# Mr. Milner's online seminar



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

I puchased Milner's online seminar. And as I suspected I would, I found alot of useful information and simply discarded some of the "other" comments I didn't like, which could be based from pre-1990 training and e-collars. There's been alot of new ground since then IMHO.

After listening, I actually noticed some similarities in explanations of pressure what it is and isn't, between Evan's thinking and Mr. Milner's...which I didn't expect...and often times I think get's twisted (misinterpreted from a difference of what definitions to certain terms mean) around on the forums...usually because of a definition discrepency. There were also some vast differences. It's clear to see that Mr. Milner has zero desire to do tests any more, and in all honesty that's not a bad thing to me. It's simply what he desire's, no more, and no less.

All in all, and considering I can't make an in person seminar happen right now, the money was well spent, and I'd recommend Evan and others watching it. Some may think that's doubtful, but Evan did teach me to look at the details. And I'm trying to keep an open mind in doing so. At the same time I'd like for Mr. Milner to watch and listen to some of Evan's explanations on pressure and force. I think he'd see Evan's approach is vastly different than what he's previously been exposed to, though still using aversive training.

Mr. Milner does not deny compulsion training to work, but he felt for what he's doing and what he wants, there's simply is a much easier way. At least that's how I interpreted it. It's a bit convincing too, at least on the surface.

This is honestly how I felt after viewing this. I liked what I saw. Just as I like what I see with Evan's program. It seems more a matter of what you want. And in the context of each program, the rationale makes sense. I can't really do Mr. Milner more justice only having watched it once. But I've seen enough that there's some good info to think about and analyze and decide what I want my dog to do for me.

I've looked numerous times on Kwicklabs website and read many times how he likes early "imprinting", or early passive training with puppies. Alot of what I seen on Jim's site I've liked. He has a real good way of breaking things down and rationalizing them in order to work with these pups. 

That said, much of what Jim mentioned doing while doing some "different" passive puppy training seems to closely mirror much of what Mr. Milner is talking about...and even mimick's much of what I see on Pat Nolan's website. What Mr. Milner seems to drive home is; that by using markers puppies teach themselves how to learn and if done with enough repetition can be very reliable. 

Mr. Milner goes into far more detail as to how he uses treats, when he quits using them, and when to chain things together, than what gets talked about on any of the forums. His early puppy work is very similar to Pat Nolan's and it's zero pressure...at least in terms of pain type pressure. I do think pressure can take various forms and very in intensity, just as Evan describes force as sometimes being hardly perceptible.

I'll be honest again and state that it sure seems like it would be easy enough to shape this behaviors into more advanced things. How advanced being dictated, I would think, by the imagination of the trainer and the application.

Mr. Milner goes along way in discussing "pay the behavior with a reward" and just how he does this.

Each side has strong opinions, and each side says they're unfounded. I just have a tendancy to think that if all of us would quit trying to convince someone to do it "our way" and just simply find something to learn from each other...we would win, and the dogs would be better for it, and so would each forum.

I'll warn you though, if you look into it you'll likely here some comments you don't like, nor agree with. I'd rather not make more of it than need be, and just take what I can, as I do from others, and learn from the good stuff.

Over-all, I like it and would recomment it, especially if your wanting a basic duck dog and your the type of hunter/trainer not into testing and the like.

Keep in mind if you're considering purchasing, that it's an online seminar that is 97% classroom lecture.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

One of the best pieces of training info I have seen. It is also unlike anything else out there. Clearly his program won't produce successfull FT dogs but I think any FTer would benefit from his experience and knowledge. For a first time trainer this info is invaluable. I will recommend this to anyone.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Sounds interesting, I'll be ordering too.


----------



## Dooley (Feb 1, 2011)

How does one go about getting the on-line seminar?


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Dooley said:


> How does one go about getting the on-line seminar?


I believe you can see it here.

https://www.excellentgundog.com/


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Hoytman,

I haven't seen what you are talking about, but for a puppy as a general rule you and Milner are correct. Nearly everyone I know uses reward early on.
I disagree however with your statement that it can be applied to advanced levels. The problem there is we are asking the dogs to do things that they are not naturally inclined to do. Positive only reinforcement in those situations in my opinion does not work.

I'm not saying that Milner doesn't know anything about dogs.....that is stupid. He knows a lot and many people can learn from him.

I will change my mind the first time a see a dog that I or many others know has been trained by "positive only" techniques place in a field trial or an upper level testing program.

I don't think it can be done......I wish someone would prove wrong so we could finally end this debate....end the "marketing" crap!

Thanks for listening,

D


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Dman said:


> Hoytman,
> 
> The problem there is we are asking the dogs to do things that they are not naturally inclined to do. Positive only reinforcement in those situations in my opinion does not work.
> 
> ...


Well I can't speak about field trials but it is my understanding that marine mammals are trained to do alot of things they are not "naturally inclined" to do and that is the basis of this type of training.

I doubt you'll ever see a shock collar on a killer whale,... although if they fit one it might work pretty darn well, till you took it off, and then the whale would eat you.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Dman said:


> Hoytman,
> 
> I haven't seen what you are talking about, but for a puppy as a general rule you and Milner are correct. Nearly everyone I know uses reward early on.
> I disagree however with your statement that it can be applied to advanced levels. The problem there is we are asking the dogs to do things that they are not naturally inclined to do. Positive only reinforcement in those situations in my opinion does not work.
> ...


Dman, Milner clearly says his training won't work for FTs. He markets to hunters only.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> Well I can't speak about field trials but it is my understanding that marine mammals are trained to do alot of things they are not "naturally inclined" to do and that is the basis of this type of training.


When someone with a clicker hangs a GHRCH or MNH title on a killer whale, then you might have a point. Until then.....;-)


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

No offense to anyone but this topic gives me a headache and I can't be the only one to forever learn 'nothing' from it.

On one hand we have the presentation of the 'average gun dog' which has absolutely no definition. Then the comparison to 'Field Trial' dog which does have a definition but accounts for a single digit population of working retriever.

Then, of course, when Milners name is batted about - we have whales and dolphins. 

Those who promote the touch, feely nice approach of all positive can't talk much past puppy hood and setting a positive direction. The other set rarely goes into detail on the force or pressure approach where they USE positive methods - how, when, where.

The truth is, I think, ALL use positive and negative reinforcement but instead of combining those aspects of training TOGETHER - posters hold their ground on what the opposition dislikes.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> When someone with a clicker hangs a GHRCH or MNH title on a killer whale, then you might have a point. Until then.....;-)



Man that would take one hell of a pond! I bet the AKC wouldn't even let a Killer Whale compete, BUT if they did,,,,I bet they could win!!! and they wouldn't even try to cheat the bank!!....Swim-BY would take on a whole new meaning.hahah


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

The behaviorist perspective advocated by Milner & other "positive only" trainers is hardly "revolutionary" or"scientific". It was detailed by B.F. skinner in his 1938 thesis "The Behavior of Organisms" (cutting edge huh?) and more or less refuted by his own assistants & world famous animal trainers, the Brelands in 1961 or so in their thesis "Misbehavior of Organisms". "this phenomenon of complete breakdown of conditioning theory was called "instinctive drift" (p.684)

More recently Alfie Kohn in his book Punished by Rewards, documents hundreds of studies that demonstrate conclusively that rewards can be highly demotivating. This fact is one of the most robust findings in the social sciences.

None of this is to say that we don't all use operant conditioning as a tool in training, but it is certainly not the comprehensive theory that Milner &other purely positive trainers state.

