# Excellent (free) video clips on Force Fetch without the force (max. 2 week process)



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Here is a free website with a lot of good positive dog training stuff. The Positive Fetch part is very good. It is in a series of very short (60 sec.) video clips. Here is the link:

http://www.companionsforlife.net/Retrieve_members1.html

Best Regards,
Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Cool, Robert. Thanks!


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Ok, I have to ask a few things. Bear in mind that I have used a clicker, I did teach "Fetch" using a clicker on my first dog before he was FF. Since then I have taught fetch and delivery to hand without a clicker and without force, also before FF. 

I am all for the least use of force. I did explore about every aspect of your website that I could Robert. But, I am a little cautious. Before my first dog and before I knew what I know now, I was against FF and force and all of that. Since then, I have come to understand it, have FF two dogs, and neither of them hated it, had a bad attitude, or anything like that. I would still love to have that ideal of ALMOST purely positive, but again, I'm cautious. 

Here are my questions. What does this guy, or you, do when the dog refuses, spits, rolls, chomps, chews, etc?? What's your correction for that? I would have loved to see the guy in the clips do this with a dog for the first time. I guess what I'm getting at are what do your enforcers become since obviously with FF you have the recourse of the ear pinch. Also, how does this translate for dogs that go on to casting and blind work, etc.?

And here's just a little personal pet peeve, I would absolutely hate for my dog to be nosing my pocket for a treat every single time like that little dog did in the clips!

Thanks,
Kourtney


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Kourtney,

I don't know anything about the guy. I just stumbled on the website and thought the training was excellent. Certainly the site is well done and the explanations are clearly presented. I think it is a good source of training info.

As for refusals, I can only tell you my philosophy on it. When I get refusals, it is because I set up the training scenario improperly and asked the dog to do something for which I had not properly prepared him. Unfortunately I do screw up and generate refusals, but when I do I realize that it is not the dog choosing to refuse, it is me telling him to to something for which I had not prepared him. My preferred solution for refusals is to simplify the set up so that the dog is successful. Then come back tomorrow and do again, perhaps preceding with the simplified version so that I insure success.

Best Regards,
Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Ok, I have to say something here, because it's right on point to a recent occurrence. I have trained all kinds of dogs, tracking, obedience, agiltiy and field. And have used this type of approach, along with a traditional FF, both ear pinch and toe hitch. 

Be cautious when you choose this method if you're looking at a master hunt test dog, a Q dog, or an All Age dog. Please note that the author's audience is for a companion dog. I have found that when using this type of training for heavy field copetition that your force will not last at 300 yards... or heavy daily training for AA competition. I just saw a dog that when bringing back the bird in an AA stake, stopped on its way back, and started flipping the bird in the water, etc. This was not the first time this had happened. It turns out that this dog was Forced with this type of obedience method. It has a huge hole in it's force program for the type of work it's being asked to do. The force it was taught cannot hold up to the rigors of the type of work it is being asked to do. The dog has not learned to handle the type of pressure that AA training and the like puts the dog under.

So, while this is a very valid method, make sure you're picking it for the end result you are trying to achieve.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Anything to get out of work.


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

RemsBPJasper said:


> Here are my questions. What does this guy, or you, do when the dog refuses, spits, rolls, chomps, chews, etc?? What's your correction for that? I would have loved to see the guy in the clips do this with a dog for the first time. I guess what I'm getting at are what do your enforcers become since obviously with FF you have the recourse of the ear pinch. Also, how does this translate for dogs that go on to casting and blind work, etc.?


When I train -- no matter what the behavior -- the first step is to define what I want. I suppose, if there are common problems like you've listed, I can also list what I don't want, but really what it boils down to is that there is a specific definition of what I want and ANYTHING else is incorrect.

So I teach and reinforce what I want. If something happens that I don't want, I don't reinforce it, and I do what I need to do to get a higher rate of reinforcement for what I do want. If the dog starts mouthing, rather than steadily holding, the object, I don't do rep after rep after rep where he's doing that. I'll drop back to a criteria where he was successfull, and then build again more gradually, building a stronger history of successful reps.

I'm not sure what you mean about your question about casting and blinds work. Not sure how teaching a retrieve is related.



> I just saw a dog that when bringing back the bird in an AA stake, stopped on its way back, and started flipping the bird in the water, etc. This was not the first time this had happened.


It seems that when I read of the problems people have, the most consistent thing I hear is that incorrect performances have occurred in the past, but people didn't address them then. An immutable rule of training -- and not just positive training -- is that each subsequent behavior in a sequence or chain reinforces the behavior(s) that came before it. So every time you let the dog complete an incorrect retrieve, you've reinforced a mistake.

The problem wasn't the positive training for the retrieve. The problem was that he allowed the dog to reinforce mistakes.

It's like creeping at the line. If you allow it, you're going to get more of it. If you don't want it, then you set your criteria and don't waver on it.


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Robert, 

Thanks for your reply. 

Rainsmom,

I guess what I'm getting at is my understanding is FF builds to casting and blindwork. When my dogs come off the table or out of FF, they are starting casting on "fetch." So are dogs that are positive retrieve conditioned going to extend their work out in the field? With a FF dog you can go out and pinch the ear if they refuse, if a positive retrieve conditioned dog refuses, you just back up a step? 

Just looking for clarification. I guess it seems too simple to me. 

Thanks,
Kourtney


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> It seems that when I read of the problems people have, the most consistent thing I hear is that incorrect performances have occurred in the past, but people didn't address them then. An immutable rule of training -- and not just positive training -- is that each subsequent behavior in a sequence or chain reinforces the behavior(s) that came before it. So every time you let the dog complete an incorrect retrieve, you've reinforced a mistake.
> 
> The problem wasn't the positive training for the retrieve. The problem was that he allowed the dog to reinforce mistakes.


 
You're talking about training, I'm talking about trialing when the wheels come off because the dog doesn't have the proper foundational background for the physical and mental pressure and the proper way to get out of it or handle it in general. Two different things.

What are you going to to do at 200 yards during a FT when the dog starts playing with the bird... . get out your clicker? 

While it's a great concept and workable for a companion dog, it doesn't work in the higher stakes of Field Trialing or even Master tests. 

Been there, done that, seen it back fire too many times regards-


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I don't believe it is possible to train to advanced levels using only positive reinforcement. There may be that rare dog who could do it, but I have never owned, or seen one.

If someone figures how to do it on a consistent basis, am willing to change my mind. So far, don't know anyone who has. 

The proof would be results/titles, otherwise it's just words and theory.

I would like to see a comprehensive training program such as Lardys, outlining the steps, using purely positive reinforcement. Where is it????


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

I'll answer what I can.



> I guess what I'm getting at is my understanding is FF builds to casting and blindwork. When my dogs come off the table or out of FF, they are starting casting on "fetch." So are dogs that are positive retrieve conditioned going to extend their work out in the field? With a FF dog you can go out and pinch the ear if they refuse, if a positive retrieve conditioned dog refuses, you just back up a step?


I don't know that I'm the best person to answer this, because I'm not familiar with how casting is taught in the circumstances you describe. I have, however, taught my dog to take directional hand signals from a distance and to go in the direction indicated. If my dog "refuses," that's an error. I have to look at my data to determine what's going on: Is this a new task he's learning, Is this a new situation with new elements to factor in, Is this a sign of lack of fluency in the behavior, Is there a factor I haven't considered that I need to train for?

I don't ever think in terms of "How do I stop x" or "How do I fix y." I think only in terms of "How to I get him to do z." I'm looking only at how to teach him what he needs to know to get it right.



> You're talking about training, I'm talking about trialing when the wheels come off because the dog doesn't have the proper foundational background for the physical and mental pressure and the proper way to get out of it or handle it in general. Two different things.


It is two different things, but training is how you teach the dog to handle the physical and mental hardships he'll face later. The way I train, I define those factors, introduce them in an easy situation first, and then gradually make it harder and harder. Yes, you can use positive methods and still get reliability in difficult, unpleasant situations. But you have to simulate those in training, and then let the data guide what you do.



> If someone figures how to do it on a consistent basis, am willing to change my mind. So far, don't know anyone who has.
> 
> The proof would be results/titles, otherwise it's just words and theory.
> 
> I would like to see a comprehensive training program such as Lardys, outlining the steps, using purely positive reinforcement. Where is it????


Well, there's a guy named Dave Bezesky who has a Derby dog named Raven who is clicker trained. She has run six derbies and gotten 3 wins and 2 JAM's. She made the list with 15 points (whatever that means -- just reporting what he told me). She's not old enough to have done other classes yet, but he says thus far her transition into all age work has been nothing short of amazing.

There are definitely JHs and SHs who are clicker trained, and I'm fairly certain there's at least one MH. I know there are multiple MHs in the Viszla world, but those are not retriever tests, so I doubt that impresses you.

Where's the program? There's not one. That's why it's so hard. The people who are doing this are hacking through uncharted wilderness and experimenting to figure out what works. They don't have the benefit of existing programs, professionals to help them, books and videos out the yin yang, etc. Now, on top of that, you want them to be writers too!

There's a guy with goldens who is keeping carefultrack of his training, who is planning to write a book with a program in it. But he's not there yet. He's pretty free with his descriptions of what he's doing though -- successes and failures. He keeps an amazingly detailed blog, and he shoots a ton of video. 

His blog: http://lumi-laddie-test-series.blogspot.com/

Laddie's videos: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9A44913FB240932A

This is the most recent video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Wopem30Yo&feature=PlayList&p=9A44913FB240932A&index=18

It shows Laddie, a few days after his first birthday, running a series of short marks (60, 80 yards) and blinds (100, 120, 120 yards).

Oh, and you also said you don't think it's possible to train to high levels using only positive reinforcement. Clicker trainers don't use only positive reinforcement. We use positive reinforcement, extinction, and some negative punishment. A smart clicker trainer uses tons and tons of Premack in his training as well -- teaching the dog that everything he wants follows doing what the trainer wants. VERY powerful.

Don't ever underestimate the power of -- or even the potential aversiveness of -- extinction and P-. The difference in the methods of training is less in the balance of pleasant/unpleasant than in the focus. Clicker trainers focus on building what they want, not fixing what they don't.


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Rainsmom,

Can you be a little more specific though? If your dog refuses a cast, what do you exactly go out and do? What have you done? 


I'm waiting to see if Dave chimes in on this about Raven.

Kourtney


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> It is two different things, but training is how you teach the dog to handle the physical and mental hardships he'll face later.


You act as if I've never held a clicker. While it works fine in an agility ring, it won't at 400 yards. Your dog can't even hear that click through running water at 400 yards. Plus, your dog could care less when they are breaking for that flyer that they didn't hear that little click. It also works fine when I start my puppies at 8 weeks, give me eye contact, you get a click and a treat. Once they start yard work, teh clicking goes away, and so do the treats, although they still drool a little. 

