# Carr based training system?



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Could someone explain what is the Carr based training system?


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

You can start here. 

Others with first hand knowledge may chime in later.

http://www.vickielamb.com/RexCarr/


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Aussie said:


> Could someone explain what is the Carr based training system?


If you compare the steps and lessons in a Basics program of Lardy, Farmer, Aycock, Stawski, Graham, Attar, Kappes, Curtis, Rorem, Carey and others including Basics as I describe in Retrievers ONLINE, you will see a set of steps and a sequence that is fundamentally the same. That sequence was first developed by Rex by the early-mid 70's. Thus, it is reasonable to label such programs as Carr-based. It has been described as a "force-based system" but that term is loaded with baggage. There are many variants but list the steps and you will see the genesis.

When you get to Transition, a term formally introduced by Attar and Lardy and copied by others, you start to see some more variances amongst the steps as practiced above and by Rex. But again the fundamentals are there in Rex's work.

Of course, each of the above have added their own wrinkles to approach and implementation and perhaps there are the most significant differences in philosophy. However, the "basic" steps are from a Carr based training system whether they learned it from Rex or not. For example, Lardy did not visit with Rex until the 90's but he saw a certain sequence with Kappes in the early 80's. 

All of the above use Operant Conditioning theory but there are considerable differences in how they emphasize + and - P and R for those that care about such things.

I can name a bunch of other pros who use a similar sytem but since they haven't publically documented their training elsewhere, I won't list them. Suffice it to say that almost all of the Field trial professionals use a similar basic sequence but implement in diverse ways.

If you study Rex and his philosophy you will see continual evolution. You will also see that he continually challenged new methods. He would turn over in his grave at the idea that revolutionary new "successful field methods" have been invented in the last 10 years. He would scoff at the idea that a dog could be trained to National levels with clickers/R+ve only. Having said that, he would applaud the refinement of methods to deal with a diversity of dogs and handlers and the challenges of today's field trials.

In his later years, Rex became very adamant about being fair and compassionate towards the dogs and how we train them. That was despite his early emphasis on a "force or compulsion based" approach. His passion and concern for the dogs was extreme.He would easily come to tears talking about some of his great dogs!!!

Unfortunately, in the hands of some, his methods were implemented with far less compassion and concern for the dogs!!

Rex was loved, hated, respected and above all misunderstood at times. He didn't have time for the casual or the unpassionates. His ego about the importance of doing what was best for the dog turned many off. 

Clearly, history has already shown the impact of a Carr-based system! I doubt we'll see the likes of it again!

PS. I applaud Vicki's synopsis of Rex as linked above!!!


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Dennis,
Technically speaking, the training of the root behaviors of Carr-based training is not operant conditioning. Skinner-based operant conditioning deals with the reinforcement of behaviors thru the application of a stimulus (reward or punishment) immediately following the occurrence of that behavior. Thus when a sit occurs and is immediately followed by a reward, then that sit will tend to occur more frequently. When a sit is followed by a punishment, then that sit will tend to occur less frequently.
The root behaviors of Carr-based training are force fetch, force to pile, force to sit, force to come. These are all trained as escape responses. The stimulus (shock) comes before the behavior. The stimulus is applied and the following behavior is guided into the applicable escape response. In force fetch by successive approximation you pinch the ear and guide the behavior into grabbing the dummy. In force to sit, you apply the shock and guide the following behavior into a sit. Operant conditioning doesn’t deal with behaviors that follow the application of the stimulus, be that stimulus positive or be it negative.
Operant condition;
Behavior------------apply stimulus ---------------increase or decrease in that behavior

Escape response
Apply Stimulus --------- behavior (escape response)----------increase whatever that escape response is


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

rmilner said:


> Operant condition;
> Behavior------------apply stimulus ---------------increase or decrease in that behavior


That would mean a bark collar is operant conditioning, correct?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> That would mean a bark collar is operant conditioning, correct?


_GOOD_ GIRL!

Evan


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Evan said:


> _GOOD_ GIRL!
> 
> Evan


Do I get a cookie?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Maybe a "click"? 

