wouldn't be a suitable moniker for what we envision when the word Amish is used.

Alas, their numbers are dwindling, despite their past accomplishments. They have moved into the fast lane, and have discarded the well worn horse and buggy. Saddly, many of us converts probably placed too much pressure on those that have abandoned their roots. Dave and Paul and Frank may be the last hold outs. May they forever make it work.

UB


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

There is/was nothing polite or affectionate about "amish training". Before 
e-collars it was bogey-men with switches, various projectiles from a variety of sources and alot of sweat.
Can it still work? For some games, yes but there are easier and better means to the end.

Tim


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

since my name got tossed in here, i have to comment.....

i sure hope nobody thinks i have people hiding in the weeds scaring hell out of my dog. :shock: likewise, i dont use whips or bats or slingshots or rat shot. 

i don't even do a force fetch regimen. i guess you'd call it "force hold".

teach first and you don't need intimidation. they just need to know it's THEIR WORK, and that YOU'RE THE BOSS. 

i will be discounted as a serious trainer by people whose only measure of success is all-age points. that's ok with me. the 3 dogs i have trained have filled the bill for me.

Chris, i'm glad you're finding the transition a good one and that you're enjoying Bus. from what you've told me, he's a quick study! :wink: -paul


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

I for one am glad such a colorful term was thought up by it's originator (OK maybe it's basic plain black only! ) conventional and tennis shoe trainer always carried such a heavy handed ring to it. FWIW I really dislike when people on the various boards connect hard and fast rules to Amish trainers and assume we all use treats and/or use British methods (and hey some do with satisfying results). So thanks Chris for the light hearted term and good luck with the new pup and modern e-tool used to get him over that proverbial mountain towards being a finished retriever. :wink: 
Peake - Who always wishes he could have trained with legends like Cotton and Charlie Morgan etc
________
Ford Galaxie History


----------



## TimMTP (Mar 27, 2007)

Count me in on the Amish side of things. But then again, I train those "_gasp_" British dogs...


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> I don't know about standing on tail. But I agreee with Gruntinbuck as to what Amish is. Miriam you started an older dog in the hunt game which makes a difference in your opproach. Obviously your opproach didn't work on your young dog who has all this drive. To get to the upper levels FF is a necessary tool. Without it you have a gap in your training. I train amish and intimadation is necessary. Right in their face. Yes this is just my opinion.
> 
> But amish is not asking the dog to perform it is telling him to perform.


Mike-

I really wasn't making a concious decision to abandon Amish & I'm still a bit torn. Finn now has a foundation that Kate didn't have-although she exceeded all expectations I had for her. I wouldn't have trained her any other way but Amish-I would have just been a little better at it! :wink: 

My goal for Finn is to be as "collar light" as possible. 

M


----------



## Candy&amp;Chilli (May 18, 2006)

Interesting discussion

I am just wondering how you guys would call my way of training. Over here nearly everyone is not training with any ecollar, plus 90% have never heard of FF before (I have and also have seen it when visiting the breeder of my first american golden)

I am wondering for a long time, why doing this FF??? All of my dogs LOVE to retrieve, of course they where bred to retrieve. From day one, they retrieve everything I throw for them.... no matter if its my car keys, their food bowls, bumbers, or any type of game (ducks, pheasants, hair, pigeons, ......)

I of course also have a command for picking up stuff, but my dogs are doing it without force, but because they like to work for me.... 

would be interesting what you guys think. Because I cant think of any situation where I would have needed FF on my dogs....

best regards from overseas

Alessa


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Candy&Chilli said:


> Interesting discussion
> 
> I am just wondering how you guys would call my way of training. Over here nearly everyone is not training with any ecollar, plus 90% have never heard of FF before (I have and also have seen it when visiting the breeder of my first american golden)
> 
> ...


FF has little to do with the actual retrieve. This is one of the big misconceptions that many folks that don't use FF believe.


----------



## Candy&amp;Chilli (May 18, 2006)

ok, then why using it ??? :? 
would be great if you could explain? 

thanks 
Alessa


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

*Amish*

I am hoping to do an article on Amish training methods and have gotten feedback from Frank, Paul and Chris. Would appreciate hearing pm from those of you who do strict Amish.

I use a collar on my dogs, but did put a couple of dogs through MH level without the use of a collar. Those that know me refer to me as the "cookie trainer"---ie., not that I actually use cookies (well, sometimes) but I do a tremendous amount of teaching, showing, etc., train in public a large % of the time so am very pc and pr.

The reason for this article, which is for a Golden magazine, is to try and show various training methods to Golden owners in an effort to encourage them to get their feet wet with field work. Many are definitely against a collar and many do not want to force fetch (I think "force" is a misnomer in many cases). By demonstrating other methods which have been successful, I hope they will find it enticing enough to remember the word "Retriever" is part of the name for a reason.

Frank has been very generous in supplying me with a couple of drills he uses which I will send in to the magazine.

Glenda


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

It is an introduction of pressure and how to get out of pressure. It is also another tool that the dog has learned in those moments where they drop the bird or won't pick something up.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Candy&Chilli said:


> ok, then why using it ??? :?
> would be great if you could explain?
> 
> thanks
> Alessa


It is part of a progression of training. FF is a foundation that eventually leads to pressure training(collar).


----------



## Candy&amp;Chilli (May 18, 2006)

well, my dogs never ever have dropped a bird or wounded game. my dogs even pick up crying struggling wounded rabbits, which are the hardest part for every dog..... :wink: 

my dogs also learn the "hold" command. also with kind of force, putting a bumper in their mouth making them hold, by praising them and holding my hands under their mouth. ´When they drop, we redo it, but without any pain. Thats the difference. dealing with pressure is ok for me,.... using pain seems not necessary to me.....

using a collar is ok to me, although i dont use it. its mostly fair to the dog and you are not teaching with it, but training with it what i have seen mostly when i was in the us.

but FF is different in my eyes, but maybe you have more arguments for using it?? 

Thanks for your answers to my questions.....

stupid europeans talking about american training methods    
Alessa


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Force fetch is used widely in field and obedience training to varying degrees. It is not something that you would intuitively think is something to do with a dog that likes to retrieve. It has been used by trainers here long before anyone dreamed up the e collar.

Most who have never done it say their dogs don't need it. Most who have done say they will use it will all their future dogs. And, there are always some who do/say the opposite.

Tom


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Tim Carrion said:


> there are easier and better means to the end.


That's not necessarily true. It depends who's holding the transmitter. You can screw a dog up in a hurry and start going backwards real fast using a collar...just do a search on 'no-go's' 'popping' etc (add just about any other problem) and see how many are related to too much pressure, incorrect timing or other screw ups in the FF/collar regiment.



Tim Carrion said:


> Before e-collars it was bogey-men with switches, various projectiles


And that depends on what program you're using and what your ultimate goals are. Plenty can be accomplish, as Miriam and Paul have pointed out, using thorough obedience and methodical training as the backbone of a program.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Candy&Chilli said:


> but FF is different in my eyes, but maybe you have more arguments for using it??


As has been stated, it's part of a program that builds upon itself and teaches the dog to turn pressure off. It's the foundation of much training that takes place later.

