# Dog Looking Back



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

This question is actually an obedience question, but it's so closely related to field work that I thought I would pick the brains of some field trainers to see if they have any ideas that could work.

My go-outs with Flip are based on a retrieve. So he will either run out and retrieve or run out and be told to sit. I just put the sit into the go-out picture about a month ago. The problem is once I ask him to sit, future go outs result in him turning his head back to watch me while he's running. He never stops forward motion, just swivels his head around a few times to glance back at me.

Any ideas you would suggest to get the dog keeping his focus forward on where he's going instead of worried about seeing what I'm going to do? In addition to typical obedience training, he also has some very basic field training (force fetch, collar conditioning, stick fetch, some FTP - but never got to any kind of handling) if any of those tools would be useful.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Have you worked on targets at all?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

The stanchion is his target. I don't use any other target. He marks the stanchion, holds the mark until sent, and then as soon as he shoots off throws his head back.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I have a question, not an answer. What have you done during training that would cause him to think you're about to do something? Meaning, why is he looking back at you?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I do sometimes have him on a long line or flexi in case I need to use it to stop him (and do use it sometimes), but not all the time. When I have used it it's just on a buckle collar, so no major pressure, just preventing the forward motion after the command. That's the only thing I can think of that he might be checking on, unless he is just really anticipating a sit and waiting for it to come.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> I do sometimes have him on a long line or flexi in case I need to use it to stop him (and do use it sometimes), but not all the time. When I have used it it's just on a buckle collar, so no major pressure, just preventing the forward motion after the command. That's the only thing I can think of that he might be checking on, unless he is just really anticipating a sit and waiting for it to come.


What do you mean, "if I need to stop him?"
What is his correction if he does not go all the way out?
Where do you stop him at the end of his go-out when you tell him to sit? 
Is the retrieve something hanging on the stanchion?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

That makes sense, if he's had a flexi on he might have come to rely on it for the confidence of when to stop, and now that it's not on, he's not sure, so he's checking in with you. Try it, does he turn around and look (popping) when the flexi is on, or only when it's not?
I wouldn't think that he's anticipating the sit, unless he's turning and looking at you when he's almost to the ring gate. Since you said he does it while he's in forward motion, I don't think it's anticipating the sit. 
I know that's not an answer, but sometimes trying to figure out WHY a dog is doing something provides the answer to how to get them to stop.
Okay, another question, you said he's going to either do a retrieve or he's going to be told to sit. Does he know which it will be when he's sent, or do you "tell him" when he's heading out, or almost to the gate? If he's not sure which it will be, he could be looking for you to tell him which it will be while he's heading out.
Trying to think out loud here about field work, and dogs popping. It seems to me that they do it if either they are not sure they were sent, or usually because they've been doing casting and they are turning to see what to do next. In either case it's a lack of confidence, I think. So for some reason Flip isn't confident about what comes next, and you need to figure out why he's not confident.....


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I had the same thought as Anney (great minds...) about "if I need to stop him". Doesn't the ring gate stop him? (visions of Flip plowing right thru the ring gate, continuing to run with ring gate braced across his chest....)


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

<<What do you mean, "if I need to stop him?">>

Sometimes if he is not "expecting" the sit he will try to blow it off. Once his name is out of my mouth I do not give him any more slack in the line so he cannot continue forward.

<<What is his correction if he does not go all the way out?>>

At this point he has not stopped early - turned to look but not actually stopped. But if he did it would be treated as a retrieve refusal (I guess - it's not a problem I've run into much with any of my dogs)

<<Where do you stop him at the end of his go-out when you tell him to sit? >>

I aim for about 5 feet in front of the gate

<<Is the retrieve something hanging on the stanchion?>>

On the ground, one on each side of the stanchion.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> That makes sense, if he's had a flexi on he might have come to rely on it for the confidence of when to stop, and now that it's not on, he's not sure, so he's checking in with you. Try it, does he turn around and look (popping) when the flexi is on, or only when it's not?
> .