The evidence appears to be that the use of rewards is effective primarily when the task is not otherwise "intrinsically" rewarding (such as obedience or parlor tricks) but a well bred gun dog is more effectively motivated by his love for birds, retrieving, & desire to please his master.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> The behaviorist perspective advocated by Milner & other "positive only" trainers is hardly "revolutionary" or"scientific". It was detailed by B.F. skinner in his 1938 thesis "The Behavior of Organisms" (cutting edge huh?) and more or less refuted by his own assistants & world famous animal trainers, the Brelands in 1961 or so in their thesis "Misbehavior of Organisms". "this phenomenon of complete breakdown of conditioning theory was called "instinctive drift" (p.684)
> 
> More recently Alfie Kohn in his book Punished by Rewards, documents hundreds of studies that demonstrate conclusively that rewards can be highly demotivating. This fact is one of the most robust findings in the social sciences.
> 
> ...


Wow Dave do you know all of that  or did you just slap it together using google?;-)


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Dman said:


> Hoytman,
> 
> 
> I disagree however with your statement that *it can* be applied to advanced levels. D


You better re-read what I wrote. _Can_, and *I think it can* are totally different statements. One _happens_, and the other *is a possibility*.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> No offense to anyone but this topic gives me a headache and I can't be the only one to forever learn 'nothing' from it.


If it bothers you that bad, and you feel you can't learn anyting you most likely won't. Why bother posting? Ignore it and move on. I do it all the time. I don't respond to every thread or topic. It's not that hard to do either.




Dave Flint said:


> The behaviorist perspective advocated by Milner & other "positive only" trainers *is hardly "revolutionary"* or"scientific". *It was detailed by B.F. skinner*


Now there's some breaking news...holy cow! How long did it take to figure that out? Uhh...if folks would be so kind as to give him a chance and listen to him...Mr. Milner isn't laying claim to ANY revolutionary ideas. In fact he gives credit where it's due...to Skinner, and others. He's simply putting ideas together and trying to implement them, and expand upon them. What's the crime in that? Geez, like that's real hard to discover listening to him.

In case many of you haven't noticed already, Mr. Milner has taken evidence from dolphin trainers using whistles,these folks experimenting with operant conditioning...he also started using clickers. Uhh he wasn't the first to use them...and guess where he got the idea? From someone else, and again, he gives credit where it's due. In fact there are several women dog trainers and animal behaviorists he credits. Some of you people really have listened to what some of the falsehoods about him and what he's doing.

His examples on the uses of classical conditioning, and operant conditioning go far beyond anything else I've heard from any other trainer on this forum (notice I did not say those trainers don't know about these ideas). Again, he does not deny anyone's success with FT's, or compulsion training. He does expound on some of compulsion trainings pitfalls that he's noticed and feels that many plain ol' hunters can find a way around this. He's marketing this to folks who could give a rats azz about having a trainers fetish.

For cryin' out loud. I've used Evan's Smartwork material to a degree in basics with a good measure of success. I in fact love his teachings. However, my hunting buddies have no use for having to train to that level. I can't force feed it to them, nor will I try._ I would however like for them to see what a highly trained dog is capable of._ *Even so, they and many of their buddies still wouldn't be interested. Their lives are too busy to train, and talk about training on forums as we do.* My question is, how many thousands of hunters are there out there just like them? 

I have done very little experimenting with clicker/marker training, but I can tell you what I have done the training happened at fast rate of speed. The results with some minor tricks and basic commands cause me to be more intrigued about it's use. What is wrong with that? Nothing, and it's based on my own experimentation. 

I see evidence of some of Mr. Milner's claims based on my own limited training experience and duck hunting. I also see benefit to early puppy training using these markers based on my limited clicker/marker training experiments with my own older dog.

So, if any of you think I'm going to box myself into a corner with one school of thought, you're mistaken. 

Heck, I've even been told on these forums I've got a "man crush" on Evan Graham...which is comparible to their own "man crush" I suppose. But if that's how folks feel, well fine. I have great respect for him, as a man and as a trainer. He knows this and I feel he knows that I'm sincere in saying so. I put a seminar together for him for cryin' outloud...that's how much I enjoy being around him. I also highly respect Mr. Voigt, Lardy, and many others.

What I'm saying is, I see validity within Evans program based on my limited experience. I also see some evidence of some of Mr. Milner's comments. Again, based upon my limited experience and experimentation with clickers. So I'm not just barking for the sake of barking (no pun intended). These fellas are simply doing different things with there dogs, by a different means, and for different types of people.

I'm just trying to give an unbiased assessment that's all. I feel I've done a good job at being fair, and respectful.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Hoytman said:


> .Mr. Milner isn't laying claim to ANY revolutionary ideas. In fact he gives credit where it's due...to Skinner, and others. He's simply putting ideas together and trying to implement them, and expand upon
> 
> He does expound on some of compulsion trainings pitfalls that he's noticed .


From the websites Executive Summary: Robert Milner shows you how to use operant conditioning, a *revolutionary* Rewards based training method...."

My point is that Skinner was a quack. You can do your own research but he's about as cutting edge as Sigmund Freud. 

Again, I'm not saying the tools of operant conditioning aren't useful. Hell, I use a clicker myself to teach puppys. What I'm saying is that the "behaviorist" approach is incomplete while I agree w/Mr. Milner on many things, I think he drank the cool-aid of "positive only" in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it's less effective than a more balanced approach. 

I also think that the "compulsion pitfalls" described are "straw men". When you have to resort to this tactic to make your point you're on shaky ground. It goes w/out saying that if you use " punishment" incorrectly you'll get poor results.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> From the websites Executive Summary: Robert Milner shows you how to use operant conditioning, a *revolutionary* Rewards based training method...."


It could be that the comment is in the advertising, but I don't recall. Lot's of products are advertised wrong in my opinion, but I can't do anything about that...takes money and lawyers. Sure, to us here on the forum I guess it should mean alot then again I don't test and get magazines any more telling me results of tests either. Sort of lost interest and income with this economy.

The advertising also says he's one of the best dog trainers in the country too however, the world couldn't/wouldn't know it buy looking at any sporting dog stats. 

It's not like he's making Skinner out to be a God, he simply credits him for some minor things. His biggest credit goes to those who've expanded on Skinners principles.

I mean I've already wtitten enough lines trying to defend a comment or two he's made and the comments I made aren't necessary if people listen.

Saying Skinner was a Quack is no big deal either. He could have been. Einstein wasn't the brightest in school either and look what he did. The point is, the ideas have gotten expanded upon...progress made.

I didn't expect to hear some of what I heard. That's the best desciption I can give it at this time. Other than comments on this board by others, some comments from and old man and breeder that I know, and reading a few short posts by Mr. Milner...that's all I knew of him. Very little about what he teaches.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Hoytman said:


> If it bothers you that bad, and you feel you can't learn anyting you most likely won't. Why bother posting? Ignore it and move on. I do it all the time. I don't respond to every thread or topic. It's not that hard to do either.


It bothers me as there is a better discussion to be had on working retriever training by use of force and/or treat. Particularly relative to the majority of working retrievers on the continent. 

A revolving door or Milner versus Lardy discussion with little detail and application toward the life cycle of actually developing a gun dog and which approach to training applies How and When and Why would move the topic from mundane and theoretical to something folks might actually be able to apply and understand.

Dmans post below was a perfect example. Concise, articulate and on point. His only mistake was use of the word Field Trial which begged the immediate response of Milner and 'hunting dogs'. Seems 'upper level' testing type dogs was glossed over.

My point is that operant conditioning, positive reinforcement, and all that jazz is already in the advanced trainers repertoire. It's the beginning of the life cycle in training a gun dog. It's so basic a concept to the overall picture...it's the least likely discussion most advanced trainers feel they need to hit on. But that doesn't mean it's not well applied early in the pups life. 

How 'bout we discuss what OUR dogs have accomplished and why, where the success and failure came from. What we've actually learned and adjusted to from various training applications and how all THAT compares to an excellent gun dog. 