Here's one article, I'm sure other have more, and better, references from Graham, Lardy, Dahl, Lamb, etc, that explain it more thoroughly.

Click here for article

Even the FF process has a foundation and builds upon itself, giving the trainer the ability to step backwards and train the dog on the previous step more thoroughly if necesszary before moving forward to the next step. The process, as I understand it, for I haven't done it myself, continues with the collar and training steps, teaching the dog to turn pressure off and each step building upon the previous.


----------



## lab&amp;springerguy (Jul 21, 2006)

I have never understood FF either, I always thought it was something that trainers used on pointers that otherwise would not retrieve. I could understand if you where dealing with a dog with a hard mouth or some other issue. I myself taught the "hold" command but I am by no means a pro.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

*FF*

Alessa,

FF is not to get a dog to retrieve. My understanding of FF is that it gives you more control of the retrieving process and it conditions the dog to accept and work through pressure. My impression is that US and European retrievers are used differently and the competitive US dogs games are mostly won or lost on the water work. My conception of european dog work involves much less technical water work or multiple marks and mostly land retrieves.

The US dog work at upper levels can be very difficult and unnatural for the dog. The training for this type of work can be very repetitive and can quickly wear down a dog mentally without the FF foundation. The gradual process of FF progressing to FTP, T,TT and swimby condition the dog to understand and work through the mental pressure of difficult water work. Its hard to explain, and may seem harsh but done correctly it seems to me to be overall to create a less stressful situation for the dog when he's required to do the difficult work of a competitive retriever.

This process often seems to europeans to be illogical and not consistent with learning theory. I have trained both ways and to me it seems much easier on the dog to train for advanced water work using a FF based program and the e-collar. 

Just my opinion,

Bill


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

achiro said:


> FF has little to do with the actual retrieve. This is one of the big misconceptions that many folks that don't use FF believe.


Achiro,
Being about "the actual retrieve" obviously was a misconception that many of the old school training greats held. But then their flow charts weren't nearly as long or the science of pressure not as clearly defined?
Peake - Who would definately enjoy reading Glendas article! :wink:
________
Lincoln K-Series Specifications


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Peake said:


> achiro said:
> 
> 
> > FF has little to do with the actual retrieve. This is one of the big misconceptions that many folks that don't use FF believe.
> ...


I'm not sure what you are talking about here with the "old school" comments but lets clear the air a bit. Maybe you missed my next post:
"It is part of a progression of training. FF is a foundation that eventually leads to pressure training(collar)." 
Notice I said "pressure training"... that would include a collar based program but isn't soley based on the use of a collar.

If it was just to get a dog to retrieve, most well bred retrievers wouldn't require it at all. Someone here has already mentioned bird dogs and I agree, with a pointing breed in most cases it is used for a dog that just won't do it. I have yet to have a puppy(retriever) that wouldn't run after something, pick it up and at least run around with it if they didn't want to come straight back...even the 6 week old kind. 

As far as the "old school" stuff and lack of charts etc., you may have answered your own question without knowing it. Sure they may have thought "back in the day" that FF was only about a reliable delivery to hand, but I bet ya that many of them wouldn't have been able to really describe indirect pressure when they sure as heck would have used it when they whistle stopped a dog and ran out and corrected them. 
:wink:


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

No question at all Achiro in fact the last few sentences of your post are no doubt 100% true. Even if they weren't aware of it they benefited from FF in other ways (beyond just a reliable retrieve) they may not have known.
Peake
________
Honda cb900c specifications


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

*Re: Amish*



Glenda Brown said:


> I am hoping to do an article on Amish training methods and have gotten feedback from Frank, Paul and Chris. Would appreciate hearing pm from those of you who do strict Amish.....
> 
> Glenda


If you want to consult the "Amish" experts, I'd start with a look at the great trainers of the pre-ecollar era. As someone has mentioned, I'd start by looking at Charles Morgan on Retrievers & any information you can find on Cotton Pershall's methods. Others to look at are Tom Quinn's The Working Retrievers & D.L Walter's Training Retrievers to Handle. The methods of these trainers are foundational to the most effective methods used to today - Lardy, Graham & others have all been influenced by this group.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

*Amish*

Thanks for reminding me re the books. I have them all in my Library.

When I started field training, I looked at Lamb's, but then went to Tom Quinn's book. There were no DVD's or many good books out there on the subject. I had Tom's book in one hand, and Luke sitting by the other.

A few years later (maybe 5 or 6), I was running Luke in an Open with Tom judging and a pup of his in the Derby, again with Tom judging. Luke took 4th (if I remember) and I know Trieve got a placement, just can't remember what. After the trial was over, I took my book which I had brought with me up to Tom and asked for his autograph. He signed it, drew a duck and wrote some comments. He had been wonderful as a judge as you felt he really cared and was interested in the dogs. Last series of the Open was a quad with a flowerpot---my dog had never seen a quad nor a flowerpot, and Tom cheered him on the whole time he was working it out. He got a big kick out of how Luke would come back in, look here, and say "no, been there", then look there and say the same thing, then decide where he would go next.

Also taught handling re Walters. Although I was Amish at that time, I didn't use a shotgun, slingshot, etc. I had had a thorough background in obedience training before field work, and I tended to fall back on that a lot. Attrition, shake of a scruff, a growl or "no, no". I did get tired of swimming out at times, and once I saw that a collar, properly taught and used was an excellent alternative, I went to that. I had seen it badly abused when I first started and was afraid to use it. I did have a background in training and competing with horses, and I think that was a big advantage.

Glenda


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

I would like a copy of that article also.

I am glad to see all of the discussion my little question has drummed up. 

I have understand the concept of teaching FF as a foundation to pressure turn off training. As I said before, I have FF'd dogs, but most dogs I have trained have not been FF'd. I also use ecollar on some of my dogs, but almost always as an integrated way to enforce and remind of commands already taught. I think that FF and ecollar are great tools and have been proven over and over, but they are not the only road to the dance. I just heard a guy at a hunt test say in reference to a dog dropping a bird, "See, that's why FF is a must now, these people that don't FF blah blah blah....." He went on to say how stupid it was to not FF. I had one of my dogs actually go to the center of my living room and pick up a business card I had dropped. I directed her to it and told her to lay down by it and then told her to fetch. She will hold all day as will all of my dogs. I wish everyone understood that it is a part of a system that is not the only system. Thank you all for your comments, keep 'em comin'.

mrgd


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

MRGD said:


> but they are not the only road to the dance.
> mrgd


That depends on the dance you are going to.

Parlor tricks are one thing, an "average" field trial set up is another.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

MRGD said:


> I would like a copy of that article also.
> 
> I am glad to see all of the discussion my little question has drummed up.
> 
> ...


I just had 2 people at my house Saturday for training with the same exact story. The other lines that goes along with the "I don't need to FF my dog story" is.



> 1. Huh he never does this at home....


This is usually preceded by the dog not actually picking the bird up but running to it and either standing over it, rolling on it, or leaving it. The next command becomes critical to the success of the mark....



> 2. Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,


Once this series of commands is accomplished we then enter the next stage of the mark, the following command is used...



> 3. Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog, Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog, Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog, Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog, Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog, Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog, Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog, Here, come, here ago, over here, come, atta baby, good dog


This usually leads to the dog being somewhere in the 10 foot circle close to the starting point of the mark where the next series of commands is issues.....