Once I've used the line he'll look back whether the line is still on or not. If I don't put the line on at all I run the risk of him not sitting. I've thought about switching to an ecollar correction instead of the line but I'm not sure if that would still lead to the same problem or not. 

I've also thought about only working on the sit outside of go-outs until his sits are close to 100%, but really he does usually sit instantly outside of go-outs, it's just in the actual go-out picture that I'm finding myself sometimes having to correct for not stopping. And when I do have to correct it is only once in a training session - then he knows the sit might be coming so he's ready for it. Argh I'm frustrated when I can't solve problems.


----------



## Radarsdad (Apr 18, 2011)

How much force to pile work have you done.? FP should have taken this out unless your ratio of stop to going all the way to the pile is out of balance. But in reality this is not uncommon to anticipate a stop or sit etc. Called popping
You have to time this correctly with the ecollar try it without it first. When his momentum slows or you see his head or shoulder start to turn. AS SOON AS YOU SEE IT START. Be ready with Back or runout or whatever the command you are using is). I use Back which would be a verbal Back then NICK(low 1or2) then Back. Or runout whichever you think is appropriate. 
It would be better to go back to pile work (reinforce)for a bit then then try it in the ring. Separate the two. So you don't cause another problem in the ring. The object is if I send you. Keep driving until I TELL you to stop.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Okay, this paints a much better picture.
I'm really not crazy about the way people train go-outs like this. It's like, okay doggy, I am going to train you to do several different and completely opposite things, on the same exercise, none of which you will ever need to do in the ring. 
I think he has no idea when you are going to yank him into a sit, the 5 feet from the gate thing really is out in space for him, it's not a well defined area, and since you are half-n-half doing a retrieve, he is sometimes allowed to cross that "barrier" and its' okay and sometimes he gets corrected for doing it.....YIKES!
I guess I don't understand the POINT of teaching the dog go-outs like this. What is your theory that this is accomplishing? I mean, a go-out's a go-out...it's obscure enough to the dog as it is, why make more out of it?
I realize that AKC is cracking down on dogs getting too close to the ring gates on go-outs, but that is AT A TRIAL. By the time the dog is actually competing in Utility, one would hope you could say sit and he wouldn't insist on hugging the gate. Most dogs tend to stop short on go-outs at a trial anyways. What is the worst that can happen if you teach the dog to go all the way to the gate in training? (no stopping 5' out, but rather sit AT the gate) 
I think if you modified your expectations you'd see a big change. First off, when he DOES sit, what is his reward? Do you then tell him to retrieve the thing off the stanchion, or do you go in and reward? 
I'm thinking if you changed your go-outs from "go out -- and I will either tell you to sit 5 feet from the gate or I will tell you to retrieve the thing" to "go-out and sit by the gate then I'll tell you to retrieve the thing" you'd eliminate the guesswork by the dog. 
Just my ruminations here. Ya know sometimes training a certain way sounds great in theory but it just doesn't work for that particular dog. Usually more productive to change the method than change the dog's psyche.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Had to laugh at the comment of a dog pushing the gate....my dog has done that as well as go over gates when he wasn't stopped. 

One thing to be cautious of.... if after peeking over, he ever does get a Sit cue on that repetition...the shoulder-looking could easily become (accidently) reinforced. You'll have to figure out what your response plan to that error would be.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

RedDogs said:


> One thing to be cautious of.... if after peeking over, he ever does get a Sit cue on that repetition...the shoulder-looking could easily become (accidently) reinforced. You'll have to figure out what your response plan to that error would be.


That's just it -- unless Jodie does something to prevent or actively correct the looking, it is inadvertently rewarded EVERY time the dog does it --- either he is told to sit which confirms his suspicions or he is allowed to retrieve which of course is a reward in an of itself. 
Just like doing nothing on a pop in field work, if the dog is not corrected he is reinforced EVERY time it happens.


