# Words of Wisdom from Howard N....



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> ....I bring them to bugging, flaring, popping and no goes. Maybe not all 4 with every puppy, but definitely explore the limits of each puppy in basics. If you don't, how can you say basics are done?


I have been pondering this statement made by Howard in another thread. It is in reference to FTP and the TT.

I not only believe it is true, think it is brilliant.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

And I figured I was having those problems because I was doing it wrong! ;-)


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I have been pondering this statement made by Howard in another thread. It is in reference to FTP and the TT.
> 
> I not only believe it is true, think it is brilliant.


An astute trainer like Howard knows these things which are not original or unique, this is what basic training is about as I was taught 35+ years ago, thank you Rex Carr


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Hey Copterdoc, for grins can you provide a link to the other thread? I don't think I saw it.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Click the lil blue arrow next to his name in the quoted text and it takes you to the original post.


----------



## Swampbilly (May 25, 2010)

I saw what Howard said Copterdoc.... I don't know him, but he's _got_ to be a Trialer...who pays very close attention to detail. It's the kind of mindset that I crave...Don't believe that _anyone_ gets there overnight.. 

Seems to me he's killing two birds w/ one stone..Establishing his _own_ level of basics, and establishing more of an idea of trainability


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

EdA said:


> An astute trainer like Howard knows these things which are not original or unique, this is what basic training is about as I was taught 35+ years ago, thank you Rex Carr


Towards the end of the basic training, and part of wrapping it up, the trainer pushes the dog to its limit and a millitad past that limit, in order to know what that limit is. Don't do this in the beginning phase. The trainer really cannot advance a dog to higher levels of training, unless there is a good understanding of the dog's character and makeup.

I learned from the same source as Dr. Ed.


----------



## GG (Jan 29, 2006)

Ed, and Mimi; this is the first thread i have seen about pushing dogs beyond their limits to the calm side. Hopefully, you agree that a warning should go out with this;
"YOU HAD DAMNED WELL BETTER KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING"
gg


----------



## bobbyb (Jul 31, 2005)

EdA said:


> An astute trainer like Howard knows these things which are not original or unique, this is what basic training is about as I was taught 35+ years ago, thank you Rex Carr


Hey Doc.
Wasn't it Judy that said " a good dog should be able to take some bad training "

BobbyB
cajun swamp person


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I don't interpret Howard's statement to be about pushing the dog beyond it's limits, and back to the calm side.

I think it's more about making sure you have trained the dog, instead of "glossed over" the real lessons.

If the dog never bugs, it never learns that it can't escape pressure, by hiding from it.
If the dog never flares the line, it never learns that it has to drive through a "hot spot".
If the dog never pops, it never learns that it has to keep going until it is told to stop.
If the dog never no-goes, it never learns that the command BACK, isn't merely a request.

If you haven't exposed these problems, you haven't trained the dog. You really just went around the issues.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you should have pushed your pup into all these problems to know the dogs limits?


No, I'm saying you need to make sure you have dealt with them, so that the dog learns that they are unacceptable, and will understand future corrections for these actions.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Basic training if done properly will have exposed these issues or will have given the trainer the tools to deal with them.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

bobbyb said:


> Hey Doc.
> Wasn't it Judy that said " a good dog should be able to take some bad training "
> 
> BobbyB
> cajun swamp person


She certainly could have and would have expressed that, she had many profound things to say about dog training over the years that I may have missed or I was in the field throwing birds.

There are certainly many examples both past and present of dogs overcoming their trainer's lack of ability or poor decisions!


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you should have pushed your pup into all these problems to know the dogs limits? My interpretation would have been to make a call as to when you've pushed far enough, without actually pushing them into no goes, popping, flaring, etc.. Not necessarily waiting until they actually occur.
> Walt


If you are asking this question, then you probably shouldn't do it. Leave it to a pro who is familiar with this last step.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

zipmarc said:


> If you are asking this question, then you probably shouldn't do it. Leave it to a pro who is familiar with this last step.


I think I will be asking these kinds of questions for the rest of my training days. Maybe one day I will use a pro, but thus far, I've chosen to create and deal with whatever I get on my own. (unless paying for a seminar at a pro's place counts as using a pro)

Mimi, are you suggesting that Walt should put a dog through basics and then try to find a pro to do the "last step"? Or are you suggesting that since Walt is asking questions like this he should find a pro to do basics for him? 

I personally avoided collar programs for a couple decades due to all the dogs I saw in my HT circuit walking on eggshells. I got up the gumption to finally give it a try with my current dog and tried to follow Lardy to the letter. I did not get the interpretation from Lardy's stuff, that the goal was to explore each of these areas of basics outfall (popping, no-going, bugging and flaring). My interpretation was that if they were to crop up, that was the place to deal with them...

My personal interpretation is that this is an area of dog training that's considered "art" and that there are lots of nuances involved that are difficult to communicate with the written or even the spoken word. But I've been wrong a lot. And that was just this weekend.

Thanks, Chris


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I have a day training client that has gotten her SH .(really nice, sensitive dog) We are having some issues at this time with corrections in the field . 
We had a discussion about forcing and the client says to me " I never HAD to force enroute, she always went" No tools to help this dog at this time............


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Bridget Bodine said:


> ...We had a discussion about forcing and the client says to me " I never HAD to force enroute, she always went" No tools to help this dog at this time............