Seems far more interesting and educational. What DOES an excellent gun dog do and HOW did you get one there. 





Dman said:


> Hoytman,
> 
> I haven't seen what you are talking about, but for a puppy as a general rule you and Milner are correct. Nearly everyone I know uses reward early on.
> I disagree however with your statement that it can be applied to advanced levels. The problem there is we are asking the dogs to do things that they are not naturally inclined to do. Positive only reinforcement in those situations in my opinion does not work.
> ...


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Nobody is claiming Milner has a 100% complete program, in fact some would argue that it is a "program" at all.
Where I am not a 100% postive trainer I do like the concepts of low force non electric approaches for one reason mainly *SIMPLICITY*.

Now this is not a shot at anyone but I've seen the video where a guy is training a dog and the dog is wearing about 3 collars the trainer has a "Heeling Stick" in one hand, a lead/rope in another, a transmitter for one of those collars in another hand and has a helper to boot. I won't claim this as fact but from my experience and that has alot to do with "who you run with" most people don't want to get *that *involved if they don't have to. (and they don't have to) Hell I got 2 kids they have piano lessons, dancing classes etc I got a wife and a job and a house and a yard etc etc AND A LIMITED BUDGET. I'm like alot of folks that set their dog training priorities below the above mentioned family stuff. All that being said.

I used the Wildrose Way Training DVD ($30) a book called _"Leader of the Pack"_ ($15) a whistle, a few paint rollers, a few tennis balls and some free advice on various forums and I have produced a well behaved well trained gun dog. He runs marks and blinds reliably, he takes back casts and overs, (no angle backs) I can get him there taking backs lefts and rights it just takes a few more whistles. When I go out to train armed with only a whistle and some bumpers I think, man I'm glad I don't have to fool with a damn shock collar and all that other stuff. Not because I am against them but it is simpler without it. Now can my dog compete against your dog or most of dogs on here I am certain that answer is no. BUT

Am I happy with his skill level YES, Will he pick up a vast majority of my ducks YES, will he be pleasant to be around in the blind YES, Will he be reliable YES. Will he do most everything I need him to do YES YES YES. What is wrong with that? Thats what I want! There are loads of people out there that want the same thing. If they do a little homework (to fill in a few holes), seek a little advice and use a programs or combinations of resources Like Stewart's, and/or Milner's, etc. They can produce a solid well behaved, reliable GUN DOG. Will they ever get a titled dog NO THEY MIGHT NOT, that would take a great deal of more technical precise training and these programs don't offer that level.

So tell me whats wrong with a good gun dog that has not been force fetched or wears an ecollar?


It's not about the "other side" being wrong or this side being better or even just as good. It's about personal choice and as much as people would argue there is a choice. It IS simpler, it IS reliable, it IS proven.. it just won't likely win any ribbons it will only provide satisfaction in the duck blind. 

Fact of the matter is, if you want to produce a solid gun dog you CAN do it with out traditional force fetch and Ecollars. 

So to each his own!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> ...it just won't likely win any ribbons it will only provide satisfaction in the duck blind.


You snuck that in but unfortunately ribbons have absolutely nothing to do with it. It is telling however.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Nobody is claiming Milner has a 100% complete program, in fact some would argue that it is a "program" at all.
> Where I am not a 100% postive trainer I do like the concepts of low force non electric approaches for one reason mainly *SIMPLICITY*.
> 
> Now this is not a shot at anyone but I've seen the video where a guy is training a dog and the dog is wearing about 3 collars the trainer has a "Heeling Stick" in one hand, a lead/rope in another, a transmitter for one of those collars in another hand and has a helper to boot. I won't claim this as fact but from my experience and that has alot to do with "who you run with" most people don't want to get *that *involved if they don't have to. (and they don't have to) Hell I got 2 kids they have piano lessons, dancing classes etc I got a wife and a job and a house and a yard etc etc AND A LIMITED BUDGET. I'm like alot of folks that set their dog training priorities below the above mentioned family stuff. All that being said.
> ...


Pas Bon - perfect example related to my first post. You compare a dog wearing THREE collars in a video, blah, blah, blah. You really think that's that average, advanced dog of which most speak?

And then - you fail to put any detail into your objective for your dog's desired competency. 

All I heard was you set your sights low and didn't spend much money. That's all fine...but that's a choice, not necessarily a training method and provides zero punch to what one CAN accomplish utilizing many approaches within the life of the dog, based on defined objectives.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Can't even try and give a decent review without people twisting your words.  If you can't see where I said I'm a smartwork user, AND SUPPORTER, then *you really should consider glasses*. The comments on Mr. Milner's approach were honest and as un-biased as can be given I started with a Carr based method.

The other comment I made was that I liked some of what I heard from Mr. Milner. I'm sorry that disturbs you...NOT really. 

You folks go ahead and turn this into a 20 page bash. I'm sure Mr. Milner would enjoy the publicity. I'm gone.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> You snuck that in but unfortunately ribbons have absolutely nothing to do with it. It is telling however.


Huh? how did I sneak it in? and how is it telling??

Different strokes for different folks but there is more than one way to train a dog and not everybody is interested in competition.



HNTFSH said:


> Pas Bon - perfect example related to my first post. You compare a dog wearing THREE collars in a video, blah, blah, blah. You really think that's that average, advanced dog of which most speak?


Well it was a well respected trainer in the video...so maybe so? but we may not be understanding each other here.



HNTFSH said:


> And then - you fail to put any detail into your objective for your dog's desired competency.


A solid reliable pleasant gun dog...those are my objectives and so far so good with my dog

as I said

I have produced a well behaved well trained gun dog. He runs marks and blinds reliably, he takes back casts and overs, (no angle backs) I can get him there taking backs lefts and rights it just takes a few more whistles.





HNTFSH said:


> All I heard was you set your sights low and didn't spend much money. That's all fine...but that's a choice, not necessarily a training method and provides zero punch to what one CAN accomplish utilizing many approaches within the life of the dog, based on defined objectives.


Thats a cop out, saying that I set my sights low. I don't think a solid reliable well behaved gun dog is setting my "sights low".
Low Force, Positive Reinforcement training programs like Stewart's and the ones used by the Brits are "programs"


Look, I can't argue nor would I want to with the facts. Advanced FF programs that utilize shock collars and heeling sticks etc etc WORK. Hell there are dogs out there that run like bullets and have such drive and precision that I am absolutely AMAZED.

BUT

If a person desires to own a solid reliable well mannered gun dog that person can get to that objective without Force Fetch, Shock Collars, Heeling Sticks etc etc.

Hey if you don't think it can be done fine! I happen to know for a fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can I have seen it with my own eyes. You may never believe it and thats fine you choose your way and I'll choose mine. I'll say this if I end up wanting to run tests and trials I'll be ordering Smart Works! For now I'll just use my whistle and tennis balls.

Also I enjoy a spirited debate and hope that none of this is taken personally, In fact I usually come away with a better perspective than I had before.

Regards 
PB


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Hoytman said:


> Can't even try and give a decent review without people twisting your words.  If you can't see where I said I'm a smartwork user, AND SUPPORTER, then *you really should consider glasses*. The comments on Mr. Milner's approach were honest and as un-biased as can be given I started with a Carr based method.
> 
> The other comment I made was that I liked some of what I heard from Mr. Milner. I'm sorry that disturbs you...NOT really.
> 
> You folks go ahead and turn this into a 20 page bash. I'm sure Mr. Milner would enjoy the publicity. I'm gone.