> 4. Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,Get it, pick it up, find it, fetch, get it, find,


which leads to....



> 5. Well, we'll keep working on that at home....


The whole process doesn't take more than 10 or 15 minutes and your then ready for the next, longer more difficult mark in short grass of 45 yards. I can see why people wouldn't want to take 15 minutes a day for 4-6 weeks and FF their dog. Its just not worth it with these other successful methods...

/Paul


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

C'mon Paul, that's a gross exagerration. Does it happen? Sure. Do all non-force-fetched dogs act in that manner? No. My dog isn't forced and has never refused to pick something up and return with it. He has a strong base of 'hold' (including 'hold' with recall, at heel and to delivery to hand) but no force fetch.

Meanwhile, I have seen plenty of dogs that have been force fetched drop birds and refuse to pick them up and/or return. What's the owners answer? "Guess we need to revisit force fetch/the table!" ...as if they're tightening their belt and will get to the "bottom of the problem and show that SOB what they're supposed to do" type of behavior.

I understand force fetch as the foundation of a program and it makes sense; but as a be-all, end-all cure to bad mouth behavior or obedience-related issues, I don't buy it what you're selling.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

/Paul,

how was their obedience training?

i'm willing to bet that delivery to hand wasn't the only hole in their dog's training.

i have seen plenty of mouth problems among force fetch trained dogs. i'm sure you have, too.

there's lot's of ways to get the job done....or not. :wink: -paul


----------



## Candy&amp;Chilli (May 18, 2006)

Thanks for all your decriptions...

you are right, we in Europe have different tests, and different dogs and a different training program. 
But your american goldens are very successfull over here, although they are trained of course with our methods.  

I can only say again, my dogs have never ever dropped a bird or rabbit. I really cant imagine to do that on my dogs. But i kind of understand your way of thinking, although I believe that when the dog has been taught properly what you want him to do, you can get the same respond at the Fetch command without using pain. :wink: 

Thanks again for your ideas... really interesting, and maybe Glenda you could also send me a copy via email from your articel.... I am very interested in that.....

Thanks Alessa


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Paul/,

You sure wasted a lot of time for a ridiculous post. We all can pick dogs from both schools of thought, and any in between, that are idiots or have idiots for trainers. Your example and further rantings are surely indicative of the many HRCH's and MH's that have gotten there without FF. Again, I am not anti FF, I just don't think its the only way. I have and will continue to FF certain dogs, but not all of them. 

By the way, I had my dog fetch a dummie cold from across the room and he has been sitting here holding it while I have typed this post with out any command other than fetch. He wasn't FF'd. I guess I must have not done it the same way as your friend.

mrgd


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Meanwhile, I have seen plenty of dogs that have been force fetched drop birds and refuse to pick them up and/or return. What's the owners answer? "Guess we need to revisit force fetch/the table!" ...as if they're tightening their belt and will get to the "bottom of the problem and show that SOB what they're supposed to do" type of behavior.


If this is you idea of a good FF program, then you sadly mistaken and I’m not surprised you wouldn’t FF a dog.



> I understand force fetch as the foundation of a program


Apparently not.

/Paul


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> SloppyMouth said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, I have seen plenty of dogs that have been force fetched drop birds and refuse to pick them up and/or return. What's the owners answer? "Guess we need to revisit force fetch/the table!" ...as if they're tightening their belt and will get to the "bottom of the problem and show that SOB what they're supposed to do" type of behavior.
> ...



LOL...if all you can do is try to insult me then you really don't have a leg to stand on. 

I do understand FF as the foundation of a program. I never said that I thought a dog that was FF and behaved in that manner was a well-force-fetched dog and that the trainer knew what they were doing (although I have heard the "return to the table for a refresher course in FF" from more than one person who was an HRC judge).

It was paralleling your point that non-FF dogs behave in the manner you described. As Paul Young and MRGD pointed out, there are wide variances in the thoroughness of the training, the obedience, other existing holes, etc.

Paul said it perfect: "there's lots of ways to get the job done...or not." 

A well FF dog won't act the way I described any more than a well-trained non-FF dog will behave the manner that you described.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

paul young said:


> /Paul,
> 
> how was their obedience training?
> 
> ...


I don't disagree that FF dogs can have mouth problems, but FF is part of an overall training program. I've trained dogs that had good OB but still wouldn't fetch on command, hold the bird, or understand stick and/or ecollar pressure. A good training program teaches the dog these things and only uses enough pressure to enforce the required behavior. 

/Paul


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I've trained dogs that had good OB but still wouldn't fetch on command, hold the bird, or understand stick and/or ecollar pressure.


To the stick/ecollar pressure: wouldn't that be a matter of fitting the dog to the program or vice versa?

For your program it's necessary for the dog to understand those. But there's more than one program where those things aren't used. 

As to the fetch on command and hold: Two (at minimum) separate training issues that can be addressed without force.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> LOL...if all you can do is try to insult me then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> I do understand FF as the foundation of a program. I never said that I thought a dog that was FF and behaved in that manner was a well-force-fetched dog and that the trainer knew what they were doing (although I have heard the "return to the table for a refresher course in FF" from more than one person who was an HRC judge).
> 
> ...


No insult intended, but your comments tend to show a lack of understanding of a training program including a FF program and reflect the often stereotypical thinking that FF is a draconian method involving harsh force via electricity. To quote Don Remien, “force if applied correctly is more mental than physical.” You comment on the thoroughness of the training program are comical to me because a balanced training program does include corrections of some form for direct disobedience. Are you really telling me that your obedience program does not include “any form” of correction?

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > I've trained dogs that had good OB but still wouldn't fetch on command, hold the bird, or understand stick and/or ecollar pressure.
> ...


I'll ask you the same question. Does your training program provide "any form" of correction for direct disobedience?

/paul


----------



## lab&amp;springerguy (Jul 21, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> SloppyMouth said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, I have seen plenty of dogs that have been force fetched drop birds and refuse to pick them up and/or return. What's the owners answer? "Guess we need to revisit force fetch/the table!" ...as if they're tightening their belt and will get to the "bottom of the problem and show that SOB what they're supposed to do" type of behavior.
> ...


Ok bear with me hear,I sort of understand what you are saying about the overall program of learning how to turn off pressure. But don't we do that with all commands like sit, here, ect. So my qustion is if you buy a good retriever out solid parents why on gods green earth would you have to froce it to retreive. I have taught "hold" I guess sort of a half-ass FF, but I have yet to have an issue. 

Sorry for my ignorance but I just don't get it, and how long has FF been used by trainers, has it been around for a long time or is something that got more popular in the last decade or so.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

The dog experiences more pressure than just the pressure we apply through training. Force fetch gives us a training tool to teach the dog the appropriate response to pressure. Force fetch allows the trainer to apply a controlled amount of pressure in a controlled training situation. Once the dog has been taught and developed an appropriate, controlled response you can transfer this to the field and other training situations.

Tom


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> No insult intended, but your comments tend to show a lack of understanding of a training program including a FF program


I think you mean: "show a lack of understanding of [my or 'the popular'] training program" ... for there are many "programs" that can be used (ask our visitors from across the pond...).



