# How steady is steady?



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

In training, describe your criteria for the dog's movement, posture, and position on the line. Like a statue? Happy feet but in place? Movement forward, but then self-correcting, immediately back to side? Where do you draw the line for what you tolerate? 

I know what our pro is telling me. That's what we're training for. But I'm curious about what others see as tolerable in training... and be honest.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Zero, movement other than the head.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Todd Caswell said:


> Zero, movement other than the head.


Yep + doing 180 drill will help to teach head movement only.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

always strive for zero, but some dogs you have to pick your poison


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> Zero, movement other than the head.


And no noise


----------



## Bill McKnight (Sep 11, 2014)

butt, all of it, on the ground.....all of the time

Ronan Bill


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

for those that are proponents of zero movement, does that mean your dogs don't pivot as the marks go down across the field and only turn their head to watch the marks go down...


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> for those that are proponents of zero movement, does that mean your dogs don't pivot as the marks go down across the field and only turn their head to watch the marks go down...


If the handler doesn't move with them same marks then yes


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

polmaise said:


> If the handler doesn't move with them same marks then yes


ok so they throw a wide open out of order triple 180 degrees( Far left- Far right- center) and you are ok with your dog looking over their shoulder to see the far right hand bird or the left hand memory bird


----------



## MissSkeeter (May 17, 2013)

BonMallari said:


> for those that are proponents of zero movement, does that mean your dogs don't pivot as the marks go down across the field and only turn their head to watch the marks go down...


Yes. That is what the 180 degree drill in post#3 is designed to maintain.

I think a black and white standard like no movement is easier for a dog to understand. 
If a dog is allowed some movement in training, how does he understand that a bit more movement during the excitement of a test or trial is unacceptable behavior? A little creep at an event can lead to bigger creeps....


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> ok so they throw a wide open out of order triple 180 degrees( Far left- Far right- center) and you are ok with your dog looking over their shoulder to see the far right hand bird or the left hand memory bird


Yea, well '_Sit means Sit_' .


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Besides the obvious (180 degrees) explain this drill to which you refer.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

There are plenty of great dogs that would have been washouts had the zero movement standard been the criteria. 

You try for zero movement, but there comes a point where screwing the dog down any more becomes counter productive. Then you decide - do I like what I have?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

polmaise said:


> Yea, well '_Sit means Sit_' .


There was a rather long thread started by Ted S. called "Does Sit mean Sit"...and although I didn't read all 20+pages, this topic was covered


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> There was a rather long thread started by Ted S. called "Does Sit mean Sit"...and although I didn't read all 20+pages, this topic was covered


I'll never know ,neither will You it would appear . But 'Sit,does mean Sit'.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

Over the years I have had a "sliding scale" approach when it came to line manners. From the false idea that nailing them down would decease momentum, to running too many trials and creating trial wise dogs that bring loose standards. I spent a great deal of time fighting poor line manners, happy feet and decreased focus due to a lax standard. I have always admired the stowic/solid sitting dogs that are controlled and only head swing, that leave like they are shot out of a cannon. With my latest pup it was evident drive was not going to be an issue, so a strict sit head swing only is the standard now...period! 9'months so far, so good. Think this new standard will decrease my blood pressure going forward, not to mention I feel that it promotes much better focus and success.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

captainjack said:


> There are plenty of great dogs that would have been washouts had the zero movement standard been the criteria.
> 
> You try for zero movement, but there comes a point where screwing the dog down any more becomes counter productive. Then you decide - do I like what I have?


like this.


----------



## J_Brown (Jan 4, 2013)

Misty Marsh said:


> Over the years I have had a "sliding scale" approach when it came to line manners. From the false idea that nailing them down would decease momentum, to running too many trials and creating trial wise dogs that bring loose standards. I spent a great deal of time fighting poor line manners, happy feet and decreased focus due to a lax standard. I have always admired the stowic/solid sitting dogs that are controlled and only head swing, that leave like they are shot out of a cannon. With my latest pup it was evident drive was not going to be an issue, so a strict sit head swing only is the standard now...period! 9'months so far, so good. Think this new standard will decrease my blood pressure going forward, not to mention I feel that it promotes much better focus and success.


Unfortunately, I didn't start with standards this high with my dog. She's three years old now, and I've been battling "happy feet" since her first hunting season (10 months old... I regret that now). I have tried many things... the collar, heeling stick, pulling her off the line, crating her, denying retrieves, etc. In training, she seems to get better. But at hunt tests, especially after a few weekends, the happy feet and bouncing while the marks are going down reappears. She's very anxious high-drive dog, mostly due to my training inexperience I'm sure. Any suggestions on how to get rid of the happy feet for good?


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm the last person to be offering any advice on this...

But maybe you shouldn't be doing HT's but every 3 to 4 weekends in a row. There is no question but that they get wound tighter and tighter the more you run them.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

J_Brown said:


> Unfortunately, I didn't start with standards this high with my dog. She's three years old now, and I've been battling "happy feet" since her first hunting season (10 months old... I regret that now). I have tried many things... the collar, heeling stick, pulling her off the line, crating her, denying retrieves, etc. In training, she seems to get better. But at hunt tests, especially after a few weekends, the happy feet and bouncing while the marks are going down reappears. She's very anxious high-drive dog, mostly due to my training inexperience I'm sure. Any suggestions on how to get rid of the happy feet for good?


I have never found the fix after trying all of that myself. At 3 years of age I'd bet that you have pretty much made your bed. I do think that if you happen to figure it out that you should sell the fix because my bet is many guys would love to know about it.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

No forward movement, but dog can reposition to better see marks. I have some that don't move and some that do reposition, the dog that repositions sees the marks better & take better lines. Doesn't mean they are any less steady than those that just move their head. Although with my dogs the one that only moves it's head is far more likely to break. No creeping-forward movement, which means their toes stay even with my toes, but the butt can pivot. 

We do this by cutting PVC pipe pieces and ensuring that when we stop with our toes on the pipe the dogs toes are behind the piece of pipe.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

One of the first things I was taught in training is that we rarely say "never" or "always". I don't think there's a standard answer to the questions. 0 movement will be the popular choice but I, like you, would bet reality if a bit different. 

The issue I frequently see is people "trying" to get to a standard by nagging the dog, sometimes for violations they don't understand or can't even control. If you haven't taught your dog that calm behavior earns a retrieve and you're nag nag nagging them with the collar for minor movements they don't understand... you may be amping them up even more...


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> 0 movement will be the popular choice but I, like you, would bet reality if a bit different.


Depends ? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsNb1m-ifCo


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> Depends ?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsNb1m-ifCo


oh stop braggin


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

If you set a standard at a young age you shouldn't need to nag the dog to the point that it becomes stressed and confused. The trick is making the behaviour ingrained to the point that they grow up with it, the problem is we as trainers sometimes slip the standard slightly as they age and progresss in more advanced concepts. The best thing that I have seen outside of a strict day 1 standard is running off matts small enough that any forward movement results in coming off the mat, then a black or white reprimand. The mat becomes a good reference of forward moveme to for a trainer too.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Depends ?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsNb1m-ifCo


I guess that is steady&#55357;&#56860; Awesome!


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> No forward movement, but dog can reposition to better see marks. I have some that don't move and some that do reposition, the dog that repositions sees the marks better & take better lines. Doesn't mean they are any less steady than those that just move their head. Although with my dogs the one that only moves it's head is far more likely to break. No creeping-forward movement, which means their toes stay even with my toes, but the butt can pivot.
> 
> We do this by cutting PVC pipe pieces and ensuring that when we stop with our toes on the pipe the dogs toes are behind the piece of pipe.