----------



## 4991 (Apr 18, 2008)

Ok, I have absolutely no idea how you handle these things in the US. But I can tell you how I teach a dog to sit during a get-out (so that I can then send it left or right to the correct retrieve). And my first thought reading what you wrote was...



K9-Design said:


> It's like, okay doggy, I am going to train you to do several different and completely opposite things, on the same exercise...


... exactly this. The dog is absolutely expecting you to tell it to sit. This is why he keeps looking back at you. He is checking in with you.



Loisiana said:


> Once I've used the line he'll look back whether the line is still on or not.


Yepp. Sure. You`ve used the line. Now he is waiting for you to stop him again. He is not dumb and he doesn`t forget this lesson - the lesson that if you tell him to go out, he might get yanked about on the line. And he keeps wondering when next it will happen to him.



Loisiana said:


> If I don't put the line on at all I run the risk of him not sitting.


Then your training is wrong. Keep the distance shorter. Stop him not when he is out of your control but earlier - when he still feels he is in your reach.



Loisiana said:


> I've thought about switching to an ecollar correction instead of the line but I'm not sure if that would still lead to the same problem or not.


It will definitely lead to the same problem. If you need this kind of correction more than once or twice, the training is simply wrong. My advice again: Shorter distance. And much, much, much less stop-commands during the go-out!



Loisiana said:


> And when I do have to correct it is only once in a training session - then he knows the sit might be coming so he's ready for it. Argh I'm frustrated when I can't solve problems.


You do this more than once per training session :bowl: ? I would never, never, never do this so often with this kind of dog! Do it maybe once out of 30 get-outs - less, if possible! And not during every training session!



K9-Design said:


> I mean, a go-out's a go-out...it's obscure enough to the dog as it is, why make more out of it?


Exactly. You have to keep the dog thinking of a go-out as a go-out - the sit has to be an absolute surprise to the dog EVERY TIME you require it. That means it has to happen RARELY.



K9-Design said:


> ...one would hope you could say sit and he wouldn't insist on hugging the gate.


Yupp. If you train the sit correctly, you don`t have to train it so much during go-outs. 

Doing this the way you seem to be doing it at the moment only confuses the dog. There are dogs - some Labradors for example - who will continue to go out and go out fast and without hesitation or looking back if you ask them to sit often. But Goldens? Most of them are much too reliant on their handler. At least the once we breed in Europe :uhoh:. 

Well, these are just my 2 pence from Europe...


----------



## Radarsdad (Apr 18, 2011)

> I guess I don't understand the POINT of teaching the dog go-outs like this. What is your theory that this is accomplishing?


You and your dog should be working as a team. The reward is the retrieve. The dog doesn't need a treat or reward for *EVERY* single action he does.



> I think if you modified your expectations you'd see a big change


You don't modify *your* expectations you keep your standards high. You modify the *dogs* behavior



> One thing to be cautious of.... if after peeking over, he ever does get a Sit cue on that repetition...the shoulder-looking could easily become (accidently) reinforced.


True,very true, I don't' remember which pro said it but this is the quote "if your dog does it three times in a row it becomes a habit"


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Radarsdad said:


> True,very true, I don't' remember which pro said it but this is the quote "if your dog does it three times in a row it becomes a habit"


I have heard the same, and in my cognitive psych class I think my prof quoted a figure like it taking 10 times as long to bring a behaviour or idea to extinction as it does to extablish it.


----------



## 4991 (Apr 18, 2008)

sterregold said:


> ... a figure like it taking 10 times as long to bring a behaviour or idea to extinction as it does to extablish it.


Which is why it is not advisable to let even a very forward-thinking dog sit more than once out of 10 times on a go-out, let alone an impressionable, not very self reliant golden. It takes a lot of go-outs to extinguish the idea that there will come a sit... or yanking about on the line.