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> and reflect the often stereotypical thinking that FF is a draconian method involving harsh force via electricity.


So, if you're not insulting me by saying that I wouldn't (couldn't) FF a dog and that I don't understand the use of FF as a foundation of a program, you're assuming that I am incapable of reading, listening, discussing, learning it first hand and understanding it all?

If my comments show a lack of understanding of a force-based program, what do your comments show of understanding a non-force program?

Don't lump me into the "cookie" or the "European" method-only crowd. Personally, I believe there are any number of ways of reaching the end result and I thoroughly enjoy learning about them all and identifying parallels between them. And, the fact is, you can produce a damn good dog without FF or the collar or bogey-man in the bushes or a shotgun. Can you be successful in US FT? Probably not. But to say a dog without FF as a foundation is somehow a retarded dog or will be at some point and lacks the ability to pick up a bird and deliver it to hand every time is ridiculous and closed-minded. 



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You comment on the thoroughness of the training program are comical to me because a balanced training program does include corrections of some form for direct disobedience. Are you really telling me that your obedience program does not include “any form” of correction?
> 
> /Paul


Please show me where I said that a correction for disobedience is unacceptable. Of course there are corrections. A program, be it force based or non force, has to be thorough. And a thorough non-force based program is no more likely to produce the retarded dog in your example than a thorough force-based program.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

lab&springerguy said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > SloppyMouth said:
> ...


The problem with trying to answer a question like yours is that there just isn't enough time in my day to go through it all. You have to have an understanding of the step by step training process, ie. FF, CC, FTP, STP, CTP, TT, SB, etc, etc(in no particular order). You have to understand what the end goal is, what I mean is you really have to have an understand the complexities required of an all age dog in a typical field trial. It's just so complex, there is no quick and easy answer without understanding these and many other issues.

A personal example. I have a pretty nice young chessie female. She is retrieving consistantly, returning with the bumper, enthusiastic, stylish, not mouthing the bumper, and you can tell really enjoys what she is doing. We will be starting FF very soon, and it sure as heck isn't to get her to pick stuff up.


----------



## lab&amp;springerguy (Jul 21, 2006)

twall said:


> The dog experiences more pressure than just the pressure we apply through training. Force fetch gives us a training tool to teach the dog the appropriate response to pressure. Force fetch allows the trainer to apply a controlled amount of pressure in a controlled training situation. Once the dog has been taught and developed an appropriate, controlled response you can transfer this to the field and other training situations.
> 
> Tom


ok, getting a little clearer.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > No insult intended, but your comments tend to show a lack of understanding of a training program including a FF program
> ...


You continue to state that you can successfully train a dog with "NO" force. Do you at any point in your training program *make *the dog do what you want it to do? If so, then you are forcing the dog to do something against its will and you are forcing the dog into your will. If you in any way correct the dog then you are certainly using a force training program. 

/Paul


----------



## lab&amp;springerguy (Jul 21, 2006)

achiro said:


> lab&springerguy said:
> 
> 
> > Gun_Dog2002 said:
> ...


I guess I forget the Field trail factor and what is expected of a dog competing in one. I am slowly understanding this.


----------



## Lorne MacDonald (Apr 15, 2004)

There is some 'force' in almost any training program , that includes corrections as SM has indicated.

That does not mean that *Force fetch* is part of those programs. 

This gets rehashed so many times .....

Problem I have is that many people seem to assume that if you do not include FF in your program you can not/will not have a well trained dog and that EVERYONE that does not utilize a program that uses FF is ill informed /stupid/etc., etc. What a crock


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lorne MacDonald said:


> There is some 'force' in almost any training program , that includes corrections as SM has indicated.
> 
> That does not mean that *Force fetch* is part of those programs.
> 
> ...


The biggest problem is that most people only see FF as a 4-6 week process, when in actually it is a lifelong training process. And to say you never "force" a dog in whatever training program you use is frankly absurd. This minute you put a collar and leash on a dog, you are using force. 

If we want to define FF as only the process of putting something in a dogs mouth and pinching an ear when they drop it, followed by pinching thier ear until they pick it up and hold, then I contend that even the "non-FF" people are doing something to get that object in the dogs mouth and keep it there. Whatever they are doing to accomplish that is "force" in that they are putting their will on the dog. 



/Paul


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You continue to state that you can successfully train a dog with "NO" force.


Please show me where I've said this. I said force fetch or force-based (read: force-fetched based) program.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to state that you can successfully train a dog with "NO" force.
> ...


So you do force fetch a dog? You just use a different pressure vector?

/Paul


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> So you do force fetch a dog? You just use a different pressure vector?
> 
> /Paul


No, my dog is not force fetched. What I did was the same as what Paul Young has stated. Thorough hold conditioning, as I stated earlier, with hold from the table to the ground with one object, at heel, recall, delivery, etc. Repeat the process with varied objects.

Is there pressure? You bet. Has the dog been officially and thoroughly force fetched? Nope (unless that's your definition of FF...). Nor do I follow a force-fetched-based program (e.g., FF, CC, FTP, swim-by, decheat, etc, etc, etc...).

And he's never behaved in the manner you attributed to non-force-fetched dogs. As I'm sure hundreds and thousands of other dogs that haven't been force fetched behave as well (e.g., from European FT dogs to "meat" dogs all across the country since the use of dogs as retrievers, etc).


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

For fun, try using our fully functional and from the ground-up rebuilt Search feature. (Thanks Creativeanswer.com and Steve Dannaway!)

Search the RTF forum, and search it by "ascending" date. You will go back to 2003 and see thread after thread about FF and the can of worms this discussion repeatedly brings up.

A big part of the disconnect here is: We have different end-needs for our retrievers. That's a good thing. It is not a one-size-fits all.

We have different definitions. Our terminology and what exactly we mean by a retriever jargon term, will vary from person-to-person and from "program to program".

/paul, I never realized it before but you are echoing my buddy Robert Milner here! What's the connection between /paul and RM? Well, I think we all can agree that Robert Milner touches on some generalizations and truths regarding different breedings and methods...but then he takes them to such extremes that they are no longer credible to the majority of the retriever community.

I see the point of everyone in this conversation... (well, maybe not Fallon, is he in this yet? :wink: )

When /Paul says that the moment you put a collar and lead on a dog you are using "force"...man, that is dead-on! This brings about the big gray area of what defines "FF". I maintain that there are many variations on how to Force Break or condition a dog to pick up, carry and deliver an object. 

For those of us who "don't FF" and "don't need it"... How many of us had dogs that naturally, consistenty carried a shot-up nasty bird out of the water, up onto land, did not drop the bird or shake off, and delivered it into our outstretched mitts? My hunch is that this would represent less than 5% of all gundogs and their trainers. My point is this: We virtually ALL have to do some training to get our dogs to do some un-natural things that don't come pre-programmed.

All of our well-bred retrievers want to fetch stuff, chase it, carry it and bring it to us. But, we still have to do some training to get it refined to our personal level of satisfaction. I maintain that if you "just taught hold" or you had to "work with the dog not to spit the bumper at water's edge", you did in fact work on a conditioned retrieve process. You did, in fact, admittedly or not, do some variation of a Force Breaking routine... Just like you used "force" to teach a dog to sit by pushing on his bottom or tugging on a leash! Yes, they sit naturally, but to get a reliable response to a command, to our satisfaction, we employ some form of force to adequately condition the response.

