# Training perspective



## EvanG

Have you heard this notion?

_I once heard retriever training summarized as "Getting a dog to do what it doesn't want to do"._

Do you see it this way? How do you plan your training over time in light of this thinking?

EvanG


----------



## goldlover68

I am not the most experienced trainer by any means, but I never really felt my dogs did not want to do something. More like they either did not understand what I wanted them to do (major reason) or they preferred to do it another way. My challenge has always been to figure out which it is!


----------



## Vhuynh2

Sort of reminds me of what my pro said to me about force. He said a dog should want to do the work but also feel like it has to. He likened it to him being a trainer and loving the job, but the force behind it is the fact that he has bills to pay.


----------



## gdgli

EvanG said:


> Have you heard this notion?
> 
> _I once heard retriever training summarized as "Getting a dog to do what it doesn't want to do"._
> 
> Do you see it this way? How do you plan your training over time in light of this thinking?
> 
> EvanG


I want a dog who wants to do it---I just teach him how to do it.


----------



## boomers_dawn

EvanG said:


> Have you heard this notion?
> 
> _I once heard retriever training summarized as "Getting a dog to do what it doesn't want to do"._
> 
> Do you see it this way? How do you plan your training over time in light of this thinking?
> 
> EvanG


I never heard the above notion applied to retriever training in general, only in the context of blind work specifically going against what they naturally want to do. Or maybe teaching them to overcome some natural tendencies, like falling off a hill or getting pushed by the wind.

If my dogs acted like they didn't want to retrieve in general I wouldn't make them. I personally find it painful to watch people trying to make dogs retrieve that seem uninterested in birds or retrieving (just me).

To answer the question though, I think once we get past Junior Singles with dogs who like to retrieve, and do some of the harder more 'boring" stuff like pile work the dog may get tired of after 2-3 bumpers when there are 6 at the pile, or going back in the water after a long water retrieve when some dogs don't want to get back in, we have to make some decisions how we're going to get them to do some things they may not naturally feel like doing as they progress to the more difficult and/or mundane tasks.

I try to find ways to motivate mine .. fun bumper at the end, move up or simplify for short attention spans, force on back, take someone by the collar, those are some of the tools in my toolbox, for example for boring pile work


----------



## hollyk

Is the "what it doesn't want to do" work? 
If you had momentum and work ethic and you lost it then I think a hard look at what you're doing is in order. If you never had them then I think training would be like trying to push a boulder up a hill.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I prefer to summarize it as,

"Retriever training is getting the dog to do what it wants to do in the way that I want him to do it"


----------



## K9-Design

I would much more agree with Barb. We may be asking them to do something against their natural tendency but not necessarily to do something they don't want to do.


----------



## Alaska7133

I think it's a combination of Evan and Barb's thoughts. A dog's first inclination is to retrieve a bird and run off and eat it. Let's face it anything else other than that is training. Yes we think great, they brought the bumper back. Yep you would too if it was a non-food item. Give the dog a bird and the real training begins. It's modifying that behavior of getting excited about seeing the bird and retrieving the bird without eating it. Which is all natural desire. Now we have to communicate to them what we want and that they should want it too.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Not sure I agree about a dog's first inclination. I believe their first inclination is to return to their lair, or den, with it. That's what we've selectively bred for generations to make these dogs the retrieving fools they are.



Alaska7133 said:


> I think it's a combination of Evan and Barb's thoughts. A dog's first inclination is to retrieve a bird and run off and eat it. Let's face it anything else other than that is training. Yes we think great, they brought the bumper back. Yep you would too if it was a non-food item. Give the dog a bird and the real training begins. It's modifying that behavior of getting excited about seeing the bird and retrieving the bird without eating it. Which is all natural desire. Now we have to communicate to them what we want and that they should want it too.


----------



## EvanG

I appreciate the responses. From my perspective I would respond that training is more a matter of getting a dog to do what is unnatural for them to do. About all that dogs do that contributes to the functions we require of them in the field are to chase after motion and honor their noses. From that we simply guide behavior and, if we are fair and balanced trainers, we reward their compliance.

If we are competent trainers we guide our efforts to assure that our dogs enjoy those acts as much as possible. That is the balance. I am one of the biggest proponents of force work in training there is. But that word "force" is widely misunderstood. I think it's a common misunderstanding that 'force' implies an _amount_. It does not. In addition, it deserves a broader discussion in which we must highlight the use of praise for compliance as a constant in balanced training.

No dog is borne hating fieldwork because they don't come into this life with any expectation of, or knowledge about it. We introduce it into their lives. How we do that, coupled with the dog's willingness to please, determine the result.

EvanG


----------



## Sweet Girl

hotel4dogs said:


> I prefer to summarize it as,
> 
> "Retriever training is getting the dog to do what it wants to do in the way that I want him to do it"


I'm pretty new to this, but that's more how I see it, too. My dog clearly loves doing it - I'm just (trying!) to teach her how to do it with more control and finesse. She came out of the box knowing how to run and pick up a bumper or a bird and bring it back, both on land and on water. I definitely didn't need to force her to do that. I'm not sure I would have pursued field work with her if she didn't clearly love doing it. That's where the fun is for me.


----------



## EvanG

Sweet Girl said:


> I'm pretty new to this, but that's more how I see it, too. My dog clearly loves doing it - I'm just (trying!) to teach her how to do it with more control and finesse. She came out of the box knowing how to run and pick up a bumper or a bird and bring it back, both on land and on water. I definitely didn't need to force her to do that. I'm not sure I would have pursued field work with her if she didn't clearly love doing it. That's where the fun is for me.


I think this reflects one of the commonest misunderstandings about working retrievers. Do you think for one minute that a dog that is born with a love of retrieving will also be steady because they want to? Those two notions are diametrically opposed. If a dog is steady by nature it's because they don't want to go in the first place. If they want to go badly they will need to be trained to be reliably steady.

Was your dog born knowing how to walk reliably at heel...sitting instantly on command...delivering to hand in accordance with sound field standards...performing doubles and triples...all without an compulsion from the trainer? No pressure applied...ever? Not within the scope of reality.

But what is pervasive among those who express a knee-jerk opposition to force or pressure is what that actually means. To say “But we are training dogs that have natural drive to retrieve! Why must we force them?” ignores the true definition of what retriever trainers do. We don't apply pressure into the retrieving process until we've cultivated all the drive that is within the dog's nature. But there is so much more there isn't room to do it justice here.

We live in the information age. The knowledge is readily available.

EvanG


----------



## Sweet Girl

EvanG said:


> I think this reflects one of the commonest misunderstandings about working retrievers. *Do you think for one minute that a dog that is born with a love of retrieving will also be steady because they want to? Those two notions are diametrically opposed. If a dog is steady by nature it's because they don't want to go in the first place. If they want to go badly they will need to be trained to be reliably steady.
> 
> Was your dog born knowing how to walk reliably at heel...sitting instantly on command...delivering to hand in accordance with sound field standards...performing doubles and triples...all without an compulsion from the trainer? No pressure applied...ever? Not within the scope of reality.
> *
> But what is pervasive among those who express a knee-jerk opposition to force or pressure is what that actually means. To say “But we are training dogs that have natural drive to retrieve! Why must we force them?” ignores the true definition of what retriever trainers do. We don't apply pressure into the retrieving process until we've cultivated all the drive that is within the dog's nature. But there is so much more there isn't room to do it justice here.
> 
> We live in the information age. The knowledge is readily available.
> 
> EvanG


No - but I didn't say any of the above either. In fact, I said, I am trying to take what she loves and does with enthusiasm, and teach her to have more finesse and control doing it. 

As I also mentioned, I'm pretty new to this. No need to be insulting to someone who is trying to learn.


----------



## Vhuynh2

The pro has also said to me that a dog that wants to go is going to find a way to get to the bird. How the dog does it/gets there is training.


----------



## EvanG

Sweet Girl said:


> No - but I didn't say any of the above either. In fact, I said, I am trying to take what she loves and does with enthusiasm, and teach her to have more finesse and control doing it.
> 
> As I also mentioned, I'm pretty new to this. No need to be insulting to someone who is trying to learn.


I'm not being insulting. I'm being informative. Also, I'm not saying any of this is pointed at you personally. These misunderstanding and misgivings about the use of force in dog training are pervasive, especially among newer trainers. When we start a new endeavor we simply don't know what we don't know. I understand. I was new once as well. That was over 36 years ago.

What I've offered you is for you benefit. Consider it or not, that's up to you. But it applies to anyone who is not clear about formal training. We use pressure, not to force dogs into compliance with functions they hate or don't want to do. We use force to affect a change in behavior. A competent trainer applies pressure or force in amounts that accomplish that, and no more.

EvanG


----------



## boomers_dawn

This conversation is hard for me to wrap my brain around.

So force isn't an amount. Is force a negative (or opposite of reward) that stops when the desired behavior is acheived? Is it like a Pavlov's dog way of teaching? i.e. the negative stops when the desired behavior starts? So it becomes like a response?

So for my example of boring pile work when the work ethic runs out before the number of bumpers runs out, simplifying, shortening distance, aren't force, they're more what I see as motivation .. to want to keep going because it's more fun and exciting.
Force on back is just that - go regardless of fun and exciting.