----------



## Radarsdad (Apr 18, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> Once I've used the line he'll look back whether the line is still on or not. If I don't put the line on at all I run the risk of him not sitting. I've thought about switching to an ecollar correction instead of the line but I'm not sure if that would still lead to the same problem or not.
> 
> I've also thought about only working on the sit outside of go-outs until his sits are close to
> 
> ...


 I would transition from the lead to the collar. I would not be using the line once he learned what remote sit and stopping to sit means and is properly collar conditioned. His sits need to be *100%,* not almost, if you plan on doing field work. The looking back gets a Back Nick Back every time. The object is to give you a set of tools and commands to apply to different tasks. Although the tasks may be different the commands are the same. 



> but really he does usually sit instantly outside of go-outs, it's just in the actual go-out picture that I'm finding myself sometimes having to correct for not stopping. And when I do have to correct it is only once in a training session - then he knows the sit might be coming so he's ready for it.


Be ready for him to head turn and reinforce the go-out. Repeat go-out without stopping.

Understood on the problem of being frustrating. For example on the steps doing TT work it seems they don't really go in stages and you don't really see great steps in progression until about the 3rd day and then *BANG* they put it together and do it perfectly. Just be *patient and consistent* and work him through it. 
Regards,
RD


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Just time for a few thoughts before my next class comes in...

If I teach him to always go sit at the gate now, won't I still have the same problem pop up later when I start asking for the sit five feet earlier? I'd rather work the issue out now then several months down the road.

As for very rarely asking a dog to sit....that's fine for a dog you plan to put a UD on and be done with, but for a dog that you plan on heavily campaigning, they are going to be asked to sit time and time again weekend after weekend, they are going to _know_ there is likely going to be a sit command given. I don't think it's possible to train it to be a total surprise to a dog that is shown a lot.

Last night I basically did go-outs to a pile of bumpers. No jumps or gates in the picture though. Long line on, e collar on. (so a kind of morphed ftp/go-out training). Absolutely no problems. Sat promptly every time he was told to. Never once looked back or even hesitated going to the pile. So now I need to figure out if the issue is the go-out picture or that in one situation he was not wearing an ecollar and in the other situation he was wearing an ecollar. So my next plan I think will be to set up gates and jumps to make it look like go-outs, but have on the e collar and see if the problem comes back up or not.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Radarsdad said:


> You and your dog should be working as a team. The reward is the retrieve. The dog doesn't need a treat or reward for *EVERY* single action he does.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't modify *your* expectations you keep your standards high. You modify the *dogs* behavior


I get what you're saying and in field work I agree 100%. In this specific case I do not. Yes, for a dog to perform a go-out, the behavior is very similar to a dog running a blind. But it's a MUCH MUCH more simple task. In EVERY go-out, the dog is going to run exactly 40 feet and is told to sit (and ONLY sit) in exactly the same spot. The circumstances of terrain and distance will always be identical. He will not be asked to sit in any other spot, to change direction, to go to a different spot, to retrieve anything, or anything else. From start to finish during the life of the dog this is the only thing he is required to do on a go-out. (Obviously -- NOT the case in running blinds.) It's like if in every hunt test, the only blind your dog would ever see is to a 25-yard white stake. So in my opinion, why make it harder on the dog than this? Clearly the dog is confused and TRYING to do what is right, but he's confused because he is asked to do different things (things he will not be required to ever do in the obedience ring) and is corrected for guessing wrong. He needs to have things simplified, made black-and-white for him, take the guessing out of it. I don't think the answer is force, I think it's modifying the method. Remember -- we are talking OBEDIENCE here, NOT field work, yes the behaviors may look similar but the training theory is often much different.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> If I teach him to always go sit at the gate now, won't I still have the same problem pop up later when I start asking for the sit five feet earlier? I'd rather work the issue out now then several months down the road.