Before I tried going the Lardy route, which started with this 9 month pup of mine, I did a formal FF program on four Amish dogs, and I did no formal program on a couple dogs before that. At this time, my findings were that a formalized FF program was, for me, a much more structured, efficient, and reasonable manner to get the end goal: The end goal at that time was ONLY reliable pickup, carry and deliver of an object (ie, bird) Non-FF folks, say what you will, but I'm telilng you, it made life a WHOLE LOT EASIER for man and beast! I got away from the less rigid process of gradually teaching a dog to hold during training. This less rigid method, I call "the NAG METHOD"... and for me, it was no fun...guess what...for my dog, it was no fun.

When I say that was my ONLY goal...that is what I thought and believed. I will tell you that after FF with my Amish dogs, I saw a snappier response and a renewed enthusiasm towards their work. I actually think that the FF carried over and probably helped make them more reliable in their learning of lining, stopping and casting for blinds.

Now for you Carr-based folks. The above paragraph is to tell you that Amish folks can and do use a Force Breaking process that has nothing to do with "turning off pressure" to form the basis for further corrections with a collar in the field. Yes, yes, I know that's not in line with Carr, Lardy, Graham, etc....but not everyone trains that way!

Like Peake has written, and I've written long ago: training a retriever to an end goal is a journey to a destination. Anyone who thinks that there is only one way to get to a destination is closed-minded. Maybe personal preference indicates that there's only one "right way" for a certain goal or a certain person, but rarely in anything is there truly only one way to get there.

It wasn't that long ago that we had a guy calling folks "morons" for not admitting that training Carr-based with stick fetch and marble (slingshot) fetch, was the "right way" to do it! It wasn't that long ago that I was so thin-skinned that after a few attempts to get said individuals to stop, I banned them from using the board. (Note, it is tough to ban a techie from a basic bulletin board forum....if you don't believe me, ask my buddy Theo) 8) :wink: 

I understand Russ' reliance on the flowchart and the purpose of FF in that program. Currently, I'm dedicating my efforts 100% to the pup I'm training today to this program with zero deviation. I want to see for myself. So far, I like what I see.

I accomplished my personal goals both "with" and "without" formal FF on previous dogs, getting to a "Master level"...in the camo/dark clothing dog games. What does that make me? Just another dog trainer with an opinion, a little experience, and a whole bunch of worn out training boots in my past..... (and some great dogs waiting for me at the bridge)

Enjoy RTF! Thanks for making it what it is.

Chris


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > So you do force fetch a dog? You just use a different pressure vector?
> ...


Well frankly by descripition you do force fetch your dog. You just use another term for it. What do you call it? Trained retriever, hold training, milk and cookies? The only difference is the implimentation of force.

/Paul


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Well frankly by descripition you do force fetch your dog. You just use another term for it. What do you call it? Trained retriever, hold training, milk and cookies? The only difference is the implimentation of force.
> 
> /Paul


Cool. My dog is officially and thoroughly force fetched. Now what happens when he doesn't pick up the bird? Who do I blame????? :lol: 

Somebody better let Mike Stewart and the Europeans know that they do indeed force fetch their dogs, too.

I guess it's as Chris said, the big gray area of defining force fetch.

To my mind, the act of FF is engraining the process of establishing the stimulus/response in the dog. The actual pinch and pick up of the object. I know there's more to it than that (but I do have to get _some_ work done today!) and that the program builds upon that foundation of stimulus/response. (And when we discuss FF on here; e.g., a thread reading: "need FF help!"; the stimulus/response aspect is the context in which it is usually/broadly defined...e.g., response to "help" thread: "back up to holding the bumper here" "or apply this much pinch pressure" etc).

If my dog is force fetched, then the root of force fetch is obedience (which, of course, it ultimately is), and for the amish trainer not interested in following a program that "turns the stimulus/pressure off", then the problem /Paul describes in his post (looking at the bird, rolling in it, dropping it, refusal to deliver) can all be corrected via more traditional obedience (hold, recall, delivery) and not the official "force fetch" as is usually/broadly defined in the context of writing about FF or discussed on the board.

If we follow this, then at what point does it switch from training/conditioning to the understood/broadly defined/ official force fetch? And at what point does the forcing/conditioning of the dog intersect with the program?

As /Paul pointed out, with only a thorough obedience foundation (including hold, recall, delivery) and without the pressure of the understood use of FF (stimulus/response), the dog will have a difficult time understanding/grasping/turning off/dealing with stick fetch and other aspects of the training program.

So where does that leave us? I have a dog that, according to /Paul, is force fetched (although by another name) but has no foundation for force-based training. So now if my dog (hypothetically of course! :wink doesn't pick up the bird, is it because he wasn't force fetched? Or because he wasn't *thoroughly* force fetched? What's the recourse? Do I back up to the stimulus/response and *thoroughly* force fetch him so there is a conditioned response? Or do I build prey drive and use OB to make the dog want to work and make them, as Paul Young said, understand it is their job? 

Now we've come full circle and are back to using programs and what fits the bill and is acceptable to the handler/trainer/owner.

With either program, it boils down to thoroughness and standards. Put a hole(s) in either program or lower your standards and you're going to have dog that is likely to respond in an unacceptable manner. Period.

/finely split hairs, very deep rhetoric regards :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Cool. My dog is officially and thoroughly force fetched. Now what happens when he doesn't pick up the bird? Who do I blame????? :lol:
> 
> Somebody better let Mike Stewart and the Europeans know that they do indeed force fetch their dogs, too.
> 
> ...



See, it wasn’t so hard to agree with me…….ok ok, I know it was hard to agree with me. As for getting work done, we both know that we’d rather be discussing something dog related then just hammering away another day at work.  I think to a degree every trained dog is forced in some regard. The level of reliability obtained through the methodology, the need for said levels, the end purpose requirements all dictate “how thoroughly FF’d” a dog may need to be. I worked with a dog yesterday whose owner felt that whistle commands were unnecessary, the dog should never be further away than he can yell. Ok. That’s how he wants to train him. My client Herb has a nice yellow that all he wants is the dog to pick up the bird so he doesn’t have to bend over. He’s happy with that. Last night I was pleased because my dog held his sidehill line to the blind at 300 yards with the duck crate sitting there upwind after pinning the marks in quad without caving into the factors in the test. We all have a standard of what is acceptable and requirements for how precise we want the dog to behave. Some levels of a force program lend themselves better to that end result. I applied force to all 3 of those dogs yesterday, but in much different and varying ways. 

/Paul


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

What difference does it make how you get where you're going if you end up where you want to be and the dog is a happy, stylish worker?!?

M


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Lorne MacDonald said:


> you can not/will not have a well trained dog


The definition of "well trained" is subjective and I will say that how you define it determines whether or not you eventually decided that a force program is going to be added to your bag-o-goodies.