Do you cut the pipe lengthwise so it is semicircle and doesn't roll?


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I am currently using white gutter material that you buy at home depot. 10 feet of it cost me about 8$


----------



## bshaf (Apr 29, 2015)

polmaise said:


> Depends ?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsNb1m-ifCo


That's not steady.... That's ridiculous


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

bshaf said:


> That's not steady.... That's ridiculous


No, this is ridiculous 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VanUIPniNhc


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

DarrinGreene said:


> One of the first things I was taught in training is that we rarely say "never" or "always". I don't think there's a standard answer to the questions. 0 movement will be the popular choice but I, like you, would bet reality if a bit different.
> 
> The issue I frequently see is people "trying" to get to a standard by nagging the dog, sometimes for violations they don't understand or can't even control. If you haven't taught your dog that calm behavior earns a retrieve and you're nag nag nagging them with the collar for minor movements they don't understand... you may be amping them up even more...


Darrin has it right.
The behavior you are describing is the typical response of dogs that have been trained with force or intimidation philosophies. (IE do this because I said so) When you train this way the end result is a trainer that wants one thing while the dog wants something else. The dancing feet, uncontrolled movement at the line, noise and unwillingness or inability to take precise directions from the handler are all demonstrations that the dog resents the control being placed upon him and is showing intent to do something else.
The reason, I my opinion, that so many of you have failed to achieve the desired response in your dog is that you have addressed the symptoms of the problem without addressing the problem itself.
The problem is attitude. The dog’s attitude is made apparent every time you take the e-collar off or walk to the line of a test or trial. This is a direct reflection of the trainer’s attitude toward his training.
If you change the dog’s attitude so he wants to do things your way, the resentment goes away as do the poor line manners and the intent to do something else. 
Now that the conflict in his mind is gone, he will sit quietly when he is told, take direction from his handler and launch with determination whenever he is sent.
This philosophy applies to all basic obedience, precision casting, shore breaking and just about anything else you can think of.
The technique is simple. Put the dog in a scenario where the decision he must make is simple, then correct bad decisions in such a way that the dog thinks the correction came from his decision rather than from his trainer. Repeat this until making good decisions becomes habit.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Lynn Hanigan said:


> Darrin has it right.
> The behavior you are describing is the typical response of dogs that have been trained with force or intimidation philosophies. (IE do this because I said so) When you train this way the end result is a trainer that wants one thing while the dog wants something else. The dancing feet, uncontrolled movement at the line, noise and unwillingness or inability to take precise directions from the handler are all demonstrations that the dog resents the control being placed upon him and is showing intent to do something else.
> The reason, I my opinion, that so many of you have failed to achieve the desired response in your dog is that you have addressed the symptoms of the problem without addressing the problem itself.
> The problem is attitude. The dog’s attitude is made apparent every time you take the e-collar off or walk to the line of a test or trial. This is a direct reflection of the trainer’s attitude toward his training.
> ...


Can you elaborate on the underlined portion above? Thanks


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

polmaise said:


> No, this is ridiculous
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VanUIPniNhc



Actually, that's pretty tame stuff compared to hunting geese out of layout blinds when a large group of birds is working the decoys for a couple circles, the boss calls the shot and 3 or more guys empty their guns within a few seconds. Nice dogs, though.-Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

To reply to the OP, any forward movement is undesirable (towards the bird). I'm ok with the dog pivoting it's body to see the mark. When I send the dog for the mark, I'm *NOT *going to have the dog facing forward to retrieve a mark at 2 o'clock. Better that they should mark with their spine aligned the way it will be when sent.-Paul


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

This is truly a lawyer's answer, but it depends on your dog and what you want. 

My dog is very excited about birds, to put it mildly, and he took full advantage of my lack of experience in his early training. For goodness sake, I was so inexperienced (and so happy to see the dog crazy for birds) that I let a lot of bad habits get started without even knowing it. Imagine my surprise at the behavior I witnessed at our first JH test. Quite the shock. 

What I should have done was recognize that the most important thing in my dog's mind is going to get that bird and lay out this deal for him: you be still (butt on ground and no forward movement) and you get the retrieve. Any butt raising or forward movement would be met with the sternest form of correction - denying the retrieve. IOW, to get what you want you have to give me what I want. 

IOW, you sort of have to teach this type of dog the game and get him to decide it's worth it to him to give me what I want to get what he wants. 

I don't think I could ever get rid of this dog's happy feet even if I had not messed him up to start with. It's just him. As Glen said, sometimes you have to decide what you are willing to manage and go with it. 

That's my 2 cents' worth based on one bird-crazy dog.


----------



## J_Brown (Jan 4, 2013)

Lynn Hanigan said:


> Darrin has it right.
> The behavior you are describing is the typical response of dogs that have been trained with force or intimidation philosophies. (IE do this because I said so) When you train this way the end result is a trainer that wants one thing while the dog wants something else. The dancing feet, uncontrolled movement at the line, noise and unwillingness or inability to take precise directions from the handler are all demonstrations that the dog resents the control being placed upon him and is showing intent to do something else.
> The reason, I my opinion, that so many of you have failed to achieve the desired response in your dog is that you have addressed the symptoms of the problem without addressing the problem itself.
> The problem is attitude. The dog’s attitude is made apparent every time you take the e-collar off or walk to the line of a test or trial. This is a direct reflection of the trainer’s attitude toward his training.
> ...





RookieTrainer said:


> This is truly a lawyer's answer, but it depends on your dog and what you want.
> 
> My dog is very excited about birds, to put it mildly, and he took full advantage of my lack of experience in his early training. For goodness sake, I was so inexperienced (and so happy to see the dog crazy for birds) that I let a lot of bad habits get started without even knowing it. Imagine my surprise at the behavior I witnessed at our first JH test. Quite the shock.
> 
> ...


Excellent input from both of you. As an inexperienced trainer, I find this to be very helpful. I only wish I would have read this thread about 3 years ago!


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

bamajeff said:


> Can you elaborate on the underlined portion above? Thanks


Yes I can but it would be similar to writing a book.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Lynn Hanigan said:


> Yes I can but it would be similar to writing a book.


Maybe you could provide one example rather than trying to explain it thoroughly? 

I've seen trainers tie dogs to a post with a 10' lead, let them break on a mark and hit the end of the rope and be violently flipped on their backs. Not sure if this is the kind of thing you are talking about. I hope not.


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

captainjack said:


> Maybe you could provide one example rather than trying to explain it thoroughly?
> 
> I've seen trainers tie dogs to a post with a 10' lead, let them break on a mark and hit the end of the rope and be violently flipped on their backs. Not sure if this is the kind of thing you are talking about. I hope not.