Hoytman - hope you're not talking to me man...I didn't twist nuthin!  The point was drop the 'theory' and discuss how it applies in training a competent working retriever and what a working retriever is, or how it's defined - by skill and ability. No need for a Field Trial comparison.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Huh? how did I sneak it in? and how is it telling??
> 
> Different strokes for different folks but there is more than one way to train a dog and not everybody is interested in competition.
> 
> ...


I'll stop. You continue to miss the point. I think you're about the 'cause' and not about the 'training'. And as I started - that's not all that informative or interesting.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

You guys Do realise dontChA that all this is like walkin into a Harley bar,, and Proclaimin "Jap bikes rule" at the top a yer lungs!!

Seriously ,,What do you think you are going to accomplish with this stuff?? Other than convincin* YOURSELVES *Your methods work??

Sometimes ya gotta decide if its all worth it.
I doubt very hightly your gonna change many peoples minds here.

Gooser

P.S. My dog hunts, not often,, but hunts. She is a HRCH,,SH She was FF'd, and trains with a collar. Shes very reliable. Doesnt wear the collar hunting. 
I can hunt her,, AND PLAY THE GAMES IN THE OFF SEASON TOO!!

WHATS WRONG WITH THAT!!!


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> You guys Do realise dontChA that all this is like walkin into a Harley bar,, and Proclaimin "Jap bikes rule" at the top a yer lungs!!
> 
> Seriously ,,What do you think you are going to accomplish with this stuff?? Other than convincin* YOURSELVES *Your methods work??
> 
> ...


Well everyone knows a Jap bike is better even if the Harley guys won't admit it, the Japs build a better more reliable bike.

I'm sure you have a fine animal. Congrats on your success.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

I understand that some may not be interested in the theory, but I think it is the main thesis of Milner's sales pitch. I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that Mr. Milner can't train an "Excellent Gundog" using this approach but I do think he uses very specious arguments in promoting it.

Milner and other behaviorists approach dog training from the Skinner belief that all organisms (including humans) are nothing more than "repertoires of behaviors" and these behaviors can be fully explained by outside forces he called "environmental contingencies". In other words, Skinner did not believe that organisms (again, including humans) make choices, we are merely responding to external stimuli. 

This radical point of view predictably, runs counter to my own. I know I'm not alone in recognizing when I see a trained dog look in the direction of the bank as he's swimming a channel blind that he's made the conscious decision to stay true to his line. Or when I can almost watch the gears turning in his brain, forcing his butt down to a sit after he's nearly grabbed a rooster out of the sky. I firmly believe that a dog can be accountable to a learned behavior & further that he can show pride in doing a job well-knowing he's pleased his master. If I thought that all that was going on was an organism "responding to an external stimulus" I can't imagine spending so much of my life engaged with these magnificent animals.

When the argument shifts to dolphins &orca whales, all I can do is remind you of the fact that an extremely intelligent, highly social animal is dramatically snatched from his family pod & placed in a concrete pool where his primary sense of sonar bounces confusingly off the walls. Eventually he becomes hungry enough to accept fish tossed to him & will begin to perform whatever tricks are required to "earn" them. That this feat is used as evidence in the argument my judicious use of the occasional punishment for my gun dog reLy doesn't merit a response.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Man that would take one hell of a pond! I bet the AKC wouldn't even let a Killer Whale compete, BUT if they did,,,,I bet they could win!!! and they wouldn't even try to cheat the bank!!....Swim-BY would take on a whole new meaning.hahah


Go out into the ocean and see how many killer whales and dolphins you can train to come.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Nice post Dave!


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Four Quadrants of Operant Conditioning by Skinner.



> Components of Operant Conditioning
> 
> Some key concepts in operant conditioning:
> 
> ...


As you can see it doesn't claim to be 100% positive. You can't train a dog using 2 of the 4 quadrants and call is science. As soon as you put a leash on a dog you are applying -R. 

No such thing as 100% positive. But it sure sounds warm and fuzzy doesn't it.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> I understand that some may not be interested in the theory, but I think it is the main thesis of Milner's sales pitch. I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that Mr. Milner can't train an "Excellent Gundog" using this approach but I do think he uses very specious arguments in promoting it.


Good post. In terms of theory - yes...it's important when presented and discussed as a component of when, why, and how it works. The premise of what works with a 4 month old probably won't hold true with a 14 month old.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Go out into the ocean and see how many killer whales and dolphins you can train to come.


Well the same could be said for any "wild animal".



Hellooooo? You ever hear of Flipper?


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> Good post. In terms of theory - yes...it's important when presented and discussed as a component of when, why, and how it works. The premise of what works with a 4 month old *probably* won't hold true with a 14 month old.



or maybe it will?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> or maybe it will?


You're right. For sit and roll-over it might work. 

So talk to me about angle backs. Think it was you (maybe on this thread) stating you won't need angle backs on blinds. I found afield in my basic hunting blinds that the angle back after the initial send was about the most used, not the least.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

These posts get dumber every time, but I just couldn't let "Skinner was a quack" go unmentioned. That has to be in the running for the most idiotic statement of the year on RTF. WOW!


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Hookset said:


> These posts get dumber every time, but I just couldn't let "Skinner was a quack" go unmentioned. That has to be in the running for the most idiotic statement of the year on RTF. WOW!


I articulated my opinion on his radical behaviorism theory, are you saying you agree with him. Please make your case.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Many of the comments made in this thread and hundreds more like them _are the exact reason I wanted to inquire_ *for myself*. I got tired of seeing the same old boring "him vs them" threads and decided to see for myself what all the fuss was about. 

Some of the claims you foks are making are NOT founded, some seemingly are. I found this out for myself though. I cowboy'd up, paid my money. I'm not sure if I agree with all of it, nor does that matter. *What matters is finding out on your own and then doing exactly what I have done. Give a review of what you observed and learned from the lecture(not necessarily what you think)*. Would I like to see a video of one dog going through it's life training? Yes. Would I like to see some dogs in action on video? Yes. 

That said, I've got a friend who trains his dogs via some of these methods (but without clicker/markers) and his dogs are some of the steadiest dogs I've seen. No, they don't do all the angle backs and such, but he manages. If he's satisfied with that who am I to argue with his success? The thead was intended as a review of a product. 

I simply chose to highlight the things that I felt were a "different" way of thinking. I could have very easily chosen to talk about the negatives of Mr. Milner's thoughts, but what purpose would that serve? I'll tell you...it would only serve to do an injustice to a man who thinks his heart is in the right place. Besides, that's done here often enough on the main forum.

With that, I'll state this one last time:

Coming from a person using a Carr based methodology, there were some things I heard that I liked. I can't state it any more plain than that.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> So talk to me about angle backs. Think it was you (maybe on this thread) stating you won't need angle backs on blinds. I found afield in my basic hunting blinds that the angle back after the initial send was about the most used, not the least.


Elementary Watson! It's one of those simplicity issues. I would rather focus on"other" things than to worry about angle backs. Those "other" things might have to do with my dog or my family.

Now with that said. Angle backs are very useful and more efficient as the shortest distance is a straight line.

But

I can get to the same place with a couple more casts. 

Congratulations on your successful training efforts, I'm certain you have a fine animal.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

Colonel Milner says that punishment requires a higher skill level on part of the trainer. He also says: 
"Behaviors established by positive reinforcement and operant conditioning tend to become self reinforcing. Thus they don't need a lot of maintenance training."
"Behaviors established by punishment generally have to be reinforced periodically to stay reliable."
I think that says a lot coming from Milner. 
"He mentions that in training search and rescue dog trainers he was able to cut the training time from 18 months to 6 months by teaching positive training techniques. It was taking trainers 18 months using compulsion based training methods to get a dog certified."


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> More recently Alfie Kohn in his book Punished by Rewards, documents hundreds of studies that demonstrate conclusively that rewards can be highly demotivating. This fact is one of the most robust findings in the social sciences.