This is along the lines of what I am talking about.

We all sometimes need to simplify for success. However, for these lessons to reach home, we need to make sure that the dog doesn't just do the task.

It needs to understand the core lesson of force.

You can't slay the dragon, if you don't find it.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I think it's more about making sure you have trained the dog, instead of "glossed over" the real lessons.
> 
> If the dog never bugs, it never learns that it can't escape pressure, by hiding from it.
> If the dog never flares the line, it never learns that it has to drive through a "hot spot".
> ...


If the dog has never..... then YOU HAVE NEVER had the oppurtunity to see what precipitated this response. All these acts have a "tell". IMHO this is what it means to read a dog.


Tim


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I don't interpret Howard's statement to be about pushing the dog beyond it's limits, and back to the calm side.
> 
> I think it's more about making sure you have trained the dog, instead of "glossed over" the real lessons.
> 
> ...


The dog learns he can't escape pressure during the debolting stage of CC.

Define "hot spot" my dog knows the correction is connected to the handler not the environment.

I never met a dog that didn't pop at some point during FTP.

During force to pile the dog learns that the back command is not an option.

My goal as a trainer is to not to try and develop these problems but know how to avoid them from rearing their ugly heads later in the field.

I reduce these behaviors by taking it slow and making sure the dog understands what's expected of them before moving to the next step of the training program.


----------



## GG (Jan 29, 2006)

Chris	
Chris; it is my understanding that pros today are leaning towards the softer side of training. I can’t think of a single trainer today that uses absolute obedience as the trademark of his kennel as we once did in the 70ties and 80ties. The type of training that intentionally created all of the side effects of pressure, then wiped them out of the dogs mind with more pressure, is no longer considered mainstream training (I'm not sure it ever was); it has its advantages and disadvantages. As you might imagine, the dogs that excelled in this system were the ones that handled pressure without slowing them down too much. As an end result you had a dog that was very obedient and disciplined, but usually was not very animated in his work. i do not recommend this system to anyone who does not have a competent person to bail them out of trouble. 

I'm sure Judy, DR. Ed, Mimi and Delma, (to mention a few) who had personal relationships with their dogs, were able to maintain a good running and training attitude with their animals throughout their careers. 
GG


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Bridget Bodine said:


> I have a day training client that has gotten her SH .(really nice, sensitive dog) We are having some issues at this time with corrections in the field .
> We had a discussion about forcing and the client says to me " I never HAD to force enroute, she always went" No tools to help this dog at this time............


A collar trainer with a ton of experience once told me "you can judge a good collar trainer on their ability to make a dog go" I find this an important step for dog that is trained heel and sit with an e-collar.

You want to develop that push/pull relationship with the collar, not just the pull...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

PackLeader said:


> The dog learns he can't escape pressure during the debolting stage of CC.


 No, they learn that they can't avoid pressure by running away to a "safe place". They don't learn that they can't avoid being corrected, by not going, or not looking.



PackLeader said:


> Define "hot spot" my dog knows the correction is connected to the handler not the environment.


 Even though the dog knows the correction came from the handler, and was given in conjunction with a known command, they still partially blame the correction on the location.

If the dog always, 100% of the time, perfectly understood the correction, indirect pressure, would not be as effective as it is.



PackLeader said:


> I never met a dog that didn't pop at some point during FTP.


 I have. It's easy to avoid a pop in FTP, if you have a hard charging dog, and simplify the task enough, it will never pop.



PackLeader said:


> During force to pile the dog learns that the back command is not an option.


 If it's done right, that is correct. But if it is simplified to the point that the dog always goes, and is never forced by necessity, for a poor effort, or refusal, then it didn't really learn the lesson. It did the work, but it was too easy.



PackLeader said:


> My goal as a trainer is to not to try and develop these problems but know how to avoid them from rearing their ugly heads later in the field.


 In that case, you are "bugging", as a trainer.

"If I don't look at it, it isn't there."



PackLeader said:


> I reduce these behaviors by taking it slow and making sure the dog understands what's expected of them before moving to the next step of the training program.


If you "breeze through" pressure conditioning, and force training, you are cheating the dog of the very purpose of doing these things.

You aren't supposed to "get through" basics without any problems. You are supposed to train the dog. One of the most important things it can learn, is all of the responses to pressure, that *don't* work.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

If what your saying is true then the dog would only run straight lines in the areas where it thinks the ground is hot. 

Dogs learn about straight lines during FF. If the dog knows he needs to get to that bird NOW then he will go straight. The fastest way to ANY destination is a straight line. 

When I apply indirect pressure for a flair, I want the dog to think "I need to get to that darn bird" not "I need to avoid going over there because the ground is hot." They learn this compulsion to get to that bird fast during e-collar fetch. 

Everyone has their way of doing things I guess.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I'm sorry I took so long to reply. When I read this:


PackLeader said:


> ...Dogs learn about straight lines during FF. If the dog knows he needs to get to that bird NOW then he will go straight. The fastest way to ANY destination is a straight line....


My eyes actually rolled right out of my head.

I finally found them under the edge of the dresser.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Hehehehehehe 

Thanks I needed a good laugh!! Glad you found your eyeballs.....you'll need them to teach those straight lines, just roll them out ahead of fido and he'll follow them straight and true right to the chicken.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I'm sorry I took so long to reply. When I read this:
> 
> My eyes actually rolled right out of my head.
> 
> I finally found them under the edge of the dresser.