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

*Re: Amish*



Glenda Brown said:


> I am hoping to do an article on Amish training methods and have gotten feedback from Frank, Paul and Chris. Would appreciate hearing pm from those of you who do strict Amish.
> 
> I use a collar on my dogs, but did put a couple of dogs through MH level without the use of a collar. Those that know me refer to me as the "cookie trainer"---ie., not that I actually use cookies (well, sometimes) but I do a tremendous amount of teaching, showing, etc., train in public a large % of the time so am very pc and pr.
> 
> ...


GRCA News? I hope


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Miriam Wade said:


> What difference does it make how you get where you're going if you end up where you want to be...


How "strictly Amish" has the trainer got to be, Glenda?









MG


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

you cracked me up crackerd


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Just to be clear, I'm good friends with the Amish and they stand up for me...










/Paul


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

This is what I tell my "Gundogs" clients when they ask about my Gundog program which ALWAYS included f.f.

I don't go into the turning off of the pressure.......
Many don't have their copies of Mike Lardy's program ..... :wink: 
They just want ol Fido to bring the birdie back to them directly quickly in case theres more ducks coming into their decoys and not drop it half way back or drop it to pee on it or......

So I explain the f.f. like this: It IS a taught command and when completed correctly will enable ol' Fido to be a more reliable birddog under any hunting situation. So in other words.... When Johnny Q. Public says to ol' Fido to bring em the bird through some pretty crappy bog unto dry land so he don't have to get his new cabella boots wet. Fido complys. When Bubba Joe says bring daddy the bird. He does on command even though the bird may be shot up too much or really muddy or.....
When f.f is done correctly it is a very reliable tool and I've NEVER had to re-visit it?????
IMHO  
Sue


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

*Amish*

Hey, Crackherd:

Could you send me the guy's e-mail address so I can contact him? I am trying to get as many opinions as possible to offer all sorts of variables. I am sure he has some definite opinions---for all we know, he contributes to RTF under a pseudonym. Do you think he ff that horse?

When I say I hope to do an article, you have to realize this is not of the caliber of Vickie Lamb!!! This is for a Golden magazine for which I have written training articles and discussed e-collars, always with the caveat that you must be schooled in its use and you don't just slap it on your dog and push the buttons. In addition, I have mentioned force fetch and indicated I am a proponent of it for many of the same reasons many of you have given.

But---many of the magazine's readers are not quite into field work like the majority of us are, and I feel they should be given training options with which they can live. I originally trained dogs without the use of a collar, and my "force" fetch was the same as I used when I competed in obedience. As I mentioned earlier, I would just like to encourage some of them to get their feet wet, as well as their dog's, and start doing some field work----the dog is a retriever! When they find out how much their dogs love it and what fun it is (which is how I got started), then they can start to explore the variety of training philosophies that are out there and decide at that time what works for them and for their dog(s).

I have enjoyed my communications with Chris, Frank & Paul as well as some of the pms I have received on this subject. Frank has two drills which I am going to submit to the magazine, and I hope to do a follow up, possibly with Frank stating how he would then continue, and I putting in how I would proceed with my dogs. I hope to pick his brain some more as well as that of some of the other Amish trainers.

Sometimes when you get past the verbiage and into the content, it becomes obvious that we are all much closer in our thinking than a superficial examination would lead one to believe. Many of our training goals are the same, although in some cases the standards might be different, but as I wrote Miriam, not everyone eats the same thing for breakfast yet we don't write page after page on RTF about that.

Glenda


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

*Amish*

Oops, Crackerd----misspelled your name. I am so convinced that I know that guy in your photo, that I didn't proof what I sent!!! He wasn't in the last series of a recent National Open was he????

Glenda


----------



## solo.lab (Apr 14, 2007)

I am a newbie and I have read through this several times. There is some much to adsorb in this discussion! I hope to see more discussions of this topic!


----------



## Lorne MacDonald (Apr 15, 2004)

Achiro

A very simple question , and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or rude, and I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

Do you believe that in order to have a well trained dog , it must have a FF program incorporated into it training ? Yes or no

And I know that well trained is subjective but I'm asking well trained by your definition

By FF I don't mean " oh shucks time to FF old bird muncher" but a logical , step by step program that builds on each progressive step and includes FF/Trained Retrieve/whatever name , as a natural progression . 

For what its worth , although there are many far better trainers than myself , not against FF, a FF program , etc. 

So yes or no ?

Thanks
Lorne


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Vic Barlow shares some wisdom concerning the British vs. American Dogs/training debate, in the current issue Retriever Journal. I think what his main point could probably be carried over and applied to our discussion here. For those of you who don't have this issue he basically says that Halstead and Lardy, the top Brit and American trainers respectively, seemed to be the only ones not arguing over the subject. He said they both seemed interested in learning the techniques of the other side. Something to think about.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Lorne MacDonald said:


> Achiro
> 
> A very simple question , and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or rude, and I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
> 
> ...


By my current standards...yes


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

MRGD said:


> Vic Barlow shares some wisdom concerning the British vs. American Dogs/training debate, in the current issue Retriever Journal. I think what his main point could probably be carried over and applied to our discussion here. For those of you who don't have this issue he basically says that Halstead and Lardy, the top Brit and American trainers respectively, seemed to be the only ones not arguing over the subject. He said they both seemed interested in learning the techniques of the other side. Something to think about.


I read that, my initial thought was that either Mr. Barlow's memory had given out a bit, or he had left a part of what was originally written by M. Lardy on purpose. I will have to go back and read it to see if my initial thought was correct. until then...

As far as what you just stated, Lardy isn't "arguing" because he has made his statement regarding the differences as he see's them "generally" and then goes training and leaves the arguing to us. :wink: 
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28796&postdays=0&postorder=asc&


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Achiro,

Which issue of RJ was the original Lardy article in? I don't know if I have it or not.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Glenda Brown said:


> ... I am so convinced that I know that guy in your photo, that I didn't proof what I sent!!! He wasn't in the last series of a recent National Open was he????


Not this year's Open, Glenda, maybe the amateur. If you look closely at the photo, you'll see what appears to be a red retriever rig in front of him--could he be a "follower"--at the pump, as well as in his training practices--of a Mr (and Mrs) Bohn known to train nearby?










MG


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

MRGD said:


> Vic Barlow shares some wisdom concerning the British vs. American Dogs/training debate, in the current issue Retriever Journal. I think what his main point could probably be carried over and applied to our discussion here. For those of you who don't have this issue he basically says that Halstead and *Lardy*, *the top Brit and American trainers respectively*, seemed to be the only ones not arguing over the subject. He said they both seemed interested in learning the techniques of the other side. Something to think about.


News Flash!!!!

Vick Barlow says* Lardy *is better than Farmer :!: 

About time for another poll regards,

john


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

john fallon said:


> MRGD said:
> 
> 
> > Vic Barlow shares some wisdom concerning the British vs. American Dogs/training debate, in the current issue Retriever Journal. I think what his main point could probably be carried over and applied to our discussion here. For those of you who don't have this issue he basically says that Halstead and *Lardy*, *the top Brit and American trainers respectively*, seemed to be the only ones not arguing over the subject. He said they both seemed interested in learning the techniques of the other side. Something to think about.
> ...


John, Honey. Come back to bed and stop bothering these nice people!

:wink: 

M


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

MRGD said:


> Achiro,
> 
> Which issue of RJ was the original Lardy article in? I don't know if I have it or not.