Does his work have ANYTHING to do with dogs or animals? To compare one with another when one has nothing to do with another is a poor argument. From my little bit of research Kohn primarily deals with HUMAN behavior. Aren't we talking about dogs.


_In animal studies, Skinner found that continuous reinforcement in the early stages of training seems to increase the rate of learning. Later, intermittent reinforcement keeps the response going longer and slows extinction._

Like I said I have only a limited knowledge so I could be wrong and if so please correct me.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

dpate said:


> Where the video falls short is with an explanation of the sequence of the program (if it can be called a program) and videos that show Milner and the dogs in action. I would really like to see added emphasis in where to go after you have a nice steady quiet dog. He shows a couple of dogs runnging some blinds but no detailed explanation of how he got there.
> 
> Overall, there is a ton of great informtion and well worth the $30 for me. Some great insight into training theory and behavior/learning theory. What I don't like is lack of a detailed account of what to do (ie no program). Then again, maybe this video isn't meant to do that. There is also a little (very little) of the typical Milner vs. American FT stuff that I don't care for but if you can ignore that, you can really learn a lot. Credit needs to go to Milner for experimenting with a different way of training when very, very, very few will and making his "findings" available to others. Thanks
> 
> Dustin


I haven't watched the online seminar but I have been to one. He uses a lot of Youtube videos to show how to train whistle stops, blinds, etc. The reward is usually the retrieve- the trainer just has to set it up right.
I paid for the online seminar and will watch it later. I downloaded the slides- pages 66 and on have some training plans.
On page 66 he has a "Guideline Plan for a Puppy"- at 28 weeks he has a pretty well trained gundog(puppy) in my opinion. 
Does that help?
Here is his Youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/rmilner11#p/u


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

Pas Bon said:


> Does his work have ANYTHING to do with dogs or animals? To compare one with another when one has nothing to do with another is a poor argument. From my little bit of research Kohn primarily deals with HUMAN behavior. Aren't we talking about dogs.
> 
> 
> _In animal studies, Skinner found that continuous reinforcement in the early stages of training seems to increase the rate of learning. Later, intermittent reinforcement keeps the response going longer and slows extinction._
> ...


This is for Dave Flint:
Positive Reinforcement - The Big Bang Theory 
http://youtu.be/JA96Fba-WHk


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> Does his work have ANYTHING to do with dogs or animals? To compare one with another when one has nothing to do with another is a poor argument. From my little bit of research Kohn primarily deals with HUMAN behavior. Aren't we talking about dogs.
> 
> .


Sorta like saying: Well, it works with killer whales and dolphins. WAIT: Aren't we talking about dogs? Fetch Shamu! Whoops, no ear to pinch. FETCH DAMMIT. Click. Click. Click. No FETCH you fishy bastige! Click. Click. Click. Someone toss me a herring. FETCH! Click. See, it works. He ate a fish. 

I am done now. Y'all have fun.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> Sorta like saying: Well, it works with killer whales and dolphins. WAIT: Aren't we talking about dogs? Fetch Shamu! Whoops, no ear to pinch. FETCH DAMMIT. Click. Click. Click. No FETCH you fishy bastige! Click. Click. Click. Someone toss me a herring. FETCH! Click. See, it works. He ate a fish.
> 
> I am done now. Y'all have fun.


Okay Okay I know when I've been one upped. Well played sir!

But aren't whales/dolphins more similar to dogs than human children are to dogs? Gotta at least try another angle


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

You can make jokes all you want about dolphins and whales but you can't admit that it works very well on dogs also. Let's be macho men and shock the crap out of our dogs.. HAHAHA 
My point is that there is a very big cultural problem here too.

Zoos use positive reinforcement on Grizzlies, Elephants, Wolves, Etc. Is that macho enough for you?


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> This is for Dave Flint:
> Positive Reinforcement - The Big Bang Theory
> http://youtu.be/JA96Fba-WHk


That was funny!


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> You can make jokes all you want about dolphins and whales but you can't admit that it works very well on dogs also. Let's be macho men and shock the crap out of our dogs..


I have to disagree with that because the proper use of shock collars is not about "shocking the crap" out of dogs but applying minimal stimulation to affect behavior.

If you go there with the argument/discussion, it will only erode the conversation and will do so very quickly.

My reason for not using shock collars has nothing to do with that but everything to do with avoiding "one more thing" to have to buy or remember to charge, put in the blind bag etc etc.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Gundogman said:


> You can make jokes all you want about dolphins and whales but you can't admit that it works very well on dogs also. Let's be macho men and shock the crap out of our dogs.. HAHAHA
> My point is that there is a very big cultural problem here too.
> 
> Zoos use positive reinforcement on Grizzlies, Elephants, Wolves, Etc. Is that macho enough for you?


What is "it?" Your "macho" argument is rather silly. I have trained a dog, to titles, "british style." And likewise, through the Rex Carr system. There is no such thing as "positive only" training. It does not happen. There are many good points from U.K. style training, and many dark spots as well. I have gone and run UK style trials and watched the hypocrisy of some of the most vocal "anti collar" guys cheeking, scruffing and alpha-rolling dogs, and then condeming collars in the same breath. The "fan belt" that is common in the UK is somehow different than a heeling stick? That's "less macho" all right. Hypocrisy reigns from all sides. Been there, done that. I would just as soon nick mine, thanks. I can assure you my dog would rather be nicked lightly to modify a behavior than swung by her cheeks per the "more positive" crowd. And if you don't think this is common, you need to get out more. 

Macho is as Macho does regards.

There is no room for a conversation with most of these people Pas. They have not done it both ways. They are afraid to keep score and show objective results. They have bought into a philosophy that demonizes the other side as abusing dogs to be "macho" like the post to which I responded. Their minds are closed. I'm out.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> I have gone and run UK style trials and watched the hypocrisy of some of the most vocal "anti collar" guys cheeking, scruffing and alpha-rolling dogs, and then condeming collars in the same breath.
> 
> Macho is as Macho does regards.


What is "alpha-rolling" sounds interesting.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I have to admit last time I was halibut fishing we had a shark circling the boat and using a treat reward he picked up on swim by in about 5 minutes. I bet he's still doing it. Can't argue with success....


/Paul


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Does his work have ANYTHING to do with dogs or animals? To compare one with another when one has nothing to do with another is a poor argument. From my little bit of research Kohn primarily deals with HUMAN behavior. Aren't we talking about dogs.
> 
> 
> _In animal studies, Skinner found that continuous reinforcement in the early stages of training seems to increase the rate of learning. Later, intermittent reinforcement keeps the response going longer and slows extinction._
> ...


Skinner did most of his work with rats & pigeons but wrote books about humans. He held that his theories were valid for all organisms. The book by Kohn is only one of several that document the hundreds of studies that demolish Skinners most cherished theories. 

I'm happy to discuss this topic as much as you like but my purpose in bringing it up was to address the fact that Mr. Milner accuses those who don't embrace his Behaviorist viewpoint of being ignorant of it.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> the fact that Mr. Milner accuses those who don't embrace his Behaviorist viewpoint of being ignorant of it.


Fair enough. That seems to be more about his marketing and not so much about his methods


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Elementary Watson! It's one of those simplicity issues. I would rather focus on"other" things than to worry about angle backs. Those "other" things might have to do with my dog or my family.
> 
> Now with that said. Angle backs are very useful and more efficient as the shortest distance is a straight line.
> 
> ...


Kudos to you for keeping things so basic and simple so you have time to focus on 'other stuff'. Surprised you have enough time to post about it.

The angle back is the better cast - but only if your dog is used to running a fairly straight line. In your case - Overs may indeed work better. 

Frankly all I would ever profess to any new trainer is learn as much as possible, _understand _the philosophies available, debunk the 'crap', apply what fits when, and train the absolute best dog you can.