I love it when all of htis positive reinforcement [email protected]#p comes up.... the proof is in the puddin' and so far, I've never seen it. BUT, I have seen countless dogs where the wheels fell off, and the clicker gets put away, and the owner engages in a traditional force program.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

*OK, we are talking agility and "field sports" the dead give-away that we are not defining pressure in the same manner. And, there are reasons why goldens are at the top of the heap annually in obedience. Click away! *



*Lumiere-du-Soleil JH WCX CGC TDI* is a Golden Retriever born October 24, 2003. Her call name is "Lumi".

Prior to the spring of 2007, Lumi trained for agility, musical freestyle, and Schutzhund-style tracking, and also learned many tricks.

In various agility venues, Lumi earned seven qualifying ribbons and a number of First Places, including a double-Q at an AKC trial on July 30, 2006, in which she took First Place in both Novice events.

Since that time, Lumi has participated primarily in field sports. In summer 2007, she won First Place in the Unsteady Stake at the SMHRC Super Singles event. She then earned her GRCA Working Certificate (WC) title in September 2007, and completed her AKC Junior Hunter (JH) title in May 2008. In summer 2008, she took Third Place in her second SMHC Super Singles Unsteady Stake, and in September 2008, she earned her GRCA Working Certificate Excellent (WCX) title.

Outside of Lumi's field work, she earned her AKC CGC title, and her TDI title, in May 2008.

Lumi has been discussed on many dog training lists, including ClickerSolutions, ClickTrain, CleanRun, and PositiveGunDogs.

In May 2005, Lindsay and Lumi started a new list called DogTrek, "Explorations in dog training". Most Internet discussions by and about Lumi now occur in that list.

Lumi appears in a number of videos on YouTube. Links to her YouTube playlist as well as her pedigree appear under "Links" below.




*About Laddie*

*Topbrass Lad of the Lakes JH* is a Golden Retriever born April 22, 2007. His call name is "Laddie".

Laddie, both of whose parents were field champions, has trained for field sports since he was seven weeks old.

In 2007, Laddie participated in two Puppy Stakes and won First Place in both of them. Over a nine day period in Laddie's second summer, he earned four Junior ribbons, completing his AKC Junior Hunter title on August 31, 2008.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

rainsmom said:


> Clicker trainers focus on building what they want, not fixing what they don't.


AND SO DO ALL GOOD RETRIEVER TRAINERS.

The difference is, most are experienced enough to know the problems will happen, we need the right tools to deal with them. We don't have your rosy view that all dogs are going to do the trained behavior, when they don't, we are at fault. I would like to believe this, sure would make getiing an FC/AFC easier, but all the training in the world doesn't equal success on the weekend.

Like Susan said, clicker just won't get it done.

Open mind here, willing to change when proof is presented. Still waiting.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> You're talking about training, I'm talking about trialing when the wheels come off because the dog doesn't have the proper foundational background for the physical and mental pressure and the proper way to get out of it or handle it in general. Two different things.
> 
> *What are you going to to do at 200 yards during a FT when the dog starts playing with the bird*... . get out your clicker?
> 
> ...


Susan, 

When you ask what are you going to do if the *wheels come off* at a FT, 
You seem to be inferring that there is something that can be done if you have FFed the dog.

I normally pick the dog up. 

Am I missing something?

john


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

> Can you be a little more specific though? If your dog refuses a cast, what do you exactly go out and do? What have you done?


I rarely go out and do anything. Depending on the situation, I have recued from where I stood, I have gone closer and recued, and I have aborted the exercise. In all circumstances, I have factored that rep as a failure and examined it to figure out what I need to do for my dog to get it right next time. It depends on what I'm doing. I'm not competing with the dogs I've trained to do this, so I don't have to have that level of reliability.



> You act as if I've never held a clicker. While it works fine in an agility ring, it won't at 400 yards. Your dog can't even hear that click through running water at 400 yards. Plus, your dog could care less when they are breaking for that flyer that they didn't hear that little click.


Holding it and using it well aren't the same thing. People who clicker train generally add distance last, long after they've stopped using the clicker itself. Heck, even for agility, I don't click the dog at a distance. I may mark, but not with a clicker.

Is my dog able to resist breaking for the flyer at 20yds? What about 30? 40? I'm not going to have him out at 400 yards until he's proven reliable at all the distances buiding up to that. By the time I get to 400 yards, he has such a strong reinforcement history, I don't have to worry about him breaking.



> Ilove it when all of htis positive reinforcement [email protected]#p comes up.... the proof is in the puddin' and so far, I've never seen it. BUT, I have seen countless dogs where the wheels fell off, and the clicker gets put away, and the owner engages in a traditional force program.


Whew -- it's a darn good thing that dogs don't ever fail in traditional programs!!

How come if that RARE individual happens to fail in a traditional program, the dog or the handler is to blame, but if a dog fails in a clicker program, it's the program? 

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to try clicker training. A bunch of people here already use it for yard work. Great! It wasn't that long ago that ANY use of the clicker was deemed ridiculous and a complete waste of time. But lots of people here have found uses where they're really happy with the results.

Maybe, one behavior at a time, they'll try it on issues in the field, and then they can build on each other's experiments. No one is saying that traditional training is wrong or bad or that the two can't be combined.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Susan,
> 
> When you ask what are you going to do if the *wheels come off* at a FT,
> You seem to be inferring that there is something that can be done if you have FFed the dog.
> ...


John-

Go back and read my initial post about dogs who haven't been properly forced. With the right foundation, there are less opportunities for the wheels to fall off. Why have something so basic go wrong? This is akin to not tightening your lug nuts. 

Ie; your dog just smacks the tightest most difficult marks you have seen in a long time, and then starts playing with the bird 200 yadrs out on the way in with the last one? That's not tightening your lug nuts, and that's what I saw last weekend. Darn shame, too. And, it's not the first time I've seen it.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> Holding it and using it well aren't the same thing. People who clicker train generally add distance last, long after they've stopped using the clicker itself. Heck, even for agility, I don't click the dog at a distance. I may mark, but not with a clicker.
> 
> Is my dog able to resist breaking for the flyer at 20yds? What about 30? 40? I'm not going to have him out at 400 yards until he's proven reliable at all the distances buiding up to that. By the time I get to 400 yards, he has such a strong reinforcement history, I don't have to worry about him breaking.


Your last statement is very telling. It's easy to get dogs to NOT break at 400 yards. 30 yards in their face is another matter.

I've got agility titled dogs, WC, WCX, CGC, tracking titled dogs, obedience titled dogs, HT titled dogs (both AKC and HRC) and an FC. How about you?

I'm not blaming the clicker program. I'm stating it's not reliable for field trial work. And a field program is NOT the same thing. 

So, I assure you, that I can not only hold a clicker but use it well. I just won't waste my time with it on my trial dogs.

Know your tools, and what you want to achieve.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Now John, if you had properly trained your dog before, the wheels would never come off. ;-)

Lots of dogs picked up on lots of weekends, regards. 

Rainsmom, perhaps clicker training is not unchartered, it is unsuccessful for advanced training, that is why there is no literature out there.

By the way, lots easier not to break on a flyer at 400 yards, than 40.

I don't think you understand how much of a factor distance is in breaking down trained behaviors.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Force Fetch is the nucleus of impetus; momentum. It is the basis for the ability to maintain velocity against resistance. Because of that, it is also a basis for the tools to assure that a trained dog becomes so clearly set upon carrying out tasks under command that refusals are exponentially rarer than with non-forced dogs, and that the trainer has a mechanism to instantly deal with such refusals.

I submit that Force Fetch without force is not Force Fetch. It's just "Fetch", and will not be regarded by the dog in the same manner as forcing. It will not produce the same results, and so will not provide the trainer with the same leverage for advancement and maintenance.

Evan


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

I don't compete. Never have -- maybe never will. I've never misled anyone about that.

I don't agree that clicker training isn't successful for advanced training. It has been used for elite levels and working-dog levels of ring work, obedience, agility, canine freestyle, police work, tracking, service dog work, guide dog work, search and rescue work, detection work (all kinds), and military tasks ranging from bomb detection to trip wire detection. 

Relatively few people have tried field work with the clicker at this point. It is gradually getting more use, and gradually people are becoming more successful. That's the same way it happened in other fields, and I don't doubt that it will happen in field work as well. I just don't doubt what history has taught me. EVERY one of the areas/sports I listed above challenging at high levels and has some really difficult unique aspect that people said "can't be done with the clicker." But it has. 

And those are just the accomplishments of the dogs. When you get out of dogs, you get into accomplishments that are WAY beyond anything any dog is asked to do. How do you "correct" a wild caught dolphin (who was wild caught as an adult six months prior) who is working on a task in open water four HOURS away from his trainers if he makes a mistake? How do you correct a house cat who has been directed by cochlear implant to follow a target (far away from the trainer) when he is suddenly faced with a target who turns and attacks him with an umbrella? How do you correct a raven who is wearing a tiny camera and flying into enemy territory, guided by a laser, if he doesn't land on the right spot or doesn't place the camera exactly right against the window?

And yet, it was all done successfully without losing dolphins, cats, or birds.

You're right -- it IS just words and theory right now. It was just words and theory in allllll those other areas until someone succeeded. I, personally, choose to believe it is as possible in this field as it is in those. You and I can agree to disagree on that.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> I don't compete. Never have -- maybe never will. I've never misled anyone about that.
> 
> I don't agree that clicker training isn't successful for advanced training.


These two statements appear to be at odds with each other. It's fine if you choose to disagree with anyone's assertions about clicker training not being effective for advanced training. But, if you havnen't competed in the areas of fieldwork discussed here - especially with any degree of success - I don't think you have a baseline of experience to determine that.

How do you know what it takes to compete in the venues discussed here? A cursory reading of posts on RTF will readilly reveal that most of those who do compete here do so in field trials and/or hunt tests. My suggestion would be to train up a dog and go for it. Then, having found what is really required of them in those immensely challenging venues, you can make a more accurate determination of the strength of clicker training, or any other passive-only approach.

Make sense?

Evan


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

When literature is published, and more than 1 or 2 dogs have acheived FC/AFC on such a program, then I certainly will be interested and willing to learn about it.

I try to be one that never says never, but when you state that you don't compete, that means to me that you don't have the language to understand what is required.

In other words, you are talking about training to high levels, when you don't even know what that is. And yet you are so sure it can be accomplished.

Kind of like me commenting on what goes into the making of a successful confOrmation dog, when I don't have a clue.

No disrespest intended, this has been very interesting on a boring afternoon when my husband is off running a field trial.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

This is the funniest thread I've read in a long time! Great entertainment on a windy and raining Friday evening.

laughs.

There are trained retrievers and then there are retrievers that have trained their clicker buddies.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Evan said:*



> I submit that Force Fetch without force is not Force Fetch. It's just "Fetch", and will not be regarded by the dog in the same manner as forcing. It will not produce the same results, and so will not provide the trainer with the same leverage for advancement and maintenance.