Is force motivation, is it negative motivation instead of positive motivation?


----------



## Claudia M

EvanG said:


> I think this reflects one of the commonest misunderstandings about working retrievers. Do you think for one minute that a dog that is born with a love of retrieving will also be steady because they want to? Those two notions are diametrically opposed. If a dog is steady by nature it's because they don't want to go in the first place. If they want to go badly they will need to be trained to be reliably steady.
> 
> Was your dog born knowing how to walk reliably at heel...sitting instantly on command...delivering to hand in accordance with sound field standards...performing doubles and triples...all without an compulsion from the trainer? No pressure applied...ever? Not within the scope of reality.
> 
> But what is pervasive among those who express a knee-jerk opposition to force or pressure is what that actually means. To say “But we are training dogs that have natural drive to retrieve! Why must we force them?” ignores the true definition of what retriever trainers do. We don't apply pressure into the retrieving process until we've cultivated all the drive that is within the dog's nature. But there is so much more there isn't room to do it justice here.
> 
> We live in the information age. The knowledge is readily available.
> 
> EvanG


While I agree to some degree with everything you said, that is where the desire to please which you mentioned in your previous post on this thread comes into play. 
I have been reluctant to apply pressure, while I have I do it reluctantly and only on the what I consider major issues, go after the dead duck and not after the bird/squirrel in the woods - which is more natural for my golden to do - you threw me a dead duck or a bumper but I just spotted a bird or a squirrel running right past it. 
So I prefer to use the desire to please more than the pressure to overcome what comes un-natural. If you already have the drive and have the desire to please why use pressure???? Of course, I am not a pro trainer as you are, so to me the lenght of time to achieve a certain goal is not important. To you and to the ones who want to breed their dogs it is important, the more titles the more money they can demand for the sperm and pain and suffering of birth. But that makes me raise an eyebrow, did you pressure your dog because you just wanted to brag about the titles when you sell those puppies? Is all that pressure really necessary and all those titles really necessary at a young age?
I do not pretend to have the answer to that, but as far as I am concerned I will not pressure my dog just so I can brag.


----------



## Loisiana

Pressure doesn't have to be a bad thing. I can't imagine training a dog without using any pressure at all. I haven't thought it all the way through, but would it even be possible to really train a dog without any pressure? I guess so, but I wouldn't see a reason to.


----------



## K9-Design

I have a picture of perfection, teamwork, compliance, control, desire, speed and style in my head of how I want to my dog to perform at an advanced level in the field. I hope I have purchased dogs with high desire, innate intelligence, trainability and a sense of humor! I owe it to them to train with a high level of finesse, discretion, motivation, compulsion and intuition to cultivate that desired result. I train in ways that make the most sense to me, and which give the desired picture early on and on each step, not just as means to an end but as milestones themselves no matter how small. This includes the judicious use of force when, where and how warranted. I am happily transparent in my training -- in fact, I've kept a journal on this forum for my past two dogs! It's there for all to see. The use of force is not done to cover up poor genetics, to speed up the training process, to blunder over my training deficiencies, and it is certainly not done to increase any bottom line!!! I do this dog training stuff because I enjoy the process, the teamwork, the outdoors, and the success in having others say "I WISH I COULD GET MY DOG TO RUN LIKE YOURS" "YOUR DOGS LOVE TO RUN FOR YOU" "I CAN'T TELL IF YOU'RE TRAINING OR PLAYING" (yes, my neighbor's kid told me that one day, not wanting to interrupt a training session) --- NOT a ribbon. It is insulting to assume that is the purpose with anyone who trains differently or has lofty competitive goals.


----------



## boomers_dawn

Loisiana said:


> Pressure doesn't have to be a bad thing. I can't imagine training a dog without using any pressure at all. I haven't thought it all the way through, but would it even be possible to really train a dog without any pressure? I guess so, but I wouldn't see a reason to.


I like the statement "pressure doesn't have to be a bad thing" 

It reminds me of college psych or sociology class about "eustress" which is a level of stress that is just right to optimize performance. 


Zero stress is no good because then no one would bother to do anything.
If I had no goals or expectations at work, I would wear shorts and play on the internet all day.
So again there's a concept of balance.


----------



## Claudia M

"I hope I have purchased dogs with high desire, innate intelligence, trainability and a sense of humor!"

I am assuming you mean playfulness by sense of humor. But that aside, if you have all these qualities is there really a need for "pressure"? 
BTW - I believe no amount of "force" can cover poor genetics. IMHO it can only make a bad situation worse, and it does not matter if you are referring to physical or mental genetics.


----------



## Claudia M

boomers_dawn said:


> I like the statement "pressure doesn't have to be a bad thing"
> 
> It reminds me of college psych or sociology class about "eustress" which is a level of stress that is just right to optimize performance.
> 
> 
> *Zero stress is no good because then no one would bother to do anything.*
> If I had no goals or expectations at work, I would wear shorts and play on the internet all day.
> So again there's a concept of balance.


True for humans, not sure it applies for a dog doing what was bred to do. 

As far as goals, yup they are great, but you have different goals at different ages and they are all appropriate. No dog or human is an Einstein or Mozart nor should they be expected to be. No doubt that if you do not train/practice you will never know if your have one.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> But that aside, if you have all these qualities is there really a need for "pressure"?


To work how I want them to work at a high level, for me and my dogs, yes. High level = equal to or greater than Master hunter level work


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> To work how I want them to work at a high level, for me and my dogs, yes. High level = equal to or greater than Master hunter level work


It is one thing to train for the high level and another to force the dog to the high level. Especially with a young dog. If you purchased a dog with all you described attributes then you will nt need the pressure to the high level. Especially after you have achieved the obedience, de-cheating and the lower levels. 

But I can completely understand using pressure when one cannot even control a dog jumping on a person and scratching a visitor right in front of its owner.


----------



## EvanG

boomers_dawn said:


> This conversation is hard for me to wrap my brain around.
> So force isn't an amount. Is force a negative (or opposite of reward) that stops when the desired behavior is acheived? Is it like a Pavlov's dog way of teaching? i.e. the negative stops when the desired behavior starts? So it becomes like a response?


 Force: 1 – compel, 2 – influence that causes motion, 3 – gain against resistance (may compel or correct behavior in dogs). So no, force is influence, but the word itself does not imply an amount. To assume that is to assume that a home run could logically be a result of the same amount of force exerted by an intentional bunt. Know what I mean? 

But this discussion is now going to become a bit lengthy. The cycle of formal training has three stages: Teach – Force – Reinforce. This is widely misunderstood and even ignored. We begin with teaching fundamental tasks generally called “obedience”. Since those tasks are not natural behavior for dogs it’s only fair to teach them thoroughly before making them requirements. To be clear, we use little or no force unless or until the teaching of each function/command is thorough.


boomers_dawn said:


> So for my example of boring pile work when the work ethic runs out before the number of bumpers runs out,


I’ve been told many times things like “My dog hates drill work.” My steady reply is that he doesn't hate drill work. He just hates how you do it. I see to it that every last dog I train finds something to enjoy about it. Part of that is keeping the daily training balanced with marks every day, but also well timed, genuine praise for compliance for compliance. Here is a clip of a fully forced dog running Bird Boy Blinds. Dull, bored looking dog isn't he?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtcjIwmDkSo&list=UUi-flpqTpbAFZufZTAk94Ug



boomers_dawn said:


> simplifying, shortening distance, aren't force, they're more what I see as motivation .. to want to keep going because it's more fun and exciting.


Simplifying is a principle. It’s one of the essentials to a balanced training presentation. Keeping the work exciting is a result of balance.


boomers_dawn said:


> Force on back is just that - go regardless of fun and exciting.


That is the most correct of all your statements so far. To leave the training process at mere teaching leaves you at the mercy of your dog’s moods or lack of willingness when the job gets demanding. At those demanding moments is when a well-trained retriever is most valuable.


boomers_dawn said:


> Is force motivation, is it negative motivation instead of positive motivation?


It depends on context. Force may compel or correct. Like any other aspect of training it is highly valuable or it can be abused. That is up to the person, not the principle.

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

Claudia M said:


> It is one thing to train for the high level and another to force the dog to the high level. Especially with a young dog. If you purchased a dog with all you described attributes then you will nt need the pressure to the high level. Especially after you have achieved the obedience, de-cheating and the lower levels.
> 
> But I can completely understand using pressure when one cannot even control a dog jumping on a person and scratching a visitor right in front of its owner.


This explanation is about as far off base as a person can get when explaining the use of force or pressure in dog training. There is no connection with reality in it.

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> It is one thing to train for the high level and another to force the dog to the high level. Especially with a young dog. *If you purchased a dog with all you described attributes then you will not need the pressure to the high level.* Especially after you have achieved the obedience, de-cheating and the lower levels.
> 
> But I can completely understand using pressure when one cannot even control a dog jumping on a person and scratching a visitor right in front of its owner.



Claudia, in all due respect, I have titled two Master Hunters and am working on a third -- you've got a couple of junior legs. I am not devaluing Junior, but it is no Master. How can you tell someone how to train their dog for Master, if you've never done it? I hope you DO aspire to those levels, because it will teach you a lot about dog training, and your dogs will probably love it. But it is FAR CRY from Junior.