If I knew that, I wouldn't have taken a chance by posting something off of memory.(these people here are brutal and unforgiving! :wink: )


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

John, Honey. Come back to bed and stop bothering these nice people! 

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: -paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Miriam Wade said:


> john fallon said:
> 
> 
> > MRGD said:
> ...












/Paul


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

MRGD said:


> Vic Barlow shares some wisdom concerning the British vs. American Dogs/training debate, in the current issue Retriever Journal. I think what his main point could probably be carried over and applied to our discussion here. For those of you who don't have this issue he basically says that Halstead and Lardy, the top Brit and American trainers respectively, seemed to be the only ones not arguing over the subject. He said they both seemed interested in learning the techniques of the other side. Something to think about.


Having read the article, and knowing Vic, his writing style and personality, I thought it was a pretty funny, and good, article. Reminded me of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along????"

But to be clear, I'm not arguing UK vs US (nor am I arguing!) just discussing the *absolute necessity* of force fetch for the amish, or collarless (getting back to the very first post and the original topic) trainer.

It's my opinion (everyone signed the disclosure form, right?) that you can have a well trained gun dog without the use of FF. One that reliably goes out and gets a bird no matter how cold, wet, muddy the situation or how shot up the bird and delivers to hand if you have a dog with the genetic predispotion to retrieve (be it UK, US, Polish, or hunchback...), please and a thorough training program.

I have NO PROBLEM with FF, the collar or a Carr-based program.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Miriam Wade said:


> John, Honey. Come back to bed and stop bothering these nice people!
> 
> :wink:
> 
> M






:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Miriam, your comedic timing is perfect! LOL


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> See, it wasn’t so hard to agree with me…….ok ok, I know it was hard to agree with me. As for getting work done, we both know that we’d rather be discussing something dog related then just hammering away another day at work.


:lol: So true, although my boss may see it differently... :lol:




Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I think to a degree every trained dog is forced in some regard.


Completely agree



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The level of reliability obtained through the methodology, the need for said levels, the end purpose requirements all dictate “how thoroughly FF’d” a dog may need to be.


I wouldn't say "how thoroughly FF'd" because a dog that doesn't go through the stimulus/response, to my mind, isn't FF. He may be more thoroughly trained and have undergone more "pressure" than the dog that is retrieving purely on instinct and has never had any hold, delivery, etc training or is held to a standard, but he isn't FF.

But I do agree with you as to levels of training, methodology, thoroughness, etc to reach an end goal (which vary as far as meat dog to FTC; and the program can adjust according to those goals and standards)



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I worked with a dog yesterday whose owner felt that whistle commands were unnecessary, the dog should never be further away than he can yell. Ok. That’s how he wants to train him. My client Herb has a nice yellow that all he wants is the dog to pick up the bird so he doesn’t have to bend over. He’s happy with that. Last night I was pleased because my dog held his sidehill line to the blind at 300 yards with the duck crate sitting there upwind after pinning the marks in quad without caving into the factors in the test. We all have a standard of what is acceptable and requirements for how precise we want the dog to behave. Some levels of a force program lend themselves better to that end result. I applied force to all 3 of those dogs yesterday, but in much different and varying ways.
> /Paul


Yes, different standards and requirements for what is ultimately fitting a tool to a job. The question becomes, is it *absolutely necessary* for Herb's nice yellow to be FF in order to fit his requirements? I think we can all agree that the answer is: no, he doesn't HAVE to be FF in order to carry out that assignment. Nor is it an absolute that his nice yellow will behave in the manner you suggested in your post (unreliable, rolling on a bird, non-delivery, etc) just because he isn't FF if there is some type of foundation and training.

Now, here's another question my PacNW friend: You're saying my dog is FF'd? Correct? So, if Herb and his nice yellow and me and my nice black dog show up at your place to train and Herb's dog drops the bird and you say, "Is is he FF?" and Herb replies, "Yes." So you grab an ear and give a pinch and the nice yellow dives on the bird and presents it. Now it's my turn and my dog drops the bird too. You look up and say, "Is he FF?" and I say, "Yes." So you grab an ear and pinch and he turns and bites your hand. At some point you're going to say to me, "I thought you said he was FF!?!?!" And I reply, "He is, I put him through hold with heeling and recall."

Is my dog still force fetched?


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

:roll: :roll: :roll: 

There's no Webster's of Dog Training. 

Personally, Sloppy, I'd say that your dog is definitely not formally FF'd but your dog definitely is a student of some conditioned retrieve training.

I think that most of us can agree that a formal FF program is a step-wise organized approach to conditioned retrieving with fairly well-defined steps. I think that most of us can agree that at some point in this process a pressure or pain stimulus is introduced and the dog is conditioned to respond in order to stop the discomfort.

I think most of us can agree that a conditioned retrieve process is more of a "do it by feel" and read the dog sort of art, where the trainer works to mold the dog's behavior to his personal preference with a focus in reinforcing the good and gradually increasing the "pressure" on the undesirable.

In both of the above descriptions, art (reading a dog) is part of it.


----------



## Lorne MacDonald (Apr 15, 2004)

Achiro

So the logical thought process is that any dog that hasn't got that (above , I'm not just slow I'm a slow typist too)incorporated into their training is *not* a well trained dog. 

Lorne


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

solo.lab said:


> I am a newbie and I have read through this several times. There is some much to adsorb in this discussion! I hope to see more discussions of this topic!


As Chris suggested...all you need to do for "reams" of info on FF, is do a search on RTF. It's been discussed, argued, screamed over, more than any topic I can think of. It's the "politics" of dog training. Each camp has their own "religion" concerning it's use or non-use.

I'm frankly amazed it has accumulated this many pages, because it's all been hashed out before...only by different players. Even I may have injected an opinion on a couple of threads about this at an earlier time.

What confounds me in all these 'discussions' is the need by so many to have their views agreed with. Hey...if you don't 'feel' your dog needs a FF program, fine. Why try to convince those that disagree that they must be open minded to your views.

So far the proof of the concept is slightly more than overwhelming. With practically every pro you talk to or read about, going back beyond Rex Carr, the need for the FF program isn't even argueable. It's the foundation used by most trainers, intending to run their retrievers in any of the trialing or hunt testing games.

Obviously, there is room for the Amish in this automobile era. And I believe we've grown beyond one group or the other's attempt to convince the opposition which is the "way to go". Only in the dog games do we find a need to 'explain' the need for doing it the way we do; or worse...attempt to put down those that don't do it that way.

Hey Chris...there is a "Websters" for dog training vernacular. We shouldn't confuse the 'terminology' of the language, as is sometimes attempted by various groups. ie: a nogo is a dog training term, not an AKC term, etc. etc.

I understand what you were driving at...there are many paths we can take to teach our dogs what we want them to know, so they can perform to our expectations. That philosophy only conflicts if the O/H wants the dog to perform to the expectations and requirements of so many of the games we play. Then the paths toward that goal become very narrow.

Appreciated your posts on the subject, especially your views on the transition with your present pup. Continued success on your journey.