Is the 'force' you speak of 'force' as percieved by the trainer, or 'force' percieved by the dog? 

Is it possible that some dogs, by temperament require relatively less 'force' as percieved by the trainer, than other dogs? 

Is it possible that a dog, well trained in basic obedience, will require less 'force', as defined by the trainer, than a dog that has had little basic obedience? 

Could it be that basic obedience is 'foundational' for force fetch? Is it possible to reach that 'foundational level' of obedience via positive methods?

I don't know your training background, Evan. But, I think it's fair to ask if you, personally, have given positive methods an equal opportunity to achieve results?

It's fair to challenge those of us who question the need for force, as long as it's also fair to challenge advocates of force, especially if they haven't tried other methods themselves.

Just sayin...


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Evan said:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair is fair- just lay out the collection of NFC trophies tht clicker trained dogs have earned and compare that to the collection othat force trained dogs have earned.

Pretty simple regards

Bubba


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> There are trained retrievers and then there are retrievers that have trained their clicker buddies.


I go back to the statement of "field work" which is a much different venue than field trials or even a master hunt test. I have yet to see clicker trained dogs compete successfully. Like Charlotte, bring it on with some success and I'll listen and learn. I can hardly wait to be one of the first to purchase "Total Retriever Clicking." 

But, I do have to say, Franco, that to this day, FC Honor runs and sits and looks at me for his cookie when he hears a clicker go off!


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Bubba said:*



> Fair is fair- just lay out the collection of NFC trophies tht clicker trained dogs have earned and compare that to the collection othat force trained dogs have earned.
> 
> Pretty simple regards
> 
> Bubba


Bubba, pleeeaaase! If 98% of dogs running test and trials are force fetched, then the 2% of dogs that are not force fetched will be mathematically overwhelmed regardless of thier training or talent. It's time that tired old arguement was laid to rest.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Bubba said:*
> 
> 
> 
> Bubba, pleeeaaase! If 98% of dogs running test and trials are force fetched, then the 2% of dogs that are not force fetched will be mathematically overwhelmed regardless of thier training or talent. It's time that tired old arguement was laid to rest.


So, how you coming on running a senior test?

/Paul

Tri-Tronics. Making the worlds greatest clicker for 30 years.....


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Ok, I do have to laugh, because I have jokingly told people I have a remote controlled dog.


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Evan...*
> ......
> ....
> It's fair to challenge those of us who question the need for force, as long as it's also fair to challenge advocates of force, especially if they haven't tried other methods themselves.
> ...


Snicklefritz...what is your name?

I began clicker training in the '90's, I don't know when Evan began ; ).....

I was part of e-forums, personal e-mails, and phone calls with key "leaders" in the field of clicker training. Even clicker only trained a labrador to a CD with a high in match and 4 1st places out of 5 matches).

I have hunted waterfowl prolifically, and guided in my early 20's extensively. It was my dream to (and might still be) to achieve the first clicker or positive reinforcement only retriever training program ever. Believe me there's a market and at least one poster to this thread knows it. 

That being said I am now a professional retriever trainer, and I occassionally use a bridge/clicker or marker, but I assure you dog's in for basics are FF, CC'd and progressed in a manner that establishes a consistent and fluent responding, along with an ability and understanding to respond appropriately to appropriate pressure.

If clicker or R+ only focused retriever trainers want to be taken seriously they need to attend some field trials, and upper level hunt tests, and they need to establish a program that prepares their retrievers to perform competently at these types of events.

It was not surprising but highly disappointing when I learned the author(s) of one of the most recently lauded positive reinforcement hunting dog books had begun their own testing and awarding program to "reinforce" dogs trained in that manner. Why not develop an effective program and train some dogs that compete at the existing test, trials and events - demonstrate the effectiveness of the training approach?

The method is not that "new", and there are sufficient number clicker trainers, and positive reinforcement trainers today to justify the question: where are the dogs trained in this manner who are passing and placing?

The demand for a clicker and positive reinforcement trainer producing consistently competitive retrievers would be incredible - as a professional if I were able, I would fill a truck full of clicker friendly retrievers. As a professional, in the interest of the potential of the dogs, and for the success sake of my clients and their dogs I force fetch, collar condition and etc.

Having been blessed with the opportunity to work with and learn from some of the very best retriever trainers - it didn't go unnoticed that none of them carried a wrist-o-click, or other such secondary R+.

As a trainer and canine behavior enthusiast, I am open to new training ideas and methods, as an objectivist I require the methods to be proven out with reproduceable results.

The FF based "program" for advancing retrievers, produces and reproduces consistent competitive results.

Evan's literature and products related to retriever training instruction quite possibly have resulted in at least a couple more titled (test and trial) retrievers than all the clicker trained literature combined.

Not anti clicker, but anti clicker zealous regards,

Wayne Dibbley
Next Level Retriever Training
PRTA Pro
CAPPDT
www.retrievercoach.com


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

" Dogs learn about stimuli, they learn about associations, and they learn about contingencies. They can learn with positive consequences, they can learn with negative consequences, and they can learn with a combination of positive and negative consequences. How a dog learns BEST depends upon you and your personality, the dog and his personality, and WHAT what response you are attempting to teach. " 
- Pamela J. Reid, Ph.D.


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Aussie said:


> " Dogs learn about stimuli, they learn about associations, and they learn about contingencies. They can learn with positive consequences, they can learn with negative consequences, and they can learn with a combination of positive and negative consequences. How a dog learns BEST depends upon you and your personality, the dog and his personality, and WHAT what response you are attempting to teach. "
> - Pamela J. Reid, Ph.D.


From EXCEL-Erated Learning b Pamela J. Reid, Ph.D

section: Electronic Collars and Avoidance Responding

"The real beauty of avoidance responding is that once the animal has learned the response in order to avoid the aversive stimulus, he is extremely persistent.....You could take the collar off and throw it in the river and he will continue to avoid the shock (providing you first ensured he learned the irrelevance of the collar itself)."

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Snicklefritz said:


> Is it possible that some dogs, by temperament require relatively less 'force' as percieved by the trainer, than other dogs?
> 
> Is it possible that a dog, well trained in basic obedience, will require less 'force', as defined by the trainer, than a dog that has had little basic obedience?
> 
> Just sayin...


Yes and yes. Most people I know, want dogs that require little force, it's not the force in and of itself that makes a good dog. Those who believe you can force a dog to do anything it doesn't really want to do, will not, in the end, have consistent AA dogs, IMHO They will quit on the weekend.

The program, based off FF, is a means to teach and also correct problems that will always arise. Rems asked a valid question, what do you do if dog refuses you? And there will always come a time when he will. There will come a time when what he wants to do is far more important than any praise from you. This has been my experience.

We have trained with/without collar, there is simply no comparison to the advanced levels that can be reached.

If you question the need for force, you have likely not gotten far enough along to see the big picture.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Wayne Dibbley said:


> From EXCEL-Erated Learning b Pamela J. Reid, Ph.D
> 
> section: Electronic Collars and Avoidance Responding
> 
> ...


Great book. Mine is well thumbed. 

On a different vein, enjoyed Fundamentals of Animal training by Bob Bailey, Online magazine articles, Mike Lardys thoughts in one of the older Gundog magazines which highlighted less pressure more teaching. 

Consistency, timing............. all good.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> There will come a time when what he wants to do is far more important than any praise from you. This has been my experience.
> 
> If you question the need for force, you have likely not gotten far enough along to see the big picture.


Very true. And Charlotte has a lot more experience than I do. I just got stomped on quickly, and learned my lessons just as quick. And, I'm still learning. It's all a process.


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Patient Like the Chipmunks Aussie. ; )

Ever attend a Bailey Chicken Training Camp?

Best Regards,

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Evan said:*
> 
> Is the 'force' you speak of 'force' as percieved by the trainer, or 'force' percieved by the dog?


The short answer is "Yes". Holy cow! You must know that force does not enter the training regimen until after passive teaching has been thoroughly established so the dog understands clearly what he is to do under command! 

I know this has been covered before, but do you recall _why_ we use force in dog training? To change the dog's behavior. 

The simplest formula is to apply pressure until a demonsrable change has been achieved. That's how you know how much is enough. The dog demonstrates that he perceives it by demonstrating the change in behavior.

Aweful wordy for a simple mechanism, don't you think?


shicklefritz said:


> Is it possible that some dogs, by temperament require relatively less 'force' as percieved by the trainer, than other dogs?


Of course it is. The sensitivity, intellegence, and bidability levels of each dog are individual. But that's hardly news.

Rex Carr gave a seminar for the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club decades ago. There weren't video tapes yet, but someone made audio tapes of it. During Q&A a lady asked Rex, "I noticed that you had Ray (Bly) stick Torrey each time he said "Sit", even though she was trying to sit on command anyway. Why did you have him stick her?" (paraphrased, but real close)

Rex's reply was something like this: "Well, a direct reply would be because I know too d*mned much about dogs not to." That was to get her attention, I imagine! He went on to explain the principles of pressure conditioning, making clear the simple fact that you cannot really condition a dog to pressure without pressure. 

I started with an almost entirely passive approach to retreiver training, circa 1975. I learned to continue starting puppies and young dogs passively, but also to continue development through the temperate application of pressure because I now know too d*mned much about dogs not to. It's more involved than that. But are you telling me you haven't crossed this particular hurdle yet?

Evan


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Wayne Dibbley said:


> Patient Like the Chipmunks Aussie. ; )
> 
> Ever attend a Bailey Chicken Training Camp?
> 
> ...


No Wayne but have to admit as I viewed the chickens (significance of using females/hens only?), performing an agility course was fun. 

I do believe clicker training or as you mentioned marker training, is useful regarding our timing.

Bob Bailey did bring up significant points to ponder all the same.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Wayne, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response. Howevere, in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if you have made some unwarranted assumptions on my part, the first of which R+ is automatically R+ only. Positive does not imply permissive, at least on my part, and on the part of others I train with of the same mind set.

The second possible assumption is that I use 'clickers'. I don't. I use reward markers (and, as I'm sure you know) 'clickers' are a reward marker.

The third is not so much your assumption, but one that seems to be implied. It is not black and white, IMHO. It is not 'force' or 'no force'. 'Force' is another word for training stress. Training is stressful for dogs as it is for humans. Additonally, as a result of my law enforcement background I have been subjected to training that was intentionally made more stressful in order to learn to cope with situations under stressful conditions.

Anytime you train your dog, no matter how positive you may be, you are putting your dog under stress. Anytime you raise the criteria (say increasing distractions) in order to steady a dog, you are increasing stress. In dog training, the stress may be the result of an ear pinch, or it may be other physical means, or it may be verbal. But, the question, as I see it, is not black and white -'To pinch, or not to pinch?'