I guess I see the dog sitting at the gate as a good thing. It shows that the dog knows exactly where his destination is. It's one of those things that in TRAINING you WANT to see the dog give the full effort and go to the gate, because in trials it's much more likely that he will stop short. You saying "sit" earlier at a trial feeds into his tendency to stop short so it works out. From a good training standpoint I would rather the dog think it going all the way to the gate, rather than the dog be tentative and expecting to be stopped at some random point. The latter is what you're seeing with Flip and at THIS stage of his training, is that a good thing? Rather than confidence and assurance that he knows his job, he's playing a guessing game that is eroding his attitude on go-outs? 
I look at training the dog to go all the way to the gate as a good habit, a good tendency for the dog to have ingrained in his head. We do lot's of these in obedience training. How often do you do a FULL drop on recall? Or don't you stop the exercise and reward the dog after he does the drop, 95% of the time, to enforce the drop? How often do you do the full sequence of signals, or do you go in and reward after the drop or sit, and NO recall, to reinforce the dog to not creep? We train the dog to "Get in" in heel position, to back up in heel position so we get a good swing in on left turns & #3 pivot. The dog really, will never be required to back up in heel position to that degree, but it's a real good habit to teach him. There are tons of these we do all the time in obedience training and I think rewarding him for going all the way to the gate is one of these good habits.



> As for very rarely asking a dog to sit....that's fine for a dog you plan to put a UD on and be done with, but for a dog that you plan on heavily campaigning, they are going to be asked to sit time and time again weekend after weekend, they are going to _know_ there is likely going to be a sit command given. I don't think it's possible to train it to be a total surprise to a dog that is shown a lot.


I think the poster that suggested that (sit should be a surprise) is talking about a different exercise, something like the directed retrieve in UKC utility, not a go-out. That is much more like a field-work single-T where she's right, we'd only stop the dog 1 time out of 5 to prevent popping or slowing at the intersection. Not an issue with go-outs because we will never stop the dog half way through a go-out. 



> Last night I basically did go-outs to a pile of bumpers. No jumps or gates in the picture though. Long line on, e collar on. (so a kind of morphed ftp/go-out training). Absolutely no problems. Sat promptly every time he was told to. Never once looked back or even hesitated going to the pile. So now I need to figure out if the issue is the go-out picture or that in one situation he was not wearing an ecollar and in the other situation he was wearing an ecollar. So my next plan I think will be to set up gates and jumps to make it look like go-outs, but have on the e collar and see if the problem comes back up or not.


Oh it's absolutely the context. This wasn't a go out it was a pile, completely different to the dog. I don't think this addressed the issue at all. Where did you sit him in relation to the pile of bumpers? Half way out to them or 5 feet from them? What were you going to do if he had popped?


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Hey I had another thought. Did you train Connor with this same method, and/or do the people you train with use this same method? Because it's different than what I know so maybe I'm missing a vital point of it so it's not making sense to me. What do other people do who train go-outs like this? (and by "like this" I mean the retrieve vs. sit thing.)
Another thought is, some people train or reinforce a go-out as a "run and touch the gate." Celeste Meade taught this at her seminar 2 yrs ago (I only say this because maybe she does it differently now) but she trains go-outs by teaching the dog to run and put his foot on the gate. Clearly this is teaching him to go all the way to the gate, but again, I thought that was kinda silly and adding extra elements that the dog will never need to do, and now that I think about it I can't remember when or where she introduced a sit. 
My last thought is I need a new siggy pic because I'm tired of scrolling past my OWN signature! haha


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Pretty much everyone I know of teaches a run all the way to the gate, either by retrieve, food, or touch. Conner was taught to retrieve a food pouch hidden on the side of the stanchion. Annabel and Colby were both taught a touch (Annabel with nose and Colby with foot). There are a couple of people who train to run and sit in a box, but the box isn't right at the gate, it's at the five feet. The only people I know of who teach their dogs to run to the gate and sit are those who don't care if the dogs sit too close to the gate in a trial.