Then keep applying pressure until your dog bugs and pops.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

PackLeader said:


> If what your saying is true then the dog would only run straight lines in the areas where it thinks the ground is hot.
> *
> Dogs learn about straight lines during FF. If the dog knows he needs to get to that bird NOW then he will go straight. The fastest way to ANY destination is a straight line.*
> 
> ...



the fastest way to a bird is the path of least resistance, why else do dogs cheat and run the bank instead of making a straight line swim to the bird, or why else will dogs skirt thick cover or obstacles when the can go around them


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> the fastest way to a bird is the path of least resistance, why else do dogs cheat and run the bank instead of making a straight line swim to the bird, or why else will dogs skirt thick cover or obstacles when the can go around them


The original post was in regards to FTP and double T.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> The original post was in regards to FTP and double T.


No, it was about theories regarding bugging, popping, flaring and no-gos during those steps.

I'm sending you a PM that I'd like to ask you to respond to.

I'm also a bit bummed that this thread got off track as it was feeling like an excellent opportunity for those of us who have been training and campaigning retrievers for years, to learn from others who have done the same.

Chris


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

GG said:


> Chris
> Chris; it is my understanding that pros today are leaning towards the softer side of training. I can’t think of a single trainer today that uses absolute obedience as the trademark of his kennel as we once did in the 70ties and 80ties. The type of training that intentionally created all of the side effects of pressure, then wiped them out of the dogs mind with more pressure, is no longer considered mainstream training (I'm not sure it ever was); it has its advantages and disadvantages. As you might imagine, the dogs that excelled in this system were the ones that handled pressure without slowing them down too much. As an end result you had a dog that was very obedient and disciplined, but usually was not very animated in his work. i do not recommend this system to anyone who does not have a competent person to bail them out of trouble.
> 
> I'm sure Judy, DR. Ed, Mimi and Delma, (to mention a few) who had personal relationships with their dogs, were able to maintain a good running and training attitude with their animals throughout their careers.
> GG


GG, sincere thanks for your response.

I feel that there are occasions where RTF can really tee up a nice opportunity for learning - even for those who already think they know it all. This was one such opportunity.

I'm very thankful that we have some folks taking time to share with us on this resource, who were there with Rex, and there with Rex's clients back in the day. 

There are many times when I'm on here just trying to keep things running smoothly. This was a time when I really was gaining some insight.

I'd imagine I'll be putting another through basics on my own sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Chris


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I'd imagine I'll be putting another through basics on my own sometime in the not-too-distant future.
> 
> Chris



Me too, if we get around to having puppies in the fall... 


Personally, I've not had popping during FTP. At that point they are wanting to get to the pile and get their mouth on a bumper ASAP. I think flaring is way more likely during that step. And no goes. Then during STP and T & TT, maybe some popping. But we send to the back pile often so as to not encourage it.

The thing I like about the Lardy material for beginners is he brings up these issues and gives ideas on how to deal with them, and he stresses that this is the phase of training when one needs to deal with them.

Now, back to the cheap seats. Unlike some others, I like to leave it to those who actually know what they are talking about.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Unlike some others, I like to leave it to those who actually know what they are talking about.


I just started "catching up" on this thread, was going to add a post and then read this. 

Pretend that you caught me talking to myself. A skilled trainer challenges a dog. They know when and how often. The difficulty comes in making sure the dog never, ever has to do more than it is capable of. Often the issue is simply "convincing" a dog it can. The skilled trainer knows from experience. Flying by the seat of your pants (naive) and/or "a wing and a prayer" training will ultimately fail. 

Therefore, the inexperienced all too frequently end up doing one of two things or both. They challenge when the dog is not truly ready or they are tentative for fear of making a mistake. I do know about this.....from experience. 

OK, I'm through talking to myself regards, Jim


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

KwickLabs said:


> OK, I'm through talking to myself regards, Jim


FWIW, I wasn't thinking about you when I made that comment. ;-)


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> An astute trainer like Howard knows these things which are not original or unique, this is what basic training is about as I was taught 35+ years ago, thank you Rex Carr


Pretty basic, but a good point!


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I'm also a bit bummed that this thread got off track.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> No, it was about theories regarding bugging, popping, flaring and no-gos during those steps.....


Here is another way to look at the thought process that motivated me to start this thread.

I look at it as proof of concept.

For instance, we first teach the concept, and establish the standard. 

Then, we establish a method of enforcing the standard. This is still "teaching", in that we are teaching the dog to understand the type of pressure used to enforce the standard.

However, I think there should always be a final step, that is less often talked about. That is proofing the "entire package".

Bugging, popping, flaring and no-gos, are all in violation of the standards set in FTP and double T.

Pushing the dog to the point that they occur, and forcing them through, is proof that the dog has a solid understanding of the concept.

From reading posts and threads on these problems, I feel that many trainers are so afraid of "causing" these things to "happen", that they miss the point of doing FTP and TT.

They never take it to the final step of proofing force on back, against a real challenge to the dog's understanding of it.

Instead, they stop when the dog is "doing it right". Even though they never provided adequate incentive to "do it wrong".


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> They never take it to the final step of proofing force on back, against a real challenge to the dog's understanding of it.
> 
> Instead, they stop when the dog is "doing it right". Even though they never provided adequate incentive to "do it wrong".