Evan


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Evan said:


> Maybe a "click"?
> 
> Evan


Guess I'll settle for the click...fewer calories.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

rmilner said:


> Dennis,
> Technically speaking, the training of the root behaviors of Carr-based training is not operant conditioning. Skinner-based operant conditioning deals with the reinforcement of behaviors thru the application of a stimulus (reward or punishment) immediately following the occurrence of that behavior. Thus when a sit occurs and is immediately followed by a reward, then that sit will tend to occur more frequently. When a sit is followed by a punishment, then that sit will tend to occur less frequently.
> The root behaviors of Carr-based training are force fetch, force to pile, force to sit, force to come. These are all trained as escape responses. The stimulus (shock) comes before the behavior. The stimulus is applied and the following behavior is guided into the applicable escape response. In force fetch by successive approximation you pinch the ear and guide the behavior into grabbing the dummy. In force to sit, you apply the shock and guide the following behavior into a sit. Operant conditioning doesn’t deal with behaviors that follow the application of the stimulus, be that stimulus positive or be it negative.
> Operant condition;
> ...


Robert,


Disagree!

Escape and avoidance responses are an integral part of Operant Conditioning theory. In "Carr-based" retriever training a behaviour always precedes the stimulus. That is the behaviour targetted. A command also precedes the stimulus which starts a behaviour. That is the behaviour that is increased or decreased (reinforced or punished). In negative reinforcement, the dog escapes or avoids the stimulus and the behaviour preceding the stimulus increases. 

For example, commands such as sit or back are followed by the onset of the behaviour and then the stimulus occurs and is escaped or avoided by completing the behaviour. This increases the liklihood of the sit or back occurring next time and the behaviour is reinforced. 

You don't just turn on the e-collar and then get the dog to sit. The dog is already conditioned to a command.

Furthermore, if you would have trained with Carr or many of his disciples you would also see that they use all 4 of +ve and -ve R and P. which was my original statement. Incidentally, I have never seen a trainer use praise as strongly as Rex did.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Robert,
> 
> 
> Disagree!
> ...


I whole heartedly agree. "Fracture 'em" regards!

Evan


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Robert,
> 
> 
> Disagree!
> ...


Was the "atta boy" tone on the tri-tronics collar Rexs' doing or did that come later?


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Would someone pretty please clarify: Is the Rex Carr method...

A. The sequence of learning in Basics.
B. The application of operant conditioning to dog training.
C. Both A and B
D. Other


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

rmilner said:


> Dennis,
> Technically speaking, the training of the root behaviors of Carr-based training is not operant conditioning. Skinner-based operant conditioning deals with the reinforcement of behaviors thru the application of a stimulus (reward or punishment) immediately following the occurrence of that behavior. Thus when a sit occurs and is immediately followed by a reward, then that sit will tend to occur more frequently. When a sit is followed by a punishment, then that sit will tend to occur less frequently.
> *The root behaviors of Carr-based training are force fetch, force to pile, force to sit, force to come. These are all trained as escape responses. The stimulus (shock) comes before the behavior.* The stimulus is applied and the following behavior is guided into the applicable escape response. In force fetch by successive approximation you pinch the ear and guide the behavior into grabbing the dummy. In force to sit, you apply the shock and guide the following behavior into a sit. Operant conditioning doesn’t deal with behaviors that follow the application of the stimulus, be that stimulus positive or be it negative.
> Operant condition;
> ...


I'm a new student of dog training. The characterization of punishment following failure to obey the sit command etc. as escape behavior confuses me. Characterizing the sit-response as an escape behavior seems semantic. 

Let's define the realm of possible behavior responses to the command "sit" as either _sit_ vs. _no-sit_. If sit command is given and the dog response is a _no-sit_ behavior, it is punished. This should decrease the likelihood of dog exhibiting no-sit behavior in the future, and therefore sounds like positive punishment to me. Is this not operant conditioning?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> Was the "atta boy" tone on the tri-tronics collar Rexs' doing or did that come later?


Rex made his disdain very clear for all the gimmicks TT experimented with over the years. He said they sent him every new buzzer, bell, and whistle they came up with. He just wanted an efficient electric collar with as little delay as possible. 