What you are describing is a good idea being applied in an idiotic manner. This is how “hot spot” training got such a bad rep. Trainers with a poor grasp of how the concept worked tried to use it exclusively to fix bank running and ended up creating more problems than they already had.
To answer your question directly, yes. You can sit next to the dog with a six foot leash and let him break.
If you keep your hands held tightly against your chest your arms will act like shock absorbers, preventing the dog for injuring himself. Give him a quiet sit command when he is four feet out and when he gets back on his feet he will probably sit right where he is at. 
Deny the retrieve, bring him back to your side, tell him sit one time and repeat.
At no time should you verbally chastise or show displeasure at the dog’s behavior.
It is a rare dog that will break more than twice.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Lynn Hanigan said:


> What you are describing is a good idea being applied in an idiotic manner. This is how “hot spot” training got such a bad rep. Trainers with a poor grasp of how the concept worked tried to use it exclusively to fix bank running and ended up creating more problems than they already had.
> To answer your question directly, yes. You can sit next to the dog with a six foot leash and let him break.
> If you keep your hands held tightly against your chest your arms will act like shock absorbers, preventing the dog for injuring himself. Give him a quiet sit command when he is four feet out and when he gets back on his feet he will probably sit right where he is at.
> Deny the retrieve, bring him back to your side, tell him sit one time and repeat.
> ...


What if the dog creeps out to the end of the six foot rope instead of breaks?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I would suspect the dog that creeps to the end of the line has had some steadiness training and knows he is attached to the rope.
Lynn's method works when employed correctly and with a dog that has not previously been trained to be steady (or at least not much). 
the dog learns very quickly that he is the one responsible for retrieving or not - and since the handler is not speaking or doing anything to the dog, the dog does not associate the correction with the handler.


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

This is designed to change a dog's attitude toward breaking.
Creeping is a different problem and is addressed in a different manner. IE Sit means Sit


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Tobias said:


> I would suspect the dog that creeps to the end of the line has had some steadiness training and knows he is attached to the rope.
> Lynn's method works when employed correctly and with a dog that has not previously been trained to be steady (or at least not much).
> the dog learns very quickly that he is the one responsible for retrieving or not - and since the handler is not speaking or doing anything to the dog, the dog does not associate the correction with the handler.


Would doing it that way come before restraining a dog by collar while have a short check cord on it? I imagine it would have to come after a dog has learned a release command. Where would it fit into those two things?


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Lynn Hanigan said:


> This is designed to change a dog's attitude toward breaking.
> Creeping is a different problem and is addressed in a different manner. IE Sit means Sit


Care to give a brief explanation of how you would go about correcting? Very interested in this methodology. Would you throw marks for the dog and if he crept, say nothing and have the gunner pick up the mark and re-throw and not send the dog until he is 100% steady? Would you re-heel the dog, or just move up to where he crept to?


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Take a 24 inch circular wood plywood sheet or drum cover. I allow my dogs to move within that circular space about 24 inches in diameter..that includes haunch shifting. All a part of place-sit!!


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Tobias said:


> I would suspect the dog that creeps to the end of the line has had some steadiness training and knows he is attached to the rope.
> Lynn's method works when employed correctly and with a dog that has not previously been trained to be steady (or at least not much).
> the dog learns very quickly that he is the one responsible for retrieving or not - and since the handler is not speaking or doing anything to the dog, the dog does not associate the correction with the handler.


I'm not sure that a puppy that has learned to give in to a lead wouldn't associate being stop from the lead as coming from the handler. As far as not showing displeasure to the puppy for doing it, I read that getting loud and animated is a primate thing and not a canine thing. Maybe a puppy learns early on that a human getting loud and animated means displeasure in humans. If you never get loud and animated, and the dog never learns to associate that with human displeasure, the dog probably could care less if someone is loud and animated. You have to teach a puppy that loud and animated means displeasure sometime or another, not that it is that hard or even possible not to teach?


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Take a 24 inch circular wood plywood sheet or drum cover. I allow my dogs to move within that circular space about 24 inches in diameter..that includes haunch shifting. All a part of place-sit!!


I have a 24 inch square. For my next Dog I am thinking about going round. I am past that at this point. For me I know for sure I don't want my dog to creep all out of place on multiple marks. Single marks aren't really so much of a concern.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I am a proponent of the "every correction is preceded by a command" school. I have steady dogs and unsteady dogs. Dogs each have their own personality and behaviors. They are not programmable computers. Maybe my steady dogs are steady and my unsteady dogs are unsteady despite my training rather than because of it. Who knows? We all see dogs creep, break, and exhibit various bad manners each training session, test or trial. 

What I do know is that the first two dogs I trained are unsteady and the last 4 are steady. I believe it is simply because I came to understand what having a standard really means.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The point I was trying to make was more simple. 

1. The dog should know how to get rewarded. 
2. Any corrections should be powerful and few vs. mild and many.

Note:
A. If you find yourself constantly correcting you're not going hard enough. 
B. If you see attitude issues or avoidance (not looking out, etc) the dog is probably confused.


----------



## Cass (Sep 17, 2013)

polmaise said:


> Depends ?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsNb1m-ifCo


Lmao, my guy is pretty solid but if a bird was flapping around like that right in front of him, the devil himself wouldn't be able to hold that cocker back.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

captainjack said:


> What I do know is that the first two dogs I trained are unsteady and the last 4 are steady. I believe it is simply because I came to understand what having a standard really means.


I think this is the root of all of it, no matter how you decide or figure out to bring about that standard. You have to have a high standard, you have to clearly communicate that standard to the dog, and you have to apply it without regard to situation or circumstance. It doesn't matter if you are at the line in your yard, at a training day, or at the hunt test/field trial, the standard is the standard, no questions asked. In my case, butt coming off the ground or any forward movement should mean no retrieve, period. Now that is FAR easier said than done.

Boy do I wish I had known that _before_ I got my dog.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> The point I was trying to make was more simple.
> 
> 1. The dog should know how to get rewarded.
> 2. Any corrections should be powerful and few vs. mild and many.
> ...


1.*Not every dog knows how to get rewarded* ..well in the sense of 'achievement' (imo) One may think for example that the retrieve should be the 'reward' ?,but that's not always the case,and the fact that the dog actually retrieves is no confirmation that it is a reward (for the dog) ? ...Think FF ?
I'll re-phrase for Humans (in my way) 
1. The dog should know how to gain desire for it'self for the handler to be rewarded by the the dogs actions.
2.Corrections being powerful suggest previous have been weak and ill timed (imo),yes ''Mild and many'' are nagging rather than 'training/correcting'. Some/many already have the baggage at this stage however, and often 'Trashing' requires a start page. Cookies ain't gonna fix it at the stage wher it has already had some red mist or chase/catch.
Darrin, certainly knows me and my style ,whether one likes agrees or disagrees is of no consequence to either colleagues . 
I know one thing , right or wrong regarding 'steady' in all my years . and a famous saying this side of the pond ," There is a baw hair between a ftch and a dog running in'' . Some manage it better than others and it's usually the winners with the ones that have desire and have 'calm' in their handling . Don't know what it's like your side of the pond ,but I soon will .


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

bamajeff said:


> Care to give a brief explanation of how you would go about correcting? Very interested in this methodology. Would you throw marks for the dog and if he crept, say nothing and have the gunner pick up the mark and re-throw and not send the dog until he is 100% steady? Would you re-heel the dog, or just move up to where he crept to?


One thing should be made clear. You should not be working on basic obedience problems while you are doing marks. This will only inhibit the dog’s ability to learn to mark. If he is not steady then use a short lead and hold him until you have taught him to sit still.
To reinforce sit I prefer to strap an ecollar around the dog’s waist with the receiver directly on top of the dog’s back. Attach a leash to a strap collar on the dog’s neck. Reinforce the sit command with the ecollar twice. After that, subsequent reinforcements are silent.
When this is done correctly the dog will quickly decide to keep his butt on the ground until he is told he can stand up. Transition to the neck collar and you are good to go.