How does one achieve this? Say I am doing double t, dog goes when sent, doesn't flare when forced, stops at the whistle and takes the cast, doesn't bug, how do I 'proof' him? How would you create bugging, flaring, etc, so that you could work through it? I guess you could shorten it, make the back pile about three dog lengths from the line with the apex in between, force him on back, and immediately blow the whistle with a correction if he doesn't sit quick enough.

I understand what you are saying, but am struggling to understand how you force a dog to do these things.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DoubleHaul said:


> ....I understand what you are saying, but am struggling to understand how you force a dog to do these things.


I think this is where the "art" comes in.

How to challenge, without overwhelming. How to time the corrections. How to prevent unstable responses, while still maintaining pressure.

I don't know how you can get your dog there. But I think exploring the limits, is a good way to think about it.

Don't make it so easy, that the dog can succeed, without really making an effort.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> In post 11 of this thread, i asked you if you were pushing your dogs until they popped, flared, refused to go. Your answer to that question, in post 12 was 'no'. In this post your answer appears to be yes.
> So the procedure you follow, is to push the dogs until they make these mistakes? All of them, so that the correct action may be proofed?
> Walt


You said:


[email protected] said:


> I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you should have pushed your pup into all these problems to know the dogs limits?


I said no, not because of the


> pushed your pup into all these problems


 part, but because of the


> know the dogs limits


 part.

I think it's important to push the dog to the point of committing these things, so that you can push the dog through them, without backing off on the pressure.

That's how you know that the dog is ready for the next step. It has learned the core lesson.

It's not so much about the limits, as it is about making sure you confront these issues, instead of "hiding" from them.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I know that these things need to be confronted. If anything I agree with most of what you're saying. What's terrifying to me, as an amateur, is the black and white statement to push into all of these problems to get them sorted out right away.....


I'm not saying that you should do it right away!

This is at the end of basics. To prove that the dog understands the pressure of force. To make sure that you have the tools to advance the dog.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> What's terrifying to me, *as an amateur*, is the black and white statement to push into all of these problems to get them sorted out right away. It's a sport with a lot of variables and you don't know what you're going to get with any particular dog.
> t


I completely agree. Very dangerous advice...
So very, very much depends on the dog.
What might be sound advice for one, could be totally wrong advice for another.

I think many experienced people rarely give specific training advice on internet.
Because the answer almost always is.....it depends.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

I think the most important word of this thread is art. The art is what seperates good trainers from great trainers. Most of us know that an artist was an understudy at one time. I wish I had the opportunity to throw for a top class trainer then maybe I'd be more than a meat dog guy.

Very good thread.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

I think the ART of it is pushing far enough without creating these problems. Why create problems you are not 100% you can overcome.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

dexdoolittle said:


> I think the ART of it is pushing far enough without creating these problems. Why create problems you are not 100% you can overcome.


Do you really think it creates the problem?

Here is another thread, that I found when I did a search.
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38158


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Maybe, Maybe not but why find out? The variable collar today has made a world of difference in basics and all age training.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

dexdoolittle said:


> Maybe, Maybe not but why find out?


So, what do you do, when you run into these problems later on?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I read through the provided link and couldn't agree more with this poster.




Vickie Lamb said:


> With all due respect, I beg to differ on some of these points. That may be the way John did basics, but it was not the way Rex Carr did basics. Now, whenever a "problem" might rear up, there would be a means to solve it, but to go out and create them...no.
> 
> I'm working on the Rex project right now and here are some excerpts from included text:
> 
> ...


Seems to be a different opinions even by people who learned from the same source.

TRT 2nd edition also explains that these behaviors are best avoided with proper praise, correction, and timing.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

In basics your job is to teach dogs how to avoid/turn off pressure. In doing so you will give them the foundation that when these problems occur, they have a understanding of how to deal with the pressure. What most do not realize is that in the evolution of the collar most begining collar trainers through in the GREEN plug and went training. The instrumentals in the collar program did not have a collar that went from 1 to 5 in their hand. They had to condition dogs in a totally different method to withstand the collars used in that time frame. Todays trainers are so efficient in their methods that the heavy handed way of thought is almost non exsistent.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

dexdoolittle said:


> In basics your job is to teach dogs how to avoid/turn off pressure. In doing so you will give them the foundation that when these problems occur, they have a understanding of how to deal with the pressure.


Okay, so if you really have the foundation in place, what is the risk of pushing the dog to the point of popping, no-going, or bugging, towards the end of TT?

Isn't that the best time to test your tools?

My thinking is that, it's still fresh in the dog's mind, the trainer is prepared, and the environment is tightly controlled.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Howard's quote says bring them, You say push them. Define push and bring in this situation.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> Don't make it so easy, that the dog can succeed, without really making an effort.


This is a quote that really hits home with me. The pro I train with occasionally is always getting on me for not challenging my dog enough. I'll give the "safe" cast instead of the more difficult cast that provides an opportunity for failure, but also provides an opportunity to ensure the dog truly understands the expectation and, if not, the opportunity to teach and/or correct as necessary. I'm constantly reminding myself that how we handle in training is different than we handle in a test.

I realize the thread is talking about basics but I think the quote above is relevent to post-transition dogs as well.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I read through the provided link and couldn't agree more with this poster.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Excellent observation Jamie! I agree. 

