# Positive Training in the Field



## Ljilly28

I ordered this book, so I will let you know what it is like: 


PositiveGunDogs is a Yahoo group for people who are interested in training retrievers force free.

Positive Gun Dogs: Clicker Training for Sporting Breeds
Jim Barry, Mary Emmen, Susan Smith – Sunshine Books, c. 2007



Here is a crossover trainer who I am considering taking a seminar with- havent met him or worked with him yet: 

https://www.excellentgundog.com/

Robert Milner's DuckHill Kennels - Positive Gundog Training


----------



## hotel4dogs

I have Lorie's book, and it's very good. But I do want to point out that she does e-collar condition her dogs, for the same reason I keep one on Tito....for their safety.


----------



## gdgli

There are other positive trainers out there. They tend not to post because they frequently get slaughtered when they do.


----------



## Ljilly28

Thanks for letting me know that Hotel4dogs. I am just starting to investigate various resources beyond my relative backyard, and I am hoping maybe people will add any they discover over time. I think the seminar itself is shock collar and ear pinch free. If not, I will simply modify as best I can.


----------



## DNL2448

I would enjoy hearing your success with training. No slaughter from me unless I am called out for using e-collar and pinch and painted as a monster for doing so. Otherwise, I enjoy hearing all different types of training and tips used by others. That's what makes us grow. I too love Lorie's book refer to it all the time. I can't wait to hear abou the seminar, please take and share lots of notes.


----------



## GoldenSail

I am very interested to learn too about what techniques people are trying and how effective they are.


----------



## Ljilly28

I don't have serious aspirations the way the great trainers here do, but more of a desire to make sure my goldens have a birdy instinct alive and well in them. Copley is a solid-muscle beast, and hits the water so hard. He loves field training alot more than I do, has a nice mouth, intense prey drive/work ethic,and the old lab guys always tell me he is "alot of dog for a golden". Cops is not a soft dog ( he is way more intense, bold, brave, and full of ego about everything then any golden of the 10 I've owned over the years), that is for sure. He can be over the top. I don't honestly believe he would have any trouble with CC or FF, and I see how the discipline would help; for sure as he is a huge personality with a huge will, unlike Tally, Finn, Lush( and Tango was) who will kill themselves to do anything I ask them. I just want to challenge myself to stay with my beliefs about not using aversives while running a credible JH with a very "show" line dog someday. That's a pretty small goal, I realize.


----------



## sammydog

I have Laurie's book and it is very good. Pretty basic, which was perfect for me. It is really targeted toward a puppy.

I also have a borrowed copy of Positive Gun Dogs: Clicker Training for Sporting Breeds. I have had it for awhile and only skimmed through it. It seems to talk more about how to clicker training and training philosophies in general, rather than how to apply the training to advanced field work.

There is a blog that I really enjoy reading, although I have not been there much lately: Field Training Test Series
Lindsay has two Goldens who have their SH that are trained positively. It was not an easy road and a lot of the trials and tribulations are in the blog. He is still training with Laddie working towards Master. He also has a Qual JAM.


----------



## Jige

I cant wait to hear about the seminar. I am not using FF or e-collar to train BaWaaJige. We are using all positive methods and he is doing really well.


----------



## AmberSunrise

I took a few privates with Jim Barry before he moved - he has a great emphasis on obedience. Rightly, in my opinion, you need a strong bond and a dog who will listen and obey before you start field training. I really enjoyed my sessions with him 

Another thread is asking about heeling in the field, and I still remember our first session where Faelan and I were heeling in hip high grass on a downward slope so he could guage where our training was - then distant sits, downs, recalls the retrieve etc. BTW: Faelan passed with flying colors 



Ljilly28 said:


> I ordered this book, so I will let you know what it is like:
> 
> 
> PositiveGunDogs is a Yahoo group for people who are interested in training retrievers force free.
> 
> Positive Gun Dogs: Clicker Training for Sporting Breeds
> Jim Barry, Mary Emmen, Susan Smith – Sunshine Books, c. 2007
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a crossover trainer who I am considering taking a seminar with- havent met him or worked with him yet:
> 
> https://www.excellentgundog.com/
> 
> Robert Milner's DuckHill Kennels - Positive Gundog Training


----------



## sammydog

My field aspirations are pretty basic as well. I would like to finish our JH and eventually get a WCX. The biggest challenge for me is making to time to train for field. I do enjoy training when we do go!


----------



## GoldenSail

If Copley is indeed birdy and loves water and all you want is a JH I think your goal is very achievable. If he already picking up birds, delivering to hand, and marking well you should be fine.


----------



## GoldenSail

Is anyone on her positive training only and trying for at least SH? I would be extremely interested in reading about their training. I can see being positive only and being successful with getting a JH if you had the right dog but once you start handling I want to know how certain issues are addressed (popping, pile shopping, refusing casts, etc).


----------



## K9-Design

GoldenSail said:


> Is anyone on her positive training only and trying for at least SH? I would be extremely interested in reading about their training. I can see being positive only and being successful with getting a JH if you had the right dog but *once you start handling I want to know how certain issues are addressed* (popping, pile shopping, refusing casts, etc).


Agreed. Therein lies the crux of the problem.

While I personally wouldn't want to tackle a JH without at least FF it is 100% absolutely attainable without a collar. I never used a collar with Fisher for JH, WC, WCX. No need to, he had good obedience. No FF might be a problem for some people but probably not everyone, to get a JH. 

Most ecollar folks follow an established protocol for transition into handling, based on the Carr philosophy/Lardy flowchart and the like. Lots of programs out there, all basically the same. I would love to see someone come up with a non-collar, methodical "flowchart" approach to accomplish the same goals. Something SOP that people could follow. I think that is the one thing lacking in a non-collar approach, there is no "program" for people to follow. It's basically all for themselves and winging it, having to re-invent the wheel to suit your goals -- not an easy task. Or trying to follow the Carr/Lardy method sans collar which trust me, doesn't work. (I've tried it)


----------



## AmberSunrise

FWIW: With Faelan, I got to run out! He is a very honest dog, though, so my good will means more to him than the bird. 

And he hates when I run out, take his collar and walk him back to the line - in silence!! or walk him to his bird or in one case chase him throw underbrush, coverts, fallen limbs, through water etc until he got that runner. My fellow trainees could hear a few of the 'you get your bird' but most likely the whole country heard what a good boy he was when I saw that bird in his mouth!!

I seriously thought of loading my Mountain Bike for training sessions, and my mentor would get in a row boat to talk to a popping dog or a dog that was refusing to take casts.

When I start up again, I probably will be loading that Mountain Bike  

I am starting to look forward to starting up hi straining again once we have a few of my goals reached!


----------



## hollyk

Ljilly28 said:


> I don't have serious aspirations the way the great trainers here do, but more of a desire to make sure my goldens have a birdy instinct alive and well in them. Copley is a solid-muscle beast, and hits the water so hard. He loves field training alot more than I do, has a nice mouth, intense prey drive/work ethic,and the old lab guys always tell me he is "alot of dog for a golden".


And then the next thing you know you are out in all kinds of crazy weather field training. I look forward to your posts.


----------



## EvanG

Are any dogs coming out of this with MH, QAA, or *FC-AFC* titles/designations?

EvanG


----------



## Swampcollie

EvanG said:


> Are any dogs coming out of this with MH, QAA, or *FC-AFC* titles/designations?
> 
> EvanG


You already know the very short answer to that question. 


Robert Milner, who's positive program is mentioned earlier already notes on his website that precise lining skills are required for a competition dog (Field Trials and Hunt Tests), and he notes that the foundation for lining is Force Fetch. 

What it really comes down to is do you want a dog that runs precise blind retrieves or are you happy with a dog that can complete a hunt em up.


----------



## Stretchdrive

I went to one of Lorie's seminars, and had a private with her in 2010. She is a really neat lady, and puts on a nice seminar. She has a nice balanced aproach to training.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I think it comes down to you have to train the dog you have, with the methods that you are comfortable using, toward your own personal goals.
I would seriously defy anyone, I don't care who you are (think Larry the Cable guy here), to train Tito now at this point in his life for a MH without an e-collar. Had he been started at 8 weeks old instead of 3 years old, maybe it might have been different. Had I only wanted to get a JH, it might have been different.
Sharon comments that her good will means more to Faelan than the bird does. When Tito is after a bird, he doesn't know I exist in the same universe that he's in. His pro, who has trained a LOT of dogs, comments that Tito is one of the more independent and instinctual goldens he has seen when it comes to birds. Dogs are all different, we started them at different stages, and we all have different backgrounds ourselves.
There is no right or wrong way to do things, only that which works for you and your dog.


----------



## Stretchdrive

hotel4dogs said:


> There is no right or wrong way to do things, only that which works for you and your dog.


So true! Wouldn't be much fun otherwise!


----------



## Stretchdrive

One thing I liked from the 3 field seminars I took in 2010, and training with the people I trained with was learning the different methods, and being able to learn from each one. It was a great experience!


----------



## AmberSunrise

EvanG said:


> Are any dogs coming out of this with MH, QAA, or *FC-AFC* titles/designations?
> 
> EvanG


As Barb mentioned, it really does depend a lot on your goals. Yes, there are MH dogs who have been positively trained. There are not many, but there are some.

Are there FC-AFC or QAA dogs who have never been on a collar, probably not. But I think there are also very few owner trained and handled dogs that run at those levels either, however they are trained. The level of precision and the dogs tolerance for drill work is immense for those goals, and I wonder at the titling rate for even those dogs- including the burn out percentage which would also need to be taken into account. 

And I personally would find no joy in an FC-AFC dog that I had not trained and titled but had sent off to a pro so he could be trained daily - now maybe someday when I am retired and/or win the lottery so I don't need to work in an office  and can spend a lot of time training, but for now I do not even dream about those levels. 

This is just my opinion, so take it as you will.


----------



## Ljilly28

Testimonials to the greatness of shock collars for attaining FT titles aside, I was just interested in any resources out there for positive training in the field so I can have fun with my dog. 




> There are other positive trainers out there. They tend not to post because they frequently get slaughtered when they do.


----------



## Ljilly28

EvanG said:


> Are any dogs coming out of this with MH, QAA, or *FC-AFC* titles/designations?
> 
> EvanG


 There are many more important ways to judge the relationship between a dog and a human than what titles the dog gets. I love to sail, but I am not training for the America's Cup.


----------



## MarieP

Ljilly28 said:


> Testimonials to the greatness of shock collars aside, I was just interested in any resources out there for positive training in the field so I can have fun with my dog. I train occasionally with a good older trainer who has a wonderful MH golden trained without an e collar. I tried coaxing her to get on this forum, but when she read these threads she was like no thanks. If you think field training with positive methods is dumb or innane or whatever, that is fine. In my OP, I wasnt asking for people who look down on positive training to say why again. I was asking if any resources did exist. There are a few members here who have said several times they are working with dogs in the field and want to use positive methods. It's fine if you don't support that, but can't there be ONE thread about it in the off chance one person might try field work who wouldn't otherwise. Bc if it is a choice between shocking my dog or never trying field work, I am never trying field work.



I think you are being a little bit oversensitive here. As far as I could see, most people were excited about what you were saying and wanted to hear how things were going. And I'm pretty sure no one said that it was dumb or inane. However, I also think that some brought up good questions (how will cast refusals, etc be dealt with?). I will also be interested to see how these are addressed. Just as you question our methods, I think we have the right to question yours. My dog likes bumpers and birds more than anything. I think he would be so ANGRY if I told him we had to stop. And I personally don't have a row boat or a mountain bike to ride out to talk to Riot about a cast refusal. He would probably have the bird by the time I get out there anyway.  

Good luck either way. I am a really big fan of Lorrie's dogs.


----------



## K9-Design

I think it would be a step in the right direction if the "no ecollar trainers" in search of a "non-ecollar method" to field work would just say that, rather than eschewing themselves as "positive field trainers." That of course means the other guys are the "negative field trainers" and quite frankly nothing could be further from the truth. That would be like me calling anyone who didn't want to use an ecollar a "cookie trainer." Well that's kind of degrading, and not quite the truth, isn't it? Also the subtle use of "shock collar" vs. "ecollar" is duly noted. 

I do not look down on non-ecollar training at all, or the idea of it. If there was a successful proven method out there I would be all ears as I think we can find useful tools from any trainer. Unfortunately I have never personally witnessed a non-ecollar trainer who was successful at the upper level (even SH) hunt tests. "Floundering" is about the most descriptive word I can find. I can't gain much knowledge from that other than to more solidly confirm my belief in the Carr/Lardy method. So there's my practical take on it.

I have heard lots of people say nice things about Lorie Jolly's seminar and I would love to go to one if given the chance. I will be curious to see if you think it is a complete non-ecollar method to build a handling dog, or just someone with a good sense of finesse to encourage dogs to pick up ducks. Both are useful, the former would be extraordinary!


----------



## AmberSunrise

I have read this several times, and each time I think, This is no small goal.

This is a serious aspiration - I think there are many of us on this learning adventure and we can have fun with our shared experiences, success and even failures.

My library contains all different types of training books and DVDs; Spencer, Evan's, Lorie Jolly, Cassity, Lardy etc. I have the books that you mentioned and I have books and DVDs from European trainers. I need to understand the purpose of various skills and drills and this range of books can help me. I guess my point is that although I am a positive trainer, my library has a wide selection of books and DVDs - from the above to Training Alone, Art and Science of Handling Retrievers.





Ljilly28 said:


> I don't have serious aspirations the way the great trainers here do, but more of a desire to make sure my goldens have a birdy instinct alive and well in them. Copley is a solid-muscle beast, and hits the water so hard. He loves field training alot more than I do, has a nice mouth, intense prey drive/work ethic,and the old lab guys always tell me he is "alot of dog for a golden". Cops is not a soft dog ( he is way more intense, bold, brave, and full of ego about everything then any golden of the 10 I've owned over the years), that is for sure. He can be over the top. I don't honestly believe he would have any trouble with CC or FF, and I see how the discipline would help; for sure as he is a huge personality with a huge will, unlike Tally, Finn, Lush( and Tango was) who will kill themselves to do anything I ask them. I just want to challenge myself to stay with my beliefs about not using aversives while running a credible JH with a very "show" line dog someday. That's a pretty small goal, I realize.


----------



## K9-Design

Ljilly28 said:


> I just want to challenge myself to stay with my beliefs about not using aversives while running a credible JH with a very "show" line dog someday. That's a pretty small goal, I realize.


It's not a small goal, but it's not an unusual one either. I have no doubt you can get JH's on your dogs with a minimum of training. Hey, pick up sixteen singles and deliver to hand, you've got a JH. If you and the dog enjoy field work I would encourage you to aim higher. Nothing has taught me more about dog training and psychology than advanced field training, and nothing has taught me more about my dogs' true personalities. THAT is the goal to me, not the titles, although they are proof of our hard work. 

I have a friend who does obedience, whenever I try to give her suggestions to improve something small she always reminds me, "Listen I know you want to get a 200 but I don't, I just want my dog to pass." Well to me, obedience training is not about a 200! Or an OTCH! Or whatever! Training is about LEARNING HOW TO TRAIN, and how to do it well! And to understand WHY you are doing what you are doing, how it effects the dog and the outcomes. My pursuit of higher titles is about THAT, not the title itself!


----------



## Stretchdrive

mlopez said:


> Good luck either way. I am a really big fan of Lorrie's dogs.


So am I!! I guess that is why I have a Speaker grandaughter!!


----------



## Loisiana

I know there was a clicker training seminar for sporting dogs going around. It was in Texas I think last year. Don't really know anything about it, just saw the fliers at a couple of obedience trials.


----------



## MarieP

Stretchdrive said:


> So am I!! I guess that is why I have a Speaker grandaughter!!


The original dog I was supposed to get was a River pup, but then the litter didn't take. Super disappointed, because her dogs are really nice. Fingers crossed for another one down the line.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Well, Jill, I think you have made people think. I was told long ago by Mainers who had JH's that if I didn't have to force fetch my dogs in Open and Utility, then it would probably carry over to a JH. There is that whole belief that if there is no consequence, the dog will not reliably retrieve... Mine have always been reliable in obedience, but I have to say, I just couldn't get past the frozen duck in my freezer....


----------



## Loisiana

Ljilly28 said:


> I just want to challenge myself to stay with my beliefs about not using aversives while running a credible JH with a very "show" line dog someday. That's a pretty small goal, I realize.


If that is really what your goal is then I would encourage you to first really think about what you are willing and not willing to do in your field training before you get out there with your dog. There's the obvious, like I know you do not want to use an ecollar or force fetch. But if you really mean you want to train with no aversives then you need to think about the smaller less obvious things. Are you willing to hold your dog on a loose tab, or would the possibility of the dog breaking and hitting the end of the tab go against the no aversive beliefs. Are there things you are willing to consider in the training that are considered aversives and use if you decide you are comfortable with it, or are you looking at it more of a cut and dry you want to do this truly using no aversives and absolutely want to find a to do it totally positively or not do it at all.

The reason I think it's so important to fully think it over first before actually getting out on the field is because a) if there are some aversives you might decide you are comfortable enough using then you are better off if you've thought about it beforehand rather than waiting until you are out in the field with other people trying to tell you what to do and you making a split second decision on if that's right for you and possibly regrettingit later. And b) if you say it's really about no aversives at all then you will need to get _really_ creative in your thinking and training because I myself am not aware anyone who has had much success without using any aversives at all in field training.

Let us know how it goes and any new tips you learn along the way!


----------



## hotel4dogs

As I've said before, I totally disagree with anyone who says you have to FF your dogs in obedience, and we are proof of that. Tito wasn't FF'd for obedience, and was trained pretty close to "positive training" for the obedience ring. Never wore a prong collar, or even a flexi in obedience training. Simply wasn't necessary. And he got his titles very young and very quickly, so they can't even claim it will "take you forever" if you don't FF the dog. 
Field, ah well, if he didn't have the e-collar on (and properly conditioned to it) he'd be in the next state if he took off after a bird he flushed.




Sally's Mom said:


> Well, Jill, I think you have made people think. I was told long ago by Mainers who had JH's that if I didn't have to force fetch my dogs in Open and Utility, then it would probably carry over to a JH. There is that whole belief that if there is no consequence, the dog will not reliably retrieve... Mine have always been reliable in obedience, but I have to say, I just couldn't get past the frozen duck in my freezer....


----------



## hotel4dogs

Some really good advice here about thinking in advance how you plan to deal with things, whether or not you use aversives! It's what Dan calls the "what if" game, and when we first started out, he made me play it before every retrieve.
What if he takes off for the water, what will you do?
What if he refused to go out, what will you do?
What if he drops it on the way back, what will you do?
What if he takes off across the county, what will you do?
etc. etc.
When you have a game plan in your mind, regardless of whether it involves aversives, you have a much better chance of a successful, productive training session, rather than having to have a knee-jerk reaction to something the dog does, which might or might not be a good response.



Loisiana said:


> If that is really what your goal is then I would encourage you to first really think about what you are willing and not willing to do in your field training before you get out there with your dog. There's the obvious, like I know you do not want to use an ecollar or force fetch. But if you really mean you want to train with no aversives then you need to think about the smaller less obvious things. Are you willing to hold your dog on a loose tab, or would the possibility of the dog breaking and hitting the end of the tab go against the no aversive beliefs. Are there things you are willing to consider in the training that are considered aversives and use if you decide you are comfortable with it, or are you looking at it more of a cut and dry you want to do this truly using no aversives and absolutely want to find a to do it totally positively or not do it at all.
> 
> The reason I think it's so important to fully think it over first before actually getting out on the field is because a) if there are some aversives you might decide you are comfortable enough using then you are better off if you've thought about it beforehand rather than waiting until you are out in the field with other people trying to tell you what to do and you making a split second decision on if that's right for you and possibly regrettingit later. And b) if you say it's really about no aversives at all then you will need to get _really_ creative in your thinking and training because I myself am not aware anyone who has had much success without using any aversives at all in field training.
> 
> Let us know how it goes and any new tips you learn along the way!


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> There are many more important ways to judge the relationship between a dog and a human than what titles the dog gets. I love to sail, but I am not training for the America's Cup.


As this topic is about field training, and alternate training methods, my comments are not intended to argue e-collar vs. non e-collar, or field trial titles vs. other titles. I'm interested in essentially the same things I was when I began training retrievers in 1975. I want to be the best trainer I can be. I'm focused on results, and that means more than one aspect, such as ribbons or bragging rights. The more you know about field training, the more it will become clear that the sport's great trainers have ultimately been holisitc in their approach. Or, as I often admonish trainers at my seminars, "train the whole dog." 

When anyone proposes to have come up with a new & better idea, I'm listening. But I'm listening with a critical ear for what is better about it. I defy anyone to provide better empirical evidences of the quality of a working retriever and its training than the results obtained in the field trial venue. I've had experience training retrievers for nearly every venue, and by far it's more difficult to produce a competitive all-age FT dog than one at that level in any other venue for working retrievers. That's why so many of us seek puppies from FT stock when we're aiming high. And that is why I ask questions about such accomplishments when discussing new ideas in training. If I, or any of us, had not remained open minded over the years, we would not have advanced to our current state in training and breeding.


Ljilly28 said:


> Testimonials to the greatness of shock collars for attaining FT titles aside, I was just interested in any resources out there for positive training in the field so I can have fun with my dog.


FT titles aren't achieved with e-collars. They're attained through a combination of outstanding dogs, excellent training, and competent handling. E-collars are merely a highly effective tool in that endeavor. But no dog was ever titled by an e-collar.


Sunrise said:


> Are there FC-AFC or QAA dogs who have never been on a collar, probably not.


There have been many FC-AFC's titled - having not ever been trained with e-collars. My first two retrievers were QAA, and never e-collar conditioned, or force fetched. Had they been, they would both likely have been field champions. I'll always wonder what the difference might have been for those two wonderful dogs.


Sunrise said:


> And I personally would find no joy in an FC-AFC dog that I had not trained and titled but had sent off to a pro so he could be trained daily


Many people do, but I can relate. I would not even participate in field sports if I could not do the training and handling myself. For some it's like owning a great race horse. I have every confidence that there is well justified pride in ownership, even though someone else has trained and ridden the horse to all its achievements. I'm just not a "hands-off" - type person.

All that aside, I know Lorie, and have trained with her (and her ex). They came out to train with me when I winter trained in the Southeast. At that time she was still very active in the trial game, and trained much like most of us who were competitive; e-collar and all. Smart lady! But, like GoldenSail, I too am very interested to learn about what techniques people are trying and how effective they are. I just know enough about training retrievers that I want to see results on par with the best techniques.

It seems unavoidalbe that a discussion of so-called "positive" training ideas always requires banter about e-collars and trials as evil counterparts, or words to that effect. I've always felt that if someone has a product or idea that really is better that it will stand on its own merits, without the need to run down someone else's.

It took some convincing to get me to even learn about e-collar training, much less to try it. Thank goodness I did! I'm interested in anything Lorie Jolly has to say on the subject. 

EvanG


----------



## AmberSunrise

sammydog said:


> I also have a borrowed copy of Positive Gun Dogs: Clicker Training for Sporting Breeds. I have had it for awhile and only skimmed through it. It seems to talk more about how to clicker training and training philosophies in general, rather than how to apply the training to advanced field work.
> 
> There is a blog that I really enjoy reading, although I have not been there much lately: Field Training Test Series
> Lindsay has two Goldens who have their SH that are trained positively. It was not an easy road and a lot of the trials and tribulations are in the blog. He is still training with Laddie working towards Master. He also has a Qual JAM.


I love that blog, although I too do not go up to read it often enough. He is an inspiration to me


----------



## sammydog

He also has another blog, which I have spent less time following. Although I would probably start reading it more if I started back up in field training again, especially with my next dog! It was started after the first: The 2Q Retriever


----------



## AmberSunrise

EvanG said:


> FT titles aren't achieved with e-collars. They're attained through a combination of outstanding dogs, excellent training, and competent handling. E-collars are merely a highly effective tool in that endeavor. But no dog was ever titled by an e-collar.
> .....
> EvanG


So true - and tons of time, patience and knowledge  

Which brings us back to books and DVDs. Are there favorites that you have?


----------



## Ljilly28

Again Evan, I am not interested in or asking about field trials. I am asking if anyone has good resources for training in the field without shocking my dog or pinching his ear. It seems like you do not have any info about that for me. 

Thank you guys for the great blogs and books.


----------



## Ljilly28

I would never call myself a positive trainer, though I am interested in the science. I've lived with multiple dogs every day of my life, like many of you, and I have a complex way of relating to dogs for which I can't really claim a neat label.

However, the religious passion for the e collar on these threads has definitely increased my skepticism about them over my years reading the forum. Actually, in my real life experience of going to field training occasionally at West Thompson Dam or in Maine, I find a better argument for using these tools with a high power dog like one of mine bc I don't feel as though someone is actively trying to brainwash me the way I do with a few posts on these ongoing threads. 

Since no tool is perfect, I am curious if you have a balanced view and can tell me some cons in the pro/con analysis for choosing the shock collar as a mainstay tool for all the dogs even when it is used correctly? Do you think there is absolutely zero behavoiral side effect to FF and CC if they are done right and that the e collar is a perfect tool and that you yourself have perfect hands?

Do you think it makes them edgier than they would otherwise be in temperament, prone to a shorter fuse elsewhere at other times? Do you think it pushes an amped up dog witha ton of drive too high on threshold issues at times? 

What do you think about the often-argued point by opponents of shock collars on force free lists that if 99 percent of dogs bred for generations to work as gratifying and useful companions on a hunting day cannot finish field trials without being electric shocked in training, maybe field trials are too far away from the dog's true calling?

Do you think there is any aspect at all of the ends justifying the means- the title justifying the methods? 

By you. I mean anyone who thinks a shock collar is the only viable, sensible way to train a hunt test dog.


----------



## GoldenSail

Honestly I think most of us are just curious. I would love to hear about the training techniques and I am genuinely interested in how problems are addressed and how well they work. I am trying to keep myself open-minded to all types of training which hasn't always been easy I confess.


----------



## sterregold

Ljilly28 said:


> What do you think about the often-argued point by opponents of shock collars on force free lists that if 99 percent of dogs bred for generations to work as gratifying and useful companions on a hunting day cannot finish field trials without being electric shocked in training, maybe field trials are too far away from the dog's true calling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this point I think that the element that is often missed when this argument is raised is that before the e-collar, the methods were *far* from force-free. The e-collar is a tool to get in a timely correction at a distance. Before it was developed (and a lot of the aversion to it comes about because the first ones ran very hot and could be very hard on the dogs) trainers used things like marbles or rocks in slingshots, and rock salt/ratshot loaded into shotgun shells. There was also a lot of running out to grab and correct the dog in the field, which creates a big lag between mistake and correction, which as you know is a problem in making a behaviour reliable--timely marking of behaviours is important. Sure there were generations of hunting dogs that did not have that training, but they also did not run blinds reliably, and had steadiness issues that meant they had to be tied in the blind, just like the very many undertrained meat dogs picking up birds in the marsh even today (sorry I don't like to go hunting with a pocket full of rocks as my main tool to get the birds back!).
> 
> To put it in persopective as to why many of us who are working at the more advanced levels are so committed to the Carr approach to training, it is because it gets us the practical results we need and we have not seen compelling enough practical proof that the other is going to get us to where we need to be in a timely fashion. Field trials may have become more and more complex as the competition has ramped up, but the upper levels of hunt tests (MH and Finished) are run to a standard which is pretty consistent in the skills and abilities the dog must demonstrate. And those skills do have a direct link to the skills I want my gundogs to have to make them effective and pleasant hunting companions. For me the higher level titles are important to see--a Junior Hunter does not have the skills I need in a hunting companion--a Senior Hunter (or dog with the skills that test calls for)would have those base minimum skills I would need to see before I would take a dog into the marsh with me.
> 
> Intellectually I find the idea of training using only 2 quadrant interesting, however, as a hunter, the extra time it would take to bring the dog up to that minimum skill set to be useful to me in the marsh is NOT realistic. Lindsey Ridgeway has worked really hard with his dogs to get them to where they are. But it has taken him much longer to advance beyond the Junior level. His boy ran JH at some of the same tests my Breeze did, and just finished his SH. By comparison, Breeze has now got her MH and had 2 litters in that same time. His Laddie is entirely field bred ( actually a VERY nice pedigree) and my girl is a tweener, who by pedigree is not as strong in field as he.
Click to expand...


----------



## sammydog

For overall understanding of field training two books that I read and really liked are Finished Dog: A Complete Training Manual for the Finished Hunting Retriever by Charles Jurney and the 10 Minute Retriever by John and Amy Dahl. Both of these are traditional style training books.

I think if the goal is training without physical aversives you still need to have a overall understanding of the traditional style of training a retriever. Once you get that then you get to be creative and try and find ways to accomplish the same thing or something similar. That is really the part that I have enjoyed, I enjoy trying to be a problem solver. I love watching videos and thinking, how can I train my dog to do that? It's also helpful to just flat out ask!  Umm, how did you get your dog to back up while laying down... : 

I also think it would be more difficult to train to an advanced level in field without physical aversives. I am sure part of that is because there is no established protocol, but also I think a big part is you have less control over what is reinforcing your dog.

Well, I think that is my two cents for now.


----------



## GoldenSail

Fine I will take a stab at it with my current feelings.



Ljilly28 said:


> the religious passion for the e collar on these threads has definitely increased my skepticism about them over my years reading the forum. Actually, in my real life experience of going to field training occasionally at West Thompson Dam or in Maine, I find a better argument for using these tools with a high power dog like one of mine bc I don't feel as though someone is actively trying to brainwash me the way I do with a few posts on these ongoing threads.


First off in having an open discussion I think using words like 'religious passion' and 'brainwash' are harmful and do not add anything to the discussion. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Do you think there is absolutely zero behavoiral side effect to FF and CC if they are done right and that the e collar is a perfect tool and that you yourself have perfect hands?


I don't think there is zero side effect to ANY training method. I don't think a single person out there is perfect in anything they do. I do however, believe that dogs are very forgiving creatures and giving a nick where it wasn't deserved or a cookie where it wasn't earned will NOT ruin your dog. Perhaps if continually misused but that is a separate issue and is a trainer problem not a tool problem.



Ljilly28 said:


> Do you think it makes them edgier than they would otherwise be in temperament, prone to a shorter fuse elsewhere at other times? Do you think it pushes an amped up dog witha ton of drive too high on threshold issues at times?


It is a concern that I have but I can only speak as to my own experience which involves my own dog and the dogs I have seen in my training group. With my one dog and the dogs in my group that are CC and FF I have not seen a change in temperament. I have not seen this shorter fuse. One friend in particular has a very high driving field lab and I have never seen him reach a high threshold for being corrected with an ecollar or ear pinch. Never. I have seen many dogs bounce back.



Ljilly28 said:


> What do you think about the often-argued point by opponents of shock collars on force free lists that if 99 percent of dogs bred for generations to work as gratifying and useful companions on a hunting day cannot finish field trials without being electric shocked in training, maybe field trials are too far away from the dog's true calling?


Sometimes I think there is some merit to that statement. That article from Marcia Schler in the last GRNews as really fantastic at addressing some of this (namely the sport and the breed are evolving as we try to better both). Plus, I think the idea that the dogs cannot finish without an ecollar is not true at all. An ecollar is used IMO because it is fair, fast, and efficient. It is great for timing which I think everyone knows is very important. Dogs used to do FT without an ecollar too...but it sounds like some of those methods were still pretty harsh and arguable harsher than an ecollar. I have worn an ecollar. I have shocked myself multiple times. I personally feel like it is more effective and fair than some things...



Ljilly28 said:


> Do you think there is any aspect at all of the ends justifying the means- the title justifying the methods?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. I have my personal limits as I believe most people do. I use to think that FF and CC were terrible and that I would never do it. Fast forward to today and I am using one. Why? Because I saw happy successful dogs using them and a saw where it would be exceedingly beneficial to me and my dog once I started training. I did not make the decision lightly. I spent lots of time researching collars and talking to trainers and doing research. I was very careful in my approach. I now have a dog that will retrieve her ecollar--ripping it out of the charger--and come racing into the next room to shove it in my lab. I pull that collar out and she is jumping up and down and spinning in excitement as well as throwing in a few good woofs. And yes, I suspect she is to a degree collar wise. Anyway, my limits are based on my dog's reaction not so much the method.
> 
> 
> 
> Ljilly28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By you. I mean anyone who thinks a shock collar is the only viable, sensible way to train a hunt test dog.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I do not nor have I ever said that an ecollar is the only viable and sensible way to train a hunt test dog. And I am willing to bet I am not the only one who feels this way. I made a choice and I do not regret it one bit. I remain open and curious to other training methods but can't see myself implementing them until they are proven for the goals I have for myself and dog. Because I have high expectations and goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## sammydog

GoldenSail, just wanted to say I thought that was a very nice and well thought out response!


----------



## EvanG

Sunrise said:


> So true - and tons of time, patience and knowledge
> 
> Which brings us back to books and DVDs. *Are there favorites that you have?*


Actually, "yes". I would like to note that I am happy to offer suggestions for solid videos and books about training. But ultimately the best suggestions should be matched with the individual trainer; where they are in the learning/experience curve, and what their goals are.

Some of my favorites are my own. One that isn't is Dave Rorem's video on handling. Dave is such a great guy, and a real student of the game. Very good video!