Evan


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I'm a new student of dog training. The characterization of punishment following failure to obey the sit command etc. as escape behavior confuses me. Characterizing the sit-response as an escape behavior seems semantic.


That's because punishment doesn't generally produce an escape behavior..it generally produces an avoidance behavior.
However a single correction can be applied in such a way that it mimics an escape behavior. And this is with a dog which has never been conditioned through NR methods I don't know why for sure . 

But also NR can produce indirect avoidance behaviors.
it all depends what the dog is thinking about at the time of application I guess

Pete


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

rmilner said:


> Technically speaking, the training of the root behaviors of Carr-based training is not operant conditioning. Skinner-based operant conditioning deals with the reinforcement of behaviors thru the application of a stimulus (reward or punishment) immediately following the occurrence of that behavior. Thus when a sit occurs and is immediately followed by a reward, then that sit will tend to occur more frequently. When a sit is followed by a punishment, then that sit will tend to occur less frequently.
> 
> 
> .......


This is a gross oversimplification of Behaviorism or Operant Conditioning as researched by Skinner. A thorough study of Behaviorism is much more than learning the "four quadrants" and will get you 6 hours or more credit.

And others took Skinner's findings and explored them much more deeply. If you really want to understand Behaviorism theory, including Operant Conditioning, take a look at Kurt Lewin's stuff. "Principles of Topological Psychology" will keep you busy for a while but will provide great insight into how it applies in actual practice.

P+ or R- regards,

JS


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

mitty said:


> Would someone pretty please clarify: Is the Rex Carr method...
> 
> A. The sequence of learning in Basics.
> B. The application of operant conditioning to dog training.
> ...


It's far more than C. just as TRT or Smart Works or Fowl Dog or any of the programs are. The Rex Carr method could hardly be described in a book. I suspect few truly understood it. Perhaps his greatest disciples were Judy Aycock and more recently at the end Dave Rorem. Both would admit they didn't understand it all.

I hope Vicki is still tackling the Rex Carr book project!!


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

mitty said:


> I'm a new student of dog training. The characterization of punishment following failure to obey the sit command etc. as escape behavior confuses me. Characterizing the sit-response as an escape behavior seems semantic.
> 
> Let's define the realm of possible behavior responses to the command "sit" as either _sit_ vs. _no-sit_. If sit command is given and the dog response is a _no-sit_ behavior, it is punished. This should decrease the likelihood of dog exhibiting no-sit behavior in the future, and therefore sounds like positive punishment to me. Is this not operant conditioning?


Renee

Trying to analyze all the things that occur in a single training session can make your head spin. The best advice I have is to try to think more about increasing desired behaviours rather than stop un-desired behaviours. This will make you a better trainer and your dogs will have a better attitude towards learning and life! 

In your sit example, I would rather have the dog thinking that if he sat real quickly whenever commanded he would either receive a reward(praise/bird/food/chance to go get a bird) or he would avoid/escape any aversive. That is the basis of reinforcement training-increase the liklihood of a behaviour. 

Thinking about stopping behaviours still may not achieve the desired behaviour. IE it's not that we want him to stop standing, it's that we want him to sit. So I don't think about punishing him for a non-sit behaviour. Of course, the complexity arises when a dog stops one behaviour and does another and it's desired. That's when the R/P labelling can make your head spin. A prime example is how we use Indirect Pressure all the time in training.

Think teach good behaviour, not stop bad.

Cheers


----------



## elmer fencl (Dec 27, 2006)

then when carr applies the 5 steps, like when he stick fetches a dog on his tape, how does that fit into operant conditioning? teach, force, no force, praise, no praise


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Don't think of operant conditioning as a "training method" or something we "do to the dog".

Think of it like gravity. It just is. It's a phenomenon ... a law of nature that exists in the environment and is a reason we learn to do or not do something.

A dog in the wild will learn to "operate" his environment to fulfill his needs, in accordance with the consequences of his actions. When we take that dog in and train him, all we do is control the consequences.