I think there are all variations of how close one gets to the ragged edge of "outfall" issues like popping, bugging, no-going etc. during yardwork. I think it depends upon the dog, the trainer, the whole thing. But it seems to me that a wise and conservative approach to take is that it is not the intent of yardwork to make the dog exhibit these behaviors, driving the dog outside the lines and off the shoulder of the road, only to force him back in between the lines. 

I'm sure there are many with credentials and successes much greater than mine who disagree on some level....and that's cool. 

In the end if the trainer and dog are both enjoying the journey, getting satisfactory results, and all's well, it's good.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> Okay, so if you really have the foundation in place, what is the risk of pushing the dog to the point of popping, no-going, or bugging, towards the end of TT?
> .


Because....enhancing one aspect of training, almost always detracts from another. M. Lardy, if I remenber correctly.

And, when you deliberately set out to create problems, you really have no certainty that you will be able to "force" through them.
You may well be creating a dog with dark rooms, that will follow him every step of the way..


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

dexdoolittle said:


> I think the ART of it is pushing far enough without creating these problems. Why create problems you are not 100% you can overcome.


Well said. I've dealt for years with problems that were *created* by a high-pressure trainer, in both what I was taught initially and the dogs themselves. Night and day difference in the dogs I get back these days but I have a long ways to go. It is just such a pleasure watching someone train dogs that has such finesse, such timing, reads the dogs individually and is always developing their craft, thinking forward, it really is inspiring.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

cakaiser said:


> Because....enhancing one aspect of training, almost always detracts from another. M. Lardy, if I remenber correctly.
> 
> And, when you deliberately set out to create problems, you really have no certainty that you will be able to "force" through them.
> You may well be creating a dog with dark rooms, that will follow him every step of the way..


Wonderful way to phrase it.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Rick_C said:


> This is a quote that really hits home with me. The pro I train with occasionally is always getting on me for not challenging my dog enough. I'll give the "safe" cast instead of the more difficult cast that provides an opportunity for failure, but also provides an opportunity to ensure the dog truly understands the expectation and, if not, the opportunity to teach and/or correct as necessary. I'm constantly reminding myself that how we handle in training is different than we handle in a test.
> 
> I realize the thread is talking about basics but I think the quote above is relevent to post-transition dogs as well.


The problem with reading these words is that 10 different guys can read them and get ten different mental images of the "safe" cast, versus the "challenging" cast. 

In my opinion, it comes down to art and knowing when to ask more and when to back off and insure success and confidence.

I like what Dex wrote a lot. 

Dex, is it true you are doing a "regular" job these days? I always loved watching you handle a string of dogs and was honored to get to hold the scorebook when I watched you run client dogs one time.

Chris


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> Because....enhancing one aspect of training, almost always detracts from another. M. Lardy, if I remenber correctly.
> 
> And, when you deliberately set out to create problems, you really have no certainty that you will be able to "force" through them.
> You may well be creating a dog with dark rooms, that will follow him every step of the way..


Kim seconded it. I'll third it.

Brilliant stuff and a new term to add to my vocabulary....."dark rooms" are not a desirable place to put in a dog's mind.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

dexdoolittle said:


> Howard's quote says bring them, You say push them. Define push and bring in this situation.


I can't define what Howard meant by "bring".

When I say push, I mean to do the "opposite" of simplify. Less "freebies" to the back pile. More stopping and casting. Perhaps even a few recalls.

Not necessarily more collar pressure, but more mental pressure.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I can't define what Howard meant by "bring".
> 
> When I say push, I mean to do the "opposite" of simplify. Less "freebies" to the back pile. More stopping and casting. Perhaps even a few recalls.
> 
> Not necessarily more collar pressure, but more mental pressure.


Here's what gets me about the notion of "more"...

Everyone is going to have his own threshold of what's normal. To some, adding "more" could put a dog over the edge. To others, the dog's not getting nearly "enough"....

I think that for each dog in basics, one has to live it, experience it, and breathe it to make a true judgement.

To steal a line from Mike Lardy that I've heard and read more than once, there's just no formula....


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Yes, Chris, I have a real job as my wife calls it.. With the a 4 and 7 year old I got the opportunity of a lifetime to work for a good friend. Dogs right now are on the back burner. It is hard to say when I'll BE BACK but right now we are now enjoying the things that the dogs would not permit us to do. Obviously by the recent post you can see that I miss it, but watching my kids grow trumps all.

I have watched this post from the begining and have thought long and hard on a response. I don't feel that most on here will understand the concept of what Howard was trying to state. For a minute group they will understand the concepts and decide whether or not it is right for them or not. 

At least now you don't have to worry about me snooping around about pistols......


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> *The problem with reading these words is that 10 different guys can read them and get ten different mental images of the "safe" cast, versus the "challenging" cast*.
> 
> In my opinion, it comes down to art and knowing when to ask more and when to back off and insure success and confidence.
> 
> ...


Very true Chris. Sometimes it's difficult to transfer the thought or image in our minds through our fingers, into the computer without writing a book.

That said, I'll try. Last weekend we were working channel blinds. The dog enters the water diagonally across a small channel and comes up on land which, because of the angle we're running, acts like a point. There is a channel running diagonally away, left to right. Blow the whistle and there are two options; The literal or "challenging" cast is a straight left back. The "safe" cast is a left angle back, clearly into the water. With the straight left back, the dog, if honest, will spin and diagonally enter the water on line to the blind. But he could also spin just a bit too much, see the land in front of him on that side of channel and run down the shore. 