Force fetch is a structured training program, and I believe that structure is irreplaceable. In some fashion, the dog must learn to 'fetch' and 'hold' to be successful even at the simplest levels of retriever training. The question many thinking positive trainers have is, 'How much force is necessary?' Is it reallly necessary to inflict physical discomfort to achieve a reliable fetch and hold. 

I am well aware of the additional claims made for force fetch. But, as I've watched dogs over the past two years, and read threads on problems supposedly related to force fetch, it has become clear to me that some of the 'additional' claims made for force fetch are questionable.

Finally, there is a whole continent of trainers who do not use force fetch, and yet produce reliable gun dogs. They may not be able to compete in an American field trial; but, who said American field trials are the standard against which all dogs, and training methods are vetted?

Looking for a bigger picture.

Snick


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Positive reinforcement is the fastest way to shape a wanted behavior

Negative reinforcement is the fastest way to shape unwanted behavior

Positive punishment is the fastest way to proof wanted behavior

Negative punishment is ,, ssslllloooooooowwww so I don't use it much so I cant tell you what its best for.
It is what it is


Dogs learn through classical conditioning and operant conditioning and the better you utilize these methods the better the dog learns.

Yes you can train a dog using only one method,,,but why waist your time unless you want to be the first person to reach a certain level of competition using 1 or even 2 methods. Life is way to short.
Pete


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Ok, you had me up until the positive punishment...example?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> and read threads on problems supposedly related to force fetch, it has become clear to me that some of the 'additional' claims made for force fetch are questionable.
> /quote]
> 
> what "additional claims" are you speaking of exactly?


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Snicklefritz said:


> .....
> 
> The second possible assumption is that I use 'clickers'. I don't. I use reward markers (and, as I'm sure you know) 'clickers' are a reward marker.
> 
> ...


Officer Snick please don't arrest me for the assumptions you assume I made.

Forgive the use of the word "clicker" to denote a bridge, secondary reinforcer, marker, or reward marker - all of which serve the same function.

I hope you find the picture you're straining your eyes to find.

Regards,

Wayne


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Cortney
PP is the removal of something negative. I have no idea why they call it that.
negative punishment is the removal of something good or positive,
thus PP is the removel of constant pressure or force.

Also stressing a dog at the correct levels is healthy and streghtenening for dogs as well as people.
To much is not good.
Pete


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Snicklefritz said:


> Wayne, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response. Howevere, in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if you have made some unwarranted assumptions on my part, the first of which R+ is automatically R+ only. Positive does not imply permissive, at least on my part, and on the part of others I train with of the same mind set.
> 
> The second possible assumption is that I use 'clickers'. I don't. I use reward markers (and, as I'm sure you know) 'clickers' are a reward marker.
> 
> ...


That was very well said Snick. I am for the bigger picture.

Best Regards,

Robert Milner


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Pete said:


> Positive reinforcement is the fastest way to shape a wanted behavior
> 
> Negative reinforcement is the fastest way to shape unwanted behavior
> 
> ...



No,

Positive Reinforcement is not "the fastest way to shape a wanted behavior".

Positive Reinforcement is any consequence applied to or given to a subject at the exact moment (timing) that makes the subject's behavior MORE likely to recur.

Negative Reinforcement is NOT "the fastest way to shape unwanted behavior" -what?!!!!

Negative Reinforcement is the removal of a stimulus at the exact moment that it makes the subjects behavior MORE likely to recur.

Function is the same as positive reinforcement, but positive is added TO, and negative is taken from - with timing such that the behavior becomes MORE likely to happen again.

Positive Punishment is a consequence applied to a behavior that at least temporarily makes the behavior less likely to recur.

Negative Punishment is the removal of a consequence that makes the behavior at that moment less likely to happen again.

Positive and Negative in Operant terms are not good nor bad, they are mathematical.

Best Regards,

Wayne


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

wayne
Timing is not mentioned in the definition of positive reinforcement

All Operant conditioning requires good timing for besr results.

Your right though NR is force
And PP is a correction
I stand corrected
So I will say 
Positive reinforcement is the fastest way to shape behaviors
PP is the fastest way to change unwanted behaviors 
NP is the fastest way to proof wanted behaviors

So according to you what is the fastest way to shape (promote)a behavior.?
One other question Where doese force fit in.?
Thanks


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Pete said:


> wayne
> Timing is not mentioned in the definition of positive reinforcement
> 
> All Operant conditioning requires good timing for besr results.
> ...


Pete for accurate definitions, and then using those definitions to describe what is happening when our retrievers behavior is changing (in training for better or for worse); I'd be inclined to go to stronger sources than myself - try Watson, Thorndike and Skinner.

You will find that most definitions imply timing, or incorporate the word "when" (infers timing)...you can go ahead and give your dog a reward 30 minutes after a behavior if you like, but that "reward" itself obviously doesn't imply "reinforcement" to the historic behavior.

In terms of learning and applying the most effective, efficient and consistent methods for developing top level retriever behavior I'd also be inclinde to go to the strongest sources and see what program/methods they are using every day successfully.

Regardless if we are using e-stim or rollover (dog treat) pieces, force or R+, if our dog's learned behavior is improving - we are applying the "laws of learning" (operant conditioning) aware of it or not. By the same token regardless if we are using force or R+, if our dog's trained behavior is not improving then we are somehow breaking the laws of learning, aware of it or not.

The fastest way to shape a behavior? Depends greatly on the dog, the behavior and the dog's predisposition to the behavior. There are people "shaping" (successive approximation) behavior with e-stim. The force fetch program itself is a shaping program, that also incorporates efficiently backchaining. I have conditioned trained retrieves in other breeds, and in gun dogs that were not going to move beyond preliminary retrieving with R+ only. However that left those dogs, and myself limited with the tools we would have needed to progress them effectively to higher retrieving performance levels or to deal with legitimate refusals (where a well prepared dog obviously opts due to scent or sight or mind to go a direction clearly in contrast wth the cue given).

From my experience and observations of both R+ based trainers, and field trial trainers, the fastest way to train/condition the necessary set of behaviors, for the long term progress and success in retriever games is to appropriately apply FF, and the program typically referred to.

Secondly where does force fit in? You are aware of the science whereby the definitions of classical and operant conditioning come from, and that some of those boxes and experiments were not pleasant? 

The only answer I can give you then would be wherever force is at play and a behavior is changed/affected - that process can be described in operant terms.

Best Regards,

Wayne Dibbley

P.S. anyone with a solid grasp of OC, could take the current force basaed retriever program progression, and re-write the methods to be R+ and P- only. That being accomplished the results should be many many qualifying and placing retrievers out of the "newer" program. This isn't happening for a reason.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, I watched all the video's as painfull as it was and frankly if I was hunting small pieces of cardboard off a table in my living room I would switch to this immediatly. Frankly nothing this guy did is outside the norm for beginning FF. I do the same thing with retrievers at first. Force isn't applied until there is a a basic understanding of the act, a basic understanding like this little furball has a on a table. If this dog has truly been trained to retrieve, then lets take it out to a duck blind in 20degree weather, make it sit there for 2 hours then shoot 10 ducks and see that little bugger drag them back and deliver to hand. 

/Paul


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Think it was Lardy who said, you could put all those p-, r+, extiction labels on his methods, but on the end, what does it matter, the system works. 

As for being all for the bigger picture, how is this possible, when one has not tried both approaches?

We have trained both ways, forced and unforced, and have seen the comparison in the end results. Therefore, it is my somewhat educated choice to use the system that produces, and reproduces, an advanced level dog.

Wayne, thanks for that last post, very articulate, and sensible.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Wayne
I was simply putting things in the most simplistic denominator.

I can teach a 3 month old puppy down,sit.here and return to heel on a coffee break using a hot dog

But I would have great difficulty teaching those behaviors on the same dog using leash corrections,force or withholding something good from the dog
Thats pretty much all I ment And yes timing is automaticaly implied when training a dog. 
Even those with rotten timing using the same methods make advancements. It just might look different. But new people apply force,corrections and praise and still advance their dogs and brand new people have little idea about timing or what is to be applied on time. so thats why I left timing out of the equation.

Anyway I am simple minded and try not to melt my nerons by over thinking them.

Best reguards
Pete


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Thanks, Wayne, for listing the definitions of R+, R-, P+, and P-. You left out extinction, and it's very, very powerful. I wouldn't say any one is "best" for any particular thing. But one does have to consider all the factors when choosing a method, including potential fall out, short- and long-term goals, time, resources, skill of the trainer, temperament of the animal, etc.



Wayne Dibbley said:


> P.S. anyone with a solid grasp of OC, could take the current force basaed retriever program progression, and re-write the methods to be R+ and P- only. That being accomplished the results should be many many qualifying and placing retrievers out of the "newer" program. This isn't happening for a reason.


Well, yes, sure you could... but that wouldn't necessarily make it a good R+ program for teaching those behaviors. If you took a behavior from a field where both traditional and clicker are being used (such as a behavior from the service dog world), and you laid out in gross detail the step-by-step path that each trainer took to teach the behavior and get it reliable in its final form, you'd see many of the same steps at a very, very high level, but below that, the path would look quite different.

In order to do as you suggest, someone who understands the WHYS of the traditional program inside and out -- not just reads the material and can list the behavior, but actually understands exactly why each step is done, each drill is used, etc. -- who ALSO has that same level of understanding of how a program is built from an R+ perspective would have to do it. That's a pretty darn tall order.

Honestly, one of the reasons I hang out here -- besides the fact that I'm getting a retriever pup and have an interest in hunting with her -- is because I'm interested in how you train and what you do and why. I'd love to work closely with a really good trainer like Evan who really, really understands the WHYS of the program, so I can learn that. But I don't know anyone like that here (and then there's that whole working 80-hours-a-week issue). (But, oh, I do so love time and a half. And my horses will love their mud-less dry lot this winter. But I digress.)

Gotta run!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pete said:


> Wayne
> I was simply putting things in the most simplistic denominator.
> 
> I can teach a 3 month old puppy down,sit.here and return to heel on a coffee break using a hot dog
> ...


Yes you can, unless someone else also has a hot dog. If you really want to see dogs that have been trained with hot dogs, go to a dog park and watch owners try and get their dogs back from a pack...

/Paul



/Paul


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I cookie train all my pups, works great!! For a while....... and then, comes that day when they look me in the eye, and say, no thanks, gotta run, later, Mom.

Since I am old and tired, and don't like chasing down pups, the sooner we can reach out and touch someone, the better. 

Jones in particular, don't like to speak ill of those that have passed, but he never did a single thing in his whole life to please a human. Didn't hear at all, totally deaf, unless he had his necklace on, amazing how it became a hearing aid.

All our neighbors knew Jones, and none live close, they just got used to "Jones, jonessss, JONES!! wHERE THE HECK IS HE, JONES!!! HERE, HERE, where the #$%$ ???? And when he finally arrives, you immediately do the bad thing, and express to him your deepest inner feelings.

But I digress, yes indeed, p+, r-, the way to go.