If you've been in the game a decade or more, and are looking to upgrade you library (assuming these aren't already in it), the seminar Dave did with Rex in Ontario a few years before Rex passed away isn't the best for a beginner. But it's terrific for its historical significance, and for insight into how Rex thought about all of this. Also, if you can get your hands on the VHS tapes made of a seminar done by the late Jim Kappes, with Bruce & Wayne Curtis, that is really good stuff. Frankly, other than my own, I think they're the best videos on Basics there is. They aren't especially well produced, but not too bad either. The main thing is content, and they did a great job.

In that same category, "Charles Morgan on Retrievers" by D.L. Walters & Ann Fowler (who later became Ann Walters). The methodology is very dated, Charlie having been a pro from the 1940's to the 1960's. But still great insight and wisdom. Wonderful history too. He lays out the history of US field trials in a very sound historical manner. D.L.'s book "Training Retrievers to Handle" is also a fine one for this category.

All of Mike Lardy's material is excellent, but is really almost myopically focused on field trial preparation to the extent that there are several better choices for someone looking for material on gundogs & even hunt test prep. I do think it would serve the hunt tester well, though. Very solid information.

Of my own, I think SmartFetch stands alone in its class on the subject of force fetch. I think you'll also find Basic Handling is vert good.

I stand strongly behind the material in my Water Force & Swim-by DVD. But it was our first effort, and the production isn't as good as I wish it were. Still, I get zero complaints, so I guess I'm doning what I've always done; be my own harshest judge!

There are more!

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> Do you think there is any aspect at all of the ends justifying the means- the title justifying the methods?


Truly, that is entirely individual. I know a high percentage of the better trainers running trials - especially amateurs. I honestly don't know any of them who feel a ribbon or title justifies mistreating a dog. Clearly, there are some, both pro and am. But I believe they are in the minority. Perception, however, varies widely! It's easy to form incorrect perceptions from a distance.


sammydog said:


> GoldenSail, just wanted to say I thought that was a very nice and well thought out response!


I whole heartedly echo this!

EvanG


----------



## gdgli

I think that Ljilly28 is going to have a hard time finding information on training a retriever without an e collar. The information may be in print but a mentor is needed to fill in the very big gaps that necessarily occurs in the books. I suspect that very few people really know how it used to be done mainly because many current trainers haven't done it. (I mean amateurs.)

Now positive training enters the picture. I have found that there are very few people in my own circle that understand positive training. Now try to bring that into the field and watch what happens. I tried and nobody understood what I was doing. All I wanted to do was teach some obedience behaviors in the field. I got criticized. 

I would like to add that I don't think that any method is the best as long as you are getting your desired results with your method and are having fun with your dog using the method that you prefer. Ljilly will get what she wants from her dog and I certainly wouldn't discourage her. In fact, I would
encourage her. I think that dog training is constantly evolving and to think that current popular methods are the last word on training is unrealistic.

Ljilly28, good luck in the field.


----------



## Ljilly28

Marcia Schler's GR News comment that trainers need to heed and reckon with how very many dogs have been flatout ruined by the e collar was also resonant. 

I agree with Evan's comment that mistreatment of a dog can be in the eye of the beholder to an extent. I've attended a fair amount of field training in the past five years, but with middle of the road lab people and fewer golden, chessie, and toller folks mixed in. It is a fairly rough crew at times, though I actually like some aspects of that, and not the top pros/amateurs except now and then. Hardly anyone is a golden fan. It is likely I see a group that is harder on their dogs than in the upper echelon of trainers. While there are aspects of field training I have enjoyed, it is very rough and tumble. It is a very different story seeing the few woman here work dogs who have MH goldens they trained without the collar. There is much more finesse. However, there isnt room for me to go every week as they have such limited time and space. I am just thankful they take me along once in awhile.

I do appreciate everyone who gave good ideas to help me. It's admirable when people make a separate peace from the established way, and do things by their own lights and values even if it is more difficult. I like hearing that a few of you are inventing ways of training since there is not much of a set system it seems. In real life, the field group is so welcoming, but they truly don't think much of goldens. In forum life, everyone loves goldens, but few think much of force free training. It's probably just something for me to set aside and not pursue.


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> Marcia Schler's GR News comment that trainers need to heed and reckon with *how very many dogs have been flatout ruined by the e collar* was also resonant.


I'm very sorry I missed that article. I would have written a scathing retort! I'm sensitive to dogs being abused in any manner. But I believe with all that is within me that not one dog...*ever*...has been ruined by an e-collar. Some _surely_ _have_ been ruined by numbskulls _misusing_ one, however.

On my workbench is the charger for my TT Pro 500 G3 XLR transmitter and receiver. Together, they form a single tool; an e-collar. That tool is inert sitting on my bench. It has no ability to pick itself up, strap itself on a dog, or do anything to a dog. A person has to do that. Whether the application of that tool is ultimately good or bad is totally dependent upon the person, not the tool.

To carry this logic further, I'm sure we all know that certain people (sometimes loosely called "trainers") have ruined dogs with many other items that could otherwise have been useful and humane tools. You can abuse a dog with an e-collar, just as you can abuse one with a heeling stick, a leash, or even a rolled up newspaper. You can even abuse one with your voice and demeanor. None of the instruction on e-collars given by credible trainers includes abuse.

You may recall frequent references to the late Rex Carr, who is truly the father of e-collar training. Some of the wise sayings he's known for are fondly called "Rex-isms". Some of them are "Leave something in it for the dog", "Learn not to burn", "Simplify", "“If you train a young dog for momentum, precision will arrive. If you train for precision, demanding perfection, momentum will depart.” Rex was the epitome of what the modern e-collar trainer should aspire to.










He was without question the smartest man I ever knew as a dog trainer. He is the real reason why we have e-collars that have a 'variable-at-the-transmitter' feature. It was _his_ idea. 

EvanG


----------



## DNL2448

Ljilly28 said:


> It's probably just something for me to set aside and not pursue.


This makes me sad. As long as you work toward your goal and not worry about how long it takes or how pretty it is, go for it! You can train without an e-collar and no one should hold that against you. Will it be more time consuming...Yes. Will you have to be more creative....Yes. Will there be a reward in the end for you and your dog ....Absolutely!


----------



## GoldenSail

EvanG said:


> I'm very sorry I missed that article. I would have written a scathing retort! I'm sensitive to dogs being abused in any manner. But I believe with all that is within me that not one dog...*ever*...has been ruined by an e-collar. Some _surely_ _have_ been ruined by numbskulls _misusing_ one, however.


Evan if you read the article you would think it is fair and balanced. At least I did. She did not say the ecollar ruined dogs she said improper use of the ecollar ruined them which places the blame accurately on the handler. I would cite it but not sure if that is appropriate or not. She even says she had one of her dogs CC by a friend and the correction was like a tap on the shoulder (and at low settings it is).


----------



## AmbikaGR

Ljilly28 said:


> In real life, the field group is so welcoming, but they truly don't think much of goldens. In forum life, everyone loves goldens, but few think much of force free training. It's probably just something for me to set aside and not pursue.



These are very disturbing statements to me, if I am reading them right.
First there are training groups that widely accept ALL breeds. In my current group there are Labs, Goldens, Flatcoats, NSDTs and Poodles. No one in the group thinks any less of any of the other breeds, honestly. Guess I am lucky for that. We even one year had an Airedale - now that was interesting. The only time our group has had issue with anyone is when they have a dog that does not have even basic obedience and the dog just runs and runs and does nothing but run and run. When they ask how to fix it and they are told they always say "Oh my dog knows THAT" :doh:
As far as "force free training" I am not sure I totally understand what you are referring to. If it is "force fetch" than ABSOLUTELY you can achieve minimum JH and WC, there is no doubt in my mind, with just "positive" training. If you are talking about using "motivational" training techniques along the lines of a Lorie Jolly, again Absolutely and with the right guidance maybe even higher level titles. There are folks like Lori who once you establish a relationship with at a seminar will help you along the way from long distance. And yes there may be some that reach even the higher levels of field accomplishments with a truly "positive" training method but they are VERY special trainers with VERY special dogs, in my opinion. 
But the most disturbing of all is giving up. WHY? Don't worry about what others think. And understand most of us here that have trained multiple dogs over the years in field look back at our first poor dog and say "If only I knew then what I know now". Will you make mistakes along the way? Absolutely. Will you cause your dog to "wash out" because of it? I doubt it very much. You have become a smart trainer with what seems like some talented dogs. Go have some fun with them, let them do what they were bred to do and you will figure it out. I know you will. And if you never attain a title in the field so what? It really is not about the titles now is it?


----------



## Ljilly28

General V said:


> I cant wait to hear about the seminar. I am not using FF or e-collar to train BaWaaJige. We are using all positive methods and he is doing really well.


I will let you know! I appreciate Hotel4dogs info, so I will investigate a bit more.


----------



## Jige

I dont have a lot to offer as I am new to the field game but I plan on/Iam training Jige with out FF and an e-collar. Is it going to be harder it sure is it already is. I plan on working through it it may take me longer to get the titles I want but I want to do this my way. I dont want my dog being zapped to get his attention I want him to focus on me. I now I can do it I think anyone that sets their mind to it can get their dog titled without those methods.


----------



## MarieP

DNL2448 said:


> This makes me sad. As long as you work toward your goal and not worry about how long it takes or how pretty it is, go for it! You can train without an e-collar and no one should hold that against you. Will it be more time consuming...Yes. Will you have to be more creative....Yes. Will there be a reward in the end for you and your dog ....Absolutely!


I completely agree. Why would you not do something that your dogs would love?? I'm not just talking about "mom likes this and I get treats and love, so OK, lets go do this ::tail wag::." I'm talking about "WHOOOOOOOHOOOOOOO LETS GO LETS GO LETS GO!!!!!!" 

Honestly, when used correctly, an e-collar should not produce any adverse behavioral issues. Neither should force fetching. To me, some aversion training with the collar is worth allowing my dog to SAFELY enjoy a game that he loves. And there is no reason that you should not go for a JH just because you don't want to use a collar. I think that most dogs with at least some natural ability are capable of a JH. 

On a different note: As some of you know, I have trained a few times with Amy Dahl. Riot had just hit the water like a rocket, and she said "thats a great water entry." I smiled and then asked why she thought that he wouldn't have such an entry. She told me that she thinks the whole idea of goldens being wimps in the water came from a while ago when most of the goldens in hunt tests were show dogs with no drive. She said they literally would stick a toe in the water, look back, and then slowly swim along. I think it takes people some getting used to when they see goldens that aren't like that. Don't let people look down on your golden. The only way to get field people to take goldens (and golden owners) seriously is to train our dogs. How you train your dog is your business. You just have to decide what you want for you and your dogs.


----------



## sterregold

mlopez said:


> Honestly, when used correctly, an e-collar should not produce any adverse behavioral issues. Neither should force fetching. To me, some aversion training with the collar is worth allowing my dog to SAFELY enjoy a game that he loves. And there is no reason that you should not go for a JH just because you don't want to use a collar. I think that most dogs with at least some natural ability are capable of a JH.
> 
> On a different note: As some of you know, I have trained a few times with Amy Dahl. Riot had just hit the water like a rocket, and she said "thats a great water entry." I smiled and then asked why she thought that he wouldn't have such an entry. She told me that she thinks the whole idea of goldens being wimps in the water came from a while ago when most of the goldens in hunt tests were show dogs with no drive. She said they literally would stick a toe in the water, look back, and then slowly swim along. I think it takes people some getting used to when they see goldens that aren't like that. Don't let people look down on your golden. The only way to get field people to take goldens (and golden owners) seriously is to train our dogs. How you train your dog is your business. You just have to decide what you want for you and your dogs.


I would agree that Ljilly should not let her choice to train in a way that is not in the mainstream sidetrack her from the goal of the JH. It is entirely possible to do JH without it. That is a reasonable goal--she will just have to work extra to proof those behaviours before she ever tests the dog. It is when you move beyond that started level that the task becomes so much more difficult, and then where having a naturally talented dog becomes do much more vital.

Marie, as for Mrs Dahl's comment, unfortunately it is still all too often the case that the "minority breeds" give a lacklustre performance, particularly on water, and even with labs most often it is those from "show" lines or that have a show look. As a judge who has Goldens it is particularly disheartening to have to fail Golden for refusing to retrieve a water mark. I hate seeing those dogs in tests because it really contributes to that perception of Goldens. Even in the tests I ran in the states this summer, there was a top, top, top winning show dog in a few of the JH's a ran with my pup who sometimes could not even pass LAND, and if the dog did go on, it never passed water. Some of it goes down to the training the dogs have received, as often they are older, having focused on the show ring or other venues first, and have simply not been given a sound foundation in their field work. But all too often they simply do not have the desire for birds or drive--they walk out into the field and if the bird is not readily apparent they turn around and come back--and that comes down to breeding. Success in the show ring is the driving factor in breeding decisions for too many now and that is not good for what is supposed to be *primarily a hunting dog*!


----------



## MarieP

sterregold;1595944
But all too often they simply do not have the desire for birds or drive--they walk out into the field and if the bird is not readily apparent they turn around and come back--and that comes down to breeding. Success in the show ring is the driving factor in breeding decisions for too many now and that is not good for what is supposed to be [B said:


> primarily a hunting dog[/B]!


Agreed! Drive is a major issue. I keep thinking of my Riot, who is a pretty boy with drive, from a field x show cross. We need more breeders interested in doing this, if we really want to change things. AND we need show judges willing to put up different dogs... 

Anyway, JH is definitely an achievable goal IF your dog has some natural retriever in them, which hopefully they do....


----------



## sterregold

GoldenSail said:


> Evan if you read the article you would think it is fair and balanced. At least I did. She did not say the ecollar ruined dogs she said improper use of the ecollar ruined them which places the blame accurately on the handler. I would cite it but not sure if that is appropriate or not. She even says she had one of her dogs CC by a friend and the correction was like a tap on the shoulder (and at low settings it is).


 
I also read the article and I did have problems with some of the statements she made. Let me qualify that by saying that I have the utmost respect for her in terms of her knowledge of the standard, and structure, and the old pedigrees that I love--heck my adored crazy Bonnie has Kyrie breeding behind her! I love the dogs that she loves, but would not consider her an authority on field work as she does not actively participate in field events. I go to her club's hunt test every year (and have even judged at it!) and it is just not an event in which she is active--so I don't know where she is getting the impression reported in the article.

Have field triasl accelerated into a different universe, and into testing for traits which are not the forte of Goldens? Maybe in some respects. Have dogs been "ruined" through the improper use of the collar? Yes. But as Evan pointed out it is the misapplication of the tool, rather than the tool itself. There is a "pro" in my area who can ruin just about any dog that comes in to join that training group--whether the owner chooses to use the collar or not. Fundamentally unsound training is fundamentally unsound training no matter what tools are employed.

In the article cited, she wrote:
"...Hunt Tests started out with a great premise, to more nearly duplicate actual hunting conditions and demands, but it seems that lately the Senior and Master levels have become, as one old-timer put it, 'bastardized field trials.'..."​I cannot agree with this statement. Hunt tests were intended to test for the traits and abilities that would make a retriever a useful hunting companion, and to _incorporate_ situations one would encounter when hunting. The rules also require that we test for specified natural and trained abilities by requiring the inclusion of certain elements at each level. I could throw some really wacko stuff at people in a test that I have encountered in hunting, but it would not make for a good way to evaluate the skills and abilities that I am required to observe as a judge. I have friends who have been with the hunt test program since the beginning, and to the contrary of this statement their most frequent complaint is that the tests are being watered down and the standard of work required to qualify along with it. Some of them are the judges that people worry about entering under because their tests are so challenging--but that is what they have always done! Some of the rule changes recently announced were made specifically to address these issues at the Master level in particular.

I did not find that any of the marks or blinds my dogs were asked to run in AKC Senior or Master this summer were tricky or unfair. Were some of them more challenging than others? Absolutely. Did they require that my dogs be responsive and well-trained. Absolutely. But I did not feel that the judges were out to get my dog or trick them. I did not need to be a pro or have a pro-trained dog to pass those tests. Heck, Breeze is my first Master dog and she got the 5 passes for her title in 7 tests in one season, and even had little fan club going because she had so much fun out there. So if amateur me with her first Master dog can do it in short order it is not too difficult!

I had success because I sought out all the human, and print, and video resources I could get my hands on to guide me in the route I chose (and I started non-collar, non-FF...it just didn't work for me when I wanted to do more than my JH and WC). I drove all the hell over the place to day-train with pros and successful amateurs in all weather, at all times of the year. I grinned and bore it when the field trial lab guys made snide remarks about my fluffies. Heck, I drove 14 hours through a blizzard and sleet to get to Alabama to get a concerted week of training in one spring. 

Does Jill have to go to that extent to get the dog's JH? No, but you will have to take that time to drive and spend regular time with a mentor when you choose to follow a route for which there is not the volume of printed/video material available--even with all of the material avialable for the route I chose I still had to do that! The items which have been suggested are about what is available out there right now. So read Lindsey's blog from the beginning to see the process he followed. His drills are very systematic. Proof and proof and proof like he did. Keep a training journal and try to assess why failures occur and how you can shape and proof around them. Ensure that you have shaped a good hold and delivery in a controlled setting before you move into the field--build incrementally. *And get out and train with Rhonda and Judy--you have an invaluable mentorship resource there!!*


----------



## K9-Design

sterregold said:


> *And get out and train*


But dadgummit, typing is easier!!!!!!!


----------



## EvanG

I thought this would be a nice time to post my favorite cartoon.










EvanG :wavey:


----------



## Ljilly28

sterregold said:


> I would agree that Ljilly should not let her choice to train in a way that is not in the mainstream sidetrack her from the goal of the JH. It is entirely possible to do JH without it. That is a reasonable goal--she will just have to work extra to proof those behaviours before she ever tests the dog. It is when you move beyond that started level that the task becomes so much more difficult, and then where having a naturally talented dog becomes do much more vital.
> 
> Marie, as for Mrs Dahl's comment, unfortunately it is still all too often the case that the "minority breeds" give a lacklustre performance, particularly on water, and even with labs most often it is those from "show" lines or that have a show look. As a judge who has Goldens it is particularly disheartening to have to fail Golden for refusing to retrieve a water mark. I hate seeing those dogs in tests because it really contributes to that perception of Goldens. Even in the tests I ran in the states this summer, there was a top, top, top winning show dog in a few of the JH's a ran with my pup who sometimes could not even pass LAND, and if the dog did go on, it never passed water. Some of it goes down to the training the dogs have received, as often they are older, having focused on the show ring or other venues first, and have simply not been given a sound foundation in their field work. But all too often they simply do not have the desire for birds or drive--they walk out into the field and if the bird is not readily apparent they turn around and come back--and that comes down to breeding. Success in the show ring is the driving factor in breeding decisions for too many now and that is not good for what is supposed to be *primarily a hunting dog*!


 Thank you Sterregold and Hank for the calm, sensible posts. Truthfully, I do not have a genuine hankering to do field work although I do enjoy being a part of it when I do attend. However, I want make sure my dog does have a credible desire for birds before breeding him bc it I have learned along the way how important this is to the breed standard. There is no way I am going to use an e collar on the dog, so it comes down to me finding good resources to work without one, or me realizing that the culture around hunt tests and field training is not for me. I've had biddable, easy goldens in the past, but now I have a rocket fuel intact bold, brave male with so much drive and enthusiasm for birds that I really don't see how I can not cc him and still reel him in. The guys call him "the beast" as he feels no pain when his adreneline is up- the minute he even knows he is getting near birds he goes ballistic. Keeping him under threshold enough to start is the hardest part. He delivers to hand, has a great memory, and hits the water so hard. He just lacks discipline out there even though he is very attentive in the obedience ring and the show ring. The comments that started me asking for help were from last weeks field group: "That is a lot of dog for a girl( sexist, but I don't mind) and " that dog whups ass out here despite you not because of you. He need a sterner hand." Cookies and clickers don't cut it- he is on fire and worked up. I've had some very biddable easy goldens and puttered around with them as they do whatever I ask, but now I have a 77lb bird crazy maniac. I do think he is a dog who is tough and fast enough to not do show dogs wrong by being a lazy slacker, but I have to find a way to control him. I know I could send him to Paul Kartes and he would do well, but he has his show CH to work on too. The other thing is, he's my dog, and I not want him to live a long period of his short life away.


----------



## tippykayak

FYI - the comic Evan posted is from xkcd.com, just in case anybody is interested in seeing more of Randall's work.

This is a link to the comic Evan posted so you can view it on its own site.

Here's a favorite of mine which I think applies quite nicely to this thread:



And please be aware that while Randall is very friendly about how his work is distributed and reposted, he does ask that his comics be posted with attribution.


----------



## K9-Design

Ljilly28 said:


> There is no way I am going to use an e collar on the dog...but now I have a rocket fuel intact bold, brave male with so much drive and enthusiasm for birds that I really don't see how I can not cc him and still reel him in. The guys call him "the beast" as he feels no pain when his adreneline is up- the minute he even knows he is getting near birds he goes ballistic. Keeping him under threshold enough to start is the hardest part. He delivers to hand, has a great memory, and hits the water so hard. He just lacks discipline out there even though he is very attentive in the obedience ring and the show ring.


So what is he doing in the field that is the problem? Maybe explaining what he's doing will let other trainers here brainstorm and help you. "Lacks discipline" covers a lot of ground.


----------



## Ljilly28

I love the cartoon.


----------



## Ljilly28

Well, Judy had us do channels and Copley was so wound up-vocalizing like Chewbacha for his turn, shaking. He went out like gangbusters, swam in with the bird on a straight line and brought it to hand, remembered the next bird and looked like he was bringing it in on his straight line, but instead touchdown danced and paraded around with his bird. Any bird out in the water is his bird. He stares and is on his toes waiting for one chance to tear out there. I am used to working with Tally who looks to me for direction and revolves around my signals and attention. Copley is so whooped up he might even growl at another dog over the bird I worry. He is mentally intense about even just a small channel drill. On the plus side, nothing is too much to ask physically. He retrieved with a huge swim with a separated shoulder, and I couldn't call him back in. He is jacked with muscle so that the orthopedic vet needed help to do his Penn Hip. I love having a dog with so much prey drive and go. I just have never worked with one before. He is absolutely obedient and attentive in other circumstances, but the birds give him fever. I am wondering if it is feasible for him to be under my control without an e collar- something I do not want to use.


----------



## K9-Design

Ljilly28 said:


> Well, Judy had us do channels and Copley was so wound up-vocalizing for his turn, shaking. He went out like gangbuster, swam in with the bird and brought it to hand, remembered the next bird and looked like he was bringing it in but instead touchdown danced and paraded around with his bird. Any bird out in the water is his bird, He stares and is on his toes waiting for one chance to tear out there. I am used too working with Tally who looks to me for direction and revolves around my signals. Copley is so whooped up he might even growl at another dog over the bird.



See this is good, some X's and O's to work with.
So what he's doing is not coming when called, right? And if he's being a nerd in the holding blind or on the line, he probably doesn't know what SIT means. More obedience. More consistency with responding to commands. Steadying drills and learn how to properly settle him at the line. Isolate the behavior of returning with a bird in a more controlled setting, replicate it and practice the right response. 

Not sure what the last sentence has in relation to the rest of it but that is not uncommon, most dogs will be possessive over their birds or bumpers to some degree. However NEVER will there EVER be two dogs going after a bird at a hunt test, unless someone breaks and cannot be called back. 

He sounds like a big exuberant male who needs his owner to be more firm and consistent with making him pay attention, be respectful and respond to commands. 
Are you opposed to pinch collars in the field as well? I definitely would recommend one so you can physically restrain him when he's being a nerd. You can quickly see that an aversive-free environment is impossible, as someone mentioned before, you need a way to restrain him so he does not break after every bird. PLENTY of junior dogs get by with ZERO line manners .... but you will also realize that the more controlled the dog is at the line, the better they perform in the field. If the dog is that gung-ho about field work it would be a shame not to train him and let him experience it.


----------



## Ljilly28

Yes, Judy and Rhonda do wonderful work.


----------



## GoldenSail

sterregold said:


> I also read the article and I did have problems with some of the statements she made.


Fair enough. I should qualify what I said by I meant what she said about ecollar was fair. It was just a short section. Because I have not hunted before and I am new to field training I don't have a developed opinion on the other matter yet.


----------



## K9-Design

GoldenSail said:


> Fair enough. I should qualify what I said by I meant what she said about ecollar was fair. It was just a short section. Because I have not hunted before and I am new to field training I don't have a developed opinion on the other matter yet.


When I first read the article I tried to find fault with the ecollar comments but really I could not disagree with them. I didn't understand at all what she meant about "bastardized field trials." And really the author of that article is not involved with field work to any great degree, so I kind of take her opinions on field training with a grain of salt. I was more interested in her thoughts on the development of the WC/X and VC/X programs which is not really related to advanced field training.


----------



## MarieP

Ljilly28 said:


> Thank you Sterregold and Hank for the calm, sensible posts. Truthfully, I do not have a genuine hankering to do field work although I do enjoy being a part of it when I do attend. However, I want make sure my dog does have a credible desire for birds before breeding him bc it I have learned along the way how important this is to the breed standard. There is no way I am going to use an e collar on the dog, so it comes down to me finding good resources to work without one, or me realizing that the culture around hunt tests and field training is not for me. I've had biddable, easy goldens in the past, but now I have a rocket fuel intact bold, brave male with so much drive and enthusiasm for birds that I really don't see how I can not cc him and still reel him in. The guys call him "the beast" as he feels no pain when his adreneline is up- the minute he even knows he is getting near birds he goes ballistic. Keeping him under threshold enough to start is the hardest part. He delivers to hand, has a great memory, and hits the water so hard. He just lacks discipline out there even though he is very attentive in the obedience ring and the show ring. The comments that started me asking for help were from last weeks field group: "That is a lot of dog for a girl( sexist, but I don't mind) and " that dog whups ass out here despite you not because of you. He need a sterner hand." Cookies and clickers don't cut it- he is on fire and worked up. I've had some very biddable easy goldens and puttered around with them as they do whatever I ask, but now I have a 77lb bird crazy maniac. I do think he is a dog who is tough and fast enough to not do show dogs wrong by being a lazy slacker, but I have to find a way to control him. I know I could send him to Paul Kartes and he would do well, but he has his show CH to work on too. The other thing is, he's my dog, and I not want him to live a long period of his short life away.


OK, so here is my question. Why do you not want to use an e-collar with this dog? Just because you don't want to? I'm not meaning to sound condescending, I just An e-collar would give you the control you need, without dampening his enthusiasm. It sounds like you do need a more disciplined hand with him. If you aren't willing to do this, I don't really see how you will be able to work him in the field because he is going to be so amped up that he will not listen to a thing you say. He obviously likes field work more than cookies and clickers. This is why I use an e-collar- because Riot doesn't care about anything else when he is in the field. The field is completely different from OB or anything else because the reward doesn't come from us. The reward comes from doing the behavior. So control is probably the biggest thing that they have to learn. 

Again, I respect your desire to work without an e-collar, but I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind it. You said it yourself that he feels no pain, so the collar would just be a reminder. Why take something he loves away from him? 

For solving the prancing around, I suggest a rope. There is a regular on RTF who says any problem can be solved with a rope. If you are not using an e-collar, I would say this is even more true. Just remember to wear gloves, pants, and boots! I've gotten some major rope burns...


----------



## K9-Design

mlopez said:


> The field is completely different from OB or anything else because the reward doesn't come from us. The reward comes from doing the behavior.


WOOHOO You get a click! Err.....



> I've gotten some major rope burns...


Define "major"
HAHAHAHA

(Marie I think this was before you joined GRF but last August Slater gave me a 3rd degree rope burn -- doing FTP -- on 3/4 of my left ankle, it took 4 months to heal, and still have a painfully obvious and large scar......someone suggested I get a tattoo of an ecollar over it! LOL)


----------



## AmberSunrise

This is a GOOD thing -- a very good sign when the dogs jack up at the thought of their birds  It really shows you they have the instinct and want and will work for their bird!

When I mentioned earlier that Faelan is more concerned with my good will than the bird, it did not mean that when he first started he did not attempt to run on his back legs or pull me to the line or break his stay or that he would never try to go after anyone's bird. It does not mean that he doesn't tremble and quiver in excitement and sometimes vocalize. This is where the obedience comes in, Jill.

I too would recommend that you get a rope or check line and some leather gloves to protect your hands (boots too). Then a tab. Even the folks I train with and know who use an eCollar start with check cords if they have a youngster who does not yet understand his line manners.

You should have a blast with him when he learns self control, and he should do you proud! Please pursue this 



Ljilly28 said:


> Thank you Sterregold and Hank for the calm, sensible posts. Truthfully, I do not have a genuine hankering to do field work although I do enjoy being a part of it when I do attend. However, I want make sure my dog does have a credible desire for birds before breeding him bc it I have learned along the way how important this is to the breed standard. There is no way I am going to use an e collar on the dog, so it comes down to me finding good resources to work without one, or me realizing that the culture around hunt tests and field training is not for me. I've had biddable, easy goldens in the past, but now I have a rocket fuel intact bold, brave male with so much drive and enthusiasm for birds that I really don't see how I can not cc him and still reel him in. The guys call him "the beast" as he feels no pain when his adreneline is up- the minute he even knows he is getting near birds he goes ballistic. Keeping him under threshold enough to start is the hardest part. He delivers to hand, has a great memory, and hits the water so hard. He just lacks discipline out there even though he is very attentive in the obedience ring and the show ring. The comments that started me asking for help were from last weeks field group: "That is a lot of dog for a girl( sexist, but I don't mind) and " that dog whups ass out here despite you not because of you. He need a sterner hand." Cookies and clickers don't cut it- he is on fire and worked up. I've had some very biddable easy goldens and puttered around with them as they do whatever I ask, but now I have a 77lb bird crazy maniac. I do think he is a dog who is tough and fast enough to not do show dogs wrong by being a lazy slacker, but I have to find a way to control him. I know I could send him to Paul Kartes and he would do well, but he has his show CH to work on too. The other thing is, he's my dog, and I not want him to live a long period of his short life away.


----------



## hotel4dogs

And you've just described Tito completely, which is why I've said repeatedly he HAS to wear an e-collar for his own safety or he'll be in the next state chasing the bird. There are "show goldens" out there who do the breed proud, you need to add yours to the group! Now that you've told people what problems you are having, maybe someone can offer you some suggestions how to deal with them! I'm too new to this to be of any help.
BTW, are you saying Paul trains without e-collars? 



Ljilly28 said:


> but now I have a rocket fuel intact bold, brave male with so much drive and enthusiasm for birds that I really don't see how I can not cc him and still reel him in. The guys call him "the beast" as he feels no pain when his adreneline is up- the minute he even knows he is getting near birds he goes ballistic. He delivers to hand, has a great memory, and hits the water so hard.Cookies and clickers don't cut it- he is on fire and worked up. I've had some very biddable easy goldens and puttered around with them as they do whatever I ask, but now I have a 77lb bird crazy maniac. I do think he is a dog who is tough and fast enough to not do show dogs wrong by being a lazy slacker, but I have to find a way to control him. I know I could send him to Paul Kartes and he would do well, but he has his show CH to work on too. The other thing is, he's my dog, and I not want him to live a long period of his short life away.


----------



## Ljilly28

> The field is completely different from OB or anything else because the reward doesn't come from us. The reward comes from doing the behavior.


This is an awesome statement . i agree with this. That is why I was curious to do some reading on the subject. 





mlopez said:


> OK, so here is my question. Why do you not want to use an e-collar with this dog? Just because you don't want to? .


 Growing up, I was a working student at The American School of Dressage. I also competed in eventing and cross country jumping. These experiences set me up to question reliance on heavy equipment as a replacement for time and skillfulness. It could be I unfairly transfer that to the issue of the e collar. You can have wonderful hands on a horses mouth or you can wrap twisted wire around a bit; you can learn to collect your horse and have him on the bit willingly with your legs and seat, but you can also jam his head down with side reins or a standing martingale. You can use spurs/dressage whip as an aid to give a cue, or you can lose your temper and rough up the horse. Maybe these are not related topics, but to me the idea of going to get a big gun piece of equipment to give the animal no choice is kind of unsporting. 

Also, to be fair, most of my constant real-life experience with the shock collar is short tempered pet owners who bought one at Walmart and now are bringing in neurotic mess dogs to be'fixed" bc they are very broken. 

A long while back I took a class with Shelia Booth, who is a Connecticut Schutzhund trainer mainly. It was very influential to me, and opened my eyes as to how very disciplined and uncookie- pusher some reward -based training can be. I like the idea of eliminating as much pain, discomfort, and threat from training as I can. 

You get to choose your goals and ethics, and I get to choose mine. My goal is to try and do as much as I can without selecting methods that are punishment based, and that goal is simply more important to me than a title.

Some handlers here are doing so well like Sunrise and Sammy'smom. They inspire me that maybe I can do a JH without a CC/FF. There are two handlers in my area who have MH goldens who did not use an e collar, so I know it can be done. I wanted to see if there were plentiful resources out there, and I appreciate all the ones introduced on this thread. I have found titles through reward-based training are very achievable in obedience, tracking, agility, and the breed ring, so now I am trying to see if I can find a small culture of people who relate to their dogs this way in field training. I agree there are not many.