So far stopping short hasn't really been a problem for me and my dogs. If anything my dogs are more likely to stop too close to the gate, not too close to me.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

The problem with always doing it one way in training and always doing it another way in the ring is the dog quickly figures out that we always do it that way in the ring. It's like the people who say they never practice finishes with the exercises, or never drop their dogs in practice, those are the same people that seem to always get dogs that anticipate those skills in trials. It's better to teach them that sometimes, maybe even most of the time, I will ask you to do that, but you always have to wait until I ask you to do it. So I don't have a problem making my dog's default behavior to run to the gate and sit, but if I always sit him at the gate in practice and always sit him five feet away in trials I really believe it is much much more likely that the dog will start pulling up short in trials. So I would still mix it up, which would really make it the same idea as what I'm doing now.

The reason I want an action performed at the gate and not just a sit is because it is much more clear cut to the dog. Unless you have him actually touch the gate, then how close is close enough? 1 inch? 6 inches? A foot? I want things to be as black and white as possible.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> The problem with always doing it one way in training and always doing it another way in the ring is the dog quickly figures out that we always do it that way in the ring. It's like the people who say they never practice finishes with the exercises, or never drop their dogs in practice, those are the same people that seem to always get dogs that anticipate those skills in trials. It's better to teach them that sometimes, maybe even most of the time, I will ask you to do that, but you always have to wait until I ask you to do it. So I don't have a problem making my dog's default behavior to run to the gate and sit, but if I always sit him at the gate in practice and always sit him five feet away in trials I really believe it is much much more likely that the dog will start pulling up short in trials.


Gotcha, concur. 



> So I would still mix it up, which would really make it the same idea as what I'm doing now.


Right. But is the dog ready for mixing it up? Does he understand the difference? 



> The reason I want an action performed at the gate and not just a sit is because it is much more clear cut to the dog. Unless you have him actually touch the gate, then how close is close enough?


Okay, so if the point of the retrieve is to get him unmistakably close to the gate... 



> 1 inch? 6 inches? A foot? I want things to be as black and white as possible.


By this you mean, you want the dog to know exactly WHERE to sit, or WHEN to sit? At this point, how does he know that? I think if you want him to understand WHERE (5') then you need to somehow mark that area and make THAT the point of the exercise (i.e. put a box or hoop on the ground). If you want him to understand WHEN then the answer is "when I say sit." Which he doesn't understand yet if you're needing to use the rope to stop him. If he doesn't sit exactly when you say, I assume he continues to dash to the retrieve thing? So when you isolated this pattern yesterday with the bumpers, were you able to stop him 5 feet from the bumpers, or were you stopping him only half-way to the bumper pile? Obviously the closer he gets to the pile or retrieve item, the harder it is to stop him, so maybe the answer on your go-outs is not to try harder to stop him at 5', but get him to stop SOONER and establish control closer to you before asking for the sit so close to the retrieve item. This is how we'd do it in pile work (field). Distance erodes control, and all that jazz. 

I like these discussions, it gets to the bottom of things. I absolutely am guilty of "ONLY" doing things in the ring -- sometimes it works great, others NOT! Dumb trainer! LOL


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

K9-Design said:


> By this you mean, you want the dog to know exactly WHERE to sit, or WHEN to sit? At this point, how does he know that?


I want the dog to know exactly where to go and what to do_ if I don't tell him otherwise_. If I tell him to sit while he's getting there, I want him to do that right there where I've told him. If not, continue going out.

I think of go-outs as reverse drop on recalls. When I call you to come, you will keep coming until you sit in front of me, u_nless_ I tell you to drop before then. I might tell you to drop while you're running towards me. I might not. I do drop a dog a lot more than I do a straight recall.



> If he doesn't sit exactly when you say, I assume he continues to dash to the retrieve thing? So when you isolated this pattern yesterday with the bumpers, were you able to stop him 5 feet from the bumpers, or were you stopping him only half-way to the bumper pile? Obviously the closer he gets to the pile or retrieve item, the harder it is to stop him, so maybe the answer on your go-outs is not to try harder to stop him at 5', but get him to stop SOONER and establish control closer to you before asking for the sit so close to the retrieve item.