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Now my head just hurts...


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Courtney wrote
Now my head just hurts


Paul wrote
Yes you can, unless someone else also has a hot dog. If you really want to see dogs that have been trained with hot dogs, go to a dog park and watch owners try and get their dogs back from a pack...



I wonder what life would be like if someone understood what the heck I was sayin I spend to much time wondering around the little animals.. Pete


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

You meant that you teach first, using whatever positive method works, hot dog, cookie, praise.

You don't teach with pressure, right? 

That's what I got out of it, but maybe my neurons are melted too.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> Thanks, Wayne, for listing the definitions of R+, R-, P+, and P-. *You left out extinction*, and it's very, very powerful. .....



Yes, he did. And he also left out *“satiation”*, which means when the dog has had all the little pieces of hotdog he wants, he may just say, “screw you ... I’m going back to check out the old fall!”.

That’s what some of the folks on this thread don’t understand. No personal disrespect intended, but the demands they put on their dogs are relatively low-level ... never coming close to the magnitude where they “overpower” the potential reward. They don't realize this. So, not ever reaching that point with their demands, it is understandable that they conclude it is not necessary to use force or punishment when it can all be achieved with reward and positive reinforcement.

When they do reach that point (incur failures/refusals), they “back up and simplify”. That’s a good move in the TEACHING process, but if you’re demands are high enough, you will “back up and simplify” until the dog is too old to continue and never make the breakthrough. (If I am wrong, where is the evidence, the results, that has been requested over and over?)

Judges of upper level field events, go to major extremes to include temptations in their tests that will demonstrate the dogs' commitment and expose their shortcomings. These temptations go far beyond the distractions encountered by service dogs, obedience competitors, agility competitors, line dancing dogs, etc. etc.



> *Gundog /Paul said:*
> Yes you can, unless someone else also has a hot dog. If you really want to see dogs that have been trained with hot dogs, go to a dog park and watch owners try and get their dogs back from a pack...
> 
> /Paul


He said what I meant with a lot fewer words!!

(And NO pictures)

JS


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

JS said:


> line dancing dogs, etc. etc.
> JS


:lol::lol::lol::lol: Really?


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

> Gundog /Paul said:
> Yes you can, unless someone else also has a hot dog. If you really want to see dogs that have been trained with hot dogs, go to a dog park and watch owners try and get their dogs back from a pack...


When I go to a dog pack and cue a recall, Pax whirls and comes full gallop (and no, I don't carry treats in the dog park). I can recall him off rabbits, deer, other dogs, and people with food. No food needed. No clicker needed.

Of course, technically he wasn't trained with hot dogs. Too salty, and I hate to touch them. I prefer tuna brownies. Stinky, but my dogs go insane over them.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

> Gundog /Paul said:
> Yes you can, unless someone else also has a hot dog. If you really want to see dogs that have been trained with hot dogs, go to a dog park and watch owners try and get their dogs back from a pack...
> 
> 
> ...


Pleeaasse Paul! Are you equating those on this forum who prefer postive trainging, and have demonstrated deeper knowledge of dog training, to the average dog park owner? That's just insulting!


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

JS said:


> Yes, he did. And he also left out *“satiation”*, which means when the dog has had all the little pieces of hotdog he wants, he may just say, “screw you ... I’m going back to check out the old fall!”.


Why would I use a reinforcer that is satiated? Some people on this list don't seem to realize that food is just one possible reinforcer. It's great for initial teaching, but rarely practical beyond that. Once I move out of formal training sessions, I almost never use food. Premack is far more powerful, and you aren't going to get satiation.



JS said:


> That’s what some of the folks on this thread don’t understand. No personal disrespect intended, but the demands they put on their dogs are relatively low-level ... never coming close to the magnitude where they “overpower” the potential reward. They don't realize this. So, not ever reaching that point with their demands, it is understandable that they conclude it is not necessary to use force or punishment when it can all be achieved with reward and positive reinforcement.


It has been accomplished in all other dog sports and dog "jobs" at elite and working levels, including the "Screw up and your human handler dies" level of trip-wire detection and landmine detection. 

It has only recently even been attempted with retrievers. The only example I have is a guy with a BLF who has run Derby. I quoted his record above, and it doesn't seem that shabby to me. Now I've read over and over here that Derby singles can be as tough as Open, but I'm sure his judges knew the dog was a clicker dog and simplified things for him.

His dog is training for all-age work. Sorry she's not older. Hopefully she'll stay injury free. Of course that's just one dog and handler. Maybe he'll be able to provide enough of a blueprint that others can build on his successes -- the same way it happened in all the other dog sports.

(This conversation totally makes me laugh, because I had it soooo many times on obedience lists in the early part of this decade.)

I also listed the accomplishments of species other than dogs. Do you really believe that it's easier to train an adult, wild-caught dolphin to, unaccompanied, in open ocean, swim four hours to a location, find the location, perform a task, and then return four hours to the spot he left than it is to train a domesticated dog who has been line-bred for trainability, to work closely with humans, AND to do the task he is being asked to do? 

I believe training a field retriever for the level of precision needed in the field trial game is difficult, but I believe clicker training has trained far more difficult behaviors and trained them to a higher level of reliability. I don't have to be an expert on field trials to know that, because I know that clicker training has been used to teach *incredibly* precise, reliable behaviors on which actual lives rested.

Sincerely -- would you be willing to train a dog for land mine detection and then risk your life on his ability to do it? I wouldn't! (Not saying that you wouldn't because you couldn't. TRaditional training has also been used for this type of training. I'm just saying I personally wouldn't want that stress, nor would I trust my skill.) But I'd trust Bob Bailey to do it, because he *has* done it. (And yes, he has put his own life at risk with his dogs.)

Okay, it's been fun, but we've done this argument to death. I believe it's possible. Most of y'all don't. That's cool. No one is being asked to switch methods, so it's irrelevant. Just a debate.

The only thing I hope, truly, is that people who aren't comfortable with force who would otherwise not participate in the sport keep an open mind and search out some like-minded people. There are people out there, and they're learning lessons and muddling their way through. There *are* people hunting with clicker trained dogs and people doing the hunt test thing. So that has been done -- and not everyone *is* trying for field trials, so "just" these accomplishments shouldn't be such a turn off.

Go have fun. There's nothing that says, if you want to go further, you can't add traditional elements -- or even switch completely -- later. Mix and match.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Beautifilly said, Rainsmon.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> Okay, it's been fun, but we've done this argument to death. I believe it's possible. Most of y'all don't. That's cool. No one is being asked to switch methods, so it's irrelevant. Just a debate.



HEY!! Something we agree on!! :lol:

All I got to say is, "good luck". You're sittin' on a gold mine if you ever get the wrinkles worked out. ;-)

JS


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

> > Originally Posted by rainsmom
> >
> > Okay, it's been fun, but we've done this argument to death. I believe it's possible. Most of y'all don't. That's cool. No one is being asked to switch methods, so it's irrelevant. Just a debate.
> 
> ...


Indeed! One gold mine replaces another. The current list of books, video programs, and trainers advocating force are a 'gold mine'...are they not?


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

If I could wiggle my nose and set up a perfect situation for myself, I'd have a field trial group nearby who would be willing to work with me and my pup (when I finally get one) no matter HOW bizarre my requests are. I would be perfectly willing to commit to helping them as a regular group member (and no, I don't criticize people who train differently than I nor offer unsolicited advice), and I would ask for tons of advice, but ultimately my set ups and progress and, well, everything would look really strange to them, so I doubt I could find a group who would be willing to take a chance on me.

Bummer.  I could write a heck of a book when I was done. That's something I AM good at!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> Pleeaasse Paul! Are you equating those on this forum who prefer postive trainging, and have demonstrated deeper knowledge of dog training, to the average dog park owner? That's just insulting!



Deeper knowledge of dog training? You mean like someone who has trained 1 junior dog?

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> If I could wiggle my nose and set up a perfect situation for myself, I'd have a field trial group nearby who would be willing to work with me and my pup (when I finally get one) no matter HOW bizarre my requests are. I would be perfectly willing to commit to helping them as a regular group member (and no, I don't criticize people who train differently than I nor offer unsolicited advice), and I would ask for tons of advice, but ultimately my set ups and progress and, well, everything would look really strange to them, so I doubt I could find a group who would be willing to take a chance on me.
> 
> Bummer.  I could write a heck of a book when I was done. That's something I AM good at!


Back up the bus? When you finally get a dog? Are you serious that you don't even have a retriever? No wonder I didn't see you in the last series of the open today......

/Paul


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

I have a curly coated retriever out of a MH, but my dog is the least birdy creature on the planet. I'm looking for a new pup out of working lines, but I haven't found the right pup yet.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> I have a curly coated retriever out of a MH, but my dog is the least birdy creature on the planet. I'm looking for a new pup out of working lines, but I haven't found the right pup yet.



So are you an example of those with "deeper knowledge" that snick was referring too?

/paul


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Well, I wrote a book on clicker training and the science behind it that won "Best Dog Training/Behavior" Book of the Year. (Although it was written for a dog training audience, it has since been used as a required textbook in zoos and aquariums and even in a Behavior Analysis class at Oxford in England.) I'm passingly familiar with dog training, yes.

But I haven't trained a hunting dog, nor have I claimed to. I don't even claim to be an outstanding trainer. I just surround myself with outstanding trainers.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I just surround myself with outstanding trainers.


 
That's why you're here on the RTF.


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

I won't dispute that. 

I don't, by the way, know that Snick meant me -- probably didn't. Robert Milner who started this thread has been training hunting dogs a long time, and has begun using the clicker in recent years.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> Well, I wrote a book on clicker training and the science behind it that won "Best Dog Training/Behavior" Book of the Year. (Although it was written for a dog training audience, it has since been used as a required textbook in zoos and aquariums and even in a Behavior Analysis class at Oxford in England.) I'm passingly familiar with dog training, yes.
> 
> But I haven't trained a hunting dog, nor have I claimed to. I don't even claim to be an outstanding trainer. I just surround myself with outstanding trainers.


Really. Well then no doubt your familiar with Gary Wilkes? One of my clubs hosted him this year for a clicker seminar.

http://www.clickandtreat.com/biopage/biopage.htm

Whats your opinion of his method of teaching a young dog not to jump on people? Want to hear what he said about advanced gundog work and the effectiveness of using a clicker?

/Paul


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Sorry for the confusion, Paul. I was not referring to myself. I was referring to posters who have jjmuch more knowledge than I, but are of like mind. 