Have you done enough reading, real life application, and studying to be well-versed in the science, history, and ideas behind reward-based training? Certainly, in rehabilitating abused shelter dogs so they can live with a family, the efficacy is there. I am curious if you are saying it is worthless stuff for field work. If so, that is interesting, and means I will let it go and make a separate peace.


----------



## Ljilly28

hotel4dogs said:


> BTW, are you saying Paul trains without e-collars?


No, he does CC and FF. I know Copley would achieve under Paul bc he is not a soft dog the way my others are. However, I am curious if I can stay true to my values of not using force and still train a more driven dog myself just to a JH.


----------



## hotel4dogs

This is very, very well said. We each have to do what we are comfortable with, and base it on the individual dog. We cannot look down on one method or the other, nor say one method deserves more credit than another one does. It's a very personal choice.




Ljilly28 said:


> You get to choose your goals and ethics, and I get to choose mine. My goal is to try and do as much as I can without selecting methods that are punishment based, and that goal is simply more important to me than a title.
> 
> .


----------



## hotel4dogs

The reason I asked is because I do know Paul, have seen him at each of our hunt tests, and I was under the impression he does CC and FF, which you just confirmed.
Paul is a great guy, a great trainer, and specializes in "show goldens".




Ljilly28 said:


> No, he does CC and FF. I know Copley would thrive and achieve under Paul bc he is not too soft a dog the way my others are. However, I am curious if I can stay true to my values of not using force and still train a more driven dog myself just to a JH.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Ljilly28 said:


> Thank you Sterregold and Hank for the calm, sensible posts. Truthfully, I do not have a genuine hankering to do field work although I do enjoy being a part of it when I do attend. However, I want make sure my dog does have a credible desire for birds before breeding him bc it I have learned along the way how important this is to the breed standard. There is no way I am going to use an e collar on the dog, so it comes down to me finding good resources to work without one, or me realizing that the culture around hunt tests and field training is not for me. I've had biddable, easy goldens in the past, but now I have a rocket fuel intact bold, brave male with so much drive and enthusiasm for birds that I really don't see how I can not cc him and still reel him in. The guys call him "the beast" as he feels no pain when his adreneline is up- the minute he even knows he is getting near birds he goes ballistic. Keeping him under threshold enough to start is the hardest part. He delivers to hand, has a great memory, and hits the water so hard. He just lacks discipline out there even though he is very attentive in the obedience ring and the show ring. The comments that started me asking for help were from last weeks field group: "That is a lot of dog for a girl( sexist, but I don't mind) and " that dog whups ass out here despite you not because of you. He need a sterner hand." Cookies and clickers don't cut it- he is on fire and worked up. I've had some very biddable easy goldens and puttered around with them as they do whatever I ask, but now I have a 77lb bird crazy maniac. I do think he is a dog who is tough and fast enough to not do show dogs wrong by being a lazy slacker, but I have to find a way to control him. I know I could send him to Paul Kartes and he would do well, but he has his show CH to work on too. The other thing is, he's my dog, and I not want him to live a long period of his short life away.


One way to teach some line manners is to teach the dog that carrying oon will get him put back in the car. It starts from the moment he is let out till he is sent for the bird. If he starts to carry on you IMMEDIATELY tell him "NO" and return him to the car. Leave him there for a few moments then take him out and try again. If at any point on the way to the line he again acta up, immediately put him away and start over. Best to do this with multiple blinds set up just like a test. Just as important as telling him when he is wrong is telling him when he is right - maybe more so. So lots and lots of praise when he is behaving and even give treats. You will need to explain to your group what your intention is so another dog or two will always be ready to run so not to hold up the group. If he misses his turn on a land or water series so be it. It does not sound like the marking/retrieving part is the issue. As you know with all training consistency is key. So if it means you go training and he gets no birds it will still be a day well spent teaching him. And he will learn it surprisingly quickly. 
As for the coming back with the bird goes, I of all people know that problem. I am working on that for 3 years with Oriana and have not found the key to get it to work at a test. But some of the normal things is to walk AWAY from the returning dog (never towards) and twirl a bumper over your head to help entice a speedy return. If this does not help there are a thousand other ways to go, well maybe 500 that do not require any "pressure"


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> You get to choose your goals and ethics, and I get to choose mine. My goal is to try and do as much as I can without selecting *methods that are punishment based*, and that goal is simply more important to me than a title.


What methods are those...specifically? I'm not aware of any prominent ones, and would love to know because it seems we hear a lot about them. 

EvanG


----------



## Ljilly28

EvanG said:


> What methods are those...specifically? I'm not aware of any prominent ones, and would love to know because it seems we hear a lot about them.
> 
> EvanG


 Au contraire, we do not hear "a lot" about them in the GRF field section. We do hear alot about CC and FF though.  

If you happen not to just be putting down the OP, then go to Dogwise.com. There's a reading list for professional trainers. Leslie Nelson is good to work with real life if you want to try it before you dismiss it. 

I'm not aware of too much field information for retrievers beyond what is here, which is why I asked if anyone else did. 

If you do know of good resources since you inhabit that world, it would be great to hear about them. If your main thesis is that there is no point/ cookie pushers are silly liberals etc, there's really not much point in using up energy on that.


----------



## Ljilly28

Thank you, Hank. I will try that next week. I can see that working. Sort of- you blew it, you're done and benched.


----------



## Ljilly28

Thank you for the tip on Lindsay Ridgeway. I'm going to read what I can find of his. 

Handling 101: Pinball Drill
Here's a drill Lindsay Ridgeway used to strengthen Lumi's handling skills in the late summer of 2007. Lindsay liked the drill so much that he ended up using it as the initial method of training handling to Laddie, then four months old:
Prerequisite: Whistle sit.
Use six surveyor's flags in a zig zag pattern leading away from the "start line". Space the flags according to your results over a series of training sessions. An initial spacing of 10 yards may be about right.
Spend as much time as needed, possibly a few seconds, possibly a few sessions, to train the dog to run to between flags 5 and 6, and sit on single tweet of the whistle as he reaches the flag. Click and treat as he reaches the flag and responds to the whistle sit. If the dog bites the flag, don't reinforce that rep, and make a point of whistling "sit" well before he reaches the flag on future reps.
When you start the training, you may find it most effective to run with the dog, then send him the last few steps as he locks onto the flag. Gradually reduce the amount of distance you are running with the dog, until you and the dog can start near flag 5, you can send him to flag 5, and then you can send him to flag 6 with minimum movement yourself.
Continue to train, moving your starting point closer to flag 4.
Add flag 4 to the training. Now the dog runs to flag 4 and sits on cue, then flag 5, then flag 6. As he sits at flag 6, sometimes you can run to him to reinforce, other times you can call him running to you and reinforce as he reaches you.
In the same way, add flags 3, 2, and finally 1 to the training.
As you practice this drill in session after session, the dog is learning the pattern of an actual cold blind, a narrow zig zag between the start line and the article being retrieved.
Use as many sessions as you need to develop this invaluable skill. Keep each session short and always end while the dog wants to keep playing.
Continue editing here
Over several sessions, make the diamond larger and larger. Soon, the dog should not be able to see the flags when he first goes out on each cast. This is especially true if you use orange flags, which are difficult for a dog to see until the dog is close.
Add more flags to the course, enabling you to practice all the casts from a variety of distances.
When the dog is ready, add a dummy or bird at the far end of the course. Place it so that the dog cannot see it until he is on the way from the last cast. Having the dog complete the retrieve takes extra time but builds motivation.
To make the drill even more challenging, train the dog to ignore distractions and take the cast. Add distractions such as dummies or dead birds, first so far from the dog's line of travel that he barely notices them. Over time, move them closer to the dog's line. If the dog goes off line to one of the distractions, walk out to him, bring him back to the flag, walk back to the start line, and try again. If he again strays, you've moved the distraction too close too soon. If he gets it right, find a way to immediately reward him for his success.
Similarly, gradually proof for other factors: obstacles such as logs for the dog to jump over, crosswinds, hills, and so forth.
To build the dog's love of the game, you may find it beneficial to occasionally and randomly leave the start line at the instant the dog sits and run out to reinforce, with food, petting, a game of tug, a thrown dummy, or anything the dog loves. Then put him back in his sit, go back to the start line, and give the next cast. You may find it best to reinforce a lot at first, then gradually introduce intermittent reinforcement, keeping the dog guessing as to whether this is the time that you're going to come running out.


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> Au contraire, we do not hear "a lot" about them in the GRF field section. We do hear alot about CC and FF though.


I made no reference to the "GRF field section" in my inquiry. As the words "*methods that are punishment based*" are yours, here in this discussion, I'm asking _you_ what methods you're referring to. "We" was an editorial reference, meaning the blanket accusations of methods that involve aversives being 'punishment based' are not uncommon, and are seen around the Internet on many discussion forums. Equally common is the fact that they are usually without any real substantiation. Rarely are any who make such statements prepared to name their sources.

If you want to train some other way, I'm sure that's fine with everyone. I assure you it's fine by me. But throwing bombs about the methods of others by labling them as something they are not is not fine, especially without specifying those being labelled as such so some specific examination of them might fairly be made. 

So, I remain interested in what methods _you_ referred to in that statement. Thanks.

EvanG


----------



## Ljilly28

I'm confused by that. FF and CC are aversive aka based on giving a stimulus the dog dislikes and actively wants to avoid.


----------



## GoldenSail

Very interesting drill--does he have any videos of it? Does he tell you what to do when things go wrong? What is the plan of action if the dog does not sit or starts popping?


----------



## Ljilly28

Regardless, the OP and topic at hand is if you have any knowledge about how to train a JH dog without an e collar and FF. There is something about the overall tone that makes it hard for me to respond politely, so I am going to move on before I accidently come to close to breaking any forum rules. I am sure you are an excellent trainer.


----------



## GoldenSail

Well I am just going to throw this out there. Have you tried using a box? Maybe teaching outside of the hyped up field work that the expectation is to race back to the box and sit on it would help with the prancing. Also might help if he wants to break because stepping off of it is like a light self-correction. My friend has been using a box and her dogs know the expectation is that they go directly to her side and sit on it.

When he does bring it back immediately reward him with a short fun bumper. So he gets the same thing thrown again for coming back faster.


----------



## Ljilly28

Thanks, that is an awesome idea. I definitely will try the box.


----------



## Ljilly28

hotel4dogs said:


> The reason I asked is because I do know Paul, have seen him at each of our hunt tests, and I was under the impression he does CC and FF, which you just confirmed.
> Paul is a great guy, a great trainer, and specializes in "show goldens".


Yes! I am trying to work through my conflicted ideas and feeling about all this. To Paul is where the dog would go. I wouldnt want to learn on the dog but would rather have him in expert hands. I'm in a thinking phase about field training, so I really appreciate the feedback.


----------



## DNL2448

Ljilly28 said:


> I am curious if I can stay true to my values of not using force and still train a more driven dog myself just to a JH.


*YES YOU CAN!* And there are great people on this forum that will help you, knowing you do not want to use e-collar.


----------



## sterregold

Ljilly28 said:


> Yes! I am trying to work through my conflicted ideas and feeling about all this. To Paul is where the dog would go. I wouldnt want to learn on the dog but would rather have him in expert hands. I'm in a thinking phase about field training, so I really appreciate the feedback.


Another person to consider who would be closer to you than Paul (who I like a lot as I also know him and frequently hang out with him at the midwest tests to which I go) is Lois Monroe. She summers in the northeast and runs lots of tests on the New England circuit. She has been training Breeze's brother Gusty and other of Marge Trowbridge's dogs and having considerable success with them.. Gusty just needs one more pass for his Master and she got Deuce's (Marge's Whirly son) Senior in short order when he was still only 2yo. She is likely either in SC or soon to leave for SC, but would be back in the spring.

It sounds like Copley has plenty of drive, and it would really be a pity not to prove that he has the retriever chops to go with the retriever part of our breed's name! Get a good quality marine grade rope: there are vendors at some of the conformation shows who sell really nice tracking lines made of this material--this is what I use on my youngsters before I CC--the advantage is that they do not tangle easily, and they float in water so the dog cannot get their legs wrapped in them as readily. The place board suggestion is also a really good idea--teach it in the yard and then bring it with you to the field when you train--it can be as simple as a square of plywood, or a frame made out of small gague ABS water line (I used something like that for teaching sitting heel position in obed and it translates over to field well.) Spend a lot of timne working on the recall, add distractions in the yard, then move to the field, and v=never give the command when you do not have a way to enforce compliance--even if it means having the gunner grab the rope and bring him back to you--you would be surprised what realizing that the helpers out in the field will enforce mom's commands will do with the dog!

I would also suggest that you maybe let someone you know who has a collar let you borrow it and *try it on yourself*. You do not have to use it the way you have seen those pet idiots use it. It really is a communication tool to let the dog know precisely when they have made a mistake. At the level my dogs run on, a nick is really not much more than the tap they would get from a choke collar correction on their show leads--it just marks the moment of error for them so they know where they made their mistake. If you know what he would be experiencing, it might make you more comfortable at least using it at that level. My Winter is physically a very hard dog--you could whallop him with a riding crop and he'd just look at you as if to say "Is that all you've got?" But with the e-collar I can communicate with him without having to get overly harsh. He also LOVES his birds, so I decided that I need a way to correct when he choses to do it his own way or he could be like your boy, joy-riding all over the field! He played lots of games with me, and exhibited all sorts of avoidance behaviours when we made the transition (can you say Drama King!?!) but now that he understands he is fine. My others who started on the collar when they were ready in their training have never worried about it. I generally get compliments for how controlled and composed my dogs are on the line--and that comes from a sound foundation in obedience. That has to be in place to use a collar anyhow. And the rule changes for hunt tests are now putting more of an emphsasis on control coming to and on line in Junior now as well, so that is something you are going to have to focus on--and it can only help to build compliance while he is working the birds.


----------



## MarieP

Ljilly28 said:


> Growing up, I was a working student at The American School of Dressage. I also competed in eventing and cross country jumping. These experiences set me up to question reliance on heavy equipment as a replacement for time and skillfulness. It could be I unfairly transfer that to the issue of the e collar. You can have wonderful hands on a horses mouth or you can wrap twisted wire around a bit; you can learn to collect your horse and have him on the bit willingly with your legs and seat, but you can also jam his head down with side reins or a standing martingale. You can use spurs/dressage whip as an aid to give a cue, or you can lose your temper and rough up the horse. Maybe these are not related topics, but to me the idea of going to get a big gun piece of equipment to give the animal no choice is kind of unsporting.
> 
> Also, to be fair, most of my constant real-life experience with the shock collar is short tempered pet owners who bought one at Walmart and now are bringing in neurotic mess dogs to be'fixed" bc they are very broken.
> 
> A long while back I took a class with Shelia Booth, who is a Connecticut Schutzhund trainer mainly. It was very influential to me, and opened my eyes as to how very disciplined and uncookie- pusher some reward -based training can be. I like the idea of eliminating as much pain, discomfort, and threat from training as I can.


Thank you for this response. I completely agree that finesse and skill should be used over force. Absolutely! Unfortunately, many field trainers do not come from this type of training. My friend, who has field goldens, removed one of her dogs from multiple pros. She says that many of the pros are of the "push the button until the dog complies" frame of mind. That is not how it needs to be at all. That is why, once my pup is CCed, my very LAST choice when training is to push the button. I try EXTREMELY hard not to ever, ever, ever push the button out of frustration. Have I? Sadly, yeah, probably. But thankfully, my pup is very forgiving and bounces right back. Above, you said you used the whip as a cue. I think this is a wonderful correlation to the e-collar. It is a cue, a reminder, a "hey, pay attention, information coming your way." 



Ljilly28 said:


> Have you done enough reading, real life application, and studying to be well-versed in the science, history, and ideas behind reward-based training? Certainly, in rehabilitating abused shelter dogs so they can live with a family, the efficacy is there. I am curious if you are saying it is worthless stuff for field work. If so, that is interesting, and means I will let it go and make a separate peace.


Oh no, not worthless at all! The pro I work with gets a laugh out of me sometimes because I am very reward-based. But I also have to remember that the REAL reward is in getting to retrieve. So I have to tone myself down, because Riot is already amped up. Riot and I have parties and dance around and get excited all the time. This is especially important, for me, when we are working on drills that might get boring and repetitive but are still very important for foundation. Also, reward based training definitely transfers over to the field, if you have done it right. I have a great remote sit, started when he was a puppy with cookies and went from there. But I also believe there needs to be a balance. 

Someone mentioned a box/place board. BRILLIANT idea! This gives a very distinct right/wrong that can be enforced with very little force needed.

PENNY 4 MONTHS - YouTube This is a video posted on RTF. And in fact, she would probably be a great resource for you. She used a clicker to get the dog doing these things, no aversions at all, as I understand it. 

OK, time to go clean my bathroom! Enough of this messing around


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> I'm confused by that. FF and CC are aversive aka based on giving a stimulus the dog dislikes and actively wants to avoid.


Not that it's unique to do so, but you seem to be equating the use of aversives with punishment. That connection is not axiomatic. As a positive trainer I am assuming you're comfortable with OC terms. I'm hoping this discussion can take on a constructive form by using those terms. That will help us to be on the same page. Fair enough?

EvanG


----------



## Ljilly28

mlopez said:


> My friend, who has field goldens, removed one of her dogs from multiple pros. She says that many of the pros are of the "push the button until the dog complies" frame of mind. That is not how it needs to be at all. )


This thread has been helpful to me. I do think i have only seen a very few really good pros at work, and enough button-pusher lab owners that maybe I do not understand what it looks like to see the tool used properly.




> There is a blog that I really enjoy reading, although I have not been there much lately: Field Training Test Series
> Lindsay has two Goldens who have their SH that are trained positively. It was not an easy road and a lot of the trials and tribulations are in the blog. He is still training with Laddie working towards Master. He also has a Qual JAM.


Thank you so much, I will read this right away.


----------



## K9-Design

EvanG said:


> Not that it's unique to do so, but you seem to be equating the use of aversives with punishment. That connection is not axiomatic. As a positive trainer I am assuming you're comfortable with OC terms. I'm hoping this discussion can take on a constructive form by using those terms. That will help us to be on the same page. Fair enough?
> 
> EvanG



Oh please no, not the quadrants!!!!!! 
LOL


----------



## K9-Design

Ljilly28 said:


> This thread has been helpful to me. I do think i have only seen a very few really good pros at work, and enough button-pusher lab owners that maybe I do not understand what it looks like to see the tool used properly.


A breakthrough!!!!!


----------



## EvanG

K9-Design said:


> A breakthrough!!!!!


I love you, Anney!

EvanG


----------



## hollyk

mlopez said:


> PENNY 4 MONTHS - YouTube This is a video posted on RTF. And in fact, she would probably be a great resource for you. She used a clicker to get the dog doing these things, no aversions at all, as I understand it.


I'm so glad you posted this. I was just about to go looking for it on RTF.



Ljilly28 said:


> This thread has been helpful to me. I do think i have only seen a very few really good pros at work, and enough button-pusher lab owners that maybe I do not understand what it looks like to see the tool used properly.


For me, very good pro has been key in learning field work. A pro or mentor maybe more important then whether you FF and/or use an E-collar. I think the art is in, reading the dog, timing the correction (whatever type you decide), when to not worry about the line the dog took because she took it with momentum, and a whole host of other things.
I don't think we would have managed to get to where we are today, working toward Senior/Seasoned, without my Pro standing next to me when we run. Breaking down the training in bits I can deal with, showing us the way out of set backs, and giving us Atta Girls when we work hard and do good. 

I hope you and Copley find a way to give field a try.


----------



## hotel4dogs

what she said, X3



hollyk said:


> For me, very good pro has been key in learning field work. A pro or mentor maybe more important then whether you FF and/or use an E-collar. I think the art is in, reading the dog, timing the correction (whatever type you decide), when to not worry about the line the dog took because she took it with momentum, and a whole host of other things.
> I don't think we would have managed to get to where we are today, working toward Senior/Seasoned, without my Pro standing next to me when we run. Breaking down the training in bits I can deal with, showing us the way out of set backs, and giving us Atta Girls when we work hard and do good.
> 
> I hope you and Copley find a way to give field a try.


----------



## Ljilly28

High level obedience competitor Denise Fenzi: New post on Denise Fenzi



> What is Possible?
> by dfenzi
> Recently I heard an interview with a very well known competitor/trainer. He said "positive training works with dolphins.....it is not possible to train a dog without physical contact; it's a lie…”.
> 
> Physical contact means pain compliance.
> 
> My first thought was, "How egotistical is THAT? If you can't do it, no one can?" Let's call that my irritable reaction.
> 
> My irritation was soon replaced by sadness, however, because if positive reinforcement training is "not possible", then what sane person would attempt it? If a "top trainer" ridicules the possibility, then the message to thousands of less experienced trainers is clear: do what is proven to work, regardless of the outcome for the dog, or the sport. If a young trainer decides to attempt positive training anyway, the blatant ridicule, followed by subtle sabotage, will usually drive them away from the sport or into the hands of tradition soon enough. It takes a strong and courageous person to do something that others say is impossible, and few individuals want to play the fool, especially if they are relative novices themselves.
> 
> If you want to be a successful competitor, the safest route is the known one. Many of the most accomplished competitors have very little to offer outside of their method, which often crams every dog into exactly the same hole they've been crammed into for thirty years. Yes, these folks win. If winning is the most important element for you, then it makes sense to go with what is proven to work. But, when well regarded trainers or competitors state that a progressive method is "not possible", you discourage innovation and set dog sports in the wrong direction.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to say, "In my experience, positive training does not work."? That phrase opens up a place for dialogue and the possibility that you may be confronted with evidence, which might, over time, allow you to change your perspective and try something new.
> 
> If the world of today had been described to me thirty years ago, I would have been unable to process what I was hearing. I would have had no way to reconcile such unbelievable information with what I now know to be real and true. The possibility of video telephones, computers, internet - I would have laughed at you. If you had told me that athletes were breaking records that were considered physically impossible, that science had taken us inside of cells and DNA and into the very heart of what makes us human - I could not have heard you. Big Science was a test tube baby, not Dolly the cloned sheep.
> 
> If you had told me that I could use food to train a dog; that a plastic toy called a clicker could help me with my training, that I could wait for a behavior to occur and then name it rather than creating each behavior... I would have made fun of the waste of time and the "stupidness" of it all. I was young and opinionated. I knew it all, and if I wasn't doing it, then it wasn't worth doing.
> 
> While it's sad to see such a close minded attitude on a thirteen year old, it's relatively harmless since no one is listening anyway, but coming from a well known trainer with excellent skills and insight to offer... it's damaging and cause for great concern.
> 
> The world of today was NOT POSSIBLE just thirty years ago. Outside the realm of comprehension. Yet it's here, not only possible, but now reality. So if the not possible can become reality, isn't it better to try and stay away from absolutes in our thoughts and speech as much as we can? There are so many places to throw up barriers and argue that something is not possible. Honestly, it makes me tired even thinking about it, which is why I have waited a while to broach this topic. The words that come out of our mouths frame the reality in our heads. Close your mind to new possibilities and you are right, it will not happen for you.
> 
> I cannot predict where a changed mindset will take you, any more than I could have predicted that Dolly the Sheep was possible. The possibilities suggest, however, that the dog/human relationship can be so much more than what tradition and prior experience may have led us to believe.
> 
> I made the change to positive training techniques many years ago, but it was only two or three years ago, when Cisu began failing in the ring, that I made a complete change in philosophy to dog as partner rather than dog as subject. I can't wait to see what I'm doing in five years, because really, I've just begun to explore the avenues of possibility that are appearing in front of me, and they seem endless. There is so much to learn.
> 
> Training is a journey, not a destination. If you think you've arrived, you've already missed out.


----------



## K9-Design

So we're back to square one. Jill is your goal to do field work with your dog, or to get a pat on the back for cooking up a new totally positive field training method? Or a pat on the back for "thinking" about cooking up a new totally positive field training method? If after 11 pages of yet ANOTHER thread along the same lines, the above article STILL sums up your feelings, then I'm not sure what more anyone can say to help you in your field training quests. My only advice at this point is to GET OUT THERE AND TRAIN and report back when you have some real training scenarios to discuss.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> So we're back to square one. Jill is your goal to do field work with your dog, or to get a pat on the back for cooking up a new totally positive field training method? Or a pat on the back for "thinking" about cooking up a new totally positive field training method?


Her posts have made it infinitely clear that she's not looking for pats on the back, and while I realize that some people come to H&F looking for validation or adulation, it's pretty clear that Jill isn't. She's looking to do field work on her terms, and she wants suggestions and resources. I'm not sure why that's either so hard to understand or so incredibly threatening that some folks feel the need to try to tear the idea down.


----------



## Ljilly28

Thank you to everyone who gave me ideas and leads. I'll get back to you about this time next year, and let you know what happened. I got more information than I've ever had access to before, and a geographically much closer pro with whom I might be able to take lessons. I especially appreciate those who were tolerant of what is obviously an annoying viewpoint to some experienced people who do use the e collar and feel it is a useful, good tool. 



K9-Design said:


> So we're back to square one.
> 
> WOOHOO You get a click! Err.....


Lol, we're been back to square one with the sarcasm as well. Lowest form of wit/refuge of a dull mind aside, it doesnt actually bother me.


I have seen time and time again with shelter dogs, pet dogs, and reactive dogs that if you put physical punishment in, you can get redirected/displaced aggression or fear back out. I look forward to a chance to watch proper CCing with my own eyes to see if it is nontraumatic information being given to the dog.


----------



## Ljilly28

gdgli said:


> There are other positive trainers out there. They tend not to post because they frequently get slaughtered when they do.


Is this true? I hope not. There are relatively few people who do anything at all formal with the goldens and labs they own. It would be a shame to establish a my- way- or- the- highway culture that turns anyone away. Plus, one of our past e collar topic threads was read and thoroughly discussed by a yahoo list of more than 1500 dog trainers, several of whom wrote top selling training books over the last 20 years, so there is a public relations factor for outsiders trying to understand how retrievers are trained. Land use issues, humane society and other protestors, gun use issues aside, those big name pet dog trainers talk to lots of puppy owners through books, articles, in real life and by training other trainers. The threads feel insular bc we relate to each other over the years with alliances and antipathies that are so familiar, but truly each thread has the potential to be read by 1000s of unknowns.


----------



## TrailDogs

I have been training dogs for field work since the beginning of the hunt test game and have been around hundreds of collar trained dogs. I have NEVER seen the behavioral changes you are quoting as a result of this. I would assume that if your dog starts attacking other dogs at a show and growling at the vets then you have a temperament issue not an ecollar issue. One has nothing to do with the other. 
I could just as easily use the example of the whale at sea world that was clicker trained and in turn killed his trainer along with several other people and say that this method causes aggression but that would be just as wrong wouldn't it. 
With regard to your original question you should be able to achieve a JH quite easily without a collar if you have a dog with good drive and trainability.


----------



## Ljilly28

TrailDogs said:


> I would assume that if your dog starts attacking other dogs at a show and growling at the vets then you have a temperament issue not an ecollar issue. One has nothing to do with the other.


First, that is a witty and true point about the clicker trained killer whale. I agree with that. I'm under no illusions that clicker training is going to be a feasible and quick way to reel in my bird-crazy youngster, which is why I started the thread looking for ideas. 

I'm signing off the thread now, bc it is starting to repeat itself. If I had a dog with an iffy temperament, the last thing I would do would be to use a shock collar. Since my goldens have nice temperaments and play with other intact males, love puppies, are mannerly and friendly in the show ring, never growl at Katy the vet,etc, I'd like to preserve that. I don't agree that training methods have no effect on temperament and have nothing to do with each other. However, I am hearing the great trainers on here when they are telling me there is a big difference between a skilled field trainer and a "button-pusher", and I am going to seek out a good pro this year and watch how she works. I went to a sheep herding clinic with a corgi last month. Some people bop dogs on the heads with the rake, some do not. In retrieiving it seems that most people use the ecollar and FF, and very few do not. It just may be a part of the dog world that is not for me- which is fine and no great loss. It may be that I can find a path to do a little bit mainly bc I do see the standard says a golden should be a retrieving dog.


----------



## tippykayak

I think the original concept, that moderate success in titling a dog could be achieved without CC/FF, is completely plausible, and even the most die hard collar believers in this thread seem to agree with that.

As simple as it is to think "at the moment he stops coming back with the bird, that's when you have to be able to show him it's wrong or you're cooked," that's _not_ the only way to address a behavior like that. In any training scenario, when the dog does something undesired, the simplest thing is to make it unpleasant for him, and in some scenarios, maybe that's the easiest, best way to address it. In many situations, though, it can be more effective to approach the problem from a completely different angle. Personally, I prefer to eschew making things unpleasant for my dog, even briefly, if I can find an alternative.

Perhaps the fact that I've seen Jill work dogs on a number of occasions gives me more faith in her ability to analyze a complex training situation and address it. Or perhaps it's seeing multiple non-collar trainers train their dogs for field quite elegantly without delivering distance corrections. I share Jill's admiration for that philosophy.

I wish this thread, and any future threads like it, could be more about supporting an expert trainer trying a new thing and less about trying to get her to change a philosophy that deeply respects the dogs and their heritage. Obviously, people have the right to say that the training would be easier, simpler, or more effective if she used the collar, and they have a right to try to convince her that the mainstream way is the best way. But if you really wanted to help, eventually you'd go back to her original post and answer the actual questions she asked there, and you'd give her some suggestions on how to get started on her terms.

Many thanks to the folks that have done that, because I feel like I've learned a lot from your posts.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> I think it would be a step in the right direction if the "no ecollar trainers" in search of a "non-ecollar method" to field work would just say that, rather than eschewing themselves as "positive field trainers." That of course means the other guys are the "negative field trainers" and quite frankly nothing could be further from the truth. That would be like me calling anyone who didn't want to use an ecollar a "cookie trainer." Well that's kind of degrading, and not quite the truth, isn't it?


I know this is going to sound odd, but I mostly agree with you here. I think we're all seeking to be balanced trainers, and we're choosing different priorities as we look for that balance. I don't necessarily agree that calling oneself "positive" means all alternatives are automatically "negative," but I do agree that "positive" is pretty inaccurate. 

I truly dislike the term "positive trainer" because it's an utter misnomer. I understand that people use it because it communicates the idea well to laypeople who don't know behavioral language, but I think it engenders confusion. I can't necessarily suggest a better term that's as simple, but I personally eschew terms like "positive field training."


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> *I truly dislike the term "positive trainer" because it's an utter misnomer.*


AMEN!

EvanG


----------



## marsh mop

> I'm signing off the thread now, bc it is starting to repeat itself


Ljilly28
That repeating strarted many pages ago.
You have been given some very good thoughts on how to work with your dog. A long line, putting them back in the box, and place board to name a few. You can put a JH on your dog, if you put a little work in to it, with out FF or the collar. People do it all the time.
You have used the words "shock", "electric shock" or "shock collar" no less than ten time in this thread. I find that offensive. It is like looking at the PETA website. 
When someone finds a pure positive training method for the field I will be the first to buy it. Ecollars are not cheap.
Good luck with your dog. You can do it. 
Jim


----------



## gdgli

Ljilly28 said:


> Is this true? I hope not. There are relatively few people who do anything at all formal with the goldens and labs they own. It would be a shame to establish a my- way- or- the- highway culture that turns anyone away. Plus, one of our past e collar topic threads was read and thoroughly discussed by a yahoo list of more than 1500 dog trainers, several of whom wrote top selling training books over the last 20 years, so there is a public relations factor for outsiders trying to understand how retrievers are trained. Land use issues, humane society and other protestors, gun use issues aside, those big name pet dog trainers talk to lots of puppy owners through books, articles, in real life and by training other trainers. The threads feel insular bc we relate to each other over the years with alliances and antipathies that are so familiar, but truly each thread has the potential to be read by 1000s of unknowns.


I really should have qualified this statement. I should have said that there are other positive trainers training field dogs. There are many in my training group and I am inviting you to train with us on Long Island any time you can. Invitation courtesy of the Long Island Golden Retriever Club.

(Long Island is the home of some of the earliest field trials.)


----------



## hotel4dogs

I am not saying this to stir the pot, but to me a long line is much more inhumane than an e-collar when you have a hard charging dog. You run the risk of permanent damage to his neck or trachea.


----------



## GoldenSail

Jill regardless of training methods I do hope you give field a try. It is a shame more people do not. For me, I've come to feel like the retriever part of golden retriever is the most important part of the standard. I am so new at it but I am already learning an appreciation for what is required. It is constantly challenging and changing my beliefs--but that's ok.

And remember there are two kinds of people out there. Those that dream, and those that achieve. Be an achiever!


----------



## GoldenSail

hotel4dogs said:


> I am not saying this to stir the pot, but to me a long line is much more inhumane than an e-collar when you have a hard charging dog. You run the risk of permanent damage to his neck or trachea.


I think it depends on how hard the dog hits the long line vs the ecollar setting...but yeah, I tend to agree with you. I even think that verbally chewing out a dog to the point they are rolling over may even be worse than a short effective nick. But that's just me. My dog is more emotionally sensitive while physically tough.