JS


----------



## elmer fencl (Dec 27, 2006)

yes i understand it is a phenomenom, i was just wondering if they gave it a name yet, i guess thats why dog training is just as much art as science.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Maybe it would be helpful to tell us what Rex Carr based training is NOT. How is a non Rex Carr based system different?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

mitty said:


> Maybe it would be helpful to tell us what Rex Carr based training is NOT. How is a non Rex Carr based system different?


If it's not Carr based it probably doesn't follow the basic flow chart for teaching a retriever to handle. That would be all. 

Rex gets credit for the flow chart, as Dennis already told you. 

I believe people were "force breaking" dogs long before Rex created his basics program.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> If it's not Carr based it probably doesn't follow the basic flow chart for teaching a retriever to handle. That would be all.
> 
> Rex gets credit for the flow chart, as Dennis already told you.
> 
> I believe people were "force breaking" dogs long before Rex created his basics program.


I got bogged down by detail. I couldn't tell if its simply the flow chart that is critical, or if it a RCS must include the many other elements mentioned. So thanks, you cleared that up.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

elmer fencl said:


> then when carr applies the 5 steps, like when he stick fetches a dog on his tape, how does that fit into operant conditioning? teach, force, no force, praise, no praise


Dennis , or anyone that has the answer ...I'm waiting to read this one .....This can turn out to be a very good learning thread....help...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Evan said:


> I whole heartedly agree. "Fracture 'em" regards!
> 
> Evan


Evan , for those that don't know ,please explain " fracture 'em" ...Thanks Steve S ...


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

steve schreiner said:


> Evan , for those that don't know ,please explain " fracture 'em" ...Thanks Steve S ...


Not evan but from a Carr/rorem seminar ive watched Carr speaks on praising at the end of a session with a long stroke from head to tail with several "good dogs" and a fun bumper until theyre fractured or just so wound up from the praise reward that the dog pretty much just loses it.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

BlaineT said:


> Not evan but from a Carr/rorem seminar ive watched Carr speaks on praising at the end of a session with a long stroke from head to tail with several "good dogs" and a fun bumper until theyre fractured or just so wound up from the praise reward that the dog pretty much just loses it.


Thank you ....Steve S


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

steve schreiner said:


> Dennis , or anyone that has the answer ...I'm waiting to read this one .....This can turn out to be a very good learning thread....help...Steve S


Each of those steps mentioned has an element of operant conditioning built in.

teach includes retrieves, which are rewards so it is +r and it includes no retrieve without proper response which is -p, it may also include a little +p if a long line and collar are used to restrain the dog during incorrect responses.

force generally refers to -r but also includes +r since the dog does get to chase and retrieve in most behvaiors

no force is again a -r and +r strategy, in this case the -r is the fact that the correct response avoids pressure, promoting speed and accuracy, and again, there are retrieves which are rewards (+r)

praise = +r if the dog enjoys it

no praise = -p (withholding something the dog likes due t incorrect behavior)

Pretty much everything you do, right, wrong or indifferent provides operant conditioning to the dog. Behaviors are promoted and discouraged all day every day.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> Each of those steps mentioned has an element of operant conditioning built in.
> 
> teach includes retrieves, which are rewards so it is +r and it includes no retrieve without proper response which is -p, it may also include a little +p if a long line and collar are used to restrain the dog during incorrect responses.
> 
> ...



Darrin beat me to it. I'm sure details could be added but the point is as Darrin said in the last sentence.

However, most of the time at the final stage, we are not doing no praise for -P (ie due to incorrect behaviour) but rather because we want the dog so conditioned that he does things automatically, and always(see Fenders 4A's(Acquire, Automatic, Apply, Always, in the current issue of Retrievers ONLINE). We don't intervene directly with - or + R or P. Nontheless, the dog is often rewarded by the bird or the task completion. Dogs know success. They know when life is good.

To add to the question about Rex's use of the term "fracture" to praise the dog. This is extreme praising verbal and maybe physical. Many trainers cannot seem to bring themselves to this level. It is really sincere and "effusive". Think of good, GOOD, *GOOOD! *and* 

GOOOD DAWG!!!!!!