----------



## Claudia M

While it is a FAR CRY from Junior I would never *force* my way to Master. Either the dog can do it or the dog cannot.

As I said before to Evan, it was his video that kept me away from the e-collar. And that is exactly what brings all the negatives about it. 

A Master dog that jumps on people and scratches them and the owner has no control over it diminishes the value of that title in my eyes tremendously. I rather have an obedient dog with a JH than an uncontrollable dog with a MH. Sorry!


----------



## EvanG

Claudia M said:


> While it is a FAR CRY from Junior I would never *force* my way to Master. Either the dog can do it or the dog cannot.


No one anywhere, ever, has or could "force their way to Master". No dog is born being able to attain any title, even JH, let alone MH. Do you really think marking can be forced? Do you think it's natural for any dog to perform triple marks? How about blinds?


Claudia M said:


> As I said before to Evan, it was his video that kept me away from the e-collar. And that is exactly what brings all the negatives about it.


What video? What was it about?


Claudia M said:


> A Master dog that jumps on people and scratches them and the owner has no control over it diminishes the value of that title in my eyes tremendously. I rather have an obedient dog with a JH than an uncontrollable dog with a MH. Sorry!


What dog are you speaking of? When?

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

> Claudia M said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a FAR CRY from Junior I would never force my way to Master. *Either the dog can do it or the dog cannot.*
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU DO NOT KNOW THIS BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER DONE IT.* Dogs are NOT born knowing how to do advanced field work! Do you think they magically know not to cheat, and how to run blinds, and how to ignore old falls? PLEASE let me know when you come up with force-free ways to accomplish Master-level work that produces a stylish, accurate, compliant, controllable, confident dog.
> 
> Ah yes, forgive me because I already know your answer. "If training a dog to Master level work requires force, then I will not do it because I love my dogs more than you."
> Why do I get myself into these inane arguments?
> I guess it's the old "walk the walk don't talk the talk" banter that is so irresistible.
> 
> And the bit about the jumping, scratching Master dogs. What are you talking about and why do you keep referencing it?
Click to expand...


----------



## boomers_dawn

EvanG said:


> Force: 1 – compel, 2 – influence that causes motion, 3 – gain against resistance (may compel or correct behavior in dogs). So no, force is influence, but the word itself does not imply an amount. To assume that is to assume that a home run could logically be a result of the same amount of force exerted by an intentional bunt. Know what I mean?
> 
> But this discussion is now going to become a bit lengthy. The cycle of formal training has three stages: Teach – Force – Reinforce. This is widely misunderstood and even ignored. We begin with teaching fundamental tasks generally called “obedience”. Since those tasks are not natural behavior for dogs it’s only fair to teach them thoroughly before making them requirements. To be clear, we use little or no force unless or until the teaching of each function/command is thorough.
> I’ve been told many times things like “My dog hates drill work.” My steady reply is that he doesn't hate drill work. He just hates how you do it. I see to it that every last dog I train finds something to enjoy about it. Part of that is keeping the daily training balanced with marks every day, but also well timed, genuine praise for compliance for compliance. Here is a clip of a fully forced dog running Bird Boy Blinds. Dull, bored looking dog isn't he?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtcjIwmDkSo&list=UUi-flpqTpbAFZufZTAk94Ug
> 
> Simplifying is a principle. It’s one of the essentials to a balanced training presentation. Keeping the work exciting is a result of balance.That is the most correct of all your statements so far. To leave the training process at mere teaching leaves you at the mercy of your dog’s moods or lack of willingness when the job gets demanding. At those demanding moments is when a well-trained retriever is most valuable.It depends on context. Force may compel or correct. Like any other aspect of training it is highly valuable or it can be abused. That is up to the person, not the principle.
> 
> EvanG


I was ruminating on this topic while doing my mundane chores today.

Are these examples of force?
a) You're working on stays in obedience and your dog keeps getting up. The instructor tells you to wordlessly take it by the collar and put it back in position; do it as many times as it takes until the dog managed to complete the exercise
b) using the long line to reel the dog in on the whistle
c) the dog won't go so you take him/her by the collar and bring them out


Teach / Force / Reinforce.
When teach is all done is a hard call for me; is the dog confused? do they really know what is expected? I probably err on the side of caution and giving the dog the benefit of the doubt. 

Force may compel or correct - is force compel and reinforce correct?

I don't think either of my dogs hates drill work, but the little one's attention span seems to run out sooner than later. I don't think she really understands everything she's supposed to be doing at this point, or that she HAS to do it. I'm reluctant to apply force to her because:

I liken it to me having trouble with math and abstract concepts. Force won't make us "get it" but if given manageable progressive parts with just the right amount of pressure to cause us some "eustress" we may be able to progress in stages to the point our ability allows.

Gladys on the other hand is more clear. She knows sit/whistle, she knows STAY, she knows the basic casts. I feel comfortable applying some fair force/reinforcement and I think she is capable of doing the work.

If I weren't sure the dog was capable of the material, I wouldn't force them. Back to the math thing.

Addendum: I was thinking about this a little more and this statement might not be true:
If I weren't sure the dog was capable of the material, I wouldn't force them. Back to the math thing.

For example, Dee Dee won't go back if she can't see the bumper. I'm not sure she understands back completely, or has the attention span to complete the exercise. I take her by the collar and bring her to the back pile. So I *think* that's force but I'm not sure. If it is, then I used force for something I'm not sure she understands.
I am so confused on this topic, I think I don't completely get the concepts of force and correction vs. where the dog is at learning. I probably need to get more clear on lesson plans and breaking things down into steps so I'm 100% sure something is well known before moving on, for example, doing the back pile and progressively moving backwards then getting stuck when we can't see the bumper anymore.


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> While it is a FAR CRY from Junior I would never *force* my way to Master. Either the dog can do it or the dog cannot.


I'm really confused. On another thread you are talking about using the ecollar to control behavior in the blind and on honoring.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> I'm really confused. On another thread you are talking about using the ecollar to control behavior in the blind and on honoring.


As I said I believe in the same post I am at odds with the overuse of the e-collar. Yup, my dogs are Junior dogs and recently (especially Darcy) introduced to field work. With Rose we have done field work just in the back yard with no birds (couple pigeons) since she was young. The obedience on the field is completely different than the obedience in the rally and I am sure you know how big the difference is. However I can understand the reminder once the field obedience is established. I can understand the correction for a direct disobedience, but I certainly expect a MH level dog to already have that down and not needed to be forced or pressured. Why nick on a tripple when you can just simplify and show the dog what you actually want him to do?That dog should have been already thru the obedience, whistle sits, blind work and de-cheating. Especially since most of the people in the field have also gone thru the force fetch. 

I have tried that and walked quickly in a week with both girls. I hated it, they hated it and then went back to "re-inventing the wheel" and find another way by using their desire to please and drive instead. 

And yeah I have not trained to MH level no matter how much others are screaming about it (bold and caps) but have been around dogs training at these levels.


----------



## goldlover68

Loisiana said:


> I'm really confused. On another thread you are talking about using the ecollar to control behavior in the blind and on honoring.


I think you are confused, once a dog has been force fetched and collar conditioned, the use of the collar is very specific and kept at a low level. 

I have actually put the collar on the inside of my arm to make sure it is at a level the involves no pain! Pain is not necessary at this point as the dog is conditioned to react to a very mild stimulation and do what it has been trained to do. In most situations, especially hunting, it is seldom needed!


----------



## hotel4dogs

My dog wants to square the shoreline rather than take angle exits.
My dog wants to walk along the shore of a very narrow channel rather than swim down the middle.
I have to "force" him, (we use attrition for those 2 specific examples, not the e-collar), to do it the way I want him to do it. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love what he's doing.


----------



## Loisiana

goldlover68 said:


> I think you are confused, once a dog has been force fetched and collar conditioned, the use of the collar is very specific and kept at a low level.
> 
> I have actually put the collar on the inside of my arm to make sure it is at a level the involves no pain! Pain is not necessary at this point as the dog is conditioned to react to a very mild stimulation and do what it has been trained to do. In most situations, especially hunting, it is seldom needed!


Oh I'm not confused on the use of the ecollar, I'm just confused about how on one thread it was said that one should never force their dog to do field work and either they will do it or they won't, and then the same person on another thread talks about using the ecollar for in the blinds and on honors.

But I think what she's saying is it's okay to use it on junior dogs, but they should be beyond needing it for Master? (I'm sure only junior level dogs have ever broken an honor :uhoh. I'm still not sure I'm following the line of thinking.


----------



## EvanG

boomers_dawn said:


> I was ruminating on this topic while doing my mundane chores today.
> 
> Are these examples of force?
> a) You're working on stays in obedience and your dog keeps getting up. The instructor tells you to wordlessly take it by the collar and put it back in position; do it as many times as it takes until the dog managed to complete the exercise
> b) using the long line to reel the dog in on the whistle
> c) the dog won't go so you take him/her by the collar and bring them out


They are all examples of forcing. The examples of force are represented by the tool used in each example as applied to compel a given behavior in response to a known command. We have only to guess from the examples given, but surely in each case the actual amount of force is different because the word "force" does not imply an amount. PAY ATTENTION FORCE HATERS! If you gently blow a small puff of air to move a feather on a table top, _that _is an application of force!


boomers_dawn said:


> Teach / Force / Reinforce.
> When teach is all done is a hard call for me; is the dog confused? do they really know what is expected? I probably err on the side of caution and giving the dog the benefit of the doubt.