----------



## gdgli

I think that Tippy's reference to an "expert trainer" is a good one. An expert trainer, in my opinion, is familiar with various methods of training and could be successful in any of those methods. On the other hand, a weak trainer will probably have problems with any method he uses.
Based upon my observations, there are far more weak trainers than expert trainers. Result: Many weak trainers are running around with e collars and probably need supervision when training their dogs.


----------



## AmberSunrise

hotel4dogs said:


> I am not saying this to stir the pot, but to me a long line is much more inhumane than an e-collar when you have a hard charging dog. You run the risk of permanent damage to his neck or trachea.


I train with some hard headed dogs (chessies and a really hard hitting lab and a golden girlie). The line dragged with these dogs so they would not be yanked but the handlers could get to the dog before he/she was rewarded by their bird. But going to and from the line, these check cords helped a LOT with the line manners. And to reel in a dog that has the bird/bumper but is dancing around and/or playing keep away

Yes, these handlers now use the eCollar as they need to but are well schooled in the proper and humane way.

I should point out that I am old enough and have seen horrible things with the eCollar - the lack of variability, the dogs being burned, collars not shutting off etc. They are mechanical devices and can fail which helps form my ambivalence towards them. But regardless, the eCollar is a correction device to be used once the dogs has been taught what is expected. It is not a training device.

I do see they are kinder than before though


----------



## sterregold

GoldenSail said:


> Jill regardless of training methods I do hope you give field a try. It is a shame more people do not. For me, I've come to feel like the retriever part of golden retriever is the most important part of the standard.
> 
> 
> 
> Most important take-away for the long term good of the intergrity of our breed--right here!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## MarieP

hotel4dogs said:


> I am not saying this to stir the pot, but to me a long line is much more inhumane than an e-collar when you have a hard charging dog. You run the risk of permanent damage to his neck or trachea.


I think it probably depends on the way you are using it. I would definitely not use it to stop a dog going for a bird! And I'm sure you wouldn't either. I was just thinking in the context of the dog dancing around with the bird and refusing to deliver. Reeling the pup in shouldn't do any damage, I would hope...


----------



## hotel4dogs

It is not uncommon for it to be used to stop a dog from going for a bird/bumper. These guys can move 35 mph, which is about 50 feet per second, if they're hard charging. They're at the end of a 100 foot rope in 2 seconds, literally. And the force behind them....
That's why people advise you to wear gloves. Not to gently reel in a dog that's dancing around with a bird. I'm not strong enough to stop Tito with a long line if he's hell-bent on heading out (nor would I want to!).
Which is why I made the comment I did about the long lines being more inhumane than an e-collar, IMHAOWO.





mlopez said:


> I think it probably depends on the way you are using it. I would definitely not use it to stop a dog going for a bird! And I'm sure you wouldn't either. I was just thinking in the context of the dog dancing around with the bird and refusing to deliver. Reeling the pup in shouldn't do any damage, I would hope...


----------



## MarieP

hotel4dogs said:


> It is not uncommon for it to be used to stop a dog from going for a bird/bumper. These guys can move 35 mph, which is about 50 feet per second, if they're hard charging. They're at the end of a 100 foot rope in 2 seconds, literally. And the force behind them....
> That's why people advise you to wear gloves. Not to gently reel in a dog that's dancing around with a bird. I'm not strong enough to stop Tito with a long line if he's hell-bent on heading out (nor would I want to!).
> Which is why I made the comment I did about the long lines being more inhumane than an e-collar, IMHAOWO.



Dang! OK, I would not do this either. In that case, yes, e-collar is much more humane. BTW, what does IMHAOWO mean? I could guess but it probably would not be right...


----------



## hotel4dogs

In My Humble And Often Wrong Opinion


----------



## AmberSunrise

Holy Crap - aren't these handlers watching their dog? If a dog is going full bore, you need to drop the rope! But dogs don't generally start full bore, so why let them get that fast before doing something?



hotel4dogs said:


> It is not uncommon for it to be used to stop a dog from going for a bird/bumper. These guys can move 35 mph, which is about 50 feet per second, if they're hard charging. They're at the end of a 100 foot rope in 2 seconds, literally. And the force behind them....
> That's why people advise you to wear gloves. Not to gently reel in a dog that's dancing around with a bird. I'm not strong enough to stop Tito with a long line if he's hell-bent on heading out (nor would I want to!).
> Which is why I made the comment I did about the long lines being more inhumane than an e-collar, IMHAOWO.


----------



## hotel4dogs

The Monster Boy starts pretty much full bore....
People don't drop the rope because they don't want the dog to get the reward of the bird. Which I guess just comes back around to, in the wrong hands, any tool can be used in an inhumane way.
We used a long line on him for swimming before he was collar conditioned, but it's much easier to stop a swimming dog than a running one 



Sunrise said:


> Holy Crap - aren't these handlers watching their dog? If a dog is going full bore, you need to drop the rope! But dogs don't generally start full bore, so why let them get that fast before doing something?


----------



## EvanG

I'm a big fan of training ropes, but not at that distance. I don't use one at 100 feet, much less 100 _yards!_ That's not reasonable for dog or trainer. Most of my use - especially for stop work - is at about *6-10 feet* (on Mini-T, which is the only stopping I do with a rope).

EvanG


----------



## Tatnall

I am a little late to this but I will toss in my thoughts on some of the original questions.

Laurie is a great dog person and a great person. I have never trained with her or attended her seminars, but I judged a WC/WCX with her once and really enjoyed her perspective and learned a lot.

Positive Gun Dogs is a good resource that everyone should have. If nothing else, it has a good summary of OC. For my young dog, I taught him that the tone feature on the collar was essentially a clicker. I feel it helped in some areas, particularly early blind work. I could blow the whistle and when he sat, got the tone to show he wasn't a bad dog that we just needed to change direction. I feel it helped his confidence and his momentum. Regardless, I will do the same with future dogs if for no other reason that it may be a useful tool. I am sure there can be something of value in that button other than checking to see whether the collar is on. 

If you are using a rope (and I do with young dogs) wear gloves and make sure it is not wrapped around your ankle when you send the beast.

Can you train a dog to JH without a collar? Absolutely. Folks new to field work seem to get themselves all psyched out about HTs, but a dog with very little training at all, with a modicum of desire, should easily pass a JH test. It is not even that difficult to put a MH on a dog without the collar or FF. If you are an experienced trainer it should be no problem. If you are not or your dog is not that talented, you may very well fail some but when the tests set up to fit the dog's eye, you will pass.


----------



## EvanG

Tatnall said:


> It is not even that difficult to put a MH on a dog without the collar or FF. If you are an experienced trainer it should be no problem.


Do you say this because you've done it? How many dogs? Who are they? It's quite a bit easier to say things like this than to do them.

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

EvanG said:


> Do you say this because you've done it? How many dogs? Who are they? It's quite a bit easier to say things like this than to do them.
> 
> EvanG


OMG seriously. Easier said than done. MUCH easier.


----------



## GoldenSail

Adele Yunk has a nice little flat coat puppy she is currently training for field and obedience. She has a youtube channel. I don't think she is all positive but lots of her puppy stuff is right now. Might give you an idea. Here is her latest video working on whistle sits.

Sonic The FCR Whistle Sits - YouTube!


----------



## hotel4dogs

I believe most puppy programs (including Dan's) are mostly positive, meaning as close to all positive as is possible. For example, Dan teaches basic casting using food bowls. The puppies/novice dogs love it. IMO a good trainer doesn't ever correct for something when a puppy or dog is learning the skill. 
It isn't until later in the program, when you are fairly certain that a skill is well entrenched in the dog's behavior patterns that you will start seeing some corrections, and even then only if you are certain that the dog knew what you wanted, and made a decision to go in his/her own direction.




GoldenSail said:


> Adele Yunk has a nice little flat coat puppy she is currently training for field and obedience. She has a youtube channel. I don't think she is all positive but lots of her puppy stuff is right now. Might give you an idea. Here is her latest video working on whistle sits.
> 
> Sonic The FCR Whistle Sits - YouTube!


----------



## sterregold

GoldenSail said:


> Adele Yunk has a nice little flat coat puppy she is currently training for field and obedience. She has a youtube channel. I don't think she is all positive but lots of her puppy stuff is right now. Might give you an idea. Here is her latest video working on whistle sits.
> 
> Sonic The FCR Whistle Sits - YouTube!


Adele does use a collar etc. Her skill as a trainer means she has the puppy aspects of building the skills up first more refined than some of us have managed yet, but she does transition into a fairly traditional formalized program afterwards. She's a really nice lady and a terrific trainer!


----------



## Ljilly28

I watched lots of training sessions on You Tube with a friend in the same boat with her golden from a tiptop working pedigree (unlike Copley's. We had about 100 questions when we were done.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Evan, in the 1st video, around 2 minutes you are disciplining the pup by cuffing him under the chin and commanding SIT. This happens twice.

Do the commands SIT and HOLD cue the same response in your system? The pup is sitting, so why would the pup not be told to HOLD rather than SIT?

Is the leash wrapped around his leg for further control of the pup?


----------



## GoldenSail

sterregold said:


> Adele does use a collar etc. Her skill as a trainer means she has the puppy aspects of building the skills up first more refined than some of us have managed yet, but she does transition into a fairly traditional formalized program afterwards. She's a really nice lady and a terrific trainer!


That's what I thought but I wasn't sure. Still, very nice work and someone who does not want to use force could maybe get some ideas from this stuff. Obviously, I do not mind using force when it's fair.


----------



## tippykayak

I saw those videos too, and I was wondering why the dog was being told "sit" when his front legs were pulled up with the rope. And then he's hit, fairly hard, in the face a couple of times. I believe you call this a "jaw slap?" Is Sunrise right that you meant "hold?" or were you trying to get him to sit, and if so, is the rope tangle an accident or part of what you're doing?

And in the second video, you narrate that the dog probably won't feel a level one, but then at about 3:05, when the on-screen graphic indicates you've pressed the button, he rears up and throws his head. Is that because you're pulling on the rope or is that his reaction to the stim?

I can only assume that my inexperience with your methods means I'm missing something in my understanding.


----------



## MarieP

Ljilly28 said:


> I watched lots of training sessions on You Tube with a friend in the same boat with her golden from a tiptop working pedigree (unlike Copley's. We had about 100 questions when we were done.



OK, I will give you my take on these. In the first, with teaching "here," I didn't use a second line. I use one line that I walk around with. My partner has the e-collar and I handle the rope. When the dog is distracted, I give a "here," pull dog in, and praise when he arrives. My partner tells me when she is stimming him with the collar. 

I don't like to prevent my dog from being right. If he figures that he won't get corrected if he stays around me, great. But there are always distractions that can get him, rather than another person holding him back. I also do not stim all the way back to me. One momentary, then another if he gets held up on the way back. I'm sure Evan has reasons for doing as he does in this video. But there are different ways.

On the second video... The rope, I think, is just looped around the dog on accident. I don't know why he corrected the dog for not sitting, because the dog was trying, just couldn't because of the rope. I'm not a big fan of the training going on in this video. But again, I'm sure Evan can explain why he did what he did. I'd be interested to hear if he would do it differently in a similar situation. 

I like this http://ponderosakennels.com/PNMethod[Full.Text].WithPhotos_03-09-07_-LR.pdf and his youtube videos are good too.
PatNolan's Channel - YouTube


----------



## Tatnall

EvanG said:


> Do you say this because you've done it? How many dogs? Who are they? It's quite a bit easier to say things like this than to do them.
> 
> EvanG


You are right--you caught me. I FF my dogs and train with the collar, so I have not done it. However, I have put a lot of MH on dogs, including dogs that were not very talented, and believe that if you have enough time and money you can put a MH on a billy goat. HTs are just not very difficult and I do know more than a few have MH dogs that were never FFed and never used an ecollar. 

In fact, saw this happen at a HT my club put on a few weeks ago. The Dog had never been FFed, owner didn't use the collar and the dog had basically no retrieving desire whatsoever, which helped in this particular test since it was only a breaking test. It passed and got the MH. It was not 6 for 6 by any means--it had taken years--and that dog would probably have never passed any test I set up back when I was active in the HT game but it can be done. 

My point is this: You don't want to use the collar to train your dog? Fine with me. I think you are making things harder since it is an excellent tool, but you can still title your dogs in HTs without it. You don't want to FF? Fine by me. I think that is a much bigger mistake than training amish, but it is your dog. 

If someone asks my opinion how to train their dog, I will tell them to follow Smartworks or TRT. But, I am not going to freak out if someone wants to do something different. I would probably encourage them to get as many dogs as possible and start running FTs on my circuit


----------



## EvanG

I like and appreciate these posts. What I like most is that they’re questions! It is much easier to learn about a subject when asking good questions like these, than to condemn what isn’t understood on the surface. Most of us are old enough to have learned that not everything is as it seems – especially in dog training.


Sunrise said:


> Evan, in the 1st video, around 2 minutes you are disciplining the pup by cuffing him under the chin and commanding SIT. This happens twice.





Sunrise said:


> Do the commands SIT and HOLD cue the same response in your system?


That’s an astute observation. The answer is a conditional “yes”. As I expound on this in the Smartwork material the command “sit” has more components that for a dog to assume an upright position with his rump on the ground and his front legs relatively straight. Before outlining my core ‘sit’ standard, I want to also note that as the dog progresses in its training the standard takes on other elements. For example, when we’re first formalizing “sit” our dogs are not yet steady. But we reinforce steadiness by enforcing “sit”. But let’s talk about other components.

First, my standard for sit is this:











Of course the ribbons are in the way (wink, wink!), and he's leaning slightly because of their presence, however the position is like a tripod. The dog’s front legs are straight and vertical, the rump is in contact with the ground (not just near it), and both rear feet are tucked squarely – forming the tripod position. Further, I require the dog to sit immediately, rather than oozing into it!

However, anyone who has had a truly high drive dog has usually also dealt with some noise issues, as they whine, bark, or even scream at falling birds. My treatment for this is enforcing “sit” by dovetailing “Quiet” into the ‘sit’ standard. This occurs over a few sessions where we go through ‘quiet therapy’ on field marks. To outline the whole treatment would take too much space for this post, but it begins by enforcing “quiet”, and evolving into “quiet”/”sit”, and then into just “sit”. The enforcement measures are something we can talk about later. But that is where this dog was in his training. He knew that “sit” also meant to do it quietly due to his prior education.


Sunrise said:


> The pup is sitting, so why would the pup not be told to HOLD rather than SIT?





Sunrise said:


> Is the leash wrapped around his leg for further control of the pup?


The “sit” rather than “hold” is explained above. The rope around his leg was an accident, and not a part of training practice. It’s also very rare.


tippykayak said:


> I saw those videos too, and I was wondering why the dog was being told "sit" when his front legs were pulled up with the rope. And then he's hit, fairly hard, in the face a couple of times. I believe you call this a "jaw slap?"


Throughout the retriever training world it’s called “cuffing”. As you have also asked a very good and astute question about this I also want to take time to explain something about that particular dog. We had conducted this breeding, and sold him to a friend as a pup. He was a start-up pro, and wanted a good one to raise as kind of a show piece. It didn’t work out for him to make that his career, and we bought the dog back when he was just over a year old. Frankly, his Basics were nowhere near adequate for a dog of this caliber, and we had to totally redo all his Basics. One of the worst things about is was what I call a ‘noisy mouth’; chewing and chomping. He isn’t hard mouthed, but rather is so excited and highly driven that this had become chronic. That’s why he was getting that amount of firm correction. That part of the “force on birds” process usually involves almost no pressure, since the dog at that point would have a much better start.


tippykayak said:


> Is Sunrise right that you meant "hold?" or were you trying to get him to sit, and if so, is the rope tangle an accident or part of what you're doing?


You’re right about the rope. It just got slightly tangled, and clearly did not impede his ability to work.


tippykayak said:


> And in the second video, you narrate that the dog probably won't feel a level one, but then at about 3:05, when the on-screen graphic indicates you've pressed the button, he rears up and throws his head. Is that because you're pulling on the rope or is that his reaction to the stimulation?


No. By the way, that’s my dog Moose at 4 months of age, and he wasn’t yet showing me that he recognized the pressure. But he was raised on OC, and has always been a very willing pup, so he was very eager to come when called. He understood being roped to “here”, and was over reacting. That isn’t too unusual to some degree in willing pups.


tippykayak said:


> I can only assume that my inexperience with your methods means I'm missing something in my understanding.


That’s okay. That’s why I’m so pleased to see these questions! Thanks for the opportunity to explain!



mlopez said:


> OK, I will give you my take on these. In the first, with teaching "here," I didn't use a second line. I use one line that I walk around with. My partner has the e-collar and I handle the rope. When the dog is distracted, I give a "here," pull dog in, and praise when he arrives. My partner tells me when she is stimming him with the collar.





mlopez said:


> I don't like to prevent my dog from being right. If he figures that he won't get corrected if he stays around me, great.


Yes, that sounds very different. It sounds more like cold-burn conditioning than conditioning to a specific command. I require of myself that a dog must know any command associated with e-collar stimulus, and that the process of conditioning is entirely focused on previously taught commands.


mlopez said:


> I want to make clear here that the reason I don’t endorse just conditioning the dog to “stay around me” is that I’m conditioning for, and consequently reinforcing a previously taught command; “Here”. One rope is directly between the dog and trainer to assure that he comes when called. The other rope is assure that he does not come UNTIL called; defining the formal command. That is also why I don’t require a pup going through this conditioning to have to concentrate on any other commands, like “sit” or “stay” (which I rarely use). He can’t come until called, and must come when he is called. And all of that is controlled with very little pressure and no punishment. But to get into why I use those terms this way requires us to move beyond basic OC terms, and into the language of e-collar conditioning. It’s not all the same in practical terms.
> 
> 
> mlopez said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are always distractions that can get him, rather than another person holding him back. I also do not stim all the way back to me. One momentary, then another if he gets held up on the way back. I'm sure Evan has reasons for doing as he does in this video. But there are different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Right on both counts! There surely are more ways than one, and Evan surely does have rationale for why he does things this way! One of the best of those reasons is uniform success with minimal pressure.
> 
> 
> mlopez said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the second video... The rope, I think, is just looped around the dog on accident. I don't know why he corrected the dog for not sitting, because the dog was trying, just couldn't because of the rope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> mlopez said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a big fan of the training going on in this video. But again, I'm sure Evan can explain why he did what he did. I'd be interested to hear if he would do it differently in a similar situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Overall, the technique is the same. But the application of sound training is still on a dog-to-dog basis, and I explained above why this dog was an exception in terms of a couple areas like the use of “sit”, and the amount of pressure.
> 
> 
> Tatnall said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this: You don't want to use the collar to train your dog? Fine with me. I think you are making things harder since it is an excellent tool, but you can still title your dogs in HTs without it. You don't want to FF? Fine by me. I think that is a much bigger mistake than training amish, but it is your dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fully agree. It’s very much like arguing that a pneumatic nail driver is excessive, when it’s merely more efficient. You can still drive nails with a hammer if you like. But if you’re building a house, and had access to a driver, why on earth would to choose to drive them all with a hammer? The same ends are met, but one approach is far more efficient.
> 
> 
> Tatnall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone asks my opinion how to train their dog, I will tell them to follow Smartwork or TRT. But, I am not going to freak out if someone wants to do something different. I would probably encourage them to get as many dogs as possible and start running FTs on my circuit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed!
Click to expand...




mlopez said:


> EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> That’s why he was getting that amount of firm correction. That part of the “force on birds” process usually involves almost no pressure, since the dog at that point would have a much better start.You’re right about the rope. It just got slightly tangled, and clearly did not impede his ability to work.


This is where I just can't get my head around your training style. If I had a dog tangled in a rope like that, I just can't see yanking the rope over and over that hard, particularly since, as you say, the rope is tangled around him unintentionally. And then you hit him in the face, twice, with significant force, repeating "sit," even though one of his paws is caught up in the line (though you get him untangled before hitting him the second time). But I can't see hitting a dog like that in _any_ situation, so I get that I'm coming from a really, really different place with you.




EvanG said:


> No. By the way, that’s my dog Moose at 4 months of age, and he wasn’t yet showing me that he recognized the pressure. But he was raised on OC, and has always been a very willing pup, so he was very eager to come when called. He understood being roped to “here”, and was over reacting.


What is he overreacting to? The stim or being pulled by the line? It looks like you pull on the line and hit the button at about the same time. Or is it the combo that causes him to overreact? And if a dog reacts like that, do you take it as a signal that you need to recalibrate what you're doing for the next attempt? Or does some other signal show you that he recognizes the pressure and that it's an appropriate amount?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> This is where I just can't get my head around your training style. If I had a dog tangled in a rope like that, I just can't see yanking the rope over and over that hard, particularly since, as you say, the rope is tangled around him unintentionally.


Well, let's start there. It obviously appears to you that the tangle was significant. It was not. Remember, I was there.:wavey: The tangle didn't impede his ability to work, and corrections need to be in the moment.

Second, I did not hit him in the face. I cuffed him under the chin and/or on the bridge of the muzzle in direct response to his mouthing of the bird, as he had been corrected for many times before.


tippykayak said:


> And then you hit him in the face, twice, with significant force, repeating "sit,"


The purpose of corrections - expecially with corporal force - is to change behavior. Had he changed his behavior there would have been no further corrections. The second critical component of corrections; consistency.


tippykayak said:


> even though one of his paws is caught up in the line (though you get him untangled before hitting him the second time). But I can't see hitting a dog like that in _any_ situation, so I get that I'm coming from a really, really different place with you.


Yes, I'm confident that's true. I am not willing to squander this otherwise fantastic dog in behalf of unacceptable mouth habits secondary to his enormous drive. 




 


tippykayak said:


> What is he overreacting to? The stim or being pulled by the line?


What you're seeing is not a reaction. It's an impulsive action resulting from his desire to come to me, which he wanted to do before any rope work or stimulus was applied. Initially, I just said "here" and let him come. Soon I had to begin restraining him until he was called to isolate the command/response sequence.


tippykayak said:


> It looks like you pull on the line and hit the button at about the same time. Or is it the combo that causes him to overreact?


The command & stimulus arrive together. However, at no time did he ever over react to it. His responses were excellent. As many pups do, he became eager to come to me. That's when stimulus is reduced, and subsequently done away with.


tippykayak said:


> And if a dog reacts like that, do you take it as a signal that you need to recalibrate what you're doing for the next attempt? Or does some other signal show you that he recognizes the pressure and that it's an appropriate amount?


If I see any excessive reaction to stimulus level, it goes down, if not away in that session. The idea is *NEVER* to overwhelm a dog with pressure, but rather to change behavior. The dog, not an arbitrary training practice, determines how much pressure is involved. Change behavior/pressure stops = conditioning to pressure, and it occurs through numerous processes. The dog running BB Blinds in the video above is the same one in the other video forcing on birds. He now has excellent mouth habits, and is a low maintenance dog. His first trainer planted many bad seeds in his poor and insufficient training.

EvanG


----------



## Fangold

Ljilly28 said:


> Copley and I signed up for a seminar with Lorrie Jolly that will focus on positive training techniques to replace force fetch. I'm interested to see what it will be like.
> 
> It would be nice to post other resources here for people who are interested in positive training for field work or just considering their options with a new dog. We have a handful of GRF members doing nice work without using shock collars and ear pinches, and I am interested in learning about their techniques and strategies for training. Although it is far from the main stream here in this forum, I am fascinated by force free training


Gundog Training Forum • View topic - A Program for Teaching a Reliable 
I am going to use this procedure on my 9 month old boy in the new year. It's a little involved but sounds good. I don't like punishing to motivate the desired behaviour, would rather reward for correct behaviour. The dog is not an Xbox controller!


----------



## tippykayak

Alright, we've got haywire multiquoting going on, so I'm not going to re-multi-quote. Just the salient points:

First, I fail to see a difference between "hitting in the face" and "cuffing under the chin." Is there any other difference beside wording?

Second, I believe that you were there, but I actually think the camera has a better angle than you do on the dog's left foot as it's looped in the line. You're on the other side of the dog. I think the video speaks for itself, though, so no need to debate the point. You were there.

Third, you seem to state that your two options were to hit the dog or squander the dog. That's can't be what you mean. Is cuffing the only way to teach a dog not to mouth inappropriately?

Fourth, overreacting was your word, not mine. You originally said "He understood being roped to “here”, and was over reacting." I'm just trying to figure out where you think the rearing comes from. The dog is standing still until you give the command and apply the stim. If the rearing is coming from his desire to come to you, what's the point of the stim? And if it's just from a desire to come to you, why doesn't he just come? Is the rope holding him not released fast enough?


----------



## K9-Design

Haven't these same videos of Evans with the mouthing dog already been posted in previous threads and torn apart ad nauseum? Will anything else Evan or Tippy says change anything about the opinions on it? Nope.


----------



## tippykayak

My last post consists of three honest questions about what I'm seeing in the vids. Evan is free to respond to them or ignore them. Unlike some folks, I have a deep interest in really understanding alternative ways of training.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> My last post consists of three honest questions about what I'm seeing in the vids. Evan is free to respond to them or ignore them. Unlike some folks, I have a deep interest in really understanding alternative ways of training.


That's nice but it didn't answer my question. Haven't you already discussed this SAME VIDEO of the mouthing dog? Is there more for you to digest from it?
You would need to actually field train a dog to understand ANY way of training, alternative to your own or not.


----------



## marsh mop

> Haven't these same videos of Evans with the mouthing dog already been posted in previous threads and torn apart ad nauseum? Will anything else Evan or Tippy says change anything about the opinions on it? Nope.


You are so right Anney. The same old story. Every few months the waters are chummed up and then it gets ugly and everybody runs out and some scream abuse. These thread are a disease that bring seldom seen players into this part of the forum. I don't care how you train your dog as long as you never abuse your dog. I use an ecollar as do many more on here. My dog is happy and confident, so whats the problem?
Jim


----------



## Radarsdad

I would like to ask this question.
Have any of these Positive Reinforcement trainers ever told their dog *NO*???
Is *NO* positive or negative reinforcement???
It is a shame that some have never scratched the surface of their pups capabilities.
MM and Anney, same song keeps popping up with regularity.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> That's nice but it didn't answer my question. Haven't you already discussed this SAME VIDEO of the mouthing dog? Is there more for you to digest from it?
> You would need to actually field train a dog to understand ANY way of training, alternative to your own or not.


That video has been brought up before on the forum, I think, but I don't remember the exact thread, and I don't believe I asked these questions last time. I'm not sure what's so threatening about my curiosity that it requires a hit squad of the usual suspects. And I'm here to learn, so if Evan is willing to take the time to answer my questions, I appreciate his honesty and willingness to engage.

If you don't like the thread, don't read the thread. If your only point is that you're more experienced, you're welcome to make it over and over, but it doesn't negate my right to ask questions nor my ability to learn. Perhaps you only learn by doing, but I can certainly understand things by reading about them and talking about them.


----------



## tippykayak

marsh mop said:


> You are so right Anney. The same old story. Every few months the waters are chummed up and then it gets ugly and everybody runs out and some scream abuse. These thread are a disease that bring seldom seen players into this part of the forum. I don't care how you train your dog as long as you never abuse your dog. I use an ecollar as do many more on here. My dog is happy and confident, so whats the problem?
> Jim


Did you read the thread? It was a request for advice on training with alternative techniques. What's so threatening about that?

Nobody "screamed abuse." In fact, I think you're the first person to use the word in the thread. And nobody is arguing against e-collars. What's so threatening about questions?

Nobody said your dog wasn't happy, and nobody questioned your methods. So why are you suddenly here to defend those things?


----------



## tippykayak

Radarsdad said:


> I would like to ask this question.
> Have any of these Positive Reinforcement trainers ever told their dog *NO*???


If anybody claiming to be a positive reinforcement trainer comes to the thread, you can ask that person. If you're asking me, I've certainly said "no" to my dogs on many occasions.



Radarsdad said:


> Is *NO* positive or negative reinforcement???


It's either positive punishment or negative reinforcement, depending on context. Why do you ask?



Radarsdad said:


> It is a shame that some have never scratched the surface of their pups capabilities.


And you have? Then why not help instead of tearing other folks down?


----------



## marsh mop

> [Did you read the thread? It was a request for advice on training with alternative techniques. What's so threatening about that./QUOTE]
> Nothing, is theatening about the request. It became the SHOCK colllar on page two or three.
> Bring on the positve traning. I am all in for it!
> Jim


----------



## Loisiana

Hey I can add some relevant information to this thread!

On the topic of telling a dog to sit for improper mouthing habits: I have spoken to Lorie Jolly on that exact topic. I had a problem with Flip mouthing and she said she also tells a dog to sit and not hold. Her reasoning is two fold: a sit has a set standard and it does not include mouthing, so if the dog is mouthing then it is not meeting the definition of sit she has given to the dog. The other is that she believes that by focusing on the "hold" you are just making the dog think about it more and making them more likely to do it. She wants to take the dog's mind away from the mouthing, not draw attention to it. It's kind of like if someone tells you to not to scratch, you're going to get really itchy all of a sudden.


----------



## EvanG

Loisiana said:


> Hey I can add some relevant information to this thread!
> 
> On the topic of telling a dog to sit for improper mouthing habits: I have spoken to Lorie Jolly on that exact topic. I had a problem with Flip mouthing and she said she also tells a dog to sit and not hold. Her reasoning is two fold: a sit has a set standard and it does not include mouthing, so if the dog is mouthing then it is not meeting the definition of sit she has given to the dog. The other is that she believes that by focusing on the "hold" you are just making the dog think about it more and making them more likely to do it. She wants to take the dog's mind away from the mouthing, not draw attention to it. It's kind of like if someone tells you to not to scratch, you're going to get really itchy all of a sudden.


And that ties into the fact that the 'sit' standard grows and expands as the dog advances and matures. The late Rex Carr called it "Expanding the dog's concentration" as what began as a simple function is used to bind other aspects of fieldwork together.

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

Great explanation Jodie!
Many people do not realize that in field work "SIT" means a lot more than put your butt on the ground. It means stay, sit straight, look forward, look out, hold still, and a variety of other things. It also means to SIT in exclusion of other behaviors, exactly as you explained.


----------



## sammydog

So would that fall under the umbrella of "indirect pressure"? I read this article awhile ago (Indirect Pressure) but I can still never quite wrap my head around why indirect pressure is effective. I can understand that it is, I have seen it. I just don't get why...

I also love that explanation Jodie! You must be a teacher 

I think I can see ways that I can try this without the physical pressure. I think I am going to need to start working on those sits! :


----------



## K9-Design

sammydog said:


> So would that fall under the umbrella of "indirect pressure"? I read this article awhile ago (Indirect Pressure) but I can still never quite wrap my head around why indirect pressure is effective. I can understand that it is, I have seen it. I just don't get why...


It's hard to understand why a DOG would respond to indirect pressure but here's the best analogy I can think up. If you show up late to work and get yelled at by the boss, you are on your best behavior for the rest of the day. You got corrected for one thing and it changed the behavior of something else (_indirect_ pressure).


----------



## Tatnall

K9-Design said:


> It's hard to understand why a DOG would respond to indirect pressure but here's the best analogy I can think up. If you show up late to work and get yelled at by the boss, you are on your best behavior for the rest of the day. You got corrected for one thing and it changed the behavior of something else (_indirect_ pressure).


That is basically the way I think about it. The best description I have seen was made a long time ago by Jerry Harris on RTF. He said:



> You send your teenage son to the mailbox. On the way he spots the neighbor’s voluptuous daughter in a bikini (factor). He immediately starts in her direction (succumbing to the factor).
> 
> 
> You yell (whistle) Son!!!!!! (Handle). His eyes get back into focus and turns toward you and says “WHAT??” (responding to the whistle) For the Amish folks, you walk up to him and whop him upside the head!!! (correction=indirect pressure). You then say ‘You were told to go get the mail, now do what you were told!!!
> 
> 
> That my friends is Indirect Pressure and why it works.”


----------



## Ljilly28

marsh mop said:


> [ It became the SHOCK colllar on page two or three.
> 
> 
> 
> Shock collar, I had thought until a few days ago, was the most straightforward term, a synonym with plenty of integrity bc it calls a spade and so forth. I was trying to avoid words like stim and electronic bc they seem like euphemisms.
> 
> My close friend Annalise is a research psychiatrist, and she doesnt like the term shock therapy being used instead of electroconvulsive therapy. She says there is a gruesome element attached to images of electric shocks- prisoners in the electric chair etc- that people cannot help but associate. Words are powerful in terms of shaping perception, public and otherwise, so I understand why the term shock collar could be perjurative.
Click to expand...


----------



## sterregold

Ljilly28 said:


> marsh mop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shock collar, I had thought until a few days ago, was the most straightforward term, a synonym with plenty of integrity bc it calls a spade and so forth. I was trying to avoid words like stim and electronic bc they seem like euphemisms.
> 
> My close friend Annalise is a research psychiatrist, and she doesnt like the term shock therapy being used instead of electroconvulsive therapy. She says there is a gruesome element attached to images of electric shocks- prisoners in the electric chair etc- that people cannot help but associate. Words are powerful in terms of shaping perception, public and otherwise, so I understand why the term shock collar could be perjurative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for recognizing this!! Denotative meaning is one thing, but the connotations are something else. Word choice has a powerful rhetorical impact. Just talked about this recently with my epistemology students!
Click to expand...


----------



## hotel4dogs

epistemology 
new word for me!