There's plenty of people who can train a nice gun dog without the gadgets but overwhelmingly, those are people who have trained many a dog over many years - toying with gadgets, pressure, and positive alike.

That doesn't describe the newbie or inexperienced where any thought around 100% positive dog training is a nice ideal (I guess) but a mighty deed, indeed.

One that would beg MORE time, not less, in ones schedule. Unless you dumb down the skill level as you have chosen to. 

Good luck.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

"Shocking the crap out of them" was a joke. However, I am not saying that an electronic collar is not very effective. I think that everybody thinks it is the magic trick to training. People use them because everybody else is using one.
Milner is an expert on training w/ and w/o a shock collar. He has found that using mainly positive training Programs are easier and more effective. Yes, it is very hard to eliminate all negative but you you can eliminate most. 
Using an electric collar is much more complicated for an amateur trainer and 90% of duck hunters are amateurs. 


GulfCoast said:


> What is "it?" Your "macho" argument is rather silly. I have trained a dog, to titles, "british style." And likewise, through the Rex Carr system. There is no such thing as "positive only" training. It does not happen. There are many good points from U.K. style training, and many dark spots as well. I have gone and run UK style trials and watched the hypocrisy of some of the most vocal "anti collar" guys cheeking, scruffing and alpha-rolling dogs, and then condeming collars in the same breath. The "fan belt" that is common in the UK is somehow different than a heeling stick? That's "less macho" all right. Hypocrisy reigns from all sides. Been there, done that. I would just as soon nick mine, thanks. I can assure you my dog would rather be nicked lightly to modify a behavior than swung by her cheeks per the "more positive" crowd. And if you don't think this is common, you need to get out more.
> 
> Macho is as Macho does regards.
> 
> There is no room for a conversation with most of these people Pas. They have not done it both ways. They are afraid to keep score and show objective results. They have bought into a philosophy that demonizes the other side as abusing dogs to be "macho" like the post to which I responded. Their minds are closed. I'm out.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

HNTFSH said:


> That doesn't describe the newbie or inexperienced where any thought around 100% positive dog training is a nice ideal (I guess) but a mighty deed, indeed.
> 
> One that would beg MORE time, not less, in ones schedule. Unless you dumb down the skill level as you have chosen to.
> 
> Good luck.


Milner has found that using positive techniques actually takes less time in the long run. He says that the main problem with trainer is they over train there dogs and mess them up. When a dog does something right, reward it with a high value reward and QUIT training. High value rewards used at the RIGHT TIME make your program very successful with little time invested. People drive an hour to train and then think they have to train for an hour. Training effectively for 15 minutes is much more efficient and the dog learns better.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> Colonel Milner says that punishment requires a higher skill level on part of the trainer. He also says:
> "Behaviors established by positive reinforcement and operant conditioning tend to become self reinforcing. Thus they don't need a lot of maintenance training."
> "Behaviors established by punishment generally have to be reinforced periodically to stay reliable."
> I think that says a lot coming from Milner.
> "He mentions that in training search and rescue dog trainers he was able to cut the training time from 18 months to 6 months by teaching positive training techniques. It was taking trainers 18 months using compulsion based training methods to get a dog certified."


I like my SAR dogs to work independently from the handler. A dog that needs constant direction and instruction from the handler is useless IMO.

Here is a video of Roberts search dog. It doesn't say how long it's been in training.

http://m.youtube.com/#/profile?user=rmilner11&v=YXBm1WFrI68&view=videos

Here is a video of my dog. he started SAR training at 8 months old. In this video he's a year old. So he had around 4 months of training at that point.

As you can see he has compulsion for the target odor and is much less dependent on instruction from the handler.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=eBJ0yJxWF_Q


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

I am not sure what your post has to do with this subject. However, Go read Milner's FEMA USAR training manual and you will learn how he trains.http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/searchdogs.php

You are very incorrect about your statement about Milner and how he trains his dogs. You have no idea what stage of training that dogs is in. Milner does want his dogs to work independently.


PackLeader said:


> I like my SAR dogs to work independently from the handler. A dog that needs constant direction and instruction from the handler is useless IMO.
> 
> Here is a video of Roberts search dog. It doesn't say how long it's been in training.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> Kudos to you for keeping things so basic and simple so you have time to focus on 'other stuff'. *Surprised you have enough time to post about it.*
> 
> The angle back is the better cast - but only if your dog is used to running a fairly straight line. *In your case - Overs may indeed work better.*
> 
> ...


Love the pleasantries to bad there is no _sarcasm font_!


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> I like my SAR dogs to work independently from the handler. A dog that needs constant direction and instruction from the handler is useless IMO.
> 
> Here is a video of Roberts search dog. It doesn't say how long it's been in training.
> 
> ...



Neither one of your links worked for me?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> I am not sure what your post has to do with this subject. However, Go read Milner's FEMA USAR training manual and you will learn how he trains.http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/searchdogs.php
> 
> You are very incorrect about your statement about Milner and how he trains his dogs. You have no idea what stage of training that dogs is in. Milner does want his dogs to work independently.


I have read all of his material and it's all good. However he runs two different dogs in that video and they both exhibit the same behaviors.

The video is called "long distance search" but on the find he's no more than 20 yards from the target odor and he walked toward it and pointed it out several times.

I know a USAR or "rubble dogs" don't need to be as independent as wilderness dogs, but even a dog with no scent training would have taken the cast right to the target odor. 

When you start walking toward the odor and pointing it out to the dog, that is what makes the dog more dependent on the handlers direction IMO.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Neither one of your links worked for me?


Probably because I was on my phone try these.

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBJ0yJxWF_Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Sent from my iPad

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXBm1WFrI68&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Sent from my iPad


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> Milner has found that using positive techniques actually takes less time in the long run. He says that the main problem with trainer is they over train there dogs and mess them up. When a dog does something right, reward it with a high value reward and QUIT training. High value rewards used at the RIGHT TIME make your program very successful with little time invested. People drive an hour to train and then think they have to train for an hour. Training effectively for 15 minutes is much more efficient and the dog learns better.


I've understand that up to about year 1 for simpler tasks. And again...I think any trainer worth his/her salt - pays attention to positive and confident in the pup stage. That's not a program or a method..it's rearing a pup.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

HNTFSH said:


> I've understand that up to about year 1 for simpler tasks.


You say that just because you don't know how to train positively.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> *The video is called "long distance search"* but on the find he's no more than 20 yards from the target odor and he walked toward it and pointed it out several times.
> 
> I know a USAR or "rubble dogs" don't need to be as independent as wilderness dogs, but even a dog with no scent training would have taken the cast right to the target odor.
> 
> When you start walking toward the odor and pointing it out to the dog, that is what makes the dog more dependent on the handlers direction IMO.


The video you posted is *not *called _"long distance search"_ it is titled "_Scent detection Dogs learning to work off leash at a distance"_


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> You say that just because you don't know how to train positively.


No. I want a Super - Excellent gun dog.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

PackLeader said:


> I have read all of his material and it's all good. However he runs two different dogs in that video and they both exhibit the same behaviors.
> 
> The video is called "long distance search" but on the find he's no more than 20 yards from the target odor and he walked toward it and pointed it out several times.
> 
> ...


Maybe the video shouldn't be called long distance. However, Milner starts at short distances and gradually makes it longer. All I am saying is that Milner wants and breed dogs that work independently. You are making a generalization that is not true about Milner


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

All my dogs are trained with +R before the real training starts around 5 or 6 months. So I know exactly what the method is capable of. So do many others who use FF and e-collars.

You can't train successfully with pressure if you can't train successfully without it.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> Maybe the video shouldn't be called long distance. However, Milner starts at short distances and gradually makes it longer. All I am saying is that Milner wants and breed dogs that work independently. You are making a generalization that is not true about Milner


Well then show me don't tell me..