1. In _theory_, the 'teach' portion is done when the dog reliably demonstrates over a period of time a predictable, uniform response to a standard command. I don't expect it to be stable in the presence of distraction or stress because he's only been taught, and not formally trained yet. We'll get to that.


boomers_dawn said:


> Force may compel or correct - is force compel and reinforce correct?


No. Force itself may be applied as a correction, or compulsion. Reinforcement needs to be clarified here. To reinforce is to strengthen or support existing structure. In dog training, reinforcement, then, is training designed to strengthen and/or support behavior that was previously taught. Drill work, set ups, and so on that are designed to include skills the dog has been trained to have is reinforcement of them, and is effectively maintenance.


boomers_dawn said:


> I don't think either of my dogs hates drill work, but the little one's attention span seems to run out sooner than later. I don't think she really understands everything she's supposed to be doing at this point, or that she HAS to do it.


Each one is different, aren't they? Keep up with well timed, enthusiastic praise for compliance, and be sure your dog is getting marks each day, preferably with real birds.


boomers_dawn said:


> I'm reluctant to apply force to her because:
> 
> I liken it to me having trouble with math and abstract concepts. Force won't make us "get it" but if given manageable progressive parts with just the right amount of pressure to cause us some "eustress" we may be able to progress in stages to the point our ability allows.


Don't let yourself be overcome with over analysis. Let's get this out of the way. *Force should not be used to 'make a dog "get it" when he appears confused'. That is not what it's for. Keep a journal on each dog. If you see a pattern of behavior that you believe demonstrates confusion your dog does not need more forcing. He needs more teaching and simplification.


boomers_dawn said:


> Gladys on the other hand is more clear. She knows sit/whistle, she knows STAY, she knows the basic casts. I feel comfortable applying some fair force/reinforcement and I think she is capable of doing the work.
> 
> If I weren't sure the dog was capable of the material, I wouldn't force them. Back to the math thing.


I'm just guessing here, but is Gladys older and more experienced?


boomers_dawn said:


> Addendum: I was thinking about this a little more and this statement might not be true:
> If I weren't sure the dog was capable of the material, I wouldn't force them. Back to the math thing.


That's good rationale. You only compel or correct a dog when you are certain the dog knew the material in the first place, or you risk further confusing them. Learn to read your dog and this should not be an issue. Challenge yourself to become a better trainer each day.

I've got to say there that having read many of Anney's posts here over the years I've seen real growth as a dog person in her thinking. I think she's set an example to which others would to well to aspire.

EvanG


----------



## Claudia M

Louisiana. I view it as a correction method. You correct the dog for breaking on Honor, for cheating, not taking straight lines etc. thru correction. But just like with a child you set the basics thru middle school, you teach and correct thru highschool but from there on you expect the child to know what to do. Based on that your kid may or may not go to college. 

Good example, this lab was sent on a difficult long water mark, guy sends the dog, dog takes the wrong way and midway the dog stopped, looked towards the mark and looked towards the trainer. No e-collar or even verbal correction. I have never seen her stop. Guy calls her back and re-sends her. She does a magnificent job especially for a 300 yard water mark. Dog knew the correct way, dog knew she did not take the correct way. Dog can honor from the mule, from the car from any place the guy puts her and she does not break. She is two and a half, has only a little JH title.

Yeah, in my view that is the difference between the people with dogs that can do it and the ones who keep on doing it for the titles. That is the difference between a dog that was taught and a dog that is still being taught.


----------



## K9-Design

From that example, sounds like the dog took a bad line, got lost, and popped. The trainer then made the decision to re-send without a correction, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases. However, I would expect the dog to get a CORRECTION for POPPING if it continues to do so in the future. It might even get CORRECTED for CHOOSING to take a BAD INITIAL LINE if it habitually does so. This is called TRAINING. The handler is responsible for making game-time decisions on what is the best recourse to teach the dog to do things correctly. Sometimes that involves pressure, sometimes it does not. It may change from day to day. 

GoldLover68 wrote above:



> "I think you are confused, once a dog has been force fetched and collar conditioned, the use of the collar is very specific and kept at a low level.
> 
> I have actually put the collar on the inside of my arm to make sure it is at a level the involves no pain! Pain is not necessary at this point as the dog is conditioned to react to a very mild stimulation and do what it has been trained to do. In most situations, especially hunting, it is seldom needed!"


I have to disagree with this. I would rather correct the dog ONCE with a larger correction that changes their mind not only today, but for the long term, than nag them with small corrections that might fix it now but has no lingering effect for tomorrow. Dogs who are properly conditioned will understand it. We correct to change a behavior. We use an ecollar not only because you can "reach" the dog at a distance, but because it is an unemotional way to cause something unpleaseant in order for the dog to change it's behavior. If the ecollar is used at a level so low as to NOT be painful, it would be a completely ineffective tool. 

I do not use the collar to give "reminders." I do not nag and try to nudge the dog to better behavior with the use of very mild stimulation. I have seen people do this time and time again, and it usually results in a poor attitude -- because the low level corrections are just enough to annoy the dog and make training unpleasant, but not enough to communicate to him to change his behavior and make any progress. It often creates a tentative, begrudging attitude.


----------



## boomers_dawn

Evan, thank you for taking the time to read and answer my questions. I'll have to read and reference a few times to completely retain all this info.

Gladys is older and more experienced but she also seems to have more natural focus and less ADD. Dee Dee might need more fun bumpers and encouragement. 

My first 2 were soo cranked up, I would have to keep them toned down by NOT throwing them a bunch of fun bumpers, keeping quieter, and low key. I thought Dee Dee would be as intense by her reaction to birds as a puppy, but she's turning out not to be. She loves birds and is a kangaroo for the bumper, but something is missing in the focus area. 

I'm trying to be a better trainer but honestly my brain is full from info overload work and transitioning from Senior to Master the material is way beyond blowing the whistle and taking the bird. 

I do so appreciate this info being broken down into tiny chunks for me to digest.
I have to do the same - break it down into digestible chunks for Dee Dee! and Gladys! many thanks.

I also wanted to add thanks to Anney for some great points to ponder - 
I have heard "stop nagging the dog" but never thought about the impact of "nagging" in making the activity unenjoyable for the dog - thanks for that perspective.
Also "If training a dog to Master level work requires force, then I will not do it" gives me something to think about, not for Master, but for obedience. Blowing on feather puffs gives me something to think about, maybe there are other ways to make obedience fun and do-able.

And Barb too - attrition - another example


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> From that example, sounds like the dog took a bad line, got lost, and popped. The trainer then made the decision to re-send without a correction, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases. However, I would *expect* the dog to get a CORRECTION for POPPING if it continues to do so in the future. *It might even* get CORRECTED for CHOOSING to take a BAD INITIAL LINE if it habitually does so. This is called TRAINING. The handler is responsible for making game-time decisions on what is the best recourse to teach the dog to do things correctly. Sometimes that involves pressure, sometimes it does not. It may change from day to day.
> 
> .......


So is it TRAINING or CORRECTION or are we just embracing the word correction and we are confusing it with training? Sorry, the dog knew she did it wrong, and it was not popping, she did not need TRAINING CORRECTION for that and the guy also knew she did not need to be nicked for it. But that is the difference between someone knowing when the dog needs a correction and when the dog has the foundation necessary for no "training correction". That is also the difference between someone who does it for the dog as opposed to someone who does it for the brag. 

I want a dog that does it because it wants to do it or because it wants to please the owner or the two combined. Training a dog that does not want either of the two is a waste of time. Better off to give that dog time and create the bond necessary instead of "pressuring" it into doing something it does not want.


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> I want a dog that does it because it wants to do it or because it wants to please the owner or the two combined. Training a dog that does not want either of the two is a waste of time. Better off to give that dog time and create the bond necessary instead of "pressuring" it into doing something it does not want.


I think you've been watching the wrong people.


----------



## K9-Design

Very easy to assume dogs are Disney characters and they can be trained by loving them and that their innate desire to please another species is going to teach them advanced performance skills. "Seeing" or "being around" Master dogs (and in this example --- you said the dog had a JH --- not a Master dog) doesn't give you the experience of training at this level. Much like I can hang out in a parking lot but that doesn't make me a mechanic.

Again it is the gross assumption that correcting a dog is done because the trainer wasn't smart enough to figure out a way to train it without a correction.....believe it or not the modern retriever training method conditions the correction response so the dog understands it and can progress to a greater and greater skill level.....corrections are NOT just an escape valve when the trainer gets lazy.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> I think you've been watching the wrong people.


Ahh but in my view I think I found the right people and dogs to watch and train with. The ones that actually make the perfect pair in the field without thinking that everything has to be a correction and mis-call it training. It is wonderful and refreshing to see the ones who are not to eager or "expect" or "even might" just use the nick.