----------



## Radarsdad

> It's either positive punishment or negative reinforcement, depending on context. Why do you ask?


It is a correction and a form of negative reinforcement. There is no positive correction other than you change the dogs behavior with it. Ecollars use is a another tool to change behavior at distance where they can blow you off and know they can get away with it and the reward of disobedience is greater than the risk of correction. 
Yep, not only scratched the surface but going deeper.


----------



## sterregold

hotel4dogs said:


> epistemology
> new word for me!


Hee hee! It is a branch of philosophy.

_
Epistemology is one of the core areas of philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. Epistemology has been primarily concerned with propositional knowledge, that is, knowledge that such-and-such is true, rather than other forms of knowledge, for example, knowledge how to such-and-such. There is a vast array of views about propositional knowledge, but one virtually universal presupposition is that knowledge is true belief, but not mere true belief . For example, lucky guesses or true beliefs resulting from wishful thinking are not knowledge. Thus, a central question in epistemology is: what must be added to true beliefs to convert them into knowledge? (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
_ 
So we explore the idea of knowledge as justified true belief, and the specific ways knowledge is generated and shared. There is a propositional element to knowledge (ie you need to be able to "put it out there") and language is pretty integral to that so we spend a bit of time focusing on the implications of the very nature of language. Sometimes what you are saying is not simply what you are saying!


----------



## tippykayak

Radarsdad said:


> It is a correction and a form of negative reinforcement. There is no positive correction other than you change the dogs behavior with it. Ecollars use is a another tool to change behavior at distance where they can blow you off and know they can get away with it and the reward of disobedience is greater than the risk of correction.
> Yep, not only scratched the surface but going deeper.


Positive punishment is a behavioral term for an aversive stimulus added with the intent of reducing the frequency of a behavior. Negative reinforcement refers to the removal of an aversive stimulus with the intent of increasing the frequency of a behavior. "Correction" is a dog training term, not one that has an accepted definition in behavioral science, and people use it to mean lots of different things, most commonly positive punishment.

E-collars deliver positive punishment when you press the button to get a dog to stop doing something or to make him less likely to do it in the future. They deliver negative reinforcement when you hold the button down and the let it go when the dog does what's desired. That is, of course, just one way of talking about them. Some aspects of dog training are too complex, in my opinion, to reduce to pure operant conditioning terminology.

Even so, this confusion is precisely why I don't like to use "positive" to mean "without aversive stimuli" in a training conversation, since it blurs the lay definition of "positive" (constructive, optimistic) with the scientific definition (adding something). I say all this because if we're going to use terms like "negative reinforcement," which is drawn directly from behavioral science, it confuses the issue to also use lay definitions of the same terms.

And again I say, if you've amassed some expertise in field training, and are claiming to have more than other posters, why not help instead of just coming to the thread to ridicule the idea of training without (or with a minimum of) aversive stimuli?


----------



## sterregold

Tippy,
A lot of solid advice and resources were provided to the OP through this thread. It was one of the most productive discussions of this type that we have managed to have. The accusatory tone of your approach to Evan is dragging this back into the muckslinging quagmire of old. And please no one try to justify it with "He did it first...." That doesn't fly in the schoolyard, and it should not fly here.

It is not new discussion. It is not productive. So "don't bite"!

Please simply agree to disagree, and allow the useful advice in this thread to stand for those who wish to use it, so that each trainer can find their path with their dog.


----------



## EvanG

sammydog said:


> So would that fall under the umbrella of "indirect pressure"?


In a broad sense, “yes”. Provided the command is enforced, it is enforcing one command, and getting compliance with multiple aspects of the dog’s work; aka other commands or skills. I have another analogy that will follow.


sammydog said:


> I read this article awhile ago (Indirect Pressure) but I can still never quite wrap my head around why indirect pressure is effective. I can understand that it is, I have seen it. I just don't get why...


Stay tuned!



Radarsdad said:


> I would like to ask this question.





Radarsdad said:


> Have any of these Positive Reinforcement trainers ever told their dog *NO*???


Yes they do. But many of them don’t say it with much authority. Often in their diatribes it appears the religious adherence to remaining “positive” trumps doing what is necessary to make their training reliable for fieldwork.


Radarsdad said:


> Is *NO* positive or negative reinforcement???


It’s neither. It’s a command that should simply mean “Stop doing what you’re doing.” It should have powerful authority. When a trainer ‘fills the air’ with it by repeating it constantly, while not enforcing in adequately, it becomes nagging; the least effective of all training.


Radarsdad said:


> It is a shame that some have never scratched the surface of their pups capabilities.


It is a larger shame that someone always seems to think that by making this type of assertion that they have established a position of authority in the discussion. Of course, lacking any credentials, little authority can be logically assumed. In other words, I hear ya'!


Radarsdad said:


> MM and Anney, same song keeps popping up with regularity.


We hold these truths to be self evident!


K9-Design said:


> It's hard to understand why a DOG would respond to indirect pressure but here's the best analogy I can think up. If you show up late to work and get yelled at by the boss, you are on your best behavior for the rest of the day. You got corrected for one thing and it changed the behavior of something else (_indirect_ pressure).


 I think for anyone with less than 10-20 years of experience that article by Marilyn Fender is too abstract, and in some ways convoluted to be a useful explanation. Frankly, I think your own analogy works beautifully. Anney, I truly hope we end up training together sometime. You really seem to have a good grasp of the principles that drive sound training.

Now for my own analogy of Indirect Pressure. This comes from an early experience training with Hall of Fame trainer, the late D.L. Walters. I watched him and his assistant running his truckload of dogs on blind with obvious factors, the key one being casting off a point midway to the blind. The cast was challenging for several reasons, but the key one was that it was a cast into the wind. It took some time for me to conceptualize what I was seeing as he ran dog after dog. But here is what I observed regarding Indirect Pressure.

Each dog required its own degree of explanation (the handle/stop & cast sequence), and each one required its own individual measure of pressure for correction, except perhaps one or two that cast off without refusal. But what I noticed as the day went on, and we ran many other set-ups after the water blind, is that the dogs that had been corrected on the water blind were nearly always much sharper and more obedient in all other aspects of their work for the rest of the day. Their consciences had been pricked during the correction on the blind, and they were on their best (or at least better) behavior for an extended period. Less pressure/better performance = more successful day’s training.

I hope that helps in some way to clarify why IP works so well and so reliably.

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

I took Flip to a private obedience lesson last year, and the trainer is also training in field. On directed jumping Flip would repeatedly run slightly towards the correct jump but would not actually jump, just raced into me. I thought he did not really understand the exercise yet as he was still young. The trainer watched him and decided that he did know what he was supposed to do, but he wasn't putting any real focus into his work. She had me bring him to the set up area, tell him a firm "sit" with a pretty good pop on the prong collar, and gosh darn it if that dog didn't do perfect directed jumping after that.


----------



## tippykayak

sterregold said:


> Tippy,
> A lot of solid advice and resources were provided to the OP through this thread. It was one of the most productive discussions of this type that we have managed to have. The accusatory tone of your approach to Evan is dragging this back into the muckslinging quagmire of old. And please no one try to justify it with "He did it first...." That doesn't fly in the schoolyard, and it should not fly here.


Nowhere do I mucksling at Evan. I'm asking genuine questions to satisfy my curiosity as to why he does what he does with those dogs. You are _assuming_ that I want to accuse Evan of something. If I wanted to, I would. My questions are not accusations, and if they seem to have that tone, I apologize. I am still curious as to the role of the rope and the stim in the recall video, and I am still curious if the mouth skills can be taught without cuffing and how that would be accomplished. 

Obviously, I don't at all agree with the handling of the rope and the striking of the dog in the first video, but I tried to be really friendly and neutral in my questions, since I want to understand the rationale behind it. I have no interest in condemning it right now. If my unhappiness to watch a dog handled in that fashion somehow bled through (or you're perceiving it because you are rightly assuming that I was unhappy with it), I really am sorry. My questions are real, though, and they're pertinent to the thread. 



sterregold said:


> It is not new discussion. It is not productive. So "don't bite"!


The way Evan uses stimulation in teaching recall is absolutely new to me, and I want to understand it instead of dismissing it. Please allow me to ask questions relevant to that understanding, and please do not assume that I am baiting him or somehow trying to paint him as a bad guy. He posted those videos himself and has shown a willingness to explain his reasoning, and I am highly curious as to what the reasoning is. I am not trying to tell him he's wrong. I want to understand him.

And Evan, to my knowledge, is perfectly capable of either defending himself or ignoring me. He seems to have chosen the second, so what's the problem?


----------



## sterregold

The problem is you are highjacking this thread. Please do not claim to be ignorant of the rhetorical impact of your tone or word choices. Start a new thread to discuss those specifics if that is what you want to do. Your literal word may bear what you claim above but your consistent tone and approach does not. I am frustrated that a useful thread is sinking back into this fractiousness.


----------



## sammydog

Thanks for all the examples!

Now the million dollar question. I wonder if there is there a way for the same concept to be used without pressure? I ask this for myself, not to try and change you all...

I thought about it last night, and I think the answer is no... But that is really why I want to understand the why... What is it that makes indirect pressure effective and can I replicate it...

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> The way Evan uses stimulation in teaching recall is absolutely new to me, and I want to understand it instead of dismissing it.


Not that this was phrased as a question, but I'm happy to treat it as one. I kind of wish this had been a question, and that it had come much earlier in this discussion.

I don't teach with pressure. In fact in my first book, Smartwork for Retrievers volume one; Basics and Transition, I have devoted a lot of text to exactly this topic. The training continuum for effective fieldwork is a 3-phased process:

Teach
Force
Reinforce
What is seen in that video clip is a brief exerpt from the Smarwork Puppy Program DVD on the subject of "E-collar conditioning to Here" for puppies 4 months old and older. The teaching was done much earlier. The actual amount of force (pressure) used in this application is very mild, and conditions the pup to acknowledge that form of pressure as enforcement fot a command he already knew. This how people learn about something they might observe, but not understand at first. Please ask. I'm always happy to answer genuine questions.


tippykayak said:


> He posted those videos himself and has shown a willingness to explain his reasoning, and I am highly curious as to what the reasoning is. I am not trying to tell him he's wrong. I want to understand him.


I think we can communicate at length on that premise. I do it all the time.


tippykayak said:


> And Evan, to my knowledge, is perfectly capable of either defending himself or ignoring me. He seems to have chosen the second, so what's the problem?


Just waiting for a question. 

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

sammydog said:


> Thanks for all the examples!
> 
> Now the million dollar question. I wonder if there is there a way for the same concept to be used without pressure? I ask this for myself, not to try and change you all...
> 
> I thought about it last night, and I think the answer is no... But that is really why I want to understand the why... What is it that makes indirect pressure effective and can I replicate it...
> 
> Just thinking out loud.


If the formula involves *Indirect Pressure*, then "pressure" is a necessary component. Are you clear on what 'Direct Pressure' is? It would help to start there in order to distinguish it from 'Indirect Pressure'.

EvanG


----------



## sammydog

Yes I do understand. I try not to use physical pressure in my training.

I am just bringing this back to the thread topic "Positive Training in the Field" which I would rather call Field Training Without Physical Aversives... That is what I am interested in. As I mentioned before I do think an understanding of traditional field training is an important part. I own and have read your Basics and Transition book.

I thought awhile before posting again... And the reason I posted is there are so many bright, creative and experienced trainers on here, I would love to brainstorm about things, even if it is not the way they train their own dogs.


----------



## AmberSunrise

My stab at why indirect pressure works is

The dog is trying to avoid the application of more pressure/corrections.

This may be simplified, but to avoid more corrections, the dog will be more cautious about offering responses that have not previously been rewarded or at least not corrected.

To use a previous example:
You get yelled at by your boss, you don't want to be fired (hey you need to pay the mortgage/eat), you are really cautious for awhile. I think your reaction would also depend somewhat on why you were yelled at - was it justified? You try harder. Was it not justified? You might start offering half hearted responses or possibly shut down.


----------



## tippykayak

sterregold said:


> The problem is you are highjacking this thread. Please do not claim to be ignorant of the rhetorical impact of your tone or word choices. Start a new thread to discuss those specifics if that is what you want to do. Your literal word may bear what you claim above but your consistent tone and approach does not. I am frustrated that a useful thread is sinking back into this fractiousness.


The original creator of the thread is the one who posted Evan's videos, not me, so I don't see how questions about them are not germane. I'm not asking Evan about cuffing because I'm interested in judging him. You either feel it's wrong to hit a dog or you don't, and I'm not interested in making a point about it. I'm interested in what one would do other than cuffing to achieve the same ends, which is highly relevant to the original purpose of the thread.

I am not ignorant of my tone or word choices, and I understand why I'm being read the way I am. A lot of it has to do with my perception among a small group of H&F participants, not anything I've actually said in this thread. However, I am currently asking questions that, in my eyes, deserve answering, and they're legitimate questions about the intent of training choices. They're not questions about the ethics or morality of those choices, nor are they Socratic traps. Whatever you'd like to believe, if you reread what I've written, I've stated where I actually disagreed and moved on, and all the questions I've continued to ask Evan are legitimate ones about what he's doing and why.

Ignore me if you think my input is irrelevant. However, I find it a bit inconsistent for you to lecture me on tone and hijacking and then ignore the people who happen to agree with you who are much more personal or off topic. After all, you left everyone alone who mocked the idea of positive training (and what constitutes hijacking or fractiousness more than mocking the OP's original question?), and you decided to come after me, who mocked exactly nobody.

So if you don't want fractiousness, either be consistent or make it about the issues and not about my tone.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Just waiting for a question.


I asked a few here that may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

1. Can you teach good mouth skills (i.e., not mouthing) without cuffing? How would you go about addressing that problem if you wanted to avoid cuffing for some reason?

2. If you don't want to use cuffing as part of your repertoire, would you be forced to squander a dog like that? Is it the only option in some situations?

3. When the dog rears at the same time that the screen says he's being stimmed, what do you think is the reason he rears? He's standing fairly still, and then a bunch of things happen at once. He's sort of reeled in on the line, and you keep the stim on until he returns to you. At one point, you said he overreacted, but then you said that he wasn't overreacting, so I genuinely just want to know how you're reading the dog's body language in that situation. Why does he rear up like that before coming to you?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> I asked a few here that may have gotten lost in the shuffle.
> 
> 1. Can you teach good mouth skills (i.e., not mouthing) without cuffing? How would you go about addressing that problem if you wanted to avoid cuffing for some reason?


Let's take it from the top. The video in question is not about how to "teach hold/good mouth skills", but rather is down the line at forcing on real birds. As I stated earlier, this dog had been put through Basics before we bought him back and had to completely redo everything. By the time we got him his noisy mouth was deeply ingrained as a habit. We dealt with it along the way because of the dog he is, and how long it takes to replace some bad habits with good ones. The dog in this video is an exception to what would be customary in a developing dog. 

Cuffing is not a routine component of the forcing process. When it _is_ used during the initial teaching of "Hold" it is minor and used scarcely. By the time a normally devloping dog reaches force to pile, issues like this are long gone. The best way to defeat a problem like this is to arrest it at the start.


tippykayak said:


> 2. If you don't want to use cuffing as part of your repertoire, would you be forced to squander a dog like that? Is it the only option in some situations?


Whether or not any dog needs this sort of work is individual to the dog. That would also include to what degree he would need it. But to be unwilling to do what any dog needs to solidify his skills for his life's work would ultimately squander whatever potential that dog has. Rarely is one option the only option. But each dog is different. 

This video was clearly not a lesson in "cuffing". But this topic has become so focused on it that it may appear that way.


tippykayak said:


> 3. When the dog rears at the same time that the screen says he's being stimmed, what do you think is the reason he rears? He's standing fairly still, and then a bunch of things happen at once. He's sort of reeled in on the line, and you keep the stim on until he returns to you. At one point, you said he overreacted, but then you said that he wasn't overreacting, so I genuinely just want to know how you're reading the dog's body language in that situation. Why does he rear up like that before coming to you?


Okay, is this now addressing the pup in CC to Here?

EvanG


----------



## GoldenSail

sammydog said:


> Thanks for all the examples!
> 
> Now the million dollar question. I wonder if there is there a way for the same concept to be used without pressure? I ask this for myself, not to try and change you all...
> 
> I thought about it last night, and I think the answer is no... But that is really why I want to understand the why... What is it that makes indirect pressure effective and can I replicate it...
> 
> Just thinking out loud.


I don't know the answer fully...but one reason I am ok with using pressure is this (and maybe this is why it is needed). Life is tough. It is. I think most of us have had our shares of challenges and ups and downs. What makes us strong is how we learn to deal with stress and pressure and overcome it. Not avoiding it. If you never have to learn how deal with it--life is easy, everything is handed to you, etc. you will have problems when you encounter it. Like many of the people I went to grade school with...those that had parents that gave them everything but little to no discipline, paid for their school, etc. They haven't been as successful and they have struggled on their own. They didn't have to deal with pressure and stress at home and they don't know how to handle it. They never really had a job, or chores, or anything. So then they didn't learn the skills needed to push themselves.

So I think when you are looking at something like field training which can be very demanding the pressure is valuable. They need to learn how to handle stress. Dealing with rough terrain, long marks, mean birds, etc. can be challenging. I think pressure can be used to help push or drive them through it. I don't see physical aversives or pressure just used for hard compliance or a correction for misbehavior. I think it can be used to drive or push the dog forward beyond what the dog thinks he might be capable of (but really IS capable of). I know in my own life there have been times when I have needed a strong push from someone or something to push me forward and it wasn't always pleasant...but I got through it and came out a stronger person than I ever would have been without it.

So--not sure if I explained that well. I hope you get what I am trying to say...


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Cuffing is not a routine component of the forcing process. When it _is_ used during the initial teaching of "Hold" it is minor and used scarcely.


But it's used in the teaching phase sometimes? Under what conditions?



EvanG said:


> But to be unwilling to do what any dog needs to solidify his skills for his life's work would ultimately squander whatever potential that dog has.


We all draw the line between what we're willing or not willing to do in training a dog. I'm not interested in debating with you whether cuffing crosses that line or not. For you, it obviously doesn't. For me, it does. I doubt either of those two positions will change.



EvanG said:


> Okay, is this now addressing the pup in CC to Here?


Yup. I'm curious as to how to interpret his reaction. He rears at the moment of stim, but the stim is theoretically quite low, so I'm curious if the reaction is to the dual tension of the two ropes on his collar or somehow related to the stim. I'm not sure, but since you were there, I'm sure you have a good sense of what makes him rear up and throw his head like that.


----------



## MarieP

Sunrise said:


> To use a previous example:
> You get yelled at by your boss, you don't want to be fired (hey you need to pay the mortgage/eat), you are really cautious for awhile. I think your reaction would also depend somewhat on why you were yelled at - was it justified? You try harder. Was it not justified? You might start offering half hearted responses or possibly shut down.


YES! I love this example! This is exactly why, IMHO, corrections have to be FAIR for them work. If "unjustified," as in your example, the dog will simply shut down because there is no way they feel they can be right. If everything they do or try gets met with a correction, they lose any incentive to do anything. This is why I don't use direct pressure while teaching a behavior. My friend and I were having a discussion about corrections yesterday, discussing how many field trainers do not distinguish between effort and non-effort errors. For example, if I say sit and my pup TRIES to sit but there is a prickly weed under him, I'm not going to correct for sit. But, if he doesn't sit because he is staring into space or looking at another dog, that may get a correction. This comes down to reading the dog. Is my dog trying to fight the slope of the hill and just not succeeding, or is his just not caring? Is he trying to take the correct cast or is he just blowing me off and doing his own thing? 

Anyway, I know you weren't necessarily talking about corrections in this sense. I just felt like sharing  As sammydog said, brainstorming is very helpful. 

And my thought about "indirect pressure" if you aren't using physical pressure... Field, to me, is a lot of "gray" to a dog. It is hard for the dog to define what exactly is right and what is wrong. However, in things like obedience, there is a more defined right and wrong. I call you, you come. I say stay, you stay. Where am I going with this? Well, my thought is that if your pup is misbehaving in the field, you may be able to take pup aside, work a little bit of obedience, and then go over to the field. You are "putting pressure" on behaviors that are well defined in obedience, even though there is no actual pressure involved. My thought would be that this could carry over to the field. I don't know if this would work, because I have never tried it. But I do know that behaviors can carry over from one venue to another. Just some random thoughts. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## K9-Design

sammydog said:


> Thanks for all the examples!
> 
> Now the million dollar question. I wonder if there is there a way for the same concept to be used without pressure? I ask this for myself, not to try and change you all...
> 
> I thought about it last night, and I think the answer is no... But that is really why I want to understand the why... What is it that makes indirect pressure effective and can I replicate it...
> 
> Just thinking out loud.


Hi Jessica, I think this is a REALLY interesting question and I've been thinking about it for the past six hours, driving home from Fisher's "date" in Atlanta!
Let's think a minute about WHY we use indirect pressure. By pressure we simply mean punishment or the application of something negative. It is NOT taking away a positive. By definition it is punishing one behavior to affect another, different behavior. Why do we use it in the field? Because DIRECT pressure (punishing the exact behavior we wish to eliminate) is a very tricky tightrope. There are many instances in field work when direct pressure can be counterproductive and directly cause severe confidence problems. 
We use indirect pressure on very basic, KNOWN commands that, I just realized, involve the dog making NO choices on his own (and curiously, usually FACING the handler, putting the handler 100% in the driver's seat). Examples are SIT and HERE. The two most common commands to which indirect pressure is applied. But we are not applying the correction to improve or eliminate the SIT or HERE response. We are instead seeking to correct or eliminate the behavior that preceded or will follow the SIT or HERE command, most pointedly, a cast during blinds. 
Now let's look at the psychology behind taking a cast, or running a blind in general. Quite frankly, running good blinds is a HUGE leap of faith for the dog. It is also absolutely, 100% pivotal that the dog possess a huge amount of confidence to "boldly go" out into space, with no idea where he is headed. He must make good decisions, he must take direction with compliance and dependence. As any good trainer knows, if a dog is corrected (DIRECT pressure) on a bad CHOICE, they will simply STOP CHOOSING. We NEVER want a dog to stop choosing on a blind. We want him instead to choose correctly. 
So here's how it works. You are running a blind. The dog starts to go offline to the right. You stop him with the whistle and give him an angle-back LEFT cast. He instead spins and heads straight left back, in the same direction he was previously heading (the wrong direction). If you are patient or the dog is still learning the blind game, you might choose to simply stop him and recast again, or call him in to where he made the mistake, and repeat the cast, and do this over and over again until he gives up going in his direction and takes your cast (THIS IS ATTRITION). However if he is an older dog that needs to take responsibility for responding to the correct cast on the FIRST try, you can choose to apply INDIRECT pressure for the cast refusal. When you recognize that he has dug back instead of taking your angle cast, you stop him again, NICK with the collar as he sits, and command (whistle) him to SIT again. (the infamous sit-nick-sit) You are correcting on the SIT. The correction snaps him back to the same page and hopefully with your next cast (the angle cast you need) he takes it since he has been put back on the straight and narrow. 
What you do NOT do -- is nail him on the collar as he is taking the bad cast! That would be DIRECT pressure. And a REALLY bad idea. All he knows is that he took a cast and got some heat for it. Do that enough times and he stops taking casts. With INDIRECT pressure the dog is never corrected on his choice, but the correction on the known, enforceable, black-and-white command (sit) carries over and changes the behavior of the poor cast. 
If you are reading this and doubting it works, think again. This is EXACTLY how field trainers use indirect pressure and IT WORKS.

SO ---- how could we use indirect pressure with no physical correction? Quite frankly I do not think you could. I suppose we could take something away from the dog he wants (i.e., run and pick up the bird before he gets to it) but personally I think that would be incredibly poor timing and ineffective. Saying "NO" or any other marker for an incorrect response, is only as strong as the dog cares to believe it. How do you back up that NO to truly make it a negative experience for the dog? (I personally think that "NO" is a slippery slope....many times trainers never back this up with any true consequence, so while the dog may respond and quit the behavior at that instance when told NO, it never prevents the dog from repeating it in the future. It is just a reminder and puts no responsibility on the dog.) 

Now, we absolutely use PRAISE to INDIRECTLY ENCOURAGE behavior. 
Everyone realizes this. Spend two minutes playing tug and revving a dog up and watch how great his heeling is the next two minutes! I use this concept in field ALL THE TIME....and I think it was Carol Cassity who told me to praise after EVERY blind -- FOR THE NEXT BLIND. By the time the dog is returning with a bird, he has forgotten what happened on the blind he just ran. If he was a bad dog and you had to handle up a storm and dish out corrections, he needs PRAISE on THAT BLIND to carry over and give him hope for the next blind. We say this all the time in training, remember to praise on this blind, for the next one! (same goes for marks but blinds generally are more mentally taxing)

Hope this helps and maybe with this explanation you can come up with some examples of indirect pressure or praise in your own training.


----------



## K9-Design

mlopez said:


> YES! I love this example! This is exactly why, IMHO, corrections have to be FAIR for them work. If "unjustified," as in your example, the dog will simply shut down because there is no way they feel they can be right. If everything they do or try gets met with a correction, they lose any incentive to do anything. This is why I don't use direct pressure while teaching a behavior. My friend and I were having a discussion about corrections yesterday, discussing how many field trainers do not distinguish between effort and non-effort errors. For example, if I say sit and my pup TRIES to sit but there is a prickly weed under him, I'm not going to correct for sit. But, if he doesn't sit because he is staring into space or looking at another dog, that may get a correction. This comes down to reading the dog. Is my dog trying to fight the slope of the hill and just not succeeding, or is his just not caring? Is he trying to take the correct cast or is he just blowing me off and doing his own thing?
> 
> Anyway, I know you weren't necessarily talking about corrections in this sense. I just felt like sharing  As sammydog said, brainstorming is very helpful.
> 
> And my thought about "indirect pressure" if you aren't using physical pressure... Field, to me, is a lot of "gray" to a dog. It is hard for the dog to define what exactly is right and what is wrong. However, in things like obedience, there is a more defined right and wrong. I call you, you come. I say stay, you stay. Where am I going with this? * Well, my thought is that if your pup is misbehaving in the field, you may be able to take pup aside, work a little bit of obedience, and then go over to the field. You are "putting pressure" on behaviors that are well defined in obedience, even though there is no actual pressure involved. My thought would be that this could carry over to the field. I don't know if this would work, because I have never tried it. But I do know that behaviors can carry over from one venue to another. Just some random thoughts. I hope that makes sense.*



Marie I loved your whole post! You so "GET IT"!!!!! Let's train! 
The bolded part above makes a LOT of sense and maybe it really does illustrate my elusive example of indirect pressure without physical corrections. Not sure if it's that exactly, but close. You will find when you start handling with Riot, that throughout the LIFE of the dog, little things break down. It may seem like a very small nuance of running a blind (or some facet of marking, or whatever) but it will affect everything about running the blind. You will have a Master dog that you need to take back to the yard and revisit some VERY basic concept (ahem, ask me how I know this). Clearing up some small, basic part of blind running can improve the dog's overall performance.
This happens ALL THE TIME.
For example, I am in a phase right now with Fisher where I am doing VERY basic drills -- wagon wheel, and baseball casting -- to isolate and strengthen his confidence in very specific, advanced concepts in blind running. I broke the problematic behavior he was demonstrating in the field down to its most basic component, and took it back to the yard to practice it. There are NO corrections whatsoever, other than stopping him with the whistle. I very purposefully keep it extremely low key, to keep him calm and level headed (he has a tendency to ramp up and be Crazy Dog). These drills absolutely help and carry over to our blind running in the field. Is this indirect pressure? Well, maybe, maybe not, but it is a good example of working on one behavior to change another.


----------



## K9-Design

K9-Design said:


> SO ---- how could we use indirect pressure with no physical correction? Quite frankly I do not think you could. I suppose we could take something away from the dog he wants (i.e., run and pick up the bird before he gets to it) but personally I think that would be incredibly poor timing and ineffective.


I thought of another possible example of indirect pressure sans physical correction....calling the dog in, or effectively taking away his retrieve reward. This WOULD be effective but again, the likelihood of very delayed timing and confusion on the dog's part is high. How does he know he is being called in for a cast refusal? The nice part about indirect pressure in the traditional use of the term is it's immediacy. Timing of the correction is vastly improved with the collar. 
Now, calling a dog in for poor blind work can be quite effective if used judiciously. I've done it for dogs choosing to take really poor initial lines, absolutely blowing me off after multiple corrections, and the like. However I truly hate to do it. The LAST thing you want on a blind is for a dog to think it can give up and COME IN. NOT something you want to do with any regularity.


----------



## hollyk

mlopez said:


> My friend and I were having a discussion about corrections yesterday, discussing how many field trainers do not distinguish between effort and non-effort errors.


More random thoughts.

This is a bit little off subject but effort and non effort made me think of it. 

Last week on the blind many dogs were getting sucked off line by an big tree to the right of the blind. Many handlers heard from the Pro "How far are you going to let that dog get off line before you put a whistle on him/her?. 

Now the Pro comes to the line with a very talented not quite yet 2 y/o BFL. He first has a mark thrown to the left of the blind line but does not have the dog pick it up. He lines her up to the blind. He has to take a couple to extra steps to the right to get her focus off the mark and to take the line to the blind. When he sends her she takes the line that many handlers got razzed about and he whistle sits here in about the same place. He give one left angle back and she takes that line to the blind.
As the dog is coming back from the blind everyone has the same question. "Didn't you wait a little long to put a whistle on that dog?" His answer was this. 'I appreciated the effort that she gave me holding the line to the right and not get sucked back left to the mark. She ran a little wide to the right but I let her carry that line well past the mark and did not put a quick whistle to show her it was the correct line. You gotta love a dog that gives you so much effort." He then smiled and said "But I'm glad you guys were paying attention".

Again random thought.


----------



## K9-Design

hollyk said:


> More random thoughts.
> 
> This is a bit little off subject but effort and non effort made me think of it.
> 
> Last week on the blind many dogs were getting sucked off line by an big tree to the right of the blind. Many handlers heard from the Pro "How far are you going to let that dog get off line before you put a whistle on him/her?.
> 
> Now the Pro comes to the line with a very talented not quite yet 2 y/o BFL. He first has a mark thrown to the left of the blind line but does not have the dog pick it up. He lines her up to the blind. He has to take a couple to extra steps to the right to get her focus off the mark and to take the line to the blind. When he sends her she takes the line that many handlers got razzed about and he whistle sits here in about the same place. He give one left angle back and she takes that line to the blind.
> As the dog is coming back from the blind everyone has the same question. "Didn't you wait a little long to put a whistle on that dog?" His answer was this. 'I appreciated the effort that she gave me holding the line to the right and not get sucked back left to the mark. She ran a little wide to the right but I let her carry that line well past the mark and did not put a quick whistle to show her it was the correct line. You gotta love a dog that gives you so much effort." He then smiled and said "But I'm glad you guys were paying attention".
> 
> Again random thought.



Love it! So much of field training is reading the dog's intent. WHY is he doing what he's doing? It is all about reading effort. So many times we say "let them roll" to get the full appreciation for a great cast or line. The dog won't mind an extra cast in the blind if you let him really savor an awesome cast, or let him roll on a great line even if it's slightly off. When you see a dog put forth that effort it is a beautiful thing!


----------



## Loisiana

Perhaps the idea of having a dog do something it can easily do so it can be rewarded and put into a better frame of mind for something more challenging could be considered "indirect reward/reinforcement" ?


----------



## gdgli

A little comment on learning. I consulted my college textbook (OK, it's a little dated, I used it 40 years ago). It calls operant conditioning "instrumental learning". I read the chapters on classical conditioning and instrumental learning. It seems that these two types of learning can overlap. 

My point is that trainers are probably using both methods either knowingly or unknowingly. Or maybe I should say dogs are learning through both.


----------



## hollyk

K9-Design said:


> Love it! So much of field training is reading the dog's intent. WHY is he doing what he's doing? It is all about reading effort. So many times we say "let them roll" to get the full appreciation for a great cast or line. The dog won't mind an extra cast in the blind if you let him really savor an awesome cast, or let him roll on a great line even if it's slightly off. When you see a dog put forth that effort it is a beautiful thing!





Loisiana said:


> Perhaps the idea of having a dog do something it can easily do so it can be rewarded and put into a better frame of mind for something more challenging could be considered "indirect reward/reinforcement" ?


It taken me a while to realize that letting the dog carry the line longer is a strong reward/reinforcement. Sometimes in learning to run blinds, getting to the blind is not the point. This has also taken me a while to learn.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

Ljilly28 said:


> No, he does CC and FF. I know Copley would achieve under Paul bc he is not a soft dog the way my others are. However, I am curious if I can stay true to my values of not using force and still train a more driven dog myself just to a JH.


I haven't read this entire thread ... and I'm whooped, so I'm going to bed now ... but just wanted to say I admire your desire to do fieldwork w/o a collar. Your dog sounds a lot like Quiz. I put a JH on him with basic obedience and instinct, but didn't go farther b/c he's insane out there ... so it would be a major challenge ... and A. I live in the city and it's super challenging to get to a place for field work and B. it's not my sport of choice (I prefer obedience/agility) so I didn't want to dedicate the time it would need. I hope to one day work higher level hunt skills w/o a collar. I think it would take really, really breaking down the exercises. In my opinion, I think the advantage of the collar is that you can get by with individual pieces maybe not being fluent before chaining them all together in a retrieve situation b/c you can correct the mistakes. 