----------



## MissSkeeter (May 17, 2013)

I have an unconventional perspective..I MUST have a steady dog because I usually hunt with my lab sitting in a sled stashed 50 yards back in the cattails while I am layout shooting on a mudflat, or I'm jump shooting with 2 labs under potentially dangerous conditions. With a ten-bird daily limit there is typically lots of excitement....

In training, if dogs learn that obedience triggers what they want (birds!), I think they will learn faster,and require less maintenance. And typically the more exciting the conditions the better the obedience!

My approach is what Hillman terms "conditioning" a heel/sit response the _*dog does because he wants to*_, not because the handler is making him (choke chain/heeling stick/ecollar)...that is to teach a silent auto sit using marks and eventually live flyers. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1cPpWXeFnc

Pup thinks if he is obedient, his act of sitting will trigger a live flyer reward. Easy to teach (timing is critical..the instant the dog starts to sit, a mark is thrown) when you have one pup as an amateur...probably too much time investment if you had a truck-load of dogs. Soon the behavior is silent speed-sitting when cued by the handler. 

Sort of like an 8-week old pup doing all sorts of antics at feeding time, but soon learns that the act of sitting triggers the food bowl. Soon pup is speed-sitting with hope. Then teach the sit command timing it with the act of sitting.

So if the dog thinks that sitting and being steady is a good thing because it triggers the live flyer reward the instant he sits, he will eagerly sit (if he likes birds).

All dogs and trainers are different...just a different perspective that has worked for me and my labs.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

polmaise said:


> 1.*Not every dog knows how to get rewarded* ..well in the sense of 'achievement' (imo) One may think for example that the retrieve should be the 'reward' ?,but that's not always the case,and the fact that the dog actually retrieves is no confirmation that it is a reward (for the dog) ? ...Think FF ?
> I'll re-phrase for Humans (in my way)
> 1. The dog should know how to gain desire for it'self for the handler to be rewarded by the the dogs actions.
> 2.Corrections being powerful suggest previous have been weak and ill timed (imo),yes ''Mild and many'' are nagging rather than 'training/correcting'. Some/many already have the baggage at this stage however, and often 'Trashing' requires a start page. Cookies ain't gonna fix it at the stage wher it has already had some red mist or chase/catch.
> ...


As a ps...
There are some who are selling not telling and many trying to sell by telling much about nothing. A great quote from a down right son of a bitch friend of mine just today btw. "Get the right stock, instil the basics and build on these foundations. Too many hyper intelligent mega beings masquerading as dog trainers baffling novices, confusing dogs and trying to make it look a lot harder than it actually is. It's easy if you do it right. I mean we are dealing with an animal that licks its own Arse so it's not Einstein is it? Some of the dogs are no better".


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Well I find it hard to read through this thread. There should be no exceptions to 'SIT'..... unless you have not enforced it from day 1 and then that is another thread.

There have been many FC AFC's in the past that had a great deal of movement on the line, but that is changing today with better training methods. I think it would be safe to say that FC AFC's that have a great deal of movement on the line will probably NOT become NFC's!

With that said standards should be black and white for both you and your dog. Butt on the ground and 4 on the floor is the standard. Butt up or paw up means NO RETRIEVE.

If you started your pup with Bill Hillmann's 'Training a Retriever Puppy', then you have a huge head start to steady. If you didn't, go back and start over. Yes, even if they are 4 years old. START OVER and insist on the standard.

Here is a video I made of a little 'steady' drill I do with all of my dogs. This is a high powered young dog that is not being entered in tests until we have this down pat. Start small and build up to big marks and multiple retrieves.






Rules:

1. Start with excitement
2. ALWAYS maintain the standard
3. With movement say 'sit' and give a nick appropriate for the individual dog and DO NOT allow a retrieve. (Nicks should be small enough to not CREATE movement.)
4. BALANCE success with failures.
5. Only allow a retrieve when the standard is upheld.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

TBell said:


> Well I find it hard to read through this thread. There should be no exceptions to 'SIT'..... unless you have not enforced it from day 1 and then that is another thread.
> 
> There have been many FC AFC's in the past that had a great deal of movement on the line, but that is changing today with better training methods. I think it would be safe to say that FC AFC's that have a great deal of movement on the line will probably NOT become NFC's!
> 
> ...


Yea but you can start with your own ?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

TBell said:


> Well I find it hard to read through this thread. There should be no exceptions to 'SIT'..... unless you have not enforced it from day 1 and then that is another thread.
> 
> There have been many FC AFC's in the past that had a great deal of movement on the line, but that is changing today with better training methods. I think it would be safe to say that FC AFC's that have a great deal of movement on the line will probably NOT become NFC's!
> 
> ...


No disrespect intended, but the reason most dogs don't make NFC, or FC/AFC for that matter, has nothing whatsoever to do with steadiness. 

I don't argue that steadiness should be the goal, but since we (I) didn't build it in from the beginning, we manage the best we can.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> As a ps...
> There are some who are selling not telling and many trying to sell by telling much about nothing. A great quote from a down right son of a bitch friend of mine just today btw. "Get the right stock, instil the basics and build on these foundations. Too many hyper intelligent mega beings masquerading as dog trainers baffling novices, confusing dogs and trying to make it look a lot harder than it actually is. It's easy if you do it right. I mean we are dealing with an animal that licks its own Arse so it's not Einstein is it? Some of the dogs are no better".


Ah Mate - that's a good one right there... that's a good one


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> 1.*Not every dog knows how to get rewarded* ..well in the sense of 'achievement' (imo) One may think for example that the retrieve should be the 'reward' ?,but that's not always the case,and the fact that the dog actually retrieves is no confirmation that it is a reward (for the dog) ? ...Think FF ?
> I'll re-phrase for Humans (in my way)
> 1. The dog should know how to gain desire for it'self for the handler to be rewarded by the the dogs actions.
> 2.Corrections being powerful suggest previous have been weak and ill timed (imo),yes ''Mild and many'' are nagging rather than 'training/correcting'. Some/many already have the baggage at this stage however, and often 'Trashing' requires a start page. Cookies ain't gonna fix it at the stage wher it has already had some red mist or chase/catch.
> ...


Yes - this and I was talking about starting with a bit of a blank page, I suppose, and developing things right form the start in a black/white fashion for the dog. No doubt muddy water is harder to clear up than a virgin spring.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Lynn Hanigan said:


> One thing should be made clear. You should not be working on basic obedience problems while you are doing marks. This will only inhibit the dog’s ability to learn to mark. If he is not steady then use a short lead and hold him until you have taught him to sit still.
> To reinforce sit I prefer to strap an ecollar around the dog’s waist with the receiver directly on top of the dog’s back. Attach a leash to a strap collar on the dog’s neck. Reinforce the sit command with the ecollar twice. After that, subsequent reinforcements are silent.
> When this is done correctly the dog will quickly decide to keep his butt on the ground until he is told he can stand up. Transition to the neck collar and you are good to go.



YIKES!!!! 

How many dogs have you trained this way?-Paul


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

somewhere over 500


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Lynn do you find the need to turn the collar down from it's normal setting when you do that routine? Seems like the haunch is much more sensitive than the neck, from what I've seen in limited experimentation.


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

DarrinGreene said:


> Lynn do you find the need to turn the collar down from it's normal setting when you do that routine? Seems like the haunch is much more sensitive than the neck, from what I've seen in limited experimentation.