----------



## K9-Design

I love how because I'm not afraid to talk about corrections in training, inexperienced trainers assume that all I do is strap on a collar and fry my dogs. Not the first time I've had this discussion, probably won't be the last. The common denominator is the opposing party always has little to no practical field training experience. Expecting or anticipating a dog's behavior is not trigger happy, it's aware of the typical outcomes -- IOW -- experience.
There are LOTS of people with WAY WAY WAY more field training experience than I will ever have. I am eager and grateful if they are willing to share their experience and expertise with me as I push to be a better trainer. Even if I initially disagree or don't understand.
Best of luck -- I'm out of this thread -- it just gets weirder and weirder


----------



## TrailDogs

Claudia M said:


> I want a dog that does it because it wants to do it or because it wants to please the owner or the two combined. Training a dog that does not want either of the two is a waste of time. Better off to give that dog time and create the bond necessary instead of "pressuring" it into doing something it does not want.


Training a dog to high levels in the field will not happen if the dog does not want to do it. No amount of pressure is going to force an unwilling dog to complete a technical water triple or blind. 
It also requires compliance on the part of the dog. He can't be a free agent out there and do it however he wants. That is where the training and pressure comes into play.
You used an example of the dog taking a poor line, popping, and being recalled. For many dogs the recall itself is significant pressure. I have one now that whines when you stop her in the water. She doesn't want to be stopped on her way to a bird - that is pressure from her point of view.
Pressure does not always involve a visible correction or an e-collar. There is an individual in my area who uses 'positive only' methods to train his field dog. The methods he uses would create a huge amount of stress and pressure on my dog. Much more than traditional training. 
You need to look at the dog you have and decide what works best for both of you. Advanced field work will involve pressure, especially with a high drive dog.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I was watching a MH test, and a very well known trainer in this area watched a dog run and then quietly commented (only to those of us who were talking with him, not to the gallery), "that dog needs to be washed up. He does not love the game enough to handle the training needed to succeed".
Exactly what you are saying.




TrailDogs said:


> Training a dog to high levels in the field will not happen if the dog does not want to do it. No amount of pressure is going to force an unwilling dog to complete a technical water triple or blind.
> It also requires compliance on the part of the dog. He can't be a free agent out there and do it however he wants. That is where the training and pressure comes into play.
> You used an example of the dog taking a poor line, popping, and being recalled. For many dogs the recall itself is significant pressure. I have one now that whines when you stop her in the water. She doesn't want to be stopped on her way to a bird - that is pressure from her point of view.
> Pressure does not always involve a visible correction or an e-collar. There is an individual in my area who uses 'positive only' methods to train his field dog. The methods he uses would create a huge amount of stress and pressure on my dog. Much more than traditional training.
> You need to look at the dog you have and decide what works best for both of you. Advanced field work will involve pressure, especially with a high drive dog.


----------



## EvanG

boomers_dawn said:


> Evan, thank you for taking the time to read and answer my questions. I'll have to read and reference a few times to completely retain all this info.


Ask anything you like. This thread evidences one of the real and pervasive problems in the retriever training world. That is a demographic of people involved in it who are so devoted to a narrow notion of dogs somehow being born knowing how to perform all the standard retrieving skills that the exertion of any pressure, in any amount, and of any kind, is the very heart of evil itself. This devotion to that baseless notion makes it impossible for them to learn anything they don't already know. No one in any pursuit can grow with a closed intellect. I'm happy to discuss anything with anyone who is intellectually honest enough to grow and learn. Your questions show a good insight, and a healthy attitude. 


boomers_dawn said:


> Gladys is older and more experienced but she also seems to have more natural focus and less ADD. Dee Dee might need more fun bumpers and encouragement.


It's important to remember that no two of these dogs is alike. Even those that appear similar to another have their own personalities, their own IQ, their own willingness to learn and to comply and please people.


boomers_dawn said:


> My first 2 were soo cranked up, I would have to keep them toned down by NOT throwing them a bunch of fun bumpers, keeping quieter, and low key. I thought Dee Dee would be as intense by her reaction to birds as a puppy, but she's turning out not to be. She loves birds and is a kangaroo for the bumper, but something is missing in the focus area.


How old is Dee Dee?


boomers_dawn said:


> I'm trying to be a better trainer but honestly my brain is full from info overload work and transitioning from Senior to Master the material is way beyond blowing the whistle and taking the bird.


Relax! Enjoy the trip. I believe part of the charm of retriever training is that we never learn it all.


boomers_dawn said:


> I do so appreciate this info being broken down into tiny chunks for me to digest.
> I have to do the same - break it down into digestible chunks for Dee Dee! and Gladys! many thanks.


You're welcome. Our dogs show an appreciation of sequential training and fair treatment.


boomers_dawn said:


> I also wanted to add thanks to Anney for some great points to ponder -
> I have heard "stop nagging the dog" but never thought about the impact of "nagging" in making the activity unenjoyable for the dog - thanks for that perspective.


Nagging produces a very unpleasant pressure of its own.


boomers_dawn said:


> Also "If training a dog to Master level work requires force, then I will not do it" gives me something to think about, not for Master, but for obedience. Blowing on feather puffs gives me something to think about, maybe there are other ways to make obedience fun and do-able.
> 
> And Barb too - attrition - another example


I have a demonstration of 'amounts of pressure' I often use at seminars to make the point that even though forced is needed in certain aspects of development and maintenance, the actual amount may be almost imperceptible. Remember, all we're trying to do is change behavior, not win a fight.

EvanG


----------



## Claudia M

TrailDogs said:


> Training a dog to high levels in the field will not happen if the dog does not want to do it. No amount of pressure is going to force an unwilling dog to complete a technical water triple or blind.
> It also requires compliance on the part of the dog. He can't be a free agent out there and do it however he wants. That is where the training and pressure comes into play.
> You used an example of the dog taking a poor line, popping, and being recalled. For many dogs the recall itself is significant pressure. I have one now that whines when you stop her in the water. She doesn't want to be stopped on her way to a bird - that is pressure from her point of view.
> Pressure does not always involve a visible correction or an e-collar. There is an individual in my area who uses 'positive only' methods to train his field dog. The methods he uses would create a huge amount of stress and pressure on my dog. Much more than traditional training.
> You need to look at the dog you have and decide what works best for both of you. Advanced field work will involve pressure, especially with a high drive dog.


I completely agree with you! This is not a "positive only" guy as he applies pressure and correction while building the dog's foundation at the dog's pace. 
As a novice and always seeing people here about the titles I have often asked about the titles on the dogs he is training and the age, about why this dog that outdoes others with MH and field titles was stopped at JH in tests. I was finally told that it is not about the titles and the age the dog attains the titles. It is about the dog doing it at advanced levels at their own time.


----------



## EvanG

Claudia M said:


> I was finally told that it is not about the titles and the age the dog attains the titles. It is about the dog doing it at advanced levels at their own time.


That's how it is with any competent and fair trainer. Here is a small list of important truths about trainers like me, and there are many.

We begin in early puppy-hood to passively teach standard tasks and commands.
No pressure is used to correct or to compel a dog that was not first thoroughly taught what is expected, and the pressure is not applied with any tool the dog was not thoroughly conditioned to previously.
We don't use force to teach.
Force cannot make any dog mark better.
No dog was ever forced to become an MH.
No dog was ever forced to become an FC.
There are more, but these are essential.
EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> Ahh but in my view I think I found the right people and dogs to watch and train with. The ones that actually make the perfect pair in the field without thinking that everything has to be a correction and mis-call it training. It is wonderful and refreshing to see the ones who are not to eager or "expect" or "even might" just use the nick.


So how can you talk about training methods of people you haven't actually seen train?


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> So how can you talk about training methods of people you haven't actually seen train?


????? I have been quite confused about your posts here and not sure where you are coming from with this.


----------



## EvanG

Claudia M said:


> ????? I have been quite confused about your posts here and not sure where you are coming from with this.


As I see it, you've not really asked many probing questions about what you clearly do not understand, but rather have offered condemnation of the type and method of training that is and has been producing winning dogs at the very highest levels. Instead of offering alternative ideas, backed up by evidence of their superiority, you just keep telling everyone that what they're doing is wrong. 

Have you actually seen how we train? Have you produced results to which one might point and say "I'm willing to make a change in how I train because I want those results, instead of how I'm doing things?" Or would you be willing to actually learn what modern sequential training is and how it's done? I ask that because you've offered judgments about it that are patently false.

Loisiana, I don't mean to speak on your behalf.

EvanG


----------



## Claudia M

EvanG said:


> As I see it, you've not really asked many probing questions about what you *clearly do not understand*, but rather have offered condemnation of the type and method of training that is and has been *producing winning dogs* at the very *highest levels*. Instead of offering alternative ideas, backed up by *evidence of their superiority*, you just keep telling everyone that what they're doing is wrong.
> 
> Have you actually seen how we train? Have you produced results to which one might point and say "I'm willing to make a change in how I train because I want those results, instead of how I'm doing things?" Or would you be willing to *actually learn* what modern sequential training is and how it's done? I ask that because you've offered judgments about it that are patently false.
> 
> Loisiana, I don't mean to speak on your behalf.
> 
> EvanG


You are correct Evan I clearly do not understand those training levels. I have seen it on your videos and clearly have learned to stay away. I have in the past and even now thank you for them as I have learned to stay away from these methods. I actually prefer to listen to someone who has several hundreds on handling experience in tests. I happened to compare the numbers of entries in EE recently. I happen to listen to someone who prefers to build the foundation and only move on with the dog that is ready to pass MH level before entering SH level. I happen to listen to someone who believes the dog should be comfortable at higher levels before entered in lower levels because it is not only about the titles, it IS about the dog. 