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

gundogman - you sound amazingly familiar to me.

Anyway - wrap around this now...PEOPLE TRAIN POSITIVE THAT ALSO EMPLOY FORCE METHODS AS WELL. 

SO now I need YOU to state true or false - YOU NEVER correct a dog of any age, refusing a KNOWN task. No leash snap, no neck scruff, no disapproving verbal, none of that. You do absolutely nothing the dog could consider negative reinforcement and Milner does not either. True or false?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> Love the pleasantries to bad there is no _sarcasm font_!


It's basically what you have already stated. I just didn't use the passive-aggressive tone.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Dogs read the handlers just as good as we read the dogs. When he runs the second dog it stopes at the first box. The handler kept walking and the dog let it go. Had he stopped walking the dog might had false alerted.

Then the dog over runs the box to the right, the handler walks to the left to make him change directions. The same way you would get an upland dog to change directions with the handler. 

Soon as the dog was at the right location the handler stopped walking. Another cue to the dog that he needs to stay and alert. What if he had kept walking like he did when the dog was sniffing the grass? Would it have alerted?

We don't know the what if because the handler was helping the dog with his body language the entire time.

He knows exactly how to manipulate the dogs search direction with his body movements, great for an upland dog learning to quarter. 

I don't find it beneficial to teach a young SAR dog this behavior. I want to follow them, not the other way around.

It's all in the details!

They will always look to the handler for clues so you don't give them any! 

You can't help the dog find something when you don't know where it is.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> You can't train successfully with pressure if you can't train successfully without it.


You just said...you can't train successfully with compulsion if you can't train successfully without it. What? 

I thought there was no such thing as 100% Positive training?????

Are "we" parroting what other's have said about the e-collar maybe? If so, you've taken that way out of context, as you'll find that the statement (made by many trainers) is made in reference to the days of the whip, sling shot, and "loads."


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Dogs read the handlers just as good as we read the dogs. When he runs the second dog it stopes at the first box. The handler kept walking and the dog let it go. Had he stopped walking the dog might had false alerted.
> 
> Then the dog over runs the box to the right, the handler walks to the left to make him change directions. The same way you would get an upland dog to change directions with the handler.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you seen here.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Dogs read the handlers just as good as we read the dogs. When he runs the second dog it stopes at the first box. The handler kept walking and the dog let it go. Had he stopped walking the dog might had false alerted.
> 
> Then the dog over runs the box to the right, the handler walks to the left to make him change directions. The same way you would get an upland dog to change directions with the handler.
> 
> ...


While I certainly don't know Jack Taco about training SAR dogs I do know that the title of the video was _"Scent detection Dogs *learning *to work off leash at a distance"_ With learning in the title I think that is a hell of alot of assumption being made from a 2-3 minute video. I would think you could save judgement until after seeing a finished dog. JMO


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> While I certainly don't know Jack Taco about training SAR dogs I do know that the title of the video was _"Scent detection Dogs *learning *to work off leash at a distance"_ With learning in the title I think that is a hell of alot of assumption being made from a 2-3 minute video. I would think you could save judgement until after seeing a finished dog. JMO


Got a link to the finished product?


----------



## labman626 (Aug 31, 2009)

In the seminar does he talk any about puppy training? I looked at some of his videos on the subject and it looked very interesting.


----------



## tripsteer1 (Feb 25, 2011)

what does PAS BON mean? Just Curious


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

tripsteer1 said:


> what does PAS BON mean? Just Curious


NO GOOD...It's a Cajun term of endearment.


----------



## tripsteer1 (Feb 25, 2011)

I kinda though that might be it. I used to fly offshore out of Houma and Fouchon..


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

tripsteer1 said:


> I kinda though that might be it. I used to fly offshore out of Houma and Fouchon..


Yep, I know both of those places well!!


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

HNTFSH,
I think it would be pretty hard to eliminate all negatives from a training program. I think Milner says that most training programs today have WAY TOO MUCH NEGATIVE in them for an amateur trainer to properly use. As Milner says, training has not changed much over the past 150 years. Over the past 50 years, training has changed quite a bit with most animal trainers EXCEPT in the US GUNDOG world.(the zoo world did so because they didn't have many options to begin with) Negative gundog trainers argument is that it works and why do they need to change it. That is a good argument. But, it is much easier for the average trainer to learn positive techniques and use them properly. I think the biggest problem with the pro's and trial people is that they are resistant to change as most people are. They aren't willing to try new techniques. I think in 20 years our debates will be much different. Maybe Milner needs to call his program 90% or 80% positive. However, I think his point is that you need to think completely opposite than most people when it comes to training gundogs. (he said it was tough for him) You need to have the goal to be as positive as possible in your training and it will make your training program much easier according to Milner.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

I borrowed this from Milner's website:
"I also established and designed DuckHill to serve as a laboratory in which to develop and improve the training processes for the above three functions . A primary goal of this training exploration is to remove as much force as possible from the training process and replace it with operant conditioning/positive reinforcement training techniques.

As I develop these gentle training techniques and protocols, I will post them on the Duckhill website in written and video formats. My goal is to develop a simplified, gentle training process which will be easy for the typical hunter to apply to his dog and produce a well trained, effective gundog."


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Gundogman said:


> HNTFSH,
> I think it would be pretty hard to eliminate all negatives from a training program. I think Milner says that most training programs today have WAY TOO MUCH NEGATIVE in them for an amateur trainer to properly use. As Milner says, training has not changed much over the past 150 years. Over the past 50 years, training has changed quite a bit with most animal trainers EXCEPT in the US GUNDOG world.(the zoo world did so because they didn't have many options to begin with) Negative gundog trainers argument is that it works and why do they need to change it. That is a good argument. But, it is much easier for the average trainer to learn positive techniques and use them properly. I think the biggest problem with the pro's and trial people is that they are resistant to change as most people are. They aren't willing to try new techniques. I think in 20 years our debates will be much different. Maybe Milner needs to call his program 90% or 80% positive. However, I think his point is that you need to think completely opposite than most people when it comes to training gundogs. (he said it was tough for him) You need to have the goal to be as positive as possible in your training and it will make your training program much easier according to Milner.


Gundogman,

It is obvious that you are impressed with Milner's program and that's great.

I want to try to insert a clarification on this whole thing.

*Milner*: His program is targeted at gundog folks who don't want to spend a lot of time or effort learning how to train. His program is for folks who do not demand or expect siginficant technical precision for their retrievers. His program is better suited for dogs who are calmer and lower drive, by nature. For a hunt tester, getting beyond mid-range, intermediate activities may get challenging. Success with master-level hunt test or North American retriever field trials is beyond the intent of his program. Milner got tired of beating his brains out running North American trials and decided that for him, the brit folks "had it right" with their events and end-uses.

*"Modern" North American FT/HT programs:*
These programs produce the precision and technical performance that are needed to create success. These programs can be very fairly administered. With the advent of today's adjustable collars, and some wonderfully sensitive, yet brave and hard-charging performers passing their genetics onto today's field pups, these programs produce happy, animated performers who truly love their work.

These programs, as long as today's Trials and "Master-level" hunt tests continue to demand the performances that today's successful dogs demonstrate, are likely to stay in place.

Gundogman, I think there are several folks who are getting caught up in the incorrect assumption that Milner's program will be a "one size fits all". Some who are embracing Robert's methodology and are attempting to be spokespersons for him, seem to believe that his methods will produce the full range of retrievers. It seems that some think that mild-mannered, calm retrievers can be produced by folks who have nice, pleasant easily managed gundogs, as well as performers that can excel with Master-level hunt test performers up through the Field Trial ranks.