I liken it to teaching the hotdog retrieve. Now THAT'S a fluent retrieve, and being able to do it really requires fluency in every piece of the behavior: Go to it> immediately pick it up> don't mouth it> bring it back> release it ... all the while, exhibiting the impulse control necessary to successfully tolerate delayed gratification.

JMO ... and one not worth much since I've not really done anything in the field ... just stuff I think about for the future.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Makes complete sense - thanks 



mlopez said:


> YES! I love this example! This is exactly why, IMHO, corrections have to be FAIR for them work. If "unjustified," as in your example, the dog will simply shut down because there is no way they feel they can be right. If everything they do or try gets met with a correction, they lose any incentive to do anything. This is why I don't use direct pressure while teaching a behavior. My friend and I were having a discussion about corrections yesterday, discussing how many field trainers do not distinguish between effort and non-effort errors. For example, if I say sit and my pup TRIES to sit but there is a prickly weed under him, I'm not going to correct for sit. But, if he doesn't sit because he is staring into space or looking at another dog, that may get a correction. This comes down to reading the dog. Is my dog trying to fight the slope of the hill and just not succeeding, or is his just not caring? Is he trying to take the correct cast or is he just blowing me off and doing his own thing?
> 
> Anyway, I know you weren't necessarily talking about corrections in this sense. I just felt like sharing  As sammydog said, brainstorming is very helpful.
> 
> And my thought about "indirect pressure" if you aren't using physical pressure... Field, to me, is a lot of "gray" to a dog. It is hard for the dog to define what exactly is right and what is wrong. However, in things like obedience, there is a more defined right and wrong. I call you, you come. I say stay, you stay. Where am I going with this? Well, my thought is that if your pup is misbehaving in the field, you may be able to take pup aside, work a little bit of obedience, and then go over to the field. You are "putting pressure" on behaviors that are well defined in obedience, even though there is no actual pressure involved. My thought would be that this could carry over to the field. I don't know if this would work, because I have never tried it. But I do know that behaviors can carry over from one venue to another. Just some random thoughts. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## K9-Design

hollyk said:


> It taken me a while to realize that letting the dog carry the line longer it a strong reward/reinforcement. Sometimes in learning to run blinds, getting to the blind is not the point. This has also taken me a while to learn.


EXACTLY. With every step a dog takes in a certain direction -- on a blind -- the more he thinks he is correct and the more rewarding it is. You can use this to your advantage or in the case of too slow a whistle, your disadvantage. An advanced dog learns that a whistle means NO -- not that direction. A young dog doesn't realize this yet so you see a lot more scallops and dig-backs as they try to continue in their previously rewarding direction.


----------



## K9-Design

FlyingQuizini said:


> I hope to one day work higher level hunt skills w/o a collar. I think it would take really, really breaking down the exercises. In my opinion,* I think the advantage of the collar is that you can get by with individual pieces maybe not being fluent before chaining them all together in a retrieve situation b/c you can correct the mistakes.*


Hmmm. Not sure if I agree with this. A modern retriever training program is very thorough and systematically teaches EVERY nuance of retrieving. The difference is many steps are reinforced with the collar to both improve reliability/conviction and condition a correction. I do think Quiz would be a fun dog to try teaching handling to without a collar. It would either be genius or a complete disaster


----------



## GoldenSail

K9-Design said:


> Love it! So much of field training is reading the dog's intent. WHY is he doing what he's doing? It is all about reading effort. So many times we say "let them roll" to get the full appreciation for a great cast or line. The dog won't mind an extra cast in the blind if you let him really savor an awesome cast, or let him roll on a great line even if it's slightly off. When you see a dog put forth that effort it is a beautiful thing!


I love dog training. We had a couple learning moments yesterday along the lines of these posts. First Scout was sucked toward a fall and I sat her too late and was told that because my whistle was slow she would not understand that she was going in the wrong direction. Then I used attrition to get her back on the right path.

Also had a moment when running our first cold blind. The pro stood next to me and kept whispering (let her roll, let her roll, let her roll). This time I was better prepared as I had the whistle in my mouth and ecollar in hand before sending.


----------



## MarieP

K9-Design said:


> Marie I loved your whole post! You so "GET IT"!!!!! Let's train!


Aww, thanks  We could meet in the middle :bowl: 




K9-Design said:


> I thought of another possible example of indirect pressure sans physical correction....calling the dog in, or effectively taking away his retrieve reward. This WOULD be effective but again, the likelihood of very delayed timing and confusion on the dog's part is high. How does he know he is being called in for a cast refusal? The nice part about indirect pressure in the traditional use of the term is it's immediacy. Timing of the correction is vastly improved with the collar.
> Now, calling a dog in for poor blind work can be quite effective if used judiciously. I've done it for dogs choosing to take really poor initial lines, absolutely blowing me off after multiple corrections, and the like. However I truly hate to do it. The LAST thing you want on a blind is for a dog to think it can give up and COME IN. NOT something you want to do with any regularity.


So interesting, because I was just discussing this with my friend. She was at a seminar recently and running a blind with her young golden. The pro asked what she was going to do if he messed up where the other dogs had been messing up. She said she would sit and recast. Pro says, well, I think you should call him back. She said, no, I think I will try it my way. My friend explained to me that calling a dog back in is a HUGE correction, versus just a sit and recast or even a sit nick recast. I think without the collar, you are missing that "middle" correction, the ability to have a correction between no correction and completely making the dog come back. You could make the dog very disheartened very fast. These are all thing that you need to think about if you run without a collar.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Why would a person who chooses not to use an eCollar not have the option of sitting and recasting their dog?

My dog has been trained to sit on a whistle, so it is not a case of either/or if trained for. 

Yes, being called back is a huge correction, which also makes me curious what the pro saw that your friend was not seeing. I listen and watch my mentor very carefully and hope to someday have half of his knowledge and experience.



mlopez said:


> So interesting, because I was just discussing this with my friend. She was at a seminar recently and running a blind with her young golden. The pro asked what she was going to do if he messed up where the other dogs had been messing up. She said she would sit and recast. Pro says, well, I think you should call him back. She said, no, I think I will try it my way. My friend explained to me that calling a dog back in is a HUGE correction, versus just a sit and recast or even a sit nick recast. I think without the collar, you are missing that "middle" correction, the ability to have a correction between no correction and completely making the dog come back. You could make the dog very disheartened very fast. These are all thing that you need to think about if you run without a collar.


----------



## sammydog

Thank you all so much! I am really really enjoying the last few pages. We have not been field training, mostly because I am focusing on agility probably at least until the National in March, and also because of time and money. BUT This is getting me really excited and motivated to get back to working on it in April.

A few specific comments:


> Well, my thought is that if your pup is misbehaving in the field, you may be able to take pup aside, work a little bit of obedience, and then go over to the field. You are "putting pressure" on behaviors that are well defined in obedience, even though there is no actual pressure involved.





> Perhaps the idea of having a dog do something it can easily do so it can be rewarded and put into a better frame of mind for something more challenging could be considered "indirect reward/reinforcement" ?


I really like both of these ideas and I was thinking something similar as well, so I guess it will be an experiment and we will find out. It certainly will not hurt! I liked reading about Fisher going back to work on basic yard drills, so it gives me hope that this is a good idea.



> if a dog is corrected (DIRECT pressure) on a bad CHOICE, they will simply STOP CHOOSING. We NEVER want a dog to stop choosing on a blind. We want him instead to choose correctly.


I had not heard it put so simple, this makes perfect sense.



> If you are reading this and doubting it works, think again. This is EXACTLY how field trainers use indirect pressure and IT WORKS.


Honestly, if I had not seen it so many time with my own eyes, I am not sure I would believe it... but this is very true.



> praise after EVERY blind -- FOR THE NEXT BLIND


Just a clip from this very good paragraph, but I really like it!


----------



## K9-Design

Sunrise said:


> Why would a person who chooses not to use an eCollar not have the option of sitting and recasting their dog?


Oh they absolutely would, in fact, this would be the primary choice (attrition) of someone who didn't wish to use a collar. 

I will say just on a personal observation, that the thing lacking in non-ecollar trained dog is the compulsion. They might be very birdy and love to fetch naturally, and that is what we want of course, but when push comes to shove they break down. They also have not been conditioned to go BACK at all costs, so momentum is a lot less on blinds. Calling a dog like this in on a blind, or attrition to the point of the dog giving up, might be the nail in the coffin.


----------



## AmberSunrise

K9-Design said:


> Oh they absolutely would, in fact, this would be the primary choice (attrition) of someone who didn't wish to use a collar.
> 
> I will say just on a personal observation, that the thing lacking in non-ecollar trained dog is the compulsion. They might be very birdy and love to fetch naturally, and that is what we want of course, but when push comes to shove they break down. They also have not been conditioned to go BACK at all costs, so momentum is a lot less on blinds. Calling a dog like this in on a blind, or attrition to the point of the dog giving up, might be the nail in the coffin.


 
True confessions time:

I have to really think long and hard about eCollar usage. I have bought 3 collars over the years and have given away 2, unused and still in their packaging. I currently have a TT Pro 500, again still in its original packaging. While my hunting friends appreciate these discards, this is an area where I have very serious reservations and should either resolve them or stop wasting my money. I buy the best so I could never inflict some of the things I have seen happen, and I am intrigued by the thought of the 'beep' function. But, the reservations remain. 

Can the collar have a place in a training plan designed around positive reward principles? Can getting the bird be enough of a reward that the eCollar can be a useful tool?

Sorry if this seems off track, but it is an area I struggle with and if it has a place, if used judiuosly and fairly, perhaps someday I will unwrap and charge that collar.


----------



## K9-Design

Sunrise said:


> True confessions time:
> 
> I have to really think long and hard about eCollar usage. I have bought 3 collars over the years and have given away 2, unused and still in their packaging. I currently have a TT Pro 500, again still in its original packaging. While my hunting friends appreciate these discards, this is an area where I have very serious reservations and should either resolve them or stop wasting my money. I buy the best so I could never inflict some of the things I have seen happen, and I am intrigued by the thought of the 'beep' function. But, the reservations remain.
> 
> *Can the collar have a place in a training plan designed around positive reward principles? Can getting the bird be enough of a reward that the eCollar can be a useful tool?*
> 
> Sorry if this seems off track, but it is an area I struggle with and if it has a place, if used judiuosly and fairly, perhaps someday I will unwrap and charge that collar.


This is a wonderful post and I think most of us have had the same thoughts. I know I did before I ever bought an ecollar. 

The part bolded above -- thank you, thank you -- because that is EXACTLY what we strive for in a modern retriever training method. It's how I operate when training my dogs. I applaud you for understanding this, or at least asking this question, which is the right one, to which the answer is YES.


----------



## sterregold

Sunrise said:


> True confessions time:
> 
> I have to really think long and hard about eCollar usage. I have bought 3 collars over the years and have given away 2, unused and still in their packaging. I currently have a TT Pro 500, again still in its original packaging. While my hunting friends appreciate these discards, this is an area where I have very serious reservations and should either resolve them or stop wasting my money. I buy the best so I could never inflict some of the things I have seen happen, and I am intrigued by the thought of the 'beep' function. But, the reservations remain.
> 
> Can the collar have a place in a training plan designed around positive reward principles? Can getting the bird be enough of a reward that the eCollar can be a useful tool?
> 
> Sorry if this seems off track, but it is an area I struggle with and if it has a place, if used judiuosly and fairly, perhaps someday I will unwrap and charge that collar.


I think the example Anney cites, where calling the dog in or otherwise using attrition would interrupt that momentum and go would be precisely the place where it is useful, as otherwise the correction via attrition in that case would actually be counterproductive to the outcome you were attempting to achieve. Even those of use who use the collar as a tool for the most part of our training are building the dog up by using success to build success---teaching! But with a sensitive dog there is that danger of just grinding them down if you keep saying "no" and calling them back, or stopping with "no", where a well-timed one-shot correction in connection with the error can give the message of "you are making your mistake here--don't do that again."


----------



## Loisiana

what I like about the collar, even more than the ability to correct at a distance, is the ability to keep myself out of the correction. Yes, sometimes I want my dog to know my displeasure with something, but other times I like being able to correct a dog without associating myself with it or letting any of my own emotions slip in. In that way, I guess an ecollar can be like a clicker!

I know for Conner, who is a very physically tough dog, but emotionally very sensitive, he would prefer a small nick on the collar any day than me to tell him "NO!"

Flip could care less what I tell him...


----------



## K9-Design

Loisiana said:


> what I like about the collar, even more than the ability to correct at a distance, is the ability to keep myself out of the correction. Yes, sometimes I want my dog to know my displeasure with something, but other times I like being able to correct a dog without associating myself with it or letting any of my own emotions slip in. In that way, I guess an ecollar can be like a clicker!
> 
> I know for Conner, who is a very physically tough dog, but emotionally very sensitive, he would prefer a small nick on the collar any day than me to tell him "NO!"
> 
> Flip could care less what I tell him...


Exactly....the ecollar holds no emotion. Dogs can stay more stable than with an angry trainer. I'm not saying that the only alternative to an ecollar is an angry trainer but you've got to have a way of correcting a dog, and an ecollar is a lot less personal than anything a handler can do.


----------



## MarieP

Sunrise said:


> Why would a person who chooses not to use an eCollar not have the option of sitting and recasting their dog?
> 
> My dog has been trained to sit on a whistle, so it is not a case of either/or if trained for.
> 
> Yes, being called back is a huge correction, which also makes me curious what the pro saw that your friend was not seeing. I listen and watch my mentor very carefully and hope to someday have half of his knowledge and experience.


Oh, you certainly have that choice to recast, and that is sometimes all you need. However, you do not have anything between that and calling them back to resend. You don't have "sit ::nick:: back." And depending on the dog, this might be all it takes, rather than a call back. As for my friend, she knows her dog and she also knows that that pro can be heavy handed. She likes his "go" and doesn't want to do anything that would be such a huge correction, unless he was really refusing casts. It is a balance. I think that's why it is helpful (but no essential, of course) to have a way to correct without breaking total momentum. 



Sunrise said:


> True confessions time:
> 
> I have to really think long and hard about eCollar usage. I have bought 3 collars over the years and have given away 2, unused and still in their packaging. I currently have a TT Pro 500, again still in its original packaging. While my hunting friends appreciate these discards, this is an area where I have very serious reservations and should either resolve them or stop wasting my money. I buy the best so I could never inflict some of the things I have seen happen, and I am intrigued by the thought of the 'beep' function. But, the reservations remain.
> 
> Can the collar have a place in a training plan designed around positive reward principles? Can getting the bird be enough of a reward that the eCollar can be a useful tool?
> 
> Sorry if this seems off track, but it is an area I struggle with and if it has a place, if used judiuosly and fairly, perhaps someday I will unwrap and charge that collar.


Not off topic at all. I think it's great that you are thinking so much about it, rather than just following what others say you "have" to do. I certainly think that a collar has a place in that any training plan. Assuming you are fair, and use as little pressure as is needed in the situation and depending on the dog at that moment. And if you decide not to use the collar, you can certainly send it my way. I'll even pay shipping!


----------



## Megora

Loisiana said:


> what I like about the collar, even more than the ability to correct at a distance, is the ability to keep myself out of the correction. Yes, sometimes I want my dog to know my displeasure with something, but other times I like being able to correct a dog without associating myself with it or letting any of my own emotions slip in. In that way, I guess an ecollar can be like a clicker!
> 
> I know for Conner, who is a very physically tough dog, but emotionally very sensitive, he would prefer a small nick on the collar any day than me to tell him "NO!"
> 
> Flip could care less what I tell him...


^^^ I get this, but one question I have as somebody who has a "problem solving" smart dog who is less than intelligent with reasoning sometimes... 

Thunderstorms = Bad Sky = Outside = Evil

Loud noise = Thunderstorms = Bad Sky = Outside = Evil

The Word "Thunder" in conversation around him = Loud Noise = Thunderstorms = Bad Sky = Outside = Evil

*laughs* He has definitely become a lot more manageable and _sane_ since I started him on thyroid supplement (I can actually take him outside when the guns at the local gun clubs are popping), but he still does associate bad things with places and circumstances that happened with them. 

Has anyone ever had a dog associate a e-collar correction - a zap/nick - with other things around them? 

My guy is soft about corrections, but it is not necessarily fear-based. It takes one verbal correction to make him stop doing something that would have taken much more with my previous dog. Verbal or pop corrections that I use with my guy may be linked to me, but he knows good things and rewards come from me when he does good. He does have a wild imagination when it comes to things that happen to him that aren't linked to something as reassuring as his mom. 

Disclaimer: I'm not challenging e-collar usage. I don't care if other people use them and I see the point in using them. So this is not meant to add to the argument against e-collars.


----------



## MarieP

Megora said:


> Has anyone ever had a dog associate a e-collar correction - a zap/nick - with other things around them?
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not challenging e-collar usage. I don't care if other people use them and I see the point in using them. So this is not meant to add to the argument against e-collars.


Thanks for the disclaimer  It's nice to know that most of us can have good conversations about e-collars. 

On your point about the association with other things: I have not had it happen. But I can see how it could happen. Random zap while pup is standing next to a tree, then the tree becomes "evil." That is why the introduction to the collar is SUPER important (aka, collar conditioning). I am very careful to make it clear that the correction is for not following the command. I also have someone helping me so that I can focus on the dog and make sure he responds correctly. It is always "sit ::nick:: sit" or here nick here. The commands are sandwiched so they are clear. Mike Lardy (big name in field training) has an entire DVD on the subject of collar conditioning. To me, that's shows just how important it subject is.


----------



## Swampcollie

mlopez said:


> Mike Lardy (big name in field training) has an entire DVD on the subject of collar conditioning. To me, that's shows just how important it subject is.


And a very good DVD it is.


----------



## Megora

mlopez said:


> Thanks for the disclaimer  It's nice to know that most of us can have good conversations about e-collars.


I was hesitant to ask or even enter the conversation... as I've objected to the use of e-collars in the past, but that was before I understood exactly what is involved with some of these mysterious tests. It's obviously not just all "go get it".

I still would prefer soft handling with my dog and would adapt any field type training that way. That's for me and my dog. But I'm not interested in making other people change their methods of training to suit me.  My questions stem from me figuring out how I can follow through and play in field with my own dog.


----------



## Loisiana

I think you also have to keep in mind what level you are using. When you begin collar conditioning you are trying to set at a level just high enough for the dog to twitch his ear to show he notices something. Literally. It doesn't have to be about getting the dog to jump or yelp. When your dog gives a the slightest reaction that he notices a feeling, you can commence training. I think dogs are more likely to make negative associations when a higher level of stimulation is used.


----------



## Megora

Loisiana said:


> I think you also have to keep in mind what level you are using. When you begin collar conditioning you are trying to set at a level just high enough for the dog to twitch his ear to show he notices something. Literally. It doesn't have to be about getting the dog to jump or yelp. When your dog gives a the slightest reaction that he notices a feeling, you can commence training. I think dogs are more likely to make negative associations when a higher level of stimulation is used.



In other words, with a very sensitive dog - I would be using the lowest settings.


----------



## K9-Design

Megora said:


> Has anyone ever had a dog associate a e-collar correction - a zap/nick - with other things around them?


I will tell you what I have observed. There are specific instance when we see this in training, and specific instances we directly correct something to cause this reaction. And, on the flip side, in general this is not a problem. I'll explain.

Many times if the dog is nicked, say, on a sit-nick-sit as described earlier when running a blind, if they have to run through that exact area again they may slightly deviate from their path and avoid that exact area where they were nicked. We also see this in force to pile when a dog is forced en route they often will do a banana-line around the "hot" area where they were forced, either returning from the pile or on a subsequent send. If it became severe we would correct it as it shows confusion by the dog on why he got corrected (he thinks the ground randomly bit him as opposed to receiving force for noncompliance).

Another example is shorebreaking from the traditional Dobbs method, where we purposefully correct the dog merely for putting feet on the shore (as opposed to staying in the water) and the dog learns the shore is hot. He avoids the shore (cheating) and stays in the water. 

What I have NOT seen, in field work, is a dog associate a correction from the ecollar with some random object he happens to be near or in his field of vision. I have never seen a dog become paranoid because one time he got nicked near a tree and now he's afraid of trees. Or it was sunset when he got a nick and now he's nervous when the sun goes down. Just doesn't really happen like that. However I have seen dogs become wary of field objects such as decoys, silhouettes, holding blinds, etc, because of receiving too many or ill-timed corrections in conjunction with these objects. However honestly fear of objects like that -- in my observation -- are much more commonly caused by general timidity or lack of confidence by the dog, or a lot of fuss/yelling/etc by the handler, not so much by the collar.


----------



## Swampcollie

Megora said:


> In other words, with a very sensitive dog - I would be using the lowest settings.


Not just with sensitive dogs, with all dogs. You use the lowest setting possible that delivers the desired response. Each dog is unique and adjustments are made to that particular dogs' specific needs. 

That's why the modern e-collar is such an effective tool. it can be easily adjusted to accomodate the specific needs of a given dog in a specific circumstance simply by turning a dial or touching a different button(s).


----------



## Ljilly28

I wish my positive training OP had not become so much about using an e collar. I am looking for anyone's enthusiastic resources about that. I hope the core of e collar trainers can respect that, and take discussions of e collar training techniques etc back to one of the myriad threads about that. The specific thesis of this thread is nothing about how or why to use an ecollars.


----------



## Megora

Ljilly28 said:


> I wish my positive training OP had not become so much about using an e collar. I am looking for anyone's enthusiastic resources about that. I hope the core of e collar trainers can respect that, and take discussions of e collar training techniques etc back to one of the myriad threads about that. The specific thesis of this thread is nothing about how or why to use an ecollars.


Er... I'm sorry Jill...

My question/comments came from the standpoint that I want to use gentle/soft handling with my dog (no pinching ears, no hitting my dog, no rough treatment whatsoever of my dog). So I do have appreciation for a "positive training" thread while I do believe a certain level of corrections are necessary to teach a dog efficiently.

I would like to believe that current methods that successful trainers use can be adapted for use with my dog - providing I understand how they work. 

Using the lowest setting necessary for your dog with the e-collar does present a different mental image than what your average dog goes through when he's taught to use invisible fencing. <- Just for example. 

And I can think of one MH (not a golden person) whose dog is a cowering mess in obedience, not because of being zapped with the collar, but because her owner is too hard handed with her.


----------



## tippykayak

Ain't it funny? OP asks for help in training without the e-collar (not any claims about how it's bad, just that it's not for her), and she gets many pages of people telling her why she should use it, then many pages of how to use it properly, sprinkled with some moralizing about how hard it is to discuss e-collar training here on the bunny froo froo forum where people complain about it too much.

If you think it's hard to discuss proper e-collar training on H&F without the foolish folks spoiling the threads, now you can see how hard it is to discuss anything that deviates from the mainstream approach.

Edited to add: there were actually a lot of people who wrote posts that answered the OP's questions and addressed those issues in a helpful way. I didn't mean to ignore those contributions, since they make up a substantial chunk—unfortunately, not a majority—of the thread.


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> And I can think of one MH (not a golden person) whose dog is a cowering mess in obedience, not because of being zapped with the collar, but because her owner is too hard handed with her.


I think the "positive" urge in many of us is a reluctance to use aversives more than is strictly necessary, and some of that urge comes from knowing dogs who have suffered from the misapplication of aversives. However, I've said many times that it's not the e-collar itself that causes a situation like that but rather an handler who is too quick to punish and insufficiently clear with his dog. You can make a mess of a dog with just a leash or a rolled newspaper.

The way I see it, there are aversives that are outside the realm of normal, modern training (switches, rock salt in a shotgun, beating dogs), and we can mostly agree that those are unacceptable these days. And then there are aversives that are well-accepted and commonly used (e-collar stims, cuffing, yanking on the leash). They tend to be more precise and less harsh, and we wouldn't call them abusive but we still might choose not to use them with our personal dogs.

Somebody's choice to eschew a particular aversive doesn't necessarily mean that they're calling it abusive or that they think nobody should use it. However, they get to choose not to use it, talk about their reasons not to use it, and hopefully they get some help finding another way to accomplish their goals.


----------



## AmbikaGR

I was wondering why the OP of this thread posted videos with regard to "force" and "e-collar Conditioning" to this thread many pages ago and now laments that her thread has gone in a different direction? REALLY!! :doh:
Sorry I do not get it?


----------



## sammydog

I think this is the most informative thread we have had on training without physical aversives! Sure, there is talk about e-collar and force... But this is field training. Like I said before, if you want to field train I do think you need to know how it is trained traditionally. You need help from people who train traditionally. I think it is great that we have some experienced trainers on here who have been talking things out and giving ideas on how to train without aversives, along with a list of webpages and books. What more do you want? You have the ability to choose what you focus on in this thread.


----------



## Ljilly28

You are absolutely right that those videos backfired. I had never seen them before, and I thought those videos showed well what I want to avoid with my own dogs and why a hope for a different way was reasonable.I couldnt imagine anyone would think that was okay, never mind the best protocol& practice for training, but I was wrong. When I saw the cuffing, I was 100 percent confident my desire to avoid doing that to my dog would be self-evident. In my real dog life interacting with shelter kennel managers and pet dog trainers, I get embarrassed at times by how brutal people think retriever field training is, and I was looking to have a way to build a bridge for myself to do both. The accepted system as depicted in those videos goes way too far for my personal comfort level about how to treat a dog, and I have resolved the issue. I was torn about field training, but now I feel free to opt for our daily 5 mile woods hikes etc.


----------



## Ljilly28

sammydog said:


> What more do you want?


Since you ask, I want it to be less intimidating to post in this section of the forum in general. I have 22 private messages from the time this thread has been running from people who have awesome contributions to make, but say they do not feel comfortable posting here whatsoever and never do. 

I agree though that several members have bent over backwards to be wonderful and helpful.

The few who kind of make snarky fun or ridicule- well, it has a big effect on the people who read but do not post.

Also, I would like a way to integrate field training into pet dog training since that is the job that supports me, my dogs, and my farm. The sole reason for this is because of the standard- primarily a retriever. Since we hike every single day in the big woods or out at the horizon line of vast empty beaches, I know my dogs are in hard working condition and fully touch the world. I don't actually want to go to field training- I don't enjoy it and truthfully I feel badly about all the birds. What outweighs that is wanting to try and be true to how the standard reads, like it or not. You are on the positive trainers lists too, so you are aware of how much someone who is a CPDT-KA trainer and/or APDT member is at odds with e collar training, FF, and cuffing. You really can't say you offer positive training, and then go off to field training like a guilty secret. 

It's been a great thread in that way too- a thinking process about not just the training tools and systems, but about the various cultures around different dog niches ; some fit naturally and some clash.


----------



## EvanG

Originally Posted by [B said:


> FlyingQuizini[/B]  ]
> _I hope to one day work higher level hunt skills w/o a collar. I think it would take really, really breaking down the exercises. In my opinion,* I think the advantage of the collar is that you can get by with individual pieces maybe not being fluent before chaining them all together in a retrieve situation b/c you can correct the mistakes. *_





K9-Design said:


> Hmmm. Not sure if I agree with this.


Neither do I, but it's been a pervasive misperception for quite some time. Particularly those who oppose the use of aversives like e-collars make a presumption that it's used to take the place of missing components of training. That, of course, is totally erroneous within the scope of top modern methods.


K9-Design said:


> A modern retriever training program is very thorough and systematically teaches EVERY nuance of retrieving. The difference is many steps are reinforced with the collar to both improve reliability/conviction and condition a correction. I do think Quiz would be a fun dog to try teaching handling to without a collar. It would either be genius or a complete disaster


That is correct. But just as importantly, it is important to point out that the use of an ecollar is not always a correction. Stimulus from aversives may be used to either correct, or to compel. When we force to pile we aren't correcting for a refusal. We're compelling, and instilling a vital component in retrieving in general, but especially for running blinds; MOMENTUM. I realize many people blur the lines of distinction between 'style' and 'momentum'. But lacking momentum, no retrieving gets done. With inadequate momentum the quality and substance of blind retrieves dimnishes exponentially.

EvanG


----------



## marsh mop

> I was torn about field training, but now I feel free to opt for our daily 5 mile woods hikes etc.


 Why? You have been given good advise on positive training. Was it helpful? You said you wanted to try for a JH title with positve methods. Did you really mean that or were you looking for something else?
Enjoy your woods hikes.
Jim


----------



## GoldenSail

sammydog said:


> I think this is the most informative thread we have had on training without physical aversives! Sure, there is talk about e-collar and force... But this is field training. Like I said before, if you want to field train I do think you need to know how it is trained traditionally. You need help from people who train traditionally. I think it is great that we have some experienced trainers on here who have been talking things out and giving ideas on how to train without aversives, along with a list of webpages and books. What more do you want? You have the ability to choose what you focus on in this thread.


Yes I agree. Honestly if I think someone will ever be really successful avoiding aversives it is going to be a crossover trainer. Seriously. Because that person will understand the process fully and won't be making it up as they go along..


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> Also, I would like a way to integrate field training into pet dog training since that is the job that supports me, my dogs, and my farm.


That can readily be accomplished. But the trainer is the key to it. A dog owner who desires to have an obedient pet that is also an effective fieldworker is not at crossed purposes. They still have the same decisions to make about how they approach the training in terms of methods and tools, which links directly to whether they perceive the use of any degree of pressure (or pressure as they perceive it) can be a component of the process.

The world is not pressure-freee, either for us or our dogs. One of the best reasons for the judicious use of pressure in dog training (field or pet) is to condition our dogs to live and perform in a stable, reliable manner in its presence. The result is a stable, secure, happy dog.

Anything can be done unfairly, and that causes problems for most dogs. But unfairness is not a necessary feature of pressure in any form. If something is done unfairly in training it is the human's fault. How can we be fair? Perhaps to hide from the use of pressure would be fairer? No, not really. A reliable response to command can be life saving. Getting that response when distraction is at its highest means even greater reliability, and more effectiveness in all work - field or other.

Threads like this tend to live long, and all too often unproductive lives mostly because of the verbal grappling over the use of pressure. I believe that is because the use of pressure is widely misunderstood, even in this age.

EvanG


----------



## GoldenSail

AmbikaGR said:


> I was wondering why the OP of this thread posted videos with regard to "force" and "e-collar Conditioning" to this thread many pages ago and now laments that her thread has gone in a different direction? REALLY!! :doh:
> Sorry I do not get it?


I don't get it either. Also--wasn't there another thread like this in the H&F forum where this OP said it was ok that the subject changed from the original intent because it was following a natural flow of discussion. Oh well...

Goes back to what I said before. You can either be a dreamer or an achiever. While I totally support someone who does not want to train that way...heck they would be welcome in my training group as long as they helped out and wasn't excessively long at doing things (and we all take our time to teach). However I get incredibly frustrated by people who want to talk the talk but won't even try to walk. C'mon. If you want to do it, you'll find a way regardless. Or you'll at least try.


----------



## GoldenSail

Ljilly28 said:


> You are absolutely right that those videos backfired. I had never seen them before, and I thought those videos showed well what I want to avoid with my own dogs and why a hope for a different way was reasonable.


It would have been helpful if you had said something like this when you posted those videos. You posted the videos then left the discussion. It personally made me very confused as I didn't know what your point was  Particularly after saying several times prior you didn't want to talk abut force methods.


----------



## K9-Design

GoldenSail said:


> I don't get it either. Also--wasn't there another thread like this in the H&F forum where this OP said it was ok that the subject changed from the original intent because it was following a natural flow of discussion. Oh well...
> 
> Goes back to what I said before. You can either be a dreamer or an achiever. While I totally support someone who does not want to train that way...heck they would be welcome in my training group as long as they helped out and wasn't excessively long at doing things (and we all take our time to teach). * However I get incredibly frustrated by people who want to talk the talk but won't even try to walk. *C'mon. If you want to do it, you'll find a way regardless. *Or you'll at least try.*


Great post and I agree 100%

I also don't see all the ridicule that Jill and Tippy keep referencing. And I know they are pointing that finger at me but I do not see it. Please tell me one time during this thread where I put someone down for wanting to train without an ecollar. There have been many people on this thread (Jessica, Megora, etc) who are new field trainers or interested in field training without an ecollar, who asked legit questions and received some pretty cool answers from a lot of people. Is that not what a message board is about? 
And again --- it's easier to type than to train dogs......


----------



## hotel4dogs

so as not to encroach on Jill's thread, I've started 3 new threads about the use of e-collars.


----------



## gdgli

Ljilly, I would like to encourage you to go with your original plan. Don't quit, use the advice that has been offered, take what you like and toss what you don't like. I think that it is more important for you to get your dog into the field. You can always modify your training as you see fit.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> I also don't see all the ridicule that Jill and Tippy keep referencing. And I know they are pointing that finger at me but I do not see it. Please tell me one time during this thread where I put someone down for wanting to train without an ecollar.


For the record, I think the majority of your posts have been helpful ones about the use of aversives and potential alternatives. However, if you're wondering where you wrote posts that were either obviously contemptuous or could easily be read as such, here are the ones from this thread:



K9-Design said:


> You would need to actually field train a dog to understand ANY way of training, alternative to your own or not.