Absolutely. The skin is much thinner on the flank and it is a much more sensitive area.
Some very highly acclaimed trainers don’t believe the waist or flank collar works. I believe the reason for this is that they failed to realize that the flank is a ticklish spot and the first time they put an ecollar there and got a violent reaction they assumed that was a bad place and refused to do it again.
The truth of the matter is the flank is the superior location for a receiver to drastically improve a dog’s heeling skills. It will also un-clam a clamed up dog that refuses to move and if you want a snappy heart stopping sit the waist is the go to position.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Thank you Lynn


----------



## Repaupo (Apr 28, 2005)

TBell said:


> Well I find it hard to read through this thread. There should be no exceptions to 'SIT'..... unless you have not enforced it from day 1 and then that is another thread.
> 
> There have been many FC AFC's in the past that had a great deal of movement on the line, but that is changing today with better training methods. I think it would be safe to say that FC AFC's that have a great deal of movement on the line will probably NOT become NFC's!
> 
> ...


TBell, 

Very nice video. After watching this one I got motivated, got the pup out and tried doing this drill. We have been working on steadiness and I was pleasantly surprised at how well it went, not great but we're getting there. I am "trying" to follow a popular program with some help from a pro but your videos are very helpful.

Thanks, Alan


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Thank you for the compliment, Alan. I'm glad this has actually helped someone 

I'm still not budging on my theory that dogs cannot accurately mark a fall if they are moving on line. My dog's will not be entered in a trial until they can sit still and watch 'all' the birds go down. If movement begins during a trial, all tests cease, and they go back into training. I'd rather stay home and train my dogs to be a pleasure to hunt and test with than run tests anyway.

Below is day two for Reba with the addition of a blank pistol. You can see what a difference it makes in a dog's attitude. BTW this drill is great for dogs that make noise. NO RETRIEVE FOR MOVEMENT OR NOISE. You will be amazed the difference it makes when a dog is finally held to a standard.

Warning: This drill is not a quick fix for high desire, hot blooded dogs. It will be something you will need to do with them for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Bill McKnight (Sep 11, 2014)

Oh my, this thread has gotten weird. First, I totally reject Lynn's method of teaching sit. Sit is the most basic command one can teach a dog...the dullest of dogs can learn the command with out going to the extrem methods Lynn advocates. If one is having that much trouble teaching so simple a command then either the human shouldn't be training dogs or the dog shouldn't be ask to do this kind of work. I am sorry but I can't go along with her recommendation....especially for those who are new to the sport.

Second, Tammy is absolutely correct in her position about dogs moving on line and marking!

Bill


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Lynn Hanigan said:


> Absolutely. The skin is much thinner on the flank and it is a much more sensitive area.
> Some very highly acclaimed trainers don’t believe the waist or flank collar works. I believe the reason for this is that they failed to realize that the flank is a ticklish spot and the first time they put an ecollar there and got a violent reaction they assumed that was a bad place and refused to do it again.
> The truth of the matter is the flank is the superior location for a receiver to drastically improve a dog’s heeling skills. It will also un-clam a clamed up dog that refuses to move and if you want a snappy heart stopping sit the waist is the go to position.


I haven't bothered to read all the post on this subject..I agree with Lynn on the top of the back in the rear area has helped many a head strong dog learn to sit when commanded..the principle is simple.. the dog moves away from the stimulation ..thus the rear end goes down ...under the belly gets dogs up and moving...If you don't need to use this method all the better but sometimes you have to get out of the box.. lower levels are the rule as stated..As Tammy stated some behaviors take longer to ingrain in some dogs , don't look for silver bullets and quick fixes ,train hard and be patient with the dogs progress as long as they are trying...steve s


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Bill McKnight said:


> Oh my, this thread has gotten weird. First, I totally reject Lynn's method of teaching sit. Sit is the most basic command one can teach a dog...the dullest of dogs can learn the command with out going to the extrem methods Lynn advocates. If one is having that much trouble teaching so simple a command then either the human shouldn't be training dogs or the dog shouldn't be ask to do this kind of work. I am sorry but I can't go along with her recommendation....especially for those who are new to the sport.
> 
> Second, Tammy is absolutely correct in her position about dogs moving on line and marking!
> 
> Bill


I'm curious as to why the aversion (from several people) about moving the stim to a different location? I don't see the difference honestly, except it's a different tactile sensation to the dog? 

People crack them in the ass with a heeling stick as if they are made for it. Ever been hit with one? It's not exactly a friendly gesture. A low number on the e-collar would be much less painful.


----------



## bshaf (Apr 29, 2015)

Rick Smith, a well known upland trainer uses a whoa post and ecollar on pointers and flushers, pointers get pressure on the belly to stand and flushers get it on the back to sit. The ecollar is a tool, it can be used more than one way... Seems odd to use it on the neck while condemning the use on the back.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

bshaf said:


> Rick Smith, a well known upland trainer uses a whoa post and ecollar on pointers and flushers, pointers get pressure on the belly to stand and flushers get it on the back to sit. The ecollar is a tool, it can be used more than one way... Seems odd to use it on the neck while condemning the use on the back.


It's designed to be used on the neck. That's why they call them ecollars rather than ebelts. 

Not sure the condemnation is due to the location of the collar or its use.


----------



## Bill McKnight (Sep 11, 2014)

Darrin, why do you need an e coller to TEACH sit? The coller is best used to reinforce learned behaviour. Starting off with it is just wrong.....and it is a task that is so easy to teach. I saw the process you and Lynn are describing used in the late 90s and early 2000 to horrifying effect. These were A list pros. Often used because 1. The dog hadnt been taught to be steady and a client was coming soon and 2 as a horrible form of punishment /indirect pressure. Nothing good came from it. Yes, I have hit myself with a healing stick so I know what it feels like and yes you have to use it in the correct spot and yes it is used to reinforce learned behaviour.

Too many attempts to avoid training while going to direct pressure.....often extrem.....just doesn't feel right to me. I assure you other problems will arise down the road of the teaching process is averted. Teach first, reinforce later.

I hope this in sme small way answers your question. 

Ronan Bill


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Never say never .... I did and I was wrong. As a pointing dog trainer also, we had a dog that we could not get to stand still for Love nor money. No way ,no how, would I have ever put a belly collar on but it was all we had left. WE taught him how to respond to a belly collar and lo and behold it clicked. I see NO problem with putting a collar on a dogs rump and conditioning him to it as you normally would. Would I start there? NO , would I use it if I needed to , for sure.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

I am reassured that over this side of the pond we have a deserved reputation for having calm steady dogs who also have drive without the need to use an e-collar for sit or stay.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Bill McKnight said:


> Darrin, why do you need an e coller to TEACH sit? The coller is best used to reinforce learned behaviour. Starting off with it is just wrong.....and it is a task that is so easy to teach. I saw the process you and Lynn are describing used in the late 90s and early 2000 to horrifying effect. These were A list pros. Often used because 1. The dog hadnt been taught to be steady and a client was coming soon and 2 as a horrible form of punishment /indirect pressure. Nothing good came from it. Yes, I have hit myself with a healing stick so I know what it feels like and yes you have to use it in the correct spot and yes it is used to reinforce learned behaviour.
> 
> Too many attempts to avoid training while going to direct pressure.....often extrem.....just doesn't feel right to me. I assure you other problems will arise down the road of the teaching process is averted. Teach first, reinforce later.
> 
> ...