*This was often done after a struggle or when a dog finally got a difficult task. It was reserved for the special reward. The dog would have no doubt of your intention.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> . Many trainers cannot seem to bring themselves to this level. It is really sincere and "effusive". Think of good, GOOD, *GOOOD! *and*
> 
> GOOOD DAWG!!!!!!
> 
> *This was often done after a struggle or when a dog finally got a difficult task. It was reserved for the special reward. The dog would have no doubt of your intention.


In Rex's words repeated many times in his efforts to make us better trainers, 

"SAY IT LIKE YOU MEAN IT"!!!!!!!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Note: I fixed a couple of important typos after Dennis quoted my response.

Force is -r and +r
No force is -r and +r

In both cases I had +p in then description, which was a typo. 

Apologize for any confusion.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Darrin beat me to it. I'm sure details could be added but the point is as Darrin said in the last sentence.
> 
> However, most of the time at the final stage, we are not doing no praise for -P (ie due to incorrect behaviour) but rather because we want the dog so conditioned that he does things automatically, and always(see Fenders 4A's(Acquire, Automatic, Apply, Always, in the current issue of Retrievers ONLINE). We don't intervene directly with - or + R or P. Nontheless, the dog is often rewarded by the bird or the task completion. Dogs know success. They know when life is good.
> 
> ...



Thanks Dennis , Darrin and Ed....I'm glad you added the comment " say it like you mean it " thanks Ed ....I believe this is a very important part of his training program and most trainers don't use praise enough or correctly ...Steve S


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Think of good, GOOD, *GOOOD! *and*
> 
> GOOOD DAWG!!!!!!
> 
> *This was often done after a struggle or when a dog finally got a difficult task. It was reserved for the special reward. The dog would have no doubt of your intention.


That's it! I may have some audio somewhere, but Rex had a bit of a canine growl with that *GOOD DAWG* that dogs really relate to.

Evan


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

I think most get the wrong idea when talking about a force system ...Praise plays a large roll in too....Steve S


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

steve schreiner said:


> I think most get the wrong idea when talking about a force system ...Praise plays a large roll in too....Steve S


Good point Steve. What should be pointed out in the discussion of force and pressure is that neither word inplies an amount. And neither is synonymous with abuse.

Evan


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

steve schreiner said:


> I think most get the wrong idea when talking about a force system ...Praise plays a large roll in too....Steve S


Agreed! Praise can play a role every bit as important as Pressure. That doesn't mean you just use it often. It should be used as carefully and judiciously as Pressure.

I don't seek to use Force/Pressure to "make a dog do something". Instead use it so that the dog "anticipates" Pressure in the future and thus behaves as taught (and doesn't get Pressure!!!). Dogs seek not getting in trouble. Dogs also seek things they like. Praise can be taught to be something they really like. It can also be a great confirmation of their behaviour.

Just as we should correct behaviours and not the dog, we should try to praise behaviours and not the dog. Too often, you'll see people praise the dog becasue they themselves feel good about about what the dog did--eg big praise when the dog returns and is back at the truck when the handler is really excited about the dog finding the bird 5 minutes ago!! Too much of that can diminish the value of praise just as nagging with the e-collar can diminish the value of a correction.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Evan said:


> That's it! I may have some audio somewhere, but Rex had a bit of a canine growl with that *GOOD DAWG* that dogs really relate to.
> 
> Evan


rorem said, "act like the dog just picked up the final bird in the last series of the nationals..."


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Evan said:


> Good point Steve. What should be pointed out in the discussion of force and pressure is that neither word inplies an amount. And neither is synonymous with abuse.
> 
> Evan


Too much praise can have an adverse effect on the dogs ability to control themselves ..As Rex put it " dogs can't stand prosperity" ... Dennis , that stuff at the truck is " salve for the handler " and as you pointed out.it can also be detrimental to the dog in their understanding of why they are getting it..we send so many confusing signals to the dog it is a wonder they ever learn anything ...Steve S


----------



## elmer fencl (Dec 27, 2006)

thank you darrin greene that was the answer i was looking for, once again thank you.


----------