K9-Design said:


> OMG seriously. Easier said than done. MUCH easier.





K9-Design said:


> So we're back to square one. Jill is your goal to do field work with your dog, or to get a pat on the back for cooking up a new totally positive field training method? Or a pat on the back for "thinking" about cooking up a new totally positive field training method?





K9-Design said:


> A breakthrough!!!!!





K9-Design said:


> Oh please no, not the quadrants!!!!!!
> LOL





K9-Design said:


> WOOHOO You get a click! Err.....





K9-Design said:


> But dadgummit, typing is easier!!!!!!!





K9-Design said:


> "Floundering" is about the most descriptive word I can find.


Still, as far as I'm concerned, your posts were mostly on the positive side, and I wasn't really thinking of you when I was talking about the open mockery.


----------



## sterregold

gdgli said:


> Ljilly, I would like to encourage you to go with your original plan. Don't quit, use the advice that has been offered, take what you like and toss what you don't like. I think that it is more important for you to get your dog into the field. You can always modify your training as you see fit.


Me, too! Especially since this is a dog who will likely earn his CH and other titles and garner some breeding interest. In that case it is vital that the RETRIEVER part of the name be demonstrated, which has elements to it that cannot be demonstrated by titles in other performance venues.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> For the record, I think the majority of your posts have been helpful ones about the use of aversives and potential alternatives. However, if you're wondering where you wrote posts that were either obviously contemptuous or could easily be read as such, here are the ones from this thread:


I don't even know where "contemptuous" comes into this whole discussion. Whatever. 



> Still, as far as I'm concerned, your posts were mostly on the positive side, and I wasn't really thinking of you when I was talking about the open mockery.


Well then who are you talking about when you mention open mockery of non-ecollar training? I just have not seen it. 

Others have said it before, and I'll say it again, having a different viewpoint or seeking different ideas is not a bad thing at all. Playing the victim and seeking reason to feel degraded or affronted, however, is completely counterproductive to any discussion here.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> I don't even know where "contemptuous" comes into this whole discussion. Whatever.


As in scornful and lacking respect. Related to the discussion of mockery.



K9-Design said:


> Well then who are you talking about when you mention open mockery of non-ecollar training? I just have not seen it.


I made the deliberate decision not to call those people out specifically, since I was interested in having it stop, not getting into a one-on-one about it with specific people in which I have to justify by quoting their posts, which is exactly what we're doing now. You asked me a question directly, so I provided an answer, otherwise I would not specifically have mentioned you.



K9-Design said:


> Others have said it before, and I'll say it again, having a different viewpoint or seeking different ideas is not a bad thing at all. Playing the victim and seeking reason to feel degraded or affronted, however, is completely counterproductive to any discussion here.


I agree, but then we have this:



K9-Design said:


> I also don't see all the ridicule that Jill and Tippy keep referencing. And I know they are pointing that finger at me but I do not see it.


And this:



K9-Design said:


> I think it would be a step in the right direction if the "no ecollar trainers" in search of a "non-ecollar method" to field work would just say that, rather than eschewing themselves as "positive field trainers." That of course means the other guys are the "negative field trainers" and quite frankly nothing could be further from the truth.


If people want to have a discussion of differing viewpoints, respectfulness is paramount. I'm not looking for reasons to be offended, just pointing out the consistent contempt shown by some folks for the concept of differing from mainstream training in this field. And the contempt is real, verifiable, in posts. It's not the difference of opinion that bothers. It's the ridicule that anybody could be so stupid as to disagree.

And those selfsame folks often complain about how we're calling the collar abusive when we're not, or calling them negative trainers because somebody uses the term "positive training."


----------



## K9-Design

Yawn, okay whatever. This is another one of those dog-chasing-its-tail moments. Have fun training your dogs.


----------



## Megora

Okay... when I closed up the internet last night, there was a complaint about this thread turning into something it was not supposed to be. I didn't get it then, because it came after serious questions and helpful explanations from people. Useful discussion.

I log on today and egad. That comment definitely applies now.  

Are these arguments and repetitive debates on methods helpful at all... particularly since the arguments do not come from people who intend to train their dogs in field either way?


----------



## Ljilly28

Sterregold, I do agree. I was definitely raised with the admiration for a brave, reliable hunting dog, and I still carry that. I absolutely see that to keep the breed true, that there needs to be a way to test that the dog is birdy, doesnt have a hard mouth, will stay the course enthusiastically in cold water etc or those traits will be lost. I'm not antihunting, and keep all our land open to Maine hunters, and wouldn't think of posting it. ( No MarshMop, not peta or whatever). However, I have a hard time with some the things I've been seeing in real life going to the lab group, like an alive bird with its wings tied being given to a litter of chessie pups as a plaything or on video with the well-known trainer who seems to be regarded as one of the best professionals striking a dog. I've even caught the drift that an e collar in very skillful hands is not the ominous tool it can be in horrible hands. However, on the road to becoming skillful and experienced, there is that first dog, that second dog. . what about the dog I make my mistakes on? It so puts me off that, while I see the danger of baby/bath water, it starts to seem like something I can't do. The APDT is starting to crack down on certified trainers who do violate their code of ethics, and if I used an e collar, I would be doing that. I absolutely believe that you are a wonderful clear trainer and do not in anyway hurt your dogs. 




EvanG said:


> Neither do I, but it's been a pervasive misperception for quite some time. Particularly those who oppose the use of aversives like e-collars make a presumption that it's used to take the place of missing components of training. That, of course, is totally erroneous
> EvanG


The trainer to whom you are addressing this is very accomplished in a different part of the dog world, is a writer about dogs, and has a wide audience. She knows her stuff.


----------



## GoldenSail

Good grief. Personally I didn't feel like anyone was _intentionally_ mean but I think there are many people on all sides dropping stuff that could come across as such.


----------



## GoldenSail

So Jill why don't you do it your way then? If you don't want your dog to have a live bird don't give him one. If you don't want to use an ecollar don't buy one. I don't understand...if you really want something you need to go out and do it. Fine, do it your way. But don't quit or never try just because you want to do it a different way. Personally, if I feel like I can do something I go for it. I don't let anyone stop me even if I am alone.


----------



## gdgli

Ljilly

What you saw with the pigeon and the Chessie pups sounds like a puppy test that is used to test for prey drive, boldness, independence, alertness, perseverence, etc. I don't know that everybody does it and you certainly don't have to but many field breeders do this in order to find out puppy traits so that they can match the puppy to the buyer. The pigeon is not used as a toy. It is instead it is a tool that is used to evaluate puppies.

Not trying to convince you to like it, just letting you know why it is sometimes done.


----------



## Megora

gdgli said:


> Ljilly
> 
> What you saw with the pigeon and the Chessie pups sounds like a puppy test that is used to test for prey drive, boldness, independence, alertness, perseverence, etc. I don't know that everybody does it and you certainly don't have to but many field breeders do this in order to find out puppy traits so that they can match the puppy to the buyer. The pigeon is not used as a toy. It is instead it is a tool that is used to evaluate puppies.
> 
> Not trying to convince you to like it, just letting you know why it is sometimes done.


I could be wrong, but I think it's used in training too. Because the dogs aren't just handling/retrieving dead birds.


----------



## K9-Design

Megora said:


> Are these arguments and repetitive debates on methods helpful at all... particularly since the arguments do not come from people who intend to train their dogs in field either way?


I ask myself the same thing over and over and over....

Honestly I don't really care if people use a collar or not but what I do not like is someone who has zero experience with it, assuming because they are not familiar with an ecollar that it is bad and anyone who trains with one is bad, abuses their dogs, is lazy, etc etc etc. I'm hoping the more we explain how it is used in a modern program the more people will understand and not be afraid of it. I guess that's why I keep replying to these threads, and also as evidenced in this thread, we have some really great *trainers* on here and some of the detailed discussions are really interesting.


----------



## sammydog

Ljilly28 said:


> Since you ask, I want it to be less intimidating to post in this section of the forum in general. I have 22 private messages from the time this thread has been running from people who have awesome contributions to make, but say they do not feel comfortable posting here whatsoever and never do.
> 
> I agree though that several members have bent over backwards to be wonderful and helpful.
> 
> The few who kind of make snarky fun or ridicule- well, it has a big effect on the people who read but do not post.
> 
> Also, I would like a way to integrate field training into pet dog training since that is the job that supports me, my dogs, and my farm. The sole reason for this is because of the standard- primarily a retriever. Since we hike every single day in the big woods or out at the horizon line of vast empty beaches, I know my dogs are in hard working condition and fully touch the world. I don't actually want to go to field training- I don't enjoy it and truthfully I feel badly about all the birds. What outweighs that is wanting to try and be true to how the standard reads, like it or not. You are on the positive trainers lists too, so you are aware of how much someone who is a CPDT-KA trainer and/or APDT member is at odds with e collar training, FF, and cuffing. You really can't say you offer positive training, and then go off to field training like a guilty secret.
> 
> It's been a great thread in that way too- a thinking process about not just the training tools and systems, but about the various cultures around different dog niches ; some fit naturally and some clash.


I still stand by the fact that most of this thread has been very helpful and informative. The world is not perfect, you don't quit driving because somebody flipped you off.

I really really hope you try field. I posted every resource I know. There are not a lot... There was discussion about ways to do things without collars. That is what I am focusing on. If the post was not something that interested me, I ignored it.

At this point there is nothing left except for you to go out and try! Use what you know as a trainer and apply it to the field. I think you can do it! I will tell you what I am going to do, I am going to refresh on my reading of the resources posted and once the Agility National is over in April I am going to get back to some field training. Yesterday I actually scheduled a training day with a friend for the day after we get back since I will still be off work.  Looking forward to it!


----------



## DNL2448

sammydog said:


> I will tell you what I am going to do, I am going to refresh on my reading of the resources posted and once the Agility National is over in April I am going to get back to some field training. Yesterday I actually scheduled a training day with a friend for the day after we get back since I will still be off work.  Looking forward to it!


YAY!!!!!!!! :appl:


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Honestly I don't really care if people use a collar or not but what I do not like is someone who has zero experience with it, assuming because they are not familiar with an ecollar that it is bad and anyone who trains with one is bad, abuses their dogs, is lazy, etc etc etc.


I challenge you to point out anywhere in this thread that Jill or I said any of this. I think you will find that both of us have said, a number of times, that we don't consider the e-collar abusive or a tool for the lazy. Once again you are responding to criticisms that haven't been made. The term "abuse" was introduced to the thread by somebody who uses an e-collar, making the exact same unfounded complaint you're now making.

And again, you use the experience fallacy (ipse dixit, and/or argument from authority). I don't have to hit a dog to know that I don't want to hit a dog anymore than you have to clicker train a field dog in order to know that you don't want to. Experience is a valuable contributor, but particularly for the premises of this thread, the voice of somebody who _hasn't_ bought into mainstream training is at least as relevant as that of one who has.

And nobody's saying that you shouldn't use an e-collar or that it's bad! Simply that there might be good personal reasons to pursue field training without one and requesting help and resources for following that path.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> I challenge you to point out anywhere in this thread that Jill or I said any of this. I think you will find that both of us have said, a number of times, that we don't consider the e-collar abusive or a tool for the lazy. Once again you are responding to criticisms that haven't been made. The term "abuse" was introduced to the thread by somebody who uses an e-collar, making the exact same unfounded complaint you're now making


*I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU OR JILL, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 22 ANONYMOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE SO AFRAID TO POST THAT THEY PM'D JILL. *

I'm NOT RESPONDING TO CRITICISM because I DON'T FEEL CRITICIZED!!!! 

We ALL know where you stand, trust me nothing I say is to change YOUR mind!


----------



## MarieP

Oh good lord. I really thought we were having a great conversation about ways to train without a collar and the things that you might have to adjust if you don't use a collar. Now it's just a bunch of GDG. 

To the people who are afraid to post, I think thicker skin is needed. I didn't join until recently and you really just have to jump in. Introduce yourself! Post away! And if we disagree, that's OK too. We are also very good at coming up with various ways to solve problems, which I think is a great thing. Different perspectives are good. The reason some of these threads go the way they do is because a very small number (I can think of one or two) continue to pick apart everything. 

If anyone has questions or comments about what I have posted throughout this thread, please PM me because I am done wading through the junk. Or, better yet, start a new thread with questions!! Then we can all brainstorm together!


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I just read through a good chunk of this thread, and I have to say that as someone who is just getting into field training with no final decision made on FF or ecollars, the problems seem to be preconceived notions and judgment. 

People who are against FF or ecollars call them "shock collars" and "ear pinching my dog"...making them sound like terrible terrible things. They call their training "positive," which of course, means anyone using FF or ecollars is a "negative" trainer. People who utilize FF and ecollars seem to be used to having to defend (or at least explain) their training techniques with the general non-field training public. 

If people are "afraid" to post, seriously? Grow a pair and post if you have something to say. If not, don't complain about it via PM and make the participants the angry mob preventing you from posting. If everyone can just get their hackles down and think about what they write before posting a reply, including how it will be perceived by people who think differently than you, perhaps these types of threads wouldn't turn into a mess like this one did. JMHO.


----------



## K9-Design

Hey, I just figured out how to use the IGNORE function!


----------



## K9-Design

And now my signature is gone! Oh wait, it's back.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

K9-Design said:


> Hey, I just figured out how to use the IGNORE function!


Hopefully not for me


----------



## K9-Design

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Hopefully not for me


No definitely not you!


----------



## GoldenSail

Wow. Experience speaks volumes for me. I would not want to learn about playing the piano from someone who had never touched one.


----------



## sammydog

Well, before this thread gets locked... I wanted to point out to people who are just looking... :wavey: There is lots of good dialog mixed in starting at about page 16-17 through page 20ish... Then it went amuck last night... :eyecrazy: Sorry...


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> The trainer to whom you are addressing this is very accomplished in a different part of the dog world, is a writer about dogs, and has a wide audience. She knows her stuff.


I'm addressing this generally, but okay. The venue underdiscussion is fieldwork is it not?

EvanG


----------



## Megora

goldenjackpuppy said:


> People who are against FF or ecollars call them "shock collars" and "ear pinching my dog"...making them sound like terrible terrible things. They call their training "positive," which of course, means anyone using FF or ecollars is a "negative" trainer. People who utilize FF and ecollars seem to be used to having to defend (or at least explain) their training techniques with the general non-field training public.


I think I said something about ear pinching... This is because I come from the obedience side where this method is used to teach a reliable dumbbell hold/retrieve. My instructor basically explained the method to me when we were learning dumbbells. She demonstrated how it's done (not with my dog). And she assured me that it DOES NOT hurt the dog and is nothing that will cause a dog to become hand shy.

But if you've ever been in a room where trainers are pinching their dog's ears to the point the dogs are yelping loud enough to have both you and your dog jumping for ceiling... 

Well, that's where my refusal to use that method with my dog comes from. And yes, I've used other "pinch" methods with my dog (pinch tongue to correct mouthing or biting, pinch lips to teach give). 

I'd just like to believe that field could be like obedience and success could be reached by owners adapting traditional methods to what will be useful for them or according to their own personal limits. 

That's why I'm reading Barb's three threads and the pertinent portions of this thread with interest... and look forward to getting up the courage to signing up for a beginner/intro class next summer if they are offered.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> Wow. Experience speaks volumes for me. I would not want to learn about playing the piano from someone who had never touched one.


Bad analogy. It's more like wanting to play the piano but not wanting a teacher who's going to hit you on the knuckles with the ruler, even though everybody is telling you that it's the best way to learn. And then everybody tells you that unless you've learned Chopin under a teacher who's hit you on the knuckles, you're not allowed to question any part of the process. And you'd really like to learn more about piano, but you're so turned off by the attitude of the traditionalists that you really don't know how to get started, since your values draw anger and ridicule whenever you mention them.


----------



## DNL2448

Oh good grief :doh: seriously people, If this thread doesn't get back on track and the pi$$in' match doesn't stop then another useful thread is going to be closed.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> Bad analogy. It's more like wanting to play the piano but not wanting a teacher who's going to hit you on the knuckles with the ruler, even though everybody is telling you that it's the best way to learn. And then everybody tells you that unless you've learned Chopin under a teacher who's hit you on the knuckles, you're not allowed to question any part of the process.


No actually. It has nothing to do with the method. It has to do with experience. If you haven't played the game then what you have to say holds very little to me. 

It's very easy for people to passively have strong opinions on things they have never tried or experienced. They are certain they will not like them because they have observed from a distance. I say,you never really know if you don't try.

If I wanted to learn to play the piano I would listen to someone who had played the piano. Regardless of how they learned, that experience and knowledge is valuable. It doesn't do me much good to listen to someone who doesn't play the piano.


----------



## sammydog

Ok, I have an analogy for you.

Let's say you don't know a whole lot about cooking. Easy for me because I don't! You are making a new years resolution to diet and you want to make something like cheesecake, but without all the fat. (PS I am not even sure if this is possible)

So you can start cooking from scratch and having no idea how to make a cheesecake just start guessing and throwing things together. If I tried this, I promise nothing would be edible, since I have no idea how to make a cheesecake.

OR

You can consult someone who does know how to make a traditional cheesecake or read a traditional cheesecake recipe and then change some of the ingredients. Even better, since this person is an experienced cook you can ask them about some good ingredient substitutions. Since they have cooked more than you have they may have some good ideas, even though they are going to continue making a traditional cheesecake.

That is how I feel about this thread! Thank you to those of you who are willing to share your knowledge!

Oh and I have no idea why I thought about making food, since I don't cook. But it's lunchtime and I now I am even more hungry!

Oh yeah... You can also talk about how you can make a fat free cheesecake and never actually try it... Until you try you will never know if it works.


----------



## GoldenSail

sammydog said:


> Oh yeah... You can also talk about how you can make a fat free cheesecake and never actually try it... Until you try you will never know if it works.


Cute! I love it! 

Now I am going to say that I am most certain that I would hate a fat free cheese cake just by the looks of it. No way I will try a bite because I already know I don't like it  :curtain:

I *know* that since that cheesecake does not have fat in it, it will taste terrible. There's no way you could make a cheesecake taste good without fat


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> No actually. It has nothing to do with the method. It has to do with experience. If you haven't played the game then what you have to say holds very little to me.


Except that, in your analogy, none of the people who don't play piano are teaching piano in this thread. They're just asking about alternative methods and defending their right not to want to learn in the traditional way.



GoldenSail said:


> I say,you never really know if you don't try.


Then I suggest you take a new pup, and before you train any field skills, cut a switch and beat him until he cries out several times. That's what the 1912 retriever training manual I read says. You won't know for sure that it's a bad idea unless you try it. The logic of "mainstream experts are the only source of knowledge" is absolutely unsound. They're _one_ source, but you have to engage your own learning and your own values.



GoldenSail said:


> If I wanted to learn to play the piano I would listen to someone who had played the piano. Regardless of how they learned, that experience and knowledge is valuable. It doesn't do me much good to listen to someone who doesn't play the piano.


That's your right, but if you only listen to mainstream orthodoxy, that's all you're going to hear.


----------



## tippykayak

sammydog said:


> Oh yeah... You can also talk about how you can make a fat free cheesecake and never actually try it... Until you try you will never know if it works.


How do you learn how to do it when so many of people who bake with full fat say it won't work and mock you for asking for help doing it on your own terms?


----------



## sammydog

Yeah, I am sure I could have come up with something better, but that popped into my head. Lets imagine you are trying to make a fat free cheesecake that tasted good! HAHA!

Now I want some cheesecake... Need to order lunch, won't be cheesecake, but I am hungry!


----------



## GoldenSail

tippy you can never give it a rest can you?


----------



## K9-Design

I am getting a kick out of this. Ignore function is FUN!


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> tippy you can never give it a rest can you?


If I'm on GRF and the thread updates and I see a concept I'd like to respond to, I do tend to write a post. And if things are addressed to me directly or to points I've made, I almost always have something more to say in response. I recognize that this is something of a vice on my part.


----------



## sammydog

tippykayak said:


> How do you learn how to do it when so many of the full fat bakers say it won't work and mock you for asking for help doing it on your own terms?


Well since I am one of the people interested in field training without physical aversives, I can speak from my own experience. There are people who have helped me and there are people who have scoffed at the idea. I have been to an event where the judge watched me walk up to the briefing and looked around and goes "I don't see an agility trial anywhere, what are you doing here"

I CHOOSE to focus on the people who are willing to offer advice. I also choose not to debate with people about how to train.


----------



## Loisiana

I just want to say that my mom just dropped off a slice of red velvet cheesecake to me.:yummy::yummy: I am fairly certain it is NOT fat free


----------



## tippykayak

sammydog said:


> Well since I am one of the people interested in field training without physical aversives, I can speak from my own experience. There are people who have helped me and there are people who have scoffed at the idea. I have been to an event where the judge watched me walk up to the briefing and looked around and goes "I don't see an agility trial anywhere, what are you doing here"
> 
> I CHOOSE to focus on the people who are willing to offer advice. I also choose not to debate with people about how to train.


Thanks for that and for your other posts in this thread; I've found them balanced and illuminating, enough so that I've read all of them twice.


----------



## sammydog

Loisiana said:


> I just want to say that my mom just dropped off a slice of red velvet cheesecake to me.:yummy::yummy: I am fairly certain it is NOT fat free


Oh man, you suck! I think we are having a cheesecake on Christmas Eve.. MMmmmmm!


----------



## Ljilly28

> FlyingQuizini said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would take really, really breaking down the exercises. In my opinion, I think the advantage of the collar is that you can get by with individual pieces maybe not being fluent before chaining them all together in a retrieve situation b/c you can correct the mistakes.
> 
> I liken it to teaching the hotdog retrieve. Now THAT'S a fluent retrieve, and being able to do it really requires fluency in every piece of the behavior: Go to it> immediately pick it up> don't mouth it> bring it back> release it ... all the while, exhibiting the impulse control necessary to successfully tolerate delayed gratification.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Stephanie. We had fun doing these hotdog retrieves tonight after our hike. Tally caught on right away. It's encouraging to hear you did a JH with Quiz. I will work with that idea of getting fluency in each individual piece with Copley at home before going back out in the group situation.
Click to expand...


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> The logic of *"mainstream experts are the only source of knowledge"* is absolutely unsound. They're _one_ source, but you have to engage your own learning and your own values.


May I ask, who is saying that? I would add to that, the so-called 'mainstream experts', as I understand them to be (me included because we're the ones taking the risks and making the effort to put our methods up for public scrutiny), are espousing techniques and ideas that are producing measurable results - empiracle evidence of their soundness, instead of subjective claims. If you or anyone else choose to assert that those methods are not as advertised, I simply challenge you to produce evidence of it.

I love the notion of someone thinking outside the box, and coming up with viable alternatives. But alternative types of training are not viable without a track record that confirms it. There have always been "other ways". But the cream has always had clear ways of rising to the top.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> May I ask, who is saying that?


I was responding to the consistent refrain along the lines of "the only people whose opinion matters are the people who use the method we're discussing." 



EvanG said:


> If you or anyone else choose to assert that those methods are not as advertised, I simply challenge you to produce evidence of it.


I never asserted you were advertising anything other than reality. I think you are very open with your methods, and their success is verifiable.



EvanG said:


> I love the notion of someone thinking outside the box, and coming up with viable alternatives. But alternative types of training are not viable without a track record that confirms it.


New things don't have a track record until they've worked for a while. And they develop that record even more slowly when people feel threatened, put them down, and discourage innovators from trying new things. By your logic, alternative training isn't viable, therefore we have no reason to engage in it, therefore we should only innovate incrementally.



EvanG said:


> But the cream has always had clear ways of rising to the top.


Cream's not the only thing that floats.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> "I love the notion of someone thinking outside the box, and coming up with viable alternatives. But alternative types of training are not viable without a track record that confirms it. There have always been "other ways". But the cream has always had clear ways of rising to the top.
> 
> 
> EvanG"


I believe all I wrote there was clear and direct, as well as to the point at hand.


tippykayak said:


> New things don't have a track record until they've worked for a while.


I know. I've been there. And I think that is how it should be. If being successfully innovative were easy many more would have done it. When you put out a new idea you're put on a target, and it stays there for a long time, even when you do earn a track record of success.


tippykayak said:


> And they develop that record even more slowly when people feel threatened, put them down, and discourage innovators from trying new things.


That's just one of the risks you take. And you only take such risks when you believe in what you're doing because of it. It's a good thing that someone trying to be an innovator should move forward with caution as a dog trainer. To do otherwise is to risk wreckless experimentation with helpless dogs as laboratory subjects. That's why I'd like to hear ideas from someone like Ms. Jolly because she has been there and done that in a proven method, and now has some alternate ideas that may have credibility, rather than merely being "new".


tippykayak said:


> By your logic, alternative training isn't viable, therefore we have no reason to engage in it, therefore we should only innovate incrementally.


That assertion has no logical legs. It only states that holding a parade in honor of something new is premature until the new idea or process has done something parade-worthy.


tippykayak said:


> Cream's not the only thing that floats.


Why the h*ll was _that_ necessary? You post a needless, caustic shot like that and then wonder why you rub people the wrong way? In case it's escaped your notice, you do this often.

EvanG


----------



## AmbikaGR

tippykayak said:


> Cream's not the only thing that floats.



And others are accused of dragging this thread into the mud? :doh:
While you may read sarcasm and other things into people's posts, there is not much that needs to be read into this one is there? Totally uncalled for in my opinion. :no:


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> That assertion has no logical legs. It only states that holding a parade in honor of something new is premature until the new idea or process has done something parade-worthy.


But nobody is asking for a parade. Just respect and help and a chance to get those things without being put down or drowned out.



EvanG said:


> Why the h*ll was _that_ necessary? You post a needless, caustic shot like that and then wonder why you rub people the wrong way? In case it's escaped your notice, you do this often.


I honestly don't see it as caustic. You used the proverb that cream rises to the top, and I pointed out that not only the best ideas make it to the top, but other stuff does too. If you think I was somehow assuming you were calling yourself the cream and implying you weren't the cream but were something else, I think that's a pretty big leap.

Regardless, I'm sorry. It's my responsibility not to post things that could easily be read like that in the context of this kind of conversation. It's obvious that I have strong opinions about what you do in those videos, and you know it. Given the difficulty I have with keeping those strong feelings out of posts and the potential for you to think I would just take pot shots at you, I shouldn't have written something like that. It was too vague and too easily read as an insult, and I should have thought more carefully about it.

Instead, I should have said, "Good ideas rise to the top, sure, but sometimes better ideas can't rise to the top when good ideas become orthodoxy." I'll leave the original instead of editing it so your quote post makes sense.


----------



## AmbikaGR

tippykayak said:


> New things don't have a track record until they've worked for a while. And they develop that record even more slowly when people feel threatened, put them down, and discourage innovators from trying new things. By your logic, alternative training isn't viable, therefore we have no reason to engage in it, therefore we should only innovate incrementally.



But in my world many, if not most, of the greatest success stories were by people who were told "it can't be done" and because of that they went out and proved others wrong. They did not keep complaining they were being persecuted for their ideas and throw in the towel. They went out, did it and proved the others wrong. Pretty much along the lines of "put up or shut up".


----------



## tippykayak

AmbikaGR said:


> But in my world many, if not most, of the greatest success stories were by people who were told "it can't be done" and because of that they went out and proved others wrong. They did not keep complaining they were being persecuted for their ideas and throw in the towel. They went out, did it and proved the others wrong. Pretty much along the lines of "put up or shut up".


Really? Lots of innovators and reformers have a big part of their biographies devoted to the stories of how their ideas were delayed or outright quashed by people who either dismissed them or stood in the way because the ideas felt threatening.

I also find this pretty tortured logic for excusing mockery and contempt in the face of healthy questions. Even if the greatest innovators succeeded despite persecution, that doesn't mean the persecutors' behavior is acceptable or should be let off the hook.

I realize the "put up or shut up" argument is highly persuasive because it allows you guys to dismiss anybody who hasn't titled a dog in field. And there's a degree of truth to it. I do think Evan's (and yours, and Anney's, and many others') voices deserve more weight than mine in any conversation about how to train a field dog. But if you want to see innovation in field training and more people getting involved, I think there's a lot of attitudes that need to change. The attitude in the thread is a good example, as are the stories that many folks have told about trying alternatives around more traditional field trainers. 

And I totally agree that I get my back up about this because I'm not used to being talked to like a fool. I would rather learn than get in endless posts about how we're posting (rather than the substance), and I take responsibility for 50% (and sometimes more) of the tone problems in any exchange. But I think the contempt is real, and it's unhealthy for the sport and for the trainers who want to get into it but don't want to follow the mainstream flowchart.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Okay, as a person who has gained a lot of good stuff from this thread, I would ask that we stay out of personalities and discord. No way of training is perfect just as no single way of training is totally wrong.

And hey, this was an excellent thread can we keep it that way


----------



## tippykayak

I volunteer to stop writing about other people's tone and about broad philosophical arguments about the way ideas work, as I'm causing more problems than I'm solving at this point. I think this is probably a good moment for the thread to return only to posts about practical training issues.


----------



## sammydog

I am another person who has gained a lot from this thread! I agree, lets stay out of personalities and discord and get out and train!!

Happy Holidays everyone


----------



## tippykayak

Here's a real, non-loaded, tone free question: 

If you wanted to teach good mouth skills and totally avoid aversives, how would you do it? I'm particularly interested in how you'd get a dog to avoid dropping early, tossing, and mouthing.


----------



## EvanG

sammydog said:


> I am another person who has gained a lot from this thread! I agree, lets stay out of personalities and discord and get out and train!!
> 
> Happy Holidays everyone


There's an idea with real merit! 







 
EvanG


----------



## sammydog

You would break it down to the most basic behaviors and take it step by step  First teach a hold.

If you want to totally avoid any aversives you can do a clicker shaped hold/retrieve. I did this for Mira with a dumbbell recently. BUT she already knew how to retrieve at that point.

As a puppy I starting working on a hold with a paint roller. It was something she would take from my hand on her own and I would say hold, then almost immediately say give and then give her a treat. As she learned the duration of the hold got longer.

I also don't think the intro to teaching hold is much different with people who then move to the force fetch.


----------



## solinvictus

"If you wanted to teach good mouth skills and totally avoid aversives, how would you do it? I'm particularly interested in how you'd get a dog to avoid dropping early, tossing, and mouthing. "

I was taught in obedience not field training to take each piece separately.

If you have a dog that is mouthing or chewing stop. 
First train the dog to be comfortable with your hand over their nose, then touching the nose then holding the nose and mouth. When your dog feels comfortable with this type of touch go back to teaching the dog to hold the dumbell/bumper. (you are giving the dog information) If the dog chews or rolls the item gently put your hand around the dogs nose and mouth. Only reward for the solid hold.

They don't let go until you give your release word. You begin up close and personal so the item doesn't actually drop. If the dog releases before you ask for the release they don't get the reward. In the beginning you are not asking for any real long duration. You build that up.

Again baby steps after you have a solid hold then put the item on the floor when they pick it up with a solid hold reward if they don't go back to the step before. etc.
If the dog gets it move the item further away. Eventually adding in throwing the item.

Don't move on until each piece is solid.

I would think it is like any other training start inside with no distractions as the dog gets it for each piece move on to higher and higher distractions.


----------



## GoldenSail

sammydog said:


> I also don't think the intro to teaching hold is much different with people who then move to the force fetch.


Yes I agree. I think a lot of very good and successful trainers who use FF and CC teach very positively at first. Many of the FF resources I have read start off this way. Slow steps teaching hold--breaking it down into tiny pieces and rewarding for correct response. It is all part of the process.

Now, what if this does not carry over to birds? I now some people whose dogs are fine with bumpers but can be either sticky on birds or will chomp on them. And no, the dog is not going to give that bird up for a cookie. So now I have to think how you would address this...?


----------



## Loisiana

Or you can be blessed with a dog like Conner, who never had any kind of hold issue a day in his life. I didn't realize how lucky I was until I got Flip, the eternal mouther.


----------



## GoldenSail

Loisiana said:


> Or you can be blessed with a dog like Conner, who never had any kind of hold issue a day in his life. I didn't realize how lucky I was until I got Flip, the eternal mouther.


I am lucky with Scout too. She may be a little mouthy with dumbbell but not bumpers or birds. Actually retrieved a live duck this week and the duck was fine--nothing broken or torn, all feather intact. However, I have seen it be a real constant struggle for people with their dogs. Particularly a dog that is sticky. I suppose with hold you can maybe use a bird and break it down like you did with a bumper. Although with a dog with high prey drive it may be a constant battle no matter the technique. Can't resist the urge to chew on that juicy bird.


----------



## solinvictus

"Now, what if this does not carry over to birds? I now some people whose dogs are fine with bumpers but can be either sticky on birds or will chomp on them And no, the dog is not going to give that bird up for a cookie. So now I have to think how you would address this...? "

I would not be asking the dog to give up the bird for the cookie (that would be luring).
If the dog won't give up the bird or chomps the bird then you have to step back and use something else that is high value but not that high of value and go through the same process (steps). 

If the dog really understands what you want and does not offer the behavior. The fun stops and he/she needs to be gentlybe taken to a place to think this over. Like a crate. 

I think it is all about the human having patience and taking the time for the dog to understand. 

I think that if anyone is comfortable using the electric collar by all means use it but for those that want to do it without, needs to train using the skills and tools they have in their bag.