Nevertheless, if you're referring specifically to me. I don't have a 'Junior' dog. I have a 'Started' dog - you know, the ones where they have real guns fired right over the dog's head, sometimes actually fired by the handler ;-)


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Want to hear what he said about advanced gundog work and the effectiveness of using a clicker?
> 
> /Paul


I do!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> Sorry for the confusion, Paul. I was not referring to myself. I was referring to posters who have jjmuch more knowledge than I, but are of like mind.
> 
> Nevertheless, if you're referring specifically to me. I don't have a 'Junior' dog. I have a 'Started' dog - you know, the ones where they have real guns fired right over the dog's head, sometimes actually fired by the handler ;-)


I'm pretty familiar with how that works. Its also the level where a dog doesn't have to deliver to hand but rather deliver to somewhere in the general area, doesn't have to pickup flyers thus no cripples and doesnt have to go beyond 60 yards. Yep, pretty familiar with the advanced training of Started dogs.

/Paul
VP Dusky HRC Club


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Whats your opinion of his method of teaching a young dog not to jump on people? Want to hear what he said about advanced gundog work and the effectiveness of using a clicker?


OK Paul, did he say something like knee them in the chest hard when they jump up on you.

And what'd he say about advanced gundog work and the clicker??

Enquiring minds regards,


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> Well, I wrote a book on clicker training and the science behind it .....


Didn't Pavlov write that book about a hunert years ago???? :razz: :razz: :razz:

j/k

JS

(Oh, wait; he used a bell.)


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

I'm familiar with him, yes. I'm not a fan, so I have no clue what his method is for teaching young dogs not to jump, so I don't have an opinion of it. 

I don't actually care what he says (even if it supports my beliefs). I wasn't aware he trained hunting dogs. What titles are on his dogs?


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Pavlov? Um, no. Skinner wrote a bit though. ;-) Not to dog trainers though, to my knowledge.

Hasn't hunting dog training been written to death? Not seeing how that's stopping anyone. There are always new perspectives and audiences.

You just wait! Someday I'll write a clicker hunting book! LOLOLOL! Then you'll be sorry you laughed! (Oy. Just the thought of the work to do that makes me green.)


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> Pavlov? Um, no. Skinner wrote a bit though. ;-)


Um, I think Pavlov's bell was prolly the first clicker, albeit classical rather than operant conditioning.
B.F. just built on it and sold some papers. (in this day and age, he would have made a DVD. )

JS


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

LOL! That's probably right on both parts!


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

All my dogs are clicker trained


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

So let me get this straight? You wrote a book on clicker training and won awards, yet your not familiar with a premier clicker trainer's methods and you've never trained a hunting dog but your posting that clicker training is a preferable method to FF? How do I get myself into these threads....?


For those of you asking. The Green Valley Hunting and Retriever Club hosted a 2 day seminar this past year presented by Gary Wilkes. It was based on the principles behind clicker training. In attendance was George Hickox who as you may know is a very well known gun dog trainer. George also hosted a 4 day gun dog training seminar for our club this year in August. George came because he has been using clicker training to build behaviors in young puppies to get them started young. He wanted to learn more about the methods so when we were setting up his seminar and he heard about the other seminar, he signed up, flew out and attended. 

This club is focused mostly on upland hunting, hosts a NSTRA FT every year and an AKC Pointing dog HT. There are those of us that play the retriever game as well so it has a good mix of dogs. 

First teaching a puppy not to jump on you. He took a towel, wound it up and put a rubber band around each end to hole it rolled up. When the puppy jumped on him, wham he hit the dog with it. Second time the puppy jumped, wham he hit the dog with it. Guess what. Puppy jump no more. When the puppy came up next time, it sat, and wham he hit it with the clicker. Next time the puppy came up to him it sat, and he hit it again with the clicker. I have to say, there is a lot of hitting in his methods...

As far as advanced gun dog work, he readily admitted that clicker training would not have much application at the distances that a retriever or pointer work in the field. He taylored the class to focus on yound puppy training, and OB work. Which by the way I do believe there is an application for. 



/Paul


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

rainsmom
I don't have a tv so right now you are my entertainment( i'm teasin,, relax)
I believe your good at the PR type training,,,and have good training skills,,,but you have to broaden your thinking some. I do believe you have great asperations of training a MH type retriever using only a clicker or should I say positive only. But you have to stop for a minute and think about the whole dog and how a dogs mind actually works. There are other drives at work when a dog is performing which will overide what we have condition the dog to.

There is no patterning in hunt tests as you have in many of the non sporting dog events. That complicates matters and I find it almost impossible to teach in an ever changing environment using only 1 operant method. Even 2 OP's like schnitz is using will find it labor intensive.

I don't believe and have never heard or seen a dog that was proofed using positive methods. And this is in the context of when drive overides a solely Positive repetitive conditioning.

Distance often causes obedience to diminsh,,even in a dog that has been forced and corrected and conditioned, its tough enough.
dolphins are not dogs
Hell dolphins are probably smarted than me.
So comparing the task of what dolphines do and what dogs do is comparing apples to oranges

I know many dogs can be trained to do important jobs using positive stuff. 
I used to train detection dogs and compared to most dog training it was quite easy and non complex.
I have done tons of behavior mod and worked with tons and tons of aggressive dogs and it certainly gives one a different perspective of dogs,,,,but just as those disciplines are specialties and require certain approaches ,,,so does retriever training. I have also held lectures and seminars in other dog related disciplines. But none of that means much when it comes to training FT retrievers apparently because I have never had an FC either. But then again I've only run about 8 opens so hey I'm a newby too. I can count the times I made handler errors handling aggressive dogs but I made handler errors in every open but 1 that I ran
Training and handling for competition is totally different than training and handling for the general public.
It requires a combination of good grounds,good dogs,good bank book,and good training and handling skills which is played in an ever changing environment. 
A full bag of tools is neccessary,,and getting into a dogs head is neccessary
Thats my experience on the matter anyway

More power to you if you do get an advanced hunting title using your prefered method.. 
Anyway this is a fun tread. And I'm sure Paul will respond to make me laugh 
I'm glad the tv's gone regaurds


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

LOL. I'm familiar with Wilkes and his general techniques, including his penchant for throwing things at dogs and using P+. I said I wasn't familiar with his method for teaching dogs not to jump. I would have guessed he'd have thrown something at the dog, but I've never seen him address that problem.

As I said, I'm not a fan. He has written some interesting articles kind of deep in the theory side that I like, but I'm not impressed with much else. I saw him present once, and... <shrug>. Just not my thing. 

I know it's shocking, but clicker training is large enough that there are lots of "premiere" trainers, and we don't all have to agree with one another -- not in our applications, our ethics, or our opinions. I'm so headstrong, I've publicly disagreed with the biggest name in clicker training while on a stage with the person! Heck, I train with Bob Bailey any chance I get, and I don't even agree with him 100%, though I'm probably 98-99% there.

In my experience, the only thing two dog trainers of ANY ilk agree on is what the third is doing wrong.


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Pete said:


> There is no patterning in hunt tests as you have in many of the non sporting dog events. That complicates matters and I find it almost impossible to teach in an ever changing environment using only 1 operant method. Even 2 OP's like schnitz is using will find it labor intensive.


When you say one operant method do you mean R+? If that's not what you mean, I apologize for misconstruing what you're saying. If that is what you mean, for the record -- and seriously, folks, I gotta go to bed! (I gotta work tomorrow!) -- I don't use just R+.

I look at Operant Conditioning like a big pie when training. 2/3 of that pie is R+. 2/3 of what's left is extinction. 2/3 of what remains is P-. The remainder is divided between R- and P+. There may actually be more R- than that, but it's not trainer-added R- such as an ear pinch. Instead, it's situations where I'm teaching a dog to work in an aversive environment by teaching the dog that the key to getting out of the aversive environment is to do a particular operant behavior I want. (Great way, for example, to get animals over fears.)

I, personally, don't believe that any of the "parts" of OC are evil or bad. I do, however, weigh them carefully when I train, and so yes, I choose R+ more than anything else. The more I control my training and environment -- the more precise and... scientific I guess is a good word... I want to be -- the more R+ I use, because I find less of a need for the others. 

By the way, I know -- personally -- several dolphin trainers. None of them are especially impressed by dolphins. Kathy Sdao -- who really is a "premiere" clicker trainer -- trained dolphins for the Navy and then for Point Defiance Zoo. She said she prefers training dogs any day. (I don't mean to imply that she thinks they're unintelligent -- just that she doesn't think they are any easier to train than dogs and that they are definitely less pleasant to work with than dogs.)


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> In my experience, the only thing two dog trainers of ANY ilk agree on is what the third is doing wrong.


Rainsmom, I don't know R+ or P- from E=MC^2 so I don't follow what all your saying very well. But you just proved you know something about dog trainers.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Very interesting post, Pete.

So challenging and fascinating, AA work, don't you think?

Even after so many years, still don't understand exactly how dogs mark, or why such methods as indirect pressure work. I just know they do.

Also, even people such as Farmer, Lardy make handling errors on occasion, they just get to try again. ;-) 

Rainsmom, I get time and money constraints, we have them also, but if you ever get a chance, why don't you sign up for one of Lardy's seminars? He's a smart guy and a great trainer, sure he would have some educated opinions on this subject.

Would love to see how clicker training would get my dog off a point at 300 yards, into the wind. Maybe I will someday.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

CaKasiser
Yes it is very interesting and challanging,,, all disciplines of dog training have their complexities,,,,but I believe FT ranks among the top.,,,,, but what is really a strange correlation is ,,,one would think that if you trained FT for a long time you can easily move into other into other areas of dog training with the same successes and it aint so.

Learning each new discipline takes time and a new type of physical co-ordination. I been messing with gun dogs for over 20 years and when I added Schutzund to my list of doggy games I immediately became the most awkward dude you'd ever seen. I actually had to learn how to walk again ,, Bizzar really.

The way they train for obedience is 180 from how you train a retriever for obedience. Although you use the same methods you apply them differently. 
Its all facinating,,,,but with all the various training stuff i've done,,FT is probably the most mind challanging of them all ,,
Its alot like playing chess using dogs as chess pieces.


Rainsmom
My mistake I thopught you were attempting to play this chess game with positive stuff only.

And probably for a differnt thread,,,where do you file "extinction " in your dog training tool box.

Pete


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Might as well answer that in this thread. Wouldn't want to overwhelm the RTF with too many OC threads. ;-)

Extinction is useful with behaviors where the trainer controls the reinforcer(s). If the behavior is self-reinforcing or is reinforced by the environment, extinction flat out won't work (because it won't happen).

Extinction is also commonly misrepresented, even in the clicker world. I shudder when people come to my mailing list and say they were told to just ignore bad behavior and it would go away. Bah! That's BS. If the dog is doing something you don't like, he's likely doing it because A) it's a logical way to get what he wants from a dog's point of view and/or B) it WORKS. You don't ignore that. Change the picture. Make his solution NOT WORK -- that doesn't necessarily mean punishing; depending on the behavior the trainer may be able to control the environment and reinforcers well enough to use extinction -- and then make the preferred behavior really easy and highly reinforcing. Repeat until you've built a stronger reinforcement history for the desired behavior than the old behavior has.