This appears to be the big confusion.

I wish that those who like technical retriever work, would quit giving Milner's theories the power that they do. Robert Milner is not threatening your dog, your method, nor your game in any way. Yes, he has written and said some stuff indicating that your type of dog or activity has problems.... But that doesn't mean you need to give it power and create all this buzz....

I wish that those who embrace Robert's methods would be happy with their dogs and their end-uses and enjoy the results without feeling the need to reiterate goofy thoughts that Field Trial dogs are screwed up or that Field Trial training methods are terribly cruel.

****************************************

I have bit my tongue on this for years, but I've decided it is time to say it. If you guys think that all British dogs are trained with lovepats and cookies, you're wrong.

I had the pleasure of handing a field trial dog in Ireland that was trained and owned by other folks. This was without a doubt, the most hand-shy dog I've ever seen. If I tried to pet him for praise, he would duck, cower and dodge me. If I stepped towards him to try and line him and stepped too quickly, he did the same. It broke my heart. It really made me feel badly - as my Lardy-program dog is so animated and loves his work and loves being handled.

I commented to some of my training partners that week in Ireland about this retriever. One of the guys joked that a field trial dog is not finished until the sole of your boot is worn....(ie... some of these dudes train by kicking their dogs)

I've had the pleasure of talking the talk with some British Field Trial folks. I spoke with one guy who's a pretty well-known player in the game. No, they don't carry "sit sticks", "heeling sticks", etc. But this guy shared with me that in their sholder bag, some of these guys carry a fan belt, that's been cut. This belt is used in the place of a heeling stick. 

The notion that dogs don't get kicked or whacked by those training dogs without an e-collar is hogwash. I'm not trying to paint all British trainers, nor any other group with the same brush. I'm sure that there are plenty of wonderfully humane non-collar trainers out there. I'm also not trying to imply that Mr. Milner's program endorses kicking, or fan-belting. I'm just stating that the belief that it's all "black or white" is not really that clear-cut. There's plenty of grey-shading.

There are also incredibly humane trainers using an e-collar, with a program like that laid out by Mr. Lardy and others who subscribe to programs that have evolved from Rex Carr's original processes.

There's room in the retriever world for all of this stuff. There's room for Milner's program and for guys who "don't want to get a pHD in dog training" to get a workable duckblind or upland companion.

There's also room (as well as a need) for a program that allows the amateur or professional to produce competitive retrievers capable of technical performances that put points on FC/AFC dogs. 

I'd like to note that lots and lots of North American FT folks enjoy hunting. For many, their desire to have a dog that fetches their game is how they got started. There are plenty of retrievers who bring home blue and red ribbons (other colors too) who double as nice hunting dogs, trained using a collar program.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

It was nice to check into this thread and see a reasonable comment Chris.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

When asked about getting "there" back in December of 2009 Mr. Milner had this to say. I thought this might help clear up some of the assumptions about Mr. Milner since these are his words.



rmilner said:


> Here is my definition of "There".
> 
> The Excellent Gundog
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

OK Pas Bon,

So it appears that we can agree that if "there" is as defined above, there may be training methodology, in existence today, which varies from this being discussed, to better help one achieve the goals of Master-level or Field Trial successes in North American retriever events.

Thanks, Chris


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Well I'm glad all that is settled!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> HNTFSH,
> I think it would be pretty hard to eliminate all negatives from a training program. I think Milner says that most training programs today have WAY TOO MUCH NEGATIVE in them for an amateur trainer to properly use. As Milner says, training has not changed much over the past 150 years. Over the past 50 years, training has changed quite a bit with most animal trainers EXCEPT in the US GUNDOG world.(the zoo world did so because they didn't have many options to begin with) Negative gundog trainers argument is that it works and why do they need to change it. That is a good argument. But, it is much easier for the average trainer to learn positive techniques and use them properly. I think the biggest problem with the pro's and trial people is that they are resistant to change as most people are. They aren't willing to try new techniques. I think in 20 years our debates will be much different. Maybe Milner needs to call his program 90% or 80% positive. However, I think his point is that you need to think completely opposite than most people when it comes to training gundogs. (he said it was tough for him) You need to have the goal to be as positive as possible in your training and it will make your training program much easier according to Milner.


Of the probably 95% of pooches across US households that can't sit and stay for more than 25 seconds, having read the multitude of training books written, most of which use positive factors...I can only conclude it is effort and knowledge that trains the good dog.

Too bad on the spin your present. ALL good trainers use positive reinforcement - ya'll seem to repeatedly ignore that nugget and it diminishes the credibility. 

We've been debating marketing not dog training so I'm out.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

HNTFSH said:


> Of the probably 95% of pooches across US households that can't sit and stay for more than 25 seconds, having read the multitude of training books written, most of which use positive factors...I can only conclude it is effort and knowledge that trains the good dog.
> 
> Too bad on the spin your present. ALL good trainers use positive reinforcement - ya'll seem to repeatedly ignore that nugget and it diminishes the credibility.
> 
> We've been debating marketing not dog training so I'm out.


Saying that we are debating over marketing is incorrect. You are just admitting that you are wrong by using that excuse.  I thought this debate was over.

I guess the trainers that use electric collars aren't marketing anything either.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> Saying that we are debating over marketing is incorrect. You are just admitting that you are wrong by using that excuse.  I thought this debate was over.
> 
> I guess the trainers that use electric collars aren't marketing anything either.


While I use a collar - point out where I said it was needed to train a dog.

My point in this whole thread was the dis-service of marketing a program that claims 100% positive reinforcement while we ALL know, and you admit, isn't possible. Worse yet - calling more mainstream programs, and experienced trainers various use of learned techniques - negative training.

Yes - it is about marketing by means of mistruth.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Hoytman - as you and I have discussed...thanks for posting the thread. 

Regardless the tract one takes they should do so with both realistic expectations and methods to develop the gun dog. The all negative and all postive stuff drives me nuts. You never hear a mainstream trainer say positive training in many aspects of even a high-level retriever is bad. But the 'other' side... 

I've read thousands of posts where new people who want good 'gun dogs' struggle. The over riding theme is never postive or negative - it's almost always _education_ and effort. 

I'm done.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

I think Mr. Milner calls the seminar 100% positive because it focuses on positive training and a program that the goal is as much positive as possible. I don't think it is misrepresentative of his seminar by calling it 100% positive because the seminar is. 
Regardless of how you word it; a trainer can have a program that is based on having a goal of being only positive. 
You keep saying your are done talking about this but you keep coming back and posting. Maybe you should reword how you say that.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Yea - my bad. Guess it stems from you not addressing the points made but the slippery work around answer instead. Hey, if Milner can say it's 100% postive and it's not - I guess I'll beg forgiveness for my sins too.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

HNTFSH said:


> I've read thousands of posts where new people who want good 'gun dogs' struggle. The over riding theme is never postive or negative - it's almost always _education_ and effort.
> 
> I'm done.



I agree about education and effort. One of Milner's points is that he found it much easier and quicker to train people how to use positive based techniques. The example of the search and rescue team that he mentions makes you think.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

HNTFSH said:


> Yea - my bad. Guess it stems from you not addressing the points made but the slippery work around answer instead. Hey, if Milner can say it's 100% postive and it's not - I guess I'll beg forgiveness for my sins too.


What did I not address?
It's pretty darn positive- you won't find one that is as close to 100% as his. Let me know if you do.
Are you done yet?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Nope - guess we're done. Am sure folks will be here to help when Rover hits the wall.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

HNTFSH said:


> Nope - guess we're done. Am sure folks will be here to help when Rover hits the wall.


If my Rover hits a wall, I'll just ask Milner since he has trained a couple thousand huntin dogs.....
Maybe that is too logical


----------