Geeze-a-whee folks... I am no expert, don't come to me for advice on how to steady a dog. But I can read and Lynn clearly wrote about the rump-collar approach for _reinforcing a taught command_. I'm not for it, not against it. I am for reading before pearl-clutching and virtue signalling. That's all I'm saying.

TBell... thanks for your video!!! I did this for a couple of days and voila! Today Ram Jet Rocket Dog was steady (i.e., static.) Our set-up today was made easier for her in some ways, breaking and creeping less likely, less attractive to her... but even so, I think the exercise you demonstrated enabled her to get some success.

Additionally, I used a Dobbs training exercise (https://www.dobbsdogs.com/library/retrievers/rj18.html) and lengths of white plastic gutter cut to about 4 foot lengths to work on her body position relative to mine. Walk to the first, her toes behind the white gutter, walk to the second and so on. If she surged past the white gutter, she started over from gutter #1. This helped a LOT in terms of walking her out of the holding blind today.

I was a bit despairing when I started this thread. Many good suggestions I've gotten seem to be producing results. I know it will always be an issue for her and we will always be working on it. But it's grand to have ideas and tools.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

There is more you don't know...

She wrote about cold burning the dog without preceding with a command. 

It is not the same as reinforcing a known command. 

It's Burn vs. "Sit"-burn.

There is a huge difference. Many, myself amongst them, believe it extremely unfair to cold burn a dog. 





1tulip said:


> Geeze-a-whee folks... I am no expert, don't come to me for advice on how to steady a dog. But I can read and Lynn clearly wrote about the rump-collar approach for _reinforcing a taught command_. I'm not for it, not against it. I am for reading before pearl-clutching and virtue signalling. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> TBell... thanks for your video!!! I did this for a couple of days and voila! Today Ram Jet Rocket Dog was steady (i.e., static.) Our set-up today was made easier for her in some ways, breaking and creeping less likely, less attractive to her... but even so, I think the exercise you demonstrated enabled her to get some success.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

The collar on the rump is for sit, not something you do usually. Not the first method or the 10th, and it's only used for a very specific problem, very mild stimulation, for a very short period of time. Not something necessary nor usually productive for stopping breaking, nor creeping. I've only used a rump collar once, under guidance and it did work. It was for a young dog who was confused on "sit" while running blinds. Correction with the neck collar just made him run faster back; too much neck equaled a bunch of confusion and eventual freak out; a bunch of wheel spinning and no progress being made. So a rump collar for 1 session, which provided stimulation in a different location, allowing the dog to understand the "sit", and not freak got the wires uncrossed. Never had to use it after that, just a tool needed for that one dog.


----------



## Bill McKnight (Sep 11, 2014)

OK, my last post on this subject. Those of you that favor this method will continue using it no matter what I say, I accept that. They do though make my point. It was used because training hadn't been successfully done earlier. It was used to punish the dog for the humans failing in teaching the most basic of commands properly. While you may feel it worked by doing it just once I have my doubts. 

My dog shouldn't pay for my sins. I will say the experiences I had earlier on,as mentioned in my last post, severely scared me. Almost to the point of leaving the game.I kept asking myself "why" are such measures needed if I had done my job properly before trying to get a remote sit or steadiness on the line. What I have never understood is why people need to use such draconian methods on something so simple that as a five year old I was able to teach my first dog how to sit before eating....high prey drive for a young dog whose greatest desire is to eat. 

I wish you all well and hope you find the experience of training your dog rewarding.

Ronan Bill


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Bill McKnight said:


> Darrin, why do you need an e coller to TEACH sit? The coller is best used to reinforce learned behaviour. Starting off with it is just wrong.....and it is a task that is so easy to teach. I saw the process you and Lynn are describing used in the late 90s and early 2000 to horrifying effect. These were A list pros. Often used because 1. The dog hadnt been taught to be steady and a client was coming soon and 2 as a horrible form of punishment /indirect pressure. Nothing good came from it. Yes, I have hit myself with a healing stick so I know what it feels like and yes you have to use it in the correct spot and yes it is used to reinforce learned behaviour.
> 
> Too many attempts to avoid training while going to direct pressure.....often extrem.....just doesn't feel right to me. I assure you other problems will arise down the road of the teaching process is averted. Teach first, reinforce later.
> 
> ...


I never suggested using an e-collar to teach anything. I asked simply - why are people against stim on other parts of the body? You had a bad experience, your caution is therefore understandable. Using tools to solve fundamental training problems isn't the right way to go many times. 

Not looking to change anyone's mind. Just wondering where the negative reaction comes from for this audience.


----------



## canadahunter61 (Mar 19, 2013)

We dont hunt test or trial. We hunt. If he wants to hover I allow it. I dont want him so disciplined he wont turn around to mark a duck falling in the woods.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> I never suggested using an e-collar to teach anything. I asked simply - why are people against stim on other parts of the body? You had a bad experience, your caution is therefore understandable. Using tools to solve fundamental training problems isn't the right way to go many times.
> 
> Not looking to change anyone's mind. Just wondering where the negative reaction comes from for this audience.


The technique described is a cold burn (correction not preceded by a command). I don't object to the location of the collar, although I have not found it necessary. 

I believe Lynn mentioned that others have misused the technique and there is a way to do it right. I won't debate that, I simply feel I have a responsibility to the dog to give a command before a correction.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

captainjack said:


> The technique described is a cold burn (correction not preceded by a command). I don't object to the location of the collar, although I have not found it necessary.


Thanks for clarifying Glen.


----------



## Purpledawg (Jul 16, 2006)

Years ago I was shown by Jim Dobbs and his wife at a tritronics seminar how to use an e collar. To place e collar at the waist when teaching whistle sit process. More information on the method is available in the retriever training library at http://www.dobbsdogs.com/library/retrievers/rjpart6.html


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I believe people someone posted that putting the collar on the dog's neck may be confusing when giving correction on sit. It may seem logical because they have enforced sit with the heeling stick on the hind quarters. 

I use the stick, but I first use an upward pop on the lead & choke collar. I begin to enforce here also with the lead & choke collar. So, for example, I'll start the dog in a front finish and its here+jerk, sit+pop. These are small jerks on the lead and they are *always* preceded by a command. I then introduce the heeling stick to get that compulsion to sit and beat the stick. These stick corrections are swats and not big wind ups. 

With properly taught basic obedience with the lead and choke collar, dogs have no trouble transitioning to ecollar corrections when collar conditioning is done. Collar conditioning is done beginning with a review of formal obedience using the lead and choke chain and heeling stick. 

Mike Lardy emphasizes the importance of communicating with your dog and says in his TRT dvd "during collar conditioning, the dog will learn that the correction is connected to the handler, just like the lead and heeling stick are connected to the handler." I don't want my dogs to think the corrections come from anywhere but the handler. It's a completely different philosophy than some others have. 

I've said before that I believe this approach is fair. This, nor any other approach, will lead to a steady dog if you don't maintain your standard for steadiness in the field.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> [/QI'm curious as to why the aversion (from several people) about moving the stim to a different location? I don't see the difference honestly, except it's a different tactile sensation to the dog?
> UOTE]
> 
> Darrin
> ...


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Pete said:


> > [/QI'm curious as to why the aversion (from several people) about moving the stim to a different location? I don't see the difference honestly, except it's a different tactile sensation to the dog?
> > UOTE]
> >
> > Darrin
> ...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Pete makes a valid point. But, is the professional that described the procedure not doing the same thing by using a method that many trainers, including both amateur and professional, find unnecessary for most dogs that they've encountered? We all, amateur and pro alike, tend to gravitate toward what has worked on the dogs we have trained. 