I gave the straight left hand back and the dog took the cast and entered the water correctly but in the past I would have given the safe cast, even in training. My training partner, immediately after finishing the blind, came up to me and said "That was a great cast but if I ever see you give that cast in a test I'll kick you right in the n***". :razz:

I guess my point in quoting copterdoc's post was that many amatuers, myself included, sometimes don't challenge their dogs enough and never really know if the training they think they've done has been effective. Mostly because we want our dogs to succeed all the time, forgetting that the best lessons are learned when we (and our dogs) make mistakes.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

To add to the dark room theory.

A dog is like an engine, take it past RedLine enough times and it might just to blow up in your face.

Knowing where the rev limiter is for each dog is the art of dog training.


----------



## GG (Jan 29, 2006)

GROWTH AS A TRAINER
I consider myself very fortunate as a trainer; I spent seven years as a basic trainer before taking over as head trainer of Reibar Kennels. My wife and mentor is one of the most knowledgeable trainers I have ever known, and I was fortunate enough to shot birds and observer he training the advance dogs on a daily basis through all those years (what an education). However, as most novice trainers, in the beginning, I didn’t believe, I listened well and understood but did not believe what I was hearing. So, I do understand why some trainers are having trouble accepting some of the dialog on this thread---IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. As I look back over those early years, no written word or verbal explanation would have ever made me believe that you should intentionally create all of these problems in order to wipe them out as an integral part of a well-designed training system. What finally convinced me was observing the reaction of the dogs she was training; especially when I saw her taking advantage of the basic training I had instilled in the dogs I was training once they finally made It to her truck. I soon learned that the number one question I wanted answered about a new field trial pup was not, how well he could mark? How much desire does he have? Or how trainable is he? The question I want answered was, HOW WELL DOES HE HANDLE THE HEAT? 
I too have a difficult time trying to keep an open mind these days accepting some of the things I read which are considered state-of-the–art training of today. So my philosophy nowadays is , not to necessarily dispute anything new, just let this new knowledge disprove itself if its bad.
Keep an open mind fellow trainers, you’ll be a much happier dog person.
If and when you accept this level of training and I’m still alive, perhaps we can discuss an even higher level. 
GG


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> Yes, Chris, I have a real job as my wife calls it.. With the a 4 and 7 year old I got the opportunity of a lifetime to work for a good friend. Dogs right now are on the back burner. It is hard to say when I'll BE BACK but right now we are now enjoying the things that the dogs would not permit us to do. Obviously by the recent post you can see that I miss it, but watching my kids grow trumps all.
> 
> I have watched this post from the begining and have thought long and hard on a response. I don't feel that most on here will understand the concept of what Howard was trying to state. For a minute group they will understand the concepts and decide whether or not it is right for them or not.
> 
> At least now you don't have to worry about me snooping around about pistols......


Haha! That was a hot button, that pistol thing, wasn't it? Did you decide that those models are the real deal?

I have a boy who just graduated kindergarten and another who is going into 4th grade and I'm helping coach their baseball teams. I can relate more than you know on the kids growing up thing.

I don't know if I know what Howard was trying to state or not, but I do have my own mental image of what it means, and what's the most fair to dogs that I personally train.

I love this stuff!

Chris


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Ye, Chris, I am a soccer coach. Do you think Mike would give me some pointers. I know very little about it, but at 7 they tell me its like bees running around in a circle.

I understood what Howard was trying to convey, I just did not feel that it was a topic that the novice trainer should take lightly. 

GG, said it correctly, in that most should not approach unless they had a good pro to get them out of the situation they put themselves in.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Good to see you posting on here Dex; as your expertise is a much needed addition.
You are and Dannette truly missed in our little doggy game world. However without question you made the right move for yourself especially at this point in your kids life.

Hopefully in 15 years or so you can return with Carter as your assistant and kick some tail again in the doggy world. Until then you all enjoy the more normal lifestyle of PTA, soccer games, campouts etc

Good Luck and don't be a stranger on here


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

dexdoolittle said:


> . . .
> 
> I understood what Howard was trying to convey, I just did not feel that it was a topic that the novice trainer should take lightly.
> 
> GG, said it correctly, in that most should not approach unless they had a good pro to get them out of the situation they put themselves in.


That's another good point. By Copterdoc using Howard's quote to start this thread, it might appear Howard's training is getting blasted in some ways, though I'd guess he couldn't care much less even if it were. Howard, Dr. Ed, etc have a great deal of experience, know what they are doing and are very generous with sharing it. By knowing that, I can have a reference for what they might mean in their posts and how highly I personally value them. Others on here, who don't use their name and I have no idea what they've accomplished with dogs, I'm not going to put much merit in their training ideas or suggestions and some of them flat out scare me. I read everything of Howard's, Dr. Ed, Dennis V., people like Ted, Dex & Charlotte, among others, who can take the time to pop in with their own experiences, perspectives and knowledge. The ones like them who have run big dogs consistently for years, they're the rocks of this forum. Sometimes, meaning gets lost in translation or bogged down in semantics, but the "big dogs" should never be treated with anything less than gratitude and respect for their contributions here.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

My pro and I had a discussion this week of people saying they follow the Lardy program, but they can do so in 10 or 20 different ways. It boils down to how the individual trainer trains, with more pressure, to their standard, to each individual dog, with an alternative twist. Most pros develop their own spin after training for awhile, and it might depend on what the clients want or how to get a sensitive dog over a hurdle. Some trainers like a challenge-someone else's washout, and others want to take young talented dogs to the highest level. I've been privileged to find two experienced pros that read dogs very well and actually have evolved very close to each other that blends with my philosophy. An experienced trainer might push their dogs to proof them, but then they probably accept a higher wash out rate.