I happen to also have met members' dogs. I can tell you that the ones that lacked any obedience were the ones who were at MH level. Maybe they just got collar smart and did not know how to behave when the collar was not on. No I have not seen every member here train but I have read how eager some are to hit the nick based on their replies. And with an attitude as such soon enough the e-collars will be banned here as well.


----------



## K9-Design

Guess what, I'm back. Claudia you have mentioned the misbehaving MH dogs many times in this thread and I want to know if you are referencing my two young dogs that you met at the show in Virginia? Because I do remember you leaning over to pet them (they were in an expen) but do not remember any bad behavior or you complaining of them scratching you. Quite frankly my dogs are very used to people petting them at shows and would have no reason to be so excited to meet one random stranger that they would leap out of an xpen and accost them. They couldn't have jumped on you, because they were in the pen. If you don't mean my dogs then nevermind, and I still don't know what basic pet manners has to do with field training. 

There is NO time table in my training. I don't say, the dog needs to be at X stage by Y age. What I am on is a progress table. If I put in the time to train them I expect gradual progress every time. Some dogs will progress faster than others. I was thrilled to have Slater be a MH at three -- but I honestly don't know how people can get derby dogs to be as good as they are before two -- they obviously train a lot more than I'm able to. That is not about the ribbon, it is about efficiency and clear communication allowing the dog to progress rapidly. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing and shows a good dog in a good training program.


----------



## Claudia M

Anney, I cannot respond to your question without breaking the rules. I do however would like to make a correction with regards to our encounter, I had to lean over to pull the dog's foot out of my clothes and not injure his foot on the sharp side of the pen.

Nevertheless, basic "pet manners" are in my view part of the foundation before you go into advanced field work.


----------



## EvanG

Claudia M said:


> Nevertheless, basic "pet manners" are in my view part of the foundation before you go into advanced field work.


Claudia,

Would you mind posting up some video of your dog(s) that you trained to an advanced level of fieldwork? I guess it's time for the rubber to meet the road. You've been very caustic for someone with no credentials. And you're the one who continues to reference "advanced fieldwork". That's fine. Let's see what we all appear to be missing.

I'd also like to see the work of this "someone" whom you have inferred is superior to all of us, and has handled "several hundreds" of dogs presumably to high achievements. Okay. Who is this legend? What, specifically, has he done to establish this lofty status? Love to see some video of his work as well. You can do that, right?

"When the dog *clearly demonstrates an understanding and basic competence for a given skill or command*, force is applied in a temperate, humane manner to insure compliance, even when the dog may be distracted."

"Force is the element, or phase of the training process that formalizes it. It gives the dog a greater sense of responsibility to carry out his responsibilities under command, *regardless of distractions*."

Smartwork Volume One

When you post up your video please be descriptive of the set up and things like wind direction and velocity so it's clear what we're watching?

And since I would not ever ask someone to do what I was unable or unwilling to do, I'll start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA8Ic7zO33w&list=UUi-flpqTpbAFZufZTAk94Ug

EvanG


----------



## Claudia M

Since you put the video up, could you please explain why on the video that started right after the 3 handed casting, in "HRC type indented triple with 2 blinds" at time 1:52 why did you choose to hit the dog with the heeling stick instead of just telling him sit??? The sound was not very good but from the video the command (either sit or here) came after the hit. 

BTW - life is not about "lofty status" and "superiority". Sorry if that is what you got from my posts.


----------



## K9-Design

Uhhh, okay. I will inform Slater and Bally they are out of control and evidently mauling people when I'm not looking. Sorry if they hurt you, it's the first I've heard of it.


----------



## marsh mop

Claudia M said:


> Anney, I cannot respond to your question without breaking the rules. I do however would like to make a correction with regards to our encounter, I had to lean over to pull the dog's foot out of my clothes and not injure his foot on the sharp side of the pen.


I feel your pain. I have been attacked by the K9-Design death squad of terror hounds. Forcing a muzzle under my hand, trying to get a pat on the head. Licking my hands and the worst of all, a lick to MY FACE. I live in shame.


----------



## EvanG

Claudia M said:


> Since you put the video up, could you please explain why on the video that started right after the 3 handed casting, in "HRC type indented triple with 2 blinds" at time 1:52 why did you choose to hit the dog with the heeling stick instead of just telling him sit??? The sound was not very good but from the video the command (either sit or here) came after the hit.
> 
> BTW - life is not about "lofty status" and "superiority". Sorry if that is what you got from my posts.


So the simple answer is "No", you cannot support a single claim about how much better your training approach is, nor provide any evidence of the stature of your adopted mentor. You're only prepared to criticize those you disagree with. Nothing unusual about that.

A key value of competition is that it provides more than subjective claims of how good a dog or a training idea is. It offers hard evidence. Anyone can criticize what they themselves cannot do. But when it's time to get it done, only performance is relevant. If your standards are low enough it's easy to be satisfied with what you're producing.

EvanG


----------



## boomers_dawn

EvanG said:


> It's important to remember that no two of these dogs is alike. Even those that appear similar to another have their own personalities, their own IQ, their own willingness to learn and to comply and please people.
> How old is Dee Dee?
> 
> Relax! Enjoy the trip.


Dee Dee is 1 year 9 mos. Maybe I expect too much. I thought she would be a Gladys Junior. But she is DIFFERENT - keep reminding self.

I also need to remember to relax and enjoy the trip. We're supposed to be having fun, I forget that when supposed to be fun turns into "work"

I have to say I don't like conflict but some of these posts make me LOL so hard I had tears! Disney characters. I've seen a handful of people come into our golden club as newbies thinking they would train their way up to Masters but then over time develop an understanding of how hard it really is. So many of the concepts go against what the dog naturally wants to do. And the distances.

One time an obedience instructor offered to help me with Boomer's sit on the whistle. She said "I can get any dog to do anything. Bring him over and we'll do it in my back yard". Another obedience instructor who also did field work and I tried to explain to her that her back yard wasn't what I meant.

I let my AKC judge # expire, but when I apprenticed in senior, the judges asked me where I would put the water blind. I wanted to put it where I thought was "seniorish" where I would put a teaching blind. They said no, they would put it where the dog DOES NOT want to go. That's where they see the dog and handler know how to work together for the handler to stop the dog and get it to go where told, not where it wants.

I disagreed back then, but now I see the point. Master is all about not squaring hills, not falling off hills, not being pushed by the wind, staying in the water, staying out of the water, steady, honor, diversion, poison. It is 100% about doing what the handler says, not just what they want. So I have come full circle to the very start of this thread, a question about retriever training being getting a retriever to do what it doesn't want to do. 

They do want to retrieve, but going back to the first bird, wing, or feather, do they want to come back with it? Or give it up? I know mine had to learn "out" and use the long line for months and years before that happened. And it gets more and more with senior and master. 

So I see now the answer is yes. I agree with that now.


----------



## Claudia M

You are right Evan, I cannot do it, I have low standards and performance means nothing. 

Fact is, less and less people get involved in field, fact is many want to get their dogs to do what they were bred to do and when they get in the field or watch videos see dogs cowering in a heel for fear of the e-collar, see dogs getting hit, see dogs squeal because of excessive correction while they are told that they are tempered humane corrections. 

It is because of the people who mis-interpret the use of the collar and correction that make those people wonder, what goes on behind the group training, what goes on behind the video and then move away no matter how much the dogs would have loved to be in that field. And then you get people who see these corrections and then want any type of correction to be eliminated not realizing that the positive only methods can at times be even more mentally stressful for the dogs.


----------



## Claudia M

marsh mop said:


> I feel your pain. I have been attacked by the K9-Design death squad of terror hounds. Forcing a muzzle under my hand, trying to get a pat on the head. Licking my hands and the worst of all, a lick to MY FACE. I live in shame.


haha - yup, they sure love to lick and be petted! I was inspected thoroughly by my dogs after that encounter.


----------



## K9-Design

Whew -- just imagine if my dogs had not BEEN IN AN XPEN -- it could have been brutal!!!


----------



## Alaska7133

Yep I've been attacked by them too! I don't remember if they even got up to say hello. I think they were too tired from all the greetings earlier in their day. Poor dogs forced to attend dog shows and greet people all day. What a life!


----------



## FTGoldens

EvanG said:


> Have you heard this notion?
> 
> _I once heard retriever training summarized as "Getting a dog to do what it doesn't want to do"._
> 
> Do you see it this way? How do you plan your training over time in light of this thinking?
> 
> EvanG


Quite interesting responses to the original question....I'm more in the camp of getting a dog to do what it wants to do in the way I want the dog to do it. But neither the original perspective nor mine can be generalized to all Goldens, it depends on the particular dog. I've been blessed with dogs that have enormous innate desire to retrieve (not just chase, capture and eat), so maybe that's why I can look at it differently.