It is absolutely easy to steady a dog. What's difficult, is to steady all dogs to a perfect standard, and still have all of those dogs be willing to make their own intelligent decisions when thoroughly exhausted, and do so in a stylish and pleasing manner.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> [/QUOPete makes a valid point. But, is the professional that described the procedure not doing the same thing by using a method that many trainers, including both amateur and professional, find unnecessary for most dogs that they've encountered? We all, amateur and pro alike, tend to gravitate toward what has worked on the dogs we have trained
> 
> 
> > Those dogs you never see be cause they have been sent home {washed}
> ...


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Glen, I must admit one thing when it comes to pro's training dogs vs amateurs. They are more affected by a time frame as compared to an amateur. Which means they must show their clients results in a set amount of time. Unfortunately, this often means using 'pressure' instead of 'teaching' to get a certain response within a set time limit.

The majority of people who want their dog trained ask how long it will take because they can only afford a certain amount of money to spend. They don't have the funds to leave that dog with a trainer for 2 or 3 years until they are a perfectly 'trained' dog, but sometimes that is what it takes.

With my own dogs I have no time frame, so I can 'teach' and use attrition as much as I want. I have no set agenda for their learning time frame. It takes as long as it takes. For example, I have a young dog right now that has been very hard to 'force fetch'. The solution is either more pressure or more time for attrition.......see what I mean. I don't have an owner that's asking me why it is taking so long to FF their dog. So he is learning with a combination of in my opinion appropriate pressure vs attrition.

I am in no way condoning what others have said on this thread. When we talk about 'pro' trainers we should qualify the definition as people who charge other people to train their dogs. Unfortunately, it doesn't always mean that they are the best trainer for a particular dog.

All dogs can be trained. It is the time frame that varies.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

captainjack said:


> Mike Lardy emphasizes the importance of communicating with your dog and says in his TRT dvd "during collar conditioning, the dog will learn that the correction is connected to the handler, just like the lead and heeling stick are connected to the handler." I don't want my dogs to think the corrections come from anywhere but the handler.


This ought to be a separate thread but the above quote is a great example of how a certain program or philosophy may not define every viable use of a particular tool or method. It's not obvious until you step out of that system and watch other great trainers (from various venues) but it is certainly true.

The beauty of the e-collar is clearly it's versatility. It can be used for many different functions other than "a correction from the handler". 

The single biggest contrasting usage is that I can use it to acknowledge appropriate behavior by paring it to a reward (like a clicker).

We can use it to create avoidance of a particular space or object. The modern "e-fence" is probably the easiest example. 

We can use it to create movement. Much like tapping the flank with a heeling stick to induce a "push/pull" response at the line. 

We can use it to induce behavior. Stim on the base of the tail will make a bite dog whose locked on a sleeve let go a lot of times.

We can use it to punish behavior. Retriever trainers do this one all of the time. They just put a "command" in advance of the stim to make it "fair".

Back to Lynn's point about direct pressure to the flank for a dog that's moving (and I said I wasn't going to post this). 

We have a dog that's sitting and knows how to sit. He knows to stay there until released for a retrieve. 

We give the sit command intending it to mean "until directed to retrieve". 

15-20 even 30 seconds go by while birds are being shot. 

The dog moves.

Without a second command we apply stim. This is direct punishment for the infraction of movement, meanwhile it is reinforcing the original command of SIT that was given when the dog was brought to the line. 

With the collar on the flank we get the added benefit of creating movement back into the sitting position. 

If the dog understands "sit until told otherwise" and that the tactile sensation on his back is relieved by sitting...

The method is fair and extremely effective. Fair, being defined as whether or not it is clearly understood by the dog.

You wouldn't correct a dog with an e-collar what wasn't properly conditioned. You wouldn't do this procedure with a dog that didn't understand the tactile communication either. 

If the dog has the basics it works flawlessly. 

Whether or not it's "more fair" or "more effective" or whatever else you want to say about it... 

It works because it makes sense to the dog (if he's been properly conditioned to the system). 

Bottom line... just because a system isn't the one you follow doesn't make it necessarily bad or ineffective. It's just not the one you follow.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Yes, I hope the novice audience realizes some of these methods should be religated to the tough dogs that require a last ditch effort with pretty old school methods. For the most part, these intelligent dogs do not require that pressure. We have advanced with better collars refined for the sensitve dogs. I don't want my dog to look like he has a stake nailed on his butt either. I want my dog to move with me and allow me to line him up for the marks and not just kick him off like I have seen many people do. Please don't be putting collars on bellies to solve a sit problem.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Darrin, many people think that Lardy's program is limited to a collection of drills, tasks, steps, or whatever and those don't work on every dog, so the program doesn't fit some dogs. 

This perception may come from lack of adequate study of Mike's works, I don't know. But, it is certainly a false perception. 

Let me say that Mike's program absolutely fits every dog. I attended a workshop (these are workshops not seminars for those unfamiliar) in 2009 where Mike was helping a handler with a dog that was munching birds. Mike tried several things like working on hold, then hold while moving, then opened the valve on a soft 3" bumper... The dog showed little progress. So Mike told the handler to try something different (I believe it involved the collar, but don't recall exactly), and the dog responded well. Someone asked if has had to do that with many dogs. He said he'd never done that.

Mike has been training professionally since the early 80s, and in 2009 tried something he'd never done before with any dog. Does that mean it wasn't in his program? Absolutely not. That means that his program is an overall approach to training, and that's what is important. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XsZpdHal4Oo


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

If I have a training question/problem to solve, I'm going to consult someone who has been successful training dogs for the activity in which the dog(s) will be engaged. Let the buyer beware. And that's all I have to say about that. -Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

captainjack said:


> Darrin, many people think that Lardy's program is limited to a collection of drills, tasks, steps, or whatever and those don't work on every dog, so the program doesn't fit some dogs.
> 
> This perception may come from lack of adequate study of Mike's works, I don't know. But, it is certainly a false perception.
> 
> ...


If you read the end of my post it clearly says : "just because a system isn't the one you follow doesn't make it necessarily bad or ineffective. It's just not the one you follow."

That applies equally in both directions.

Just because Lardy works doesn't mean other programs don't (in any and all venues).

Just because other programs work doesn't mean Lardy doesn't (in any and all venues). 

I think we are quick to condemn methods because they either aren't part of the program/philosophy we follow or because someone had a bad experience with them at some point or another (probably done wrong). 

Presenting the logic behind Lynn's method was simply to exemplify the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat and you still end up with a dead cat in the end. 

That's all. Not trying to argue merits of one program or another. Not trying to argue one method vs. the other. 

If I was going to do a FT retriever you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be studying under accomplished FT trainers, probably using something like Hillman/Lardy. 

In my personal situation I study lots of systems because it is I need to effectively accomplish my job. 

That's all...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

paul young said:


> If I have a training question/problem to solve, I'm going to consult someone who has been successful training dogs for the activity in which the dog(s) will be engaged. Let the buyer beware. And that's all I have to say about that. -Paul


One could argue that as a successful retriever/bird dog trainer - Lynn has produced a number of success stories on this topic Paul. 