Awesome post Vicky. I am still waiting for 3 copies of your book.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> That's another good point. By Copterdoc using Howard's quote to start this thread, it might appear Howard's training is getting blasted in some ways, though I'd guess he couldn't care much less even if it were.......


Even if Howard doesn't, I care.

The "image" I have in my mind, of the situation that I interpret Howard's advice to apply to, is of a dog that smoothly breezes through basics.

A dog that just "always seems to do it", without any battles.

When that happens, I think the trainer needs to take a closer look, and make sure that the dog really "got the point".

I'm not saying that you need to take the dog down to the 7th level of hell. Just that you might not have pushed quite hard enough.

I think you need to have a few battles in basics. I think these are the issues that need to be battled.

I would rather have them there, than in the field.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Never said to not have any battles, of course there are going to be issues and of course the yard is the place to deal with them. Basics aren't to be glossed over. That's fundamental and that's most of the problem these newbies on here have, how many times have they posted "OB is great, they take pressure well, yada yada" but then there's the big old hole when they jump to the next step. The inexperienced, and sometimes even experienced, don't know how and when to apply the right pressure for THAT dog to teach it in the best and most efficient & fair manner possible. If someone can't learn from a good trainer in person and is going by what they read on the Internet or in a book, there's a whole lot of nuance that is missed. They might get lucky, they might be just that naturally gifted as a trainer and reading the dog, but more often, it just doesn't happen that way. Training is not black and white, but the written word is, that's part of the problem.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Thanks to all of you for this discussion! The more of this I read, the more I feel like most all of us are discussing various shades of the same color.

Well, except for the part about ftp making a dog go straight... 

I look at dog trainers kind of like musicians. There are plenty of original stars who perform uniquely. Yet when you look at those who influenced that star, you will see a wide range of representation. Some of the performance will look a great deal like an influencer. Other influencers may not be obvious at all.

So much of art is interpretation. Now that I have slept on it, I feel that I contradicted myself here and should not have posted so much last night!


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Wonderful thread here everyone!

I feel that far too many times the beginning or inexperienced trainer does that tasks with the dog but doesn't apply those tasks through the basics program to identify those holes as Kim mentions. Also, I wholeheartedly believe that too many people identify the work "*Pressure*" with the use of the collar. Pressure can come from anywhere. If the dog hasn't had the mental pressure conditioning backed with physical pressure conditioning, the dog isn't going to be in a good mental state. Anxiety, lack of pleasure doing their job, willing to work for the handler, etc, all characteristics of an improperly conditioned dog.

Also to echo on Kim's post above, the yard is a far better place to deal with these problems rather than having the dog sitting on a point 150yds out and not willing to cast into the wind and back into the water when the poison bird is 15 yds away on dry land.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> Awesome post Vicky. I am still waiting for 3 copies of your book.



When I saw Vickie's post, I couldn't help but think that someone would bring it up!


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> The "image" I have in my mind, of the situation that I interpret Howard's advice to apply to, is of a dog that smoothly breezes through basics.
> 
> A dog that just "always seems to do it", without any battles.
> 
> ...


I would caution against that kind of absolute thinking.
It could be that the trainer has not pushed hard enough to deal with possible future issues..
*Or,* it could be that it's a good dog who just gets it. And, is giving huge effort to do what you ask.

Many times, that type dog will transition really smoothly to field. And they are a joy and pleasure to train. All their life...


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

As probably the newest, greenest, least experienced "trainer" on this board (7weeks and counting), I thought I'd add to this.

I understand CD's theory to be this: as you are pushing your dog through the basics, give him or her the opportunities to make incorrect decisions so you can correct them then. It seems he is saying this will (i) build a better, more stable platform of OB to build on later and (ii) help the dog really understand what the pressure is all about. 

As I was reading the thread I recalled story about my wife losing her car for failing to be home on time. She knew she needed to be there, but until she had the opportunity to make that decision on her own, and then bear the consequences, her parents didn't know that she apparently didn't take them too seriously about being home on time. You can bet that had never happened before, i.e., "breezing through OB", and you can for sure bet it never happened again.

I don't think CD really means "push" a dog into messing up as much as he means give them challenging opportunities to make their own decisions. If they make bad ones, you have found the dragon and you can slay it right then.

The conundrum for new trainers is that this theory is right next to our memory of everybody telling us to make sure we give the pup plenty of opportunities to be successful, and don't set him or her up to fail - build momentum. I agree with this 100%, but I think there comes a time when you have to test what you think you have established to make sure it is really established. I may change my mind with experience, but that's what I think right now. On the flip side, I am acutely aware of the potential to do what Ms. Kaiser described in making dark places in my pup's mind that I either can't erase or that require much more effort to overcome.

I had this establishment theory proved to me yesterday when I threw my pup some longer marks than he was used to getting, and I did it in a different place than he is used to. He absolutely nailed the first mark - and took it straight to my wife, who threw the bird. On the other two I threw, I ran out and got him to chase me back, which he did.