With regard to the sideline discussions regarding the use of "pressure," to some, probably most, dogs with which I have trained, "No, Here" imparts a greater level of "pressure" on the dog than a nick. You can see it in their eyes, ears, attitude and performance.

FTGoldens


----------



## EvanG

FTGoldens said:


> Quite interesting responses to the original question....I'm more in the camp of getting a dog to do what it wants to do in the way I want the dog to do it.


I'm trying to wrap my head around what that really means. Especially as a field trialer, I'm wondering what percentage of what you train your dogs to do is what they would do if left entirely to the devices of nature? If, then, they are not actually natural for the dog to do, the "how" will have to come later after we've taught them in the first place, don't you think? Maybe I'm misreading your intent on this.


FTGoldens said:


> But neither the original perspective nor mine can be generalized to all Goldens, it depends on the particular dog.


I agree. How many things _can_ be generalized with all dogs, Golden or not?


FTGoldens said:


> With regard to the sideline discussions regarding the use of "pressure," to some, probably most, dogs with which I have trained, "No, Here" imparts a greater level of "pressure" on the dog than a nick. You can see it in their eyes, ears, attitude and performance.
> 
> FTGoldens


Yep. That is the "each dog is different" idea that applies when I tell my students "Adapt the training to the dog, not the dog to the training.

EvanG


----------



## FTGoldens

EvanG said:


> I'm trying to wrap my head around what that really means. Especially as a field trialer, I'm wondering what percentage of what you train your dogs to do is what they would do if left entirely to the devices of nature? If, then, they are not actually natural for the dog to do, the "how" will have to come later after we've taught them in the first place, don't you think?
> EvanG


Okay Evan, you gotta step outside of your box to get through this.

My dog wants to chase game ... good, I want them to chase game.

My dog wants to capture game ... that's good for my intentions as well.

My dog wants to bring the game to me ... hmmm, where did that instinct come from??? Now thinking of a momma coyote (or wolf, or lioness), she'll chase and capture game, then take it to those whom she cares about ... her babies, maybe even to be shared by the pack. So retrieving may, I'm just saying may, be innate, particularly when the trainer has assumed the role of leader of the pack. (And, on the other hand, there may be something more innate in the retrieving aspect than we can fathom ... surely you've had those 7 week old puppies who chase the rolled up sock down the hallway, capture the sock, then bring it back to you ... why do they do that?) 
So, that's the "what" ... after that, I'm teaching them the "how" I want them to do it.

Now part of my thought on this subject is certainly founded on the way I train my dogs. I build the momentum/drive (I know that you have specific definitions for these terms, which I don't recall, but I think you know what I mean by that) until they nearly burst with enthusiasm. My dogs aren't formally steadied until they are FF'd, which doesn't happen until they are around 9 months old ... maybe later, depending on the dog. And my dogs typically don't go through the yard work until they near or pass two years old; i.e., my Derby dogs do not handle. All that builds the momentum/drive ... at least in my mind. Hence, certain of the behaviors which are instinctual (chase and capture) are enhanced. I just have to guide that instinctive behavior.

FTGoldens


----------



## Alaska7133

FT,
Did I understand you right, you FF your dogs at 9 months and your derby dogs don't handle or do yard work until 2 yrs old? When do you teach whistle sits? Also please define yard work? Thanks!


----------



## EvanG

Alaska7133 said:


> FT,
> Did I understand you right, you FF your dogs at 9 months and your derby dogs don't handle or do yard work until 2 yrs old? When do you teach whistle sits? Also please define yard work? Thanks!


FTG is very articulate, so I have no intention to speak in his behalf. But for me, I routinely begin FF at 5-6 months depending maturity and the presence of adult teeth. Traditionally the term "yard work" means Basics. It does not mean that to everyone. But to most competitive trainers it means the following:

*The components of Basics in order*

1)	“Here”
2)	“Heel & Sit”
3)	“Hold”; automatically evolves to Walking “Hold, Heel, Sit”
4)	“Fetch”; ear pinch, which evolves into Walking “Fetch” & “Fetch-no-fetch”, e-collar conditioning to “Fetch”
5)	Pile work, including Mini-pile, Nine bumper pile; AKA Force to pile
6)	3-handed casting; teaching the 3 basic casts – “Back” and both “Over’s”, including 2-hands “Back”
7)	Mini tee; includes collar conditioning to all basic commands, transferring to the go, stop, cast functions in micro dimension as preparation for the Single tee. Also includes De-bolting
8)	Single tee
9)	Double tee
10)	Water tee with Swim-by

EvanG


----------



## FTGoldens

Alaska7133 said:


> FT,
> Did I understand you right, you FF your dogs at 9 months and your derby dogs don't handle or do yard work until 2 yrs old? When do you teach whistle sits? Also please define yard work? Thanks!


Alaska,
While I don't really consider Here, Heel, and Sit to be components of yard work, other than that my definition of "yard work" matches Evan's description (side note: for me, not all of the elements are "musts"; I no longer routinely de-bolt my dogs and ... now this may be shocking to some ... not all are put through swim-by).
And you read my post correctly, I don't train my dogs to handle until after their derby careers. Whistle sit comes contemporaneously with handling.
Admittedly, I do things differently than most field trial trainers. Hence, I'm not likely to have a 2 year old FC ... maybe 3 though.
FTGoldens


----------



## gdgli

If I am not mistaken, the old wisdom was no handling until two years old. I hate to admit it but I like that training approach.


----------



## Alaska7133

Ah, now I don't feel so far behind. I thought Lucy was doing rather poorly when I started her last winter before she was 18 months. It was very slow and she really didn't get it. Maybe waiting until 2 yrs old is better so she understands more. Or maybe it's more like, I don't know what the heck I'm doing...

I was looking at a recent golden breeding. The dam had a MH at 22 months and was running in Open and derbies. The sire was about the same level. That early training always amazes me that people can get that far along with their dogs at such an young age. I think these dogs were probably with a pro full time and got that far because of that intensive training.


----------



## boomers_dawn

Is the wisdom behind no handling in the first 2 years to keep the enthusiasm and "fun part" going while they're young and do the more "boring" (nothing flying through the air) and I guess somewhat difficult concept stuff, until later? 

We started much earlier with treats in bowls, I guess the wisdom in that approach was they're like little sponges when they're little. 

I was also thinking a bit about what FTG said about the dogs wanting to retrieve AND bring items back; I have seen that in puppy aptitude testing, when the puppies are about 10 weeks old; all the puppies are different; some have no interest, some fetch the paper or toy and bring it right back, some fetch it and run away with it! 

But don't most (I wouldn't say all) go through an adolescent stage when they start to test and do what they want? When Gladys was an adolescent, we had at least 3 dogs in group around the same age who always needed the long line and one week dog skool teecher told the entire group (one or two may not have needed it) to show up dressed to go into the water and get them if needed!

This worked like a miracle. Gladys used to like to swim around in circles with the bird for no reason, but I went in as if to go get her by the long line and she looked stunned! She had "that crazy b**** is coming in here to get me!" written all over her face. That fixed her wagon that day! Sometime she has her head on a swivel and goes to take a circuitous route in but if I make like I'm coming in, she'll come right back.

I was actually contemplating the practicality of trying to use this approach instead of the collar for swim by ... because it's more simple and easier with timing and knowing what to do and when.


----------



## hollyk

boomers_dawn said:


> This worked like a miracle. Gladys used to like to swim around in circles with the bird for no reason, but I went in as if to go get her by the long line and she looked stunned! She had "that crazy b**** is coming in here to get me!" written all over her face. That fixed her wagon that day! Sometime she has her head on a swivel and goes to take a circuitous route in but if I make like I'm coming in, she'll come right back.
> 
> I was actually contemplating the practicality of trying to use this approach instead of the collar for swim by ... because it's more simple and easier with timing and knowing what to do and when.


I had a day when running a blind that Winter was ping ponging then nose down hunting as soon as I casted her. The voice behind me asked "why are you still standing at the line? Go out to her." As she watched me walk toward her she sat up straight, pinned her ear back and had the "uh oh trouble, she coming out here" look. She took a perfect cast after that. Leaving the line makes a big impact here. 

Winter was FF at 18 months and we started the beginnings of handling after that. I think Tito was even older. You have plenty of time.


----------



## EvanG

boomers_dawn said:


> Is the wisdom behind no handling in the first 2 years to keep the enthusiasm and "fun part" going while they're young and do the more "boring" (nothing flying through the air) and I guess somewhat difficult concept stuff, until later?


No. That practice is a hold-over from several decades ago when handling involved such high pressure that the dogs that thrived on that type of training common to them required much tougher dogs. Upper tier trainers today count on better balanced training, flexible e-collars, drill-oriented development, and brighter more sensitive dogs. Keeping the "fun part" in it is a matter of keeping the training balanced, including marks every day.


boomers_dawn said:


> I was also thinking a bit about what FTG said about the dogs wanting to retrieve AND bring items back; I have seen that in puppy aptitude testing, when the puppies are about 10 weeks old; all the puppies are different; some have no interest, some fetch the paper or toy and bring it right back, some fetch it and run away with it!