I find extinction to be most helpful when paired with R+ in the shaping process. Easy example... When I teach puppies to sit, I teach the straight, square, on the haunches, tucked sit used in obedience. So when I first teach sit, I'll click any sit that puts the dog's butt on the ground. But then I increase my criteria and accept only tucked sits -- sits where the front feet are still, and the rear feet move forward. I stop reinforcing any sits that don't meet that criteria. THAT's where extinction comes in. The previous reinforcement of non-tucked sits stops, but the reinforcement of tucked sits continued. Soon I have only tucked sits. I don't have to punish or even acknowledge the sits I don't want. I just reinforce the ones I do.

Extinction is FAR more aversive than people think it is, and it must be used carefully. Extinction used without R+ is not fun at all. Think, for example, how you feel when something on your computer that you're used to using stops working. Or your car stops working. Or your dog stops doing a behavior that he has done fabulously well FOREVER. That frustration is extinction -- and if you don't quickly find a solution that does work, that frustration can quickly build way past the point that you'd be "teachable."

So, bottom line answer: I use extinction when I am controlling the most powerful reinforcers in play, and I always pair it with R+ of a different, preferred solution that is easily achievable by the dog.



> My mistake I thopught you were attempting to play this chess game with positive stuff only.


As I illustrated above, if you raise your criteria EVER and stop paying off for lesser performances, you're using extinction. I can't imagine ANY trainer paying off for sub-par performances forever. Therefore I don't personally believe that there is such a thing as R+ only. In fact, I believe that someone who claims that is either A) playing a marketing game, or B) woefully uninformed about the aversive nature of extinction. In either case, "positive only" is a BS concept.

I don't, however, use physical corrections.



> Rainsmom, I get time and money constraints, we have them also, but if you ever get a chance, why don't you sign up for one of Lardy's seminars? He's a smart guy and a great trainer, sure he would have some educated opinions on this subject.


Lardy is VERY smart -- very knowledgable about OC. I have his materials and enjoy them very much. I'd love to see one of his seminars some day. I'd like to have my pup and have some concrete experience under my belt so I have real questions for him before I do though.

BTW, I vaguely remember that indirect pressure is a teritiary punisher.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> All my dogs are clicker trained


Mine, too, Patrick.

They hear the "click" of the safety coming off and they break for the outside of the blind...

Haven't Trained In A While Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

I have mostly lurked on the Positive Training Listserv on Yahoo for a couple of years now. They are a good group who have matured in their understanding of what it takes to make a MH or better in the Retriever games.

While their hearts are in the process for all the right reasons, VERY few of them, if any, are able to positive only train a dog past the WC/WCX/JH level. They all cite the theory and practice of what has been done with dolphins in the open water and birds and on and on and on. What they fail to realize is that we aren't dealing with dolphins and on and on and on. We are dealing with animals that, as Alan Pleasant reminded me many years old, "Will eat $hit and have intercourse with their mother." Those weren't Mr. Pleasant's exact words, but I'm sure you get my drift.

In order for clicker or postive only to be acknowledged as successful it will have to be reproduced by a wide varity of trainers across diverse bloodlines on a regular basis. One person, with a specific dog is not going to prove the rule. It will prove the exception to the rule.

Clicking Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

But they have to start somewhere, Joe. If you've been reading it for a couple of years, then you've seen a lot of progress in those couple of years. They're figuring things out, bit by bit -- and I don't see how it's fair to expect giant leaps. 

One nice thing about that list is that there are people with different kinds of dogs doing all different kinds of hunting, and they're exchanging ideas, successes, and failures. And, they're making *progress.* It's a journey, and they don't have a well-travelled, nicely maintained super highway to drive on. They're hacking their way through the jungle.

One person will prove the exception -- but that exception proves that it's possible. One exception leads to others.

And, by the way, I don't know if dolphions eat ****, but they commit gang rape and other extreme acts of violence (not related to predation). They are not humans in the water. (Oh, wait... maybe they are.)


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Train any way you want, but I don;t think you can call it force fetch without the force.
See you in the junior stakes regards


----------



## DianeL (May 4, 2004)

JusticeDog said:


> I just saw a dog that when bringing back the bird in an AA stake, stopped on its way back, and started flipping the bird in the water, etc. This was not the first time this had happened. It turns out that this dog was Forced with this type of obedience method. It has a huge hole in it's force program for the type of work it's being asked to do. The force it was taught cannot hold up to the rigors of the type of work it is being asked to do. The dog has not learned to handle the type of pressure that AA training and the like puts the dog under.
> 
> So, while this is a very valid method, make sure you're picking it for the end result you are trying to achieve.


I'm pretty sure Susan may be talking about my dog. I forced my first three dogs using the conventional force method and working with pros. With this particular dog I tried the obedience method. This dog is almost five years old and has never dropped a bird for me. However, I'm now having someone else run her and it is obvious that the hole in my program is the force. The dog jammed yet another qual for me on Friday and then ran out of the amateur without a bird when another person ran her on Saturday. I was at my vehicle watching the dog on line. She setup for the marks, watched the birds, supposedly picked up the flier clean and on her return going thru cover she didn't reappear heading to line. She popped out of the cover heading to me without a bird.

Now, I could say that the dog wants to stay with her pack. However, my other three FF dogs ran for anyone anytime and never dropped a bird. I was told by a pro that my faithful companions would blow me off for a dead bird any day. I am now reforcing this dog just as I did my others. The many people that have witnessed her dropping a bird in the last two AA trials have all told me it's a hole in my FF program and I definitely agree with them.

Diane


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

DianeL said:


> I'm pretty sure Susan may be talking about my dog. I forced my first three dogs using the conventional force method and working with pros. With this particular dog I tried the obedience method. This dog is almost five years old and has never dropped a bird for me. However, I'm now having someone else run her and it is obvious that the hole in my program is the force. The dog jammed yet another qual for me on Friday and then ran out of the amateur without a bird when another person ran her on Saturday. I was at my vehicle watching the dog on line. She setup for the marks, watched the birds, supposedly picked up the flier clean and on her return going thru cover she didn't reappear heading to line. She popped out of the cover heading to me without a bird.
> 
> Now, I could say that the dog wants to stay with her pack. However, my other three FF dogs ran for anyone anytime and never dropped a bird. I was told by a pro that my faithful companions would blow me off for a dead bird any day. I am now reforcing this dog just as I did my others. The many people that have witnessed her dropping a bird in the last two AA trials have all told me it's a hole in my FF program and I definitely agree with them.
> 
> Diane



When I read the above, it describes to me a dog that has not been well enough trained to come consistently to persons other than its owner in a high distraction enviornment. It doesn't have anything to do with force fetch. A dog that is well trained to come can't stop and play with a bird or a dummy or anything else, because the behavior has been well enough established (by either positive or negative or a combination) that the dog comes on command (cue) in any environment.


It doesn't have anything to do with whether the training was positive or negative training. It simply wasn'nt trained well enough.

Robert Milner


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

DianeL said:


> I'm pretty sure Susan may be talking about my dog. I forced my first three dogs using the conventional force method and working with pros. With this particular dog I tried the obedience method. This dog is almost five years old and has never dropped a bird for me. However, I'm now having someone else run her and it is obvious that the hole in my program is the force. The dog jammed yet another qual for me on Friday and then ran out of the amateur without a bird when another person ran her on Saturday. I was at my vehicle watching the dog on line. She setup for the marks, watched the birds, supposedly picked up the flier clean and on her return going thru cover she didn't reappear heading to line. She popped out of the cover heading to me without a bird.
> 
> Now, I could say that the dog wants to stay with her pack. However, my other three FF dogs ran for anyone anytime and never dropped a bird. I was told by a pro that my faithful companions would blow me off for a dead bird any day. I am now reforcing this dog just as I did my others. The many people that have witnessed her dropping a bird in the last two AA trials have all told me it's a hole in my FF program and I definitely agree with them.
> 
> Diane


Yours was only one of the dogs I have seen do this. Completing a thorough force program has "cured" the other dogs I have seen do stuff like this.

When your dog gets through with her force program, let me know which trials she's going to go to. I'll go to the other ones! She's a nice dog!


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

To Rainsmom:
You and others may be waiting for that one or two that will someday be successful at the AA level But by that time the trials will have taken another degree of difficulty and the 99% will have moved on with the successful and the 1% of the non-force folks will still be celebrating the one great white hope.
Lardy, Farmer,and many others will also tell you that breeding has allot to do with today's success. Today's dogs(breeding) are bred for today's type of training.
Just pick up a RFTN from 10yrs ago and look at the difference.
It's amazing!!
Dogs trained in the 70's took soooooooooooo much more type of physical punishment than today's dogs do. It was the advancement of the e-collar and the ff is the begining of that program that makes the NAFC, NFC,FC,AFC,FC-AFC dogs.Really allot less physical and allot more fineseing these very intelligent animals.
It's simply the competition. It's too tough for the 1%.
Look at the records they don't lie.
Go Pack


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

No one is waiting, Ginger. People are training and experimenting and learning from each other. It isn't like they're off practicing in a bubble stuck in 2008. They'll be practicing against the competition in whatever year they compete in. If they succeed, no matter what that success, it will be against the dogs of that time period in the standards of that time period.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> To Rainsmom:
> You and others may be waiting for that one or two that will someday be successful at the AA level But by that time the trials will have taken another degree of difficulty and the 99% will have moved on with the successful and the 1% of the non-force folks will still be celebrating the one great white hope.
> Lardy, Farmer,and many others will also tell you that breeding has allot to do with today's success. Today's dogs(breeding) are bred for today's type of training.
> Just pick up a RFTN from 10yrs ago and look at the difference.
> ...


Well Sue, I don't know about you, but I can hardly wait for the day to see Farmer, lardy, Attar, etc, out there in their Birkenstocks, with their clickers and tuna brownies, while humming Kum-Bay-Yah, making the next NFC and filming Total Retriever Clicking. 

Sorry, there a place for every type of training, but I don't see it happening in Field Trials. (NOt field Work, Field Trials.


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Paul,

I'm glad you posted this,(quote below re: Gary Wilkes seminar) thanks.

Gary Wilkes, did many of the "original" seminars collaboratively with Karen Pryor, and I shared many interesting e-mail discussions with him. He's open and honest, and applies OC about as holistically as any I've read/listened to.

Gary "fell out of favor" with many clicker only zealouts when he did his vidoe the doggie repair kit, and used methods like you described which are P+. There is a "movement" willing only to accept R+ and P - methods.

Having participated in this thread, it's important to note that my positions are stated, with experienced use of clickers for trouble shooting certain behaviors, to get puppies well started, and to establish targeted handling patterns for puppies, and for obedience behaviors. I could not say specifically how/if these early clicked behaviors translate into later work, but they are fun, and I like to believe they help establish some useful behaviors pre-basics.

Rainsmom, which award winning clicker book is yours, in fairness, I will add it to the many reads, in our library.