----------



## sammydog

GoldenSail said:


> Now, what if this does not carry over to birds? I now some people whose dogs are fine with bumpers but can be either sticky on birds or will chomp on them. And no, the dog is not going to give that bird up for a cookie. So now I have to think how you would address this...?


I am not sure if you are asking me, or if this is a general question. I did not have a problem with Mira being sticky or chomping, so its hard to know what I would do... My thought would be if you are still trying to be aversive free is go back to however you initially trained your retrieve and do it with the bird, small baby steps. OR completely change the way you did it and re-teach a different retrieve with better mouth habits... If the dog was eating birds I would probably use a frozen one to keep them from wanting to crunch.


----------



## AmberSunrise

I've never had an issue with chomping or freezing - perhaps I've just been lucky or perhaps the breaking the elements down has helped prevent these problems.

If I had a dog chomping or sticking, I would probably go to frozen birds working my way progressively to fresh or at least unfrozen birds, then to plain nasty birds.


----------



## EvanG

I'd just like to mention before we get mired in formulas and/or absolutes that while there are good approaches with good records of working well for an unstable mouth, each dog is different. Not only may you need to modify one such usual treatment, but you may also have to be willing to do some things outside what you have been used to, or perhaps been comfortable with in the past. In short, you need to be willing to do what it takes to be successful with "this" dog.

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

solinvictus said:


> I think that if anyone is comfortable using the electric collar by all means use it but for those that want to do it without, needs to train using the skills and tools they have in their bag.


Totally agree.
I will point out that it seems that people unfamiliar with field training with an ecollar following a well known method like Lardy or Graham, they assume every step of the way is taught with or reliant on the collar and it is simply not so. I would estimate that while the dog wears the collar 100% of the time while training, perhaps 10% of the lessons or training sessions rely on the collar to condition/correct/compel some aspect of training. That 90% of the time is "amish." Really it boils down to being a good dog trainer and breaking things down into understandable nuggets for the dog to be successful. That is necessary whether or not you use a collar. 
BAD trainers just zap the dog for what they perceive as doing something wrong.
The perfect example was illustrated here....if you have a dog sticking on birds the collar is probably pretty far down the list of possible fixes for it. In fact collar usually makes this problem worse as the dog thinks he is being forced ON the bird and will clamp down harder to comply. I've seen young dogs go through this -- sticking on bumpers -- during FF/walking fetch/FTP because they think the answer to everything is GRAB THE BUMPER. It goes away once they really understand but that is the perfect illustration on why training is not always linear or intuitive and you have to just plain old have to be a good dog trainer to figure things out, regardless of the tools or methods you use.

And lest Jill be disappointed that more of "her" thread is talking about ecollars, I think the point I'm trying to make here is that even if she found someone to train with that DID use a collar, chances are that if they are just a good dog trainer they can help her train her dogs regardless of collars or not. Training is training, get out there and do it.


----------



## sammydog

EvanG said:


> I'd just like to mention before we get mired in formulas and/or absolutes that while there are good approaches with good records of working well for an unstable mouth, each dog is different. Not only may you need to modify one such usual treatment, but you may also have to be willing to do some things outside what you have been used to, or perhaps been comfortable with in the past. In short, you need to be willing to do what it takes to be successful with "this" dog.
> 
> EvanG


I absolutely agree! The one thing for me personally is I would stick with my non force methods, I would just try and find something that worked along those guidelines.

I also think if you train the steps carefully from the beginning, hopefully you will be less likely to have these problems!


----------



## GoldenSail

It is just a question in general. I guess I am trying to think of the problems I see people have that they need to work through and I wonder how you can do it positively. I have not seen the ecollar used to fix sticking or chomping....but I have seen chin cuffs which obviously is not in keeping with avoiding aversives.

I know a lot of people when faced with needing to get something from a dog will trade as has been talked about in other forums. But, I am not sure this would work with some of these dogs when a bird is involved. The bird can be more valuable than any trade item.


----------



## GoldenSail

K9-Design said:


> And lest Jill be disappointed that more of "her" thread is talking about ecollars, I think the point I'm trying to make here is that even if she found someone to train with that DID use a collar, chances are that if they are just a good dog trainer they can help her train her dogs regardless of collars or not. Training is training, get out there and do it.


A good trainer IMO is versatile and can work with you how you want to work. The pro I went to has been very patient with my friend who so far is not using an ecollar (but did buy one).


----------



## K9-Design

sammydog said:


> I also think if you train the steps carefully from the beginning, hopefully you will be less likely to have these problems!


Absolutely. I think the mistake a lot of people make in field work is moving too fast. Their dog is an enthusiastic retriever so they rocket ahead without teaching the dog basic field obedience, line manners, bird handling manners, etc. What you see in Junior is a lot of this. The dog is a beast and L-O-V-E-S every second of it, but is terrible in the holding blind, drags the owner to the line, won't hold still to mark the birds, runs around the field like an idiot until they stumble on the bird, won't come directly back, chomps the bird, drops the bird, plays tug with the bird, lunges for the bird from the judges, cheats, visits the gallery, has to be corralled off the line. Are we having fun yet?
ALL of these things could be avoided if the owner was just patient and actually TRAINED their dog rather than throwing some marks and letting them rip.


----------



## sammydog

Well "trade items" don't always have to be cookies. We got to a point pretty quickly with Mira when there was no interest in cookies in the field. It was comical actually, I was still giving her a small treat when she came back and had a nice delivery. One day when we were running multiple singles when I watched the video, which was from behind the line, I noticed she was promptly spitting out the treat and looking out and the field. That was the last time I gave her a cookie for a retrieve in the field.

Back to my original point, trade items need to be something that the dogs finds high value. I am assuming the dogs/trainers at this point have an understanding of how to offer behavior to earn rewards. So you think of things that would be rewarding to the dog. Maybe its a tossed bumper. Maybe its jumping in the water. Maybe its a bumper in the water. With Mira its frequently a game of tug.


----------



## GoldenSail

No I realize they don't have to be cookies...but just thinking it might be really hard to find something more valuable than a bird. But I could be wrong.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I cannot think of anything that Tito would rather have than a bird, except maybe a girlie in heat, and I'm not sure which he'd choose, the girlie or the bird. I've often commented that it would be interesting to find out, as I sort of suspect he'd go after the bird first. (and bring it to the girlie, lol)




GoldenSail said:


> No I realize they don't have to be cookies...but just thinking it might be really hard to find something more valuable than a bird. But I could be wrong.


----------



## GoldenSail

hotel4dogs said:


> I cannot think of anything that Tito would rather have than a bird, except maybe a girlie in heat, and I'm not sure which he'd choose, the girlie or the bird. I've often commented that it would be interesting to find out, as I sort of suspect he'd go after the bird first. (and bring it to the girlie, lol)


Well there ya go he wouldn't make a choice at all. He wants both!


----------



## GoldenSail

K9-Design said:


> Absolutely. I think the mistake a lot of people make in field work is moving too fast. Their dog is an enthusiastic retriever so they rocket ahead without teaching the dog basic field obedience, line manners, bird handling manners, etc. What you see in Junior is a lot of this. The dog is a beast and L-O-V-E-S every second of it, but is terrible in the holding blind, drags the owner to the line, won't hold still to mark the birds, runs around the field like an idiot until they stumble on the bird, won't come directly back, chomps the bird, drops the bird, plays tug with the bird, lunges for the bird from the judges, cheats, visits the gallery, has to be corralled off the line. Are we having fun yet?
> ALL of these things could be avoided if the owner was just patient and actually TRAINED their dog rather than throwing some marks and letting them rip.


Do you really think it is always a symptom of that? The dogs I have in mind it is not something they do all the time. But it is there. It comes out off and on in training. It feels like it is a maintenance thing not a dog that lacks basics. You are constantly fighting a dog that has a strong desire to EAT the bird.


----------



## sammydog

Well if the dog was trying to eat birds I certainly would not be doing anything as fun as letting him retrieve birds! It would be very boring hold the bird, followed by an exciting throw the bumper when I got the behavior I wanted. (just an example) Then progress with baby steps, picking it up off the ground, etc...


----------



## K9-Design

GoldenSail said:


> Do you really think it is always a symptom of that? The dogs I have in mind it is not something they do all the time. But it is there. It comes out off and on in training. It feels like it is a maintenance thing not a dog that lacks basics. You are constantly fighting a dog that has a strong desire to EAT the bird.


Oh gosh yeah I wasn't meaning specifically a dog that eats birds although I would bet a young dog who did that really lacked in other basics. 
Luckily I have not had to deal with a dog who seriously tried to eat birds nor one who stuck badly, would be curious more as the start of the behavior than the end result.
One of my training partner's dogs has started to stick on bumpers, during training. Not bad but I cringe every time I see it. He doesn't actually DO anything about it, he just tells the dog "OUT" over and over and will even get up and re-heel the dog. It drives me insane. The dog eventually spits it out but is never met with more resistance from the handler than getting TOLD to do it again. Can you tell I am not big into TELLING a dog something more than once?


----------



## solinvictus

" I think the mistake a lot of people make in field work is moving too fast"

Thanks Anney. lol so few words and you have said so much more than I did. I so agree no matter what we are training people move on to fast before the dog has a full understanding and is solid.

I think by the time anyone has gotten to the bird the dog should have a solid give without trading it. So the habit and behavior should already be there. So the trainer would be moving to fast if the dog won't give the bird.


----------



## hollyk

K9-Design said:


> Absolutely. I think the mistake a lot of people make in field work is moving too fast. Their dog is an enthusiastic retriever so they rocket ahead without teaching the dog basic field obedience, line manners, bird handling manners, etc. What you see in Junior is a lot of this. The dog is a beast and L-O-V-E-S every second of it, but is terrible in the holding blind, drags the owner to the line, won't hold still to mark the birds, runs around the field like an idiot until they stumble on the bird, won't come directly back, chomps the bird, drops the bird, plays tug with the bird, lunges for the bird from the judges, cheats, visits the gallery, has to be corralled off the line. Are we having fun yet?
> ALL of these things could be avoided if the owner was just patient and actually TRAINED their dog rather than throwing some marks and letting them rip.


I agree. I think I saw all of the above this summer running JH. I actually think people were surprised at how much go Winter has because she is fairly quiet in the blind. We are always working on this because she can easily get ramped up.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Same here with Faelan. He has lovely manners and more people are surprised than not at his drive and intensity once released. 

At the JH tests I was at, there were all the bad behavours mentioned above as well. A little disconcerting when well mannered dogs draw more comments that those who are not so well mannered 




hollyk said:


> I agree. I think I saw all of the above this summer running JH. I actually think people were surprised at how much go Winter has because she is fairly quiet in the blind. We are always working on this because she can easily get ramped up.


----------



## GoldenSail

Actually I think the hardest thing with a JH test if you have a dog with natural talent is getting them to the line in a controlled manner. OMG--getting the bird is the easy part.


----------



## Loisiana

I honestly don't know how I could have gone about addressing Flip's bird issues in a positive manner. He had been through a full FF program and had very nice manners and control of bumpers and other objects. But when asked to hold a bird, he became a demon possessed. You know those dogs who as soon as they get a stuffie they immediately begin to shred it and destuff it? It was that, but multiply the intensity times 100. I honestly didn't know if I would be able to get past it and ever be able to get him to behave with birds. I was finally able to fix it with the ecollar, but I really don't know how I would have gone about fixing without an aversive.


----------



## GoldenSail

Loisiana said:


> I honestly don't know how I could have gone about addressing Flip's bird issues in a positive manner. He had been through a full FF program and had very nice manners and control of bumpers and other objects. But when asked to hold a bird, he became a demon possessed. You know those dogs who as soon as they get a stuffie they immediately begin to shred it and destuff it? It was that, but multiply the intensity times 100. I honestly didn't know if I would be able to get past it and ever be able to get him to behave with birds. I was finally able to fix it with the ecollar, but I really don't know how I would have gone about fixing without an aversive.


Thanks Jodie. I don't think you can anticipate that because a dog will reliably give a bumper and won't chomp a bumper that it will transfer over to a bird. They just aren't the same.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Curious why you think natural talent and good manners are mutually exclusive?




GoldenSail said:


> Actually I think the hardest thing with a JH test if you have a dog with natural talent is getting them to the line in a controlled manner. OMG--getting the bird is the easy part.


----------



## GoldenSail

I don't know that they are--but at the same time the dogs I have seen with the most desire and go can be really hard to control in that setting. When I started field training the change in my dog was amazing. She turned into a crazy thing. I have to work really hard to stay on top of her and maintain control.


----------



## K9-Design

Sunrise said:


> Curious why you think natural talent and good manners are mutually exclusive?



Oh I don't think this at all. In fact you can get the best obedience out of the most driven dogs....well hello, here is the dog's motivation for behaving, right there! 
The hard thing about working with a dog like that is that the trainer needs to be very consistent, VERY firm and VERY clear to the dog of his expectations. Give an inch and the dog will take a mile.
I think the hardest type of dog to train is one with low bidability/trainability. You can work with a dog with little to no drive or extraordinarily high drive if they want to work with you and give a flip what you think. If they really don't care it doesn't matter how much drive they have, they are going to be difficult to work with.
Most of the junior dogs with bad behavior of course are handled by novice trainers who just don't know any better. Not their fault and I'm sure with their next dog they will put it together, or after failing a few junior tests for poor obedience. They also figure out the more control they have on the line the better their dog marks.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Thanks  

Again curious, but have you tried applying the Premack principle where the dog is rewarded by what she wants most (the bird), or denied her reward for acting out? 



GoldenSail said:


> I don't know that they are--but at the same time the dogs I have seen with the most desire and go can be really hard to control in that setting. When I started field training the change in my dog was amazing. She turned into a crazy thing. I have to work really hard to stay on top of her and maintain control.


----------



## DNL2448

hotel4dogs said:


> I cannot think of anything that Tito would rather have than a bird, except maybe a girlie in heat, and I'm not sure which he'd choose, the girlie or the bird. I've often commented that it would be interesting to find out, as I sort of suspect he'd go after the bird first. (and bring it to the girlie, lol)


Funny! I was going to say the same thing! Now to find a girl that is in perpetual heat :bowl:


----------



## Ljilly28

TrailDogs said:


> I would assume that if your dog starts attacking other dogs at a show and growling at the vets then you have a temperament issue not an ecollar issue.


 There is plenty of evidence that in rehabilitating dogs with bite histories, that force is counterproductive. I do not want to take a dog with a fantastic temperament who can play with other intact males and all other dogs, and make him edgy as a side effect. If indirect pressure has so much of an impact on seemingly unrelated training issues, why would it not have an impact after training? There is so much discussion of temperament in goldens. I don't want to take a dog with a good one and ruin it by handling him poorly. 

If I did set out to learn how to use an e collar, is there any way I wouldnt make mistakes on him and what could the results of that be realistically?

If your boss yells at you for being late to work, later you definitely might be cautious with unrelated tasks and more motivated. But unless you are exceedingly mature, you will also resent your boss ( cognitive dissonance).


Last summer, I went to a seminar by a Tufts vet/behaviorist. There is good research and controlled studies showing there is a relationship between punishment and dog-dog / dog-human aggression. I am interested in this aspect of cuffing, e collar use, ff. Before using an e collar, I would want to understand what that GR News article meant by dogs that were ruined, and be very assured by hard statistics rather than anecdotal info that those dogs you have to watch out for did not become that way bc of force used on them.


----------



## sammydog

Premack is great! I have used that quite a bit, Mira has a wonderful default sit, mostly because it has been paired with so many of her favorite things!

I also agree with Anney, there are so many different personalities out there. I guess I have been lucky, Mira has a lot of drive but very biddable. Barley does not have the prey drive that Mira has, but still has working drive and is also very biddable.


----------



## tippykayak

sammydog said:


> We got to a point pretty quickly with Mira when there was no interest in cookies in the field. It was comical actually, I was still giving her a small treat when she came back and had a nice delivery. One day when we were running multiple singles when I watched the video, which was from behind the line, I noticed she was promptly spitting out the treat and looking out and the field. That was the last time I gave her a cookie for a retrieve in the field.
> 
> Back to my original point, trade items need to be something that the dogs finds high value. I am assuming the dogs/trainers at this point have an understanding of how to offer behavior to earn rewards. So you think of things that would be rewarding to the dog. Maybe its a tossed bumper. Maybe its jumping in the water. Maybe its a bumper in the water. With Mira its frequently a game of tug.


Good points. I've had dogs that were uninterested in food rewards while working. The working was much more rewarding. Fortunately, with that kind of dog, you have a large range of work-based rewards to choose from

I also think that it's not too hard to teach a dog to let go of something, either to drop or to give to hand, since you can ingrain the habit of dropping in a controlled setting with lower value items. While the transfer up the value scale can be difficult, the trick is to build strong habits. I think trying to outbid a high value item is a bad idea, but dropping and then getting a reward (as you describe) is awesome. 

What I find a bit more challenging is teaching a dog to maintain a firm, gentle hold up until that moment that you want him to hand it to you. Preventing him from stopping and shaking (if he's come out of the water with it), and keeping him from dropping early. A good dog may start to anticipate that you're going to ask for a drop, and he may end up dropping early because of it.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Can you tell I am not big into TELLING a dog something more than once?


This is a really important point, no matter how you train. If you're stuck repeating yourself, you're sending the dog the wrong message, whether your response to the problem involves aversives or not.


----------



## hollyk

Loisiana said:


> I honestly don't know how I could have gone about addressing Flip's bird issues in a positive manner. He had been through a full FF program and had very nice manners and control of bumpers and other objects. But when asked to hold a bird, he became a demon possessed. You know those dogs who as soon as they get a stuffie they immediately begin to shred it and destuff it? It was that, but multiply the intensity times 100. I honestly didn't know if I would be able to get past it and ever be able to get him to behave with birds. I was finally able to fix it with the ecollar, but I really don't know how I would have gone about fixing without an aversive.


Honestly, I used the e-collar. I worked with the pro and we tried a few different approaches before going to the collar.
Winter's ramped up behavior emerged at our first Started hunt test. I had never seen it before even in big group training days. After the test it was present every time I trained. Circling, jumping, climbing, way over the top excitement. 
Luckily it was right when I started training with the pro and was the first thing we addresses. My favorite comment from him was, said as she was climbing him, "Boy for a little girl she is strong, thank God she isn't an eighty pound Lab" He had his hand on her flat collar and was simply asking her it sit.


----------



## tippykayak

Do you guys ever use duck scent to help you train skills that you want to transfer to real birds? It seems like that might help bridge the gap.


----------



## GoldenSail

Sunrise said:


> Thanks
> 
> Again curious, but have you tried applying the Premack principle where the dog is rewarded by what she wants most (the bird), or denied her reward for acting out?


A little but not a lot. I don't have problem with aversives if it is fair. I don't want to spend the better part of a year not being able to field train because I can't get my dog to the line. And I most certainly would not expect my field training group to be patient with me if it took me an extraordinarily long time to do so.


----------



## GoldenSail

K9-Design said:


> Oh I don't think this at all. In fact you can get the best obedience out of the most driven dogs....well hello, here is the dog's motivation for behaving, right there!
> The hard thing about working with a dog like that is that the trainer needs to be very consistent, VERY firm and VERY clear to the dog of his expectations. Give an inch and the dog will take a mile.


This is the kind of dog that I have and let me tell you it the being firm, clear, and consistent at all times is way easier said than done. Biggest mistake for me not recognizing it right away.


----------



## K9-Design

GoldenSail said:


> This is the kind of dog that I have and let me tell you it the being firm, clear, and consistent at all times is way easier said than done. Biggest mistake for me not recognizing it right away.



It IS easier said than done, you are 100% right!!!!
As I said before, easier to type than train dogs! LOL

I think later on I'm going to start a new post on steadiness and see what other people are doing.


----------



## Loisiana

K9-Design said:


> It IS easier said than done, you are 100% right!!!!
> As I said before, easier to type than train dogs! LOL


For sure! It's why I'm currently in my warm house typing on this forum instead of out in the cold doing that utility run through I want to do.


----------



## hollyk

K9-Design said:


> I think later on I'm going to start a new post on steadiness and see what other people are doing.


Excellent, and maybe I could start one on blinds.


----------



## hollyk

Loisiana said:


> For sure! It's why I'm currently in my warm house typing on this forum instead of out in the cold doing that utility run through I want to do.


Winter is sitting at my feet with the "I'm bored" look. Time to load up the wingers and go.


----------



## sammydog

tippykayak said:


> What I find a bit more challenging is teaching a dog to maintain a firm, gentle hold up until that moment that you want him to hand it to you. Preventing him from stopping and shaking (if he's come out of the water with it), and keeping him from dropping early.


I never had problems with a firm gentle hold, but I did have problems dropping and shaking while coming out of the water. This is what I did with Mira, it may or may not work with other dogs. I think prior training was a key to this working, I don't think a dog who is not shaping savvy would understand as well. First she already had a good retrieve to heel on land. I started with tossing a bird close to the shore so she was not completely wet therefore less chance of shaking. When she came to heel she was rewarded with tugging. I set her up for success in the beginning, so she understood the idea. We had a lot of reps before we got to a point where she dropped it. When she did as she was shaking I said oops and grabbed the bird off the ground before she could pick it up again. I would tell her to sit and put the bird back in the shallow water and try again. I KNOW it does not seem like it would work, but it did. She never once dropped the bird twice in a row and would usually not drop it again in the same training session. As she got better the length of water and shore were extended, factors were added etc...

I actually LOVE this sequence of pictures (taken by forum member Marlene) so I hope you don't mind me sharing.

My favorite field pic ever, here she is coming out of the water









Here she comes running (note still sopping wet, no shaking)









Collecting to swing into heel









Swinging into heel









Nice delivery









And TUG TUG TUG!


----------



## AmberSunrise

GoldenSail said:


> A little but not a lot. I don't have problem with aversives if it is fair. I don't want to spend the better part of a year not being able to field train because I can't get my dog to the line. And I most certainly would not expect my field training group to be patient with me if it took me an extraordinarily long time to do so.


Fair enough, you know your dog best  Hopefully your method will work in a minimal amount of time and result in the dog whose manners do you proud.


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> I also think that it's not too hard to teach a dog to let go of something, either to drop or to give to hand, since you can ingrain the habit of dropping in a controlled setting with lower value items. While the transfer up the value scale can be difficult, the trick is to build strong habits.


And if I hear one more Open A person tell me they don't understand why so many B dogs go down on their sits because training stays is so easy, I might backhand them.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Loisiana said:


> And if I hear one more Open A person tell me they don't understand why so many B dogs go down on their sits because training stays is so easy, I might backhand them.



Yep, everything is so much easier until actually faced with it.


----------



## sammydog

AmbikaGR said:


> Yep, everything is so much easier until actually faced with it.


And once you do face it, its not like your solution would work on every dog! Which is why I so agree with those who have said you need to get out and train! :


----------



## AmberSunrise

Love, love, love this sequence 



sammydog said:


> I never had problems with a firm gentle hold, but I did have problems dropping and shaking while coming out of the water. This is what I did with Mira, it may or may not work with other dogs. I think prior training was a key to this working, I don't think a dog who is not shaping savvy would understand as well. First she already had a good retrieve to heel on land. I started with tossing a bird close to the shore so she was not completely wet therefore less chance of shaking. When she came to heel she was rewarded with tugging. I set her up for success in the beginning, so she understood the idea. We had a lot of reps before we got to a point where she dropped it. When she did as she was shaking I said oops and grabbed the bird off the ground before she could pick it up again. I would tell her to sit and put the bird back in the shallow water and try again. I KNOW it does not seem like it would work, but it did. She never once dropped the bird twice in a row and would usually not drop it again in the same training session. As she got better the length of water and shore were extended, factors were added etc...
> 
> I actually LOVE this sequence of pictures (taken by forum member Marlene) so I hope you don't mind me sharing.
> 
> My favorite field pic ever, here she is coming out of the water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here she comes running (note still sopping wet, no shaking)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collecting to swing into heel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swinging into heel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice delivery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And TUG TUG TUG!


----------



## AmberSunrise

LOL - but it is easy. Just boring... and prone to error... and needing upkeep...and prone to breakage.. and did I mention boring?



Loisiana said:


> And if I hear one more Open A person tell me they don't understand why so many B dogs go down on their sits because training stays is so easy, I might backhand them.


----------



## Loisiana

and I'm pretty sure I recognize that tug toy! Planning on buying one myself soon!


----------



## EvanG

GoldenSail said:


> It is just a question in general. I guess I am trying to think of the problems I see people have that they need to work through and I wonder how you can do it positively. I have not seen the ecollar used to fix sticking or chomping....but I have seen chin cuffs which obviously is not in keeping with avoiding aversives.


I don't generally like using e-collars for mouth issues, and especially those of sticking or mouthing. The dog's mouth is already unstable. The e-collar is most apt to further destabilize it.

Cuffing, on the other hand, is often very successful. And with most dogs very little is required to obtain the behavior change needed.

EvanG


----------



## Ljilly28

Evan, I like the Twain quotation in your signature.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> And if I hear one more Open A person tell me they don't understand why so many B dogs go down on their sits because training stays is so easy, I might backhand them.


I think I see how what you wrote related to my comment, but I'm a little confused. Are you saying that I'm underestimating the difficulty in teaching some dogs to let go of birds? Or is there a different connection?


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> I think I see how what you wrote related to my comment, but I'm a little confused. Are you saying that I'm underestimating the difficulty in teaching some dogs to let go of birds? Or is there a different connection?


Yes, I'm saying things can seem "easy" in theory but when someone who has never had to train past that says that, it can be very offensive to those who have really struggled through it.

My reference to A versus B handlers/dogs is the fact that most dogs don't start to go down on their sits until they have been shown over and over for years, so A handlers don't understand why these more experienced dogs aren't being successful, when they have never been in the situation of showing the same dog in open for years.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> Yes, I'm saying things can seem "easy" in theory but when someone who has never had to train past that says that, it can be very offensive to those who have really struggled through it.


Yeesh. It's been relatively easy _for me_, with _my dogs_, to get them to release stuff to my hand, (including birds), and I even said it was tricky to move to the highest value stuff. It's been much harder _for me_ to teach them to hold things properly through to the end of a retriever, particularly a water retrieve.

And train past what? Did you think I was talking about tennis balls?

Do you guys understand what I mean when I say that some folks make H&F an unfriendly place? You want to talk offensive? I try to participate positively, and two people decide to take pot shots based on their _assumptions_ about my training experience. And you don't even say something like, "actually, it can be easy to teach a dog to release a bird at first, but because of x, y, and z it can get harder over time." You decide to make fun of what you assume is my inexperience, and other folks join in.

I'm done with this thread for a while.


----------



## Loisiana

I apologize for my use of the term backhanding someone, that is my (middle school) version of saying it annoys me. But I was attempting to point out that most people are very sensitive about people saying something is "easy" to train if it hasn't been easy for them. If I never had an issue in training something, I might say I have been blessed to not have had a problem with that, or even that it has been easy for *me* so far with the dogs I have, but I would expect to lose a few friends if I just went out and said it was easy to train that if I knew they were having trouble with it.


----------



## AmbikaGR

tippykayak said:


> Yeesh. It's been relatively easy _for me_, with _my dogs_, to get them to release stuff to my hand, (including birds), and I even said it was tricky to move to the highest value stuff. It's been much harder _for me_ to teach them to hold things properly through to the end of a retriever, particularly a water retrieve.


But that is NOT what you posted. You stated "*I also think that it's not too hard to teach a dog to let go of something, either to drop or to give to hand, since you can ingrain the habit of dropping in a controlled setting with lower value items. While the transfer up the value scale can be difficult, the trick is to build strong habits."


*


tippykayak said:


> Do you guys understand what I mean when I say that some folks make H&F an unfriendly place? You want to talk offensive? I try to participate positively, and two people decide to take pot shots based on their _assumptions_ about my training experience. And you don't even say something like, "actually, it can be easy to teach a dog to release a bird at first, but because of x, y, and z it can get harder over time." You decide to make fun of what you assume is my inexperience, and other folks join in.
> 
> I'm done with this thread for a while.


You did not state your dogs, some dogs but spoke in generalities like it was not hard to teach any dog. Some of us have had/have dogs that are EXTREMELY high drive when it comes to ANY retrieve. And unless you actually witness it or experience it yourself you really have no idea. And that is not just for a new person to the game, it is for even those with more experience. You have no idea how many judges and stewards have made comments to me that my dog needs to be FF. And when I say she is they say "NO she is NOT". 
So if anything understand this
Never say never. And no one thing is guaranteed to work for every dog.


----------



## EvanG

AmbikaGR said:


> You have no idea how many judges and stewards have made comments to me that my dog needs to be FF. And when I say she is they say "NO she is NOT".
> So if anything understand this
> Never say never. And no one thing is guaranteed to work for every dog.


Is this an ongoing issue? I have no way of knowing how you went about FF, but I would be interested to know?

EvanG


----------



## AmberSunrise

Some judges should keep their opinions to themselves!! I've had a judge take me to task for being too loud when I send my dog - this when no one in the gallery could hear me <sheesh> On a water retrieve where JH dogs had to go by 2 points without bank running or they'd lose their line - silly judges. BTW: Faelan passed 



AmbikaGR said:


> You did not state your dogs, some dogs but spoke in generalities like it was not hard to teach any dog. Some of us have had/have dogs that are EXTREMELY high drive when it comes to ANY retrieve. And unless you actually witness it or experience it yourself you really have no idea. And that is not just for a new person to the game, it is for even those with more experience. You have no idea how many judges and stewards have made comments to me that my dog needs to be FF. And when I say she is they say "NO she is NOT".
> So if anything understand this
> Never say never. And no one thing is guaranteed to work for every dog.


----------



## AmbikaGR

EvanG said:


> Is this an ongoing issue? I have no way of knowing how you went about FF, but I would be interested to know?
> 
> EvanG



Ongoing. Followed the Smart Fetch. 
Her issue is now at tests with fresh birds. It took us a while to get through it in training but we basically have - with a slip back here and there with thawed/frozen birds. Problem is fresh birds are not readily available. 
Frustrating because she probably has as much or more potential than any dog I have ever owned but it has been a tough road to this point. She is 3 1/2 years old. 
She has also been a tough nut in obedience but we are making progress there also. (Now there's the kiss of death :doh


----------



## Sally's Mom

I will say I agree with Hank, "no one thing is guaranteed to work for every dog." I think that pertains to all aspects of performance competition.


----------



## Radarsdad

Sunrise said:


> Some judges should keep their opinions to themselves!! I've had a judge take me to task for being too loud when I send my dog - this when no one in the gallery could hear me <sheesh> On a water retrieve where JH dogs had to go by 2 points without bank running or they'd lose their line - silly judges. BTW: Faelan passed



Some of them need to reread the rule book. Maybe not be so quick to legislate from the CHAIR.


----------



## EvanG

AmbikaGR said:


> Ongoing. Followed the Smart Fetch.
> Her issue is now at tests with fresh birds. It took us a while to get through it in training but we basically have - with a slip back here and there with thawed/frozen birds. Problem is fresh birds are not readily available.
> Frustrating because she probably has as much or more potential than any dog I have ever owned but it has been a tough road to this point. She is 3 1/2 years old.
> She has also been a tough nut in obedience but we are making progress there also. (Now there's the kiss of death :doh


There are two keys for this dog, and I think you probably already know what they are. One is no more tests for quite some time. The other would be to discover a new source for live birds to train with...all the time! Good luck.

EvanG


----------



## AmbikaGR

EvanG said:


> There are two keys for this dog, and I think you probably already know what they are. One is no more tests for quite some time. The other would be to discover a new source for live birds to train with...all the time! Good luck.
> 
> EvanG



Yes to the first part and not as easy for the second. But I do know and somehow we will get there someday!


----------



## KatieBlue'sMidnightSky

Ljilly28 said:


> I watched lots of training sessions on You Tube with a friend in the same boat with her golden from a tiptop working pedigree (unlike Copley's. We had about 100 questions when we were done.
> 
> Retriever training Forcing on real birds.mpg - YouTube
> Ecollar Conditioning to Here clip.mpg - YouTube


I am new to Hunt training, and trying to find may through all the various training methods to find the one that suits Bella and I. I am so sad & a bit shocked to see how hard this poor pup was whacked under the chin, twice, when he wasn't sitting and yanked around hard.....he wasn't sitting because he was tangled for goodness sakes! Too rough for my taste! I wanted to go rescue that dog! I will NEVER smack my dog like that ~ EVER! No bird and no title is ever worth that!

I am on the fence with electronic collar training, but probably will use one on the lowest setting ~ one I could tolerate myself. 

I really appreciate this thread, it's opening my eyes to all the variables, the good, the bad, and the unfortunately ugly, side of Hunt/Field training. 

I'll continue to read on now...........and hope this sick feeling in my stomach goes away!


----------



## Casey and Samson's Mom

I am hoping to use positive methods in field with my uber retriever Samson...can't think why I'd need to do otherwise...he LOVES to retrieve...now holding him back is an issue! We start classes in April.


----------



## Jige

I am doing field training without the e-collar. My dog is 9mos and is doing very well. I think he is better than alot of the dogs I train with. The guys I train with forget he is only 9mos because he is doing so well that when he does mess up they are like WTH? Yes it is harder and you have to train longer with some stuff but I like the fact that my dog is listening to me without me zapping him.


----------