I'm not trying to argue methods. Just trying to promote a touch of open minded thinking and logic among the community members.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

captainjack said:


> There is more you don't know...
> 
> She wrote about cold burning the dog without preceding with a command.
> 
> ...


There are so many dogs wearing bark collars or invisible fence collars to say it is bad ,unwarranted ,inhumane or any other word to say a so called "cold burn" is inhumane...or unfair...Let's remember the difference between a BURN and low level stimulation ...words have meaning.... Dogs learn to repeat behaviors that have good or no consequences and avoid ( not repeat ) those that have an adverse ( uncomfortable ) consequence ...I call these behaviors self taught...same as us...We are just the one providing the uncomfortable sensation...This type of conditioning (teaching ) puts the responsibility on the dog to learn or figure out how to avoid the stimulation or uncomfortable sensation...This is the part I don't like ...I try to teach the correct behavior instead of putting the responsibility on the dog to figure it out on their own...BUT..I do recognize the fact that this type of learning is all a part of the dogs natural world and learning process... Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> One could argue that as a successful retriever/bird dog trainer - Lynn has produced a number of success stories on this topic Paul.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue methods. Just trying to promote a touch of open minded thinking and logic among the community members.


I think you have hit the nail on the head ...we get too hung up on one way to do things and are not receptive to other solutions or ideas...As some would say " don't confuse me with the facts" Steve S


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

It looks like many trainers think using the e collar without giving the dog a command is “cold” burning the dog. This is inaccurate. The term “cold” burn refers to using an e collar on a dog that is not under command.
Also, in Steve’s last post he suggests I am using the ecollar without first teaching the dog what I want him to do. I don’t know where he got that idea but that too is inaccurate.
There are also several comments suggesting this technique is sever, brutal, heavy handed, or designed for problem dogs or dogs that don’t respond to gentler techniques. This too is inaccurate.
Due to the fact that not one of these people have ever trained with me, their observations are shallow and insulting at best. This philosophy is extremely gentle and it beats the hell out of hitting the dog with a stick or yanking on his neck with a leash.
What I am advocating is first teaching the dog what is desired, then reinforcing the command until the dog understands how to turn off the e-collar by complying with the command, then continuing to reinforce the behavior without repeating the command until the dog not only knows how to obey the command but also knows to respect the command.
I know someone is going to ask me for a specific application so I’ll offer one now.
First you teach the dog to sit using any technique you prefer. Then you reinforce the sit command with the e collar until the dog plants his butt quickly and firmly anytime he hears the sit command.
Now you walk to the end of a 15 or 20 foot rope. If the dog stands to come with you, and as he is still under command, you should stay silent and reinforce the command you gave before you walked away with the e collar. Hold the button down until the dog sits.
If the dog remains sitting, gently pull on the rope. He will probably get up and come to you. As soon as he stands up the trainer should repeat the e collar correction described above.
This entire process can be completed in fifteen or twenty minutes and the end result will be a dog that strains to keep his butt on the ground to the point of extending a front leg and leaning back to brace himself against the pull of the rope.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

I agree with being open minded for sure, but sometimes you can get yourself in trouble when you don't have a good understanding of where you are trying to go and the steps you need to take to get there, along with an understanding of simple physics - pressure in is pressure out, often in places and ways you may not expect and may not be prepared to deal with. Everybody, myself chief among them, does not have the requisite experience to properly use all the knowledge that may be available. Lynn is undoubtedly perfectly capable of deciding which dogs need the method he describes with his experience. But would I, given that I am working on my first dog? Same information, but I would bet on significantly different execution, again given our vastly different experience levels.

I would also say that working with a fairly talented but really crazy dog, not to mention working with a very experienced group of trainers, has taught me a lot about rejecting any technique out of hand, as long as it does not physically harm a dog. That said, guidance in the implementation of some of the things we all do as trainers is crucial. 

I see this all the time in my profession. A lot of "knowledge" paired with little to no experience and hard-earned judgment can be a really destructive thing.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

"Also, in Steve’s last post he suggests I am using the ecollar without first teaching the dog what I want him to do. I don’t know where he got that idea but that too is inaccurate." 


Where in the world did you get this idea from ? Please read post #69...All I'm saying in post 97 is that bark collars and invisible fences give a dog stimulation without a command given first..a cold burn as described by others.. In post #98 I'm just agreeing with Darrin about all the different methods used to train dogs and not everyone has to use the same method or program..I trained bird dogs for 10 years during the 70's and used a lot of different methods that retriever people today don't use...I used electric collars when they were no more than lighting in a tube...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

RookieTrainer said:


> I agree with being open minded for sure, but sometimes you can get yourself in trouble when you don't have a good understanding of where you are trying to go and the steps you need to take to get there, along with an understanding of simple physics - pressure in is pressure out, often in places and ways you may not expect and may not be prepared to deal with. Everybody, myself chief among them, does not have the requisite experience to properly use all the knowledge that may be available. Lynn is undoubtedly perfectly capable of deciding which dogs need the method he describes with his experience. But would I, given that I am working on my first dog? Same information, but I would bet on significantly different execution, again given our vastly different experience levels.
> 
> I would also say that working with a fairly talented but really crazy dog, not to mention working with a very experienced group of trainers, has taught me a lot about rejecting any technique out of hand, as long as it does not physically harm a dog. That said, guidance in the implementation of some of the things we all do as trainers is crucial.
> 
> I see this all the time in my profession. A lot of "knowledge" paired with little to no experience and hard-earned judgment can be a really destructive thing.




You are correct about the balance of knowledge and experience ...Which comes first ..wisdom or knowledge..? Steve S


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

RookieTrainer said:


> I agree with being open minded for sure, but sometimes you can get yourself in trouble when you don't have a good understanding of where you are trying to go and the steps you need to take to get there, along with an understanding of simple physics - pressure in is pressure out, often in places and ways you may not expect and may not be prepared to deal with. Everybody, myself chief among them, does not have the requisite experience to properly use all the knowledge that may be available. Lynn is undoubtedly perfectly capable of deciding which dogs need the method he describes with his experience. But would I, given that I am working on my first dog? Same information, but I would bet on significantly different execution, again given our vastly different experience levels.
> 
> I would also say that working with a fairly talented but really crazy dog, not to mention working with a very experienced group of trainers, has taught me a lot about rejecting any technique out of hand, as long as it does not physically harm a dog. That said, guidance in the implementation of some of the things we all do as trainers is crucial.
> 
> I see this all the time in my profession. A lot of "knowledge" paired with little to no experience and hard-earned judgment can be a really destructive thing.


Nice post Steve!!!!! When you get where you have had a few hundred dogs on the end of your leash things change. Doesn't make you an expert by any means but rather will convince you to be a better student, a better listener (to people and dogs) and create come humility. Just when you have something figured out... along comes a dog you need something different with... 

Pretty soon (if you're passionate about what you do) you'll find yourself studying all kinds of successful trainers in all kinds of venues. You might not use a lot of stuff but putting the tools in your box for future reference becomes rewarding. 

For the record I've only ever put a collar on the flank of a single dog... my own... to see how the process worked. It was good for her (and me) and showed me a way to communicate more clearly and with LESS pressure than I would have to use otherwise. 

No dogs were hurt in this experiment and the trainer (and dog) both gained some knowledge.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"When you get where you have had a few hundred dogs on the end of your leash things change. Doesn't make you an expert by any means but rather will convince you to be a better student, a better listener (to people and dogs) and create some humility."_

Frankly, it doesn't take nearly that many.


----------