My positions posted in this thread aren't made helter skelter without giving the clicker/reward marker approach a "chance". I've been reading, watching, listening, training with clicker only training partners and incorporating "clicker" methods since '94.

Notice, I have not yet been convinced in the strength or possibility of completing consistent advanced retriever conditioning, nor even sound BASICS with positive reinforcement alone.

Best Regards,

Wayne Dibbley




Gun_Dog2002 said:


> So let me get this straight? You wrote a book on clicker training and won awards, yet your not familiar with a premier clicker trainer's methods and you've never trained a hunting dog but your posting that clicker training is a preferable method to FF? How do I get myself into these threads....?
> 
> 
> For those of you asking. The Green Valley Hunting and Retriever Club hosted a 2 day seminar this past year presented by Gary Wilkes. It was based on the principles behind clicker training. In attendance was George Hickox who as you may know is a very well known gun dog trainer. George also hosted a 4 day gun dog training seminar for our club this year in August. George came because he has been using clicker training to build behaviors in young puppies to get them started young. He wanted to learn more about the methods so when we were setting up his seminar and he heard about the other seminar, he signed up, flew out and attended.
> ...


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

Hope this doesn't start another knock down dragout...
I'm playing with clicker training with my horse and although he's new, the books I'm using are from the late 90's/early 2000s.
Clicker Training for your Horse, Alexandra Kurland
You Can Train Your Horse to do Anything, Shawna and Vinton Karrasch
My question is - is there anything better out there now or do these still cover it?
Goodness knows retriever training has made strides in the last eight years or so, I figured horse stuff probably had, too.
Thanks,
Becky


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Becky Mills said:


> You Can Train Your Horse to do Anything, Shawna and Vinton Karrasch


Becky, if you train that horse to do windows, can I borrow him?  I'll even let him sleep in the dining room! 

I can hardly wait to hear about what you teach Him!


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

Sorry Susan. Once he gets vacuuming down pat there is no way he's leaving here.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Becky,

Horse or dog, I'm betting they respond better to your cookies than those tuna jobs! 

Evan


----------



## DianeL (May 4, 2004)

rmilner said:


> When I read the above, it describes to me a dog that has not been well enough trained to come consistently to persons other than its owner in a high distraction enviornment. It doesn't have anything to do with force fetch. A dog that is well trained to come can't stop and play with a bird or a dummy or anything else, because the behavior has been well enough established (by either positive or negative or a combination) that the dog comes on command (cue) in any environment.
> 
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with whether the training was positive or negative training. It simply wasn'nt trained well enough.
> ...


The previous weekend she came in to the handler without the bird, so that leads me to believe it is FF. It could be a combination and during FF I'll also be revisiting "here." The dog has done obedience for four years and has been run in training by others without issues. As a young dog she was called away from me to others all the time without issue.

Thanks for the compliments Susan. She is a fun dog and entertaining. I have seen two other dogs do what mine has done and I have known others to do no go's. Responses are that dogs need FF.

Diane


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

It's been awhile but years ago the Tri Tronics website and catalogs had an electric collar for horses too. I don't know what it was used for or how but they were for sale.

John Lash


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Alexandra Kurland's materials are still really good, I think, but I very much prefer her later books to her first one. I don't care for the first one at all. Her DVDs break things down nicely. She's a friend, so I try to support her by purchasing as much of her stuff as I can afford.

There are some other horse training materials out there, but I'm not terribly familiar with them. I love clicking my horses, but it's been a long time since I watched any books or DVDs on the subject. Sorry!

Hey Wayne, my book is CLICK FOR JOY. That's nice of you.


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Melissa,

I think we were on some clicker forums together in the '90's...I haven't read your book yet, but will. Maybe you can remind me about that time, a lady was training her pugs as assistance dogs ala clicker. I have a video around here somewhere, of her and she uses a target/clicker telescoping training aid I was developing then.

In all honesty at about that same time, I was "you" in my retriever circles - vehement to do it "my way", the "new" way etc., and I ungraciously alienated many trainers who knew more than I fathomed, or began to know. Thank god many of them still speak to me, are friends and will train with me today (regardless of what training tool I put in my hand for a given situation).

I have provided behavior rehab for vet referred clients since that time, was a schutzhund helper for our local schutzhund club, and immersed myself in anything/everything dog training/behavior related.

My timing and ovarall knowledge was helped immensley, but it was NOT until I conceded and allowed myself to incorporate appropriate proven retriever methods, particularly the basics, that I was able to help some retrievers truly progress towards their potential.

Since then, I've been severely influenced by Cheff, Nolan, and Farmer, Aycock (along with Wolcott, Brasseaux, Denicus) and many local successful trainers and friends at all levels. (thank you all)

Your experience and knowledge will certainly help you progress in whatever dog sport you're currently training in - but reinventing the wheel entirely may keep your dog(s) from progressing to their potential, or for you to experience the depth of their talent and ability. I otherwise hope you are able to show me I'm wrong.

Best regards,

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

Thanks, Melissa.


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

Pugs or Papillons? You may mean Debi Davis. Peek, her Papillon was eventually named Service Dog of the Year -- first clicker-trained dog AND first owner-trained service dog to win the honor. Peek has since retired (and passed on), and she has a different dog now.

I'm trying to place you. That was a long time ago. I remember a Wayne Hightower, but not a Wayne Dibbley -- I'm sorry.

Well, here's the thing. Hopefully I haven't alienated anyone. I'm not decrying anyone else's methods, and I'm eager to learn from them because there's SO MUCH to learn, but I want to try something different. I'm not talking about throwing away everything the retriever trainers have done. I just want to experiment and figure out the WHYS and then play with breaking things down and approaching them from a different perspective. I don't see why that's such a horrible thing. It doesn't make the other way wrong or my way right. It's just an experiment to see what can be accomplished by thinking out of the box.

As for the dogs' potential... as long as the dogs get to retrieve, what the heck do they care? Titles are for the humans, not the dogs. We already know that dogs can be trained to hunt with the clicker, and my best friend's husband hunts pretty much every weekend six months out of the year. If all my dog ever does is train and accompany him a few times a year, I don't see how he's going to suffer for it.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

rainsmom said:


> Titles are for the humans, not the dogs.


I beg to differ. Titles are also, in a small way, for the dogs, specifically for the betterment of the breed.



> We already know that dogs can be trained to hunt with the clicker, and my best friend's husband hunts pretty much every weekend six months out of the year. If all my dog ever does is train and accompany him a few times a year, I don't see how he's going to suffer for it.


In hunt tests there are three levels _for a reason._ You can hunt successfully with a Junior dog. But he potentially will not bring back as many birds, and therefore is not as effective for conservation purposes, as a Master dog.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

John Lash said:


> It's been awhile but years ago the Tri Tronics website and catalogs had an electric collar for horses too. I don't know what it was used for or how but they were for sale.
> 
> John Lash


Damm wish you knew why E collare were/are?? used on horses. Sitting here wondering, what use they would be?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I was never around when Rex and Judy trained, but they spoke of using e-collars in their horse training work. I have no idea what the actual applications were, though.

Perhaps there will be some mention of it in Vickie's book. Still waiting for it, like the rest of us!

Evan


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

I would guess they have been used on horses for vices like cribbing - or to keep a pushy horse from eating his pasture mate's dinner.


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Thanks Melissa, it was Deb Davis, and Peek. I wonder if she still has that "thing", I had made two models we intended to go to lighter, molded handles with...since then a number of smaller less cumbersome target/clicker tools have gone to market.

Interesting stuff, and now you have me looking for the video.

I'm not one who has just "skimmed" over clicker/reward marking - I think it has it's place, in retrievers, particularly with getting more accomplished with pups than you could normally. Applied R+/P- in many areas of animal training, even human coaching is literally amazing.

However the trainers I have seen successfully using FF,CC'ing and etc are also practicing applied OC, holistically.

I have yet to see the dog R+/P- trained alone, highly driven retriever, competent to perform reliably in competitive elements, and/or impressively in wild bird hunts; but will be watching for yours.

All the best Melissa!

Wayne Dibbley


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

You too, Wayne!

It's been a fun discussion.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

As well intended as everyone's opinions are or methods of training. I still think that it all boils down to "reading the dog".
I've known extremely intelligent people that couldn't read their dog to safe their butt.Could tell you what was on page 16 of so-and-so's manual but just couldn't apply it to their dogs.
Training dogs,horses,etc.. requires you to think on your feet,(timing is everything)without tempers or frustrations,AND always go over your notes at night. If your dog isn't making progress then it's your fault usually NOT the dog.
I also think that )IMHO of coarse some just have that knack(gut instinct) for training and some will never have it.
Good Hunting.
Remember to bring a pair of dry socks and M & M's.


----------



## rainsmom (Jul 28, 2007)

I have to eat crow!

Someone wrote me to tell me that the Derby dog I mentioned has been trained in a program that mixes clicker and force, so she is not the stellar example I thought she was. It doesn't change my opinion of what's possible, but I am sincerely bummed. 

I wanted to set things right here though. I apologize for dragging him into the conversation and making mistaken claims. :-(


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

This is the BEST training program out there.....it works great with Flash of poopness and Butthead!

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/dissing-your-dog/2916/

FOM


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Hi, I'm Dave Bezesky. A freind sent me an email telling me that me and my dog Raven came up in this thread. So I figured I better drop in and set the record straight.

I like clicker training for puppies. When dogs are young and immature, I find it a very productive tool for teaching and teaching dogs how to learn. Raven was trained using a clicker as a puppy. But she has spent a tremendous amount of time with a field trial pro who uses traditional methods, a guy that I have great respect for, Steve Blythe. I attribute her early success to her genetics and Steve's fantastic work with her. He is a master at fitting his program to the individual dog. Despite Raven's success in Derby, she has a long road to navigate to becoming (hopefully) a competitive all-age dog... 

I have another young dog (about 9 months old) that I like at this age as much or more than Raven when she was a puppy. I clicker trained him till 6 months, then we started on the traditional force based program. I think that positive methods are great teaching tools, but at some point commands need to be enforced to get the standard we require for competition. The potential rewards a dog claims for itself by doing things his/her own way are just too great.

I'll have to take a little time to read this thread sometime. It looks interesting. However, it isn't fair to make any claims about clicker training based on my dog.;-)


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Wayne Dibbley said:


> I have provided behavior rehab for vet referred clients since that time, was a schutzhund helper for our local schutzhund club, and immersed myself in anything/everything dog training/behavior related.


Schutzhund and police dog trainers seem to talk another language so my questions will hopefully make sense from a retrieving point of view. 

Did your time as a helper aid with noting avoidance and other thresholds, drives and nerves?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Hi, I'm Dave Bezesky. . . .I think that positive methods are great teaching tools, but at some point commands need to be enforced to get the standard we require for competition. The potential rewards a dog claims for itself by doing things his/her own way are just too great.


The voice of reason.


----------