He has come straight back to me with retrieves for two weeks now, but the minute he got the chance not to he didn't, so obviously my OB on "here" is not where it needs to be. Had I just kept throwing him the same old marks, I would not have known that. This is a very simple example that I stumbled onto mostly by accident, as it was just the next step for my pup.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

This may be the fundamental difference between the programs, Carr, Lardy ect. Even or someone may have the answer. Is the fundamental difference of opinion the center of the different programs. I train with Gonia and he doesn't do a TT, which got me thinking this may be the difference in the programs, the way they view pressure and how it should be applied in basics, the foundation of the program?? If someone has insight please share, interesting topic. It amazing how people can have polar opposite training ideas and still make a dog that can win a trial and even nationals. There are folks that are conventional trainers, or can train with big groups, and then there are non conventional trainers that have a different outlook yet both can make a quality animal. If people would realize there is no right or wrong way to train a dog, if the same objective is accomplished. Look at J. Vollstead, not a conventional trainer by any means, has his own idea how a dog should be trained, can you argue that your program is better?? We need to appreciate other training ideas an ways and not get pissy when someone has a different way or sees it different. That's what is so special about this sport, its a collection of ideas that differ as much as our personalities differ! So instead of arguing your point takes theirs and put it in the memory bank, you may use it some day, but if you take offense to someone's ideas then you never will and you may suffer.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

champ said:


> This may be the fundamental difference between the programs, Carr, Lardy ect. Even or someone may have the answer. Is the fundamental difference of opinion the center of the different programs. I train with Gonia and he doesn't do a TT, which got me thinking this may be the difference in the programs, the way they view pressure and how it should be applied in basics, the foundation of the program?? If someone has insight please share, interesting topic. It amazing how people can have polar opposite training ideas and still make a dog that can win a trial and even nationals. There are folks that are conventional trainers, or can train with big groups, and then there are non conventional trainers that have a different outlook yet both can make a quality animal. If people would realize there is no right or wrong way to train a dog, if the same objective is accomplished.* Look at J. Vollstead, not a conventional trainer *by any means, has his own idea how a dog should be trained, can you argue that your program is better?? We need to appreciate other training ideas an ways and not get pissy when someone has a different way or sees it different. That's what is so special about this sport, its a collection of ideas that differ as much as our personalities differ! So instead of arguing your point takes theirs and put it in the memory bank, you may use it some day, but if you take offense to someone's ideas then you never will and you may suffer.


do you know who taught Jack V. how to train dogs ? I'll give you a hint, she is married to one of the poster's on this thread


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> do you know who taught Jack V. how to train dogs ? I'll give you a hint, she is married to one of the poster's on this thread


Have you trained with Jack? I definitely wouldn't call him a conventional trainer...would you?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

champ said:


> Have you trained with Jack? I definitely wouldn't call him a conventional trainer...would you?


I trained with Jack when he lived in Southern Calif circa late 70's...but he originally learned from Dana (Brown) Istre, who was one of Rex Carr's best students,..I am sure Jack has evolved and changed some over the years but he was always a very good dog person, and a very generous man with his time and resources..have not seen or trained with him lately, only trained on his property in Niland


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Thanks to all of you for this discussion! The more of this I read, the more I feel like most all of us are discussing various shades of the same color.
> 
> Well, except for the part about ftp making a dog go straight...
> 
> ...


I wouldnt say FTP teaches them to go straight. But I have forced a flair out of a dog during FTP. So I think the compulsion and drive created during FTP has a lot to do with it.

If you look at protection dogs going after a decoy, obviously they have a ton of drive to get to the decoy as fast as possible.

I have noticed when they run across the field after the decoy over long distances they almost never flair.

This might indicate that if they have enough compulsion and drive in them they will fight most environmental factors naturally to get what they want. 

I have seen them jump over the hood of a car and many other things they where never trained to do on their way to a decoy. These dogs don't go through swim by and cheating drills.

Or maybe I I'm way of track here who knows.


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

I love this song from Ashley MacIssac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQGR6zVYPI


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

blind ambition said:


> I love this song from Ashley MacIssac
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQGR6zVYPI


Again, I wrote too much last night.

Chris


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Typically, bugging, popping and no-goes, show up (or return), when you start nit-picking on blind retrieves. 

It is common sense, that you need to avoid nit-picking on early cold blinds.

However, eventually you need to demand tighter lines, and more control.

I'm not suggesting that dealing with bugging, popping and no-goes during FTP and TT, will grant you a "license to nit-pick", on early cold blinds.

I just wonder if it gives you a bit more "wiggle room", if you have already "been there, done that", and tested your tools before leaving the TT.


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

After reading some of this thread pretty interesting discussion. Actually one of the few good ones in a very long time. Basics I believe are done a little bit different for some. I may change things for each dog and I think that is what makes dog traing so cool. Trying to remember a quote a friend told me concerning basics but I think it was the attitude you force with is the attitude you get or something like that. I do think that is why dog training is a art not a science and reading dogs is what is important. I think the steps taken clean any of the problems you might have bugging, Popping, flares can be easily fixed. I always ask myself why? When I know why i can fix it. Some dogs I train get fun Bumpers during FTP. I had a super nice bitch one time she would give you a belly buster coming back from the back pile on FTP.


----------