I was trying to get the distances as close as possible to the go outs, without actually measuring them. So I was standing approximately 45 feet away from the pile, and stopping around 5 feet away, but it wasn't exact, just an eyeballed estimate.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

the people here in this area (the 200 repeaters club, lol) teach it with the dog licking squirt cheese off the gate stanchion. Universally. From about 5 feet away, then a little further as the dog starts to understand, but never more than about 10-15 feet away. 
Then after the dog understands to go all the way to the ring gate, they add a sit after the dog has licked the cheese off. They go in, give a treat, praise the dog, heel him back to where they are sending from, and do it again.
Next step is to go back to 5 feet away, no cheese on the gate, and now the dog goes in, sniffs, is told to sit, and you go in and reward them with squirt cheese after the sit so that it's the sit that's being rewarded. 
Back up "one mother-may-I step" at a time, until you are doing it from about 20 feet away. Then stop phasing out the cheese reward, rewarding maybe every-other-time, and then less and less. 
At this point, you should have the jumps in the ring although you will not be going over them. It gives the dog the "picture" they will have when they will be required to do the whole sequence.
Once the dog is okay with only being rewarded randomly, resume the "1 mother-may-I step" at a time step back until you are all the way across the ring. 
They also practice the jumping part of it with the dog sitting in the correct position across the ring, but as a separate training item, not as part of a go-out for quite a while.
A lot of you know who I'm alluding to. The only 3-time NOI winner is in this area, and that's how she teaches us to teach it. This year's obedience dog of the year is also in this area, she teaches it the same.


----------



## 4991 (Apr 18, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> I think the poster that suggested that (sit should be a surprise) is talking about a different exercise, something like the directed retrieve in UKC utility, not a go-out. That is much more like a field-work single-T where she's right, we'd only stop the dog 1 time out of 5 to prevent popping or slowing at the intersection.


That`s true, the directed retrieve (however: during a field / dummy trial) was the exercise I was talking about. And I still don`t really get the difference to what is required here from the dog. What I want in my own exercise is for the dog to go straight out until told otherwise (or until it gets a nose full or prey...) and what is wanted here is...



Loisiana said:


> If I tell him to sit while he's getting there, I want him to do that right there where I've told him. If not, continue going out.


That is absolutely the same idea, isn`t it? Go straight until told otherwise. It is the exercise broken down to its most basic meaning - at least the way I understand this exercise (maybe I am wrong?).

In my opinion, the fact that the dog will later on in the ring come to expect the sit has nothing to do with TRAINING the exercise. It is important, during training, not to confuse the dogs idea of a go-out with too many sit commands. Once the go out is clear again (meaning no hesitation, no looking back), even in connection with a sit, you can even notch up the number of sits during training (although why you would want to do that is unclear to me - if it works whenever you rarely do it, there`s no need to to it a lot and you can restrict doing this to actual tests in the ring - no more during training).

It is the same principle as in training and sending on blinds in a field trial here - I don`t do "total blinds" during training. I train half-blinds. A lot. And during a test - wow, there it is. My dog suddenly can go on a blind. Because I did not destroy its trust in my hand and the direction I am sending it with too many blinds. A dog that has experienced this a lot can be send on a lot of blinds later on, no problem.

It`s the same here, I think. The dog is loosing its trust in the go-out command. You are in the early stage of training that and in that early stage, I would not confuse the dog too much. Later, when the dog is ready for weekend after weekend of tests, I don`t think you will have that problem anymore if you build the exercise correctly. Dogs get older and more experienced, too .


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

An interesting night of training last night. I spent the day thinking about the problem. He never stops running forward, just looks at me while he's running. So it seems to me that he does understand he shouldn't stop going towards the gate unless told to sit, but he also knows I might tell him to sit and so is watching me so he'll be ready if I do give the command.