UB


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Lorne MacDonald said:


> Achiro
> 
> So the logical thought process is that any dog that hasn't got that (above , I'm not just slow I'm a slow typist too)incorporated into their training is *not* a well trained dog.
> 
> Lorne


Lorne, it seems as if you are trying to bait me into a corner here. If that is the case, grow a sack and ask me what you want to know. If that is not your intent, ignore the rude statement I just made, and please clarify what you mean here. :wink:


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

> So the logical thought process is that any dog that hasn't got that (above , I'm not just slow I'm a slow typist too)incorporated into their training is not a well trained dog.


Your dog will be better trained if it goes through either an Amish or modern FF program. The owner decides when a dog is well trained.

Tom


----------



## Lorne MacDonald (Apr 15, 2004)

Achiro

Rude or straight forward either way is fine with me.

Was I trying to bait you or paint you in a corner ? Not bait, maybe paint you in a corner to answer a question .

Let me be clear - if your current training program is the best way to get what you want , ie your standards, thats great. If its the best way to train, thats great too. I , for one, am not arguing the succes of it. 

The impression given is that it is the ONLY way to get a well trained dog and thats what comes across. Bear in mind that I am not the smartest guy in the world so I might have the wrong impression

Also bear in mind that I could not give a fat rats ass what program anyone uses as long as it works for them. Your opinion may be different and you are entitled to that.

So , you have stated that , for your standards, FF has to be part of the program to get a well trained dog. Cool. Now grow some balls as well and answer the simple question - if FF is not a part of the program then the dog can be well trained ? yes or no


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> Now, here's another question my PacNW friend: You're saying my dog is FF'd? Correct? So, if Herb and his nice yellow and me and my nice black dog show up at your place to train and Herb's dog drops the bird and you say, "Is is he FF?" and Herb replies, "Yes." So you grab an ear and give a pinch and the nice yellow dives on the bird and presents it. Now it's my turn and my dog drops the bird too. You look up and say, "Is he FF?" and I say, "Yes." So you grab an ear and pinch and he turns and bites your hand. At some point you're going to say to me, "I thought you said he was FF!?!?!" And I reply, "He is, I put him through hold with heeling and recall."
> 
> Is my dog still force fetched?


Actually I would deserve to get bitten because I 

A. Shouldn't touch your dog without knowing you and your dog
B. Should ask you what your "force or correction" methodology is. What if you used toe pinch for example.

Truthfully, the old saying been there, done that applies to your scenario in my case... :shock: :lol: 

/Paul


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Lorne MacDonald said:


> Achiro
> 
> Rude or straight forward either way is fine with me.
> 
> ...


I really thought I had already answered your question.


achiro said:


> The definition of "well trained" is subjective and I will say that how you define it determines whether or not you eventually decided that a force program is going to be added to your bag-o-goodies.



The expanded version of my answer is this. I do think you can have a quality dog without the act of FF. I think that as you move up the scale from gun dog----->started level hunt test---->finished level hunt test----> all age work that the chances become less and less. I think in a very rare case you might even be able to go "all the way" but like I said, RARE. Impossible? I won't say that because it could happen, but pretty dang hard. 

I just don't see the point. I mentioned in an earlier post that my early couple of dogs were not FF'd. I also wore those old green rubber waders and as many clothes as I could fit on my body to stay warm. Things change and progress. At this time, FF is included in my regiment....along with a HUGE majority of successful HT'ers and FT'ers. 
You see guys like Paul mentioned who have had some success without the "standard" approach. Frankly, I think it puts extra work(lots of extra steps) into the whole process that in most cases ends up with sub-quality(based on my current standard of a "well trained" dog) work.


----------



## LH (Jan 24, 2006)

*Re: Amish*



Glenda Brown said:


> I am hoping to do an article on Amish training methods and have gotten feedback from Frank, Paul and Chris. Would appreciate hearing pm from those of you who do strict Amish.
> 
> I use a collar on my dogs, but did put a couple of dogs through MH level without the use of a collar. Those that know me refer to me as the "cookie trainer"---ie., not that I actually use cookies (well, sometimes) but I do a tremendous amount of teaching, showing, etc., train in public a large % of the time so am very pc and pr.
> 
> ...




This is a great internet source of info on "Amish" (or original) retriever training:

http://www.thegundogclub.co.uk/Reference/Lottiesdiary/diary.htm

I think Pippa from the UK is on RTF sometimes and could explain. She also has got a forum:

http://www.thegundogclub.co.uk/forum/


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

Thanks for the links LH! :wink:
________
Toyota Team Europe History


----------



## Zoe's next (Aug 20, 2006)

Wow, 7 pages!!! I couldn't read it all, but feel the desire to weigh in as I've trained one Amish/no FF and am in swim-by with one FF/CC. The Amish-trained dog did everything I ever asked her to do. "Desire to please" was her greatest motivator, it seemed. I took her all the way through all the Lardy drills tape 1 & tape 2 (I believe that would be through transition, but not through advanced). The Amish dog got lots of attrition and took a lot of pressure. If you think a dog's not under pressure when it's sitting and you're running out to the second crossover in TT for a correction you are sorely mistaken. But, the method worked for me and for her; she was steady/stylish/handled well and retrieved almost 2000 ducks before she died at age 7. I think she also would have been a great dog in a FF/CC program. 

Dog number 2 had her own mind about things and I decided early on that I was going to need a way to get her attention that was more than what the first dog required, so FF/CC and I'm happy I'm doing it this way. Things are going well. 

The big question is: would I ever train another dog Amish? I think the answer is no; it's just soooooo much easier with the collar; for me and for the dog. It's less emotional pressing a button and there's less confusion on the dog's part as the corrections come immediately and are usually shorter/less severe in my hands. 

This is not intended to say one method is BETTER than another (that's a personal preference thing), it's just a review of my (limited) experience with both methods.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Zoe,

I'm where you are.

It took me a while when I was "phase two" Amish (phase two per Danny Farmer and Judy Aycock's definition) to even allow myself to understand what "indirect pressure" meant.

When I got a new pup after many years puppy-free, I chose to try a collar and went into it fully phase three with my eyes and my mind wide open. It was then that I made an astonishing realization.

When I was Amish, I used "indirect pressure" frequently. Many times a verbal "No" was not enough correction, so I'd have to sit a dog and waddle on out there to somehow correct. This was indirect pressure with absolutely terrible timing! Indirect Pressure, with correction timing that's instantaneous is so much more fair! It makes for much more clear communication!

Chris


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

I'm glad to see this thread back again. :wink:


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

*Amish*

Thanks for posting the info. I am getting up at 5 and getting back around 8:30/9 pm so won't be able to check it all out until probably next week.

When I finally get some down time (???whatever that is) near the end of June, will try to get a lot of this info organized.

Glenda


----------



## LH (Jan 24, 2006)

These are two British websites that provides videos, books and DVD:s about training the British way:

http://www.turnerrichards.co.uk/

http://www.questgundogs.co.uk/


----------



## TimMTP (Mar 27, 2007)

FWIW, be careful when ordering DVDs from the UK. I ordered some and found out the hard way about formats and region coding. Normal DVDs from over there won't work in DVD players here (including computer drives). If you do order some, see if they have American region versions. If not, you get to do some creative work on your computer...


----------



## LH (Jan 24, 2006)

More on British trials:

http://www.fetchpup.com/britishfieldtrl.htm


----------