Most young pups think the sun rises and sets on their owner. Bringing them things is natural for them. Once the chase of the fetch object is over, the logical thing to do is to come show it to mom or dad. They all get over that! But for a while that's just part of the easy simple retrieving we do.


boomers_dawn said:


> But don't most (I wouldn't say all) go through an adolescent stage when they start to test and do what they want?


Nearly all. And it usually doesn't take too long. That's fine. To me it's a demonstration of independence, which is in indicator of character. If you know how to train, those traits are valuable. 

EvanG


----------



## boomers_dawn

hollyk said:


> As she watched me walk toward her she sat up straight, pinned her ear back and had the "uh oh trouble, she coming out here" look. She took a perfect cast after that. Leaving the line makes a big impact here.


I've seen that look! :jester:

That look + immediately doing correct action for the command = perfect illustration of not being confused but doing what they want instead of what we said.


----------



## FTGoldens

EvanG said:


> "Upper tier trainers" today count on better balanced training, flexible e-collars, drill-oriented development, and brighter more sensitive dogs. Keeping the "fun part" in it is a matter of keeping the training balanced, including marks every day.Most young pups think the sun rises and sets on their owner.


Evan,
I'm not quite sure if that's a slam on me or not ... I hope not. If so, I can produce a resume.
FTGoldens


----------



## FTGoldens

boomers_dawn said:


> Is the wisdom behind no handling in the first 2 years to keep the enthusiasm and "fun part" going while they're young and do the more "boring" (nothing flying through the air) and I guess somewhat difficult concept stuff, until later?
> 
> I was actually contemplating the practicality of trying to use this approach instead of the collar for swim by ... because it's more simple and easier with timing and knowing what to do and when.


So far as the timing for handling, I'm an amateur training my own dogs. I don't have to meet a client's expectations, only my own. So if I want to take a good long time to teach and train my dogs, that's something that I can do. Plus, working full time (40 - 60 hours per week), forces me to move along a little slower (and then there's the access to good grounds, good water, throwers, etc.). I'm not in any rush. And it generally keeps their enthusiasm up. 

Regarding not using a collar for swim-by, maybe it will work. If you try it, let us know how it goes.

FTGoldens


----------



## hotel4dogs

Tito never saw a bird until he was over 3 years old, let alone did any handling, FF, CC, or anything else. You have plenty of time!


----------



## boomers_dawn

We start handling with the treets in the bowls at dog skool feeld class. I don't think it's to rush anything, I think it's just to start teeching at any age. Then we learn the handling drills, I don't think he means to rush us, I think it's to teach us then we're supposed to do them as homework, I think it's supposed to be fun. If it isn't I think that means we're doing it wrong.

We're never in a hurry either. Working full time at a job where one is tethered to a desk, office, workshop, etc. is self limiting.

I really want to try swiim by without the collar. I'll have to find a pond with no leeches in it and wait till next year. We can do run by on land till them. Will def let you all know what happens.


----------



## hotel4dogs

we did swim by without the collar. Dan has a perfect pond for doing it, and a slow, thoughtful sequence for teaching it.


----------



## K9-Design

I think the theory behind waiting to teach a dog to handle is not because handling is boring or anything like that. Handling CAN and typically DOES put doubt or dependency in the dog's mind when running marks. If a dog can handle it's often a temptation to handle on a failed mark. Teaching proper handling takes away from time to teach marking skills. In the crunch time to train a derby dog, if you are an amateur trainer/handler with limited time and resources I absolutely can see waiting to teach handling until the dog is out of derby. 

I have NEVER felt that going through transition or doing a lot of drills as a downer. My dogs love drills. I love teaching the transition steps. It's all in how you approach it. If you believe it's boring, difficult, frustrating, etc, then guess what, that's how your dog will approach it. The transition drills and skills are absolutely essential for a dog to run good blinds. If you're dog doesn't understand and love each step, all the subsequent steps are going to be frustrating with a poor attitude. I want my dogs to have the same attitude on transition steps and drills as they will eventually have on blinds : excited, enthusiastic, eager, driven, intense. They will not magically learn to run blinds with this attitude if it's not built up in them through the transition steps.

This concept of "swimby without a collar" -- mystifying to me -- what would be the point? Make you feel better? Take away something that is confusing for you?


----------



## hotel4dogs

I could turn this around and say why would you need a collar for swim-by? If the dog is already well versed in handling on land, and you are working in a small pond, why would you need a collar? We taught it by breaking into tiny chunks, and using attrition.

edit to add...rereading this, it sounds sarcastic and it isn't meant to be. It's actually a question, why would you need the collar given the above situation?



K9-Design said:


> This concept of "swimby without a collar" -- mystifying to me -- what would be the point? Make you feel better? Take away something that is confusing for you?


----------



## K9-Design

hotel4dogs said:


> I could turn this around and say why would you need a collar for swim-by? If the dog is already well versed in handling on land, and you are working in a small pond, why would you need a collar? We taught it by breaking into tiny chunks, and using attrition.



Yeah me too, for my dogs swim by was just T in the water, an obedience drill. The collar wasn't a big part of it, as with attrition and breaking it down, they pretty much did what I wanted. I never felt like they learned not to cheat because if it, it was just an obedience exercise. But I would never go into it saying "my dog won't wear the collar during swim by." What IF you had a problem with the dog violating the basics of go stop or come?


----------



## hotel4dogs

Got it Anney, thanks. Tito ALWAYS wears his collar during training. Period. It was like you said, with breakdown and attrition there was just no reason to use the collar. But it's on, yes. 
I guess I was thinking of using the collar to "teach swim by", not to reinforce the big 3, when I said why would you need a collar.


----------



## EvanG

FTGoldens said:


> Evan,
> I'm not quite sure if that's a slam on me or not ... I hope not. If so, I can produce a resume.
> FTGoldens


Not at all and so can I.

EvanG


----------



## hollyk

K9-Design said:


> I have NEVER felt that going through transition or doing a lot of drills as a downer. My dogs love drills. I love teaching the transition steps. It's all in how you approach it. If you believe it's boring, difficult, frustrating, etc, then guess what, that's how your dog will approach it. The transition drills and skills are absolutely essential for a dog to run good blinds. If you're dog doesn't understand and love each step, all the subsequent steps are going to be frustrating with a poor attitude. I want my dogs to have the same attitude on transition steps and drills as they will eventually have on blinds : excited, enthusiastic, eager, driven, intense. They will not magically learn to run blinds with this attitude if it's not built up in them through the transition steps.


I'm with Anney on this. I have loved every part learning how to teaching a dog to handle from FTP on. It has been so amazing to watch her progress. I love drills and so does my dog. She does not get bored with them. I really think yesterday Winter hopped out of my car looked out at my handling drill set up and even though we have run it a hundred of times thought, "WooHoo, it's pyramid! I'm really good at pyramid this will be fun". She loved it! But the handling drill I did yesterday started as a very basic drill and has been built on step by step and she was solid in each step before added the next step.
I think because Winter loves to be right and she is right a lot of the time in drills she loves drills.
Nope, dogs don't magically learn how to run blinds but it's a riot teaching them.


----------



## boomers_dawn

K9-Design said:


> This concept of "swimby without a collar" -- mystifying to me -- what would be the point? Make you feel better? Take away something that is confusing for you?


No. It's more about timing and being somewhat clumsy and bumbling. It's the same reason I don't use a clicker. It's an extra step I'm not good at processing timely and therefore lacking the consistency required to be effective.

I know it can be done. I was remembering a seminar about Amish training I went to when I was new. There were master and GMHR dogs without using the collar. A MH with *** was in the seminar with us, the handler didn't want to use the collar for the same reason - timing.

Addendum: in re-thinking this after Evan's next question about what is swim-by, it occurred to me there is no good reason to do it without the collar since Gladys is conditioned and we do use it. What I had in mind and probably expressed wrong was not rely on the collar as the primary mode of influence, the main reason being "I'm coming to get you" was the single most effective training strategy ever used on Gladys. Done once, simple and unconfusing, worked for good. I've also seen Gladys have zero response to physical correction. But having both gives more options.

Other people who don't want to use the collar can do it without the collar, but since we already use it, it's like having 2 tools in the toolbox.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Very easy to assume dogs are Disney characters and they can be trained by loving them and that their innate desire to please another species is going to teach them advanced performance skills. "Seeing" or "being around" Master dogs (and in this example --- *you said the dog had a JH --- not a Master dog*) doesn't give you the experience of training at this level. Much like I can hang out in a parking lot but that doesn't make me a mechanic.
> 
> Again it is the gross assumption that correcting a dog is done because the trainer wasn't smart enough to figure out a way to train it without a correction.....believe it or not the modern retriever training method conditions the correction response so the dog understands it and can progress to a greater and greater skill level.....corrections are NOT just an escape valve when the trainer gets lazy.


Just came back to add to this thread that while some have mocked (as above) the level of the dog I was describing; same dog just had her first Master pass )straight from JH and a SH pass and about to pass a second MH this weekend. That is Friday, Saturday and Sunday in under 17 degrees outside with ice on the water where many other dogs would not even enter. This dog has worked both days from 8am till 5 pm two days in a row so far. One more to go!


----------



## Claudia M

Edited to delete post


----------