So I started thinking about how I can let him know that yes, I want you to keep running, but no, I don't want you to look at me.

So last night I was ready, and at the first sign of him turning his head to look at me I was ready. A full day of planning and here is the big magic answer I had planned for fixing this problem........drumroll please...........

I told him "No!"

As soon as the word left my mouth he turned his head back around towards the gate and completed the retrieve. Then on the next few sends I chased after him, trying to swat his little rear end (which from previous training he knows means not to look at what I'm doing but to drive harder to beat the swat).

And it went well. After that I did several mixed up sends with sits and sends with retrieves and he never once looked at me. I know only having success once doesn't mean problem solved, but it makes me hopeful that I was able to explain it better to him.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I still feel very strongly that avoiding doing something in training that is always going to happen in the ring is not going to lessen anticipation but intensify it. My feeling is that at some point I want my dog to start anticipating in training, so I can clear it up to him there that he has to wait until my command. 

Much better than the dog who first anticipates in the ring, and you don't have much opportunity to let him know that's not what he's supposed to do. Then you get in a situation where your dog anticipates in the ring and thinks he did the right thing b/c you didn't correct him. Then you go train and clear up that anticipation thing, except all too often the dog then thinks that means you don't want him to anticipate in training but you do in the ring.


----------



## 4991 (Apr 18, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I know only having success once doesn't mean problem solved, but it makes me hopeful that I was able to explain it better to him.


And it sounds very good! Like you have found a way to train YOUR dog. It is always good and, in my opinion, one of the most important and sometimes difficult things, to find the kind of training that fits this particular dog. 

And you seem to have a dog that can deal well with that kind of training (I know some dogs, including my own, who couldn`t but, heck, those are not your dogs, so why worry?).



Loisiana said:


> I still feel very strongly that avoiding doing something in training that is always going to happen in the ring is not going to lessen anticipation but intensify it.


Why would it? By the time you get to the "always in the ring", the exercise has become clear to the dog. But maybe there is a fundamental difference to the kind of field work I do with my dog and the kind of work I require from my dog and what you require of your dog, although I am not quite sure what exactly it is. Well, for example, the Sit does NOT always happen during field tests; in fact, it rarely happens and I never want my dog to anticipate it (*horror* ).


----------



## Radarsdad (Apr 18, 2011)

> I get what you're saying and in field work I agree 100%. In this specific case I do not. Yes, for a dog to perform a go-out, the behavior is very similar to a dog running a blind. But it's a MUCH MUCH more simple task. In EVERY go-out, the dog is going to run exactly 40 feet and is told to sit (and ONLY sit) in exactly the same spot. The circumstances of terrain and distance will always be identical. He will not be asked to sit in any other spot, to change direction, to go to a different spot, to retrieve anything, or anything else. From start to finish during the life of the dog this is the only thing he is required to do on a go-out. (Obviously -- NOT the case in running blinds.) It's like if in every hunt test, the only blind your dog would ever see is to a 25-yard white stake. So in my opinion, why make it harder on the dog than this? Clearly the dog is confused and TRYING to do what is right, but he's confused because he is asked to do different things (things he will not be required to ever do in the obedience ring) and is corrected for guessing wrong. He needs to have things simplified, made black-and-white for him, take the guessing out of it. I don't think the answer is force, I think it's modifying the method. Remember -- we are talking OBEDIENCE here, NOT field work, yes the behaviors may look similar but the training theory is often much different.


Sounds like Single T would work, work on sits separately, and it be my responsibility to sit him on the spot where he needs to sit. Less pressure on him i would think. I would just make sure he had good crisp,quick sits. Don't want him thinking for me!! That gets you into big trouble on blinds.



> I told him "No!"


Wrong word i think. You just told him to do something and now you say "NO" don't do it He's thinking he just told me to go. I am going, now he's telling me NO what the heck does he want me to do?????
If you told him go-out repeat go-out or OUT 


Glad it's working so far. There's always more than one way to skin a cat.


----------

